User talk:Pmanderson/Archive 6
Niwa niwa niwa niwa tori ga iru[edit]
MailerDiablo deleted the article, but seems to have missed your userfication request. Rather than revert him completely (we can always merge the histories later if this is ready to move back to the mainspace), I've placed the text of the last revision at User:Pmanderson/Niwa niwa niwa niwa tori ga iru. Let me know on my talk page if you have any other needs related to this. Dekimasuよ! 15:21, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Yoghurt[edit]
I want to start out by saying I'm really sorry that this happened - I did my best to stop it, but sadly I have been overruled by 4 people who are obsessed with name changing (regardless of whether or not I agree with them), and there is a new debate on the Yoghurt talk page about the move - I just felt it would be best if most people who had voted in the past knew about this.danielfolsom 23:55, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
TFD on Template:European mathematicians[edit]
re: badly designed, the box overrides text, at least on my IE computer. Fixed this I think... try again.
- More seriously, this appears only on category pages, and should be systematically replaced by Category:European mathematicians or Category:European mathematicians by nationality.
- This is unclear... nothing wrong with an occasional nav box on related material. See Category:Middle Ages. Working as I do on the Commons categories, I can tell you there are quite a few. I think it a particularly good idea to cross-link siblings. See for example Naval ships of the United States where experimentally, we've even crosslinked the sub-cats at ninety degrees, and duplicate that on the commons. (Assuming the ultra-nationalist German clan hasn't been ripping things apart again! <g>) (Sample some others:{{catlst}} here -- a lot will be up cats for the poor customer-readers without benefit of anything but the default skin. Works nice on the commons in particular, where all those images impede navigation!)
- So I said to "Keep -- I fixed up Paul's complaints, and a fair sampling of these links shows it playing fairly pretty where it sits now. Further, If a project wants a tag like this on it's patrol, I have no objection. This one just needed some HTML TLC." // FrankB
- Sorry Paul, but I fixed this up in just a few minutes. It didn't have any margins whatever, so I'd hazard a guess someone is using Opera or Firefox, or is just an enthusiastic beginner and clueless. No shame that. Lot's of people never think to check in another browser, and I find using five isn't necessarily enough for some things.
- Anyhow, I made my own nom, and saw yours. At least that template is well employeed! The one I nom'd was all but unused, uncatted, and had a cryptic name to boot. And wrote out exactly one sentence with three wikilinks. Hardly a good use for templates! Just thought to say Hi and let you know about their new look-- who ever they are! <g>. Cheers! // FrankB 01:54, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
User:SatyrBot and WP:WPChi[edit]
Hi! I replied to a concern of yours on the bot's current project page, but I suspect you may not have seen it. Specifically related to Juan Cole and (before that) University of Chicago alumni.
When a WikiProject asks me to run the bot to place banners on articles, it's my practice to get them to develop a list of categories that they want me to run through. I also make sure the list they come up with has categories that are at least 80% consistent with the project, knowing that this will result in a little bit of "over-tagging". In WP:WPChi's case, they came up with Wikipedia:WikiProject Chicago/Categories. I don't always know the particular project and its scope well enough to tell the percentages, but I do try to go through it. In this case, I removed the railroads that were listed, since most of them had many other cities and towns involved.
I wanted to let you know a bit of my procedure because you've taken issue with the categories Category:University of Chicago alumni and Category:Northwestern University alumni. In retrospect, you may be correct about many of the alumni not having much to do with Chicago.
At this point in time, the bot is done with all the categories that were given to me. However, the project has asked that it do an occasional run-through of the categories to check for articles that have been recently added and don't yet have the banner. What I would ask is that you contact the project and make your concerns known. They're in the process of determining which categories should be in the periodic runs, so your input would be welcome.
I'm sorry if I didn't respond quickly enough - I was on a WikiBreak from April 27 to May 11th with very little Wikipedia access, so many comments slipped by me. Please accept my apologies.
Thanks, and hope that helps explain what the bot has been doing. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 01:50, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Dispute resolution[edit]
Let me first state that I am not calling you a racist. You could be darker skinned than me for all I know. However, your refusal to answer the following is very reminiscent of the Ku Klux Klan bubble tests:
| “ | THIRD AND FINAL RESTATEMENT OF DISPUTE PROGRESS AWAITING CONFIRMATION
We are making progress on isolating our issues so far. Summary so far of discourse (Please confirm):
|
” |
If you are not familiar with such test, when black were first enfranchised it was not uncommon for the KKK to police the ballot boxes and require registered voters to pass some verification tests. They would make it clear that the tests would be "fair" and "democratic". Then they would asks black folks questions like how many bubbles in a bar of soap. Then if they got uppity about not getting a fair shake they might get lynched by a mob of KKKers, which was of course real fun for the good ole boys. Well in this case, it seems you are quite interested in a fair and democratic WP:DR and even have a veritable mob of people with opinions that may or may not be germane to the issue at hand. However, you refuse to address the issue at hand. If you are unwilling to make a statement about the above quote, I will view your DR willingness as a bubble test DR invitation. I will not be subject to such an invitation. The bot will be running with the alumni categories unless you are willing to make a clear statement about the quote above. You can inform the entire lynch mob of this fact. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 21:17, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
P.S. as an aside, here is an example of what a WP can do for an article that has little direct importance to it. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 18:32, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for May 21st, 2007.[edit]
 |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 21 | 21 May 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:33, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Poll on Bratislava[edit]
Thank you for your participation in the discussion regarding the use of the names "Bratislava" and "Pressburg" on Talk:Bratislava. I would like also to invite you to a poll that will show us the real support for the two alternatives. I hope the poll will help us reach consensus and close this case so we can move on to other improvements of that (hopefully) future featured article. You can access the poll at Talk:Bratislava#Poll. I look forward to your opinion. Tankred 05:55, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Bertrand Russell GA/R[edit]
I have nominated Bertrand Russell for WP:GA/R due to inadequate referencing. I hope the article gets the attention it deserves during this process to retain its quality rating. Please see discussions at Wikipedia:Good_article_review#Bertrand_Russell. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 16:47, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Good catch on that link on Medusa -- I saw the perseus.tufts.edu link and thought it must be froma professor or something. You're right, it's just a student, and one using some pretty horrible sources too. DreamGuy 06:04, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Shatt al-Arab RFM[edit]
If you're not aware already, you need to follow a few procedures (i.e. e-mailing Daniel about something) in order to get the ball rolling on the request for mediation, since it apparently will be occurring on a private wiki. See #Decision of the Mediation Committee for more information. -- tariqabjotu 21:10, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
reported to ANI[edit]
Hello, I have acted on LuciferMorgan's challenge to report his behavior to ANI. Arcfrk 08:22, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for May 28th, 2007.[edit]
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 22 | 28 May 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:44, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
On the basis of the discussion at WikiProject Council, I have been BOLD and set up WikiProject Measurement. I hope you are still interested and that you will join the discussion as to how to progress from here. Best wishes, Physchim62 (talk) 11:32, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Calhoun[edit]
Well, one way or another, I would of not fixed the Calhoun thing correctly :/. Just in case there's some confusion, I didn't actually make the initial review to give the article GA status in the first place, I was just responsible for the increadibly long lists of bullet points at the bottom of that GA/R. I don't know if the article has really changed that much since that GA/R, some of the new parts of the lead do actually seem POV in favor of the confederacy. (Some terminology used to describe confederate battle strategy seems too flowery, I had the same criticism the first time late in the article when it was describing how the battles mostly panned out) I didn't know how bad the article may of had POV disputes, I didn't see much going on when I checked its history, but like I told the guy who fixed everything up, articles on topics like this require quite a bit of effort to ultimatly raise up to FA standard, having to deal with a broad topic plus having to deal with historical revisionists might be causing them problems. Homestarmy 21:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
The "over referencing" has been dealt with. M3tal H3ad 03:11, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
FYI[edit]
Hopefully this is the last time this has to be stated. GA/R is not a dumping ground for editors to drop their articles that are not up to GA standard so that others can do the work for them. It is not our responsibility, our duty, to make necessary changes to an article so that it meets criteria.
It is also unproductive for you to troll nominations with your derogatory comments and unjustifiable votes. You, obviously, are pissy about the review(s) of your article(s), and I feel for you. But incessantly harassing us is not going to make us fix any article(s) for you. We review articles. We don't overhaul them. Although, I have done so for many editors who have been both mature and respectful regarding the reviews of their articles; for those who show a genuine motivation to bring their articles to GA quality rather than those who just want the title so they can brag about it without actually bothering to do any of the work.
For the MASSIVE amount of time you spend complaining and jacking with our process, you could have had your article(s) up to FA standards by now, much less GA. I have had it with the accusations and sophomoric comments about my participation in the GA/R process. I know the criteria, trust. And I base my reviews off of them. My reviews are some of the most thorough reviews given for both GAC and GA/R. If you don't want to acknowledge and respect that, then so be it. But you will stop with the insulting comments, or this is going to administration. Refrain from contradicting all of my GA/R recommendations for the sake of being a dick. If you're not going to base your votes off of the criteria, but simply vote the opposite of me, and follow it with some worthless drivel, your votes will be stricken. LaraLoveT/C 06:05, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Re: Information[edit]
You are not basing your votes on WP:WIAGA. You are contradicting votes that call for an article to be delisted based on the failure of several different criteria. You justify these votes based on the lack of specification for a specific format for citing references, completely disregarding all of the other issues the articles have. You're acting like a little boy who isn't getting his way, pitching a fit in the grocery store because he can't have some candy! Your behavior in the GA/R process is shameful.
As for calling the reviewers evaluators to "get rid of the ambiguity", I don't see anything ambiguous about "reviewers". We review articles. We evaluate them. It's all the same thing. This is just another example of you causing problems where there are none. Frustrating those involved for the sake of being a dick.
And I don't care if you unnecessarily assumed that you had to achieve GA before applying for FA. That's not my concern, particularly considering I don't think you'd be able to do it. You seem to be completely incapable of accepting criticism, totally unwilling to cooperate with editors who attempt to help you improve your article, and embarrassingly disrespectful of others regarding their work on Wikipedia.
What I say to "Wikipedia:WikiProject Article Style and Form", is that it doesn't matter what it's called. You're whining about the process. Changing the name isn't going to change the process. Proof that you are either just rocking the boat, or you really have no idea what you're doing. LaraLoveT/C 18:05, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
- If you can show me where it requires either ((tl|citeweb}} or the many-to-one style of footnotes, I will change my !votes accordingly.
- WP:WIAGA#Notes, note 2 reads "Unambiguous citation is best done through footnotes or Harvard referencing at the end of a sentence (see the inline citations essay). It is highly recommended that the article have a consistent style of footnoting."
- "WP:WIAGA does not require it; nor in fact does it recommend any means of inline citation."
- WP:WIAGA#Notes, note 2 reads "Unambiguous citation is best done through footnotes or Harvard referencing at the end of a sentence (see the inline citations essay). It is highly recommended that the article have a consistent style of footnoting." --LaraLoveT/C 03:28, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
- "WP:WIAGA does not require it; nor in fact does it recommend any means of inline citation."
(unindent)I honestly don't understand what you want. What are you talking about? It makes a recommendation and leads to essays that explain, in detail, how to do it. What more do you want? I offer to help those who need it. When I do GAC reviews, I do some for them so they can work off of them. I don't get how we can make it any easier. It's the internet, we can't hold editors hands. I suppose I could draw out the process on construction paper using some of my kid's crayons, but I really don't think these editors are as incapable of doing these things as you'd like to pretend they are. Let it go. You worry about your articles and let others worry about theirs. If these aren't issues that you specifically are having issues with, let it go. LaraLoveT/C 19:16, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
- "In short, I would like GA to function tolerably. But what I want is to move GA to a name where sensible authors of good articles will feel free to ignore the lot of you. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:39, 4 June 2007 (UTC)"
please respect poll results[edit]
hello there Pmanderson,
I reverted the move on Meran based on the poll results that were held Talk:Merano#Straw_Poll and the policy that was established to use the name of the majority-speak for the article of a place in South Tyrol, see Bolzano, which was not touched by me. I am asking you to respect poll results if a majority was established, even if it is not to one's liking. Please assume good faith and I hope we can cooperate on good terms. Sincerely Gryffindor 14:25, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you for your message. Well I am glad we can talk instead of engaging in some edit-tit-for-tat. I hope this issue will not cause any trouble, however we had a poll with results, plus there is a guideline that we should use the majority-speak for place names in South Tyrol. Back then I was in favour for using double-names for all places in order to be fair to every language group and be most neutral, however that did not find a majority and I was pretty much left alone with that idea. Therefore it was changed despite my opposition to have only one name, to the one used by the majority of the population. So I accepted that policy in good faith, which is why I accepted Bolzano as well, something that stays under the guidelines and has not been changed by me. sincerely Gryffindor 15:48, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
- I am aware that the case was not cut-and-clear, but I thought that is why we had a poll, correct? Gryffindor 16:48, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
- Since the case was not clear, that is why we had a poll. I happen not to be the only one who thinks this, I am articulating what other users also thought about this move. What would your proposal be, to use the name that a minority of the population uses over the name of the majority? Gryffindor 17:31, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
- I am aware that the case was not cut-and-clear, but I thought that is why we had a poll, correct? Gryffindor 16:48, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
On Trentino and Tridentines[edit]
Indeed the Consensus page clearly states that Wiki isn't "a majoritarian democracy". But then, I find it odd that after the vote the same is contested as not "a process of 'testing' for consensus"; in this case, 5 out of 9 is a 55,5% majority - and I agree it's hardly a plebescite, however I believe it should be taken as indicative of something.
On the topic, I have to wonder exactly what's wrong about Trentino. As the Province itself declares here (last three odd lines), "Regarding the name Trentino, it is not possible to clearly indicate a precise date for the establishing of the use. After 1803 the term came to be used not only geographically, but (also - Trid.) as a social reality identifying the territory and its inhabitants". What I'm driving at is that Trentino isn't a mere administrative division, but more, primarily a coherent entity superseding that. A historical region would be perhaps the correct term, much like Friuli is an entity within Friuli-Venezia Giulia, and is both peculiar within, and older than it. That's what the hyphen is for: to mark that two realities are put under the same "cap", so to speak. I may add that this is even more the case of T-AA/ST, where the two provinces wield a level of power and autonomy much higher than any other province in Italy except Aosta (well, no surprise there).
And by the way, is the outrage caused by the fact that Trentino isn't used in English, or just for the sake of keeping the list of Italian provinces neat and tidy? Tridentinus 17:40, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
- Just tried googling for Trent, results were: 1 - Trent University, Ontario; 2) a blog by some Trent; 3) Nottingham Trent University; 4) Trent Barton Bus Services; 5) Wikipedia's Trent Reznor page; 6) fnially, the Catholic Encyclopedia entry for the Council of Trent. Instead, Trento yields the entries for Trento city, and Trentino, followed immediately by the page in English maintained by the local university.
