User talk:Ludde23

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Ludde23, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  --Bachrach44 14:33, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion archives[edit]

230 BC[edit]

It turns out that both ambassadors were killed, see Agron_(king) , Queen Teuta of Illyria , Rome and the Mediterranean to 133 B.C. by A. E. Astin,F. W. Walbank,M. W. Frederiksen,1989,ISBN-0521234484,page 87 and an entire campaign thus begun.Megistias (talk) 09:24, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think it should be added at the end, that after and due to this the Illyrian Wars begunMegistias (talk) 09:29, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Krav maga in popular culture[edit]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Krav maga in popular culture, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Krav maga in popular culture. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. jmcw (talk) 11:21, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"(link will display the full calendar)"[edit]

Hi,

I've started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Years#"(link will display the full calendar)" regarding our recent edits at 1 to get further discussion. Thanks. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:25, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your help is needed[edit]

Hi Ludde23,

I want you to take action about a serious problem (see Revision history of 191). This person (80.42.224.130) is violating the rules of Wikipedia. Action is needed!!

Thanks, Peters01 (talk) 22:48, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I don't really see what I could do (besides giving the person a reprimand). Secondly, it's some rather mild vandalism, easily reverted and nothing to get excited about. /Ludde23 Talk Contrib 05:51, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, now I see the big problem (that it wasn't just 191, but a whole bunch of articles this person has vandalated). Still, there's not much I can do, since I'm just an ordinary user and not an administrator. Secondly, the user in question seems to already have been blocked for a month. /Ludde23 Talk Contrib 05:54, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, i fought that you are also a administrator. Indeed it is mild vandalism but the person in question was violating the rules and it is also not nice to read on every yearpage that a person is died of cancer or a hartattack. Thanks, Peters01 (talk) 08:05, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pimp my Userpage[edit]

Hi Ludde23, can you please help me to pimp my Userpage? I like also your editorstars, because i have almost a 1,000 edits on Wikipedia.

Gr. Peters01 (talk) 20:28, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "pimp". Could you explain that further please? /Ludde23 Talk Contrib 22:11, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I mean if you can help me to restore my userpage, the orginal version is to simple and when i look at your page it is perfect. I like also the editorstar, how can i get this item on my page? Peters01 (talk) 08:10, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But you can do it yourself. Simply click "edit" when you're on my page, copy what's there and paste it into your own page. Then make the appropriate changes, such as you not being from Sweden but from the Netherlands etc. As for the editor star, simply follow the links next to it, and you'll find further instructions there. /Ludde23 Talk Contrib 08:25, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Errors[edit]

A brief question about the section in List of Prime Ministers of Sweden. I believe deputy head of government Lars Engqvist was acting Prime Minister between the period 3rd June - 1st October 2004. Göran Persson was out of office and according to the rules; if for any reason, the current Prime Minister cannot perform his/her duties, the vice Prime Minister will taker over. During that time, Mr Persson had a hip surgery followed by rehabilitation. Isn't that the case? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amerikabrevet (talk • contribs) 19:29, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That may very well have been the case, I don't remember and I didn't hear about it at the time. But if it was, feel free to add him. /Ludde23 Talk Contrib 19:49, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:74 BC[edit]

Hi, I saw you undid my edit on 74 BC. Please see my response on Talk:74 BC. Note that the Roman calender started in march and did not comply to modern calenders. Therefor your argument is void. Kind regards, Taketa (talk) 09:04, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not. The year we refer to as 74 BC is the Roman year. Thus, 74 BC started in March and ended in February. /Ludde23 Talk Contrib 11:31, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Years[edit]

