User talk:Valerius Tygart/Archive 1

Barbour County articles

Thanks for starting Chestnut Ridge people and Lemuel Chenoweth! I'd been meaning to do those for a while, but you beat me to them. :-) Perodicticus 15:56, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

You are most welcome... My sister (Lisa) once babysat you!! Do you remember?? -- VT 17 Sept 2006

Yes, I do! Which brother are you? Perodicticus 08:43, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm the older brother....

Sideling Hill

Hi, according to Allegheny Mountains

east of the Alleghenies lies the Ridge and Valley Province of the Appalachians

ie. the Allegheny Mountains and the Ridge-and-valley Appalachians are separate entities. This contrasts with the Sideling Hill article which now says:

Sideling Hill is part of the Allegheny Mountains of the Appalachian Mountain Range. (Also considered part of the Ridge-and-valley Appalachians).

Is Sideling Hill considered part of both? Which has the best claim? -- Stbalbach 20:36, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Good question... I must admit ignorance, or at least uncertainly... If you look at the Appalachian Mountains article & at the diagram "Appalachian zones in the US", the area in grey labeled "Valley and Ridge" covers the area I've seen on other maps depicting the Alleghenies... What is clear to me is that the Allegheny Plateau abuts upon the Valley and Ridge province with the Allegheny Front embodying the transition between the two... That seems to leave no room for the Alleghenies themselves! My best guess is that the Alleghenies are a subsection of the V&R province... With the Great Appalachian Valley representing another subsection to the east of them... Which would make the statement in Allegheny Mountains inaccurate & confusing... Valerius Tygart 22:56, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I think the statement in Sideling Hill could stand as it is, & the statement in Allegheny Mountains could be modified... Valerius Tygart 23:00, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanxs!

Thank you so much for all your hard work and contributions to US Military related pages. If you have any questions, please fell free to leave me a message on my talk page. Keep up the good work and have fun editing! ^_^ Jumping cheese ^Cont@ct 03:02, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

MRE

Any reason why you moved it back to Meal, Ready-to-Eat instead of keeping it at the common name? Voretus^talk 20:39, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, as stated, full name vs acronym per Wikipedia policy.... Valerius Tygart 02:56, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Have you seen this? Voretus^talk 14:39, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it applies to acronyms... Would you make the main article on your country "U.S." (it's more commonly used!) and redirect anyone who searched for "United States"?? Valerius Tygart 19:53, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, I'm sure you also saw this. Valerius Tygart 19:56, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Zanj

Those books you deleted contain the information about the Zanj--HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 05:26, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

You have cited a journal about "African Civilization", a book by the popular author Basil Davidson on "African Slavery" in general and a political tract by the professor Ali A. Mazrui. These are not helpful to someone wanting to learn about historical Zanj. Please be more informational & less political. Valerius Tygart 05:32, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

List of WV State Parks

Hi:

Would you mind leaving the caption turned off on the top photo in List of West Virginia state parks. I noticed that some browsers seem to mess up the table and other photo layouts with the captions turned on. The hidden caption was provided to meet ADA requirements for the blind.

Also, do you have any photos from any of the 14 state parks that are without photos? I'm hoping to propose this article for "featured" status as soon as a few more missing photos can get filled in. Thanks, WVhybrid 00:29, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

List of Norman surnames

An article that you created, List of Norman surnames, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lists of surnames Thank you. SkierRMH 08:46, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

List of Luo surnames

An article that you created, List of Luo surnames, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lists of surnames Thank you. SkierRMH 08:48, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you took my comments personally. I wasn't commenting on you but on the article, which needs improvement if you don't want it to be deleted.--Niohe 23:48, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

It definitely could be improved, but I don't think it should (or will, based on the majority of "Keeps") be deleted. Thanks. Valerius Tygart 16:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

List of Old English (Anglo-Saxon) surnames

An article that you created, List of Old English (Anglo-Saxon) surnames, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lists of surnames Thank you. SkierRMH 08:55, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Building 470

On 13 April, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Building 470, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--howcheng {chat} 20:18, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

PT6 edit

Nicely done, it does read much better now. Maury 00:10, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Mon plaisir... Valerius Tygart 15:11, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Monongahela NF edits.

