User talk:Serial Number 54129/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Trolling this TP

Excellent work. We may have to nuke it from orbit though. Have a biscuit. -Roxy the dog™ (Resonate) 15:58, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

lolz etc _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 08:05, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

I knew I knew you from somewhere. I've had so much fun with Jeremy today, while making a point I believe is right, but I'll stop now. -Roxy the dog™ (Resonate) 23:21, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanking me into a bucket...!

Drmies that was really rather clever... How d'you do it?!?! _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 18:17, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

• It was, wasn't it? And I misspelled "vomiting"? Oh, wait--see User_talk:Drmies#User:Erolatccsgroup. :) Drmies (talk) 18:21, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Should've noticed the spelling. You do have some imaginitive fans, if tending towards the foetid! Cheers, _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 18:26, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

• Opposites attract, no doubt. Drmies (talk) 18:27, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Your WP:AN3 report

Hi, It looks like I just beat you in lodging a report about that edit warring. It might simplify things if you removed your report - please feel free to merge your superior diff summaries into mine if you choose to do so. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 11:39, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

It's more the fact that the reported editor has already replied. Stand by. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 11:41, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes - it might work best if I merged my report into yours now Nick-D (talk) 11:42, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

I've just deleted my report - thanks for also doing this! Nick-D (talk) 11:44, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

No worries- Ironically I just got an edit conflict trying to merge with yours! Cheers, _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 11:47, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

At least you didn't revert me :) Nick-D (talk) 11:48, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Then we could have reported each other... what fun it could be! All the best! _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 11:49, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Anca Verma profile on WIKIPEDIA

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hi there,

We have created a Wiki profile of ANCA VERMA (wife of Indian billionaire Abhishek Verma (businessman)). She is a public personality as you would see on her page. We need your help in formatting, editing, grammar and other aspects such as adding sections etc.

Please help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Authorincharge (talk • contribs) 13:46, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes... I left you an edit-summary, too. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 14:08, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Disruptive editing by user:Tnguyen4321

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I think you should do something with that user. He continues his disruptive editing even when the issue has been posted on the AN/I. Thanks.

p/s: I've tagged his OR instead of reverting his editing so you can see it more clearly. Dino nam (talk) 01:26, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Amazing trick: I don't even notice the introduction of the OR tag in the content of the article. It is how he goes around without being blocked even he is triggering a edit warring. Here is what our wolf in sheep's clothing intends to achieve with his OR tagging subterfuge. The tag will be dated. Other editors are constraint by a deadline. Two eventualities could happen: one, nobody care to comment on the issue; or two, editors can argue with him until they are blue in the face, he would say he is not convinced, and still maintains it is an OR and declares it should me removed according to Wikipedia policy. And he would remove it on his own authority, not on consensus. He then would just blank it or replace with his own version pertaining to this specific material.Tnguyen4321 (talk) 13:46, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Do you care reverting Dino nam's last editing to previous version [1]? Thanks.Tnguyen4321 (talk) 14:38, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

You've just done it haven't you? And what exactly is wrong with "Col. Nguyen Huu An later admitted that insertion of the 1/7 Air Cavalry Battalion at LZ X-Ray in the morning of November 14 had the effect of making the B3 Field Front to postpone the attack of the Pleime Camp"? -which was sourced? _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 14:42, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

No, you got things wrong. I just deleted "Col. Nguyen Huu An later admitted that insertion of the 1/7 Air Cavalry Battalion at LZ X-Ray in the morning of November 14 had the effect of making the B3 Field Front to postpone the attack of the Pleime Camp" which had been stated previous in section The air assault of the 1/7 Air Cavalry Battalion at LZ X-Ray (14-16 November): The air assault insertion of the 1/7 Air Cavalry Battalion at LZ X-Ray in the morning of November 14 had the effect of making the B3 Field Front to postpone the attack of the Pleime Camp. And at the same time fix the orphaned referencing not defined as alerted by AnomieBOT. I did not revert Dino nam's OR-tagging.Tnguyen4321 (talk) 15:12, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Ah, I see, sorry. I don't know enough about it to say if it's OR or not; but why is the article so long? It's immensely (and probably unnecessarilly) detailed, with long paragraphs hanging off a single source. I reckon it should be about 25% of its current size. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 15:19, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

It's so long because it is a very important battle (the first big one for each side) in the eyes of both the American and the Viet Cong (North Vietnamese Communist) and controversial too. Yes, the OR notion is very difficult to grasp, until you have to wrestle with it.Tnguyen4321 (talk) 15:32, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: Agree with your point. That whole section which I used to blank contains info that had been previously stated in other sections. In fact, it doesn't even talk about the things in its headline: there are about only one out of four or five sentences that talks about the air strike itself. Dino nam (talk) 16:18, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Since there is editing done in between versions, you cannot just "undo" but have to do it manually. Would you allow me to do it instead?Tnguyen4321 (talk) 15:23, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Reminder: do you care to remove the 3 bogus OR tags[2] that Dino nam had pinned after been warned not to start an editing war? Thank you.Tnguyen4321 (talk) 13:17, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, go ahead, if you think they're undeserved. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 13:21, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks.Tnguyen4321 (talk) 15:16, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: I think you should better visit the talk page first. And of course, he will think that it's undeserved, because he's the one who've created the OR. Dino nam (talk) 16:13, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

I did. He resumes editing war [3], ignoring your [4].Tnguyen4321 (talk) 20:33, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Please explain what does it means when the noticeboard is archived with no result and what is the next step. Thanks.Tnguyen4321 (talk) 05:40, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

References

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Re: LeonRaper

Nothing wrong with being sympathetic. BMK (talk) 04:03, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Don't ever expect to become an administrator by acting like a bully...

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

... and projecting that behavior and motivation upon others. You need to grow up. 71.184.228.118 (talk) 06:27, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Well. That didn't seem too profitable did it, after all? Let me know when you're back. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 09:29, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

thank you

Deliberately I am not looking into the WP:ANI#SimonTrew because that is for others to decide. If I get banned, all I can say in my defence is you have lost a good editor who speaks a lot of languages, translates, tidies, and so on. Yes, lately, I have been tidying up a lot of Neelix redirects and have been getting a lot of flak from various users who are not aware of the WP:G6 neelix concession. That is fine, I am a big man, but yes it does hurt when someone personally attacks you. I have no problem with someone disagreeing with me. This is no attempt to WP:CANVASS but for someone occasionally to send a wink to see what I am trying to do, which is to make Wikipedia better, it means a helluva lot to me.

I still not sure it shouldn't be imperatrice but I'll have to get my Shortbread Eating Primer to check that. Oh Shorter Latin Primer, if you rub out the oh well you get it. Si Trew (talk) 20:05, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

@SimonTrew: You're doing the dirty possibly dull work behind the scenes mate, which most people wouldn't do, and I think it's a hypocrisy for you to be some sort of Aunt Sally for others' personal opinions. Bon appetite with that Latin Shortbread! (Think Hadrian might have brought some back?!). Luck, _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 20:13, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

I think I am being put up as something of an Aunt Sally I hadn't thought of that analogy. I have done about a hundred Neelix ones today. Neelix created them in good faith and I will say that until people get it into their thick heads. Just many now, with the better search engine, are not necessary are harmful. They are not harmful because Neelix created them, that is kinda coincidental, they are harmful because they block people trying to find information. When I started in 2009 I think the search engine was frankly awful and so all these kinds of redirects were absolutely necessary. I am no WP:DELETIONIST but I think if we want to make it better get readers to where they are likely to want to go sometimes getting rid of redirects is the right way to do it. Not always. Sometimes we can create them to get them where we want to go. Not so much an Aunt Sally as a Stooge really, i think the anger against Neelix has suddenly somehow been transferred onto me. I'm a big man I can take it. But yes, it does hurt sometimes. In real life if someone tried that I would look them in the eyes and they would back off. Never had to resort to physical violence in my life, you look em in the eyes ask them what they said they back off. Never hit a man (or woman for that matter) in my life. In real life I am very good at calming aggression but on Wikipedia it is not so easy to do because I can't look em in the eyes. Si Trew (talk) 20:24, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

You know how well I forget which president Woodrow Wilson I am bound to get the wrong one said "Speak softly and carry a big stick". That's the way to do it. I wear size eleven steel toecap boots nicely polished every day. And speak very softly. I don't need to threaten anyone. I have innate resepect where I live because of what I do for the community around me. I kinda think the word "respect" has been forgotten from Wikipedia. That is the one word I would define my life by, "respect". Respect others, respect yourself, respect your neighbours, respect your firends,respect your family, don't care if you're black white jewish muslim hindustani or even Dutch but "respect" seems to have disappeared. We should make that more prominent. Si Trew (talk) 20:31, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Spot on. Respect is more important than civilty; you can be civil without respecting someone, and it's obvious if you don't. i mean we know how easy it is to avoid NPA just by being polite. Which stinks, breaking the spirit if not the letter of the law. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 20:37, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Thank you once again. To spend half an hour or so ranting off with you has made it all worthwhile. Thank you for letting me spiel I needed that. Sorry to spoil your talk page, you can delete it. Right so let's take the next batch of redirects. What may they be? Wait and see. If they're not CSD they will be RfD. Si Trew (talk) 20:40, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Feel free to use this page as a shooting gallery User:SimonTrew; it's more friendly than most. Keep in touch :) _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 21:04, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

That is so kind of you. You are cheaper than a trick cyclist and twice as good. Si Trew (talk) 21:07, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

This may amuse you this is just anecdotal. At some football match in the UK thirty years ago from the terraces they were all shouting "Bring on Wilson" and then someone shouted Woodrow Wilson and someone else Harold Wilson and Jocky Wilson and so on. So they all started calling for whatever Wilson they could think of. No idea who the substitute Wilson was, he was never brought on. Good if true. 21:12, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Brilliant :) was it Notts Forest? must've been bad if they were calling for Harold Wilson! I remember Basil Fawlty has a bit of a thing about him, great stuff :) "Bloody Wilson!!!'"

I love that series. I think the best one is Communication Problems with I know the actress but can't think of her name not Joan Sims she acted that superbly. As Clive James notes in his Observer TV reviews it is just kinda exactly wrong. "He did not just go out to look at the window, he went out the door, back again, into the room, out of the room, then back up the ladder and then fell off". Clive James loved those. You could never remake em now they have kinda achieved such classic status you could never remake them. Joan Sanderson.

Yes, yes madam here is the view. "I expect to sea the sea. When I come to a seaside hotel I expect to see the sea". Yes yes Madam you can see it it is over there between the land and the sky.

What James drily observed was that poor old Fawlty just had the wrong temperament to run a hotel. I don't think this is from Fawlty I think this is just one of mine but I can be the same "this job would be all right if it wasn't for the customers". Si Trew (talk) 21:41, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Yp, she was great. Joan Sanderson "You scabby old bat I'll put a bat up your night dress", also in East of Ipswich I think, playing an old bag of a B&B hostess. Clive James a small genius too, tragic circumstances, wtf him and his wife?! You ever been at work and some bugger says 'the customer is always right'- and you think no, the customer is bloody well wrong! Anyway Trew, got to do important stuff now... watch The Man With the Golden Gun anyway. Take acre! _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 21:57, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Brian Clough

Was tough enough

To turn Notts F

into a byword

The F in Notts F

Stands for Forest

But only in Nottingham.

Do you like my clerihew

Clough was tuff

In the ruff

Off the cuff

And in the buff

Not sure that qualifies! (ironically, like Forest) :p _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 21:50, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Hardcore punk

Hi, a question: Why did you add /readd the Original Research at hardcore punk. There is no such article or such thing as "heavy hardcore". 2603:301B:701:3200:65C1:5119:E95F:B1C8 (talk) 00:00, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Happy New Years since you know Christmas been and done.

Happy New Year!