Hello! Congrats on your patience with going about year after year and standardizing the relevant pages, but you have got a few things wrong: first, the Byzantine regnal dating you favour is way too euro-centric, excluding the rest of the world. Even in Europe, the system was far from universally used, and even in the Byzantine Empire, dating by indiction was the usual shorthand. Furthermore, consular dating had in effect been abolished, only very few writers using it after 541, and almost no one in real life. Same goes for the AUC format. IMO it is best to leave the lede with the Common Era year alone, since that is the de facto universal system. Otherwise we would have to add every single other system, and that is precisely what the "YYY in other calendars" navbox is for. Best regards, Constantine ✍ 13:54, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know. However, thought I'd add this to the eighth century too, since the AD system became predominant at the beginning of the ninth century. Since I don't have anything better, for the time being, I thought I'd use it for just one more century, in order to at least have something to put in the lead section. When I find a better phrasing, I'm very willing to change it. /Ludde23 Talk Contrib 14:02, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I beleive it was 1422 when Western Europe was using vulgar dates almost universally. Even then regnal years are used into the twentieth century for some purposes. Rich Farmbrough, 12:39, 1 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Years more[edit]

(In particular 450 BC.)

  • I saw you are adding "Noincludes" - I don't think this helps on article pages, it is only useful for pages that are transcluded.
  • Events => Events of 450 BC - in general we don't repeat the article title in section headings.
  • Spaces in headers - adding or removing these en-masse is somewhat problematic.

(In particular 74 BC.)

  • Unreferenced =- please see the discussion at Template talk:Unreferenced.
  • Category. These years are only in their eponymous category. That means there is no simple way to find all the year articles.
Rich Farmbrough, 12:36, 1 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]
  • About "Noincludes" – I know it doesn't help. I've begun adding them as a preparation/help for the eventuality of future transclusions. It does not affect nor hurt the layout of the page.
  • About "Events => Events of XXXX" – This is the case from the year 1301 and onward. I just wanted to make it the same all over.
  • About "Spaces in headers" – What do you mean by "somewhat problematic". To me there's no problem to add them as I go along.
  • ABout "Unreferenced" – I've made a reply on the talk page of the Unreferenced template.
  • About "Categories" – As there are more than 2,500 year articles it seems strange that this category should be included on only one of them.
/Ludde23 Talk Contrib 13:36, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • What future transclusions? Generally articles should not be transcluded.
  • Probably better to remove them all over.
  • People have different opinions about spaces in headers. Therefore it is deemed unwise to add or remove them unless you are changing a header. (I.E. you will get shouted at for doing it.)
  • Well all categories have a first member.
Rich Farmbrough, 20:55, 1 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]
  • Such as is done with the 490s BC, 480s BC, 400–409, 410s and 420s.
  • Alright, better with only "Events" instead of "Events of XXXX". Got it.
  • So far, you're the only one who has "shouted" at me for adding them. In my opinion, there's an advantage with spaces, being that if you're stepping through the words of a header (in edit mode) with Ctrl + left (or right) arrow, you don't end up to the right of the rightmost equals sign (or to the left of the leftmost equals sign), but instead just to the right or left of the words. Secondly, whether there are spaces or not in headers varies greatly in the year articles – I'm simply making it consistent.
  • The year categories (e.g. "Category:74 BC") are included in the "Category:Years" but no year articles themselves are. To include the years themselves would create a double categorization. Anyway, if the year articles should be included in the "Category:Years" (which I think they shouldn't), please put all year articles in it, not just one random article out of nearly 2,600.

