Hi Arildnordby! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Ryan Vesey (I'm a Teahouse host) Visit the Teahouse This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 01:16, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, I've done some initial formatting and made some comments. Broadly speaking, this is a WP:Notable topic and definitely worth covering, so good call. A few things to work on:

• The article currently lacks WP:Footnoting. What you need to do is going into wherever you got this story from (the 1500s pamphlet or the 1800s book) and render them as citations (see WP:CITEHOW). Ideally with the URL for the source included in the citation for the reader's convenience.
• The article appears to have a big issue with WP:Original research. That is, there appear to be a lot of points where you personally make "logical assumptions", which is unfortunately inadmissible. Things like "They he said XYZ, by which we can assume that..." just can't be used. I've marked these as "original research" in many places. Even things like "he was the most prolific serial killer" are assessments which must be cited to a reliable authority (academic of criminal history, etc) or else removed, even if you personally have done lots of reading and reasonably concluded he is the record holder. Reading WP:No original research might really help here.
• All the material you have about his legend, mythical stories based on him, etc. must be clearly footnoted to whatever writer/academic made that conclusion.
• Minor thing, but is there any chance either of the old books have any images/woodcuts/drawings of this person? If so, those would be a great addition.

Hope this helps, and let me know if you have any further questions. Just post your question here, and then come to my Talk page and simply post {{talkback|User talk:Arildnordby}} and that will let me know to come here and rejoin the conversation. MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:39, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Than you for constructive criticisms! I have what to me is a fairly major issue that as yet is not broached: 16th century place names, and the degree to which we may identify them with modern locations, and whether that identification should be made into an explicit assumption.

The place names in the original 1581 are:

Page 1: 1. "Bergkessel": I have given this as "Bernkastel-Kues (an der Mosel)", on basis of Kirschslager's: http://www.historische-serienmoerder.de/index.php?id=serienmoerder&mid=14

2. "Lochem an der Mussel" The town Cochem (an der Mosel) seems to fit the bill, a minor typographical error source of discrepancy?

3. "Meintz" I have rendered this as "Mainz", which out to be unproblematical.

Page 2: 4. "Körpen" No such town turns up on google, but the town "Kerpen" lies some miles from Cologne, as stated in the text. I have given a link to "Kerpen" 5. "Cölln" This cannot be anything else than Köln, i.e, Cologne. 6. "Trier", "Metz" Unproblematic. 7. "Dietenhoffen" "Dietenhofen" and "Dideneuwen" are the German names of French Thionville, and ought to be unproblematical.

8. "Lützelburger Landt" Prior to 1661, a county called "Lützelburg" was part of Holy Roman Empire; it is now called Lutzelbourrg. I have made the assumption this is what is referred to with the original.

Page 3: 9. "Popert" This is, by Kirschlager, identified with the Rhine town "Boppard", and I have made that assumption.

Question is if these choices are permissible by me. I have worked on some of your suggestions, will look into the others.

Hmmmm... I am really not the person to ask about those. I would suggest, once the article publishes, that you copy that post and put it on the Talk page. Generally speaking I would say that "reasonable assumptions" on placenames may be okay, but if you feel you're stretching at all, just don't provide any link for now. But Germany geography isn't my thing.