Hello Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: Did you know ... that back in 1885, Wikipedia editors wrote Good Articles with axes, hammers and chisels? Thank you for your contributions to this encyclopedia using 21st century technology. I hope you don't get any unnecessary blisters. Thought I'd drop by with a template of some sort. Couldn't decide between a trout, an AN/I notice or an indefinite block notice. So I went with the next best thing; that mildly annoying feeling that a slightly too late early "happy holidays" template gives when it's given too late after the fact for the main event holiday, but, made to look like it was just in time for the next one coming. Merry Christmas and Happy New Years FIM, have a good one. Let's be real, my watchlist prompted me. :) Cheers, Mr rnddude (talk) 12:55, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Happy New Year elves}} to send this message

Cheers, Randomator! Having been absent a few weeks, I only would have thanked you and then imediately archived it :o ...which is kinda what I've just been doing!!! Hope it was a good and peaceful time for you and yours though. _{O Fortuna!} ^{...imperatrix mundi.} 13:01, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

I've been around but not too active myself the past week or so. My holidays have been good, just spending time with family. I'd say the usual, but, my family is spread across two hemispheres, three continents, and a bajillion countries so when I say spending time with family I mean anybody on the same continent as me. Skype for everybody else, haha. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:16, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Shame there isn't a template for that eh!  ;) _{O Fortuna!} ^{...imperatrix mundi.} 13:33, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

You were right.

and I was wrong. I think you may know what I'm talking about. You were absolutely correct in your assumptions. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:34, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Cheers User:78.26. Wasn't sure what you were referring to, as haven't edited for a couple of days, but think I've just found what you mean. Connected to a recent AN/I report, perchance? Thanks for your message in any case. Have a good (remainder of a ) weekend! _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 17:03, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

You are as right now as you were then! . 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:05, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Remember the expression, even a stopped clocked is right twice a day! Guess that must be me: appreciate your message mate _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 17:11, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Old stuff

[5]

old

This editor is an
Apprentice Editor
and is entitled to display this Service Badge.

old

Habibur islam 12 and Habibur islam183456 also Habibur islam (Actor)

old

Habibur islam 12 and Habibur islam183456 also Habibur islam (Actor)

Subpages

Subpages of User talk:Serial Number 54129/Archive 6
Serial Number 54129/Archive 6

A Modest Proposal

Taking this ride with a block-evading malcontent ends. Doc talk 08:13, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