/Ludde23 Talk Contrib 21:25, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In regard categorization, please see WT:YEARS#Chronologies categories. Proposal for a separate work group
Some of your recent (e.g., 2008) make changes which significantly modify existing conventions. For example:
changed to
violates WP:DASH; the first dash should be spaced (although that part of WP:DASH is under review)
changed to
violates WP:DASH and probably should not have been changed at all; it lies in a conflict between Wikipedia style guidelines, so should not be changed without WP:YEARS buy-in.
And I'm not sure the monthly calendars should have been removed.
Could you fix those? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:37, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • About spaced dashes: They're not spaced in any other year articles, so I just thought I'd make it consistent with all others. If it's wrong, I'll start fixing this once I start going through the year articles again (starting at 499 BC I've now gone through them all up to 2010).
  • About changing [[July 9|9]] to [[July 9]]: It's strange that there is a rule like this, since there are also comments that urge every contributor to link all dates, even if repeated, for date preferences. Of course, that pattern works well if your date preferences is Month Day – then it would indeed read "July 7 – 9". But what if your date preferences are the other way around (Day Month). Then, that would read "7 July – 9", which doesn't make much sense. Anybody with that date preference would probably prefer it if it said "7 – 9 July", so this should work as a compromise. However, if this is really a big issue, I will go over it at the same time that I go through the year articles looking for other such errors (of mine).
  • About the monthly calendars: This has been discussed elsewhere (I don't remember exactly where right now – probably on the talk page for {{Month3}} or so) and it seems they are problematic, since they create a huge number of extra wiki links. In my opinion, it's better to see the common year starting on Monday (or whatever year type it was) at the top instead.

/Ludde23 Talk Contrib 18:22, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I forgot the discussion on the monthly calendars. I think you're right.
WP:DASH seems to still specify that en dashes are not spaced unless the one of the items connected by the en-dash has punctuation or spacing.
As for the [[July 9|9]], that should have been discussed on WT:YEARS before implementation, even if it is a general Wikipedia guideline, as WP:LINKING has specific exceptions for links to dates in timeline articles. It may be a good idea, but the project should have at least been notified of the style change, and a short wait for the lack of opposition. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:46, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Recent Years[edit]

The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
For excellent and exceptionally tireless work maintaining the years articles. ttonyb (talk) 21:31, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much! I feel honoured indeed. /Ludde23 Talk Contrib 21:32, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:BC year in topic[edit]

Due to your edits to this template, this is now required on all transclusions. Are you running a bot to clean this up? Frietjes (talk) 00:01, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, since I don't have a bot and don't know how they work. However, it's an easy task for me to fix this. Unfortunately, I don't have time to do it today, but I will go through them tomorrow, if nobody else has by then. /Ludde23 Talk Contrib 07:19, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But otherwise: Yes, I'm underway to go through them all and so far I've done 200 articles. Like I said, I don't have the time today, but will continue tomorrow. Please bear with me. /Ludde23 Talk Contrib 07:23, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed the rest. Frietjes (talk) 18:49, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I thought the bunching problem had been solved (and here). The removal of this template does not result in bunching in the browsers that I have tested. Frietjes (talk) 22:42, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For example, if it were really necessary, wouldn't you have it in Template:BC year in topic? I see no bunching issues in List of state leaders in 2 BC. Frietjes (talk) 23:17, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It seems you're right! Wonderful, but I didn't know it had been fixed. Thanks for pointing it out. It's great that the bunching templates are no longer necessary. Please forgive my earlier remark on your talk page then. /Ludde23 Talk Contrib 07:01, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, big red errors after your edit to 50s. Frietjes (talk) 22:30, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think this was the problem. Frietjes (talk) 22:32, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1396 sourcing[edit]

Hi, I'm unclear why you removed the {unsourced} tag on 1396. You say "people don't want it on year articles". You mean the tags or the sources? 2009 has 94 references. Is there a policy somewhere I'm missing? Cheers. Hairhorn (talk) 20:57, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I mean the tags. Once upon a time I added such tags to all year articles from 499 BC up to AD 1700, with the intention of going all the way up to 2059. However, by then, I got a few complaints about them and have been told to remove them altogether, which is what I'm doing right now. People claim that year articles should be internally referenced, for instance. I don't agree, but I am now removing the tags. Of course, anyone is free to add sources to the year articles, but the tags aren't really necessary, since, hopefully, other articles on the subjects are referenced. /Ludde23 Talk Contrib 21:38, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
See also Template_talk:Unreferenced#Internal References. /Ludde23 Talk Contrib 21:40, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Year dab[edit]

Hi there,

I thought it would be fair to speak to you before starting an informal discussion at Requests for Comment. I noticed that you created a new disambiguation-line template called Year dab and have included it in a number of articles. It appears that- as well as the general "other uses" link- this template adds specific links to articles on (possibly all of)

  • Area codes
  • Boeing aircraft, and
  • London bus routes

of the same number if they exist.