- Maybe it's high time for me to add something to my user page: I'm writing from Trento, am an Italian speaker of Tridentine ancestry from as long as I can see (1489). This said, the Trento page could be moved to Trent anytime for me, and I wouldn't protest at all - it is the traditional English name. And in German it's Trient, by the way.
- And I can see why 5 out of 9 isn't that impressive; but pretty please, then how is Wiki to make a decision, and who's to ratify it? (Edit to add: the crux is, how is this elusive consensus to be recognized?) Tridentinus 18:34, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
I see what you mean, and I hope it won't be necessary to assure that I'm not an edit warrior! ;) However, supermajority should be tempered (IMHO) by the recognition that minor issues won't attract a large number of editors to the debate; it's not as if on the table there was the choice between, say, Britain and United Kingdom. The small scale of an issue may well paralyze any decision, forcing less prominent pages fundamentally top follow what the first editor chose (I'm talking generally here, I realize what's good about Province of Trento, mind).
And hey, I may lose the debate, but surely I can defend my position, right? :D Tridentinus 18:51, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for June 4th, 2007.[edit]
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 23 | 4 June 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 07:50, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
The thing is[edit]
Hi. The thing is that requiring me to redo the citations is basically me redoing the entire article, since I would have to revisit each single page from the sources. I am not even entirely opposed to doing this at some point, if need be (even though there is an explicit guideline somewhere that citations should not be modified by other users unless wrong or incomplete - presumably, this applies to asking someone to redo his citations); interestingly, I would not even have used that system of citations were it not for the fact that people tend to change the citations system I use in other articles to something more or less similar to the one in Sebastiani.
However, ever since this matter was first brought up, you will notice that some users have begun seeing "many" other "flaws" in the article, so I may just be changing the system for nothing. Dahn 09:01, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Margaret Thatcher FAR[edit]
Allow me to explain why I said they were accuracy problems as opposed to POV or OR problems. A number of editors who are pro-Thatcher (incorrectly) think I am an Irish republican, and would immediately scream "bad faith" had I said it was pure POV. If the entire section could be sourced from one source (ideally complete with some negativity for the sake of balance) I wouldn't necessarily have that much of a problem with the section, though I'm still not convinced about the existence of it. However as the information may well have been cobbled together from more than one source, it's problematic. But as I'm unaware of where the information came from, I thought it best just to go for the all-encompassing accuracy to be on the safe side, and let other editors add their own analysis. Thanks. One Night In Hackney303 22:10, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
- No, I didn't take it as a criticism so no problem. I personlly agree with your summary and would have made something similar myself, but I chose to take the path of least resistance. One Night In Hackney303 22:24, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Excellent short articles[edit]
Sure. Hey, elaborate on the MfD page and suggest a move! -- Rmrfstar 01:38, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Sockpuppetry[edit]
Not guilty. Ednan 08:37, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XV (May 2007)[edit]
The May 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 16:25, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
GA badness[edit]
I noticed at WP:RFA you vaguely referred to WP:GA as something that might contribute negatively with respect to adminship. Please explain because I do not see your point. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 19:35, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
- I'm also curious as to the editors supporting IvoShandor that you don't trust. Are you talking about anyone from WP:NRHP? --Elkman (Elkspeak) 22:02, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
- You were pretty much correct as to what I meant by my remarks - as we all know, RfA is not the place to open up these wider topics. This discussion, to which neither of us contributed, might help with the explaining, or not. Johnbod 23:44, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for June 11th, 2007.[edit]
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 24 | 11 June 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 02:57, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
RfC on Gryffindor[edit]
best idea i've heard in quite some time. sign me up Icsunonove 07:44, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
What I meant is that "Munich" is not just a French or English spelling of "München", but a different name. It is clearly related to the German name, but it's a different word, and a different name. "nord" is not a different spelling of "north". The French can pronounce "Vienna", and it will sound similar to the English and the Italian pronunciations, but they choose to call it "Vienne", which is a different name (and it sounds different). Back to Meissen/Meißen: Meissen is another way to write Meißen, but not a different name IMO. But maybe we're getting into too much detail here. Markussep Talk 19:30, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
"Vandalism"[edit]
I don't mind your having different opinions to mine, nor even your expressing them, but undoing changes made in good faith as "vandalism" [1] is going too far. I accept that the article almost certainly will be changed back eventually, but until then, there is no need to change the spelling. Furthermore, my edit made other, albeit subtle, changes, such as removing full stops from the ends of captions which are not full sentences. "Germanspeaking" is not a word, but your careless reversion has resulted in its renewed presence. Please think more carefully before making such sweeping changes and such bold and unfounded allegations in future. The move itself was being bold rather than an attempt to undermine consensus; vandalism it most certainly was not. --Stemonitis 21:13, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
My warning[edit]
I'm sorry for that warning, I understand the situation now, and I will be more cautious when reverting pages. You may consider my warning as unwritten. Arienh4(Talk) 15:46, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Wheeler[edit]
Let me know if there are specific situations where I can help. For now, it looks like List of Republics etc. are under control. --Macrakis 16:05, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Welsh Peers deletion[edit]
I do not understand your nomination for the deletion of the Welsh peers artical. You have failed to notify the author of the page according to the guidelines, as well as comment in the discussion page for the artical. Already, I feel that we will need official mediation in this dispute, as I feel the merit of the artical rests with the fact that these titles are within the territorial geography of the consitutuent country of Wales. The artical states this clearly and does not propose to identify the ethnic origion of the title-holder. Please explain your reason for deletion more clearly. Drachenfyre 06:28, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Request for Mediation[edit]
|
A Request for Mediation to which you are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Welsh Peers.
|
== Sparta as a republic ==
Hi. A user has complained at the pump about unreasonable deletions of his addition of Sparta to the list of republics. Would it be appropriate to explain your reason on the talk page? Thanks. --Kevin Murray 20:15, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
I am sorry, I didn't see the topic Sparta at the talk page and didn't pick up that you have already addressed the issue. --Kevin Murray 20:18, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Republics[edit]
It seems that we may have had a workable solution at Republics that could have been fine tuned rather than reverted. Is his point so far off that inclusion of Sparta with a disclaimer is unconscionable? I would say that the inclusion of "peoples republics" is a rather questionable stretch, so where is the harm? --Kevin Murray 21:11, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
- Also, the user is requesting that you discuss the issue at the article's talk page. This would be helpful, I think. Sancho 21:48, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for June 18th, 2007.[edit]
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 25 | 18 June 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 09:04, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi Sept[edit]
Your talkpage was vandalized, which helped me notice that it exceeds 320K! You may want to archive it one of these decades! :-) NikoSilver 13:38, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your contribution on the above AfD. Your time and effort is much appriciated. regards--Vintagekits 01:21, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
BLP blanking[edit]
Thanks for the encouragement. Unfortunately I've run into computer problems, so will only be able to edit sporadically, if at all, for the next week or so. I'll see how it goes, but feel free to start something yourself if you want. Carcharoth 09:26, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Curriculum vs curricula[edit]
Hello, I was wondering if you can take a look at recent edits/reverts at Calculus? At issue is the use of the term 'modern university curriculum', which some users want to change to 'modern university curricula' (presumably, because there is more than one university in existense). I believe that the idiom is 'university curriculum', but would like to know your opinion. Thanks, Arcfrk 02:39, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
User conduct RfC[edit]
I'm contemplating starting one for our Petrarch-loving friend, as you suggest, but I'm a bit put off by the tedium involved. The RfC process is time consuming, probably intentionally so. Maybe I'll just shepherd this round of prods/AfDs through and see what happens after that. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:46, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
not "compute" please?[edit]
I just wanted to direct you to the dictionary definition of "compute," which is "to determine by calculation; reckon; calculate." So when you say "not calculate, please," and replace the word with "compute," what exactly do you mean (since the words are exactly synonymous)? --Cheeser1 21:10, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
what's the deal?[edit]
Okay, explain something to me. Someone in an article changes the word "curricula" to "curriculum." I fix it, and when people unnecessarily revert it and argue with me, I am the only one who provides an actual reason why the choice of the word curriculum is correct. This is confirmed by an administrator who is asked to intervene and resolve this issue. And now you step in and decide I'm pedantic? All I wanted was for the article to KEEP the CORRECT word, and I don't appreciate you re-instituting changes that were determined to be incorrect and unnecessary. Call me disruptive, but I'm the one who's trying to NOT change the article and the one whose position was determined by a third-party administrator to be correct. I expect you to revert it yourself. You've been nominated for adminship, and I would hope that you'd take the time to make more careful edits. And if you don't revert your edit, I'm going to fix it again myself in a few hours. --Cheeser1 00:16, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Category: SF Fans[edit]
There has been another a call for discussion for the deletion of the Science Fiction fans category.Shsilver 22:07, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Res publica[edit]
A "{{prod}}" template has been added to the article Res publica, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. WHEELER 03:04, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for June 25th, 2007.[edit]
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 26 | 25 June 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 07:57, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
ANI thread[edit]
Firstly, I would have suggested leaving a note at Talk:Wolfhart Grote before leaving comments at ANI and asking sysops to review it, with respect this is uncivil as you have not bothered to reply. The Sunshine Man 21:10, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Weapon definition[edit]
Hello, as you may have noticed, I am involved in a bit of debate over the definition of weapon, and I was wondering (as you are a third-party in this all) if you could tell me if the OED includes a definition in its online version similar to the definition from the Oxford Dictionary of Current English, "1. a thing designed or used to cause physical harm or damage. 2. a means of gaining an advatage or defending yourself," or if it contains any other definitions similar to this one. Your help would be greatly appreciated.--LWF 02:44, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Your personal attacks on other editors[edit]
I find your personal attacks on other editors quite obnoxious. Now you're trying to excuse them by pointing at me and saying that I sometimes say "fuck". What has that got to do with your personal attacks on other people? You can't go through life excusing every personal solecism of your own by pointing at someone else and saying "but he says the f-word." That's just a ridiculous non sequitur and doesn't justify your attacks in any way. --Tony Sidaway 16:53, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Apologies, friend[edit]
I have come here to apologise for my comments made during the incorrect AfD closes I made, I have realised now that I was the one not keeping cool and you were right, maybe AfD closing is not my thing. I behaved in an uncivil manner and for this friend, I apologise. I understand if you wish to ignore the message... The Sunshine Man 10:47, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
I find the closing admin's statement utterly incomprehensible. Do you think I should take this to WP:DRV? --Akhilleus (talk) 17:12, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
- Interesting solution, I hope it holds. The funny thing is, I'm half convinced that there could be a decent article on Petrarch's letter--but that would be a very different article than the one Doug wrote.
- Anyway, I've been reluctant to start a user conduct RfC because of the time involved, but I've already devoted a lot of time to these AfDs and if I go through another I might have to start taking blood pressure medication. So I suppose I'll start an RfC sometime next week. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:42, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for your comments folks. Firstly yes - morass is a reasonably exact way of describing the content of AfD discussion, but you can be assured that I read through and noted all of the contents, including the multiple and convoluted arguments put by more than one of the contributors. I note for the record that my count of the !votes was very similar to that detailed above. Secondly (and I note with relief that you are both finding the answer to your own question) the job of AfD is to find a consensus - which in reality is a consensus to delete because merge, move, redirect !votes act towards a keep decision. On that basis alone there is no consensus to delete. Thirdly, I considered carefully the suggestions of name changes - particularly to Birth of Alpinism but even that suggestion did not reach an absolute consensus. Finally therefore the result must be (by the deletion guidelines) to reach no consensus which in effect at this stage must be keep. All of that said, Septentrionalis has reached the most sensible conclusion (which I also noted was related in the AfD) - to actually undertake a merge of the article with Petrarch. I say this because after that is done carefully and accurately - those of you who wish to put in a new AfD will have a very solid argument (and a position from which clear consensus to delete is likely to be formed) that the article Birthday of alpinism is no longer required.--VS talk 22:46, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Birthday of alpinism (3)[edit]
Thank you for your comment on my talk page. I have replied there. DuncanHill 13:51, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
- Please stop removing content from Wikipedia. There is clearly an ongoing debate about the article, and the admin who closed the AfD has been informed and asked for advice. DuncanHill 13:54, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Response to issues surrounding Birthday of alpinism[edit]
Firstly my apologies for not responding earlier - delayed because of current commitments in real life. (Copies of this message are posted on the pages of the relevant editors mentioned immediately above the original post on my talk page.) I have read all of the above and have looked at the history of changes at this page. I intend not to reply specifically to a couple of the editor versus editor comments - other than to note that, with respect, I agree with the comment made by Doug that all editors should cool down a little bit. In relation to the redirect to Mont Ventoux - in a nutshell I disagree for the simple reason that a redirect is not a merge. More specifically - the AfD resulted in a keep. I appreciate that some people did not like or agree with that decision but the deletion policy does not allow (nor should it) for administrators to act without a solid consensus to delete and such a consensus was not provided in the extremely long and straying comments provided in that AfD.
In further discussion with two editors I suggested that concerns might be addressed by merging, that is taking some or all of the content in this article, and placing it into Petrarch. I used Petrarch as my point of reference because it was that article that was strongly mentioned in the AfD. Whilst editors may have considered that suggestion and adjusted their thought process to redirection, I am a little perplexed at how any editor or group of editors could display a level of fairness to their wiki colleagues without first mentioning the idea of a redirect on the talk page for a few days before it is undertaken. Clearly that has not happened and now you are found again at loggerheads.
To my mind basic wiki guidelines and policy should immediately come into play. Firstly any editor can remove the content of any article that is not verified. From that perspective any such content on Birthday of alpinism should be and can be removed. Secondly, content that is verified within the article can be duplicated in another article where editors feel that it is better placed at that other article. To my mind civility of process should dictate some discussion on the talk page of Birthday of alpinism on these parts. Thirdly, if that process moves relevant content to other articles so that the article is no longer required it could be redirected (for the purpose of meeting search terms), or alternatively it could be deleted through a second AfD process.
Whilst I sincerely hope that you are all able to reach an amicable solution, it would be remiss of me not to note that if the process is unable to be completed in this way because someone or many take an ownership over the article that breaches WP:OWN and especially if WP:3RR is breached, please let me know directly and I will block editors or protect the article as necessary until the normal process of mature editing is completed.--VS talk 22:51, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for July 2nd, 2007.[edit]
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 27 | 2 July 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 08:05, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
You realise, I hope, that the next editor who undeletes a BLP without consensus will be desysopped? Your opposition to this obvious change of wording is surprising. If one seeks consensus for a controversial action and does not obtain it, performing it in any circumstances is disruption at the very least. In this circumstance it would be much, much worse. --Tony Sidaway 19:53, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- Tony Sidaway is complaining about someone else not having consensus for controversial actions? WP:POT applies here. DreamGuy 00:38, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Requested move Falun Gong to Falun Dafa[edit]
Hello, I understand that the request is already closed [2]. Yet I would still would like to make one point and to discuss it, if you wish.
I read the policies and:
- It’s true that using the name Falun Gong is not offensive.