A Modest Proposal Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears! I come to bury Wikipedia, not to praise it. Wikipedia has a serious problem, my friends, or to speak frankly, is threatened by an existential crisis which imperils its status as a collection of true knowledge, rather than mere trivia. As anyone with eyes can plainly see, the quality of articles on this once-fine website is rapidly declining; nearly all of the articles that do not wholly consist of episode-by-episode recaps of the author's favorite television programmes or comparisons detailing the precise differences between models of 1950's automobiles have fallen into gross disrepair. When knowledgeable persons and professionals invest hard work into improving the decrepit articles on topics where expertise and a serious amount of background reading are necessary to have anything at all of value to say on a topic, they are invariably chased away by a mob of surly, resentful editors who never quite managed to finish their education, and who substitute for this painful lack by flaunting their admin status and deep knowledge of the arcana of Wikipedia rules, rather than their deep knowledge of the topic at hand. Although the good Jimbo Wales in his infinite wisdom has declared that "Ignore all rules has always been policy here", this statement has obviously been sadly forgotten, as editors' improvements are routinely discarded out of a fetishistic adherence to rules by editors on topics they by no means understand, and have never even successfully finished a single college course in, let alone having possesion of the long years of experience that alone can tell someone what is and is not relevant and representative of current academic consensus. Given that Wikipedia threatens to devolve into a hyperbolically detailed list of Pokemon characters, variant rules of favorite board games, mind-numbing recounting of the minutiae of long-cancelled television programmes, and worthlessly detailed comparisons between automobiles that are no longer produced, I would like to propose a *bold* solution to the impending doom of Wikipedia, a fate which is already reflected in the laughingstock status which Wikipedia already enjoys in scholarly, academic, and policy circles, or other places where serious persons who care about the fate of knowledge congregate. The solution, friends, is this: to continue editing on Wikipedia, all editors must display evidence that they have completed a bachelor’s degree or its equivalent in some area of academic study, or, failing this, demonstrate some other serious evidence of academic achievement and contribution and commitment to the world of knowledge. No one who has not yet finished the meagre requirements of a bachelor’s degree deserves to be editing the world’s compendium of knowledge, and chasing away persons with years more topic experience in the subject at hand in order to sate their petty feelings of ressentiment. This is an extremely minimal requirement that would vastly raise the level of discourse in this place, and make the articles on actually notable topics that are traditionally judged as the reason to have encyclopedias in the first place far more useful to users (hint: traditionally, encyclopedias were not invented in order to spell out all the differences between models of defunct cars, or Pokemon characters, or to recap episodes of the Bachelor). It will also make this place far more hospitable to those who actually have knowledge to share, and will vastly increase its reputational standing in the wider world of knowledge, in which, Wikipedia is currently considered an unmitigated disaster and bad joke. It is hard to get a precise accounting of such things, but judging by the quality of the prose on here, and the level of information which is imparted on the serious, traditionally encyclopedic topics, I would estimate that no more than 10 percent of Wikipedia articles are written by someone who has successfully completed their undergraduate education. This is a tragedy, my friends, given the opportunity to create a truly rigorous and free compendium of knowledge which we have here. Persons who have not yet managed to complete college should demonstrate their commitment to the world of knowledge by fulfilling the requirements of a bachelor’s degree and mastering some subject to at least the undergraduate level in depth, before they are able to edit what purports to be the world’s foremost source and compendium of knowledge. This is by no means too much to ask, and such a policy will serve these editors themselves, who ought to be studying for their college exams, rather than brushing up on their Pokemon, who ought to be penning undergraduate essays rather than Bachelor or Walking Dead recaps, who ought to be learning the inside-out of real fields of knowledge, rather than masturbatorily mastering the intricacies of different models of 1950’s automobiles. It would be quite simple to ask editors to upload a scanned copy of their college diploma before making edits. B.A, B.S. B.F.A, B.B.S, etc, all will be sufficient— I am merely proposing that some evidence of actual interest and serious commitment to knowledge at at least the elementary level be demonstrated before contributions shall be accepted to what claims to be the world’s collection of knowledge. . It is not too late to save Wikipedia, I implore you. The choice rests in your hands: do you wish to demonstrate your allegiance to abstract principles of “inclusivity” to those who do not have the slightest clue about what they are speaking about, or do you wish to make this place the world’s foremost collection of free knowledge, a safe haven for the wise and those who know thereof of which they speak? Thank you for your time friends. I trust you will do the right thing. The fate of Wikipedia-- as a pathetic collection of trivia for intellectual children, or a true and free collection of the world's knowledge --is in your hands. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1017:B419:5D56:8905:B339:1A5A:D8E2 (talk) 17:35, 2 September 2015 (UTC) That is an idea which has been tried and, despite the best efforts of its founders, failed; see Citizendium. Our standards, such as verifiability, no original research, and neutral point of view exist to insure that articles are accurate over the long run without the need for personal qualifications. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:00, 2 September 2015 (UTC) The thesis is demonstrably false, so the rest of it is not even worth reading. The number of featured articles and good articles has increased over time, and continues to increase on a weekly basis. Rather than degrading over time, article quality has increased over time, and continues to do so, inexorably. The standard process of making Wikipedia works as follows: 1) Someone creates a crappy article because they don't know how to make a good one. 2) It sits around a while until 3) Someone who knows better, and cares, makes it good. That is how it worked in 2005, and that's how it still works today. The "oh, woe is us, the sky is falling" bullshit isn't helpful in improving the encyclopedia. If you don't like the quality of any particular article, make it better. Those that are busy doing work should not be bothered by those who merely want to complain about the work that others are doing. --Jayron32 18:05, 2 September 2015 (UTC) ↑ That. There is a genuine issue regarding the number of Wikipedia's articles growing faster than the number of Wikipedia's editors and thus making patrolling and cleanup increasingly difficult, but the "there's nothing valid on Wikipedia" meme has never been valid and becomes steadily less valid. ‑ iridescent 20:08, 2 September 2015 (UTC) My thesis on the weak grasp of the ancient arts of logical reasoning, reading comprehension, and verbal argument by Wikipedians has just been borne out in dramatic form. Need I say anything more when such obvious examples of logical fallacies and failure to comprehend written text have just been graphically provided? For all of your sakes, I will attempt to do so all the same. Perhaps I was not sufficiently clear. The articles which Wikipedia contains providing minute episode recaps on the latest zany antics of the Kardashians, or Walking Dead, or explaining the characteristics of particular Pokemon, or the detailed features of and options available for certain models of Cars, are indeed exquisite examples of what they are, stuffed full of accurate information, and are the creme de la creme of the Internet on such topics. Unfortunately, it is a significant stretch to say that such articles constitute encyclopedic content at all, and such bears virtually no relation to the traditional mission of encyclopedias, which quite obviously is to collect significant knowledge on topics of perennial interest to mankind, rather than to serve as a highly accurate garbage dump of all the world's trivia. The fact that you draw a line at including information on "my friend's band" or "my high school debate team" or the "comic book I wrote" does not in any way solve the problem, since highly detailed entries on individual Pokemon characters and out-of-production automobiles and Bachelor-recaps were certainly not what Diderot had in mind in creating the Encyclopedia. Since such pointless articles, no matter how accurate, never constitute meaningful knowledge, but rather are the epistemic equivalents of pseudo-foods like cotton candy and jelly beans, such articles, no matter how accurate, never actually contribute one whit to the value of an encyclopedia. QED. The vast majority of Wikipedia is constituted by such non-encylopedic, frankly sophomoric drivel, ergo the cited statistics have no relevance or meaning, unless you were attempting to build the world's largest collection of meaningless, valueless trivia. Improving the accuracy of such articles is a pointless task that has nothing to do with knowledge, if language is not being abused. Again such epistemically valueless articles constitute, numerically, the majority of Wikipedia's content. It would be surprising if there were not more reality show episode recaps than all of the philosophy articles on here put together. No matter the percentage of "accuracy" such articles obtain, their contribution to knowledge and the original and proper aims of a collection of all knowledge, or an encyclopedia, remains zero, for, as some of you may be aware, any number multiplied by zero remains zero. So much for your bloated, laughable claims of accuracy. Now, as for the articles which have any right to exist, and which do not amount to the sheer pissing away of time by both writer and reader, which treat subjects that are indeed properly called knowledge and which actually ought to be in an encyclopedia, Wikipedia's accuracy is obviously in terminal decline. Why is this? The answer is obvious: the number of editors who primarily confine themselves to "contributing" to the worthless detritus on models of cars, or particular comic books, or TV episodes, or Pokemon characters vastly outnumbers the number of contributors to reasonable articles in the Natural Sciences, the Arts, the Humanities, Geography, Economics, Philosophy, the Human Sciences, Law, Politics, Technology, Mathematics-- you know, all of the articles which one might have thought it was the role of an encyclopedia to represent the current state of knowledge on. And yet, such articles are in a laughable state of disrepair because sadly ignorant editors, flush from their latest "triumph" in getting their board game variant or Pokemon character article to "good article" status, ignorantly chase away the only people with any hope of contributing to the articles that represent the only reason for spending one's time in constructing or reading an encyclopedia in the first place; i.e. they chase away those people who have an education and what such provides, namely, knowledge, rather than those poor souls who instead content themselves with their possesion of disconnected facts which amount to mere, worthless trivia on which they have wasted their brain and one life. Please have a look for yourselves at what a real encyclopedic article looks like on any of Wikipedia's competitors, such as Scholarpedia, or SEP, or IEP, and then compare it to the corresponding Wikipedia article and you will concur with me that the entirety of Wikipedia ought to be nominated for speedy deletion; given that, of any article on here, it is either a gross distortion of scholarly consensus on the topic at hand, written largely by persons with a high school education and no first hand knowledge of the topic on which they write, or it is a mere compendia of valueless trivia that has no rights to inclusion in any encyclopedia worthy of the name. Perhaps if you reject this proposal, you will accept my second one, that Wikipedia be renamed "Triviapedia" for its dogged focus on what is worthless to know and its astonishing over-valuation of the opinions and contributions of the ignorant, and its open hatred of real, costly expertise or knowledge of any kind. Thanks for reading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.199.71.146 (talk) 21:12, 2 September 2015 (UTC) As an addendum, Jayron gives voice to the common canard that the "quality" and "number of good articles" has increased "inexorably" over time. Unfortunately, such statistics are meaningless without further interpretation; namely, without some measure of how relevant the articles in question are to the mission of encyclopedias, namely collecting all notable and significant knowledge. One can "inexorably" increase the number of good articles about Pokemon and 1950's automobiles and reality show episode recaps to one's heart content; this hardly an encyclopedia makes. Is there, for example, even one good article on a philosopher in this entire encyclopedia? Even by your own intellectually worthless standards, which bear no correlation to scholarly standards for knowledge in the world at large, surely not. If I am wrong, please direct me to any "good articles" on an important philosopher. Without even checking, I am absolutely sure there are none. The presence of 1000 "superb" Pokemon articles is not going to make up for the absolute and utter failure to produce any good articles on any matter of substance that the knowledge-producing world outside Wikipedia would count as real knowledge, friends. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.199.71.146 (talk) 21:19, 2 September 2015 (UTC) Please, I beg-- can anyone direct me to even one single "top-importance" philosophy article that has current "good article" status? As a reminder, I am not looking for, nor am I concerned with, how many Pokemon have good articles associated with them, as Jayron with the best of intentions but unhelpfully pointed me towards. Rather, I am looking for a single Top-importance philosophy article that you yourselves have rated as good. This should be easy, given that you have had 10 years to achieve this goal, and I am told, the quality of articles on here, improves "inexorably" and that my thesis is "demonstrably false." You will never have a real encyclopedia if you cannot produce good articles on matters of substance, rather than worthless trivia. Please direct me to any important good article within Philosophy, if I am mistaken, and there are as many good important philosophy articles as there are good articles on the author's most beloved TV episodes, or board game variants, for which I am laughably told that "good articles inexorably improve over time" with no attention to whether the topic in question has any business in an encyclopedia or being called knowledge to begin with. Be well, my friends. Finally, since Iridiscent seems to have no comprehension of what I wrote at all, let me spell it out in the clearest possible terms: I am not repeating a "meme" (as a note, the use of this word is almost always an indication that the author has no idea what he is talking about on the topic in question-- Dawkins uses the word, but whatever his merits as a biologist which I have no desire to dispute, he has almost no knowledge of human culture, and I cannot think of a single Historian, Anthropologist, or Sociologist who regards the "meme" concept as useful in describing human ideas or thought) that "nothing on Wikipedia is valid" but am instead saying that almost everything that is "valid" on Wikipedia has no business at all being in an encyclopedia, as it constitutes mere trivia rather than knowledge; and everything on Wikipedia that traditionally belongs in an encyclopedia (and which is covered by its competitors) has almost no validity, and reads as though it is the spirited attempt of a middle school class project. Clear enough for you? I expect I shall be waiting a rather long time for one of you to point me towards that mythical beast, namely, a good Wikipedia article on any high-importance Philosophy topic, given that the rapidly formed pitchfork mobs of angry plebeians almost immediately chase away and banish anyone who has actually studied the subject from this place. Adieu. You want high quality articles on philosophy? Ask and you shall receive. Wikipedia has 12 featured articles classified under "Philosophy and psychology" including such figures Hilary Putnam and Bernard Williams. Wikipedia also has 394 good articles classified under "Philosophy and religion" including articles such as Agnosticism, Cynicism (philosophy), and Max Weber. You can find the list here. Of course these numbers exclude people who are primarily classified under other topics. For comparison, there are only three good articles on Pokemon. All featured and good articles have passed peer review processes and you can find more information about that here. Winner 42 Talk to me! 22:44, 2 September 2015 (UTC) Here's a list from the Philosophy project: Philosophy of mind, Anekantavada, Archimedes, Atheism, Bernard Williams, Emma Goldman, Hilary Putnam, History of evolutionary thought, Problem of religious language, Agnosticism, Albert Einstein, Alfred North Whitehead, Anarchism, Chrysippus, Conscience, Consciousness, Eliminative materialism, Galileo Galilei, I Ching, Isaac Newton, Jerry Fodor , Kantian ethics, Karl Marx , Laozi, Mahatma Gandhi, Max Weber, Menocchio, Stoicism, Sun Tzu, Swami Vivekananda, Taoism, Teleological argument, The Renaissance, Upanishads, Zhuangzi (book) We should probably include B-Class articles, as well, which would give us a lot more. --Boson (talk) 00:26, 3 September 2015 (UTC) At first, I was tempted to follow WP:Do not feed the trolls and not even comment here, but something needs to be said about this elitist view: This proposal would prohibit articles by numerous successful people. Here are just a few that came immediately to mind (some of the folks on this list are deceased, but I'm using them to be a bit pointy): Abraham Lincoln (self taught, former US President); Andrew Jackson (another self-taught former US President); Benjamin Franklin (home schooled and self-taught); Amadeo Peter Giannini (high school dropout, founded Bank of America); JR Simplot (8th grade dropout, multi-billionaire Idaho potato farmer); Ansel Adams (high school dropout, world famous painter); David Karp (high school dropout, founded Tumblr); Harlan Sanders (elementary school dropout, earned law degree via correspondence courses, founded KFC); Frank Lloyd Wright (never attended high school, architect). I think that given a few days to research, I could probably come up with hundreds of notable people who do not have formal degrees. This idea would prohibit the next Benjamin Franklin or Frank Lloyd Write from contributing to Wikipedia. If the anonymous editor who made this "modest proposal" really wants to see articles improved, then I respectfully suggest writing said improved articles him- or herself, and quit wasting time reading about fictional characters and esoteric features of long-since discontinued automobiles. Oh, and for the record, this counts as Oppose for the reasons stated. Etamni | ✉ | ✓  01:06, 3 September 2015 (UTC) Additional comment: Anyone can buy a diploma from a diploma mill, and often, so-called "replacement" diplomas are available from the same sources. Such services don't verify the person's credentials, they just print a diploma with any information requested by the customer. This proposal would be a minor boon to such businesses, but would be unlikely to improve the articles on Wikipedia, and would give the boot to many productive editors. Etamni | ✉ | ✓  In summation: Good content is good content; it doesn't matter who produces it. It doesn't stop being good because the person who wrote it didn't have a particular degree, and crap content doesn't magically become good because the person who created has any particular degree. Content is judged of its own accords, according to measurable standards of quality. It doesn't really matter who made it. - -Jayron32 02:55, 3 September 2015 (UTC) Thank you for your excellent replies, my esteemed colleagues. I am pleased that at least one of you caught my modest proposal reference. And while I had expected to have names like Jobs, Zuckerburg, and Gates thrown my way, surely Franklin, Lincoln, and Wright are good company for anyone and would have made fine encyclopedists as well. Perhaps then I ought to put the central point somewhat differently, as I fear it has been obscured by my attempt at Juvenalian satire. Because I am so kind, and love serving Truth so greatly, I have undertaken a small bit of research in service of our mutually shared end, of improving the world's store of real knowledge. The little experiment I conducted was this: does Wikipedia have more pages on philosophers or more pages on reality show participants? I used List of American philosophers and Category: Participants in American reality television series as proxies for the larger group, which I hope no one will object to. Sadly for us all, there are 1202 unclassified American Reality Show Participant articles, a|nd another 1136 in subcategories, making a total of 2338 Wikipedia pages on that crucial encyclopedic entity, American reality show participants. (Mind you, I haven't counted the shows themselves, nor the "season recaps" or "episode recaps" or any of the other related bullshit on here, masquerading as knowledge. Merely the individuals notable enough to be deserving of their own pages themselves, authored by some of our hard-working colleagues on here.) By comparison there are a total of 614 American Philosophers, and the list includes some persons whose inclusion as either philosophers, or Americans, is shall we say, rather generous. Q.E.D. Thanks for playing, friends. Wholly irrelevant. We have articles generally in proportion to the subjects that our writers find interesting. If we have more writers who like reality TV than philosophy, that's not ipso facto the fault of the system. If your goal is to eliminate articles on subjects you personally deem unencyclopedic, then eliminating editors without proper credentials may accomplish that. If it is your goal to increase the number of articles on topics you deem encyclopedic, well, I am utterly unconvinced this will accomplish it. You seem to believe that there are just hoards of expert editors who would have written for Wikipedia but were chased away by uneducated jerks. I think you'll find that some of our finest and most cooperative writers have no formal education in the areas they write about, and many of the biggest assholes to grace the site edit entirely within their field of expertise, and have done a very good job chasing people away. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:37, 3 September 2015 (UTC) Perhaps you misunderstand the concept of relevance, because it is quite relevant. As the Jonathan Swift reference was supposed to indicate, the proposed solution was not meant (entirely) seriously, although the diagnosis is deadly serious. To make it absolutely clear: having 2300 pages on American reality show participants shows clearly to anyone with any intellectual seriousness, whether they are self-taught or not, that Wikipedia is not a place for serious people and is not a real encyclopedia, but has become a sad farce. I could name hundreds of renowned American scholars with numerous books to their credit who aren't covered here, but you somehow seek to think that every god-forsaken attention-seeking narcissist who has ever prostituted themselves publicly on reality TV is deserving of their own page (and that despite this, Wikipedia is still deserving of being called an encylopedia, rather than, say, a garbage dump.) And the example is only of many I could have used. The truly tragic amount of loving careful attention lavished upon the "list of Pokemon chars" page ought to alone demonstrate to anyone with eyes that Wikipedia has clearly failed at being a real encylopedia. Don't believe me? Look at literally any other encylopedia, online or print or whatever. An encyclopedia is supposed to collect significant knowledge. Knowledge is not made by reality television show participants, nor does a collection of facts about these persons constitute notable or significant knowledge in any meaningful sense. Bachelor recaps are not contributions to the world's store of knowledge, no matter how high a percentage of Wikipedia editors just love the bachelor. Wikipedia's apparent criteria for notability or significance make it an absolute laughingstock in the circles it has pretensions to run in, I.e, the world of knowledge, rather than the world of trivia. You actually actively support the presence of 2300 pages on American reality show participants alone , and call that encyclopedic? You, friend, are a lost cause then. It is too late for you and I speak to those others whose minds have not been sadly ruined so into thinking reality show participants mark a "notable" or "significant" category in nature, or category in anything. Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1017:B423:943:704A:1DCA:6C37:DC9A (talk) 05:49, 3 September 2015 (UTC) You make the mistake of implicitly thinking there are only 614 American philosopher articles because there are 2300 American reality show participant articles. In fact, there's no linkage - that displays thinking that's applicable to a "paper" encyclopedia which has to be finite. A page on something worthless means that's a page less for something worthwhile. For Wikipedia, one does not limit or impact on the other. If there were no American reality show participant articles there would still be only 614 American philosopher articles. DeCausa (talk) 05:59, 3 September 2015 (UTC) This is an interesting reply, but it suffers from several problems. One, the time of Wikipedia editors is finite. Editors posting excruciatingly detailed recaps of The Apprentice and board game variants played by their friends cannot use that time to post anything on articles that have even some legitimate claim on being in an encylopedia--politics, technology, math, history, arts, science, philosophy, social sciences, religion, psychology, and so on. Two, and more seriously, if reality television/Pokemon editors come to numerically dominate Wikipedia, as undoubtedly and demonstrably they have, then Wikiepdia's entire reliance on consensus is broken, because this swarm of plebs drowns out the real voices looking to contribute to articles of substance that have some claim to be in an encylopedia, some claim on being KNOWLEDGE in the first place, who find their contributions quickly deleted by know-nothing editors and admins who have been falsely elevated because they authored many pointless articles that do not educate anyone on anything worth being educated about and that cannot be called knowledge without abuse of language. Thanks for the counterpoint. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1017:B423:943:704A:1DCA:6C37:DC9A (talk) 06:17, 3 September 2015 (UTC) Again, you're thinking in "book" terms. The articles on Pokemon can't "drown out" articles related to the French Wars of Religion (say) as they might in paper form. If I'm interested in the French Wars of Religion and look it and related articles up I won't even be aware that Pokemon-related articles exist. It's not apparent what the "balance" is - you have to look hard to discover it. The same applies if I want to edit French Wars of Religion articles. There is a fallacy in your post if only thee editors weren't wasting their time on Pokemon, then articles x, y, z would be better. It's fanciful that there is such a crossover of interests. There's a hygiene factor in deleting non-notable articles, but essentially there is no connection between "what there is" and "what there isn't" in Wikipedia. DeCausa talk) 07:08, 3 September 2015 (UTC) Wikipedia should aim to be accessible to a wide range of the general public. According to readability-score.com, our article Charles Darwin is written at a grade level of about 11.6, or roughly high-school graduate in the U.S. Your writing in this thread gets a 16.0, and it's unlikely you are able to adjust your writing level downward when you write for article content. I'm not an expert on the subject, but that site says, "Text to be read by the general public should aim for a grade level of around 8." That seems low to me — I try to write at what I believe to be a grade 10 level — but I think it's fair to say that 11.6 is a lot better for Wikipedia's mission than 16.0. For the Flesch-Kincaid Raading Ease score given on that site, in which a higher number means better readability, Charles Darwin gets 46.9 and your writing gets 31.4. Good Wikipedia editing, then, is about far more than education, and, in fact, too much education can be bad for Wikipedia content. The less educated among us are necessary to keep the reading level well below 16.0. By the way, I have only a smattering of formal education above high school level. As for the abundance of pap content, it's one of many sad commentaries on the intelligence of the general public (or their use of their intelligence), but it does not get in the way of better content at Wikipedia. WMF's servers are not lacking for space or bandwidth as far as I know. If that stuff passes WP:N, that's good enough for me. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:13, 3 September 2015 (UTC) (My comments above get grade level 6.6, so much for aiming for grade 10. They also get a FKRE score of 70.9.) ―Mandruss ☎ 08:21, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