My main concerns are just removing the more serious OR where you yourself are coming to researcher-like conclusions, or where there are academic conclusions made by researchers but you haven't given a citation. That, and then just making proper footnotes to the 1500s and 1800s book and putting those at the end of whichever paragraphs were derived from them. I wouldn't necessarily refer to either of the early books as "primary sources", as I understand them, since they are an outsider's observation of the events. Actual WP:Primary sources would be if you found the killer's diary, or went digging in city archives to find his death certificate to get the date or something. So though ideally modern peer-review works are preferred, footnoting to the 1800s book is fine. The part where you really need citations is the section analysing how a true story became a fairy tale or troll-type legend. The parts that are Kirschlager's work need to be clearly cited to whatever article Kirschlager made those remarks in, and any parts which are your personal assessment (that the story is crude, magical, etc) need to be removed, unless you can cite them to a published academic paper. Makes sense so far? MatthewVanitas (talk) 20:49, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A few comments: 1. The 1581 account is unpaged, and would not a blanket reference to it at the top, as I've put in (if nothing else is stated, the statements are from that account) serve the needs of reference? 2.As for "primary sources": Primary sources are those closest to the original events (in this case a week or two), and does not depend upon other material at our disposal. (A found court record would simply make the "primary source" we have today into a secondary source. If that is forever lost, the pamphlet from 1581 is the closest account we'll ever have) 3. The section on "folklore and legend" is, as you say, a main concern (in its present form, I wouldn't complain if that section was pulled entirely). The problem as I see it is that I do NOT want to publish an article in which the fantastical story from 1581 becomes a report on True Crime, rather than quite possibly, just a novel of "True Crime". That is: Some sort of caution to the general reader that the story might not be true at all ought to be issued. But, I admit, I made a mess of how such a caution should be made..:-(

Thankyou for this article, it is very nice. I missed your message as now normally edit anon.Martin451 (talk) 04:20, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 18:50, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding a category defining Debora Green as a serial killer. As I've already pointed out, she is not covered in the sources you claim to be using to do this tagging, and even if she were, there is no indication in your edit that the addition has any source at all. Given that she is alive, you may not continue adding contentious, unsourced accusations/classifications to this article, or to any other article about a living person. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 20:17, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have NOT used the given blog, but SOItalic textLELY already existing articles at Wikipedia. Attack those if you like, not me.

Wikipedia is not a reliable source for itself. If you want to continue with this tagging, you will need to find actual, reliable sources backing up the edits you're making. Right now I'm finding multiple cases where you've (inadvertantly, I assume) violated our BLP policy because of this misunderstanding. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 20:37, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Christman Genipperteinga, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you are more than welcome to continue submitting work to Articles for Creation.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

SarahStierch (talk) 22:18, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	Great job at starting the article about Christman Genipperteinga - what a crazy story! :) SarahStierch (talk) 22:19, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Premature burial, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tyrol (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:12, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I see you went back & forth between Transverse plane & Sagittal plane when it came to the impalement direction (front to back/v.v.). I also went through that in my head. I'm pretty sure a legitimate argument could be made for either plane, but I suppose I went with "transverse" because I thought it would have a little more word-recognition among readers. If you want to change it up, I don't mind. We could also try checking the medical sources over at penetrating trauma, and see if there is anything useful there. Boneyard90 (talk) 13:09, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, when I have rethought this, the only strictly meaningful geometric term would be "coronally directed", that is along the vector normal to the "coronal plane" (there are an infinity of included vectors in all three planes, but only one unique direction vector associated to each, namely the vector normal of the plane). But, neither "coronal" or "sagittal" are common-usage, and I agree that IF we are to use a latin word here, "transversal" is best. But, is it then "right" to link to anatomic planes? My first edit was to use the colloquial "across" instead, then specifying, as an example, through the abdmon (it could also go through the chest). Arildnordby (talk) 13:20, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have changed to "frontal-to-dorsal" direction, because this is used in the text on Vlad, and because these are technical terms generally understood. Planes are ignored. Arildnordby (talk) 13:29, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Concur. Boneyard90 (talk) 13:32, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Impalement, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gisulf II (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:18, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can't tell you how impressed I am at the thorough job you've done with the article Impalement. I hope you don't mind if I continue to tweak it as far as syntax or whatever. When you're finished, and it's fully cited, you should consider taking it to Good Article status. Until then, I invite you to officially join WikiProject Death, and add your username to the list of participants. Later. Boneyard90 (talk) 00:54, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Two heads think better than one. DO continue tweaking it! :-)