Great work! youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 18:44, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

It's a privilege... Valerius Tygart 18:48, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Cheat Mountain salamander

Hi Valerius Tygart. You are off to such a great start on the article Cheat Mountain salamander that it may qualify to appear on Wikipedia's Main Page under the Did you know... section. Appearing on the Main Page may help bring publicity and assistance to the article. However, there is a five day from article creation window for Did you know... nominations. Before five days pass from the date the article was created and if you haven't already done so, please consider nominating the article to appear on the Main Page by posting a nomination at Did you know suggestions. If you do nominate the article for DYK, please cross out the article name on the "Good" articles proposed by bot list. Again, great job on the article. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 18:39, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Done. Thanks! Valerius Tygart 09:11, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

On July 4, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Cheat Mountain salamander, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:17, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Armed Freedom

Could you explain your page move of "Statue of Freedom" to "Armed Freedom"? "Statue of Freedom" seems to be both official and more common. I've posed this question on Talk:Armed Freedom so a response there would be appreciated. Thanks. --D. Monack | talk 21:54, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Certainly. I went to elementary school with a picture of "Armed Freedom" (so called) on the classroom wall. I took it to be the most common name. I notice that commercially available versions of the picture are still called "Armed Freedom". (See [1]. Valerius Tygart 16:26, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Paul Brandt (disambiguation)

Paul Brandt (disambiguation), an article you created, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that Paul Brandt (disambiguation) satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Brandt (disambiguation) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Paul Brandt (disambiguation) during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 11:35, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

No objection to deletion. Valerius Tygart 15:38, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Asgari

Excellent job reorganizing Ali-Reza Asgari! It really needed a cleanup after being put together rather haphazardly during all the new revelations. Joshdboz (talk) 20:25, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Walter Reed General Hospital

An article that you have been involved in editing, Walter Reed General Hospital, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Walter Reed General Hospital. Thank you. --BJBot (talk) 20:59, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Geography Barnstar
		For improving Wikipedia's coverage of West Virginia's geography, I hereby awards you The Geography Barnstar. Congratulations. youngamerican (wtf?) 21:00, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Invitation

You have been invited to join the WikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort focused on improving Wikipedia's coverage of Africa. If you'd like to join, just add your name to the member list. Thanks for reading!

--BelovedFreak 11:09, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Melekeh versus Jerusalem stone

I am not entirely convinced of this move. Hits on the former are far, far fewer in number than hits on the latter, when the other uses of "melekeh" are taken into account. Also, as far as I can tell the latter term is the prevalent term outside Israel. Mangoe (talk) 16:32, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

That is arguable. The term "Jerusalem stone" seems to appear only in commerical sources & of course using Wikipedia for commercial purposes is not allowed. I think the New York Times (Thomas Friedman, no less!) is a pretty good source. (Are you a "Jerusalem stone" vendor?) Also, you did not address why you took out all of my added info. I have reverted your reversion. Valerius Tygart (talk) 14:03, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm frankly not all that convinced by a passing statement in a travel section article that, all in all, is devoted to a collection of traveller's tales anyway. I'd be a lot more convinced if it came out of the business section in a discussion of the building trade.

It seems to me that your assertion about commercial purposes is overly broad, and I don't agree that it applies in this instance. In any case, the only matter that concerns me is which term is the more prevalent in English. Googling for "melekeh stone" (without the quotes) produces only four pages of hits, and a bunch of them are replications of the same masonic passages or are antique. A number appear to be irrelevant. Searching in the NYT site itself produces eight pages of references to "Jerusalem stone" (see here), and it appears over and over in architectural discussions of synagogues in their pages. It just seems to me that "Jerusalem stone" is by far the most common term. Mangoe (talk) 17:05, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

On the NYT article: Do you know Friedman? He is not just some travel writer. He is a Pulitzer Prize winning journalist & one of the Times best known writers.