I have to admit that I'm not convinced that this is a good idea. Disambiguation lines should be short and inobtrusive- in the case of titles that could have a large number of alternate uses (such as 135), a single link to a disambiguation page is far preferable than having a long and unwieldy dab line with numerous links.

While the template currently only has 3 such special cases, there is no clear reason why other uses shouldn't be handled if those ones were. But if this were to be taken to its logical conclusion, the generated dab lines would potentially be *very* long and unwiedly.

OTOH, if we said that "you can't do that for reasons of length", it would be asked (quite rightly) why the current 3 cases should be included when others weren't. After all, I first noticed the template because I wondered why the London 135 bus service had its own link when it was already on the dab page and none of the other articles got such special handling.

I'd be interested to hear your point of view on this. Thanks,

Ubcule (talk) 20:06, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your interest. First of all: I created this Year dab template, because before, the dabbing at the top of year pages were, imho, a mess. There was the about template, the otheruses-number template and so on. I've made this one to make it more consistent. Secondly, I'm sure you agree that XXX (number) and XXX (disambiguation) should be there, I don't think there's any controversy in that. When it comes to others, I did, originally, include only the area codes and Boeing models, because, as I went through the year articles quite a few times, I noticed that those were very often included as dabs, espeically the area codes. Now, the London bus routes, I only found one dab link on a year article (I don't remember which one, at the moment), but when I had a look at the category listing those, I noticed that there are quite a few and I thought that sooner or later, somebody is going to add those manually to the year articles. So, I just thought I'd simplify things by adding them to the template instead.
However, I completely agree with you, that dabs at the top of articles should not be too crowded. Perhaps the London bus routes were a bit too much to add. In fact, thinking about it now, I think they could be removed. Yes, I believe you're right there. So what is your opinion about the Boeing models and area codes? Personally, I don't find it necessary to include them, but I fear that people will start adding them manually, if they are removed. /Ludde23 Talk Contrib 20:21, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, I definitely *don't* think that Boeing models or area codes should be included. Nor should anything else unless there's a very strong argument for a particular case- the link to the number or dab page is enough.
(1) If "someone may include it anyway" for Boeing or area codes, the same could be said of lots of other subject types. Which leads back to unwieldy subject lines.
(2) Handling such cases in the template may apparently make things cleaner and more maintainable for editors... but this obscures the fact that it still does *not* make it any better for the end-user (i.e. those reading the article). They still get an intrusive, unwieldy dab line full of stuff that would be better on a separate dab page.
(3) And even *if* some people might try to include them anyway, that doesn't justify doing it ourselves, even if it makes maintenance easier (see (2)). The aim is to make the most readable, useful and navigable encyclopedia for the reader. I believe that longwinded dabs with numerous links are better replaced with a separate dab page (and simple link). That appears to be the general way of doing things on WP anyway.
If people add (e.g.) disambiguation links for their own pet subject that would be better placed on the dab page, we can revert it. They can argue why theirs is a special case that warrants a specific link (when all the other subjects go on the dab page) if they want.
BTW, is there usually a separate XXX (number) and XXX (disambiguation) anyway? There only appears to be XXX (number) in all the cases I checked, that serving as a de facto dab page anyway. In which case, there's no need to include the (disambiguation) variant.
Ubcule (talk) 21:36, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, then we can safely remove the area code, Boieng model and London bus route dab links. The reason I included them in the first place was that they were already included as dab links on *many* year articles. When it comes to XXX (disambiguation) I've found quite a few and anyway, you wouldn't think it wrong to dab to a dab page, would you? Generally, the XXX (disambiguation) page should be the one to dab to, however, the number, especially the lower ones, stand out as there are many people actually looking for the number, when they go to the year article, due to Wikipedia's system of reserving articles with only digits for the year. Thus, I think at least those to should be included. Secondly, the links only appear if the dab article in question exists. So, it's not very obtrusive in my eyes. /Ludde23 Talk Contrib 07:05, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
First bit sounds okay to me. Can't comment on the second bit as I'm not experienced enough to know whether "overloading" (number) pages into de facto dabs is standard or not- Given that this template is going to be appearing on lots of articles, I'd still be tempted to recommend RFCing it for feedback, but I'll leave that for you to decide. All the best, Ubcule (talk) 20:27, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
RFCing? That's a term I'm not familiar with. What does that mean? /Ludde23 Talk Contrib 21:35, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"RFC" is just the commonly-used abbreviation for the Requests for Comment discussions mentioned above. "RFCing" was just crappy verbification on my part :-( Ubcule (talk) 12:43, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