old

Parrhesiast DECLAIMS

Kingshowman Kingshowman (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) Populated account categories: confirmed · suspected Older archives were moved to an archive of the archive because of the page size and are listed below: Sockpuppet investigations/Kingshowman/Archive/1 For archived investigations, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kingshowman/Archive. A long-term abuse case exists at Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Kingshowman. Please note that a case was originally opened under Archive 6 (talk · contribs) but has been moved to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kingshowman. Future cases should be placed under Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kingshowman. Old stuff 07 September 2015 Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive280#Motion:_Carl_Hewitt_unbanned_with_restrictions – This SPI case is closed and will be archived shortly by an SPI clerk or checkuser. old Suspected sockpuppets SuperFriendlyEditor (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) Parrhesiast (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) old User compare report Auto-generated every hour. Editor interaction utility SuperFriendlyEditor was indefinitely blocked by Diannaa on 5 September 2015 for abusing multiple accounts (the user's block log is visible here). Prior to being blocked, SuperFriendlyEditor expressed an interest in expanding the lead of the Sigmund Freud article, in a comment visible here. Parrhesiast, an account that was created and started editing only a day after SuperFriendlyEditor was indefinitely blocked, has expanded the lead of the Freud article, as visible in its revision history; his edits there seem to follow on directly from SuperFriendlyEditor's interests. Parrhesiast tends to use long, bombastic edit summaries that remind me of SuperFriendlyEditor. However, the strongest evidence that Parrhesiast is the same user as SuperFriendlyEditor comes from his comments about the lead of the Martin Heidegger article. SuperFriendlyEditor drastically increased the length of that article's lead, and edit warred to reinstate his changes after they were reverted. Parrhesiast left a lengthy comment about the lead of the Heidegger article at User:Rothorpe's talk page, visible here. See especially his observation, "I have tried to salvage some of the lead that was attempted to replace it, while cutting it down in length." Rothorpe did not seem to be in any doubt that Parrhesiast and SuperFriendlyEditor are the same user; he commented, "That's just the latest version of User:SuperFriendlyEditor's overlong and complex suggestion, just as "Parrhesiast" is his latest pseudonym." See also my conversation with Parrhesiast at his talk page, where he first claims not to be a sock and then de facto admits to sockpuppetry, treating the entire thing as a game. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:16, 7 September 2015 (UTC) Comments by other users Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims. Rant by Parrhesia The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. Parrhesia is an Ancient Greek word meaning free, fearless speech, or bold, courageous truth-telling. A Parrhesiast, then, is one who freely and courageously speaks the truth to those in power, bravely and openly at risk to themselves, freely and boldly telling the truth up to the point of death. A Parrhesiast is the fearlessly courageous, boldly free-speaking, risky truth-teller who openly welcomes every manner of danger, including death, in service of The Truth, his only real master. A Parrhesiast is the slave of no man, the flatterer of no Kings, a Partisan of no side but the side of Truth, Justice, and Knowledge, the dangerous truth-teller willing to pay the ultimate price and go to his grave so that the Truth may be told, that Knowledge may triumph, even at the cost of his own Death. I am the Parrhesiast. Greetings. And how far down this rabbit-hole do you wish to go, my friend? What, pray tell, would you do if you were to find out that not only am I a mere servant of that great human being SuperFriendlyEditor, but SuperFriendlyEditor himself was but the mere servant of an even greater, more noble individual, the inimitable KingShowman? What, then, my friend? Fearlessly speaking the truth to Power up to the point of Death, the Parrhesiast signs out. Verily, do you not call me Parrhesiastes now, now that I have taken the hemlock in service of Truth? To all my loyal readers and beloved friends at Wikipedia, I bid you a final farewell and adieu. We owe a cock to Ascelipus, CrIto. Do not forget. Do not forget the cock, my dear Crito! What kind of a citizen would I be if I grew up under the protection of the Laws of Noble Athens, and then when she condemns me for corruption of the youth, I tried to evade my punishment? Do not try to convince me any longer to escape. I shall hear none of it. I shall drink the hemlock as you fine noble Athenians insist. But do not forget the cock, my dear Crito! And so it came to pass that the feckless Athenians killed off their wisest, noblest, bravest citizen, the much-loved Parrhesiast, led by the bloodthirsty and poorly-named plebeian FreeKnowledgeCreator. This fearless death in service of the Truth borne by the wisest citizen of Athens, the Parrhesiast, shall be a tale that will be re-told for all time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Parrhesiast (talk • contribs) 15:00, 7 September 2015 (UTC) I know not, O Athenians! how far you have been influenced by my accusers for my part, in listening to them I almost forgot myself, so plausible were their arguments however, so to speak, they have said nothing true. But of the many falsehoods which they uttered I wondered at one of them especially, that in which they said that you ought to be on your guard lest you should be deceived by me, as being eloquent in speech. For that they are not ashamed of being forthwith convicted by me in fact, when I shall show that I am not by any means eloquent, this seemed to me the most shameless thing in them, unless indeed they call him eloquent who speaks the truth. For, if they mean this, then I would allow that I am an orator, but not after their fashion for they, as I affirm, have said nothing true, but from me you shall hear the whole truth. Not indeed, Athenians, arguments highly wrought, as theirs were, with choice phrases and expressions, nor adorned, but you shall hear a speech uttered without premeditation in such words as first present themselves. For I am confident that what I say will be just, and let none of you expect otherwise, for surely it would not become my time of life to come before you like a youth with a got up speech. Above all things, therefore, I beg and implore this of you, O Athenians! if you hear me defending myself in the same language as that in which I am accustomed to speak both in the forum at the counters, where many of you have heard me, and elsewhere, not to be surprised or disturbed on this account. For the case is this: I now for the first time come before a court of justice, though more than seventy years old; I am therefore utterly a stranger to the language here. As, then, if I were really a stranger, you would have pardoned me if I spoke in the language and the manner in which I had been educated, so now I ask this of you as an act of justice, as it appears to me, to disregard the manner of my speech, for perhaps it may be somewhat worse, and perhaps better, and to consider this only, and to give your attention to this, whether I speak what is just or not; for this is the virtue of a judge, but of an orator to speak the truth. 2. First, then, O Athenians! I am right in defending myself against the first false accusations alleged against me, and my first accusers, and then against the latest accusations, and the latest accusers. For many have been accusers of me to you, and for many years, who have asserted nothing true, of whom I am more afraid than of Anytus and his party, although they too are formidable; but those are still more formidable, Athenians, who, laying hold of many of you from childhood, have persuaded you, and accused me of what is not true: "that there is one Socrates, a wise man, who occupies himself about celestial matters, and has explored every thing under the earth, and makes the worse appear the better reason." Those, O Athenians! who have spread abroad this report are my formidable accusers; for they who hear them think that such as search into these things do not believe that there are gods. In the next place, these accusers are numerous, and have accused me now for a long time; moreover, they said these things to you at that time of life in which you were most credulous, when you were boys and some of you youths, and they accused me altogether in my absence, when there was no one to defend me. But the most unreasonable thing of all is, that it is not possible to learn and mention their names, except that one of them happens to be a comic poet.1 Such, however, as, influenced by envy and calumny, have persuaded you, and those who, being themselves persuaded, have persuaded others, all these are most difficult to deal with; for it is not possible to bring any of them forward here, nor to confute any; but it is altogether necessary to fight, as it were with a shadow, in making my defense, and to convict when there is no one to answer. Consider, therefore, as I have said, that my accusers are twofold, some who have lately accused me, and others long since, whom I have made mention of; and believe that I ought to defend myself against these first; for you heard them accusing me first, and much more than these last. Well. I must make my defense, then, O Athenians! and endeavor in this so short a space of time to remove from your minds the calumny which you have long entertained. I wish, indeed, it might be so, if it were at all better both for you and me, and that in making my defense I could effect something more advantageous still: I think, however, that it will be difficult, and I am not entirely ignorant what the difficulty is. Nevertheless, let this turn out as may be pleasing to God, I must obey the law and make my defense. 3. Let us, then, repeat from the beginning what the accusation is from which the calumny against me has arisen, and relying on which Melitus has preferred this indictment against me. Well. What, then, do they who charge me say in their charge? For it is necessary to read their deposition as of public accusers. "Socrates acts wickedly, and is criminally curious in searching into things under the earth, and in the heavens, and in making the worse appear the better cause, and in teaching these same things to others." Such is the accusation: for such things you have yourselves seen in the comedy of Aristophanes, one Socrates there carried about, saying that he walks in the air, and acting many other buffooneries, of which I understand nothing whatever. Nor do I say this as disparaging such a science, if there be any one skilled in such things, only let me not be prosecuted by Melitus on a charge of this kind; but I say it, O Athenians! because I have nothing to do with such matters. And I call upon most of you as witnesses of this, and require you to inform and tell each other, as many of you as have ever heard me conversing; and there are many such among you. Therefore tell each other, if any one of you has ever heard me conversing little or much on such subjects. And from this you will know that other things also, which the multitude assert of me, are of a similar nature. 4. However not one of these things is true; nor, if you have heard from any one that I attempt to teach men, and require payment, is this true. Though this, indeed, appears to me to be an honorable thing, if one should be able to instruct men, like Gorgias the Leontine, Prodicus the Cean, and Hippias the Elean. For each of these, O Athenians! is able, by going through the several cities, to persuade the young men, who can attach themselves gratuitously to such of their own fellow-citizens as they please, to abandon their fellow-citizens and associate with them, giving them money and thanks besides. There is also another wise man here, a Parian, who, I hear, is staying in the city. For I happened to visit a person who spends more money on the sophists than all others together: I mean Callias, son of Hipponicus. I therefore asked him, for he has two sons, "Callias," I said, "if your two sons were colts or calves, we should have had to choose a master for them, and hire a person who would make them excel in such qualities as belong to their nature; and he would have been a groom or an agricultural laborer. But now, since your sons are men, what master do you intend to choose for them? Who is there skilled in the qualities that become a man and a citizen? For I suppose you must have considered this, since you have sons. Is there any one," I said, "or not?" "Certainly," he answered. "Who is he?" said I, "and whence does he come? and on what terms does he teach?" He replied, "Evenus the Parian, Socrates, for five minæ." And I deemed Evenus happy, if he really possesses this art, and teaches admirably. And I too should think highly of myself, and be very proud, if I possessed this knowledge, but I possess it not, O Athenians. 5. Perhaps, one of you may now object: "But, Socrates, what have you done, then? Whence have these calumnies against you arisen? For surely if you had not busied yourself more than others, such a report and story would never have got abroad, unless you had done something different from what most men do. Tell us, therefore, what it is, that we may not pass a hasty judgment on you." He who speaks thus appears to me to speak justly, and I will endeavor to show you what it is that has occasioned me this character and imputation. Listen, then: to some of you perhaps I shall appear to jest, yet be assured that I shall tell you the whole truth. For I, O Athenians! have acquired this character through nothing else than a certain wisdom. Of what kind, then, is this wisdom? Perhaps it is merely human wisdom. For in this, in truth, I appear to be wise. They probably, whom I have just now mentioned, possessed a wisdom more than human, otherwise I know not what to say about it; for I am not acquainted with it, and whosoever says I am, speaks falsely, and for the purpose of calumniating me. But, O Athenians! do not cry out against me, even though I should seem to you to speak somewhat arrogantly. For the account which I am going to give you is not my own; but I shall refer to an authority whom you will deem worthy of credit. For I shall adduce to you the god at Delphi as a witness of my wisdom, if I have any, and of what it is. You doubtless know Chærepho: he was my associate from youth, and the associate of most of you; he accompanied you in your late exile, and returned with you. You know, then, what kind of a man Chærepho was, how earnest in whatever he undertook. Having once gone to Delphi, he ventured to make the following inquiry of the oracle (and, as I said, O Athenians! do not cry out), for he asked if there was any one wiser than I. The Pythian thereupon answered that there was not one wiser; and of this, his brother here will give you proofs, since he himself is dead. 6. Consider, then, why I mention these things: it is because I am going to show you whence the calumny against me arose. For when I heard this, I reasoned thus with myself, What does the god mean? What enigma is this? For I am not conscious to myself that I am wise, either much or little. What, then, does he mean by saying that I am the wisest? For assuredly he does not speak falsely: that he could not do. And for a long time I was in doubt what he meant; afterward, with considerable difficulty, I had recourse to the following method of searching out his meaning. I went to one of those who have the character of being wise, thinking that there, if anywhere, I should confute the oracle, and show in answer to the response that This man is wiser than I, though you affirmed that I was the wisest. Having, then, examined this man (for there is no occasion to mention his name; he was, however, one of our great politicians, in examining whom I felt as I proceed to describe, O Athenians!), having fallen into conversation with him, this man appeared to be wise in the opinion of most other men, and especially in his own opinion, though in fact he was not so. I thereupon endeavored to show him that he fancied himself to be wise, but really was not. Hence I became odious, both to him and to many others who were present. When I left him, I reasoned thus with myself: I am wiser than this man, for neither of us appears to know anything great and good; but he fancies he knows something, although he knows nothing; whereas I, as I do not know anything, so I do not fancy I do. In this trifling particular, then, I appear to be wiser than he, because I do not fancy I know what I do not know. After that I went to another who was thought to be wiser than the former, and formed the very same opinion. Hence I became odious to him and to many others. 