User talk:Pcpcpc/Archive 1

WikiProject Cricket

Since I've seen you categorising lots of cricket pages, I thought I'd let you know about and invite you to Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket. Kind regards, jguk 10:42, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I've seen it and I'll sign up. Philip 10:44, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

There was a cricket question on the Wikipedia reference desk. I directed the person to the BBC link page...if you have any better suggestions, would you mind taking a peek? Also: If you have a cricket link...would you mind dropping it off at my talk page? I am building a reference desk. Many thanks --allie 14:21, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Locale

Hi PcPcPc, where do you live? Are you local? N12345n 22:04, 2005 Jan 4 (UTC)

Local to where? I live in Camden Town. Philip 22:05, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Close to me then, I live in Lower Holloway, near Camden Road. We should have a North London Wikimeet. Edward 22:57, 2005 Jan 4 (UTC)

Well, I live in London E14!! N12345n 23:42, 2005 Jan 4 (UTC)

Euroscepticism terminology

Hi. You added a very interesting note to Pro-European about the rhetorical differences between pro- and anti-EU terminology. I remembered seeing a similar discussion already in the introduction to Euroscepticism, and your comments seemed to fit comfortably there, so I've moved them there and expanded them into a new section called Terminology. Let me know what you think (or just make the changes). Cheers! Wombat 00:17, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC

Copyvios

When marking pages as Copyvios, you have to remove all the material rather than just adding the template. Keep it up in finding em! - Mailer Diablo 14:08, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

UK health categories

gedday Philip!

I've been creating the the healthcare in XYZ country categories to rationalise the huge and confusing category:healthcare... I understand your concern and I've been working on it this morning... potenially both cats are useful though... strictly I'd view the the healthcare cat as belonging in the health cat... (analogous to having a cat for 'police' within the cat 'justice'). I guess you'd also put articles on mad cow disease and smoking in the UK and the like in category:health in the UK. does that make any sense? best wishes Erich 06:38, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, it makes sense to me; "Health" is a slightly broader term than "healthcare", and that is the main reason why I choose it. I also thought that "Healthcare" was marginally an Americanism, not that the word isn't used in the UK. The problem is, I don't think there is much chance that everyone or pretty much everyone will instinctively appreciate the distinction. On the other hand, "Healthcare in X" appears to be a standard Wikipedia category, and "Health in X" does not, and if there is no "Healthcare in the United Kingdom" category, some articles might miss out on being categorised in the UK menu. I'm not very keen on having a subcategory that is likely to contain the bulk of the content of its parent category, but it seems to be the best option. I'll move Healthcare into Health and write a blurb at the top of both pages. However I know lots of people probably don't read them.

It was a big surprise to me that when I discovered Wikipedia that great swathes of UK material - thousands of articles - were not linked to the UK menu, other than through the main United Kingdom article or other indirect routes. Lots of people are doing valuable work, but thinking in terms of their academic subject or personal interest and not cross categorising much. I'm trying to encourage serendipity. I hope lots of people will look at a selection of UK health issues, or UK religious issues, or whatever who would be unlikely to dive into these areas as an "academic subject". That certainly applies to me. And then in two minutes you can find yourself clicking through to articles about subjects you barely knew existed. You mentioned justice categories, and there is a worse problem on the UK menu for that area than this problem with health, but that's not your problem. Philip 07:13, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Dance categorisation

Hi. I've noticed you've gone through the reash of new articles I've created today on contemporary dance (more to come!) and changed their category from 'dance' to 'modern dance'. The thing is "contemporary dance" is not the same as "modern dance"; in brief, the latter is a term used about ballroom (pairs) dancing whereas the former is dance companies and more akin to ballet. I'll go through and adjust them, although given the paucity of dance-related articles currently I do rather feel that sub-categorisation might be a little early in this case. --Vamp:Willow 23:41, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I know. I've created lots of new categories recently, and I only picked up on the correct terminolgy part way through in this case. I created a "modern dance" category for London, but by the time I moved onto the "Performing Arts" category in the main UK menu, I realised that the correct term is contemporary dance as you say. I'm planning to mark a number of categories in the London and UK menus for name changes when I've finished on the UK menu, and this will have to be one of them.

As for subcategorisation, I am looking at it from the UK/London point of view, not from the "dance" point of view. You and the other dance enthusiasts are welcome to structure the dance menu however you see fit. On the other hand, I am trying to create comprehensive menus for London and the UK which link to every relevant article. The categorisation system allows articles to be made accessible from several different directions, and my aim in fleshing out the UK and London menus is to encourage serendipity.

