User talk:Valerius Tygart/Archive 2

---

Music

Hi, I noticed that you were fixing pages such as Vespro della Beata Vergine, etc. so obviously you know the topic. There is a template Marian prayers that is used on pages such as Ave Maris Stella that binds those pages together. But there is no musical template that would refer to Roman Catholic Marian music and I do not know what to put in there. If you feel like making a musical template that can go on several pages and bind them together that would be great, and will be appreciated. If you provide the list of suitable items, I can just build the template anyway. Cheers. History2007 (talk) 15:11, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Your idea is certainly a good one. Unfortunately, I really don't know enough about the topic to pursue it.... Cheers & good luck! Valerius Tygart (talk) 16:34, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. No one seems to now the topic in fact... History2007 (talk) 17:37, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

The Ambidextrous Universe

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a search with the contents of The Ambidextrous Universe, and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: The Ambidextrous Universe: Mirror Asymmetry and Time-Reversed Worlds. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally trying to rename an article, please see Help:Moving a page for instructions on how to do this without copying and pasting. If you are trying to move or copy content from one article to a different one, please see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia and be sure you have acknowledged the duplication of material in an edit summary to preserve attribution history.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 16:39, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Copy-paste move of The Ambidextrous Universe Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you recently tried to give a page a different title by copying its content and pasting it into another page with a different name. This is known as a "cut and paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is needed for attribution and various other purposes. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page. This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other articles that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen. Thank you. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 16:47, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

NOTE I've fixed the move. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 16:47, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

We got into an unfortunate series of edit conflicts as I was moving the article & establishing various redirects. As of this moment, I believe the article & redirects are correct. Valerius Tygart (talk) 16:49, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Allegheny Front edits

Are those IP user edits to Allegheny Front from 96.231.137.42 (talk · contribs) and possibly 140.139.35.250 (talk · contribs) yours? I'm just trying to figure out what's going on especially with the most recent set of edits. Thanks. Brian Powell (talk) 19:09, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes. It's just you & me, I think... Valerius Tygart (talk) 19:24, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Michael Crichton

I noticed that you and another user both edited the Michael Crichton page to remove all references to him as a doctor. I just thought you might like to know that once you graduate from medical school, you are a doctor. Michael Crichton's page should probably stay as is, since he never had any training beyond medical school, but when speaking of him in general, it is fine to call him a doctor. I have spoken to several physicians about this and they have confirmed that this information is correct. ManFromMars22 (talk) 02:48, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, no. He was a medical school graduate and "an MD" (recipient of the degree), but he never did a medical internship (the most intense & important "doctor" training) which leads to a medical license (which he never received). He also never practiced medicine outside of medical school (if being a med student is "practicing medicine")... Good thing too, as it would have been illegal. So, he was in the unusual position of having been a med school graduate, but not a doctor or physician. I know he was often referred to as such, but that does not make it so... Valerius Tygart (talk) 16:03, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I understand what you are saying. However, this is how it works: despite earning an MD does not give you the right to practice medicine, you are permitted to call yourself "Dr. (whatever your last name is). This information has been verified by a friend's father who is a physician. ManFromMars22 (talk) 00:45, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

The issue is not that, but whether to refer to Crichton as a "physician" or "doctor" in the article. Answer: no. It correctly says "medical school graduate". Since wikipolicy strongly discourages titles or degrees in an article's 1st sentence anyway, this is not really an issue. Valerius Tygart (talk) 13:52, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 01:19, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks! Valerius Tygart (talk) 14:23, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Disambiguation pages