7. After this I went to others in turn, perceiving indeed, and grieving and alarmed, that I was making myself odious; however, it appeared necessary to regard the oracle of the god as of the greatest moment, and that, in order to discover its meaning, I must go to all who had the reputation of possessing any knowledge. And by the dog, O Athenians! for I must tell you the truth, I came to some such conclusion as this: those who bore the highest reputation appeared to me to be most deficient, in my researches in obedience to the god, and others who were considered inferior more nearly approaching to the possession of understanding. But I must relate to you my wandering, and the labors which I underwent, in order that the oracle might prove incontrovertible. For after the politicians I went to the poets, as well the tragic as the dithyrambic and others, expecting that here I should in very fact find myself more ignorant than they. Taking up, therefore, some of their poems, which appeared to me most elaborately finished, I questioned them as to their meaning, that at the same time I might learn something from them. I am ashamed, O Athenians! to tell you the truth; however, it must be told. For, in a word, almost all who were present could have given a better account of them than those by whom they had been composed. I soon discovered this, therefore, with regard to the poets, that they do not effect their object by wisdom, but by a certain natural inspiration, and under the influence of enthusiasm, like prophets and seers; for these also say many fine things, but they understand nothing that they say. The poets appeared to me to be affected in a similar manner; and at the same time I perceived that they considered themselves, on account of their poetry, to be the wisest of men in other things, in which they were not. I left them, therefore, under the persuasion that I was superior to them, in the same way that I was to the politicians. 8. At last, therefore, I went to the artisans. For I was conscious to myself that I knew scarcely anything, but I was sure that I should find them possessed of much beautiful knowledge. And in this I was not deceived; for they knew things which I did not, and in this respect they were wiser than I. But, O Athenians! even the best workmen appeared to me to have fallen into the same error as the poets; for each, because he excelled in the practice of his art, thought that he was very wise in other most important matters, and this mistake of theirs obscured the wisdom that they really possessed. I therefore asked myself, in behalf of the oracle, whether I should prefer to continue as I am, possessing none, either of their wisdom or their ignorance, or to have both as they have. I answered, therefore, to myself and to the oracle, that it was better for me to continue as I am. 9. From this investigation, then, O Athenians! many enmities have arisen against me, and those the most grievous and severe, so that many calumnies have sprung from them, and among them this appellation of being wise; for those who are from time to time present think that I am wise in those things, with respect to which I expose the ignorance of others. The god, however, O Athenians! appears to be really wise, and to mean this by his oracle: that human wisdom is worth little or nothing; and it is clear that he did not say this to Socrates, but made use of my name, putting me forward as an example, as if he had said, that man is the wisest among you, who, like Socrates, knows that he is in reality worth nothing with respect to wisdom. Still, therefore, I go about and search and inquire into these things, in obedience to the god, both among citizens and strangers, if I think any one of them is wise; and when he appears to me not to be so, I take the part of the god, and show that he is not wise. And, in consequence of this occupation, I have no leisure to attend in any considerable degree to the affairs of the state or my own; but I am in the greatest poverty through my devotion to the service of the god. 10. In addition to this, young men, who have much leisure and belong to the wealthiest families, following me of their own accord, take great delight in hearing men put to the test, and often imitate me, and themselves attempt to put others to the test; and then, I think, they find a great abundance of men who fancy they know something, although they know little or nothing. Hence those who are put to the test by them are angry with me, and not with them, and say that "there is one Socrates, a most pestilent fellow, who corrupts the youth." And when any one asks them by doing or teaching what, they have nothing to say, for they do not know; but, that they may not seem to be at a loss, they say such things as are ready at hand against all philosophers; "that he searches into things in heaven and things under the earth, that he does not believe there are gods, and that he makes the worse appear the better reason." For they would not, I think, be willing to tell the truth that they have been detected in pretending to possess knowledge, whereas they know nothing. Therefore, I think, being ambitions and vehement and numerous, and speaking systematically and persuasively about me, they have filled your ears, for a long time and diligently calumniating me. From among these, Melitus, Anytus and Lycon have attacked me; Melitus being angry on account of the poets, Anytus on account of the artisans and politicians, and Lycon on account of the rhetoricians. So that, as I said in the beginning, I should wonder if I were able in so short a time to remove from your minds a calumny that has prevailed so long. This, O Athenians! is the truth; and I speak it without concealing or disguising anything from you, much or little; though I very well know that by so doing I shall expose myself to odium. This, however, is a proof that I speak the truth, and that this is the nature of the calumny against me, and that these are its causes. And if you will investigate the matter, either now or hereafter, you will find it to be so. 11. With respect, then, to the charges which my first accusers have alleged against me, let this be a sufficient apology to you. To Melitus, that good and patriotic man, as he says, and to my later accusers, I will next endeavor to give an answer; and here, again, as there are different accusers, let us take up their deposition. It is pretty much as follows: "Socrates," it says, "acts unjustly in corrupting the youth, and in not believing in those gods in whom the city believes, but in other strange divinities." Such is the accusation; let us examine each particular of it. It says that I act unjustly in corrupting the youth. But I, O Athenians! say that Melitus acts unjustly, because he jests on serious subjects, rashly putting men upon trial, under pretense of being zealous and solicitous about things in which he never at any time took any concern. But that this is the case I will endeavor to prove to you. 12. Come, then, Melitus, tell me, do you not consider it of the greatest importance that the youth should be made as virtuous as possible? Mel. I do. Socr. Well, now, tell the judges who it is that makes them better, for it is evident that you know, since it concerns you so much; for, having detected me in corrupting them, as you say, you have cited me here, and accused me: come, then, say, and inform the judges who it is that makes them better. Do you see, Melitus, that you are silent, and have nothing to say? But does it not appear to you to be disgraceful, and a sufficient proof of what I say, that you never took any concern about the matter? But tell me, friend, who makes them better? Mel. The laws. Socr. I do not ask this, most excellent sir, but what man, who surely must first know this very thing, the laws? Mel. These, Socrates, the judges. Socr. How say you, Melitus? Are these able to instruct the youth, and make them better? Mel. Certainly. Socr. Whether all, or some of them, and others not? Mel. All. Socr. You say well, by Juno! and have found a great abundance of those that confer benefit. But what further? Can these hearers make them better, or not? Mel. They, too, can. Socr. And what of the senators? Mel. The senators, also. Socr. But, Melitus, do those who attend the public assemblies corrupt the younger men? or do they all make them better? Mel. They too. Socr. All the Athenians, therefore, as it seems, make them honorable and good, except me; but I alone corrupt them. Do you say so? Mel. I do assert this very thing. Socr. You charge me with great ill-fortune. But answer me: does it appear to you to be the same, with respect to horses? Do all men make them better, and is there only some one that spoils them? or does quite the contrary of this take place? Is there some one person who can make them better, or very few; that is, the trainers? But if the generality of men should meddle with and make use of horses, do they spoil them? Is not this the case, Melitus, both with respect to horses and all other animals? It certainly is so, whether you and Anytus deny it or not. For it would be a great good-fortune for the youth if only one person corrupted, and the rest benefited them. However, Melitus, you have sufficiently shown that you never bestowed any care upon youth; and you clearly evince your own negligence, in that you have never paid any attention to the things with respect to which you accuse me. 13. Tell us further, Melitus, in the name of Jupiter, whether is it better to dwell with good or bad citizens? Answer, my friend; for I ask you nothing difficult. Do not the bad work some evil to those that are continually near them, but the good some good? Mel. Certainly. Socr. Is there any one that wishes to be injured rather than benefited by his associates? Answer, good man; for the law requires you to answer. Is there any one who wishes to be injured? Mel. No, surely. Socr. Come, then, whether do you accuse me here, as one that corrupts the youth, and makes them more depraved, designedly or undesignedly? Mel. Designedly, I say. Socr. What, then, Melitus, are you at your time of life so much wiser than I at my time of life, as to know that the evil are always working some evil to those that are most near to them, and the good some good; but I have arrived at such a pitch of ignorance as not to know that if I make any one of my associates depraved, I shall be in danger of receiving some evil from him; and yet I designedly bring about this so great evil, as you say? In this I can not believe you, Melitus, nor do I think would any other man in the world. But either I do not corrupt the youth, or, if I do corrupt them, I do it undesignedly: so that in both cases you speak falsely. But if I corrupt them undesignedly, for such involuntary offenses it is not usual to accuse one here, but to take one apart, and teach and admonish one. For it is evident that if I am taught, I shall cease doing what I do undesignedly. But you shunned me, and were not willing to associate with and instruct me; but you accuse me here, where it is usual to accuse those who need punishment, and not instruction. 14. Thus, then, O Athenians! this now is clear that I have said; that Melitus never paid any attention to these matters, much or little. However, tell us, Melitus, how you say I corrupt the youth? Is it not evidently, according to the indictment which you have preferred, by teaching them not to believe in the gods in whom the city believes, but in other strange deities? Do you not say that, by teaching these things, I corrupt the youth? Mel. Certainly I do say so. Socr. By those very gods, therefore, Melitus, of whom the discussion now is, speak still more clearly both to me and to these men. For I can not understand whether you say that I teach them to believe that there are certain gods (and in that case I do believe that there are gods, and am not altogether an atheist, nor in this respect to blame), not, however, those which the city believes in, but others; and this it is that you accuse me of, that I introduce others. Or do you say outright that I do not myself believe that there are gods, and that I teach others the same? Mel. I say this: that you do not believe in any gods at all. Socr. O wonderful Melitus, how come you to say this? Do I not, then, like the rest of mankind, believe that the sun and moon are gods? Mel. No, by Jupiter, O judges! for he says that the sun is a stone, and the moon an earth. Socr. You fancy that you are accusing Anaxagoras, my dear Melitus, and thus you put a slight on these men, and suppose them to be so illiterate as not to know that the books of Anaxagoras of Clazomene are full of such assertions. And the young, moreover, learn these things from me, which they might purchase for a drachma, at most, in the orchestra, and so ridicule Socrates, if he pretended they were his own, especially since they are so absurd? I ask then, by Jupiter, do I appear to you to believe that there is no god? Mel. No, by Jupiter, none whatever. Socr. You say what is incredible, Melitus, and that, as appears to me, even to yourself. For this man, O Athenians! appears to me to be very insolent and intemperate and to have preferred this indictment through downright insolence, intemperance, and wantonness. For he seems, as it were, to have composed an enigma for the purpose of making an experiment. Whether will Socrates the wise know that I am jesting, and contradict myself, or shall I deceive him and all who hear me? For, in my opinion, he clearly contradicts himself in the indictment, as if he should say, Socrates is guilty of wrong in not believing that there are gods, and in believing that there are gods. And this, surely, is the act of one who is trifling. 15. Consider with me now, Athenians, in what respect he appears to me to say so. And do you, Melitus, answer me; and do ye, as I besought you at the outset, remember not to make an uproar if I speak after my usual manner. Is there any man, Melitus, who believes that there are human affairs, but does not believe that there are men? Let him answer, judges, and not make so much noise. Is there any one who does not believe that there are horses, but that there are things pertaining to horses? or who does not believe that there are pipers, but that there are things pertaining to pipes? There is not, O best of men! for since you are not willing to answer, I say it to you and to all here present. But answer to this at least: is there any one who believes that there are things relating to demons, but does not believe that there are demons? Mel. There is not. Socr. How obliging you are in having hardly answered; though compelled by these judges! You assert, then, that I do believe and teach things relating to demons, whether they be new or old; therefore, according to your admission, I do believe in things relating to demons, and this you have sworn in the bill of indictment. If, then, I believe in things relating to demons, there is surely an absolute necessity that I should believe that there are demons. Is it not so? It is. For I suppose you to assent, since you do not answer. But with respect to demons, do we not allow that they are gods, or the children of gods? Do you admit this or not? Mel. Certainly. Socr. Since, then, I allow that there are demons, as you admit, if demons are a kind of gods, this is the point in which I say you speak enigmatically and divert yourself in saying that I do not allow there are gods, and again that I do allow there are, since I allow that there are demons? But if demons are the children of gods, spurious ones, either from nymphs or any others, of whom they are reported to be, what man can think that there are sons of gods, and yet that there are not gods? For it would be just as absurd as if any one should think that there are mules, the offspring of horses and asses, but should not think there are horses and asses. However, Melitus, it can not be otherwise than that you have preferred this indictment for the purpose of trying me, or because you were at a loss what real crime to allege against me; for that you should persuade any man who has the smallest degree of sense that the same person can think that there are things relating to demons and to gods, and yet that there are neither demons, nor gods, not heroes, is utterly impossible. 16. That I am not guilty, then, O Athenians! according to the indictment of Melitus, appears to me not to require a lengthened defense; but what I have said is sufficient. And as to what I said at the beginning, that there is a great enmity toward me among the multitude, be assured it is true. And this it is which will condemn me, if I am condemned, not Melitus, nor Anytus, but the calumny and envy of the multitude, which have already condemned many others, and those good men, and will, I think, condemn others also; for there is no danger that it will stop with me. Perhaps, however, some one may say, "Are you not ashamed, Socrates, to have pursued a study from which you are now in danger of dying?" To such a person I should answer with good reason, You do not say well, friend, if you think that a man, who is even of the least value, ought to take into the account the risk of life or death, and ought not to consider that alone when be performs any action, whether he is acting justly or unjustly, and the part of a good man or bad man. For, according to your reasoning, all those demi-gods that died at Troy would be vile characters, as well all the rest as the son of Thetis, who so far despised danger in comparison of submitting to disgrace, that when his mother, who was a goddess, spoke to him, in his impatience to kill Hector, something to this effect, as I think,2 "My son, if you revenge the death of your friend Patroclus, and slay Hector, you will yourself die, for," she said, "death awaits you immediately after Hector;" but he, on hearing this, despised death and danger, and dreading much more to live as a coward, and not avenge his friend, said, "May I die immediately when I have inflicted punishment on the guilty, that I may not stay here an object of ridicule, by the curved ships, a burden to the ground?"