{{Events by year for decade}}[edit]

Hi!

Your recent change to this template has created a lovely mess on 1550s and probably other places. While you are about it could you also eliminate the DEFAULTSORT conflict that is generated on several of the new year and decade lists? Thank you. JimCubb (talk) 16:49, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I usually catch the errors as I go along, but apparently I missed that one. Thanks for pointing it out. My recent fix should take care of any conflicts. /Ludde23 Talk Contrib 17:21, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Somehow, and I cannot find how or where, all the following also have DEFAULTSORT conflicts: 1150s
1610s
1620s
1650s
1660s
1680s
1700-1709
1740s
1780s
1790s
Your prompt attention to this matter would be greatly appreciated. JimCubb (talk) 05:34, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I can't find the reason either. However, to me they don't show up as conflicts. Secondly, when looking in the category Category:Pages with DEFAULTSORT conflicts, the 1150s don't show up. Instead, the 1550s do. I'll try to look into it further, but I don't have an answer right now. /Ludde23 Talk Contrib 09:14, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1017[edit]

Can you explain why you introduced "February 2011", in {{Use mdy dates|date=February 2011}}, which was not there before? -DePiep (talk) 21:39, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because the use of the Use mdy dates should be dated with the month it was first added. I added it myself on February 25 (as seen here), but then, it was removed again, due to several instances of vandalism on the article. I simply restored it. /Ludde23 Talk Contrib 00:24, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Green tickY -DePiep (talk) 00:49, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited Julkalendern, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page James Dickson (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) 10:28, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

486 BC[edit]

Hi. Do you have a citation for this addition? I tried searching for references to "Year of the Consulship of Barbatus and Priscus" but couldn't find anything but copies of the Wikipedia article. --MZMcBride (talk) 18:03, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't have any other citation than List of Roman consuls, which is the one I've used for all of the 1,000+ years that I have added such notes to (from 499 BC to AD 541). /Ludde23 Talk Contrib 22:49, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chronological reorg of 1250s, 1260s, and 1270s articles[edit]