Hello. Thank your for your edits on disambiguation pages. However, you need to read the Manual of Style for them here MOS:DAB. Especially the section on what is and what is not to be linked wherein it states that "only the primary topic is to be linked." Your cooperation in this will be appreciated. Happy editing. MarnetteD | Talk 17:27, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Followup. The link that you created for the 1974 TV production only goes to a list of stage productions by the RSC. It does not have any info about this specific production and is therefor in violation of WP:EGG. A red link that allows for the creation of a new article is preferable to a link that leads to a list. Thanks again for your help in this. MarnetteD | Talk 17:31, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Look again, it is there... Directed by Trevor Nunn... Valerius Tygart (talk) 17:36, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Than does not matter links are meant to go to articles that add to the understanding of a given item. A list of stage plays does not accomplish that. You have also put back in links that are inappropriate. I can highly recommend that you read the MoS for disambig pages before continuing. MarnetteD | Talk 17:42, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. The link is to the stage production that the video recorded... It is really the same "production", not different ones... Also, my other links are all straightforward & appropriate... Please cease & desist! Valerius Tygart (talk) 17:44, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Your link does not go to the stage production for this play it goes to a list of stage productions. I have now altered the entry so that it goes to the page that you wish it to without violating the naming conventions for disambig pages. As to your continual adding of links you really need to read this MOS:DAB#Individual_entries wherein it specifically states that "Each entry should have exactly one navigable (blue) link to efficiently guide readers to the most relevant article for that use of the ambiguous term. Do not wikilink any other words in the line." Not only does you continual reentry of those links violate the MoS it is a violation of WP:3RR and shows that you may have WP:OWN problems. MarnetteD | Talk 18:48, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Look you have edited for a number of years and done good work. I am not sure why you are ignoring the fact that the guidelines for disambiguation pages are different than those for articles. On top of this you are ignoring the tact that whenever you click edit on a disambiguation page there is an instruction box above the field where you make your entry stating, quite succinctly, the same guidelines that I have been trying to get you to understand. While I would prefer not to if you persist I will have to pass on this situation to others in the hope that they will be able to make you understand. MarnetteD | Talk 20:12, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I want to apologize for jumping the gun earlier today when I left a warning on your page. The new edits that you made under the IP address did not violate the MoS for disambiguation pages and most of them helped to improve the page. Leaving the links without piping is so important because it helps us to fix links on other pages quickly. It is unfortunate that you edited from an IP rather than using your main account. I suggest that you respond to the request below to calm the worries of EdJohnston and myself so that you may continue uninterrupted editing. Again I offer my apologies. MarnetteD | Talk 20:59, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

No problem... Happy editing! Valerius Tygart (talk) 13:09, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

A report at WP:AN3 suggests you've been using multiple accounts
Hello Valerius. See WP:AN3#User:Valerius Tygart reported by User:MarnetteD (Result: ). You may add your own comment there if you wish. If you aren't able to give a good reason why you would use an IP sock in an article dispute, I am considering a block of the IP. The address is 140.139.35.250 (talk · contribs). The previous SPI case was closed with no action against the IPs because it seemed at the time that the problem had ceased: "..IPs not blocked, as they are inactive currently." EdJohnston (talk) 19:23, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

See the last message from MarnetteD above... He/she has backed off the earlier accusations... As for me using an "IP sock", I can only repeat what I said in the earlier dispute: I have never "socked" under any circumstances... I do not consider neglecting to sign on as "socking" -- though I agree it is lazy. Clearly editing from 140.139.35.250 is no disguise of any kind for me at this point so I consider such "sock" accusations to be hysterical & silly... Moreover, just look at the quality of the edits I made at Antony and Cleopatra (disambiguation) & judge for yourself if they were disruptive & if my changes constituted "edit warring"... Even MarnetteD now seems to agree they were not... Valerius Tygart (talk) 13:21, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

We don't excuse people from policy violations just because they are good contributors. If you won't promise to stop using the IP, or tag it appropriately as an alternate account, I intend to block it. The IP went through its own edit-warring troubles in April and got blocked, but you never said anything to the admins about it being an alternate account. See the notice at the top of User talk:VascoAmaral as an example of voluntary tagging. EdJohnston (talk) 15:29, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Done. Though, again, I'm not aware of any "policy violations"... Valerius Tygart (talk) 17:53, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I've also added Template:User Alternate Acc to the IP's page. If this is acceptable to you, then I'll close the AN3 complaint with no further action. EdJohnston (talk) 18:08, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I have never "socked" under any circumstances... --Valerius Tygart

Incorrect. There are four bullet-pointed examples of abusive sockpuppetry listed on your previous SPI case. For instance, using one of your confirmed socks to deny that you are another of your confirmed socks violates Wikipedia's policies on legitimate alternate account use. Repeatedly denying wrongdoing does not make edit history archives go away; better to just move on, since you have already received your warnings & sanctions for the past transgressions.