Arildnordby (talk) 00:57, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I also wanted to add: if your review gives you a hard time about the Vietnam section of the Impalement article, go ahead and offer to delete it. Past editors have refused to believe that the Vietnamese ever committed such (or any) atrocities, or declare that a CIA source is not reliable (their POV), but never have any sources to back up their points. However, it is a contentious issue, so if your reviewer gives you a hard time, delete the section, and at some point in the future, I could add the information again with more sources. Good luck. Boneyard90 (talk) 14:58, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I find the Vietnam section sufficiently referenced to be included in Wikipedia, unless "really strong" counter-evidence is presented. I have, however, chosen to "pad" the "Ottoman" section, by both adding roughly contemporary allegations relative Ali Pasha, and important info on Diakos' fate and the Tripiolitsa massacre, in order to put into perspective the monments given in the "nationalst" source utilized in that section relative to depredations committed by Turks.Arildnordby (talk) 15:05, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Arildnordby. You have new messages at Keraunoscopia's talk page.
Message added 22:42, 28 January 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

– Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 22:42, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Impalement, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dubica (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:09, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

	The Slightly Gruesome Award
	Awarded for your splendid work in expanding and improving Impalement and similar articles. Congratulations! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:26, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like I was premature in my earlier idea that you might submit some of the article for Good Article status. I suggest taking one to Wikipedia:Peer review. This is where you solicit comments for the improvement of an article, but it doesn't get an assessment. Lots of editors do this before taking an article to GA or FA. Boneyard90 (talk) 14:26, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the idea. I was rather miffed by the unexplained and unreviewed removal. However, quite before that, I had on my own rather a few thoughts that I really ought to have concentrated and comprised the article, for benefit for the readers marginally interested in the theme, so that a Main Usages section summarizes the principal arenas where this type of punishment was used. Interested readers may follow the links, sparing other readers to read through endless cases of very similar nature, that are better preserved to simply being evidence of main usage. Geographic sections can be preserved for a limited number of cases particularly noteworthy. Arildnordby (talk) 14:38, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Impalement, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Avars (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:25, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Arild, thanks for your input in the Magnus Barefoot peer review. Just wanted to note that I've now responded (after a long delay, my apologies) to your comments. Thhist (talk) 14:33, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I've been so long about responding to you latest comment at the peer review for Political career of John C. Breckinridge. I hope to have more time on-wiki next week. Do you have time to continue that review? Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 13:15, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. Well when I hit "And, lo and behold!" I thought I was reading a quotation... I really hate to stifle voice, but that part was so jarring and confusing that, well, I made that edit, lol.

Another thing, I looked at this edit, but that reads to me the same as it did before. When you say, "so that one of the ends were pushed into the anus" that says to me that from above this hanging person, they are pushing the stake DOWN. And you say, "severed head was then placed on the protruding end", but if both ends of the stake are sharpened, there will be two protruding ends. This is ambiguous. Thoughts? PraetorianFury (talk) 21:29, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll quote Warkworth for you: "and after that thei hanged uppe by the leggys, and a stake made scharpe at bothe endes, whereof one ende was putt in att bottokys, and the other ende ther heddes were putt uppe one.." There is no mention in Warkworth that the stake completelely penetrated the body, just that one of the ends were forced down the anus. As for the lo and behold! I wrote that by design, because it is such an archetypical "miracle story" phrase (and the whole story stinks of miracle, but is cool enough for inclusion...) Perhaps I should drop the lo and behold!Arildnordby (talk) 21:36, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ohh, hmm. Well what's holding them in that position afterwards? Their feet? It reads better than it did, in any case.