On melekeh: When I have travelled in Israel, I have known of the stone as melekeh & never heard the term "Jersulem stone". It is significant that Jerusalem stone appears ONLY in commercial/promotional websites & never in journalistic or academic sites. No doubt there are many hits for it on search engines, but you have to be a bit discriminating. A tally of how much noise is out there is not a good way to decide any question. Valerius Tygart (talk) 18:04, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

But that claim is not true. As I said, I found eight pages of Google results from the NYT website which refer to "Jerusalem stone"; you found a single reference, and while I do not deny Friedman's authorial expertise, the kind of article he has written in this instance is simply not the sort of thing I would take as a definitive reference on its own. So let's go through some of the other NYT references:

• The first reference is in an article about the construction of a synagogue on Long Island: [2]
• The next is about controversies over the construction of a synagogue in Litchfield, Conn.; the rabbi is quoted using the term. [3]
• Another article on synagogue construction, this one from the real estate section: [4]
• Also from the real estate section, concerning the construction of a Jewish center: [5]
• From the Arts section, an architectural assessment of the Israeli supreme court building: [6]
• Here's one from Friedman himself, in the NYT Magazine: [7]
• Some commercial architure from the business section: [8]
• Another synagogue: [9]
• A bridge in Jerusalem: [10]
• A passing simile in a book review: [11]

OK, the last is a bit stretched. But surely there's evidence enough that if the Times prefers a term, it is "Jerusalem stone". Even Friedman uses that term more often than he uses "Melekeh".

I don't agree with your rejection of commercial websites, but in any case, I have not found it necessary to refer to them in this discussion. Mangoe (talk) 19:01, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

"Construction", "construction", "real estate" "real estate", "business", etc. Nearly all the instances you cite are commercial usages. I am certain that most geologists, archaeologists, ancient historians, etc that mention the stone call it "melekeh" rather than "Jerusalem stone". I will look for [offline] academic references to support that. (I have already put one in the article.) Meantime, you see how many academic (as opposed to commercial or popular journalistic) references to "Jerusalem stone" you can find. If you found more search engine hits for "Coke" or "Coca cola" than for "soft drink"; or more hits for "Tylenol" than for "acetaminophen" would that justify using the commerical names for the generic article? No.

As to the Times preferring "Jerusalem stone" to "melekeh", I'm sure that if you ask the Editor-in-Chief you will be told that the newspaper doesn't have an official position on the matter! More to come. Valerius Tygart (talk) 17:05, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

BTW, you said: "Even Friedman uses that term [Jerusalem stone] more often than he uses "Melekeh"." But I do not see even a single reference to "Jerusalem stone" in his article. (??) Valerius Tygart (talk) 17:10, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Another argument against “Jerusalem stone” is that it is not very specific. At least four types of limestone underlie Jerusalem and its environs and more than one of them is used in construction. Thus,

Geology.—The strata of the limestone plateau on which Jerusalem stands have a generaleasterly dip of about 10 degrees, and there is therefore an ascending series from the western hill to the Mount of Olives. Dr. Fraas (Aus. dem Orient., p. 50 sq.) has shown that the strata consist of the following in descending order:—1. Nummulitic limestone, composed of soft white limestone with bands of flints and fossils, locally known as Kakúli. 2. Upper Hippurite limestone, or Xeriuaean marble, composed of beds of hard reddish and grey stone, capable of taking a good polish, called Misseh. 3. Lower Hippurite limestone, a soft easily-worked stone, called Melekeh, a name which recalls the bane royal of French quarrymen ; and 4. Zone ties Ammonites rhotomayensis, composed of pink and white strata of indurated chalk. The Melekeh bed, which is from 30 to 40 feet thick, underlies the whole city, and has played an important part in its history. All the great subterranean reservoirs, nearly all the tombs, the Siloam aqueduct, and the caverns at the village of Siloam have been hewn out of it ; and the extensive underground quarries near the Damascus Gate show that it was largely used for building purposes. Many of the large blocks in the walls of the Temple enclosure are from this bed, and the stone where free from flaws and not exposed to rain has worn well. (Smith, William, A Dictionary of the Bible: Comprising Its Antiquities, Biography, Geography and Natural History. Hartford CT: S.S. Scranton, 1908)