I actually stopped by here to add a comment on Tygart's behalf, with regard to the current SPI concerns. I've had many of Tygart's accounts and IPs watchlisted since his last SPI case, and I've seen no evidence of intentional abusive socking since that case closed. He does still frequently fail to log in to an account, as established by his use of the static IP:

140.139.35.250 (talk · contribs)

and his use of dynamic IPs in this range:

96.231.162.166 (talk · contribs)

96.231.214.117 (talk · contribs)

96.231.137.42 (talk · contribs)

96.231.137.242 (talk · contribs)

If the static IP is to be blocked, I would recommend the Tygart account be granted an IP Block Exception. Same recommendation if a range-block is applied to the other IPs (if that is possible).

As for Tygart's recent editing behavior, his stubborness and his terseness on talk pages has sometimes allowed otherwise minor issues to unnecessarily escalate, but to his credit he has not (as far as I can tell) resorted to socking during these disputes -- and the vast majority of Tygart's edits are usually left intact after the smoke clears. Any solution that would encourage Tygart to edit while logged in, but without restricting access (as a simple IP block might do) would benefit both the Wikipedia community and Tygart. The community would benefit by having Tygart's whole editing history in one place, and Tygart would benefit by avoiding the additional scrutiny, prejudice and reduced tolerance to which IPs are often subjected. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 18:25, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

• ...or you could go with the "voluntary tagging of alternate accounts" route, but the benefits aren't as many. Definitely easier, however. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:28, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Xenophrenic continues to interpret things in his own inimitable way. Tiresome as it is, I can only repeat what I said about my alleged "socking" last time: Lots of digging 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). 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?

Xenophrenic seems to have a particular fixation with me, for some reason... He has been surveilling me (by his own admission) since his rather spectacular failure to have my user account permanently blocked last November (& since the stinging rebuke he received from the admin at that time...) He has apparently not (until now) found anything to charge me with. He is the one who really should "move on" & cease his unsolicited (& insincere) advice.... ("Past transgressions" indeed!) Valerius Tygart (talk) 16:55, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Tygart! I hope you are doing well, and yes, I'd be happy to provide clarification and answer any questions you may have. First, my advice to EdJohnston was indeed unsolicited, but since we are working on the same collaborative encyclopedia project and I had some information specific to this situation, he is not required to formally request it. It was really no trouble at all, sincerely. Second, I am indeed "surveilling" this talk page, and EdJohnston's talk page, and the Cheese sandwich page, and many hundreds of other pages on my watch list. I am "fixated" on all of them equally, which really equates to paying very little attention to them at all. If it flatters you to think I have more interest in you than in a cheese sandwich, knock yourself out. I wouldn't have taken notice of this latest situation, but this edit summary on my watch list caught my attention: (→A report at WP:AN3 suggests you've been using multiple accounts: new section).

As for your "tiresome" (your word, not mine) repeated denials about your past sock puppeteering, you are addressing the wrong person. It was admin/checkuser J.delanoy, not me, who said "Valerius Tygart is  Confirmed as being related to DyadTriad and Dogwood123. 140... and 96... are him." If you want him to reverse his findings, you'll need to speak with him. Good luck with that. I merely filed the SPI report because you started using your DyadTriad account while you were blocked on your 96.x.x.x IP for edit warring; something not allowed by Wikipedia policy. I never attempted "to have your user account permanently blocked last November", nor was I ever "rebuked" by any admins for trying. When you've been around Wikipedia as long as I have, you learn that permanent blocking doesn't happen, and the rare "banning" requires more than just a minor SPI transgression. I just compiled the information, filed the report and left it in the hands of admins while I moved on. Sorry if I don't live up to your imagined caricature of me as your arch-nemesis intent on destroying your very existence.

Now that the clarifications are out of the way, I'd like to add something: I really did come to your talk page with just the intent of suggesting to Ed that he not block the IPs you use, or to at least grant your account a block exception if he did. I read MarnetteD's comments, and also the WP:AN3 report, and frankly, it looked to me like you were getting a bum rap. In retrospect, I suppose I could have conveyed that suggestion to Ed without also addressing your "I have never 'socked' under any circumstances" comment, and thus avoided dredging up old issues. Correcting things has become rather reflexive for me, I guess. Tygart, I have no problem with you as an editor here, and with the exception of that one BLP issue last year (and the ridiculously long discussion that ensued), I find myself in agreement with your edits. We share a stubbornness, and we both can get a little tweaked, snarky and terse when our edits are reverted (because we know we are so obviously in the right). Some of your edits even leave me in pieces. Anyway, sorry I'm not the adversary you imagined; no fixations and no surveillance -- and I don't consider you an adversary either. Just one of a gazillion editors with whom I've interacted and are now on my watchlist because of it. Hopefully our next interaction will be more pleasant. Best regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 22:16, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Dude, you're creepin' me out!! I can cite the above three paragraphs (and the hundreds from last Nov & Dec) as evidence of your rather unwholesome fascination with me and the minutiae of my edits...