And for the lo and behold, would be fine if you were writing a story... Even when Wikipedia authors are trying to be funny, they have to write as a straight man and try to maintain the tone. I wouldn't mind cleaning up the mess I made, but I kind of get the feeling you would prefer to, so I'll leave you to it. PraetorianFury (talk) 21:43, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AS for Warkworth: They hang by their legs. The heads wouldn't stay in place if they were placed on LOWER protruding ends (if a full penetration of body had been made), due to gravity, and they were therefore placed on the UPPER ends, i.e, right above the buttocks. And no, when it comes to straighten out the language, I would be VERY grateful if you do that. I won't, really, mind improve language style at all, I'm not a native English speaker, so I would like others to improve it :-)Arildnordby (talk) 21:57, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok! I've tweaked it a little and removed a few adjectives to make it more appropriate for an encyclopedia. I'd continue reading but... I think I've learned enough about unthinkable suffering for one day. PraetorianFury (talk) 22:41, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It definitely improved! (BTW, I do not have much sympathy with you, I am still wallowing in self-pity for having read and written about all that suffering! :-)Arildnordby (talk) 22:45, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Impalement, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page George 1 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:40, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are 144 instances of the word "impaled" in the text, 100 of which could be changed to "impaled alive". So please, go ahead, do it!. The fact that soldiers have been known to shoot at corpses of their enemies does not mean we have to go around writing that peopla are "shot alive" just to make sure people know they were still alive when they were shot. So, where we are talking about the ritual of impaling corpses as a form of humiliation, yes, let's make that clear, elesewhere it is just bad writing OR an older form of English as can be seen from the quotations. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 10:34, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken, thanks.Arildnordby (talk) 10:46, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This a huge improvement over what it said earlier. Not only is it more encyclopedic content, but it also makes a stronger case for the point you were trying to make. Good job! PraetorianFury (talk) 19:06, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

	The 'You May Have Issues... but they don't seem to stop excellent article improvements!!!" Award
	...Impalemet, boiling, burying... the only form of ritual torture you don't seem to have touched on yet is Cliff Richard Basket Feudalist 16:32, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Haha! Sure, I have a penchant for horribilities, as well as for gradual French influence on Iberian monastic traditions in the 11th century. I'll leave to professional historians to write about the latter, and I can immerse myself in gore. I have still quite a few themes left, have you checked out Disembowelment latelely, on German tree violators? And of course, I haven't yet written about Aqua and "Barbie Girl"..:-) Arildnordby (talk) 17:14, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I've been watching for a discussion about impalement to start up but so far the page hasn't been created. I haven't been involved in one of these before, so I wasn't sure how it works. PraetorianFury (talk) 18:59, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

From what I understand it, such a page must be created by an editor who wish to review it (and who hasn't been a significant contributor to the content of the page). I have nominated the page for such a review, but at present, no one has taken up the role as reviewer. Anyhow, you deserved the big smiley for all you've done! :-) Arildnordby (talk) 19:03, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I usually edit while at work, but they actually gave me some stuff to do recently. If someone doesn't start the discussion before I finish my actual work, I'll start it. PraetorianFury (talk) 19:28, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dreadful thingy, that "work" business.. I'll be immensely grateful if you begin a review (although I cannot promise you a pay-check for your efforts).Arildnordby (talk) 22:34, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So uh... I guess anyone can "pass" an article in the nomination process. But what I read suggests that 7 days is the typical amount of time to leave a review open. If no one wanders by and cares to comment by that point, I'll pass Impalement. PraetorianFury (talk) 17:30, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. As you see, I threw out a bone that other reviewers might wish to fight over; if some other reviewer thinks a particular source used is worryingly biased/unreliable, I think that might constitute fair objections to be raised in the reviewing process.Arildnordby (talk) 18:06, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I passed Impalement :). PraetorianFury (talk) 18:42, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks! :-)Arildnordby (talk) 21:09, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Arildnordby, Thanks for your comments. I've not reviewed Impalement, but I spent about twenty minutes last night just looking at it, and on that basis alone, I don't believe that the lead is compliant with WP:Lead#Introductory text in two respects. Firstly, of relative emphasis and, secondly, length, the lead is usually a three or four paragraph section and for an article of that length twice the size would be more typical. (Note: the requirement is covered in the review process by WP:WIAGA clause 1(b)). At this point in time I don't intend to do anything about it, as I'm going on holiday and I suspect that the article is not sufficiently bad to justify re-reviewing it at WP:GAR (I can't think of a better expression to cover this). (Note: had it been, I would have opened a review last night). As I've said elsewhere I don't believe that the article was reviewed at /GA2: it was merely "rubber-stamped" with a "pass" by an editor who was already a minor contributor to the article. The review was opened at 21:10, 9 April 2013 and the reviewer made three edits to the article during the life of the review (and there is nothing wrong with that, as that might have been "problem fixing" but they could have been documented in the review); and seventeen edits in total to the article; but there is no evidence that it was ever reviewed against the criteria. I have no wish to put you and the article through a reassessment as the "problems" appear to be due solely to a new reviewer misusing / abusing the review process. These things have happened before and undoubted they will happen again. It was an article that I had intended to review, probably in mid May, if no one got there first (and I fail slightly less than 10% of what I review, so I doubt that I would have failed it). I will look at the article in early May, when I return - I may even fix the lead myself, well you might have get there first. However, as it was clearly not reviewed, see comments above, I'm not sure what other problems might emerge. Pyrotec (talk) 15:46, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK. If I understand you correctly, the lead should be expanded in such a manner that the "most important" elements are given more explicit weight than the "less important"? I thought I might mention in the lead primary areas for use, but decided against it, because then the content in "Main Uses" would be repeat of what was present in the lead. But, it is perhaps more imperative to work on the lead to actually become "stand alone", rather than being just the menu chart?Arildnordby (talk) 17:17, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The lead should be expanded: it could go, say, up to about three paragraphs the same size as the current one. It should introduce the topic of the article and summarise the main points, but should not include material that is not in the "body"; and the lead should have about the same "balance" as the "body of the article". Putting it simple, only one section in the "body" is about animals and it's about half the size, or less, of other sections so animals should not comprise more than about one-sixteenth of the lead; regional studies is the biggest section, probably followed by Methods, so the lead should have a similar balance.