In the meantime, please don't place any UK entries in categories which are only accessible through the dance menu.

Philip 00:21, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Looking at the London menu, I see you've already changed it. Thank you. Philip 00:28, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Wales Cats

You were IMO a little too apologetic for your edit: I regularly do equivalent adjustments, summarizing simply "- redundant cat", on the logic that where "x As" is a subcat of "As", the "x As" suffices to include it indirectly in "As". This is IMO important to relieve clutter that interferes with the usefulness of higher level Cats, and my impression is that future enhancements will provide those who want to see them with alpha lists not just of direct members of a Cat but also of indirect ones (presumably letting the user specify how many levels of indirect inclusion to span).

While i think there was some misunderstanding of this point initially, i've seen little or no reversion of such edits, so (while i have not tried to keep up to date on the documentation) it seems to me to now be well established, and i for would welcome your even bolder application of the general principle that an article may not be tagged with a direct or indirect superCat of any of its Cats. (I think the only significant exception is alphabetizing under * (with the "pipe trick") a single "title" article, a general purpose article -- i suspect the one that also offers the best clarification of the scope of the Cat.)

(I couldn't figure out at first why anyone would accumulate such a quantity of very quick edits so rapidly, but from what i now gather, it looks like you've tackled a huge project that is worth doing, and stuck with it most admirably. Thanks!)
--Jerzy (t) 01:29, 2005 Jan 9 (UTC)

Hi

Meant to drop by and leave a note yesterday but the system was so slow.... Nice to come across another editor interested in Literature topics; you've been showing up on my watchlist a lot making improvements to a number of stubs and articles I started.

Might be useful to know that any new categories you create will show up as red links until you click the link and edit the page (just like any new page, really). It's enough to simply add a higher-level category to the new one to make it show up as a live link from then on. When you thought that Category:Literature in English was non-existent yesterday, it was because it was taking me so long to get around to editing it. Good call removing Category:English literature, by the way. Hope to bump into you again. Best Filiocht 08:27, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I know about adding new categories. I must have created more than a hundred by now. But in the last few days the system just hasn't been working properly in this regard as is noted on the Openfacts page. I'm trying to create a full set of subcategories for "British writers" and the software just won't have it. "British writers by nationality" has vanished three times. Philip 17:51, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

excess links

This is a judgement call, of course, but in my ever-so-humble opinion, I think you might turning a few too many words into wiki-links - I'm thinking specifically of "read" in The Two Cultures. I can't imagine that anybody encountering it would be baffled and/or seeking more information about what it means to read. The problem is that sentences with lots of linked words can be hard to read, so I think we need to be cautious about adding them even if there is a Wikipedia article that could be linked to. - DavidWBrooks 22:53, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'm not aware that I turned any words in that article into wikilinks. My edit was a recategorisation. Philip 22:55, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I've checked and that link has been there since 18 December 2003. Please check your facts before criticising other contributors. This sort of thing doesn't make for happy and industrious editors, which I presume you want.Philip 22:58, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It was the editor before you on that article who did the "read" link. Noel (talk) 23:42, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it is my error - the link was added about 14 hours before your edit: I clicked on the wrong name in the Edit History list. I apologize! - DavidWBrooks 03:16, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Edit summaries

Hi, Wikipedia:Edit summary says "Always fill the summary field." (emphasis in the original). Please fill in the Edit Summary when you edit an article, so the rest of us don't have to resort to a "diff" to see what you did. Thanks! Noel (talk) 23:42, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

PS: I don't usually check other User_talk: pages (so that I don't have to monitor a whole long list of User_Talk: pages - one for each person with whom I am having a "conversation"), so please leave any messages for me on my talk page (above); if you leave a message for me here I probably will not see it. I know not everyone uses this style (they would rather keep all the text of a thread in one place), but I simply can't monitor all the User_talk: pages I leave messages on. Thanks!