As to the attempt from Dec to have "this account blocked and any others that appear", anyone can check it out at: [1]. The "rebuke" of your efforts came in this form:

So now Tygart can't say he'll stop edit warring or stop socking (see above). In the face of those acknowledgements, I do not wish to re-engage him. Discussions with a pet rock would be more productive. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:44, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Did you really just do this? This isn't a court of law - dozens of admins are already watching, so you certainly don't need to offer a closing argument. You've made your case, others chimed in - if the admins didn't feel that immediate action was required, the additional prompt as if they're idiots was not helpful to your credibility or "case". Of course, getting the "last word" was also pretty sad - I think you've done more harm, and this shall now fade away into nothingness... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:47, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

And it did indeed fade away into nothingness after that... In re-reading this I am reminded that at that time you did "not wish to re-engage him". With all due respect, and with best wishes for your future Wikipedia editing, I must reluctantly ask for something I've never felt compelled to ask of anyone before: that you not contribute to this talk page again.... Valerius Tygart (talk) 15:29, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Dude, what's with the mixed signals?? Please make up your mind. Either you want to lay this discussion to rest, in which case there will be no further reason for me to grace your talk page with my presence, or you wish to continue to engage me by misrepresenting my statements and falsely attributing quotes to me, thereby demanding a response. Is it that you thrive on conflict?

To correct your falsification above, it was Bwilkins, not me, that wanted "this account blocked and any others that appear", as he noted in his response to you, Tygart:

Come off it with the games please. You were blocked, you then moved to another account to edit, which is evading the original block, which is socking. There's no question. A block applies to a person and not an account. It is not up to you to say "I don't think I socked" when the community agrees otherwise. It appears you have two choices: a) accept and and admit that you socked, as per the policy - you will then probably be able to continue to edit under this account (and this account only); or, b) have this account blocked, and any others that appear. Your choice. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:29, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Anyone can check out my position at: [2], where I stated:

I came here expecting to see this incident archived. A simple "I'll stop socking and edit-warring" would have sufficed, since the admins have agreed not to pursue further measures, but Tygart insists on posting more denials and falsifications. He forgets there are diffs. This illustrates why a resolution has been difficult to achieve in 4 weeks. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:49, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

There was never a rebuke of that effort; only a comment that I shouldn't have posted a refactored duplicate of the incident report. Fortunately for all concerned, you did cease socking and edit-warring shortly after that incident report was posted, so the matter did indeed fade away into nothingness.

I don't see a need for me to return to your talk page again. You are, of course, at liberty to prompt my return by addressing me or our past discussions, if you really feel it is necessary. Stay well, Xenophrenic (talk) 19:24, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Needless to say, I disagree.... BTW, at this point I will not be responding to any more of your pointless provocations, Xenophrenic.... Such non-response is NOT to be construed as conceding anything asserted in your rantings ... Including yielding to you the much beloved "last word" ! ;-)
Goodbye & Good Luck. Valerius Tygart (talk) 13:24, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Barry S. Strauss

Hi! It seems you recently created an unreferenced biography of a living person: Barry S. Strauss. The community has decided that all new biographies of living persons must contain a reliable source that supports at least one statement made about the person in the article as per our verifiability policy. Please add references as soon as possible. Thanks! --LaraBot (talk) 00:10, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Bill Maher archive

I couldn't see why you restored 100K of archived discussion, so I removed it again. It's still accessible in the archive files, and searchable with the archive box at the top of the talkpage. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:46, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I've collapsed it there so it is accessible AND doesn't clutter the talk page up... Valerius Tygart (talk) 15:52, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Also: Another editor replaced the full discussion with a (much shorter) version that misrepresents the original... What's up with that?? Valerius Tygart (talk) 15:57, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean. Can you provide links to the versions you're talking about?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:00, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Just see what was there before I restored the full discussion.... Valerius Tygart (talk) 16:02, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