Hi Ludde23, I only just noticed that you reorganized a lot of the decade articles last year (the 1250s, 1260s, and 1270s articles). It seems to me that it was far preferable to have these articles organized as they were before, broken out by topic area rather than strictly chronological (e.g. 1250s, 1260s and 1270s). That aligns them much more with their contemporary counterparts (e.g. 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s). I would like to revert these articles (and possibly others) to their previous state, but if you'd prefer to have a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Years first, I'm happy to do that. -- RobLa (talk) 16:07, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I reorganized them was that I did so with all decade articles up till the end of the 17th or 18th century (don't remember which). I did this to keep them the same, since most of the decade articles were worse before. However, if you think they were better before, feel free to change them back. In a utopian future, hopefully every decade article will be a real article on its own (not relying on inclusion from the year articles) and if you think that reverting those particular decades would make them better, please do so. On the other hand, I don't see what harm my reorganization did, since I didn't remove any of the old information. /Ludde23 Talk Contrib 16:14, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the quick response. I see that a lot of the articles did improve with your work; just not the examples that I provided. It looks like what you did is actually a vast improvement (e.g. on the 1290s article), and what you did was a less labor intensive but more sweeping version of what I've been doing with 1800s, 1810s, and 1820s. The process I've been following is a) incorporate year-based information, b) sort by topic area, c) convert to prose and flesh out with topical information. Organizing these in a strictly chronological fashion makes the conversion to prose more difficult, since many significant events of the decade span multiple years. -- RobLa (talk) 16:33, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Very well. It seems your work has every potential of improving the articles, so go ahead! /Ludde23 Talk Contrib 16:59, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Also, I just took a closer look at the wikitext, and only just realized that you were only using template-fu rather than doing something more comprehensive. I'm a little slow but eventually I catch on.  :-) For the articles that were previously stubs, it probably makes sense to leave them as is, perhaps with a template inviting people to convert them. For the articles that had a pretty good start, it's probably best to revert back to their previous version. I'll edit accordingly. -- RobLa (talk) 18:02, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 28[edit]

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

List of state leaders in 520s BC (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Magadhan Empire and Kush
List of state leaders in 498 BC (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Magadhan Empire
List of state leaders in 502 BC (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Magadhan Empire

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:33, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nebuchadnezzar II‎[edit]

If red links actually need fixing, you'll have to find another way. See WP:ERA. I've reverted you as red links aren't a reason to make an era change. I'll take a look at the article tomorrow and see if there are any real problems with links. Dougweller (talk) 20:50, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Musing about the list of state leaders in X year articles[edit]

Hi Ludde, I noticed your recent creations of List of state leaders in X year articles. I noticed before you were doing it with the granularity of a decade. Going back as far as you have, to the present day is quite a few articles for you to create, let alone for everyone else to maintain. But now you've switched the granularity to yearly. That leaves over 2,300 or so additional articles to create of that nature if you want to make the full set.

I would think decade-specific granularity might be better and could be more easily maintained and complete; I'm curious your thoughts on the topic. Shadowjams (talk) 18:14, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think of it like this: When it comes to pure year articles, they are decade specific up to 500 BC, but broken down into individual years from 499 BC, so I'm just following the same pattern here. Secondly, from 110 BC to the present, the lists of state leaders have alreade been created (see Lists of state leaders by year), so I've only got a little more than 300 articles left to create, and then go on to update the rest. To me, it's no problem to do this and I'm happy to keep going. So, as there already exist over 2,100 such articles, I don't really see any problem. /Ludde23 Talk Contrib 20:31, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the response. That makes a lot more sense. I tend to be skeptical of articles of that variety (small sequential form articles)... however filling in that gap makes total sense to me. I assume there's a template that has these listed too. Good luck! Shadowjams (talk) 20:53, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Removing data[edit]