I'm afraid that is not realistic in my case. I am engaged in a huge project to make the United Kingdom menu a complete set of all relevant articles, or as near as I can get it. I have made thousands of edits in a month - largely doing other people's work for them. I consider this to be a very valuable project, but I am not prepared to make it even more time consuming. I note what my edits are when they are sensitive. Philip 23:50, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

But everyone has a good excuse. Does that mean we all get to leave it blank? If not, why do you expect a special dispensation? How about keeping a suitable message pre-typed somwhere, and cut-and-paste it in every time? Noel (talk) 02:49, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I usually tick the "minor edit" box for minor edits. I may have forgotten a few times because I am fallible like anyone else. I do provide good edit summaries where appropriate; in fact I have made 23 in the last 24 hours. On numerous occasions I have had to prune them to make them fit within the 30 word or so limit. I think I am actually well above average among Wikipedians in this regards. "Minor edit" really is enough of a description for a minor edit, and the page you linked to merely says that providing further details for minor edits would be, "nice even then". Well I agree, but I don't have infinite time, and I am hardly alone in not doing it - and I am making more edits than almost anyone at the moment, so I have more time to lose.

I will try extra hard to make sure that I never omit to follow these practices, but I am not going to change them. Philip 03:18, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

British Library, Add. MS 5111. 7th century Gospel Book fragment

Hi, you recently commented on the VfD for British Library, Add. MS 5111. 7th century Gospel Book fragment, which, as you may recall, was listed for having an "ugly" name. That listing has prompted me to write a proposal for a naming convention for articles about manuscripts without names. The proposal can be found here. Any comments you would like to make would be appreciated. Thank you. Dsmdgold 10:47, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)

Diarists categories

Could you please explain why you tried to get the category British diarists deleted? I created it as part of my project to create an overall menu for Literature of the United Kingdom. I've out a huge amount of effort into this, and I would have made more progress if the performance of the system wasn't so awful this week. The category was linked upwards all along (unless the software was malfunctioning) and it is obviously a legitimate category. It also has a subcategory. What harm did you think it could do to Wikipedia? Philip 10:21, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Primarily because Category:British diarists and Category:English diarists are parented to each other and very severely underpopulated, and the List of diarists page doesn't offer much hope of it growing. I also believe that sub-categorizing for it's own sake is harmful. I imagine that if I was reading an article on a British diarist, I might want to use the category to see more, but the diarist connection is a very loose one – even moreso, a grouping of them by nationality. I don't see the point in sending a reader to a subcategory two levels below Category:Diarists when that sub-category contains only 3-4 articles.

Why not add country information to List of diarists, and link to that page from Category:Diarists? -- Netoholic @ 16:00, 2005 Jan 14 (UTC)

I don't like the list system. I think it represents an early stage in the evolution of Wikipedia. The category system is a much more powerful tool for dealing with the expansion of Wikipedia. It is policy that multiple organisation methods can run in parallel. You can work on lists if you want to, I am putting massive effort into categorisation. Please get on with what you want to do and don't denigrate my efforts to improve Wikipedia in my way. There will be dozens of people in the diarists categories eventually. Philip 19:02, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I mean no denegration, only to express my opinion that your categorization scheme is flawed from many perspectives. Can you please show me where this project is being initiate from? I checked Wikipedia:Categorization, and could not find a reference to this on any related pages. -- Netoholic @ 19:13, 2005 Jan 14 (UTC)

If you don't like the category system, continue to ignore it, but please don't try to vandalise the efforts of those of us who prefer it Philip 19:18, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I absolutely like the categorization system, and work often to make it more useful. I don't find "sub-occupation by nationality" particularly helpful. If we were talking about Samuel Pepys, I would say that using Category:English writers and Category:Diarists are just about as detailed as you need to be. Both would be useful for readers, in different contexts. By using Category:English diarists, you bury the connection to other similar articles too deeply.

Please do not use the phrase "vandalism" to describe any part of this - it is inaccurate, and hurtful.

Now, I'll be happy to discuss this wherever the categorization scheme you're using was devised, if you'll point me to that page. -- Netoholic @ 20:06, 2005 Jan 14 (UTC)

I support User:Pcpcpc - this is clearly a work in progress and we should let him and others develop it. Nationality+Occupation categories are becoming standard, and we should balance considerations of how many articles will end up there with how well they describe content. As for the reader having to navigate another level, the category browsing interface can only get better - we shouldn't compromise good categorisation just because the current version is poor. Jihg 16:34, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)

Can you please provide me a link to where this categorization scheme has been described? -- Netoholic @ 19:13, 2005 Jan 14 (UTC)