September 2010
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Talk:Bill Maher. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:19, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Reported at 3RR noticeboard.--16:21, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Hello Valerius. You have broken the WP:3RR rule at Talk:Bill Maher. There may still be time for you to avoid a block if you will undo your last edit. Archiving and unarchiving on an article talk page is subject to the consensus of editors. EdJohnston (talk) 16:33, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

The series of reverts was initiated & sustained by SarekOfVulcan. I'm puzzled as to why I am "the reverter" and SarekOfVulcan is not (??). Valerius Tygart (talk) 18:39, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

You have reverted four times, Sarek three times, and an IP once. Do I take it that you are declining to undo your edit? EdJohnston (talk) 19:23, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Look again: I edited at 15:34... Sarek reverted at 15:39, 15:55 & 16:04 (3 times) ... I reverted the reverts at 15:50, 16:00 & 16:06 (3 times)... No IP reverted... Valerius Tygart (talk) 19:46, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Your first edit (15:34) was also a revert, since it undid changes made by other editors. It is not solely up to you how the page archiving should be done. You disagreed, and you expressed that disagreement by reverting. EdJohnston (talk) 20:12, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

My first edit was not a revert. It restored a lengthy discussion which had been removed and replaced by a *synopsis* which attempted to "spin" the original discussion according to one editor's interpretation... I have no objection to that new "summary" remaining... (It will then simply revive the discussion.) But only as long as it does not replace (suppress, make inaccessible) the actual original version. (BTW, that "original" version has itself been extensively tampered with & re-edited by an editor who apparently wants to obliterate history in his favor. I am for an accurate, accessible record...) Who gets to write an "epitaph" of a discussion like this? No one should... Valerius Tygart (talk) 20:29, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

It is pointless to make 'content' arguments when you have already broken 3RR. Your choice is to self-revert, or be blocked. If you think the people who did the previous archiving used bad judgment, you can open a discussion with them. If you think they violated WP:TPG, then explain how. The safest move is to self-revert and *then* explore your options. EdJohnston (talk) 20:37, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Looks like self-reverting is now moot. My good friend Xenophrenic jumped the gun & reverted all again before I had a chance... Guess he can't wait for a process to play out without interfering... Valerius Tygart (talk) 20:46, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Even though it is too late for you to self-revert, if you agree to leave the archiving alone for now, then the 3RR case could be closed. EdJohnston (talk) 22:47, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Shoot. I happened to notice this discussion just now. I'll agree to unblocking you provided you agree to drop the case on the archiving. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 23:36, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Blocked

Autopatrolled

Hello, this is just to let you know that I have granted you the "autopatrolled" permission. This won't affect your editing, it just automatically marks any page you create as patrolled, benefiting new page patrollers. Please remember:

• This permission does not give you any special status or authority
• Submission of inappropriate material may lead to its removal
• You may wish to display the {{Autopatrolled}} top icon and/or the {{User wikipedia/autopatrolled}} userbox on your user page
• If, for any reason, you decide you do not want the permission, let me know and I can remove it

If you have any questions about the permission, don't hesitate to ask. Otherwise, happy editing! Acalamari 21:38, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks! Valerius Tygart (talk) 22:29, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Fort Pleasant

Fort Pleasant was my family's home. My grandmother Tabitha Van Meter Partlow and her siblings grew up there. I have some pictures and can get you in touch with some other family members if you like. Please contact me if you're interested. Pourplepiggie (talk)

Can you shed any light on the mystery here? Valerius Tygart (talk) 13:22, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Invitation to join Wikimedia US/WALRUS mailing list

Hi John! I'd like to invite you to join wikimediaus-l, where we already discussing The Great American Wiknic for June 2011 :)--Pharos (talk) 17:23, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

My name is not John.... (And don't call me Shirley!) Valerius Tygart (talk) 17:26, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Apologies! To be fair, John's name is probably not John either. Anyway, we'd love to have you join, Shirley!--Pharos (talk) 17:31, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Vulcanal (Volcanal)

Thank you for your contribution to the Vulcanal article. There seems to be a problem with the reference or information from it. The Vulcanal was an alter that was adorned with an Etruscan alter and was the first suggestus or tribunal in the comitium area. The reference you used has no preview on Google books so I am unable to see it at this time. No problem though as I simple request books from my library. In the mean time please, understand that I may change the article shortly with other references as I had forgotten about the redirect and the subsequent creation of the article. According to my sourcing the Vulcanal was between the Rostra and the Graecostasis and includes the Black Stone stele and the remains of an honorary column.--Amadscientist (talk) 10:44, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

