Sulla16

Eton College

In your edit on Eton College [1], you reintroduced references to Harrow and Winchester that had been removed several times as unsourced. The topic was also discussed on the talk page. Thus, the removal of the Harrow and Winchester text can hardly be called "vandalism". Yours, Huon 10:19, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Sulla

Saying history showed Sulla to have been wiser than Caesar because he died in bed while Caesar died knifed is an opinion or a comment; it's a conclusion reached subjectively. Do I agree with it? I don't know since I can't say I've researched the topic enough.

Anyway the information on Sulla in that short sentence is elsewhere in the article, while the information on how Caesar died belongs in the Caesar article so is not required here. Vincent 06:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Disagree, this a a commonly referred to in books about Sulla; few would argue that it is not wiser to die in bed rather than be murdered by multiple stab wounds, some inflicted by supposed friends...Sulla16

So a lot of books about Sulla are POV. But apply the same argument to other historical figures. Ulysses Grant died in his own bed while Abraham Lincoln died of a gunshot wound. Was Grant the wiser president? Vincent 09:06, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I think we should continue the discussion on the article's talk page, and invite comments by others. Vincent 03:54, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

great, but leave article as it has been for over a year...Sulla16

Advocacy request

I'm sorry but I do not have time to take this on at present. I suggest you open a request for advocacy or, if more appropriate, request for moderation. - Jord 22:40, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid I too cannot help you in this manner, but if you open a formal request for mediation, I can mediate that for you as a member of the committee. Thanks. —Xyrael / 22:17, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Mediation

I've opened a request for mediation here. Please note that I'm serious about the apology I expect from you. See the page for details. Vincent 23:58, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Why are you waiting for mediation? Have you done anything besides revert? You're supposed to participate Nick. Vincent 22:55, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration

Please note that I submitted a request for arbitration against you because of your behaviour on the Lucius Cornelius Sulla article. Vincent 00:56, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party has been accepted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Lucius Cornelius Sulla. For the Mediation Committee, ^demon[omg plz] This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to open new mediation cases. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

This message delivered: 04:16, 10 March 2007 (UTC).

Hey there. I would like to commence mediation, so please send me a copy of your e-mail address so that I can reach you. Alternatively, set one in your preferences so that I can use the e-mail function of mediawiki. Thanks :) —Xyrael / 13:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello. I recently sent you a message requesting you reply so that I have a copy of your address. However, this hasn't been done - please send me it so that I can start mediation. Thanks. —Xyrael / 16:52, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

RFC/discussion of article Sulla

Hello, Sulla16. As a prominent contributor to Sulla, you may want to be aware that a request for comments has been filed about it. The RFC can be found by the article's name in this list, and the actual discussion can be found on Talk:Sulla, in case you wish to participate. Thank you for your contributions. -- Nick 15:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi. If you have a problem with the edit I made please discuss it. If not, then maybe we can consider the matter settled, with no need to await a consensus that may or may not ever arrive. Since the matter in dispute is pretty minor, it is best settled by some simple editing that can satisfy both parties. -R. fiend 17:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, at least, it's more important to fix the problem than to adhere to strict observence of protocol. Keep in mind such an edit does not mean discussion can not continue. However, if editing can save a lot of unnecessary discussion all the better. If you are satisfied with the edit as is, then I think we can perhaps let the matter lie; we'll see what the other party says. -R. fiend 17:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Compromises, etc.

I fail to see the compromise in your edit, and I fail to see how the wording you put back in the text is sourced or in an enclyclopedic style. Sorry. Please understand that I first started with a small change which led to a huge debate with you and personal attacks from you, not one of which I have earned. One of the rules of Wikiquette is to assume good faith but you have demonstrated to me that you don't like me and that you will revert any change I made just because I happen to be the one making it.

Further, you have criticized me for not taking more of an interest in Sulla (among other things). I've now remedied that. Once I was completely convinced of your lack of good faith (in the online world I mean, I'm sure that you're a very nice person in the Real world) I read the entire article more carefully and identified many more objectionable passages. They read like editorials, not like neutral text.

