Talk:Homosexuality in ancient Greece/Archive 3

message: I'm wondering, given the known problems that can occur with translations (with actually fairly many philosophers of language going so far as to call a translation a new work), if there is a wikipedia policy regarding if and when to consider a translation original research.  It seems that something of the sort could clear this up right away.  Alternatively, if there isn't, does anyone want to spend a few minutes working one up?  I'd be glad to help and/or offer input! -Smahoney 20:07, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no need to translate this material. It has already been done, it is drawn from Aechines' "Against Timarchos," Xenophon, Demosthenes, etc. More to the point, it is not for us to translate and interpret, since that would obviously be original research. With regard to an ancient dead tongue, there is no translation without interpretation. Certainly we can mention that there were laws against certain practices, but these existed side by side with laws that promoted analogous practices. Hubris against women and boys was punished, but free men were encouraged to enagage youths in relationships while slaves were forbidden. So obviously consensual relation and interfemoral sex were not considered hubris, else we would fall from one contradiction into another. Anyway, this material should be drawn from reliable critical sources, not vanity press philippics. Haiduc 00:03, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I basically agree with Haiduc, but it's clear that sometimes a translation is wrong or slanted in some way (we see some examples on this page). Sometimes we will have to argue about the merits of translations, especially if we have an editor with strong opinions. But whether a translation is original research or not seems straightforward to me: if it comes from a published source, the translation isn't OR, if it's an editor's translation it's OR. However, if an editor contributes their own translation to the Wiki commons or otherwise publishes their translation, it can then be cited by Wikipedia. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:04, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that a translation that isn't published is OR - my question was whether there is a policy that actually states that, and if not, if anyone would be willing to participate in developing one.  -Smahoney 02:38, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Translation policies? 

message: The current editwar, instigated by User:66.53.98.167, an apparent sockpuppet of User:Cretanpride, suggests that we need semi-protection back in place. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:53, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Semi-protect again?

message: Just in case others care, here are two confirmed sockpuppets of User:Cretanpride:
*User:66.233.19.170
*User:66.53.98.167
And one suspected:
*User:66.53.108.59
I have also initiated a request for investigation. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:23, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  three sockpuppets of User:Cretanpride 

message: Since I am blocked, I will be forced to write anonymously. I already posted something similar on Aldux's page. There is a difference between using the same computer and being the same user. Cretanpride has been blocked so many times he ran out of computers and used mine. Notice the IP address. He is a user of Clearwire. I am a user of SBC. Check into that if you care. Also, I put down "I am not a sockpuppet of Cretanpride" because he told me that if I didn't I would be blocked. 
Also if you go to "edit this page" you will see a different style of editing. On the AFD discussion page Cretanpride did not bother to distinguish between the styles of his sockpuppets and his own. I also did not know how to sign my name until I believe my fourth edit. Although I suppose this is all a lie to you all. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.245.120.147 (talk • contribs) .
:None of this matters, Wikipedia is about content and ideas, not about personalities. Valid content will be integrated even if Pol Pot submitted it, and even Mother Theresa will be reverted if writing nonsense. If the block is off the mark, once it's over just join in and forget about it. Haiduc 11:18, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The question is whether Ellinas' block will expire or not.  The standard treatment for a sockpuppet account is an indefinite block, but if Ellinas is a different individual (and hence merely a meatpuppet) there may be a case for lifting the block (and possibly extending the block on the Cretanpride account, for more block evasion).  The question is being discussed at AN/I now. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 16:23, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sockpuppet Case

message: There's something strange going on with the footnotes.  Right now I'm seeing all the references listed twice, except for the OCD entry.  And the actual footnotes appearing in the text are numbered according to the second listing in the "Notes" section, so that the first footnote in the article is #13.  Does anyone know what we're doing wrong, or if there's something wrong with the cite.php system? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 16:21, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Never mind: I found a discussion of this at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Mysterious problem involving footnotes and citation templates.  The solution is to add ?action=purge at the end of the URL and reload the page.  I presume that the underlying cause is being dealt with. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 16:55, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Footnotes