User talk:Macarenses

Welcome[edit]

Hello, Macarenses! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking

or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! Petrb (talk) 13:48, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Getting Started
The five pillars of Wikipedia • Tutorial • Your first article How to: edit a page • upload an image
Getting Help
Frequently Asked Questions Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention
Policies and Guidelines
Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The Community
Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists
Things to do
Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism
Miscellaneous
Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Franco-Mongol alliance[edit]

Unfortunatly, you'll need to re-list this page for a WP:MILHIST Peer Review, as you added it to an existing one instead of creating a new one for it. :) - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 21:23, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First Punic War assessment[edit]

Hello, Macarenses. You have new messages at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/Requests#Requests_for_assessment.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Aeonx (talk) 01:02, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Macarenses. You have new messages at Mashin6's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Re: Copy edit[edit]

Hello as requested, the lead section of List of tanks in the Spanish Civil War has been copy edited. Best wishes Pol430 talk to me 18:28, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot!--Macarenses (talk) 06:13, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Macarenses, I don't know your intentions, but if you are looking to re-nominate it for featured list could you tell me? I was the original editor (I wrote the content) and I had nominated it previously, but I went on wikibreak at the time (and still am kind of "there"). In any case, I would just like to co-nominate it with you, if you had the intention. Thanks. JonCatalán^(Talk) 18:40, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Napoleon[edit]

it might need a bit more work, e.g. the last peer review suggested it could do with more on his family. i would also be nervous about going to nominate such a big topic as Napoleon and would probably only do it if i knew i was going to be on holiday from work so i could more effectively defend the nomination. before nominating it would be wise to go through the whole article to test for any weakness e.g. prose, sourcing, image sourcing. i should turn the question back on you, do you think it's ready? Tom B (talk) 20:03, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Era styles[edit]

Hi there. On my reversion of your change to BCE from BC in the First Punic War article: both era systems in common use (BC/AD and BCE/CE) are respected on wikipedia. Articles usually use whichever system is already established. From your user page, I can see why you'd prefer one over the other, and will not be claiming my prize for guessing which. Changing an era system requires consensus per article. This is best attempted on the article talk-page, and is usually futile. Regards. Haploidavey (talk) 13:16, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you might declare your intention and give your reasons on the talk-page, then wait a few weeks. See what happens. You seem a very positive and productive editor; but I should warn you that this is seldom, if ever, taken into account where era changes are concerned. There are bigger fish to fry, and you seem to be frying them quite happily. If you want a recommendation, mine would be "leave it". Haploidavey (talk) 13:43, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick PS: there are folks here of a legalistic bent who regularly trawl the depths of articles for evidence that era-systems have been changed without consensus. Some will even revert because they think the consensus was doubtful, or not broad enough. Frankly, I don't care either way, as long as articles are internally consistent; but no-one cares whether I care or not, if you get my drift. Haploidavey (talk) 13:54, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think i understand, i'll leave a comment on the talk page and i just hope i'll remember to come back to it in a few weeks. I guess i'll be moving on now, It's not that important, thx--Macarenses (talk) 14:01, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fahrenheit[edit]

Hm. Let me take a shot at a couple of thoughts on this. (BTW, I never quite know where to respond to posts on my talk page -- respond here, there, leave a talkback note? Ugh.)

Bias is a loaded word. Is it bias or merely accommodation? Each of the various language-specific Wikipedias has its own rules. The English Wikipedia is, of course, focused on English speakers, and when it comes to measurements, it is generally assumed (and reasonably so) that by far the two leading systems used by English speakers are SI/Celsius and Fahrenheit. The traditional Chinese system is probably used by more people, but most of them don't speak English and aren't likely to be reading the English Wikipedia -- and, if there were, it is likely that Chinese editors would see that the Manual of Style changed to include Chinese traditional measurements.

When it comes to bias, isn't the representation of measurements rather small stuff? In my opinion, the systemic bias in what we cover and in how much depth is more significant. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 12:50, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, LOL at your note in parentheses- I know EXACTLY how you feel.