Another attack on me was your taunt that I was an edit warrior. I'll save you the trouble of researching. Most wikipedians experience that at some point. I was involved in a three month war on Charles Darwin over whether or not to insert the factoid that he and Abraham Lincoln were both born on the same day of the same year. I was banned for a month and I guess what? I learned my lesson.

I suggest you look at the edit history of The_Begum's_Millions. The original article was very interesting but badly structured, mostly unsourced, and hopelessly worded. I made cuts and edits and I left a comment on the talk page. A few weeks later, the original author put back most of the stuff I had taken out but in a proper way, in NPOV language, with opinions explicitly sourced. It's now a much better article; true it's not perfect but it is better and improving continually.

Why not participate this way? Instead you chose to revert revert revert and to wish me away, as if the article was perfect as it was. It seems to me (but I could be wrong) that you are someone in love with your own prose, believing it above reproach. I understand the feeling; I certainly am in love with my own prose but I don't believe it above reproach.

If you are serious about achieving compromise, then please discuss changes first before reverting or editing, otherwise I won't be able to assume good faith on your part. Vincent 23:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

PS If you want to write editorial type stuff, why not do what I do and write reviews on Amazon.com? It's rewarding and fun, plus no one can change what you write. People just vote on whether or not your review was helpful or not. Vincent 00:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Hatchets and what not

Sure. Buried.

Where I can't be budged

• Qualifiers like stupendous, incredibly, supreme, wily, legendary, sinister, etc. etc. should not appear at all. They reflect the author's judgement, as do superlatives like most famous, greatest and so on and so forth. (Exceptions exist of course. Everest is the tallest mountain in the world, Jupiter is the largest planet in the solar system, but Monty Python is not necessarily the funniest comedy group ever.)

• Long quotes belong in the footnotes below the article. A succinct one line summary of the long quote followed by a ref to the quote below works very well.

• No original research (1). That's one of the pillars of wikipedia. The good news is the research probably isn't original as in two thousand years some prominent scholar has probably already said whatever an alleged OR passage is saying. See below.

Where I can be budged

• No original research(2). The last two paragraphs of the legacy section seemed like OR and they are pretty POV. However if you know of a specific reputable author who holds more or less the position of the last two paragraphs, we can say "John Smith of the University of Wherever, concluded that Sulla's legacy was blablabla (refnumber)". The paragraphs should be toned down a little, e.g. by using the passive mode. (Yes, yes, I know that all books on good writing tell writers to use active verbs because they grab the reader but sometimes it's better to avoid grabbing.)

• Sweeping conclusions. How can a sweeping conclusive statement be true when so many knowledgeable people disagree among themselves over it? Better to tone down the writing and ackowledge a controversy as such.

• It would be nice to avoid redundancies. For instance why precede "He had red hair which was very unusual in Rome." with the sentence "His appearance was equally remarkable."? That's a value judgement. OK, it's valid because you gave the two supporting facts (red hair & unusual) but then because you did give the facts, can't you trust the reader to make up his own mind? It saves the reader having to read a whole sentence.

• For similar reasons, I'd avoid opening a sentence with the word "Ironically". If the situation described is really ironic, the reader will get it without needing to be told.

Etc.

On the positive side, the structure of the article was always good and I have no problems with the facts listed or with the battle descriptions, although one commentator objected to the claim Sulla reformed the courts. I wouldn't know, you two should debate that. But could it be that Sulla used the courts to push through his reforms rather than permanently reform the courts themselves?

Finally, the best advice on writing I ever had was from the writings of Rudolf Flesch. He put it very dramatically (well he wasn't writing for Wiki so he's allowed to indulge) with the maxim "Murder your children!" Whenever one writes a phrase of which they are particularly proud, it's probably terrible and should be striken.

Why don't you have the next stab at rewriting the article?

Cheers Vincent 23:32, 29 March 2007 (UTC)