- It is also true that the usage of the name Falun Gong is somewhat higher then the usage of the name Falun Dafa.
Still this does not change the fact that Falun Dafa is now the official name. Falun Gong should still, of course, redirect to Falun Dafa, and this will also reflect correctly the fact that the name has changed, and thus being, I believe, more correct and so more encyclopedic.
Thank You for your time and please let me know what do you think. --HappyInGeneral 12:27, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Sigh[edit]
- Dionigi di Borgo San Sepolcro.
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dionigi di Borgo San Sepolcro (2nd nomination).
- Potential canvassing: [3] [4] [5].
--Akhilleus (talk) 18:39, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XVI (June 2007)[edit]
The June 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 15:14, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit]
As you stated sorry; this is off-topic. The naval blockade has its own article. in your revert of my edit to Dolchstosslegende, you surely can point me to the English Wikipedia article that covers the Allied Naval blockade of Germany in WWI and its effects on civilians in Germany? -- Matthead discuß! O 04:01, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
In the vernacular[edit]
You got that right.[6] Oh, and thanks for the good work. KP Botany 04:12, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
RM of Slovak Ore Mountains and Lesser Fatra[edit]
You recently participated in a requested move discussion at Talk:Greater Fatra and might be interested a similar situation at Talk:Slovak Ore Mountains and Talk:Lesser Fatra. These articles were previously moved to their Slovak names but I have reverted the moves and posted them at WP:RM to allow for discussion. — AjaxSmack 05:08, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for July 9th, 2007.[edit]
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 28 | 9 July 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 08:05, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Sorry about that[edit]
Didn't mean to imply that you'd done anything wrong. I need to look through pages histories a bit more carefully, I guess. --Akhilleus (talk) 23:25, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
NCGN[edit]
I'm happy with the current version. If you can live with it, too, then thanks for your time and I can proceed to my wikiholidays :-) I apologize for reverting in the first place. --Lysytalk 19:42, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
- I think that the "most notable places" does change the meaning, but it can stay as far as I'm concerned. Thanks for letting me know. --Lysytalk 21:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for providing your opinion on template:History of Manchuria. This is one particular place where outside opinions are much needed. I've been asking those editors(Jiejunkong, Wiki pokemon, Assault11) repeteadly to file a Request for Move for their preferred version to test consensus, but they continue to refuse to do so and just keep arguing on.
I have one thought on WP:NCGN. The problem with "Manchuria", as it is the main argument by the editors who dispute it, is that it is, in some reliable sources, described as a "historic region". Hence, they argue, that "Northeast China", which they argue is the widely accepted name in modern context, should be used. Under the assumption that what they argue is true - that Manchuria indeed violates WP:NCGN - my argument, and that of others such as user:Nlu, is that "Manchuria" is not as blatantly violative of WP:NCGN, and this is a case where we should practice common sense. Although "Manchuria" did not exist as a proper name before the 17th century, this term is by far the most widely accepted name for much of the contents, i.e. corresponding historical periods, of the template, including those historical periods that predate the existense of the word "Manchuria" by several centuries. Compared to "Northeast China" or "northeast China", usage of Manchuria for the corresponding historical periods is by far the most common name(383 to 21[7][8], 385 to 33[9][10], 92 to 15[11][12].
By common sense, it's pretty clear, I believe, that it is benefitial for the readers to present the most widely accepted name for the corresponding historical periods that this template represents. However, WP:NCGN limits historical usage to "places that no longer exists" or "when it held a different name". I'm not sure if Macnhuria qualifies for either of the two criteria, but if it doesn't, I think WP:NCGN should change, such as "when it is held by a different name, or widely known today by a different name for the corresponding historical periods, including those historical periods that precede the word's contemporary existence". I would like to have your thoughts on this, thank you. Cydevil38 23:35, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
- I would like to point out one major problem concerning the usage of "Manchuria." Keep in mind that this is not a "historic region". I have repeatedly asked user:Cydevil38 for historical material confirming it as an official region recognized by the successive Chinese governments which administered the region (Qing Dynasty, Republic of China and the People's Republic of China) from 1635 - 2007 onwards. This is because Manchuria was originally created as an "ethnic concept," by Emperor Qing Taizong Huang Taiji. During the Qing Dynasty, the geographic name of this region was either the "Northeast" (Dongbei) or "Dongsansheng" (literally, "Eastern Three Provinces"). There has never been a so-called "historic region" called Manchuria. Assault11 00:28, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
- I don't care whether it's a "historic region" in Chinese or not. This is what English speakers have always called it (the OED's first citation for Manchurian is from 1706), and still do. If some other name is appropriate for the Tang dynasty, it should, by WP:NCGN be explained, "Three Eastern Provinces (now Manchuria)". In any case, none of this is relevant to the template, which doesn't have room for this. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:43, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Request for Arbitration[edit]
Hello, I've decided it's time to ask the Arbitration Committee to help out with the problems around articles such as List of republics, which you've been involved in editing or discussing. There's an opportunity for you to add your comment on whether the case should be heard by the ArbCom, and they'll decide if they want to take it up. --Nema Fakei 23:55, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Please unblock ISP[edit]
Andrew Cunningham[edit]
I have replied on the page about your comment. It would be helpful if you signed your post, it would make it easier for me to comment on your page. Let me make it clear that i did not intend for plagiarised text to have remained in the article, for the fact that it was may i apologise. I think i have now met your concerns, any more comments would be appreciated. Thankyou Woodym555 22:45, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
- I will look again and change the wording. Your suggestion about the archives i will remedy in a minute!. I agree that official writing can be laborious. I also appreciate that some editors can be slightly uncoperative and not open to reasoned explanation. I have to admit i was about to write on your talk page asking for the reasoning behind the excessively condescending and triumphalisitc tone of your comment. Your comments though have made it perfectly clear and i am grateful for your explanation. Thankyou for taking the time to review the article thoroughly!. Woodym555 23:09, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
- I was perfectly happy to see the comparison there, it made it easier for me to see my mistake. My qualm would have been with your comments after but as i said earlier these are entirely acceptable the context in which they were given by you. No need to be sorry given the circumstances and it is always hard to translate meaning into text. Each reader is prone to personal interpretation and it is easy to misread and misinterpret text and let it take on a meaning that was not intended. Thanks again for taking the time and i wish you luck in your negotiations with the other editor. Woodym555 23:25, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
(n.b. i suggest you archive your talk page, it seems incredibly long. You are a very busy person it would seem!) Happy editing Woodym555 23:26, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
You said, "If someone finds countervailing evidence, please let me know; but Markussep's evidence supports this for now." Evidence found. Unfortunately it looks like we computed the numbers wrong. Their are a good 20,000 more Italian speakers along the river. We just listed villages, but didn't realize that most had but a thousand people, versus 100k+ for Bolzano (Bozen). I've put in a move request along with corresponding data. Icsunonove 22:24, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
- Could you at least give a weak support instead of a week oppose, considering the work I did to sharpen the numbers? :( I'm an engineer and trying to be rigorous in our application of the criteria. Icsunonove 22:57, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
- Ok, up to you. I thought you might be able to agree with the numbers that show 20,000 more Italian speakers along the river. Markusseps' original calculations were wrong because each of the villages didn't have a multiplication of the percentages by the populations. Icsunonove 23:15, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
- I'm just trying to apply the criteria as it exists now, not that I really agree with it. If I had my dithers, everything would be Italian-German or Italian-Ladin dual naming. Maybe how villages are done now is ok in some ways, but certainly for mountains and rivers.. it is quite ridiculous that we had Etsch-Adige, Eisack-Isarco, and now Eisack, for large rivers in Italy. o_O Anyway, again, beside the point. In this case, I'm simply pointing out the way we evaluated our census data before was just plain incorrect; I've gone through and done the calculations correctly. cya Icsunonove 23:45, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Is Mueller really a "crank-magnet"? Honestly, I'm not too familiar with his work, it's just something that turned up in my research. But the point he makes in that passage anyway seems kind of obvious, just that astronomical myth derived from constellation arrangements should be taken in a different vein from the stories of the giant walking on the waves to Chios. It seems like something that's more-or-less assumed but not clearly stated in the rest of the article.--Pharos 03:31, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Jazz albums[edit]
Per WP:Albums#Categories I cannot place individual albums under free jazz. Instead, I must group them under artist and place them there. This whole problem stems from the fact that albums cannot be categorized correctly according to subgenre without the method that is employed in the example of Category:John Coltrane free jazz albums. If this merger occurs, albums will never be able to be categorized by subgenre. So a John Coltrane free jazz album will never be able to get categorized at Category:Free jazz albums, and Category:Free jazz albums will also be deleted. The whole point of this was to accurately categorize albums, something many users appear uninterested in. To some people, it's all "jazz". To people who actually know jazz, nothing could be further from the truth. I beg you to reconsider your position, as doing this will make proper categorization of albums impossible. (Mind meal 17:11, 17 July 2007 (UTC))
- I will try my best to not sound as if I am talking down to you, though it seems very few people as of yet have understood what I've been saying lately (the only other was someone from WP:JAZZ; funny, huh?). I created that Category:Free jazz albums, as well as every other subgenre at Category:Jazz albums by genre. In jazz, an album may be performed in a variety of subgenres, ie. Free jazz, bebop and hard bop (on an on). That is just an example. Now, as I said, individual albums cannot be placed at Category:Free jazz albums. Also, one cannot just place Category:John Coltrane albums at Category:Free jazz albums, becuse not every album by John Coltrane is free jazz. The only way a category like Category:Free jazz albums can even exist is if it is populated by categories like Category:John Coltrane free jazz albums. Does that make sense to you now? That category only exists, and only can exist, if we populate using the method proposed now for merger. In jazz, artists perform 98% of the time in more than one subgenre, and so it hardly ever will be the case that something like Category:John Coltrane albums could ever be placed in such a subgenre. This proposal will make it impossible to categorize albums by subgenre. I hope you see that now. Individual albums that do reside in the Category:Free jazz albums are actually there incorrectly, and should not appear there as they presently do (per guidelines at WP:Albums#Categories). Notice the example of Category:Slayer albums just so happens to accurately fall under Category:Thrash metal albums. For Slayer, that works. But what of Category:Paul McCartney classical albums? Surely we could not just place Category:Paul McCartney albums at Category:Classical albums, which is what you are supporting in a nutshell. That would be inaccurate categorization. Not all Paul McCartney albums are classical. We all know that. And so it is with jazz. (Mind meal 17:36, 17 July 2007 (UTC))
- I will try this again. WP:Albums#Categories states "For album articles, there are three "top-level" categories: Category:Albums by artist, Category:Albums by year and Category:Albums by genre. Each album page is then placed into two categories, "Category:<Artist name> albums" and "Category:<year> albums", which are then placed as sub-categories into the respective top-level category." So an actual album can only go into Artist Name and Year. Okay? No album ever can be categorized into Category:Jazz albums. Only Artist albums can. (Mind meal 17:50, 17 July 2007 (UTC))
- As for Paul Macartney: no, I do not support making his albums a subcat of Cat:classical albums; what have I said that would support that? Liverpool Oratorio should really have Cat:Paul McCartney albums and Cat:Classical albums, just as it has Cat:Live albums; but I don't feel so strongly about it to put it up to CfD. You are now getting at the problem, as a Paul McCartney album cannot be placed directly into Category:Classical albums. This is a hole in the categorization scheme that I've lately been trying to address, to a silent audience. Do you now see a bit more as to why this categorization is necessary? (Mind meal 17:54, 17 July 2007 (UTC))
- Sorry for trying to clarify something for you, as you didn't even understand the guidelines in place. How can a sound decision be made if the parties involved don't even know the guidelines that caused something to begin with? (Mind meal 18:08, 17 July 2007 (UTC))
- Don't you think it is a good idea to get consensus before changing guidelines at WP:ALBUMS? (Mind meal 18:12, 17 July 2007 (UTC))
- I'm not trying to pick a fight with you, and I will leave you alone. But frankly you didn't understand the guidelines for albums, because you were thinking they should directly be placed into genre categories. I agree that its all very confusing. I thought the same way you did, until someone told me how the guidelines actually work. That isn't assuming anything, as you didn't understand the guidelines in place. Did I miss something? (Mind meal 18:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC))
- There were many discussions that went into this. I learned on WP:ALBUMS talk page from other members that albums do not get placed into genres. That is the crux of the problem, and I'm not misinterpreting it as it stands. If Slayer made a classical album, it would have to still reside at Category:Slayer albums which is a subcategory of thrash metal albums. That is the problem. If musicians do crossover work, there currently is no way to categorize them appropriately. This problem is very big, and I'm not just making it up. Last message, unless something comes up that requires an answer. (Mind meal 18:33, 17 July 2007 (UTC))
- We seem to agree on at least one thing: It isn't working. Here is the problem with categorizing albums by genre, though. When we do that nobody knows what they are clicking on. They don't know who made that album, so the category will just be filled with random titles with no context. That is why I proposed we rename all album titles to include artist name, which was also shut down. This was the only path I was told one can take, and now even this is not posssible. (Mind meal 18:39, 17 July 2007 (UTC))
- If you are arrogant enough to tell me to stop talkign to you, then have the decency to restrain yourself from adding to my talk page also. (Mind meal 18:52, 17 July 2007 (UTC))
- "Mind meal, the current scheme for categorization as spelled out on this project page is for album articles to be categorized by musician/musical group and by year, but not by genre. Category:Hard bop albums should have few or no album articles. That way a browser will know who recorded an album as the album will be in that musician's or musical group's category. For example, Brazilia (album) should be in Category:John Coltrane albums (or Category:John Coltrane hard bop albums), not by itself in Category:Hard bop albums. This system works for the majority of albums. I admit that it has draw backs for musicians who record albums in a variety of genres and for over-analyzed genres, like jazz. -User:Acjelen 17:26, 12 July 2007 (UTC)"
"Using categories such as Category:John Coltrane hard bop albums (Artist+Style+"albums") is a more sensible (and much less disruptive) approach to the problem you want to fix. Eventually, some artist categories would contain only subcategories. / User:edgarde 01:34, 13 July 2007 (UTC)"
"I think your last point hit on the crux of the whole problem. It is as I have said before - the problem is not (necessarily) that the categorization is messed up, but that the current categorization is misused. If we create new cats then logically (and unfortunately) they will be misued as well. If the time we are spending discussing here we instead spent re-cat-ing those miscat-ed albums much of the prob would be solved. (User:Sampm 15:44, 13 July 2007 (UTC)) - this is in reference to categorizing albums directly into genres.