Valerius Tygart (talk) 17:32, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Can we take this to the article's talk page? It seems to me inefficient to discuss it in both places. Mangoe (talk) 17:35, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm there. Valerius Tygart (talk) 17:38, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Jerusalem stone

Please come back to Jerusalem stone, the present name is absurd and shoudld be changed back to Jerusalem stoneElan26 (talk) 18:27, 2 September 2008 (UTC)Elan26

In the future, do not truncate discussions by making arbitrary page changes. And please try in future to cite books accurately, i.e., make certain that what you calim is written on a page is really there.Elan26 (talk) 17:31, 12 September 2008 (UTC)Elan26

Blackwater

Sorry I didn't get back to you before this. Lotsa excuses, including a power outage. I don't know if you did the rewrite of the history section, as the author used an IP address only, but the references and the rewrite in general seem to be much better now. WVhybrid (talk) 03:11, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Wilderness Diarrhea

On the move of Potability of backcountry water to a subsection of Wilderness Diarrhea:

I didn't understand this significant action that you took, especially since there was no discussion prior to the move. Would you care to share your thoughts on this subject? Bob K31416 (talk) 15:39, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, please see the section Definition of wilderness diarrhea in Talk:Wilderness diarrhea. Bob K31416 (talk) 22:03, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

On the first question, I made the changes (additional information and move) because I thought they improved the article. I would be happy to see discussion at the article's talk section as to whether other editors and readers found the changes helpful.

On the point about definition, I agree that clarification could be helpful. Check out my recent edit and see if you think it helps. Valerius Tygart (talk) 18:49, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that does help. It brings into consistency the remarks made in the Symptoms section. Also, if one googles Wilderness acquired diarrhea one gets better hits than googling Wilderness diarrhea. Perhaps the article should be moved to Wilderness acquired diarrhea or Wilderness-acquired diarrhea?

One thing to be careful of is to minimize material that already appears in other wikis. Some additional aspects of WAD that make it distinct from other articles on disease from ingestion of pathogens are: zoonoses; treatment of symptoms when they occur on multiweek hikes in the backcountry away from medical resources; feasibility of carrying prescription medicine on multiweek hikes just in case; water potability in the backcountry; filtering, etc. (maybe already elsewhere in which case a brief statement and link to the other wiki would be appropriate); sanitation habits when backpacking. Feel free to jump in with any more aspects that make it distinct from other wikis. And feel free to copy these remarks over to the article's discussion section and add your own remarks. Bob K31416 (talk) 15:10, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Definition of Wilderness diarrhea: I just realized that you can't simply change the definition of wilderness diarrhea since that would mean that you are doing original research by choosing the definition yourself. --Bob K31416 (talk) 02:46, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Valerius: Very good work on lastest edit to Wilderness Diarrhea page. Thanks, it's continuing to improve. However, I must correct you on the notion that species receive a capitalization. One writes, for example that "A raccoon stole my food, while I was sipping giardia-infested water and watching the mule deer jump over the fence." [[12]]note for example here Calamitybrook (talk) 22:56, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

On second thought Valerius, I didn't know rules for binomial nomenclature and it looks like maybe you're right and NYT wrongCalamitybrook (talk) 23:06, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

It's interesting. NYT is pretty consistent, but not entirely consistent, about lower-casing giardia and cryptosporidium, but they seem to be fine with T. rex....If I were still a newspaper editor, I'd go with the lower case, but that doesn't mean it's strictly correct.