Hi Ludde23,

You removed data from the article List of state leaders in 411 BC. Some of the data you removed should belong in the article. For instance, during the Warring States Period in China, the central authority was only nominal. The several local Chinese state leaders you removed were in total control of their own countries.Daanschr (talk) 07:40, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will start a topic on the talk page of the article, with the intention to restore the data, but keep the new format.Daanschr (talk) 06:46, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for not having replied. I'm getting there in time. You may have noticed that I'm now adding those chinese rulers to the lists and I've now reached the 540s BC. It'll take a few days, until I come to 411 BC, but I'm getting there, if you'll just give it some time. /Ludde23 Talk Contrib 07:34, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Good work. But, there are still a couple of countries missing, most of them completely independent.Daanschr (talk) 15:59, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As I've noted, only thouse countries where the rulers and their reigning years are known are listed. If you could provide me with a list of the missing countries and lists of their rulers (with years) here on Wikipedia, I would be happy to add them. /Ludde23 Talk Contrib 16:03, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I forgot to mention my sources when i created the article. I don't know why. I did use them in another article i edited a couple of years ago, List of state leaders in 1339. The sources are the same. Alas there is a paper bookwork from the 80s, so there is no internet link. Somehow the best knowledge is still on paper, though it isn't all accurate. Geez, has it been 6 years ago i created the article we are now discussing! Well, the state leaders often lack an article, but all the states do exist according to Wikipedia.Daanschr (talk) 19:59, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, then let me clarify my standpoint. When I created the list of Chinese vassal states on the 411 BC article (and indeed on all the list of state leader articles from the 1050s onwards) I looked through the {{Zhou Dynasty topics}} template and all the states listed there. On the state leader articles, I have listed those states, where the state articles have lists of rulers and their years. On the List of state leaders in 560s BC I've even included the state of Lai, since that article lists one ruler who died in 567 BC. Apart from that, I have chosen not to include other states, since I don't know their rulers' names or years. I figure you would either have to have a list somewhere on Wikipedia or some sort of reference/source to provide. Since I have neither for the other states, I have not included them. You wouldn't expect me to make names and years up, would you? I don't have access to any detailed book about them and to look for lists elsewhere on the Internet is just too cumbersome for the moment. Anyway, too "your" particular article (List of state leaders in 411 BC), I've added all the states that were there before, except Yan, since its article doesn't list its rulers. However, if you know where there are lists of rulers of other states, either on the Internet or if you have a book from which you can provide a reference, please feel free to add them, the more the better. It would then be great if you could do it on more lists than just the 411 BC one, to make the lists as complete as possible. I started on the 1050s BC, since that was the oldest list of rulers I could find (on the article for Cao). /Ludde23 Talk Contrib 07:53, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia isn't a source of an academic standard. But, i didn't use legitimate sources. When it comes to the verification of facts, none of the articles discussed can be maintained. I don't desire to make a lot of edits. The 411 BC article has been created 6 years ago, when i was very active on Wikipedia. Now i only once in a while check some edits made on articles i created and that is it. I don't desire to make a lot of edits momentarily. I just like to keep legitimate data in the article i created. I don't see why you are so intend on dismissing information from the article that is implemented from a legitimate source, though not mentioned in the article. Many of the state leaders you did keep in the article also came from that source, and the only reason you dismiss the source is because the extra information on state leaders weren't mentioned in other Wikipedia articles. Here are the sources i used for the article:
  • Peter Truhart, Regents of nations : systematic chronology of states and their political representatives in past and present : a biographical reference book = Regenten der Nationen : systematische Chronologie der Staaten und ihrer politischen Repräsentanten in Vergangenheit und Gegenwart : ein biographisches Nachschlagewerk, part I (Munich 1984)
  • Peter Truhart, Regents of nations : systematic chronology of states and their political representatives in past and present : a biographical reference book = Regenten der Nationen : systematische Chronologie der Staaten und ihrer politischen Repräsentanten in Vergangenheit und Gegenwart : ein biographisches Nachschlagewerk, part II (Munich 1985)
  • Peter Truhart, Regents of nations : systematic chronology of states and their political representatives in past and present : a biographical reference book = Regenten der Nationen : systematische Chronologie der Staaten und ihrer politischen Repräsentanten in Vergangenheit und Gegenwart : ein biographisches Nachschlagewerk, part III (Munich 1986-1988)Daanschr (talk) 11:10, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's all very well, but how am I to know which names and years there are, when I don't have any books about it, or lists on Wikipedia? You may be interested to know, that I have found a site with lists, which I'm now starting to use. So far, I've reached the 700s BC with these as sources – so I'll be getting to 411 BC in time. When I do, it will contain every state that you listed plus a few more and you cannnot expect me to add anything more than that, since I have no knowledge of what other states, rulers or years there were at this time. /Ludde23 Talk Contrib 14:32, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You deleted my information without any good reason for it. So, i intend to put it back into the article.Daanschr (talk) 16:53, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article titles[edit]

