Hello there, welcome to the 'pedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you ever need editing help visit Wikipedia:How does one edit a page and experiment at Wikipedia:Sandbox. If you need pointers on how we title pages visit Wikipedia:Naming conventions or how to format them visit our manual of style. If you have any other questions about the project then check out Wikipedia:Help or add a question to the Village pump. BTW, nice work on Vedas. Cheers! --maveric149

You've said you're not happy with what you ended up with on Rape#Victim blaming. I think your edits are moving things in a good direction, and I encourage you to do more.

You were quite perceptive in saying the section read to be more about false reporting than about victim blaming; what happened is that an anonymous editor created a section in the article about false reporting and overreporting, which had some very dodgy material (like claiming that Dr. Eugene Kanin's research showed 41% of all rape reports to be false). A second anon came along and radically revised the section to be more about victim blaming than false reporting, essentially writing from the POV that false reporting did not occur and it was only victim blaming that made people think it occurred. I stepped in, separated the material on victim blaming into a section of its own, cut out a lot of the dodginess from both sides from the false reporting section, and did some research to expand the section and address what we do and don't know about it.

Unfortunately, the second anon keeps returning every 2-4 weeks, always under a new IP address, and keeps editing those two sections to suit his/her POV that false reporting does not occur and even if it does it's a small insignificant problem and anyone who disagrees is clearly victim blaming -- this is the reason for a passage that you removed:

Due to the wide spread persecution of rape victims, false reporting is often discounted by those who prefer not to believe in it, as not an effective means of gaining the false reporter's desired ends. This ignores the fact that criminal decisions are often unwise decisions, and people still choose to make them anyways.

That passage went in because our anon (who never responds to the Talk page) responded to the passage where Dr. Kanin reports that women who had admitted making false rape reports said they did so for an alibi, for revenge, or for attention/sympathy, with "Obviously this is not the case considering there is very sparse sympathy for rape survivors in the criminal justice system." -- arguing, again, that false reports just don't happen, and that this is "proven" by the logic that if they did it for sympathy, they wouldn't get it from the criminal justice system, so "obviously" no one ever does it, ever, for this motive or any other.

I'm happy to see someone taking on that section; it's badly in need of attention and unfortunately the only volunteer before you was our ax-grinding anon. It's good to see it in better hands. -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:28, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Ref.: your edits at Palladian architecture: you are of course quite right, Palladianism spread by returning architects and British influence. The article has been hugely edited since it became main page today, if you go back about 10,000 edits to yesterday you will see someone has removed a sentence which explained why I called it true palladianism, ie True P is only there to explain the initial principles. Having reverted 4 edits already earlier today, I thought I would leave the rest until the page is yesterday's news, and then sort out what to keep, if there is anything of the original left that is! Giano 12:24, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 2000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

• Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
• Multi-Licensing Guide
• Free the Rambot Articles Project

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

OR

Option 2

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:

{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (| talk)

I enjoyed your Alfred Elmore article, thanks for taking a red link off the List of Irish artists! Notjim 11:35, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

If that image is from the Egyptian museum, it is copyright, however its use may be possible under fair use laws. Could you explain the copyright status on the image description page. I've listed it as "unknown" for now — Zeimusu | Talk 03:56, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I am having trouble with a simonP. I edit Arete (virtue) and he immediately reverts the edits. Him and his friends have deleted [Classical definition of republic] and after the many facts and the quoting of material they will not acknowledge they won't even let an external link and the talk is ongoing at Talk:Republic. This man doesn't know what he is doing. I ask that someone step in and stop this please. This man has no expertise in the classical field. He is an anonymous user. Please see also Talk:Arete (virtue).WHEELER 17:32, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You did a good job on [Semitic]. Paulr 18:57, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. It seemed a bit chaotic. It needed the subheads too. Good idea. Paul B 19.01, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)