Again, you obviously did not read the discussions in their entirety to see things from a proper perspective. Thye absolute end to this discussion, no problem. (Mind meal 18:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC))
- Any guideline which requires "reading the discussions in their entirety" is broken and requires fixing. Guideline pages should be simple, clear and self-explanatory. As for your comment on the talk page: why, yes, you are seeing things: You are seeing a requirement which is not stated. One possible solution is to state it, and state the reason for it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:58, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit]
Unblock-auto Regards, Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:58, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
- You will need to provide the autoblock id, at least, for anyone to analyze the situation. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:05, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks; here's the full template; the page explaining these things is confusing:
Notes for myself[edit]
Marisha Pessl[edit]
- 37 Pablo Neruda, Twenty Love Songs' XVII
- 91 Shod = she/he/God
- 101 Hermin-Lewishon
- 136 Richard Neverovich Kill Me, Wanting It All, All at Once
- 190 Einstein, hefeweisen, skinny-dipping Lake Carnegie 0300
- 225 Blackbird Singing In the Dead Of Night
- 233
- H. H. Hill, Napoleon's Progress
- History is Power
- Aashir Alhayed, Instigations of a Dystopia
- Hank Powers, The Con Game
- 236 Respecting the Devil Hearst, 1984, p. 210 picture of Picasso
- Bulldog in a Henhouse: Life of James Cagney Still for Torrid Zone, p.339
- 347. James Harry The Tool-makers Grief of a chimpanzee.
- Grit, or Grit (novel)
- 407 Huntley, New Mexico, disappearance of Ester Sweeney
- 408 For the Love of Corinthian Leather (2003) fake death by crocodile
- 409William Stonely, Ash Complexions
- 486: Birds of Torment, chap.3 on Milli Vanilli
- 501: Jonas Ornata III '42, champion at goldfish swallowing
- 512: Slain by Winn, 1988. Hard-boiled.
Signpost updated for July 16th, 2007.[edit]
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 29 | 16 July 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 19:57, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
I ♥ Huckabees[edit]
Hello Septentrionalis. Sorry, I was out on holidays for the past week and didn't notice your comment in the last move proposal at Talk:I ♥ Huckabees. It's been closed now, but I thought that I should come here and say that although I think that you raised a good point (I should've thought about public computers), I still think that conforming the title to old browsers in old public computers (in detriment of Wikipedia's accuracy) would not be a good move. It's still not Wikipedia's fault. Some public computers at my faculty won't display Japanese fonts and I don't think that we should get rid of them just because of these eventual user limitations. Regards, Húsönd 03:24, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Award[edit]
|
The Rosetta Barnstar | |
| For your concise and integral addition of a greek meaning for the article Logos as well as your many other contributions to grecian topics, i present you with the rosetta barnstar award. thank you for your thoughtful and intelligent editing. Some thing 06:09, 20 July 2007 (UTC) |
Pam, help me out. The discussion about how this party's name is used in history books has started all over again. Care to weigh in? Griot 22:25, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks! You're my best pal on Wikipedia. I suspect an edit war is brewing here, so if you could stay on it, I'd be doubly grateful. Griot 14:22, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Revert warring[edit]
Just FYI, it is you who appear (to me) to be the edit warrior on Wikipedia:Naming conventions (settlements). IPSOS (talk) 19:00, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Regarding "Potential candidates"[edit]
You're invited to comment at Template talk:United States presidential election, 2008 navigation, on this proposal:
Cheers, Italiavivi 03:15, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
..Georg Cantor[edit]
- Georg Cantor is now a Featured article candidate. I saw your name among the contributors... Ling.Nut 17:57, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Stevewk and Edward Gibbon[edit]
Hi, Pmanderson. Just writing to let you know that it appears that after being blocked for edit warring, Stevewk has returned and is back to removing the book template from those four pages regarding Edward Gibbon. Should his account not have been blocked indefinitely after the vicious personal attacks and sockpuppetry he engaged in while blocked? Please let me know your opinion. Thank you. --ForbiddenWord 17:39, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
- Got it. I'll open up a new section with a link to the sockpuppet category for an admin's attention. Feel free to comment if you'd like to add anything. --ForbiddenWord 17:50, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
- Hi, Pmanderson! I just wanted to let you know that Stevewk has reverted all your edits to those three articles he was sockpuppeteering on. His behavior seems indicative of a desire to carry on a slow edit war, so I alerted an administrator that responded to my request regarding him earlier. Thank you. --ForbiddenWord 16:55, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Hello,
An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/List of Republics. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/List of Republics/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/List of Republics/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, David Mestel(Talk) 19:31, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
With regards to the Cunnignham FAC could you please check over the article again and then indicate whether you support or opposes it. I am currently trying to work out where the FAC stands, thanks. Woodym555 22:16, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Your note[edit]
Regarding which issue? SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 00:54, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- Oh, I see. The thing is that there are often people who object to aspects of policies or guidelines. I object to some of them myself. But that doesn't mean we can go around adding a disputed tag. At some point we have to settle down and look to see what most good editors do, and then just stick with it for the sake of consistency. For example, I object to the guideline saying that there should be no space between the punctuation and ref tags. To my eyes, that looks bad, and so I argued against it for a while. But I'm in the minority, so I left it, and now I don't leave spaces, even though I'd prefer to do otherwise. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 01:15, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- You should read both talk pages and the archives. There's a strong consensus in favor of the house style, because it reflects what the majority of publishers do. It's only Philip who keeps edit warring over it every few months. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 01:26, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- You need to go deeper into the archives than that. He's been edit warring over this for a long time. It's probably best to discuss this on the talk page. Footnotes is probably best. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 02:43, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for July 23rd, 2007.[edit]
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 30 | 23 July 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:40, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Re:[edit]
The source is Gevork Nazaryan, or http://www.Armenianhighland.com OTRS tag has confirmed it so I can use either one, but I will talk to the owner when he logs in, so I can ask him for the direct source. --Vonones 14:03, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
- I told you the source is Armenianhighland.com or Gevork Nazaryan. That is where the image is from, I will find the direct source soon, if there is. --Vonones 14:19, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
- Okay but YOU asked for the source. He has a PHD or something in history, I will find more information.--Vonones 14:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Image[edit]
Source: Drei Jahrtausende Armenien, Burchard Brentjes, Verlag Koehler and Ameland, Leipzig, 1973 --Vonones 21:05, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Caption: Armenian King Mithridates of Commagene under the patronage of the Sky/War God Vahagn (associated with Orion). Relief from Hierothesion of Arsameia, 69-34 BC. --Vonones 21:08, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
SmackBot[edit]
Hi thanks for your note.
- Any comment on SB's talk page does stop it.
- Templates like mergeto should not be subst'd. See WP:SUBST for more details.
Rgds, Rich Farmbrough, 18:23 30 July 2007 (GMT).
I'd like to discuss this with you here for a bit before moving it to the Hero talk page because that thing is a bloody mess. I agree that the Raglan citation (well, its a mention, not really a citation as there is no note) in the article is, at the very least, under the wrong heading. This had given me a good idea though. Raglan's work was very important to Heroic studies the errors of his and Frazer's logic were pointed out, so the Hero article should mention both of them at some point. However, I think that a small section that summarizes an article (that doesn't exist yet, I think) The Hero or The Hero (book). This article would contain a discussion of Raglan's theories, their impact, and the later criticism that caused them to fall out of fasion. The link to The Hero would appear in both the Hero article and the Lord Raglan article...thoughts? CaveatLectorTalk 19:54, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
- One thing though, Hero cult was originally an article, but it was horribly tiny, so I sought for and consensitized(?) a merger. Just FYI. Thanks for everything! CaveatLectorTalk 20:17, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Requested move for "Palestinian people" to "Palestinians"[edit]
I'm not sure what you mean when you say "It is not clear that there is a place to discuss this." Wouldn't the place to discuss this be on Talk:Palestinian people? That's where it is being discussed right now. --GHcool 21:13, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for responding so quickly, but there already is a heading called "Requested move" in Talk:Palestinian people --GHcool 21:25, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Removed information[edit]
Somehow your recent addition to Elonka's RFA removed information, so I have reverted it. Please review the page history and figure out what went wrong. Andre (talk) 01:26, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Hi Pmanderson, I'll definitely get to work on answers to those questions, though I'm thinking that some direct communication might be easier? Do you use IMs, or would you like to perhaps meet in IRC to talk? --Elonka 01:34, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for July 30th, 2007.[edit]
Apologies for the late delivery this week; my plans to handle this while on vacation went awry. Ral315
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 31 | 30 July 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 00:23, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for taking the time to participate at the discussion in my Request for Adminship. Unfortunately the nomination did not succeed, but please rest assured that I am still in full support of the Wikipedia project. I listened carefully to all concerns, and will do my best to incorporate all of the constructive advice that I received, into my future actions on Wikipedia. If you can think of any other ways that I can further improve, please let me know. Best wishes, Elonka 05:22, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Ahvaz[edit]
Can you look at Ahvaz article and Karun,The bridge is not on Shatt Al Arab. The image is for different river.Thanks--Aziz1005 16:42, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Shatt al-Arab picture[edit]
The picture on the Shatt al-Arab article is of the River Karoon, not the Shatt al-Arab. In the picture you can see the famous White Bridge in Ahwaz City. See [13] for other pictures of the bridge for proof.--▓▒░الأهواز ★ Al-Ahwaz░▒▓ 16:47, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for August 6th, 2007.[edit]
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 32 | 6 August 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 09:16, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
For you[edit]
I wrote a little article for you, Scholartis Press, to show you my heart is in the right place, although I am probably doing awful things (unintentionally) to your article! Sincerely, Mattisse 22:08, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- I am stopping the copy edit as I am encountering resistance from one of the article's editors. I hope I have been of service so far. Good luck. Sincerely, Mattisse 14:13, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
- It is not that I did not expect to make mistakes, as in reality I knew nothing about the subject matter and just took wild, haphazard guesses (as I tried to make clear in my edit summaries.) I know in general what it takes to get an article through FAR, having taken several articles through the process. And my best copy editing is when I know nothing about the subject matter. Then I am approaching an article from the point of view of the so-called average reader that an FA article is supposed to be aimed toward. It is hard to have an open mind about necessary changes when it is one's own product. I understand that! Sincerely, Mattisse 22:32, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
- It is up to you now. I will stay out of it and keep my opinions to myself. Sincerely, Mattisse 22:45, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Please remove my changes[edit]
I put a huge amount of work into your article. I am tired of defending my changes and of your critical and unappreciative attitude toward my work. I am tired of your snide remarks about my copy edit. I also do not want to be responsible for the subsequent changes you are making as I value my copy editing reputation and you are returning the unacceptable punctuation etc. that I do not want ascribed to me. Please revert the article so my name is not associated with it. Alternatively, let the FAR editors know that you are dissatisfied with my copy edit and that you are making changes that go against FA standards.
This job has been a singularly unrewarding task and I wish to be disassociated from it. I have never previously dealt with such an unpleasant editor as you are. I did everything I could to be kind and open to you with only bad results. This was done as a favor to User:Salix alba who assured me that you were not the type of person that you are turning out to be. He has used up all his chips with me - no more favors for him! I would prefer that you revert the article back and get my name off of it. Sincerely, Mattisse 11:13, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
P.S. Perhaps you could thank me for writing the Scholartis Press article which I did only to remove a red link in your article and attempt to get on your good side. (That certainly did not work!) If I could delete that article I would. I resent every contribution I made to your article.
Thanks![edit]
(Scholartis Press) And I am sorry for what happened and apologise to you. Sincerely, Mattisse 21:11, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Don't let 'em get to you[edit]
I guess that this means that you've given up hope of ever becoming an admin, eh? Hey, I get just as pissed as you, maybe more. And there's been many a time that I could have used someone on my side (when I was fortunate enough to actually have someone on my side) tell me to turn down the attitude. I actually don't care what you do or what people think about you, but I would like, someday, to be able to turn around the stranglehold that the ß-pushers have on this project. And we'll need everyone we can get. But we draw attention away from the absurdity of their position when we let them drag us down into such behaviour. Just my 2¢ worth. Unschool 04:20, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Jamestown colonists[edit]
Thanks for reverting Christopher Newport to the previous consensus. Would you care to do the same at John Rolfe and John Smith of Jamestown? I could, but I don't want to look like I'm edit warring. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:46, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for August 13th, 2007.[edit]
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 33 | 13 August 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 20:53, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Contentious changes to WP:DATE[edit]
I suggest you stop adding instructions to the manual that are: 1) lacking consensus 2) presently being hotly disputed 3) liable to cause unwanted effects when mixed with the WP autofomatting funtion. Discuss this on the talk page for the manual where all can see, not on my talk page. Chris the speller 17:50, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
- You seem to love giving suggestions. Try taking one: keep the discussion on the talk page for the manual, not on my talk page. Chris the speller 18:05, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
My Appalling coment[edit]
Greeting, I was wondering if you could take a look at my response to the "appalling" edit that I made.Thanks, Balloonman 20:02, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
- I didn't bother to look up my GA/R's but I did look up two quotes which pretty much explain my philosophy when it comes to GA/R's... I hope you give me a fair chance based on what my merits rather than your dislike for a specific process.Balloonman 07:05, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
- If you are looking for pages where I have promoted or rejected an article to GA status, you are going to be hard pressed to find one. I think I've reviewed just a handful (like 2 or 3) articles total through GA before deciding that I didn't like that process. IMO, the GA process is broken---particuarly when it comes to promoting articles---thus I don't do GAC's myself. (You'll find some early on---but I wouldn't rely on them because by the time I knew what I was doing, I had stopped doing them.) I do like the GA/R process because it is a collaborative effort and I do get to see articles getting cleaned up significantly. Although I do believe that some people do look for FA quality rather than GA quality. Balloonman 12:58, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
- Answered your question and included quotes to demonstrate that the position I am taking is not one to gain your support (although if I got your support I'd appreciate it ;-) ), but things that I have publically said in the past.Balloonman 14:54, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
- If you are looking for pages where I have promoted or rejected an article to GA status, you are going to be hard pressed to find one. I think I've reviewed just a handful (like 2 or 3) articles total through GA before deciding that I didn't like that process. IMO, the GA process is broken---particuarly when it comes to promoting articles---thus I don't do GAC's myself. (You'll find some early on---but I wouldn't rely on them because by the time I knew what I was doing, I had stopped doing them.) I do like the GA/R process because it is a collaborative effort and I do get to see articles getting cleaned up significantly. Although I do believe that some people do look for FA quality rather than GA quality. Balloonman 12:58, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Orion[edit]
It's very kind of you to ask me, but I am not going to be able to do it. I'm restricting myself to those articles where I may already have a little knowledge of the subject and maybe some books. But thanks for bringing this article to FAC: the process is very important. I do hope you get some useful reviews.qp10qp 23:57, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
- I noticed it from the note you left qp10qp, in case you wondered. My real reason for leaving this note is to point out a series of edits I've made to give date context. I stopped around the point I added "1976" to one of the Károly Kerényi books, as I realised that this is a posthumous date for the publication of a translation of that book. Are you able to pinpoint the date when the ideas you mention were first published? That is what I am trying to get across - the history of the scholarship, from the late 19th century, through the early 20th century, and up to the later 20th century. Carcharoth 10:58, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Alexander Hamilton[edit]
Thanks for keeping an eye on the Hamilton article. I also think it could benefit from some extra attention and/or reworking.