What on earth do you mean? I have created at least a hundred categories and this is the first time I've been attacked for it. You tell me what policies I am breaking Philip 19:16, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Categorization: "Questions to ask to know if a category is the appropriate tool: Is it possible to write a few paragraphs or more on the subject of a category, explaining it? If you go to the article from the category, will it be obvious why it's there? Is the category subject prominently discussed in the article? If the answer to either of these questions is no, then a category is probably inappropriate." Please do not take this as an attack, but I do challenge your reasons, and hope we can do it calmly. -- Netoholic @ 20:12, 2005 Jan 14 (UTC)

That is not a prohibition. In any case, an article could be written - perhaps you could do it. There are plenty of categories with no summary article. It is a silly guideline, but it is only a guideline, so it is innocuous. Could you now please quit trying to undermine my efforts? It must be obvious by now that you are not going to change my mind, and I think it is absurd that you want to. If you don't like the category system, just ignore it. However, I expect it is found useful by tens if not hundreds of thousands of readers every day. I will now remove your speedy deletion requests as the categories are populated so the criteria do not apply. All you have done is use up time which I could have spent improving Wikipedia.Philip 20:21, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Some relevant guidelines can be found here. It says "assume the newly created category is not problematic", and lists some pitfalls, none of which apply here. Jihg 22:04, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)

Re: Dakota, Minnesota and Eastern Railroad

Looks like your hunch about the inaccuracy of the "largest new construction" was correct after all. I found a more reliable reference today (Trains Magazine, February 2002) that shortens the time frame for this claim to the completion of the Milwaukee Road's Pacific extension in 1909. I've updated the article accordingly and added the reference to the page. slambo 00:50, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)

Irish Travellers

Traveller advocacy groups insist that Travellers are a distinct ethnic group with a history of many centuries and that negative treatment of Travellers thus amounts to racism. This assertion is not universally accepted. The Irish Traveller Movement was established in 1990 as "a national network of organisations and individuals working within the Traveller community" and it campaigns for full equality for Travellers in Irish society.

Your edit, adding "This assertion is not universally accepted" seems redundant, "Traveller advocay groups insist" implies their assertion is not universally accepted.Notjim 12:42, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

An implication that a slur is not universally accepted is not good enough imo. The opposite point of view needs to be stated explicitly, or the slur should be excluded too. Philip 18:33, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Horrid feeling here I'm begining to agree with Philip Giano 18:54, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Local History Link

I found a link (you probably already have it). There are so many genealogy questions at the Wikipedia Reference Desk, and this has a nice link for that. However, I thought you might find it useful. if you happen to have any interesting history links, would you mind sharing? I'm building a multilingual/international "web farm" that is a bit more comprehensive than Google... it's Allie/Wikipedia Reference Desk Links. Can't seem to link it... Best regards --allie 14:28, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

http://www.local-history.co.uk/

Do you read?

De Republica Anglorum; the Manner of Government or Policie of the Realme of England, by Sir Thomas Smyth. Why don't you read the article on John Aylmer and find out the rich history of mixed government of Britain and please check out the book referenced in that article. WHEELER 00:22, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Second here is a quote from a Greek scholar:

"The histories of ancient Greece published at that period, though encapsulating a great deal of truthful historical data, were intended to provide an antidote to political liberalism, whilst pledging the encomium of the ‘harmonious’ British mixed constitution." 53

Please be sure to read the footnote so you can educate yourself. For much of her years, England had mixed government which is a Republic. Many saw it that way. She naturally evolved that way. I see that you only write on golf and crickett. My specialty is government.WHEELER 00:26, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

My concern is to protect the pov policy of Wikipedia, not to engage with you in connection with your personal obsession. The fact that you have responded to my action in marking your article as pov by referring me to a source which supports your opinion, shows once again that you have difficulty in accepting Wikipedia's neutrality policy. Wikipedia is not a forum for engaging in the propagation of personal opinions. Attempting to win an argument on such a matter is not a legitimate Wikipedia activity. This would still be true if you were the leading professor of government at Oxford or Harvard. By the way, I do read and I have considerably more formal education than you, though it seems you might hold this against me. I don't just write about sport, and I have amended the introductory statement on my user page. Philip 00:32, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Chesterfield

Thank you for correcting my short article on Philip Dormer Stanhope, etc. Earl of Chesterfield. I feel that the longer one which is entitled Philip Dormer Stanhope, 4th Earl of Chesterfield is far too intensely british-oriented and detailed to hold the interest of residents of Chesterfield County, Virginia here in the U.S., who would benefit from learning a bit more about him. Yours from Richmond on the James, Vaoverland 18:38, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)