—do you think that he cared for death and danger? For thus it is, O Athenians! in truth: wherever any one has posted himself, either thinking it to be better, or has been posted by his chief, there, as it appears to me, he ought to remain and meet danger, taking no account either of death or anything else in comparison with disgrace. 17. I then should be acting strangely, O Athenians! if, when the generals whom you chose to command me assigned me my post at Potidæa, at Amphipolis, and at Delium, I then remained where they posted me, like any other person, and encountered the danger of death; but when the deity, as I thought and believed, assigned it as my duty to pass my life in the study of philosophy, and examining myself and others, I should on that occasion, through fear of death or any thing else whatsoever, desert my post, strange indeed would it be; and then, in truth, any one might justly bring me to trial, and accuse me of not believing in the gods, from disobeying the oracle, fearing death, and thinking myself to be wise when I am not. For to fear death, O Athenians! is nothing else than to appear to be wise, without being so; for it is to appear to know what one does not know. For no one knows but that death is the greatest of all good to man; but men fear it, as if they well knew that it is the greatest of evils. And how is not this the most reprehensible ignorance, to think that one knows what one does not know? But I, O Athenians! in this, perhaps, differ from most men; and if I should say that I am in any thing wiser than another, it would be in this, that not having a competent knowledge of the things in Hades, I also think that I have not such knowledge. But to act unjustly, and to disobey my superior, whether God or man, I know is evil and base. I shall never, therefore, fear or shun things which, for aught I know, maybe good, before evils which I know to be evils. So that, even if you should now dismiss me, not yielding to the instances of Anytus, who said that either I should not3 appear here at all, or that, if I did appear, it was impossible not to put me to death, telling you that if I escaped, your sons, studying what Socrates teaches, would all be utterly corrupted; if you should address me thus, "Socrates, we shall not now yield to Anytus, but dismiss you, on this condition, however, that you no longer persevere in your researches nor study philosophy; and if hereafter you are detected in so doing, you shall die"—if, as I said, you should dismiss, me on these terms, I should say to you, "O Athenians! I honor and love you; but I shall obey God rather than you; and so long as I breathe and am able, I shall not cease studying philosophy, and exhorting you and warning any one of you I may happen to meet, saying, as I have been accustomed to do: 'O best of men! seeing you are an Athenian, of a city the most powerful and most renowned for wisdom and strength, are you not ashamed of being careful for riches, how you may acquire them in greatest abundance, and for glory, and honor, but care not nor take any thought for wisdom and truth, and for your soul, how it maybe made most perfect?'" And if any one of you should question my assertion, and affirm that he does care for these things, I shall not at once let him go, nor depart, but I shall question him, sift and prove him. And if he should appear to me not to possess virtue, but to pretend that he does, I shall reproach him for that he sets the least value on things of the greatest worth, but the highest on things that are worthless. Thus I shall act to all whom I meet, both young and old, stranger and citizen, but rather to you, my fellow-citizens, because ye are more nearly allied to me. For be well assured, this the deity commands. And I think that no greater good has ever befallen you in the city than my zeal for the service of the god. For I go about doing nothing else than persuading you, both young and old, to take no care either for the body, or for riches, prior to or so much as for the soul, how it may be made most perfect, telling you that virtue does not spring from riches, but riches and all other human blessings, both private and public, from virtue. If, then, by saying these things, I corrupt the youth, these things must be mischievous; but if any one says that I speak other things than these, he misleads you.4 Therefore I must say, O Athenians! either yield to Anytus, or do not, either dismiss me or not, since I shall not act otherwise, even though I must die many deaths. 18. Murmur not, O Athenians! but continue to attend to my request, not to murmur at what I say, but to listen, for, as I think, you will derive benefit from listening. For I am going to say other things to you, at which, perhaps, you will raise a clamor; but on no account do so. Be well assured, then, if you put me to death, being such a man as I say I am, you will not injure me more than yourselves. For neither will Melitus nor Anytus harm me; nor have they the power; for I do not think that it is possible for a better man to be injured by a worse. He may perhaps have me condemned to death, or banished, or deprived of civil rights; and he or others may perhaps consider these as mighty evils; I, how ever, do not consider them so, but that it is much more so to do what he is now doing, to endeavor to put a man to death unjustly. Now, therefore, O Athenians! I am far from making a defense on my behalf, as any one might think, but I do so on your own behalf, lest by condemning me you should offend at all with respect to the gift of the deity to you. For, if you should put me to death, you will not easily find such another, though it may be ridiculous to say so, altogether attached by the deity to this city as to a powerful and generous horse, somewhat sluggish from his size, and requiring to be roused by a gad-fly; so the deity appears to have united me, being such a person as I am, to the city, that I may rouse you, and persuade and reprove every one of you, nor ever cease besetting you throughout the whole day. Such another man, O Athenians! will not easily be found; therefore, if you will take my advice, you will spare me. But you, perhaps, being irritated like drowsy persons who are roused from sleep, will strike me, and, yielding to Anytus, will unthinkingly condemn me to death; and then you will pass the rest of your life in sleep, unless the deity, caring for you, should send some one else to you. But that I am a person who has been given by the deity to this city, you may discern from hence; for it is not like the ordinary conduct of men, that I should have neglected all my own affairs, and suffered my private interest to be neglected for so many years, and that I should constantly attend to your concerns, addressing myself to each of you separately, like a father, or elder brother, persuading you to the pursuit of virtue. And if I had derived any profit from this course, and had received pay for my exhortations, there would have been some reason for my conduct; but now you see yourselves that my accusers, who have so shamelessly calumniated me in everything else, have not had the impudence to charge me with this, and to bring witnesses to prove that I ever either exacted or demanded any reward. And I think I produce a sufficient proof that I speak the truth, namely, my poverty. 19. Perhaps, however, it may appear absurd that I, going about, thus advise you in private and make myself busy, but never venture to present myself in public before your assemblies and give advice to the city. The cause of this is that which you have often and in many places heard me mention; because I am moved by a certain divine and spiritual influence, which also Melitus, through mockery, has set out in the indictment. This began with me from childhood, being a kind of voice which, when present, always diverts me from what I am about to do, but never urges me on. This it is which opposed my meddling in public politics; and it appears to me to have opposed me very properly. For be well assured, O Athenians! if I had long since attempted to intermeddle with politics, I should have perished long ago, and should not have at all benefited you or myself. And be not angry with me for speaking the truth. For it is not possible that any man should be safe who sincerely opposes either you, or any other multitude, and who prevents many unjust and illegal actions from being committed in a city; but it is necessary that he who in earnest contends for justice, if he will be safe for but a short time, should live privately, and take no part in public affairs. 20. I will give you strong proofs of this, not words, but what you value, facts. Hear, then, what has happened to me, that you may know that I would not yield to any one contrary to what is just, through fear of death, at the same time by not yielding I must perish. I shall tell you what will be displeasing and wearisome,5 yet true. For I, O Athenians! never bore any other magisterial office in the city, but have been a senator: and our Antiochean tribe happened to supply the Prytanes when you chose to condemn in a body the ten generals who had not taken off those that perished in the sea-fight, in violation of the law, as you afterward all thought. At that time I alone of the Prytanes opposed your doing anything contrary to the laws, and I voted against you; and when the orators were ready to denounce me, and to carry me before a magistrate, and you urged and cheered them on, I thought I ought rather to meet the danger with law and justice on my side, than through fear of imprisonment or death, to take part with you in your unjust designs. And this happened while the city was governed by a democracy. But when it became an oligarchy, the Thirty, having sent for me with four others to the Tholus, ordered us to bring Leon the Salaminian from Salamis, that he might be put to death; and they gave many similar orders to many others, wishing to involve as many as they could in guilt. Then, however, I showed, not in word but in deed, that I did not care for death, if the expression be not too rude, in the smallest degree; but that all my care was to do nothing unjust or unholy. For that government, strong as it was, did not so overawe me as to make me commit an unjust action; but when we came out from the Tholus, the four went to Salamis, and brought back Leon; but I went away home. And perhaps for this I should have been put to death, if that government had not been speedily broken up. And of this you can have many witnesses. 21. Do you think, then, that I should have survived so many years if I had engaged in public affairs, and, acting as becomes a good man, had aided the cause of justice, and, as I ought, had deemed this of the highest importance? Far from it, O Athenians! nor would any other man have done so. But I, through the whole of my life, if I have done anything in public, shall be found to be a man, and the very same in private, who has never made a concession to any one contrary to justice, neither to any other, nor to any one of these whom my calumniators say are my disciples. I, however, was never the preceptor of any one; but if any one desired to hear me speaking, and to see me busied about my own mission, whether he were young or old, I never refused him. Nor do I discourse when I receive money, and not when I do not receive any, but I allow both rich and poor alike to question me, and, if any one wishes it, to answer me and hear what I have to say. And for these, whether any one proves to be a good man or not, I cannot justly be responsible, because I never either promised them any instruction or taught them at all. But if any one says that he has ever learned or heard anything from me in private which all others have not, be well assured that he does not speak the truth. 22. But why do some delight to spend so long a time with me? Ye have heard, O Athenians! I have told you the whole truth, that they delight to hear those closely questioned who think that they are wise but are not; for this is by no means disagreeable. But this duty, as I say, has been enjoined me by the deity, by oracles, by dreams, and by every mode by which any other divine decree has ever enjoined anything to man to do. These things, O Athenians! are both true, and easily confuted if not true. For if I am now corrupting some of the youths, and have already corrupted others, it were fitting, surely, that if any of them, having become advanced in life, had discovered that I gave them bad advice when they were young, they should now rise up against me, accuse me, and have me punished; or if they were themselves unwilling to do this, some of their kindred, their fathers, or brothers, or other relatives, if their kinsman have ever sustained any damage from me, should now call it to mind. Many of them, however, are here present, whom I see: first, Crito, my contemporary and fellow-burgher, father of this Critobulus; then Lysanias of Sphettus, father of this Æschines; again, Antiphon of Cephisus, father of Epigenes. There are those others, too, whose brothers maintained the same intimacy with me, namely, Nicostratus, son of Theodotus, brother of Theodotus—Theodotus indeed is dead, so that he could not deprecate his brother's proceedings—and Paralus here, son of Demodocus, whose brother was Theages; and Adimantus, son of Ariston, whose brother is this Plato; and Æantodorus, whose brother is this Apollodorus. I could also mention many others to you, some one of whom certainly Melitus ought to have adduced in his speech as a witness. If, however, he then forgot to do so, let him now adduce them; I give him leave to do so, and let him say it, if he has anything of the kind to allege. But, quite contrary to this, you will find, O Athenians! all ready to assist me, who have corrupted and injured their relatives, as Melitus and Anytus say. For those who have been themselves corrupted might perhaps have some reason for assisting me; but those who have not been corrupted, men now advanced in life, their relatives, what other reason can they have for assisting me, except that right and just one, that they know that Melitus speaks falsely, and that I speak the truth. 23. Well, then, Athenians, these are pretty much the things I have to say in my defense, and others perhaps of the same kind. Perhaps, however, some among you will be indignant on recollecting his own case, if he, when engaged in a cause far less than this, implored and besought the judges with many tears, bringing forward his children in order that he might excite their utmost compassion, and many others of his relatives and friends, whereas I do none of these things, although I may appear to be incurring the extremity of danger. Perhaps, therefore, some one, taking notice of this, may become more determined against me, and, being enraged at this very conduct of mine, may give his vote under the influence of anger. If, then, any one of you is thus affected—I do not, however, suppose that there is—but if there should be, I think I may reasonably say to him: "I, too, O best of men, have relatives; for, to make use of that saying of Homer, I am not sprung from an oak, nor from a rock, but from men, so that I, too, O Athenians! have relatives, and three sons, one now grown up, and two boys: I shall not, however, bring any one of them forward and implore you to acquit me." Why, then, shall I not do this? Not from contumacy, O Athenians! nor disrespect toward you. Whether or not I am undaunted at the prospect of death is another question; but, out of regard to my own character, and yours, and that of the whole city, it does not appear to me to be honorable that I should do any thing of this kind at my age, and with the reputation I have, whether true or false. For it is commonly agreed that Socrates in some respects excels the generality of men. If, then, those among you who appear to excel either in wisdom, or fortitude, or any other virtue whatsoever, should act in such a manner as I have often seen some when they have been brought to trial, it would be shameful, who appearing indeed to be something, have conducted themselves in a surprising manner, as thinking they should suffer something dreadful by dying, and as if they would be immortal if you did not put them to death. Such men appear to me to bring disgrace on the city, so that any stranger might suppose that such of the Athenians as excel in virtue, and whom they themselves choose in preference to themselves for magistracies and other honors, are in no respect superior to women. For these things, O Athenians! neither ought we to do who have attained to any height of reputation, nor, should we do them, ought you to suffer us; but you should make this manifest, that you will much rather condemn him who introduces these piteous dramas, and makes the city ridiculous, than him who quietly awaits your decision. 