The wording of the current lead could be made "tighter", say, and that would allow more context to be added. For example editing the current lead to read:-

Impalement is the penetration of an organism by an elongated foreign object-S such as a stake, pole, or spear, and this usually BY implies complete perforation of the central -ER mass of the impaled body. In particular, T- techniques designed to effect penetration merely of extremities like OF hands or feet are excluded from this article (for such cases, see, for example, crucifixion). While the term "impalement" may be used in reference to an accident, T- this article has a primary focus on impalement as a form of execution, how it was performed, and highlighting some places where it was used. In particular, T- the article surveys impalement as a form capital punishment meted out by the judiciary, but also, secondarily, some examples from generalized massacres within the context of war, rebellion or persecution have been included. Furthermore, examples of AND sacrificial customs where impalement of either humans or animals has been a central element in the ritual have been included. Impalement has also been used as a way of inflicting post mortem indignities (that is, (LIKE shaming the dead), or been used as a means OR to prevent the dead from rising from the graves, and some such examples are mentioned. Impalement has also figured in myths, legends, literature and films, and a short review of such instances is included. Finally, a few examples are given of impalement in THE context of animals, as in animals using impalement on prey, and hunting and preservation techniques in which impalement IT is a central element.

Note: "-ES" just means add the suffix "es" to the word, etc; T-the means replace "the" with "The", etc)

I hope this helps; and I shan't be around now until early May. Pyrotec (talk) 18:50, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OKay, I'll work on it, thanks!. I've added a synthesis that is inferrable from the main body. Is that OK?Arildnordby (talk) 19:14, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't have the answer to that. I probably don't need to say this, but if I've started a re-assessment yesterday: the current lead would have been given a "reads like an essay" verdict and (possibly) I'd give a non-compliance against Clause 1(b). Reviewers are supposed to be unbiased but the "balance" can be disturbed. Anyway, its holiday time for me: so I'm going to forget wikipeidia (for now) and live in the real world. Pyrotec (talk) 19:35, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK! I'll see what I can do. :-)Arildnordby (talk) 19:41, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I saw your comment at Talk:Impalement/GA2, and I thought it might be worth you considering signing up at Wikipedia:Requests for JSTOR access, and/or trying out JSTOR's Register and Read programme. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:29, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for your suggestion! I have now signed up.Arildnordby (talk) 12:30, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