There shouldn't really be two articles on the same person, but the longer articles is probably too detailed for most British readers now. It appears to be mainly from the 1911 Britannica, and at that time Chesterfield may still have been regarded as a major figure, but now he is little more than a historical curiosity in British literature. I'm not sure what the solution is to the article length issue in Wikidepia; it is obviously not the case that the longer an article becomes, the more use it is to everyone. Philip 19:59, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

paniq on VfD

There is an interesting discussion over on VfD for the bio-article for German demoscene musician and artist paniq. I was hoping you could enter a comment or vote after reading through and reviewing the article. -R

tagging articles

Please put semi-permanent templates like {{expansion}} that only are useful to editors, on talk pages (the only major exception I can think of would be the different stub templates). This is to Avoid self references as much as possible and make our content more useful to third party users. Thank you. :) --mav 09:03, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I think you are misguided. You forget that the vast majority of potential contributors are not practising Wikipedians, and they are just as capable of expanding an article as those with thousands of edits. It is also appropriate - indeed important - that casual readers should be warned where an article is inadequate; especially for example in the case of children who may not be able to judge this for themselves. Wikipedia is not a members' club.

My view is reflected in policy, which you have misinterpreted. Here is a quotation from the page you referred me to:

However, there are exceptions to this. In particular, an article which is still in its initial development or under dispute often will include tags such as "stub", "npov", and "expansion" to help editors further develop the article, and the text in these templates include self-references. Try, however, to limit such self-references, even in templates.

Editors should be taken to include all readers, not just those with high "insider" status. Please restore any tags which I inserted that you have removed.

Philip 10:41, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I couldn't help noticing this topic while looking for the best place to leave what i added below.

I can say with authority that Mav is not always right (he has disagreed with me!) [wink], but you'd be well to listen to him a lot harder than you have so far, before dismissing the value of his experience with these issues. One thing you'll learn is that Wikipedia:-namespace pages often aren't worth much without a stronger understanding of the context than you are likely to have soon. (You'll note there's a however inside the however concept you refer to; don't assume you're in a position to judge the balance required.)

It's clear that one thing Mav that said went right over your head: an important aspect of WP, perhaps a key to its success, is that many readers are not viewing via this site. Therefore they have no editing capability. You probably also missed his implication that first-time editors can and probably should look at the discussion page: you don't have to have edited before, and you don't have to have registered, to follow the "Discuss this page" lk. (And BTW, any user who comes to WP without learning about talk pages, but assumes articles will be accurate, is a fool who hasn't learned the difference between the Web and their Sunday-school library. There's no point trying to protect them from "inadequacies"!)

I'm saddened that you construed Mav as denying that

potential contributors [who] are not practising Wikipedians ... are just as capable of expanding an article as those with thousands of edits

I construe

... semi-permanent templates like {{expansion}} that only are useful to editors...

as meaning that they are useless to those not interested in editing (contrary to, for instance, your subsequent suggestion that they alert readers to flaky articles). He is right about that: the desirability of expansion is unlikely to correlate well with inaccuracy; in fact, articles with their talk pages so tagged are probably getting urgent attention to inaccuracies at the same time they get the tag; readers who relied on expansion tags for that purpose would be lulled into assuming their absence justified relaxed vigilance. I further suggest to you that Mav knows full well the value of new editors. You are hostile or careless in apparently assuming his concept of "editor" excludes readers who will become editors in another 15 seconds; it certainly does not mean to him "a members' club" of "practising Wikipedians" of "high 'insider' status". Yes, all readers are potential editors, but readers who don't want to edit, or can't bcz they're reading on a non-WP site, aren't editors: they don't edit.

With a small bit of effort, i've determined at [1] that 63% of a sample of such tags are on Talk pages. Clearly Mav's view predominates, and especially if the 37% are more loosely linked articles, the explanation for their existence is likely to that your mistake is a natural one, whose correction doesn't get a high priority on such articles.

But perhaps the most important thing to say to you is that you obviously don't appreciate the inappropriateness of saying (however well cushioned with words of courtesy) "restore any tags which I inserted that you have removed". You may already have reached a point where your views influence some of your colleagues, but you will never own an article or even an edit, and all a policy might conceivably give you is the right to put something back yourself. I am sure (tho i've never noticed it before) that you aren't the first to do this, but IMO you have no future here unless you recognize you've made a beginner's error, and learn from the experience.