24. But, reputation apart, O Athenians! it does not appear to me to be right to entreat a judge, or to escape by entreaty; but one ought to inform and persuade him. For a judge does not sit for the purpose of administering justice out of favor, but that he may judge rightly, and he is sworn not to show favor to whom he pleases, but that he will decide according to the laws. It is, therefore, right that neither should we accustom you, nor should you accustom yourselves, to violate your oaths; for in so doing neither of us would act righteously. Think not then, O Athenians! that I ought to adopt such a course toward you as I neither consider honorable, nor just, nor holy, as well, by Jupiter! on any other occasion, and now especially when I am accused of impiety by this Melitus. For clearly, if I should persuade you, and by my entreaties should put a constraint on you who are bound by an oath, I should teach you to think that there are no gods, and in reality, while making my defense, should accuse myself of not believing in the gods. This, however, is far from being the case; for I believe, O Athenians! as none of my accusers do, and I leave it to you and to the deity to judge concerning me in such way as will be best both for me and for you. [Socrates here concludes his defense, and, the votes being taken, he is declared guilty by a majority of voices. He thereupon resumes his address.] 25. That I should not be grieved, O Athenians! at what has happened—namely, that you have condemned me—as well many other circumstances concur in bringing to pass; and, moreover this, that what has happened has not happened contrary to my expectation; but I much rather wonder at the number of votes on either side. For I did not expect that I should be condemned by so small a number, but by a large majority; but now, as it seems, if only three more votes had changed sides, I should have been acquitted. So far as Melitus is concerned, as it appears to me, I have been already acquitted; and not only have I been acquitted, but it is clear to every one that had not Anytus and Lycon come forward to accuse me, he would have been fined a thousand drachmas, for not having obtained a fifth part of the votes. 26. The man, then, awards me the penalty of death. Well. But what shall I, on my part, O Athenians! award myself? Is it not clear that it will be such as I deserve? What, then, is that? Do I deserve to suffer, or to pay a fine? for that I have purposely during my life not remained quiet, but neglecting what most men seek after, money-making, domestic concerns, military command, popular oratory, and, moreover, all the magistracies, conspiracies, and cabals that are met with in the city, thinking that I was in reality too upright a man to be safe if I took part in such things, I therefore did not apply myself to those pursuits, by attending to which I should have been of no service either to you or to myself; but in order to confer the greatest benefit on each of you privately, as I affirm, I thereupon applied myself to that object, endeavoring to persuade every one of you not to take any care of his own affairs before he had taken care of himself in what way he may become the best and wisest, nor of the affairs of the city before he took care of the city itself; and that he should attend to other things in the same manner. What treatment, then, do I deserve, seeing I am such a man? Some reward, O Athenians! if, at least, I am to be estimated according to my real deserts; and, moreover, such a reward as would be suitable to me. What, then, is suitable to a poor man, a benefactor, and who has need of leisure in order to give you good advice? There is nothing so suitable, O Athenians! as that such a man should be maintained in the Prytaneum, and this much more than if one of you had been victorious at the Olympic games in a horserace, or in the two or four horsed chariot race: for such a one makes you appear to be happy, but I, to be so; and he does not need support, but I do. If, therefore, I must award a sentence according to my just deserts, I award this, maintenance in the Prytaneum. 27. Perhaps, however, in speaking to you thus, I appear to you to speak in the same presumptuous manner as I did respecting commiseration and entreaties; but such is not the case, O Athenians! it is rather this: I am persuaded that I never designedly injured any man, though I can not persuade you of this, for we have conversed with each other but for a short time. For if there were the same law with you as with other men, that in capital cases the trial should list not only one day, but many, I think you would be persuaded; but it is not easy in a short time to do away with, great calumnies. Being persuaded, then, that I have injured no one, I am far from intending to injure myself, and of pronouncing against myself that I am deserving of punishment, and from awarding myself any thing of the kind. Through fear of what? lest I should suffer that which Melitus awards me, of which I say I know not whether it he good or evil? Instead of this, shall I choose what I well know to be evil, and award that? Shall I choose imprisonment? And why should I live in prison, a slave to the established magistracy, the Eleven? Shall I choose a fine, and to be imprisoned until I have paid it? But this is the same as that which I just now mentioned, for I have not money to pay it. Shall I, then, award myself exile? For perhaps you would consent to this award. I should indeed be very fond of life, O Athenians! if I were so devoid of reason as not to be able to reflect that you, who are my fellow-citizens, have been unable to endure my manner of life and discourses, but they have become so burdensome and odious to you that you now seek to be rid of them: others, however, will easily bear them. Far from it, O Athenians! A fine life it would be for me at my age to go out wandering, and driven from city to city, and so to live. For I well know that, wherever I may go, the youth will listen to me when I speak, as they do here. And if I repulse them, they will themselves drive me out, persuading the elders; and if I do not repulse them, their fathers and kindred will banish me on their account. 28. Perhaps, however, some one will say, Can you not, Socrates, when you have gone from us, live a silent and quiet life? This is the most difficult thing of all to persuade some of you. For if I say that that would be to disobey the deity, and that, therefore, it is impossible for me to live quietly, you would not believe me, thinking I spoke ironically. If, on the other hand, I say that this is the greatest good to man, to discourse daily on virtue, and other things which you have heard me discussing, examining both myself and others, but that a life without investigation is not worth living for, still less would you believe me if I said this. Such, however, is the case, as I affirm, O Athenians! though it is not easy to persuade you. And at the same time I am not accustomed to think myself deserving of any ill. If, indeed, I were rich, I would amerce myself in such a sum as I should be able to pay; for then I should have suffered no harm, but now—for I can not, unless you are willing to amerce me in such a sum as I am able to pay. But perhaps I could pay you a mina of silver: in that sum, then, I amerce myself. But Plato here, O Athenians! and Crito Critobulus, and Apollodorus bid me amerce myself in thirty minæ, and they offer to be sureties. I amerce myself, then, to you in that sum; and they will be sufficient sureties for the money. [The judges now proceeded to pass the sentence, and condemned Socrates to death; whereupon he continued:] 29. For the sake of no long space of time, O Athenians! you will incur the character and reproach at the hands of those who wish to defame the city, of having put that wise man, Socrates, to death. For those who wish to defame you will assert that I am wise, though I am not. If, then, you had waited for a short time, this would have happened of its own accord; for observe my age, that it is far advanced in life, and near death. But I say this not to you all, but to those only who have condemned me to die. And I say this, too, to the same persons. Perhaps you think, O Athenians! that I have been convicted through the want of arguments, by which I might have persuaded you, had I thought it right to do and say any thing, so that I might escape punishment. Far otherwise: I have been convicted through want indeed, yet not of arguments, but of audacity and impudence, and of the inclination to say such things to you as would have been most agreeable for you to hear, had I lamented and bewailed and done and said many other things unworthy of me, as I affirm, but such as you are accustomed to hear from others. But neither did I then think that I ought, for the sake of avoiding danger, to do any thing unworthy of a freeman, nor do I now repent of having so defended myself; but I should much rather choose to die, having so defended myself, than to live in that way. For neither in a trial nor in battle is it right that I or any one else should employ every possible means whereby he may avoid death; for in battle it is frequently evident that a man might escape death by laying down his arms, and throwing himself on the mercy of his pursuers. And there are many other devices in every danger, by which to avoid death, if a man dares to do and say every thing. But this is not difficult, O Athenians! to escape death; but it is much more difficult to avoid depravity, for it runs swifter than death. And now I, being slow and aged, am overtaken by the slower of the two; but my accusers, being strong and active, have been overtaken by the swifter, wickedness. And now I depart, condemned by you to death; but they condemned by truth, as guilty of iniquity and injustice: and I abide my sentence, and so do they. These things, perhaps, ought so to be, and I think that they are for the best. 30. In the next place, I desire to predict to you who have condemned me, what will be your fate; for I am now in that condition in which men most frequently prophesy—namely, when they are about to die. I say, then, to you, O Athenians! who have condemned me to death, that immediately after my death a punishment will overtake you, far more severe, by Jupiter! than that which you have inflicted on me. For you have done this, thinking you should be freed from the necessity of giving an account of your lives. The very contrary, however, as I affirm, will happen to you. Your accusers will be more numerous, whom I have now restrained, though you did not perceive it; and they will be more severe, inasmuch as they are younger, and you will be more indignant. For if you think that by putting men to death you will restrain any one from upbraiding you because you do not live well, you are much mistaken; for this method of escape is neither possible nor honorable; but that other is most honorable and most easy, not to put a check upon others, but for a man to take heed to himself how he may be most perfect. Having predicted thus much to those of you who have condemned me, I take my leave of you. 31. But with you who have voted for my acquittal I would gladly hold converse on what has now taken place, while the magistrates are busy, and I am not yet carried to the place where I must die. Stay with me, then, so long, O Athenians! for nothing hinders our conversing with each other, while we are permitted to do so; for I wish to make known to you, as being my friends, the meaning of that which has just now befallen me. To me, then, O my judges! and in calling you judges I call you rightly—a strange thing has happened. For the wonted prophetic voice of my guardian deity on every former occasion, even in the most trifling affairs, opposed me if I was about to do any thing wrong; but now that has befallen me which ye yourselves behold, and which any one would think, and which is supposed to be the extremity of evil; yet neither when I departed from home in the morning did the warning of the god oppose me, nor when I came up here to the place of trial, nor in my address when I was about to say any thing; yet on other occasions it has frequently restrained me in the midst of speaking. But now it has never, throughout this proceeding, opposed me, either in what I did or said. What, then, do I suppose to be the cause of this? I will tell you: what has befallen me appears to be a blessing; and it is impossible that we think rightly who suppose that death is an evil. A great proof of this to me is the fact that it is impossible but that the accustomed signal should have opposed me, unless I had been about to meet with some good. 32. Moreover, we may hence conclude that there is great hope that death is a blessing. For to die is one of two things: for either the dead may be annihilated, and have no sensation of any thing whatever; or, as it is said, there are a certain change and passage of the soul from one place to another. And if it is a privation of all sensation, as it were a sleep in which the sleeper has no dream, death would be a wonderful gain. For I think that if any one, having selected a night in which he slept so soundly as not to have had a dream, and having compared this night with all the other nights and days of his life, should be required, on consideration, to say how many days and nights he had passed better and more pleasantly than this night throughout his life, I think that not only a private person, but even the great king himself, would find them easy to number, in comparison with other days and nights. If, therefore, death is a thing of this kind, I say it is a gain; for thus all futurity appears to be nothing more than one night. But if, on the other hand, death is a removal from hence to another place, and what is said be true, that all the dead are there, what greater blessing can there be than this, my judges? For if, on arriving at Hades, released from these who pretend to be judges, one shall find those who are true judges, and who are said to judge there, Minos and Rhadamanthus, Æacus and Triptolemus, and such others of the demi-gods as were just during their own life, would this be a sad removal? At what price would you not estimate a conference with Orpheus and Musæus, Hesiod and Homer? I indeed should be willing to die often, if this be true. For to me the sojourn there would be admirable, when I should meet with Palamedes, and Ajax, son of Telamon, and any other of the ancients who has died by an unjust sentence. The comparing my sufferings with theirs would, I think, be no unpleasing occupation. But the greatest pleasure would be to spend my time in questioning and examining the people there as I have done those here, and discovering who among them is wise, and who fancies himself to be so, but is not. At what price, my judges, would not any one estimate the opportunity of questioning him who led that mighty army against Troy, or Ulysses, or Sisyphus, or ten thousand others whom one might mention both men and women—with whom to converse and associate, and to question them, would be an inconceivable happiness? Surely for that the judges there do not condemn to death; for in other respects those who live there are more happy than those who are here, and are henceforth immortal, if, at least, what is said be true. 33. You, therefore, O my judges! ought to entertain good hopes with respect to death, and to meditate on this one truth, that to a good man nothing is evil, neither while living nor when dead, nor are his concerns neglected by the gods. And what has befallen me is not the effect of chance; but this is clear to me, that now to die, and be freed from my cares is better for me On this account the warning in no way turned me aside; and I bear no resentment toward those who condemned me, or against my accusers, although they did not condemn and accuse me with this intention, but thinking to injure me: in this they deserve to be blamed. Thus much, however, I beg of them. Punish my sons when they grow up, O judges! paining them as I have pained you, if they appear to you to care for riches or anything else before virtue; and if they think themselves to be something when they are nothing, reproach them as I have done you, for not attending to what they ought, and for conceiving themselves to be something when they are worth nothing. If ye do this, both I and my sons shall have met with just treatment at your hands. But it is now time to depart—for me to die, for you to live. But which of us is going to a better state is unknown to every one but God. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Parrhesiast (talk • contribs) 07:04, 7 September 2015 (UTC) No matter what comes out of this SPI, it is clear that Parrhesiast is WP:NOTHERE. ~ RobTalk 15:20, 7 September 2015 (UTC) old Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive899#User by the name of ProKro using an untolerable language Anonymous32 namechange NOTE: Anonymous032 > Film99 > Renamed user r9L1Y46y7Z > Film915 old Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments CheckUser requested and endorsed by clerk - to compare the two. Vanjagenije (talk) 14:34, 7 September 2015 (UTC) The following accounts are  Confirmed: Kingshowman (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) SuperFriendlyEditor (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) Parrhesiast (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) MyEsteemedColleague (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) Modestproposal (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) SockPuppetOfGod (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) Blocked the last one and tagged/retagged the others. Closing.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:08, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