Out of curiosity: What did you mean by "TimeStyle"? I'm totally open to your change if it improves the article. I only phrased it in that way because Chernow is obviously only one of many Alexander Hamilton biographers, and not the official one, or even necessarily the definitive one.
Would "Noted Hamilton biographer" suit you?
Thoughts? GoldenMean 22:39, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
South Tyrol location[edit]
Now that South Tyrol has been moved to Province of Bolzano-Bozen, if you care, please add your opinion on the future of South Tyrol here: Talk:Province_of_Bolzano-Bozen#Whither_South_Tyrol.3F. — AjaxSmack 00:22, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
William S. Hamilton[edit]
Hello. You seem to be pretty active in past discussion at Talk:Alexander Hamilton. I posted a question there at Talk:Alexander_Hamilton#William_S._Hamilton and I was wondering if you might take a look? IvoShandor 00:38, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
British Raj/India[edit]
You have recently discussed the name of the British Raj article at Talk:British Raj and might be interested in a move request there. — AjaxSmack 07:22, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Old friend, help me out again, will ya? I think I'm about to get a 3 day bounce for edits at the Ralph Nader article, where I'm trying to include the complete quote from an Atlantic magazine article: "He made the cars we drive safer; thirty years later, he made George W. Bush the president." Some Nader lovers object to the quote. Griot 00:31, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes I know... the same old, boring conflict Italian vs German name, but I think in this case i have the Naming Conventions on my side. Maybe you're interested, Mai-Sachme 16:03, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
- In your tests you forgot the option Passeier valley [14] and [15]. It seems that Passeier valley is the most common name. Maybe you will reconsider your decision to vote Oppose. 212.171.128.42 13:16, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
- Should I just exchange Passeiertal with Passeier Valley? Mai-Sachme 16:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Sorry for the confusion, but the discussion unsheathed that Passeier Valley seems to be more common than Passeiertal. So I decided to change the request according to this result. If this fact should change your voting, please amend it. Mai-Sachme 17:10, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
German streets and similar issues[edit]
I understand that this is frustrating for you. It's not that you're wrong (though I personally think the argument in opposition to yours is almost always stronger) it's that you've already lost the battle before it begins and even when you win a particular confrontation your're still inexorably losing the larger war - again, not because you're wrong but because the terrain is inherently against you. That must be annoying. Haukur 22:17, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for August 20th, 2007.[edit]
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 34 | 20 August 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:41, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
German language[edit]
Having seen you weigh in on several discussions at Province of Bolzano-Bozen, Val Passiria, and now at Wilhelmstraße, I get the impression you're somewhat opposed to the German language in general. May I ask why that is so? Or is it just me and I'm being vastly oversensitive? —AldeBaer 19:27, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
- Ok, thanks for the explanation. As you can see, I already revoked my opposing comment at Wilhelmstraße (please excuse my German spelling). —AldeBaer 19:57, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
- I'll vouch for Sep that he is completely neutral. :-) You can't pick him going either way. Don't be too oversensitive about it AldeBaer. You're the last person I want to see fall into that trap. cheers to you both, Icsunonove 20:58, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
- Trap? —AldeBaer 21:10, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
- I guess it is English/American slang to some extent. Just meaning not to get caught into being too oversensitive about such things. later, Icsunonove 23:42, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
- Trap? —AldeBaer 21:10, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
- I'll vouch for Sep that he is completely neutral. :-) You can't pick him going either way. Don't be too oversensitive about it AldeBaer. You're the last person I want to see fall into that trap. cheers to you both, Icsunonove 20:58, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Are you going to propose moves for other articles, too? There must be dozens of titles with an ß which are normally spelt with ss in English sources. As just one example, Britannica spells Großglockner Grossglockner. —AldeBaer 22:06, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
- I mean, wouldn't it be easier to have a centralised discussion about this on WP:NAME or WP:VP, so that all pages could simply be moved at once? —AldeBaer 22:08, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
- Ok, makes sense. —AldeBaer 12:34, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
- your pals have returned to the PofB-B page. It's been delightful -- yeah, right. : -) Icsunonove 23:24, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Don't misunderstand me: I don't argue against spelling Wilhelmstraße as Wilhelmstrasse, or against the move. I do however argue strongly for accepting it as a simple commonplace misspelling in English sources, and for including the information that Wilhelmstraße is the correct spelling in the introduction of the article, preferably the very first sentence. —AldeBaer 15:29, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
- The Swiss should be grateful in the first place for being allowed to acoustically abuse our beautiful language the way the do.</kidding> Kalifornien is the germanised German name for California (see also de:Eindeutschung), just like Nuremberg is the English name for Nürnberg, or Munich for München. Those examples may have started out as misspellings or maybe rather transcriptions, but they became established a long time ago. The only issue with Wilhelmstraße/Wilhelmstrasse is that it's not that frequently used and therefore is not as "officially" established as more prominent proper names. But I can agree to the notion that the Anglicised spelling would be "Wilhelmstrasse", and the references Elonka provided underline that. —AldeBaer 17:25, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi Pmanderson, you were heavily involved in negotiating WP:MOSMAC. Here's a question to you. I thought that issue had been worked out, but when I tried to apply it on one article today (Arvanites), it turned out there still seems to be no consensus about what the guideline is supposed to be actually saying. Could you have a look at the article history and talk and give us your opinion? Somebody is apparently of the opinion MOSMAC mandates the use of "former Yugoslav" in all articles related to Greece, which I understand is a view you always saw as unacceptable. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Cracow[edit]
Hi Pmanderson;
You may want to take a peek at these: Free City of Cracow, Cracow Uprising, User talk:Charles#Kraków, User talk:Charles#Bone of contention (and at the editors' respective talk pages). I am astounded with the "reasoning" given and the very weak arguments in the edit histories of the pages, and also the hypocracy in calling for WP:RM of those who do the right, bold thing and move these articles to English titles. Charles 22:58, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
- Hi Pmanderson, thanks for the message. Without attacking the other editors, I can only say that I admit that I am having an incredible amount of difficult dealing with this affront to the intelligence of all English readers, myself and the blatant disregard for standards and conventions regarding the naming of this entity. Personally, I am appalled with the cheap arguments by the other side and am thoroughly disappointed that I gave the admin a chance by withdrawing my vote to have his administrative status revoked only to have this come up again. I was reassured by him that he had understood and acknowledged his bias (archives from May, June or July 2006 on my talk page, cannot remember which at this moment) and that it would not happen again. Oh well... The last comment on him for this post are the numerous RFCs, investigations, etc. Unreal.
- That ties in to the other editors, who follow the same "arguments" and beliefs on the matter. They have the benefit of not being administrators as a lot more attention would be drawn to them. I can't believe I'm sort of ranting about this, but my "real" life is so busy and difficult as it is that I actually come here to relax, as no one will bother me when I'm sitting down and editing. I notified another editor of the issue for this reason, because I know that I cannot always contain my disapproval, although I feel I can simultaneously transcend it or at least push through it and try to show NPOV. I don't know if the other editor will get back to me soon, but at least I've tried to make note of what I'm at risk of doing and I want to avoid it. I will, however, not stand for things I find blatantly wrong or intellectually offensive. I make note that I have no problem what so ever about Poles or Germans calling Canada "Kanada". I just wish that this language was respected as much on its own Wikipedia.
- I have no doubt that you are trying to keep everyone level headed. It is very much appreciated. I, however, succumb to my old Germanic roots from time to time and have a short, curt demeanor. Charles 22:59, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
- Hi again. I will let the discussion (or whatever it is called in its current state) sit until at least tomorrow morning. However, I foresee no reason for the changing of the article in the event an editor does decide to use "Krakow" when there is an applicable note backed up by references in the EB. That, to me, would be common sense. Charles 23:09, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
- Perhaps it is not helpful to say to them how I said it to you, but I do feel that it should be known. I have wilfully and truthfully made it known that I would not do on Polish Wikipedia (or any other) what is happening here. I think an understanding needs to be made that the language of the Wikipedia ought to be respected and that a Polish city having an English name is not an affront to Polish intelligence, culture or language. It is simply English and a way our language has always operated. I encourage languages to have their own forms of names, etc. Why can we not have ours, especially if the usage is overwhelming or substantial? That is the question I want to ask but feel will not be answered. I used the true story of being called Karl in German or Carlos in Spanish, among a number of other languages. It is not offensive to me and it is my own personal name, which is more sacred to an individual than a city name. On that note, I wonder why we need "permission" to call a historical entity in an English article by its English name. It all can be said and made known, it just needs to be said right. Charles 23:18, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
I am not sure there is much I can do. Both names have valid arguments for them, and I feel I can only lose my temper if I see more of edits from editors whose only contribution on topic is to edit war for the name they prefer. The proper way to deal with that is RM, and the sooner it is done, the better.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 04:24, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
- As I said, both names are valid, but modern scholarship and WP:NCGN would prefer Kraków. I could abstain, but I am rather annoyed by disruption caused by users whose only contribution to the subject is forcing a name they are more familiar with, and whose primary method of arguing is a personal attack. Such "dumbing down" of articles is damaging to the project. Instead of warring about a name, we should expand the relevant articles. That's what I intend to do.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 20:56, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
I am (and I've always been) all in favour of using established English names here in en wiki. That's why I prefer Cracow to Krakow, Moscow to Moskva, Warsaw to Warszawa, and so on. The case of Cracow is a tad different, as it seems that in modern English the term "Krakow" seems to be gaining the upper hand. Europe is getting smaller and it seems that even the Brits start using local names rather than English names. Having said that, if I were to chose between Krakow and Cracow I would chose the latter. However, what convinced me is that the voting in question is not between Krakow and Cracow, but between having all those articles under a single consistent name, or having them under a variety of names. Consistency is the key that always convinces me. //Halibutt 23:35, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
- actually, you're wrong. Wikipedia is not consistent and the location of one or more articles at names using Krakow isn't an impediment to correctly naming other articles, except in the minds of those who have an agenda or those who mistakenly think things must be wholly consistent. If that were indeed the case, I'm sure there are more historical articles dealing Cracow than there are articles dealing with modern Krakow. Charles 00:58, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
- I strongly believe that consistency is the only way to go. For that reason we refer to New York as such regardless of the historical context (even if the true contemporary name was Nieuw Amsterdam). Of course, as a last resort we could come up with some new Gdansk/Danzig agreement, but I doubt it is the best option.
- Besides, accusations of having an agenda won't convince me to change my mind, you know. //Halibutt 09:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
- The problem with what you just said is that it is false. We have articles on New Amsterdam and New York City. Charles 10:05, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
- For the record: when Kraków prevails, we can, and will, go over to it; one of the signs of its prevalence will be that mere English-speakers, like myself, will not find it odd in this context. In the meantime, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. I know Charles said this, but every so often he's right. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:57, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
- The problem with what you just said is that it is false. We have articles on New Amsterdam and New York City. Charles 10:05, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
your message[edit]
funny that when i look up the rules of the Commons, there is nothing that says use "native" language, especially for multilingual areas. Icsunonove 23:38, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Compromise?[edit]
(Your wrote)
Where I come from, "compromises" usually involve everybody getting something. So what are you prepared to offer Charles and Matthead? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:42, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
- Please be assured that resolving this matter is also my intention. Meanwhile, Charles went on an editing spree again slashing and burning like there was no tomorrow, so I’m not sure what you expect of me. If you intend to help, don’t ask “what am I prepared to offer” to Charles, because he’s not at all concerned with what I think. The first step in conflict resolution according to Roger Fisher and William Ury (Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In, New York: Penguin Books, 1983) is to reject positional bargaining. Principled negotiation is the only way of reaching agreement. The principles are 1) separate the people from the problem; 2) focus on interests rather than positions; 3) generate a variety of options before settling on an agreement; and 4) insist that the agreement be based on objective criteria. Let us try to generate that “variety of options” first and see if you can get Charles to acknowledge that he’s attacked me personally with his silly finger, his accusations, insinuations, etc.[16] From what I see though he's not in the mood for concessions and I’m curious to learn if you are? --Poeticbent talk 16:32, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
What I expect[edit]
- I expect you, Charles, and Matthead all to be civil.
- I expect you to try to behave better than Matthead; not a difficult requirement.
- And getting easier all the time; please ignore his baiting about the Grand Duchy of Cracow and leave it alone. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:52, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
- I hope you will abide by the objective standards on which we have already decided; but I am not sure whether I can expect this. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:41, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
- No problem. I believe in WP:NCGN standards. I also believe in 1RR policy with all those who care to be civil. --Poeticbent talk 18:19, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
I resent the hypocrisy of your expectations (reasonable expectations, but you are utterly unapologetic for your own behaviour), which you are not living up to yourself here on Wikipedia.Furthermore and with regard to your comments in the section above this one (Meanwhile, Charles went on an editing spree again slashing and burning like there was no tomorrow, so I’m not sure what you expect of me. If you intend to help, don’t ask “what am I prepared to offer” to Charles, because he’s not at all concerned with what I think.), I take that to be incredibly rude and awfully mean-spirited. As for this: Let us try to generate that “variety of options” first and see if you can get Charles to acknowledge that he’s attacked me personally with his silly finger, his accusations, insinuations, etc.[17] From what I see though he's not in the mood for concessions and I’m curious to learn if you are?.You refuse to acknowledge your uncivil behaviour to other users, so why should other users extend you that courtesy and essentially falsely admit to attacking you in order to placate you?