Secondly, it was my belief that Wikipedia is universal, in any language. That the different editions in different languages are for the greater distribution of the knowledge Wikipedia holds within it's articles, not that the Chinese Wikipedia is solely for Chinese and so on. That any edition of Wikipedia is universal regardless of the language it's written in. And it's because it's a relatively 'small stuff' that fixing it will be easy and a step towards a better Wikipedia. --Macarenses (talk) 13:37, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References removed from Origin of the Albanians[edit]

Hi, I am a bit curious why this is not a RS? —Anna Comnena (talk) 15:33, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can see the discussion here. Rjensen has proven himself before but you can ask him for a more detailed explanation on why the source isn't suitable. Hope that clears everything.--Macarenses (talk) 15:48, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Great thanks! —Anna Comnena (talk) 16:05, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for working on albnanian parlament, maybe we can corporate --Vinie007 10:18, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Dacia[edit]

Hi! From your edits, it looks like you might be interested in ancient Dacia. Would you like to join the WikiProject Dacia? It is a project aimed to better organize and improve the quality and accuracy of the articles related to these topics. We need help expanding and reviewing many articles, and we also need more images. Your input is welcomed! Thanks and best regards!

--Codrin.B (talk) 17:52, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

your revert[edit]

can you explain to me why have you reversed my edit?, you didnt like the semitic thing i guess, waiting for your answer--Lutfi.Saad (talk) 13:58, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

thx for your kind reply, i have placed a citation needed template, but anyway how can we proof such a simple thing Arabs are of course an ethnicity how can people think it other wise, i think that term must only be applied to immigrants of closely related ethnics, such as whites of america latinos of america, it is used as such in every source i looked at, its only in wikipedia we became a panethnicity!, my regards--Lutfi.Saad (talk) 18:25, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

i spent time editing it, you could have just modified the parts you didnt like instead of reverting the whole thing, i intend to make several modifications (im not finished), the paragraph of Arabization was made into new section and if you like you can edit it to what what you think is right, i intend to work in the article coz it is extremely messy and small, but also packed with unimportant things such as "Arabs are not only muslim" thing because i dont think anyone in this world is so stupid to think that a whole ethnicity must adhere one religion. please message me if you find something not proper from your point of view--Lutfi.Saad (talk) 01:20, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

re: The General (1926 film)[edit]

Hello, I had a look at the article and it looks like it's still quite a way from B-class. There are a lot of things that need citations, and some areas are also a bit lacking, like the production section, and the article could maybe do with a small section on the release of the film (in cinemas, on VHS and DVD). Hope that helps. 97198 (talk) 23:48, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Milhist March 2011 backlog reduction drive[edit]

		Military history service award
		By order of the Military history WikiProject coordinators, for your contributions to the WikiProject's March 2011 backlog reduction drive, I hereby award you this Military history WikiProject award. AustralianRupert (talk) 15:12, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Act of faith[edit]

Just happened to stumble on your userpage. I'm fairly astounded how much I agree with you. :D So let me pose you a question: what do you think about Damon Knight's hypothesis religion is, in fact, a survival characteristic? That is, we're bred to believe in things we can't see, because those who don't take the word of others tend to get eaten by "that tiger in the bush over there". TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 12:47, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

History of Manchuria[edit]

I'm not sure if I am supposed to talk on this page or my page. Thanks for the clarification on my page about the History of Manchuria. I misread the initial part about the sphere of influence and mistakingly thought it was the sphere of influence at anytime in the history such as with Goguryeo, Balhae, Buyeo, Gojoseon period, etc before 1000 AD. Before 1895 Gando in Manchuria was part of Korea so from 1800-1895 a part of Manchuria was in the sphere of influence. Since from 1800-1895 Koreans were in Gando, can it be considered Korea's sphere of influence for some part of the 19th century? For example is it accpetable to add it was in Korea's sphere of influence in the 19th century as a separate sentence provided I add references?

I found other sources for Balhae mentioning that it was in Manchuria so I readded that part; also looking at the map of Balhae one can see that Balhae was in Manchuria. If those sources are not enough can I add the reference to the map? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ieodoiskorean (talk • contribs) 10:21, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Place to report vandalism[edit]

Re your question as to where to report vandalism, see WP:AIV. - David Biddulph (talk) 07:26, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some more eyes on WWII themes?[edit]

Writing you since you were one of the few non-anon contributors to MV Wilhelm Gustloff - those articles would greatly benefit if there would be more eyes watching. Richiez (talk) 22:42, 3 December 2012 (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) 14:28, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]