After signing up, I am to wait, right, until I get a mail that says my request is accepted? Or should I do anything more??Arildnordby (talk) 14:10, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Impalement, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Nicholson (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:39, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Impalement, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Batavia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:14, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Blowing from a gun, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mughal (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:08, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Blowing from a gun, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Assamese (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:59, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hand of Glory, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lapland (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:30, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Premature burial may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:16, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just wondered. (Should we be worried?) 71.219.204.88 (talk) 16:29, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep wondering.Arildnordby (talk) 21:14, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds ominous. Is it ominous? 71.219.220.168 (talk) 07:12, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

.Why does it sound ominous to you? You wondered, and that's fine for me. You can keep on wondering for all I care.Arildnordby (talk) 09:00, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

   I think i thanked an editor or two when i noticed the thank facility, but yours is the first that i've received. I was afraid you'd find that touch-up annoying; someone in the last few months actually criticized my use of the &-nbsp-; mechanism i use to achieve the traditionally obligatory effect of indenting the first line of each 'graph. (One of several rarely-used mechanisms you might notice in my talk edits.)
   I make no bones about my being obsessive-compulsive, and don't expect anyone else to put the effort i now habitually do into being unambiguous about what i am responding to in a complex discussion, and about where my contribution doesn't end. But if you have questions about my personal style sheet (rather than just being polite enuf to make a point of not taking offense at my touching up your edit!), don't hesitate to say so.
   Thanks to you too, and happy editing.
--Jerzy•t 23:35, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have never worked on a GA and am unlikely to do so for a while, as for helping anyone, very unlikely due to my time issues. satusuro 23:55, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

.That's perfectly OK!Arildnordby (talk) 00:01, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

also despite having been at the beginning of the death project it was due to interest in making sure that wp actually had the articles and categories on wp en included in a maintainable state, not the actual process of death. execution i find quite abhorent. also the bibliography on the article you ask for help with is obscenely large/long. cheers satusuro 00:08, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I also find executions abhorrent (the reason why I have written about them is that it is a field with much solid&reliable primary sources, but minimal in-depth treatment by professionals. Sort of a virgin field, so to speak). I understand fully your reluctance to get involved with it; in particular, I respect the conscientiousness you show in that IF you should get involved in this, you'd have to check my primary sources.Arildnordby (talk) 00:21, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Impalement may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:56, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Impalement may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:46, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Impalement may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:06, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Impalement may have broken the syntax by modifying 3 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:21, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Blowing from a gun 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 North8000 -- North8000 (talk) 15:11, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Immurement may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• and Roman imperial portraiture|publisher=BRILL|location=Leiden|year=2004|isbn=9789004135772}}</ref>
• of The Sociology of Islam|publisher=CUP Archive|location=Cambridge|year=1957|isbn=978-0521091824}}</ref>

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:57, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article Blowing from a gun you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Blowing from a gun for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of North8000 -- North8000 (talk) 02:02, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

that new articles over a certain lenght and articles that have been expanded five-folded within the last five days can be nominated for DYK; earning them a short visit on the main page if they pass? DYK articles must hold a certain minimum standard; for instance having inline citations in all paragraphs (with some excemption), not have close paraphrasing issues etc. I saw you have been working with the article Poena cullei which you now have nominated for GA, so I was thinking maybe you would like to nominate it for DYK first (otherwise it can be nominated for DYK within 5 days after having passed GA, but only if it passes). A DYK nomination shall also include a catchy hook. Best regards, Iselilja (talk) 20:33, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info! :-)Arildnordby (talk) 20:53, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Impalement (in myth and art) may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• * {{cite book| last= Capper| first= James| title= Observations on the passage to India, through Egypt:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:42, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Impalement, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Spice Islands (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:57, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, there! I noticed that on the talk page of Death by burning from 2010, you wondered about judicial burning to death in Islamic countries. In the 17th century Ottoman Empire (Turkey and dominions), several sources say that Turks who apostasized from Islam might face burning to death. Furthermore, from 18th century Morooco and Algiers, it is said in several sources that Christian slaves or Jews meriting death penalty would be burned (while Arabs would be impaled or meet other types of nastinesses.) I might cough up some links if you absolutely need'em. Cheers.Arildnordby (talk) 21:27, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've coughed up a few refs in the relevant article.Arildnordby (talk) 23:53, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much. I am gradually building up evidence that this punishment was taken over by the Muslims from the Christians after the Arab Conquest. I have come across several references to early examples of burning to death as (a) a pagan Roman punishment for Christians, notably in the persecution of Diocletian (c.305), (b) a Christian punishment for heretics (4th to 6th centuries AD), and finally (c) a Muslim punishment for rebels, deviants and apostates, including Christians (7th century onwards). One of these days I will document them for this article.