- Have you not read this page? Have you not read that I am trying to be as civil as I can in the face of an affront to so many principles and conventions of the English Wikipedia? Maybe if you could truthfully acknowledge those faults of yours that we could come to a resolution of the matter. Charles 03:39, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
hello there Pmanderson, after the conflict about Trentino and Merano I decided to leave the topics alone since it was not making anyone happy. You once voted and showed interest on the topic of South Tyrol. To my dismay I see myself forced to act in this matter again since certain users can't seem to give the whole thing a rest, pushing for vote after vote until they get the results they want. I am calling for that last vote to be annulled or at least extended so that more can vote and the result be representative. You can drop me a message if you would like or maybe share them on the talk page? I am interested in hearing your thoughts. sincerely Gryffindor 04:17, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Gryffindor[edit]
Is at it again. I think it is time for the long needed RfC and investigation of his abuses. Icsunonove 05:20, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
- RfC on Rarelibra and Gryffindor would be something good and long delayed Icsunonove 05:24, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
House of Brunswick-Lunenburg[edit]
Hi Pmanderson, can you take a look at this? I am trying to find the proper designations for these dukes. Thanks! Charles 16:03, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
- Hi, thanks for the quick reply! Yes, I know, I've already made note of Wikipedia's stance on the spelling on the page listing the descendants ;) I know it would come up! ;) If anything comes up later and you feel you can add to it, let me know, or post directly to the page. Charles 16:33, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks[edit]
I need all the luck I can get, especially since I'm part Irish, and you know how their luck is. Lol. It's not too bad, I suppose, I am taking some interesting classes: The Renaissance, Classical Rome, History of Contemporary India (1707-present), History of Traditional China, and U.S. Documentaries of China. Plenty of work there to keep me busy and unfortunately away from wikipedia and editing Augustus' article. So far I have fixed one of the mistakes you pointed out in the intro, but that's a mere shaving off of the cake, so to speak.--Pericles of AthensTalk 02:52, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
As to the Cambridge Companion to the Age of Augustus, I am unsure of how I am supposed to represent it down in the reference section. Should I keep Karl Galinsky's name first before the published year? Or should I just take his name out and cite the two authors of the articles I used from the Cambridge book? I am confused.--Pericles of AthensTalk 03:28, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Nevermind, I think I understand what to do now.--Pericles of AthensTalk 05:19, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for August 27th, 2007.[edit]
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 35 | 27 August 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:31, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Alexander Hamilton[edit]
Hi Pmanderson,
Let me just start out by saying that my edits were not meant as a personal affront to you. I just want to improve the article, and I did so by removing editorializations, adding cn tags, and removing unsourced or demonstrably innacurate info. I am somewhat hurt that since I went to such great pains to cite and back up my changes, and keep them uncontreversial, that you would simply blank my changes, and call them 'censorship', which they clearly are not. Please, let's keep this civil. I just want to improve the quality of the article. We need to keep it so that it is more of a summary of the best secondary sources (in this case, mostly the authoritative bios). I will leave info about the specific changes on the Alexander Hamilton talk page, that way we can get more info. Let's just keep everything firmly grounded on the consensus of secondary sources.
GoldenMean 19:59, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Please don't start an edit war, please. I have explained why I made changes, and you are reverting them wholesale. Please take care not to violate the 3 Revert Rule. I would like to hear others' input. I can't let something that is demonstrably false stand. And again, if you disagree with a change, deal with that change, stop the wholesale reverting.
GoldenMean 20:36, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Please remain civil, and on topic. This section is for Newburgh, not the Gazette. As I already wrote, Chernow pp. 176-180 actually does not support your claim that he was involved IN ANY WAY with the Newburgh Conspiracy. Please see the AH talk page, I have laid it out. I check all my sources before I edit. Also, again, please don't blank me. I took great care in balancing, substantiating, and explaining those edits based on hard evidence. The section you keep reverting (along with a blanking of all MY substantiated edits) at the very least needs to be rewritten for the sake of accuracy and clarity. Right now it is simply incorrect, and has a typo to boot, so stop reverting to it. GoldenMean 20:53, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
I already wrote this elsewhere, but in case you missed it: specifically concerning the Religion section: if that JSTOR article I can't access (but again--I am completely serious that I take your word for it) supports all the cn tags, PLEASE take the cn tags out. It was unclear that that one footnote at the end summarized the entire paragraph since there was no introduction to that paragraph summary. Also, again, I think there is some misunderstanding concerning the move of this info. I never removed the info, it was duplicated almost verbatim in the death section, so I took the extra info from the religion section, and added it to the existing description of the communion/last rights situation. IT ISN'T GONE. It is in the Duel/Death section. Always was. Was before me. Was there in BOTH locations before me. I don't care which section it is in. I thought it would a good idea to keep it in the Duel/Death section because the linear, nuts-and-bolts description seemed to fit better there than in the Religion section. It seemed to me a mention that it was important to Hamilton to receive Christian last rights was better the more sensible way to go. If you want to switch the two sections (detailed description in 'religion' and brief mention in 'duel': go for it. I don't care. It's not a dealbreaker at all. What is unacceptable was your wholesale reverts of my well-sourced, clear revisions, which covered several topics and issues, including adding citations to existing cn tags, fixing typos, etc. Please just focus on the actual content issues with me, keep the ad hominem stuff out, and you will see that we just both want to create a better quality, properly and accurately-sourced article. GoldenMean 21:46, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
- The fact that he was willing to receive last rites from a Presbyterian belongs in the Religion section; it's trivia at the death scene, but the fact that he was willing to be ecumenical in his last moments speaks to the nature of his religion after the conversion.
- Of course Adair et al. supports the entire paragraph; that's why there's only one footnote; and the second time I restored it I expanded the footnote to say so explicitly.
- Similarly, both American National Biography (and Wills) support that Hamilton, like Gouverneur Morris and others, was involved in the Newburgh conspiracy. I never said he was at;; Newburgh; he wasn't.
- If you are acting in good faith, please restore the source information you found. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:53, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
I just discovered that you 'reported' me for 3rr, for which I think you owe an apology due to the fact that it was you who was blanking my work THOUROUGHLY regardless of whether it was something you specifically disagreed with or not. As I said before, I will happily remove the cn tags for the religion if it is all supported by that one footnote, but it needs to be introduced as such IN THE ARTICLE as such--I will do both. Newburgh is another matter, the preponderance of the historical evidence and of the judgements of biographers and historians (at least from the current mainstream material I have read) would not support your addition of Hamilton as a Newburgh conspiritor in any sense of the word regardless of his geographical location (he was in Philadelphia), it would contradict it. For more specifics I would have to refer you to the longer statement I already made on the subject. Short version: he opposed the the Newburgh conspiracy as you defined it in your addition to the article. On that matter YOU have to clarify your accusation. As is, it implies Hamilton endorsed a coup, which--I'm sorry--he most certainly did NOT. Just rewrite it to be more clear about what Hamilton did, or put the quotes in a better context. GoldenMean 22:17, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
I moved the religion info around. I don't have a preference about in which section it should go. If you want to make another change, fantastic. Substantiate it, and write it clearly. Again, the communion stuff was in both sections before. You are wrong about the blanking. Again, you blanked everything of mine over and over. I'm glad you stopped. It's more constructive this way. Take care. GoldenMean 22:38, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for trying to clarify your material. I would REALLY appreciate attention to the 'Newburgh' section by anyone who would consider their knowledge of Hamilton or early American history 'decent' or higher--including (believe it or not) you.
Since you seem to enjoy American History as much as I do, you may find the following letters interesting and/or helpful. They are the April 4, 1783 letter of Washington you quote indirectly about "playing" with the army comments (the 'incendiary' part is actually a slight misquote by your source)[to Washington - April 4, 1783 Letter to Hamilton], and the two letters (sent simultaneously) from Hamilton to which Washington's April 4th letter was a response. Hamilton sent Washington a letter on (March) 25th which introduced and enclosed another writing on the situation of the unpaid soldiers/Newburgh Conspiracy [25th Correspondence from Hamilton to Washington (Click on the first result--it won't link directly](The second, attached letter Hamilton mentions in his first letter can be read by clicking the hyperlinked 1 on the web page containing Hamilton's first letter--it says how on the webpage).
I wish you would read these sources, not to add original research to the article, but just to ground this situation/your addition to the article currently states in reality/context.
Where I am coming from: Every book I have ever read on the period mentioning Hamilton essentially seems to agree that Hamilton's willingness to let Congress believe the soldiers were closer to armed insurrection as a means getting them their back pay was a bad idea. Further, they seem to agree that Washington thought it was important to keep even a bluff of a military uprising out of the whole situation, and told Hamilton of this (much to Washington's credit). But they also generally agree (and Hamilton states this clearly in his correspondence) that Hamilton was working against the actual threat of armed uprising, and that both men wanted to get the soldiers some form of back pay without violence.
As I say, I don't have your American Biography Dictionary, or access to JSTOR, so I have no idea what those sources say, or what the context of your quotes are. Just, please, please read those primary sources, review Chernow or any other significant, relatively up-do-date bios (of which Hamilton is the PRIMARY subject) and see if you think that section is still accurate and its statements in proper context as the article now stands.
Finally, I REALLY would like to get other peoples' input on this paragraph's accuracy. ANYTHING. This has gotten way too personal. If anyone else reading this has access to these books, or access to JSTOR, take a whack at the section, only good can come from it. I am going to stay out of this article, except to label it as disputed just so that more people will have a look the Newburgh section, contribute based on reliable sources and historical consensus. Sorry for the long response. Thanks for reading. Good luck.
GoldenMean 03:44, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
PmAnderson, FYI I put a factual accuracy tag on the Conspiracy section. This is not personal. The section is already MUCH clarified and improved. Thank you for that. However, the tag is necessary I think to get fresh eyes on the section. The section still needs other independent (such as they can be) editors to take a look at it, fact check it, and tweak it.
BTW: I have, of course, read Chernow's biography (or as you know it: his hagiography), but it isn't the only bio or other material about him I have read by a long shot, nor is it inaccurate, Chernow is sourced up the wazoo, and pretty evenhanded (and critical) of his subjects. I love early American stuff, and you do too. Just, please, in the future keep it civil. Be more open. I will try to communicate better as well, and to explain and argue for edits more completely. I am however still offended at your initial lack of good faith, your calling me a censor, saying I don't provide sources (when I did), etc. A lot of this could have been obviated by sticking to the issues of content, rather than (BOTH OF US)stubbornly sticking to our guns, and budging only after a firestorm. Anyway, just leave that tag up for a while, see what happens, and I'll be happy. It can only help improve the section. Thanks for the (belated) good faith effort.
GoldenMean 05:06, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
National Gazette[edit]
On a more positive note, thank you for taking an interest in the National Gazette article. I appreciate it, especially since I spent a lot of time sprucing it up recently. I thought I had it as "anti-Federalist" not "Anti-Federalist"--thanks for catching that. It is difficult to decide what to call the Jeffersonian party in articles dealing with this era, especially since the Jeffersonian camp was still growing into its identity as a full-fledged party at the time of the Gazette. GoldenMean 20:21, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
I am aware of it. The name for the Democratic Republicans is kind of a free-for-all early on. If you want to talk any more about that, though, please start a new section. Thanks, though. GoldenMean 20:57, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
You're Invited![edit]
|
Hello! I thought you may be interested in joining WikiProject Dravidian civilizations. We work on creating, expanding and making general changes to Dravidian related articles. If you would be interested in joining feel free to visit the Participants Page! Thank You. |
Wiki Raja 22:51, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Alenxander Hamilton[edit]
Is everything okay at the Hamilton article? It isn't clear to me whether the hagiographer was thwarted. Let me know if I can still help. Griot 01:23, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Welcome![edit]
Welcome to Wikipedia I say to you too. I am not trying to change the English language. I think you should accept that not everyone has the same opinion. If something has a certain name in English, my view is that it should have that name in English, and not some other name only for certain circumstances. What that name or spelling would be is not that important to me, as long as Wikipedia use the same term consistantly. -Ulla 
05:15, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Consensus on RMs[edit]
You might be interested in a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Requested moves relating to recent comments you have made. — AjaxSmack 08:33, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Krakow[edit]
Hello, my statement to Poeticbent about WP:OWN was meant to steer the discussion in the right direction, not to indict him. If I had wanted to do that, there are others that I believe deserved it more. I realize the discussion for the requested move isn't going that well, but I don't think taking it to WP:AE are the best solution. I would appreciate it if you at least removed my diff from your statement. Appleseed (Talk) 16:14, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
- I left a message for Poeticbent, and I hope you will join him in de-escalating this conflict. My earlier message to Charles was fruitless, so I'm counting on the two of you. Appleseed (Talk) 19:50, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
As you commented on the first FAC of Cunningham would you be so kind as to comment on the restarted nom. Thankyou in advance. Woodym555 18:59, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
inappropriately placed comment[edit]
I'm afraid your comment under question 10 was inappropriately placed in the questions for the candidate section, which is not the discussion section. I moved your comment to the talk page [18] [19] to prevent disruption. Regards, —AldeBaer 00:50, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Wilmhelmstrasse (I hope I spelt that right)[edit]
To reply to your comment on my talk page:
I did indeed review the arguments on the talk page before closing. They did not look very much like ILIKEIT. I suggest that you consider boldly moving the page to the english spelling, and then placing the {{foreignchar}} template at the top of the page. GrooveDog (talk) (Review) 02:08, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Re:Expedition of 1018[edit]
Exactly. Perhaps you could say so on article's talk page? PS. I cannot read Russian, and I couldn't find anything in English sources I have access to that wasn't included in the Polish source I used.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 19:37, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Wilno vs Krakau[edit]
You may be interested in Talk:Kraków#Wilno_but_not_Krakau. It would be nice to reach consensus on when Kraków vs Cracow and Wilno vs Vilnius can be used. Oh, and do note Kraków is now at FAC.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 03:11, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
I think you might have missed my question here.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 01:21, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
instead of[edit]
Thanks, that was a good edit to the proposal. Tony 03:15, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- PM, as you're probably aware, the singular they clause has been inserted, removed, inserted, removed, and has caused heated argument on the proposal talk page, in which I've largely not participated. I don't know what to do about this, although I'm reserving the option of removing it when push comes to shove.
- At this stage, I'm wondering whether the changes made, including my reinstatement of your "Please consider ..." might encourage you to move to a position of not objecting (even if you don't actively support). Tony 06:01, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XVIII (August 2007)[edit]
The August 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
Delivered by grafikbot 10:29, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Dual names[edit]
Seems like I post often on your page recently :) In any case, what do you think of Oscypek/Oštiepok or Králický Sněžník - Śnieżnik?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 00:37, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
City names, etc.[edit]
(You wrote)
Would you be prepared to offer a compromise on the naming of the city and related issues; that is, I repeat, a deal in which everybody gets something? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:33, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the invitation. I appreciate you desire to reach a compromise above and beyond what has been a subject of discussion for three and a half years in Wikipedia, almost from the day the article on Kraków was first saved in this project. I consider the issue to be out of my hands, and am not willing to elude myself with the thought of having more say than everybody else. To rename an article is easy. An attempt at renaming Kraków to Cracow was already made once, long before I joined this project. It was reverted almost instantaneously according to its History. However, the writing of the actual content is far more difficult and I hope that our agreement with regards to what is an AF article in terms of quality won’t be far behind. --Poeticbent talk 15:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for September 3rd, 2007.[edit]
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 36 | 3 September 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. R Delivery Bot 10:57, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
GNL proposal[edit]
I think that under the circumstances, your insertion into MOS is good. The wording may need a slight tweak (without substantive change in meaning). Tony 04:30, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- And I like your more recent alterations to the text. Tony 03:04, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
RFC?[edit]
I fail to see how that would help, actually. >Radiant< 12:30, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- Actually it's quite interesting. Tony is (1) intent on having the MOS suggest GNL, (2) revert warring away every suggestion that the MOS may have exceptions, and (3) attacking everybody who disagrees with him. It's getting rather tendentious up there. >Radiant< 13:50, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
RFC filed against User:Epbr123[edit]
I noticed your discussions regarding the etiquette of User:Epbr123. Due to events that have occurred since then, an RFC has been filed and you are invited to participate in determining the course of action that should be taken regarding resolving the issues that surround the user and his contested actions. --Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 19:27, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Greeks[edit]
The fact is that you changed a whole section, which existed in this way for so long and was accepted, in a way that pleases you. It's not the point. In addition, this is an encyclopedia and an expression like "not the poet" does not seem proper. Fallmerayer is totally connected with this section and his theory is very famous. We should mention it. - Sthenel 19:38, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- No matter if we agree with Fallmerayer or not his theory is so popular that it should be mentioned along with the criticism on it. Trying to hide it is not neutral. We don't criticise him and his works but we add whole this thing as a fact and this is what an encyclopedia is. Coon's theory about the races was rejected, it doesn't mean that none of his (other) theories deserve to be mentioned. So, you can add any information you like but please don't make a whole section, mirror of your beliefs. In order to avoid the edit war, leave it as it was, add your info and if you don't agree with some points, say it in the talk page to give the chance to other people to share their opinions and decide all together. - Sthenel 20:15, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
OK but first please revert all these. I didn't write this section. Many wikipedians worked on it and nobody has the right to change extensively such an important section for the article without any discussion. - Sthenel 20:24, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree too[edit]
I agree with Tony above that, under the circumstances, your insertion today was best. And I suggest that we defend it, despite (or because) we're on opposite sides of the ledger. No specifics. "Please try to use..." and that's it. We can revisit it in two months, when it's cool. Or, you might say, "do nothing because people are annoyed." That's a solution that continues to beg the problem—we (or some other group) will just be arguing about it again a year from now. We need something. Marskell 21:36, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- You're still perfectly free to value X criterion ahead of Y criterion. By itself, I would not view masculine usage as a reason to oppose an FA. Or maybe I would—if someone were [or is it 'was'?—singular they alert!] being stupid about things. The phrasing can always be avoided—that's the main fact. But few responsive nominators are going to be so lazy as to take care of everything else and then sullenly demand the use of he for indeterminate gender. We're talking about something that's generally hypothetical—at the end of the day, most everbody in (relatively) formal English register uses GNL in 2007, on Wiki, or anywhere else. (Even if you claim you don't, and even if you claim some grand controversy is involved.)