Calamitybrook (talk) 23:21, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, even respectable sources like the NYT often fail to capitalize and italicize binomial Latin (Linnaean) names as they should. On the other hand, I am a pain-in-the-ass pedant ... Valerius Tygart (talk) 15:26, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

WAD Again

Say, would you be willing to engage yourself on the WAD article a little bit? It's just BobK and myself, and we seem to be engaging in something approaching an edit war..... The thing desperately needs some additional editors. Calamitybrook (talk) 22:51, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

WAD Again

There is a single editor who is strangely obsessed with merging this article into "traveler's diarrhea. One of the odd peculiarities of Wikipedia. The item has been edited by 42 editors over a three-year period. But the person is deeply intent on kill.

CfD nomination of Category:Military drugs

Category:Military drugs, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Cgingold (talk) 11:45, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Philippi Covered Bridge Image

Dendrotek (talk) 12:00, 14 October 2008 (UTC) Hi, I'd like to contact you about copyright permission to print a copy of your photo of Philippi Covered Bridge. This will be in UK. Because our copyright position is different to USA it is safer to obtain originator's permission wherever possible rather than relying on GNU. I am of course requesting non-exclusive use, i.e. you will not be tied or implicated in any way. Your name and/or pseudonym will be credited as you wish.

Cheers, Dendrotek

Yes, Dendrotek, permission is hereby granted to print a copy of my photo of the Philippi Covered Bridge (PhilippiCoveredBridge.jpg on commons.wikimedia.org) in accordance with the terms of its GNU Free Documentation License. My username (Valerius Tygart) may be credited. Tx, Valerius Tygart (talk) 00:01, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Lenore / Raven

You are making your own judgment/reading that Lenore is a pseudonym in "The Raven". "Nameless here forevermore" means that she is dead "here" (aka Earth). If you have a scholarly source that indicates the generally-accepted reading of "The Raven" is that Lenore is a pseudonym, please provide it. Otherwise, you seem to be pushing your own POV or your own original research. Keep in mind that this is a featured article that has actually been academically-reviewed so I like to take good care of it. --Midnightdreary (talk) 17:41, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, '"Nameless here forevermore" means that she is dead "here" (aka Earth).' How is that not "YOUR own judgment"? Valerius Tygart (talk) 17:45, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

It's not. Like I said above, it's a generally-accepted reading of "The Raven". In the past couple years alone, I have read 11 full-length books on Poe, several on 19th century American poetry, and several articles and papers on Poe and his poetry. None that I have read have ever suggested Lenore was a pseudonym. I can't provide a single source that say Lenore is not a pseudonym, but the burden of proof falls on you that it is. --Midnightdreary (talk) 17:48, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, if you can provide a source that '"Nameless here forevermore" means that she is dead "here" (aka Earth)' (as opposed to "here" in this poem/writing), I will relent. (You don't even have to disprove "pseudonym"...) Otherwise, my "POV" is as good as yours... Valerius Tygart (talk) 18:05, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

The article does not make the assertion that this particular line you refer to means that she is dead. Are you disputing that Lenore is a dead woman in the poem? --Midnightdreary (talk) 18:07, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

No, just that "Lenore" is not a "false name", nickname, or somesuch... Not her real name. It says "whom the angels name Lenore..." They have their own special name for her... A "pseudonym", if you will (you probably won't...) Valerius Tygart (talk) 18:10, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Again, I can not prove that Lenore is her real name and not a pseudonym. How do you prove that Bigfoot is not real? You don't, but you can attempt to prove that he is. So, again, the burden of proof that Lenore is a pseudonym falls to you.