Djwilms (talk) 06:27, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I removed some overly long quotations from Impalement (in myth and art) because they appeared to be copyright violations. In general, a quote longer than 10-20 words as they were used in this article are probably copyright violations unless the material is already in the public domain or it has already been legally published under a "free" license. In practical terms, this means unless it was published before 1923 or the "official" copy is published under a free license like one of the Wikipedia-compatible Creative Commons licenses, only short snippets can be used in the way you are using htem in that article.

For specific rules regarding Wikipedia and copyright, see Wikipedia:Copyrights and related pages.

Please go back through all of your contributions and remove any copyright violations that you made. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 06:29, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, you are just white hot for updating this hot topic. Bad pun. Keep up the good work. Quis separabit? 20:32, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your encouragement is..warming. :-)Arildnordby (talk) 08:58, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Heartwarming, I am sure. Looked the article over as per your request, looks very good. Yours, Quis separabit? 23:17, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Check the talk page of Sati (practice)‎, there are some issues with the pages, although the page hasn't been tagged, because the issues are somewhat solved. We have thoroughly searched every references, so if you are going to add statistics don't add the statistics that are published almost 200 years ago. You can add some new backup, in terms of latest editions, that prescribes to these similar stats. Bladesmulti (talk) 13:21, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yawn. It was 200 years ago it was possible to form some actual statistics. Modern historians do not have any other techniques than..almost 200 year old reports to go by. Do you think modern historians use time travel???Arildnordby (talk) 13:27, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stop edit warring at Sati (practice), if you have some suggestion, you can discuss it in the talk page, instead of enforcing the change on which no one has agreed yet, nor you have made any valid argument. Or else if you continued edit warring, you can be blocked from editing without further notice.

If you think that no modern historians cites these stuff, why you are citing them? I ask you to revert your change, since it is badly constructed, and cites no author, neither its relevant. Bladesmulti (talk) 13:40, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Where have I said modern historians do not use it? It is precisely contemporary statistics like these modern historians must use to form their own estimates. It is already might quite clear, in the intro "There are no reliable statistics" (meaning not within ideally preferable limits of accuracy). Furthermore, it is absolutely relevant to include at least one actual, contemporary statistics within the article, one that is clearly an official compilation by the British. It also segues quite well into the already presently included estimate that the incidences of Sati in the Madras and Bombay presidencies were vastly lower than in Bangal. Again, you don't have any sort of reasoned case for regarding the statistics as unreliable You are the one doing the edit warring here, removing 6000+ of an article with zero valid argumentation. It is not surprising that vandals like you start bullying others.Arildnordby (talk) 13:50, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How i am Vandalizing? When i provided the legible reason for each edit in the summary, calling others, you have clearly not read WP:SEEALSO, And avoid personal attacks. Instead you can make constructive edits. Bladesmulti (talk) 14:54, 22 January 2014 (UTC) You are vandalizing, providing no valid argumentation. I have added a modern acceptance of the precise figure cited in the perfectly legit 1829 report.Arildnordby (talk) 14:56, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Same source that regard these stats to be problematic. Anyways i have attributed it, and the massive WP:Content forking that you are doing on Death by burning should be avoided. Bladesmulti (talk) 15:07, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not giving in, are you? Both a highly compressed history of widow burning, as well as an extended discussion of actual numbers are perfectly relevant in Death by burning.Arildnordby (talk) 15:25, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To say that Death by burning and Sati largely treats the same subject, is just again an example of yourt deliberate, malevolent lying. The treatment of sati in Death by Burning is less than 10% of that article, which is entirely appropriate.Arildnordby (talk) 15:28, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like you are still not getting. The stats that you are wishing to push, have been regarded as problematic by the source that has been given by you, there's reason why they have been avoided from the main page. Having over 6,000 Bytes of copied content from main article, in the perfect WP:Cherrypicking style, is WP:POVFORK. Bladesmulti (talk) 15:35, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No. Again, you show yourself as a liar. Yang says that PRE-1815 numbers might not be reliable, not the 1815-1824 stats, due to the scantiness of reports prior to 1815. Which makes sense. Furthermore, as is quite clear from Yangs's writing, she regards those scanty pre-1815 numbers as UNDER-estimates, demolishing theses, for example, that sati increased under the BritishArildnordby (talk) 15:45, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It said "not only is the pre-1815 data is scanty, but even the usable 'hard numbers' are fraught with the problems." and "the emerging colonial government simply did not possess the administrative apparatus." How you think that they aren't highlighting the whole given stats? Bladesmulti (talk) 15:53, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