- So ya, if you find yourself typing "Oppose, not GNL" you should stop short, because you're being robotic. But if your next thought is "it's really easy to avoid the masculine, if you do this and that", then you're fine. And then you think "I'll suggest as much, next time I'm asked". Easy. Don't say he if there's a chance it might be a she. It's so simple that I wonder why so many obviously intelligent people have spent time arguing. Marskell 23:07, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- It's singular they (syntactically) and subjunctive (in terms of mood), no? Although I must say that the term 'subjunctive' makes me cringe, given memories of French class. Marskell 08:09, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- It is not a good idea at the moment, among others because there is a substantial group of users that treat the MOS as hard policy, and will therefore treat this as hard policy regardless of how it's worded. >Radiant< 08:24, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- Don't worry, buddy, I haven't tuned out the conversation. I just need to step back from it because it's just not healthy to get so angry at people I don't even know. I get very heated about language, I'm an aspiring linguist, and I want to defend it as much as possible. Maybe in a little bit I will contribute to the discussion again, but honestly...I can't deal with jerks for very long...Stanselmdoc 16:13, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Talk talk[edit]
Thanks for your note. It's my own fault, partly. "Do not feed the ..." One of the users appears to be the reincarnation of a user with strict ArbCom sanctions over his head[20] and a bad attitude towards negotiating.[21] I'm reviewing the matter in further depth and we'll see what develops. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:06, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Re: Cute new sig[edit]
Oh dear, is that true? User:Rspeer (ɹəədsɹ ) and some others have special characters in their sigs, so I thought it could do no harm. Do you by any chance know whether the IPA letters can be substituted with HTML character references?
Anyway, thanks for the note. — [ ˈaldǝˌbɛːɐ ] 17:32, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- Btw, which parts of my user page do you mean? I self-reverted the change to my welcome page after your note, but I'd be glad to make necessary changes to my user page as well if you could point them out. — [ ˈaldǝˌbɛːɐ ] 18:15, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- Shoot, you're right. Should've checked through IE at once. in Rspeer's sig only the upside down r is displayed as a box. — [ aldebaer ] 20:53, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Re: Democracy[edit]
Hey, you read my page! "to the extent of the difference", that's good. I have that quote from some book review. Just now I remember another quote I've been desperately trying to attribute. I vaguely remember reading it in some interview in Der Spiegel, it goes somthing like "the largest evolutionary leap lies within mankind" (i.e. not from chimp to man). I've been googling off my finger tips, but couldn't determine the Shakespeare that said those words. Oh well, might as well include them in my trivia section. — [ aldebaer ] 22:48, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- Come to think of it, sorry for the redundancy of linking to Infinite monkey theorem. — [ aldebaer ] 22:57, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for September 10th, 2007.[edit]
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 37 | 10 September 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. R Delivery Bot 20:45, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Red-faced + notwithstanding clause[edit]
...there is no plurality about it at all. Ack, of course there isn't—I just thought there was because I posted while drinking beer (it's User:Hoary's fault) and because I've been talking about 'singular they' so much that I'm seeing it where it doesn't exist. ("She were" is neither 'singualar' nor 'they', on third glance, but I intuitively think of plural with 'were'.) But do note: 'someone + they' constructions are grammatical English, as well; looking around just makes me more convinced. The singular they is on, dude.
Now then, These stylistic choices, however, are editorial judgment; they should not be used to discriminate between articles is a notwithstanding clause, which would render the entire MoS irrelevant. If a debate comes up on article:talk, editors will simply say "there aren't any real rules, because it's been made clear that we can ignore them when we want to." Not good for Wikipedia. I know you've bickered with Tony, but Tony is right about one thing: if we only emphasize the caveats, we might as well slap a speedy delete tag on the MoS. If it's the rules plus "but, but, but, but...", then there's no point in having rules. It'll be all about the 'buts.' So we don't need to have a MoS at all, you might say? Then we'll need to invent a MoS.
What I woud like is that people view the MoS in the way that they view good guidelines, more generally. WP:LEAD (a part of the MoS, afaik) is a generally respected guideline, for example. I might not abide by every specific on it, but I follow what it suggests and I'll direct other users to it. That's basically what the MoS (any MoS) should do: this is good; this is generally respected; this is in keeping with the linguistic norm; if you want to break from this, you must explain why.
So yes, if the MoS suggests "use gender neutral language" and you aren't doing so, you need to tell me why. If you have a fair linguistic reason, fine. If we work out on the talk that a given discipline or a given article type should break from the MoS, fine—but the MoS is the basic reference point. That's all I want from the MoS—a reference point. Spiking it with "ignore it, if you like" language runs counter to that goal. Marskell 23:28, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- GNL was a wave of the 1970s. That's what's so amusing about all the arguments over it.
- It's perfectly fine to view the MoS as a series of reminders. That's all guidelines are. But in our guidelines we don't go out of our to state "this is only a guideline, ignore it if you please" at every turn. It's a recipe for irrelevance. Marskell 12:43, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
You've completely lost me[edit]
I really don't know what to say to an editor that's reverting against their own insertion two days after inserting it. In the Wiki sense of consensus (supermajority, not unanimity), there is abundant consensus for the simple line. You endorsed the single line. I'll repost what I just shipped to WT:MOS:
- Uhhh, Pma, the one sentence Jimbo supports is the only one that's in there, along with the 'Do not be disruptive' caveat. This is also what Glen advocated. It's also what you advocated. The central sentence, short and sweet. My God. Marskell 19:10, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
So what is happening here? Is this dispute trolling or do you have a consistent position?
As for the '70s—well, I was born in the '70s. I began writing in the '80s. GNL is what I've read in current documents and what I've written. It's what I've been taught and it's what's been demanded in those school and work environments (sometimes suggested, sometimes dictated) that have had anything to say on the subject. Being Canadian may have something to do with it, because Canada has been ahead of the curve, but this is the farthest thing from a fad. I'm finding this all a little surreal, at the moment. Marskell 19:29, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
- Where have I ever said that this should be mandatory?! I have not said that! I mean, really. Oh sure, if I had my way or if I were Jimbo, I would make it mandatory. But I do not have my way and I am not Jimbo. There is a spectrum of opinion (the majority of which favours at least the main sentence) and I recognize that spectrum; as Tony pointed out, 'Please consider' actually amounts to an explicit weakening of what has already been implicit. I have not once advocated the word "mandatory", so you really need to clarify what you mean before we proceed. Marskell 20:03, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Just out of curiosity[edit]
Your doppelganger account wouldn't be involved in the use of psychotropic substances would it? ;)IvoShandor 07:22, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- Hmm, never studied much Latin, but see Psilocybe septentrionalis in List of Psilocybe species. Of course, no wiki article, yet. And, that's a gender-neutral mushroom btw. ;) Glad to be of the refreshing sort. IvoShandor 15:21, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- It means northern or northerly or something like that, no? Haha, I won't tell, as for my librarian....IvoShandor 15:30, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
The Sun style guide[edit]
Unfortunately not on-line, as far as I can see. The News International (The Sun's publisher) has an on-line style guide for The Times, which doesn't seem to mention the topic of gender neutral language explicitly at all. Looking at the entry for 'chairwoman' reveals:
chairman is still the common usage referring to men and women, except in quotes, but chairwoman is acceptable. Avoid chair and chairperson (except in quotes and phrases such as “addressing remarks to the chair”).
From this, I suspect this particular guide is, to a certain extent, descriptive of current acceptable use in the UK, rather than being prescriptive. I think the injunction to use 'gender neutral language' tends to occur in North America rather than the UK. WLDtalk|edits 07:11, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
WP:Policies and guidelines[edit]
Thank you for that last edit. The discussion on the talk page had appeared to intend that a guideline is "not actionable", i.e., a recommendation without an inherent weight of authority that can be imposed against local consensus. Best to remove, as you said, the jargon. ... Kenosis 18:39, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for September 17th, 2007.[edit]
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 38 | 17 September 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 03:31, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Your're disrupting Wikipedia[edit]
Your continued edits to Voßstraße start looking like more and more like vandalism. First you try to impose a foreign spelling contrary to the opinions of other editors. When you can't have your way, you instead try to have the page deleted. Your arguments are, to be honest, just ignorant. You assume bad faith regarding other editors, claiming that the page was created just for the spelling dispute. For your information, you can find articles on many major streets in major capitals so there's no truth to your claim. The article is well written and useful. Then you try arguing that places with no English name has no place on Wikipedia. What about Paris, Madrid and Berlin, any thought on trying to delete them as well? That the spelling isn't using only "English "letters is no problem, try having a lok at Örebro, Tromsö, Münster or Călăraşi. JdeJ 16:43, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
- Well said. Rarelibra 22:05, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Vossstrasse[edit]
Hi Pmanderson- although I don't agree with JdeJ's characterization above, I don't see that your AfD has articulated any valid reasons for deletion. What criteria for deletion are you basing this on? If I may try to restate your arguments, you present three reasons: 1) the use of language in the article is not as appropriate for English Wikipedia; 2) the subject is not in English; and 3) most editors have the wrong motivation in editing the article. But I don't think anyone will support deletion for those reasons. --Reuben 17:20, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
- That would be a valid reason, although I have my doubts that it will pass. In any case, the fact that the reasons on the AfD page focus on the spelling dispute tend to convince me (and I suspect will convince others) that there's not a genuine need for deletion. You might want to remove it. --Reuben 17:42, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
- Hey Pm, c'mon man, get a grip. I get completely wound up over the ß-pushers, too. But this isn't the way to fight this battle, dude. What we need to do is to spread the gospel, so to speak, get others to join when these things are debated. 95% of the readers of this encyclopedia would be on our side if they knew about this crap, but I'll bet only 1% of the readers do know. You lose credibility when you lash out like that. I like you, I agree with you, I feel your frustration. But I'm asking that you not strike out like that in the future. Please think about it. Unschool 22:18, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
- Hi Pmanderson, I haven’t been following the discussion on Talk:Voßstraße; I came upon this conflict through your posts at User talk:JdeJ. But I would like to add to what Unschool said above that you got carried away at User talk:JdeJ#Please follow our policies and presented yourself very badly. The hard line that you took there (not to mention your condescension) could only harden the opposition and alienate a neutral observer like myself.
- Actually there is a very good argument for “Vossstrasse,” but it is very different from the one you give. The secret is in recognizing the partial validity in what the other side is saying; doing so enables you to address their arguments effectively. Here is how I would put the argument for “Vossstrasse”:
- Voßstraße, unlike say Firenze (Florence), has no standard English name. And so by WP:NCGN the article title should be based on the local name, “Voßstraße.” This, however, does not mean that the title should contain the two eszetts. There are two ways of regarding an eszett: On the one hand it may be regarded as ligature of ſs, in which case it should be written in English as “ss,” for modern English typography does not use this ligature (nor the long s glyph). On the other hand eszett may be regarded as a single non-Latin letter, in which case it probably should be transliterated to “ss” (per WP:UE). Actually as WP:UE says, there is no consensus on whether eszett should be transliterated, but the case for doing so is very strong:
- Although Wikipedia typically does not transliterate Latin letters with diacritics, eszett is different: What relation it has to the underlying Latin letters is obscure. And to English eyes it strongly resembles a Greek beta, which is confusing to the uninitiated. Outside of Wikipedia many English style guides recommend transliterating eszett, and those which do not probably also don’t have a guideline equivalent to WP:UE.
- Some people have said that “Vossstrasse” is neither English nor German, and they are correct; it is a transliteration of Voßstraße. In the same way Zubkov, for example, is neither English nor Russian but a transliteration of Зубков.
- --teb728 23:19, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
- In reply to your comment on my talk page, I have no interest in leading a consensus. I’m not really interested in the title of Voßstraße or in the use of eszett generally. The reason I commented on JdeJ’s talk page and on yours was that I was really put off by your posts on his talk page. The reason I offered a pro-Vossstrasse argument was to demonstrate that a conciliatory approach produces a stronger argument (one which for example does not rely on a dubious claim that “Vossstrasse” is a widely accepted English name).