If I wanted to show WP:original research, there's the fact that the narrator himself does call her Lenore (and the only words there spoken was the whispered word "Lenore". This I whispered...) so it's not just the angels. But, again, that's original research. I have flipped through thirteen books that talk about "The Raven" and, thus far, not found one that suggests that Lenore was not a real name. It's a fictional character to begin with; why add a pseudonym on top of that? I would suggest that if not a single Poe scholar out there suggested Lenore was a pseudonym, we should not either. --Midnightdreary (talk) 18:14, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

You can't strictly prove that Bigfoot is not real, but reasonable people believe that Bigfoot is not real. So, I think, reasonable people would gather that "Lenore" is not the woman's "real name", but rather some kind of "false name". Otherwise why point out that "angels name" her that? Apparently, because her parents didn't. This should not be dignified as "original research" or even "POV", just common sense and comprehension of the English language... Valerius Tygart (talk) 18:23, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

If it is so common sense, why has no one in the past 160 years published this interpretation? This is your own reading of Poe's words. As I'm trying to suggest to you, it's pretty groundbreaking, so feel free to publish it. --Midnightdreary (talk) 18:28, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay, here's a way to dispute your theory, from someone other than me: Biographer Kenneth Silverman suggests the particular line you were using as evidence suggests that the narrator has made a "vow to leave her nameless, [though] in the course of the tale he repeats 'Lenore' four times" (Silverman, 240). Silverman believes it is an example that Poe's theme of the poem was a struggle between trying to forget and trying to remember, a reading which is represented in the analysis section of his article. --Midnightdreary (talk) 18:30, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Is that "though" (you have it in brackets) really implied? (I don't have your advantage of the book in front of me...) Seems to me that Silverman would agree with me, & not you: that he has taken a "vow to leave her nameless" seems reasonable. But he is not violating that vow when "he repeats 'Lenore' four times" because that is not her real name. It is just the name the angels gave her... Valerius Tygart (talk) 18:36, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Here's a possible compromise: Instead of "...is lamenting the loss of his love, Lenore" in the intro, how about "...is lamenting the loss of his love "whom the angels name Lenore". (Last 5 words in quotes.) Valerius Tygart (talk) 18:42, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Holy crap... I'm going to be honest here, as a published Poe scholar and author, I can say that your theory makes a gigantic leap that has never been made before. However, in making this assessment, it essentially undoes everything that makes "The Raven" what it is. That's my personal opinion. Period. My personal opinion (or yours) has absolutely nothing to do with this article. I'm putting aside my personal feelings, my personal opinions, and my own personal readings of the poem. You should too. Wikipedia is based on verifiability, after all.

Silverman does not make the leap that you are making. I have now flipped through - are you ready for this - eighteen books on Poe, articles on Poe, articles which briefly mention "The Raven"... I have not found a single source that says "Lenore" was a pseudonym. They all seem to take at face value that when the name Lenore is given it is a real name. How many sources have you found that support your theory? At this point, if you do find a source, it's so heavily outweighed by all the other readings which do not claim it is a pseudonym that this reading would fall into fringe theory. Again, this is the dictionary (err... Wiki-policy) definition of original research. --Midnightdreary (talk) 18:46, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm certainly glad you're putting your "personal feelings" aside.... Valerius Tygart (talk) 18:51, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm trying to argue Wiki-policy and the use of reliable sources. Is that not clear? --Midnightdreary (talk) 18:55, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I suspect that you've found 18 sources that do not address the specific question at hand, rather than 18 that "take at face value that when the name Lenore is given it is a real name"... That doesn't outweigh anything. Valerius Tygart (talk) 18:58, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

What do your sources say about the meaning of "whom the angels name"?? Valerius Tygart (talk) 19:00, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I can't quote any sources that specifically say "The name Lenore is a name." I also have trouble finding sources that say specifically that "The raven in the poem is a bird." Again, the burden of proof falls to you. --Midnightdreary (talk) 19:03, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