--Jerzy (t) 17:12, 2005 Feb 11 (UTC)

I am aware of the issues you mention and I am not impressed. You have not demonstrated that my interpretation of policy was incorrect; the statistics you mention are irrelevant to my point. The policy on the "expansion" template is not ambiguous; it is explicit and directly the opposite of what mav stated. People may put "expansion" tags on article pages or on talk pages as they choose. I found one of the tags which mav removed, hopefully the only one, was on XXXXXXX XXXXXX an important survey article, to which I have made the only substantial additions in recent weeks. What is the point of having a tag on the talk page of an article which doesn't have a band of regular contributors. Who is going to see it? Putting it on the main page protects Wikipedia's reputation by acknowledging that inadequate articles are known to be such and will be improved when possible. My comments were courteous and were based on the level of understanding of policy which mav exhibited in this case: I do not think it is necessary to do research into another user's background each time they make a comment. The comment should be judged on its merits. This one exhibited either a lack of attention to the detail of the very policy referenced, or much worse, an insider's opinion that his status gives him a right to override it where he disagrees with it.

How was I supposed to reverse mav's changes without referring to him when he did not tell me what they were? I care only about the quality Wikipedia's content. You admit that I was courteous, and if I wasn't quite able to finess my request to your satisfaction, I regret that. I am not Shakespeare, and I don't always find the ideal words. You don't either as your post has done nothing but antagonise me and make me think through the reasons why I think you are wrong. Wikipedia is not a private members' club. Some people see every organisation as a route to boost their personal esteem by acquiring rank, power and influence, and it seems to me that you are one of them, but I am not.

Around a month ago I was lambasted by another insider for asking to be shown some toleration as a newbie, when I had been around too long to have any such excuse. Now you are treating me like a probationary, who may be expelled shortly if he doesn't perform to the satisfaction of the powers that be, but there is no such status on Wikipedia. My experience of administrators is not good.

How are you proposing to damage my "future" here? I don't want recognition or cyberfriends. I would not wish to be an administrator as I can see no appeal in any of the "powers" bestowed. Being an administrator doesn't give your opinions an authority independent of the cogency of your arguments or the accuracy of your interpretation of policy, and in this case you seem to have failed to accept a most straightforward policy statement.

I am not here to contribute to content, not to suck up to the bosses. IMO you exhibit some of the worst and most damaging attributes of the cliquist, and you have more need to reform your conduct than I have on the basis of this exchange. Please despise me if you wish, but leave me to get on with article writing and categorization. Philip 17:26, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Finding Reverted Edits

Two methods:

Click on "My contributions". Each entry includes the word "Top", unless you or someone else has edited it since. (You can probably cut&paste to another appn, and sort on article title to get all your contribs to one article together with your last ed at the top, if there are enough to make it worthwhile.) Only articles where you have no contrib by you that includes "Top" are ones that Mav may have edited.
Link via the sig in Mav's msg to his User: page. Click on "User contributions". My guess is he summarized on the first one, and may have done boiler-plate reverts on the rest, so you may be able to spot them by the summaries without having to try and pick them out based on your memory of what you added the tags to.

In either case, i'd look at the "Page history" pages rather than the articles themselves, especially if the articles are long and your pipe is slow, in screening further. You'll figure out how the histories and diffs work quicker than i could make specific suggestions on how to use a history page.
In restoring, bear in mind

the 3RR and
the fact that its meaning is not "reverting up to 3 times in a day is just fine", and
that part of its purpose is for people with a unique opinion to get a chance to see how many others are prepared to pile on, doing one or two reverts per page per day and forcing the unique view either
- into virtual eclipse and consequent reconsideration, or
- to assert itself via something like WP:RfC.

(Given our interaction so far, i anticipate i'll choose to neither pile on nor do more than what this discussion does in itself toward soliciting piling on, tho so far i think it would be justified if you can't work it out with Mav.)
--Jerzy (t) 18:36, 2005 Feb 11 (UTC)

Thanks for the technical assistance. I don't have any problems with mav, who so far as I knew before you piled in had just made an innocent mistake. Philip 18:44, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Charities

Thanks for editing the charities that i've just added. I'm planning to start expanding them, and additing more... Well that's it, just wanted to say thanks. Beta m (talk)