.Nonsense. ALL numbers, including modern mortality and disease statistics can be said to be "fraught with problems". That is why you generally leave the interpretation of those data to high professional actuarians, statisticians and mathematicians. The relevant problem here is whether the data I provided are among the best possible estimates for events 200 years ago (there will have been lots of stats from that time that are a lot worse; I've seen those, and have not included them). And, abundantly attested, they are included within it, as per Yang, and numerous others.Arildnordby (talk) 16:01, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Where did yang said that the stats are correct? When whole 23-30 is observing the mistakes with the tables, about unreported and increase of self-immolation, expecially when the source cite "the emerging colonial government simply did not possess the administrative apparatus." Bladesmulti (talk) 16:05, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you simply obscure the difference between best possible estimates and "correctness". Best possible estimates are perfectly legit (and, indeed, necessary) to be included, as long as it is clearly stated that these statistics cannot be regarded as fully reliable And, that has already been stated, in the very first sentence of the Numbers section. It should also be remembered that adding primary source material on numbers has an additional historical importance, namely that these were in fact, the numbers the British Government worked with, and published, laying the parameters for their own policies. Whether or not those numbers hit the actual frequency precisely or not. Inclusion of direct, official statistics is therefore important, not just as a possibly faulty (but still the best possible) indicator of actual frequency, but also important in revealing how British administration looked upon the issue up to 1829. Furthermore, you are incorrect again about the content on the whole23-30 in Yang. 28-33 concerns principally sati incidence in different castes, not incorrectness of table data. As for pages 26-27, those are not available on my Google Books preview, but seems from p.23 to possibly include a discussion of reliabilityArildnordby (talk) 16:26, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am still not getting, that where did you saw, on page 23, that they regard these stats to be reliable, but not problematic? Show me what made you assume so. The 28-33 is not limited to castes, but also with the regions, that aren't included. On 27, G. Morris suggests that cases were probably higher. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:37, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, so the British numbers are, by your own account, under-estimates, rather than over-estimates. That is a feature that has been lacking in your mendacious edits, seeking to cast doubt on the British figures as some sort of racist overinflated numbers. (I've seen how you have gotten warnings for your revisionist tendencies at other pages, seeking to improve the image of Hinduism).Arildnordby (talk) 16:46, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Where? How it is related with this discussion? I have neither said anything against or in favor of anyone, only adding what is written as per the source(either reliable or not, but this time it is reliable again), other one being unreliable and authorless source for which you edit war before, is snippet. Can you present better copy? Bladesmulti (talk) 16:58, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yawn. All you have managed to find are contemporary historians saying that the British probably underestimated the numbers of sati in Bengal, not that, as you have tried to do, regard the British numbers as "useless". They are not, they represent a lower barrier for the frequency, which is critically different from, in terms of reliability, the British sitting in their offices inventing case after case of imagined sati.Arildnordby (talk) 17:02, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Death by burning, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Berlitz (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:24, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Death by burning. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:22, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]