"Proof" is hard to come by when it comes to interpretation of poetry. (Something a Poe scholar should know well.) I remain unconvinced that my interpretation is not a conventional one. Otherwise I think you would be able to put me in my place more easily & definitively with specific scholarly quotes contradicting it... Valerius Tygart (talk) 19:08, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't know how else to deal with this and, frankly, I have never been more frustrated in any experience I have ever had on Wikipedia. Your interpretation is not implausible. It has just never bee suggested before. No one that I have found has ever disputed that Lenore is not a real name. I have been working on poetry and poet articles on Wikipedia since I began my tenure here. I have never had such a hard time with interpretation. Ever. --19:12, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to be so difficult. Valerius Tygart (talk) 19:14, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Speleothems

These speleothems are already in Category:Speleothems which is a more specific subcat of Category:Cave geology. Is it really appropriate that they be in both? I think the more specific subcat takes care of it.

• Cave pearl
• Cave popcorn
• Boxwork
• Moonmilk
• Dogtooth spar
• Rimstone
• Flowstone
• Stalagmite
• Soda straw
• Stalactite
• Helictite
• Frostwork
• Anthodite
• Speleothem

WTucker (talk) 03:36, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the less specific category Category:Cave geology and left the more specific subcat Category:Speleothems. Thanks. WTucker (talk) 00:58, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

What Wikipolicy stipulates this?? Valerius Tygart (talk) 12:20, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

A guideline, really. See Wikipedia:Categorization and subcategories. WTucker (talk) 13:55, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Abraham Lincoln (1920 statue)

On May 31, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Abraham Lincoln (1920 statue), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Dravecky (talk) 14:21, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Allegation

Sorry it came to this conclusion....
But by any disposition, your account has been reportedly RFCUed for sockpuppetry on WP:SPI. You should check it out.----_{Boeing7107isdelicious|SPRiCh miT meineN PiloteN} 06:23, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Sock accounts
Hi Tygart, an sockpuppet investigation has revealed that you have been using several named accounts and IPs to edit wikipedia; several of these accounts have been used to edit the same article (eg, Bill Maher). I plan to block all your alternate accounts indefinitely in a few hours unless you have a reasonable explanation for your editing pattern. feel free to contact me on my talk page, or simply reply here. Can you also confirm if these are your accounts:

• SlateGrey (talk · contribs),
• HamStation (talk · contribs),
• ParkerDrive (talk · contribs), and
• JohnKillbuckSr (talk · contribs)

Abecedare (talk) 02:33, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

November 2009

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for for abusive sockpuppetry as confirmed by this SP investigation. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Abecedare (talk) 03:10, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Cut & pasted from "Comments by accused parties": Great work! Lots of digging has uncovered..... what exactly? Many edits as an anon over the years (OMG!). A half dozen dead user accounts abandoned 3 to 4 years ago. A couple of active alternate user accounts (legitimate per Wikipedia:Sock puppetry for security [internet cafes] & privacy [workplace], etc). Also: that I have edited Wikipedia from .... Turkey (huh?). What was NOT uncovered: (1) deceptive or misleading use of multiple accounts; (2) use to avoid scrutiny; (3) use to mislead or deceive other editors; (4) use to edit project discussions; (5) use to disrupt edits with one account and normal edits with another; (6) use to distort consensus; (7) use to stir up controversy; (8) use to circumvent sanctions or policy. Also not found: (9) use to pose as more than one person (no, not even the one purported example is accurate). In other words: no sockpuppetry, as defined in policy. The so-called "who's who" edit list of my contributions as Valerius Tygart (which easily reveals alternate accounts) is good evidence that I have tried to hide nothing... Now, why not move on to more productive (& less predatory) work ... and leave a legitimate Wikipedia editor be? Valerius Tygart (talk) 14:56, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