couple of suggestions; possibly (?) User:7771 who started Joaquín F. Chicarro which two early socks User:PENTAGONALIS777 and (maybe the one you were thinking of DG?) User:BenTTT, who also both edited the Rafael Olvera Ledesma article. Shouldn't they both be deleted too, by the way? Also User:PENTAGONALIS 2 and User:Tuesttay both started / edited Rafael Camacho Guzmán, which is in exactly the same style. Tuesttay has done loads of them.

Ed

Hitchens

Thank you for your message. I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about Peter Hitchens, signed in as Clockback Clockback (talk) 14:13, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Very amusing! _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 14:53, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Good old Deb! (less of the old!)

To User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: Isn't there a reason why you want to delete CJLD-FM, a radio station in Leduc, Alberta, Canada? There are hundreds, if not, thousands+ of radio station articles across Canada and around the world and I can't see why you want to delete this particular article. This radio station is currently still broadcasting! Please leave all radio station, including television station and all media/broadcasting related stuff articles on Wikipedia alone or else I will report you and have you blocked from editing! Thank you. Concealed name - 23:00, 7 June 2015 (EDT)

A little bit miffed that the Bantams Banter page didn't get deleted? It certainly seems so... you need to get that chip off your shoulder. I'll continue to keep the Bantams Banter podcast in line with other podcast wiki pages (which I'll gladly highlight for you since you seem so keen to maintain the purity of Wikipedia in your own warped view) and that includes a link to the iTunes page. Feel free to take our disagreement further. I believe it's 2-0 to me as it stands. (RedJulianG40 (talk) 18:16, 9 June 2015 (UTC))

Pity about that conflict of interest.Deb (talk) 09:05, 6 July 2015 (UTC)((talk page stalker))

Hypocrisy :)

×==Note to self== Absolutely classic piece of hypocrisy here from User:Ihardlythinkso who thinks that while it's OK to tell people to 'piss off' and 'full of... bullshit' etc, doesn't like to be called out on his hypocrisy. Oh, and can't spell capisce (or even fucking 'kapish' LOL) _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 17:43, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

tea

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#TeaLover1996_block

Tirade

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ACameron11598&type=revision&diff=720767344&oldid=720765797

O Fortuna

O Fortuna
velut luna
statu variabilis,
semper crescis
[Bishzilla's Latin gives out]
always nice mouthful for 'zilla!
[Pockets little user and lopes off. Wonder how it got out?] bishzilla _ROARR!! 16:22, 30 December 2016 (UTC).

Ave Bishus Zillarus!

I'm afraid this wasn't the first time it's been mentioned, so- know what I mean? O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 16:30, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Usernames with no edits

I've just declined seven different reports from you at WP:UAA for the same reason: no edits. We don't bother blocking accounts that have never even tried to edit for WP:CORPNAME violations, only the very, very worst username violations (hate speech, etc) are blocked without having ever edited. For whatever reason, every day dozens of accounts are registered that never make an edit. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:15, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Beeblebrox, I think you are wrong. If you think we need to save admin energy by not reporting, then fine. Although you may wish to gain consensus upon what you claim is what you 'don't bother' doing. We do block them with no edits; and, as you know, whatever they choose to edit, their username does not cease to be dual use and / or promotional. Cheers! O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 22:57, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

You're mistaken. If you don't want to take the word of a highly experienced admin who has been patrolling UAA for eight years, that's fine, you can take it from the actual written instructions that person reporting username violations are expected to be failiar with: "Do not report a user that hasn't edited unless they are clearly a vandal. We do not want to welcome productive editors with a report at UAA, nor do we want to waste our time dealing with accounts that may never be used." Wording to this effect has been on that page since 2009, it is not some new invention of my own imagination that I need to get consensus for, it already has consensus.

Ask yourself: How is Wikipedia helped by blocking a username that has never made a single edit? How is it harmed by not blocking it? There are administrative backlogs all over this project. Contributing to them withe reports that will not be acted upon because there is no need is not helpful. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:56, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

• User:Renovation Records, one of your own; [6], [7], [8], etc. Anyway, the point is that I spent five hours yesterday going through the new users of that day- about 8,000- so I'm sorry that you had to reject seven. Can you imagine how I was ricocheting between CSDs and UAA- not counting run-off-the-mill stuff in between. I respect the length of your tenure, but you don't need to swing it around here. Cheers! HNY. O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 18:44, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

In three of your four examples, including the one I blocked, the user attempted to edit and tripped an edit filter. That counts as attempting to spam. The other one appears unjustified according to our procedures as they have existed for the last seven years as there is no record of any activity whatsoever from that account. I appreciate that you are doing lots of work, but when you are posting to an area where others are required to review your report before acting, you should only post things that merit reporting. Again, this isn't just what I think, it is part of a guideline for reporting at UAA and I would ask you to please respect it. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:26, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for agreeing that you are having this conversation on the wrong place! There are many more examples, so I suggest you repromulgate policy to a broader audience. On that, I'll leave you to it. Many thanks for your advice. O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 10:54, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi!

Happy New Year!

Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Class455 (talk | stand clear of the doors!) 17:48, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Cheers Class455! -I got an idea- hold on! O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 17:52, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Reply

Sorry but in what way is asking someone to behave like their age being uncivil? Have you see the comments left on Talk:Stanley Kubrick I provided? Rusted AutoParts 20:24, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Happy New Year Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi!

Happy New Year!

Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi,
Have a prosperous, productive and wonderful New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.

--Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 20:28, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

And many more of the same to you Rubbish computer, hoping you and yours are protected from whatever crap the next year might bring! Cheers! O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 20:30, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi!

Happy New Year!

Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
–Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 13:04, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Cheers Davey2010, same to you and yours mate! O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 14:50, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of John Beaumont, 1st Viscount Beaumont

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article John Beaumont, 1st Viscount Beaumont you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Shearonink -- Shearonink (talk) 18:02, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Serial Number 54129. You have new messages at Talk:Humphrey Stafford (died 1442)/GA1.
Message added 03:00, 3 January 2017 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Just a few things left. Shearonink (talk) 03:00, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Reverted

May I ask the reason why you reverted my edit of reporting Magnolia677? - TheMagnificentist 13:57, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

I dont think...

..you meant to remove Magnificentists post at ANI when you reverted the IP so I have put it back. It appears to be a good faith concern. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:58, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't think you think wrong Only in death. Restored wrong version while reverting Vote X. Apologies for that TheMagnificentist, and good luck indeed with your ANI  :) 14:08, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Sandbox

Why did you tag the sandbox for speedy deletion? —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 13:23, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, of course the bot had already cleaned it. Thanks for the note.O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 13:25, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

• Testing, testing, 1,2* — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.195.145.2 (talk) 15:07, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Abyssinian People

While the scope of the article is about the Ethiopian semitic or Abyssinian languages speakers (similar to Bantu peoples for Bantu languages speakers, Iranian peoples for Iranian languages speakers) content removed is related to nomenclature of the term 'Abyssinian' and based on NPOV if one of the definition of Abyssinian is included then my opinion is to open a nomenclature section, after consensus, and also explain the other definitions found in these reliable sources [9][10][11][12][13] defining 'Abyssinian' and other similar formations differently. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 23:19, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

• User:EthiopianHabesha Thank you for reminding me that you have been previously blocked for edit-warring over the same topic. O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 11:38, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Humphrey Stafford (died 1442)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Humphrey Stafford (died 1442) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Shearonink -- Shearonink (talk) 18:02, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

English invasion of Scotland (1400)

If you are interested in re-noming this for a GA Review I'll give it a go. Looks fascinating. Shearonink (talk) 17:34, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Cheers, Shearonink, I'm sure I will, so many thanks for the offer. Hope all's well! _{O Fortuna!} ^{...imperatrix mundi.} 12:26, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Well, Shearonink; have you got too much going on at the moment... or not? O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 19:39, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi Sure, I'd love to. Might take me a while to finish, that's all. I just hate to see possible GA articles not moving forward - that's why I've been trying to get some GA Reviews done of GA-nom'ed articles where the nominator has seemingly left WP (Talk:Leggetts Creek/GA1 & Talk:Eddy Creek (Lackawanna River)/GA1).... This week is kind of a mess, I'm surprised I'm on here now, so maybe give me a ring next week after the 11th? Cheers, Shearonink (talk) 06:28, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

No worries, best of luck! O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 11:00, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Abyssinian People

Not that it matters but just want to let you know that the last time I got blocked I was dealing with a user who had several sockpuppets and was using them to edit warr [14] but still I did not pass the 3 revert rule in 24 hours. After a long discussion with the user in the articles talkpage user finally agreed to include the content [15] that he intially opposed. Also I have been dealing with other users such as [16] who had several sockpuppets and use them for advocacy against what they call "Amhara and Tigray domination". I use reliable sources from relevant experts to convince them, if possible, and make sure wikipedia articles are balanced and are written with an impartial tone. — EthiopianHabesha (talk) 16:51, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

@EthiopianHabesha:, so the system works. Excellent news! Take care, O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 16:59, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Humphrey Stafford (died 1442)

	Congrats, it's a...
	...Wikipedia Good Article!! Shearonink (talk) 16:25, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Cheers Shearonink, cool pic. The info on him seems a bit vague though- trying to work out which of the million Humprhey Staffords it is! Take care! O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 16:32, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

John Beaumont, 1st Viscount Beaumont

	Congrats, it's a...
	...it's a Good Article! Shearonink (talk) 04:12, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

• Hey, proper money!!! ;) cheers Shearonink, that's very kind. Thanks for all your help and hard work! O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 09:55, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to MILHIST

Hello and welcome to the Military history WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to military history.

A few features that you might find helpful:

• Our navigation box points to most of the useful pages within the project.
• The announcement and open task box is updated very frequently. You can watchlist it if you are interested, or you can add it directly to your user page by copying the following: {{WPMILHIST Announcements}}.
• Important discussions take place on the project's main discussion page; it is highly recommended that you watchlist it.
• The project has several departments, which handle article quality assessment, detailed article and content review, writing contests, and article logistics.
• We have a number of task forces that focus on specific topics, nations, periods, and conflicts.
• We've developed a set of guidelines that cover article structure and content, template use, categorization, and many other issues of interest.
• If you're looking for something to work on, there are many articles that need attention, as well as a number of review alerts.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask any of the project coordinators or any other experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome, and we are looking forward to seeing you around! Anotherclown (talk) 00:59, 4 January 2017 (UTC)