Hi Ludde23, I undid your move of Yan, Marquis of Tian to Marquis Yan of Tian. Please note that ancient Chinese rulers had two names, one used when alive, and another given after death. The custom is to always use the posthumous name when available, in the form of Marquis (or Duke or King) X of State. But when a ruler does not have a posthumous name, his personal name is used and placed before his title, such as Yan, Marquis of Tian. So please do not move it to Marquis Yan of Tian, it's not correct. -Zanhe (talk) 19:04, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for informing me, I didn't know that. But I'll adhere to that in future. /Ludde23 Talk Contrib 19:09, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for creating List_of_state_leaders_in_305_BC.

A New Page Patroller Ebe123 just reviewed the page, and wrote this note for you:

Wow, thanks for all the lists of state leaders per year! Keep up the good work!

To reply, leave a comment here and ping Ebe123.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.


A barnstar for you![edit]

The Original Barnstar
Good job on the articles you have been making. Bobherry talk 01:10, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you indeed. I'm honoured and flattered. /Ludde23 Talk Contrib 06:48, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Events by year for decade BC[edit]

Template:Events by year for decade BC has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page.  Ryan Vesey 05:32, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:0 BC births listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Category:0 BC births. Since you had some involvement with the Category:0 BC births redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Jsharpminor (talk) 18:55, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of List of state leaders in 402 BC[edit]

The article List of state leaders in 402 BC has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non notable list. No indication that "state leaders in 402 BC" have ever been discussed as a group.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:26, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:57, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of state leaders[edit]

I noticed some of the work you were doing on the lists of state leaders a while back. You may want to take a look at the merging a few editors are doing at the moment. For instance, List of state leaders in the 1st century BC.

Our hope is that these merges will make it easier to maintain the lists. If you have any thoughts on how to merge the format you've implemented at places such as List of state leaders in 50 BC with the format at List of state leaders in the 1st century BC (which mimics the format used by the pages merged there so far), they'd be appreciated. We're discussing at Talk:List of state leaders in the 1st century BC. ~ RobTalk 21:51, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 26[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of world map changes, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Varanger. 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) 10:35, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Hello, Ludde23. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:SLBC[edit]

Template:SLBC has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. tahc chat 22:47, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:SLBD[edit]

Template:SLBD has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. tahc chat 22:47, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template:M1YearInTopic and/or Template:M1YearInTopic (no calendar)[edit]

I wish to have Template:M1YearInTopic and/or Template:M1YearInTopic (no calendar) fixed to show different lists, lists by century instead of lists that do not exsist.

Do you know how to code such fixes? tahc chat 23:06, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]

Hello, Ludde23. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Millenniabox BC[edit]

Template:Millenniabox BC has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Frietjes (talk) 21:47, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message[edit]

Hello, Ludde23. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 7[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited September 7, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page 70. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 08:35, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't know that early years had now been changed into the AD format. Ludde23 Talk Contrib 17:39, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:33, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock[edit]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Ludde23 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Caught by a web host block but this host or IP is not a web host. My IP address is 185.177.167.66. The IP address is my work computer, but I'm editing Wikipedia as a private person. Ludde23 Talk Contrib 12:04, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

Wikipedia doesn't know if you are at work or home. Many workplaces use webhosts/VPNs as a security measure. That said, I will give you a short term exemption so you can resume editing. If you need something longer term, please request an exemption per the instructions at WP:IPECPROXY. 331dot (talk) 20:55, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notice[edit]

Your edits are discussed over at WT:WikiProject_Years#The_year_of.... CapnZapp (talk) 15:48, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ludde23&oldid=1184301745"