ANI notice

Hello, Valerius Tygart. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:40, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello Valerius. Over at WP:ANI#Shopping for an appropriate forum I have proposed that you be indefinitely blocked until you agree to stop using multiple accounts. You are welcome to add your own comment there. EdJohnston (talk) 02:54, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

An indefinite block has been proposed, and seems likely to be done soon. I would say that it is in your best interest to comment at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Shopping for an appropriate forum soon. NW (Talk) 01:45, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I saw your new comment at ANI. Since your usage of socks has been confirmed by checkuser, I don't think there is much point in claiming your innocence in that area. If you will accept my above offer, to edit Wikipedia using only a single account and to stop editing Bill Maher for now, I'll hold off on a block. (You may continue to comment at Talk:Bill Maher if you wish). EdJohnston (talk) 05:52, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

EdJohnston, I agree that, since I have stated my case clearly, there is not much point in repeating myself & we should move on. I have no problem in pledging to edit under Valerius Tygart only (... mind you, the User:140.139.35.250 account, which I have been accused of abusing, has a large number of users on it. Please don't blame me for everything that is done from that address!!) I don't, however, think it is reasonable for you to tell me to stop editing Bill Maher for now. No offense, but I just don't accept one editor with one opinion having that sort of authority.... Happy editing! Valerius Tygart (talk) 15:49, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

It seems that the ANI thread about your behavior has now been archived, and the final word was that of User:NuclearWarfare, who did not advise taking any action at this time. I take note that you will stop using socks and that you've stopped reinserting the disputed material at Bill Maher. That sounds good to me. You and your socks seem to have been involved in a number of edit wars, and I do hope that won't recur in the future. I've also left a note at User talk:Xenophrenic#Tygart issue has been archived which mentions the issue. EdJohnston (talk) 16:58, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

The thread, which was archived by a bot, has been de-archived pending a resolution. I take note that you will not stop reinserting the disputed material at Bill Maher, against the objections of multiple editors - not just me. That does not sound good to me. I fail to see the purpose of you repeatedly making a disputed edit while objections to that edit remain unresolved. As instructed by WP:BLP, I have reverted your edit of a few hours ago, and commented further at ANI. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 18:26, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Cut & pasted from the Administrator's noticeboard: If "the community's assumption of good faith has been exhausted" I am sorry for that. I have been clear about the motivations for what I've done & I still maintain that I have never done anything with deceptive or disruptive intent. An indefinite block on even my "legitimate" alternate accounts would be unnecessary, in my opinion, but it would also not greatly inconvenience me, so I have no strong objection to that. I think we should move past all this as unproductive.

As for Xenophrenic's "edit-warring half" of the problem, I will say again that I believe I have made a compelling case, at the Bill Maher talk page, for inclusion of the quote in question (three perfectly good sources, etc...). The suggestion of a "firm warning to stop edit warring (for both parties)" actually seems in good order to me because it acknowledges what Xenophrenic never has: that he is (at least) half the problem here. It is not true that "multiple editors" have contested the quote/content... One has (Xenophrenic) & one other has asked for additional sources while explicitly stating he is offering no opinion on the quote/content... The wider the forum for pursuing consensus on this, the better. That is why I asked for discussion on the talk page 3 weeks ago & that I why I lament that none (except Xenophrenic repeating himself) has occurred...

As a gesture of good faith, I will refrain from re-inserting the (to me) perfectly legitimate edit (for now) in the hope that responsible, good faith opinions from other editors will soon be forthcoming on the Bill Maher talk page. Valerius Tygart (talk) 14:47, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Cross of Lothair

On January 5, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Cross of Lothair, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 00:00, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello Valerius Tygart! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 6 of the articles that you created are tagged as Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to insure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. if you were to bring these articles up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 943 article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the list:

1. Arnold S. Relman - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
2. Robert Lindsey (journalist) - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
3. Ahmad Bader Hassoun - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
4. David William Cohen - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
5. Jeanne Guillemin - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
6. Bob Berman - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 22:20, 8 January 2010 (UTC)