The Vulcanal was between the Arch of Severus and the stairs of the Temple of Concord. See the map & another reference I just added to the article. Valerius Tygart (talk) 12:14, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I never got back to this:Was the Vulcanal moved or did it remain in this spot?--Amadscientist (talk) 18:45, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

It was never moved.Valerius Tygart (talk) 18:46, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Can we address the confusion of the monuments under the Lapis Niger and the conflict with current reconstruction models. It's all good to be absolutely sure you are right...it's another to go against so much documentation, regardless of how confused it may be and not expalin further. Thanks.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:42, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

By all means, address the confusion with reliable sources & reasoning. I have provided two reliable sources — plus the Encyclopedia Britannica makes three. Where are your sources? You refer to "so much documentation"... What is it? (Do not count this crappy website [3].) I await your scholarly input... Valerius Tygart (talk) 23:52, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

First of all, let's not be sarcastic. If my past posts were I apologize now. I am not a scholar. I am simply a history buff. Can't say much about the references until I read them, but you also don't seem willing (although you may have assumed bad faith on my part) to explain how you arrived at the location. As I stated the map from Britannica does not clarify the precise location in written words. Forget the crappy source. Many sources do refer to the monuments under the Lapis Niger as containing the Vulcanal. It is common in a lot of the research I found researching Comitium, Rostra and a few other articles. The location you claim is very specific yet is not in references that I can locate. So if I find a reference that substantiates my claims then were are we? Not far. I hope you can at least understand my stance is that if current archaeology and or topography books place this there and I am just wrong, you should be able to at least point me in the direction of further reading that I can obtain easily.--Amadscientist (talk) 10:55, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I must return to my previous question: What, exactly, are the "many sources [that] do refer to the monuments under the Lapis Niger as containing the Vulcanal". Do they really exist? I wonder. You say that I "don't seem willing ... to explain how you arrived at the location". My God! Again, the two maps in Grant & the Britannica are very precise. You could literally go to the Forum today & walk to the exact spot using the very detailed Britannica map. Moreover, the Richardson book (probably as good a source as you will ever come by) describes in words where the Vulcanal was & it is consistent with the 2 maps. Finally, none of these three sources say or hint that the Vulcanal was UNDER the Lapis Niger.... That is, frankly, a nutty idea. Where does it come from?? The only place I have seen it is in the "crappy" website which, as I have said, is full of various errors & obviously hopelessly unreliable. Again & again: What reliable source disputes the location of the Vulcanal as described in the article now? I would love to see it..... Valerius Tygart (talk) 15:53, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Also: You say "Can't say much about the references until I read them".... Suggestion: Read them. Valerius Tygart (talk) 15:55, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Also: This site may help you: [4].Valerius Tygart (talk) 18:38, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Hey, look....your using some references that are not available online. I don't need to read them if I am not questioning the their accuracy. I want to read them to better understand your position which, while probably accurate must still be refernced. OK. I see I am just talking to someone with knowledge of a subject that could care less in being sociable. I will add refernces and I will write what can be included per Wiki rules. Since you don't won't to work together we will work around each other.--Amadscientist (talk) 18:05, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for at least being nice enough to reply and give input.--Amadscientist (talk) 18:24, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand why we need to "work around each other". Do you have some new information, backed up with reliable references, to add to the article? If so, go ahead. This includes information that contradicts or corrects what's in the article now -- again, if backed up with reliable references. Do you have something?? We don't have to "work around" (i.e., ignore) each other. Valerius Tygart (talk) 21:59, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Fix template please

Valerius, this edit seems to have jiggered the MEDCOM template. [5] Can you fix please? Thank you. --S. Rich (talk) 01:26, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I tried about twenty ways to undo that... without success. I tried cut-&-paste from the previous edits, but could not figure what the problem with the last line is... Expert assistance may be required. Any help is appreciated. Valerius Tygart (talk) 23:27, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

OK, done. (When @ first you don't succeed...) Valerius Tygart (talk) 23:32, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Couldn't figure it out :-() Your platinum got a bit tarnished :-( Dammed if I couldn't figure it out either, so that's why I left the note ;-) But now we are both :-) Thanks --S. Rich (talk) 06:10, 22 September 2011 (UTC)