- More generally, please notice that you attract hostility like few other editors. You also alienate your allies and neutral observers, and you probably have earned a block for your edit war with Komusou. As Unschool says, please cool it! --teb728 21:30, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Stanley Dunin AfD[edit]
Hi there, several editors have raised concerns that this article is written in a way that misleads the casual reader about how notable this person really is. The notable and reliable sources are not about him, for example referring to his mother or grandfather, and there is doubt over the central claim that he made a major contribution to spaceflight. Can you find any independent verification of these claims? All I can find in Google are mirrors of this article and there is nothing of any note in the scientific databases about this man's supposed work. Tim Vickers 18:46, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Stanley Dunin[edit]
Hi PM. In case you missed them, there's a few questions relating to your comment (particularly in the light of the further reviewing done on the claims made in the article) on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stanley Dunin 2. Neil ム 08:34, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- Just out of curiosity, why would you consider this request for elaboration to be "spam" (as you characterized it in the AfD discussion)? It looks like a reasonable request for further information to me. Deor 03:29, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
- I had the same question go through my mind. Pete.Hurd 04:00, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
- Any other member of this herd of independent minds should consult Deor's talk page, where they will find my answer. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:10, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
- I had the same question go through my mind. Pete.Hurd 04:00, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for September 24th, 2007.[edit]
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 39 | 24 September 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |||||||||||||
| Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST | ||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. R Delivery Bot 02:29, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Since you violated the 3RR reverting to a controversial version against a compromise version, then had the gall to falsely report me for it, and of course not notify me, I am formally notifying you that I filed a counter-report under yours at WP:AN/3RR — Komusou talk @ 10:03, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Interesting case[edit]
I'd appreciate your insight into Talk:Nowogródek Voivodeship (1507-1795).-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 19:28, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for participating in the RFC: Country data in Nobel lists! Since you indicated that you agreed with item 3.1 (use common name) or 3.2 (use names shown on the Nobel site), could you please revisit the RFC and respond to the question in the section called Clarification & Questions related to 3.1 or 3.2? Thanks! –panda 04:41, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for October 03, 2007[edit]
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 40 | 1 October 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |||||||||||||
| Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST | ||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
Re: Battle of Barrosa FAC[edit]
Hi,
Given the massive backlog at LoCE, it would be very much appreciated if you could look further, but only if you have the time, of course. If the prose & mainly grammar are the only serious objections at the moment, I'd prefer to get them fixed ASAP, although my own grammar leaves something to be desired. The article's talk page is probably best, rather than clutter the FAC page. Thanks in advance, all contributions welcome! Carre 06:54, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't know if this changes anything but wanted to let you know that I've discovered what the country data is supposed to be in the Nobel lists. You can find it under the point Country data defined in RFC: Country data in Nobel lists. –panda 15:09, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
FAC[edit]
Can you please revisit your comments at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Buildings and architecture of Bristol? Raul654 01:20, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
The Age of Reason[edit]
The FAC was closed before we were able to finish our revisions to The Age of Reason article. If you manage to acquire the Fast book before I do or some Conway sources, could you add the information into the article? Thanks. Awadewit | talk 02:09, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not sure that the Fast material is necessary for the AR article. It seems like it would be an excellent addition to the Common Sense and Rights of Man, articles though. Fast's historical novel Citizen Tom Paine focuses much more on the American Revolution, according to the chapter on it in the critical companion. What might be worth including is that Fast saw himself as a kind of Paineite figure - a common man - and his novel was written in a kind of Paineite language. Let me know if you think this should be added to the AR page. Awadewit | talk 22:05, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Hello, as you might have noticed I have brought up a new proposal for a guideline on school naming conventions. However, there has been very little input for it to go anywhere. I remember you were involved in the last proposal, so I would appreciate your input once again at WT:NC(S) if possible. Thanks. Camaron1 | Chris 11:46, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Related discussion[edit]
Hiya, I've been following the FAR discussion, and I was just wondering if you're also following this one? Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Franco-Mongol alliance. If not, you might want to keep an eye on it.
Also, is it okay with you if I archive your talkpage, or set up a bot for you? :) --Elonka 05:49, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for October 15th, 2007.[edit]
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 42 | 15 October 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 10:01, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Dictionary of National Biography[edit]
If you can get me a citation for that ONDB quotation, I'll be glad to include part of it in the article. Coemgenus 17:59, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Bit of advice[edit]
Hi again,
I'm after a bit of advice, if you have time to answer. I've recently finished a rewrite of the Battle of Albuera article, but reading this FAR, I think I may have made a mistake. Essentially, there are two very different camps in the accounts for Albuera, stemming from volume 3 of Napier's history: Napier had a personal dislike for Beresford, and his account of the battle was extremely scathing. Subsequent histories either follow Napier's lead (eg Fortescue), or support Beresford (eg Oman). In my rewrite, I tried to get a balance between the two views, but I now think I should perhaps have offered the two alternative views in the prose (Fortescue says X, Oman says Y). Oh, I'm asking you since you seem to have a fair bit of experience in this sort of thing, and somehow have a grasp of a lot of history related articles spanning a huge period...
I'd appreciate your advice on this - should I go back and put the two views in, or keep with my attempted neutral view? If the former, do you think I should also source Napier himself (don't think I can get hold of Beresford's rebuttals)?
Thanks in advance. Carre 23:14, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
PS you really should archive this talk page - it's huge!
PPS anything new on the Barrosa FAC?
Franco-Mongol alliance[edit]
Elonka wrote me about this mediation. I would be willing to take part in this as a third party, or to check assertions about source material as needed. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:32, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
- I would actually love to get another voice in there, as I'm finding it very difficult to maintain patience with PHG's tactics. Tariq, could you please pop in again? For example, this edit by PHG, where he removed every single entry under the "Attempts" category and moved it to Disputed,[22] and is asking for citations even though I've spent hours detailing cites at User:Elonka/Mongol historians. It is my opinion that PHG is just not arguing in good faith -- he's either extraordinarily befuddled, or he's being deliberately obtuse and/or argumentative, but I'm feeling more and more like the mediation is just a waste of my time. I haven't given up total hope yet, but I think we're going to need some guidance to get things back on track. --Elonka 03:13, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- I have commented on the RfM. And, no, I don't believe Pm/Sept should get involved. -- tariqabjotu 04:03, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
P.S. You need to archive your talk page; it is far too big. Until then, you are the first person on my list of user talk pages I shouldn't use Popups to edit or else my browser will crash. Yes, indeed. -- tariqabjotu 04:03, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- About half of it has now been archived. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:14, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Indo-Greeks[edit]
Hi Pmanderson. Here are the books I personnally own and have read, which bear some relation to the Indo-Greeks:
- Bopearachchi, Osmund (1991). Monnaies Gréco-Bactriennes et Indo-Grecques, Catalogue Raisonné (in French). Bibliothèque Nationale de France. ISBN 2-7177-1825-7.
- Avari, Burjor (2007). India: The ancient past. Routledge. ISBN 0415356164.
- Faccenna, Domenico (1980). Butkara I (Swāt, Pakistan) 1956–1962, Volume III 1 (in English). Rome: IsMEO (Istituto Italiano Per Il Medio Ed Estremo Oriente).
- McEvilley, Thomas (2002). The Shape of Ancient Thought. Comparative studies in Greek and Indian Philosophies. Allworth Press and the School of Visual Arts. ISBN 1-58115-203-5.
- Puri, Baij Nath (2000). Buddhism in Central Asia. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass. ISBN 81-208-0372-8.
- Tarn, W. W. (1984). The Greeks in Bactria and India. Chicago: Ares. ISBN 0-89005-524-6.
- Narain, A.K. (2003). The Indo-Greeks (in English). B.R. Publishing Corporation. "revised and supplemented" from Oxford University Press edition of 1957.
- Narain, A.K. (1976). The coin types of the Indo-Greeks kings (in English). Chicago, USA: Ares Publishing. ISBN 0-89005-109-7.
- Cambon, Pierre (2007). Afghanistan, les trésors retrouvés (in French). Musée Guimet. ISBN 9782711852185.
- Keown, Damien (2003). A Dictionary of Buddhism. New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-860560-9.
- Bopearachchi, Osmund (2003). De l'Indus à l'Oxus, Archéologie de l'Asie Centrale (in French). Lattes: Association imago-musée de Lattes. ISBN 2-9516679-2-2.
- Boardman, John (1994). The Diffusion of Classical Art in Antiquity. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. ISBN 0-691-03680-2.
- Errington, Elizabeth; Joe Cribb; Maggie Claringbull; Ancient India and Iran Trust; Fitzwilliam Museum (1992). The Crossroads of Asia : transformation in image and symbol in the art of ancient Afghanistan and Pakistan. Cambridge: Ancient India and Iran Trust. ISBN 0-9518399-1-8.
- Bopearachchi, Osmund; Smithsonian Institution; National Numismatic Collection (U.S.) (1993). Indo-Greek, Indo-Scythian and Indo-Parthian coins in the Smithsonian Institution. Washington: National Numismatic Collection, Smithsonian Institution. OCLC 36240864.
- 東京国立博物館 (Tokyo Kokuritsu Hakubutsukan); 兵庫県立美術館 (Hyogo Kenritsu Bijutsukan) (2003). Alexander the Great : East-West cultural contacts from Greece to Japan. Tokyo: 東京国立博物館 (Tokyo Kokuritsu Hakubutsukan). OCLC 53886263.
- Lowenstein, Tom (2002). The vision of the Buddha : Buddhism, the path to spiritual enlightenment. London: Duncan Baird. ISBN 1-903296-91-9.
- Foltz, Richard (2000). Religions of the Silk Road : overland trade and cultural exchange from antiquity to the fifteenth century. New York: St. Martin's Griffin. ISBN 0-312-23338-8.
- Marshall, Sir John Hubert (2000). The Buddhist art of Gandhara : the story of the early school, its birth, growth, and decline. New Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal. ISBN 81-215-0967-X.
- Mitchiner, John E.; Garga (1986). The Yuga Purana : critically edited, with an English translation and a detailed introduction. Calcutta, India: Asiatic Society. OCLC 15211914 ISBN 81-7236-124-6.
- Salomon, Richard. "The "Avaca" Inscription and the Origin of the Vikrama Era" Vol. 102.
- Banerjee, Gauranga Nath (1961). Hellenism in ancient India. Delhi: Munshi Ram Manohar Lal. OCLC 1837954 ISBN 0-8364-2910-9. (I don't have this one with me right now)
- Bussagli, Mario; Francine Tissot; Béatrice Arnal (1996). L'art du Gandhara (in French). Paris: Librairie générale française. ISBN 2-253-13055-9.
- Marshall, John (1956). Taxila. An illustrated account of archaeological excavations carried out at Taxila (3 volumes) (in English). Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.
- (2005) "Afghanistan, ancien carrefour entre l'est et l'ouest" (in French/English). Belgium: Brepols. ISBN 2503516815.
- Seldeslachts, E. (2003). The end of the road for the Indo-Greeks? (in English). (Also available online): Iranica Antica, Vol XXXIX, 2004.
- Senior, R.C. (2006). Indo-Scythian coins and history. Volume IV. (in English). Classical Numismatic Group, Inc.. ISBN 0-9709268-6-3.
And, to answer your question, I can read fluently books in English, French and Japanese. Regards PHG 05:47, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Question 2: my best source would be Bopearachchi on Demetrius Aniketos:
- Collin Kraay attributed the coin to a 3rd Demetrios
- Senior ignores the difference between the first and the second Demetrios, although he mentions the portrait looks different.
- Bopearachchi attributes it to a second Demetrios, circa 100 av JC.
Since you're asking this question, I suppose that you are not aware that Agathokles minted pedigree coins of the first Demetrius with the adjective "ANIKETOS"? (See Bopearachchi, and my photograph of one of these coins at the British Museum here). This is actually the first "Demetrius Aniketos" to be documented... Regards PHG 06:24, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Indo-greek kingdom - Indořecké království[edit]
Hello Pmanderson! I hastily saw the situation around the Indogreek kingdom, because a I translate this one to czech language from en completely. I finished the section "Preliminary Greek presence in India" and I would like to ask you if this article is so bad that I should stop with translating. I'd like to to write good article in cs, but Im not sure about english original.
Pls, could you leave me the answer msg on my cs talk page Regards.
- User:Emír Balduin Hallef Omar Ali al-Adid bin Abú Sharee al-Kerak from czech wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.71.93.29 (talk) 19:53, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Many thanks for your answer. Unfortunately I have no book about this theme. I wanted translate this article from mere interest of laic. I will not translate the Indo-Greek kingdom at this time and I will return to this one someday. Good luck with improving of article! Regards.
- User:Emír Balduin Hallef Omar Ali al-Adid bin Abú Sharee al-Kerak from czech wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.71.93.29 (talk) 20:58, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Sources[edit]
Yes, I have Tarn, Narain and Bopearachchi's catalogue available right now. If you want specific references, I can look them up for you.
Best regards Jens Jakobsson /Sponsianus —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sponsianus (talk • contribs) 19:50, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Rewriting[edit]
Hi!
Good that you have access to these books. But with all respect, I disagree with your plan. IMHO, we should not repeat the views of Tarn and Narain under all the kings, especially not the later ones, for their suggestions are usually utterly outdated. For instance, they both believe that Straton II was the son and co-regent of Straton I. Boperachchi and Senior have proved that Straton I and II were separated by more than half a century and that Straton II had his son Straton III as co-regent. This is easy to see, for their coins are very different.
As an other example, both Narain and Tarn place Hermaios as later than Straton II. Overstrikes have shown that this is also wrong by about half a century. Such chronological shifts make most of their speculations about the relationship between these kings totally meaningless. Narain also believes that many of the later kings ruled in southern Bactria, because they issued Attic tetradrachms. Modern numismatists are certain that these very rare series were struck for export into Bactria, perhaps as tribute. Narain does not recognise Apollodotos I, neither of them knew that there were two Menanders etc.
Narain and Tarn could still be quoted on interpretation of the sources, inscriptions and artwork, but not for the chronology and the reconstruction of the kings' internal relationships. I kindly suggest that we continue my scheme of dating the Indian kings double: both by Boperachchi's catalogue (as PHG has already done) and by Senior's 2004 ONS addendum. I have not had time to do this properly.
As for the earlier kings, there are recent publications which may support the view that Euthydemos I ruled from c 222 BCE (J. Lerner, Impact of Seleucid Decline on the Eastern Iranian Plateau) and Demetrios I from perhaps 195 BCE (The Heliodotos inscription, found for instance in MacDowall, 2004). Other incertainties include the dating of Antimachus II (174-165 or 160-155, both Bopearachchi), Demetrius II (175-170 according to Bopearachchi, this is probably wrong as Senior and Wilson have pointed out, he is later than Eucratides I) and Zoilos I, where new overstrikes (Menander over Zoilos, two specimens) have confirmed an earlier date.
I have tried to add as many of these changes as I can, but I have had other matters to attend to, and the ongoing inflamed debates have not exactly helped. Anyway I appreciate more users caring for this subject in a constructive way. Best regards Sponsianus 22:49, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Unilateral moves[edit]
Please never ever move stable articles unilaterally without at least informally proposing the moves at talk and giving interested editors some time to respond. Moves like these generate much more ill feelings than controversial edits to the text which are easier to undo if they are wrong. TIA, --Irpen 21:08, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- Please be bold, Pmanderson. Here are sources: [23], [24], [25]. Colchicum 22:58, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- … but don't be reckless. Undoing move is required much more effort than undoing other edits while it is a common courtesy to the editors who worked on the article to ask their opinion (on the article talk page or/and on a relevant board) first. While I agree with Colchiuum that of Muscovy might make more sense for the Great Princes of Moscow there will be no damage if the issue will wait for a few days. Alex Bakharev 23:30, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
- As I explained at Vasily I, google books had a higher score for "of Russia" than "of Muscovy" - though of course, "of Moscow" wins it hands down. And looking at the edit summary for Vasily I, I twice see a reference to "this is better English", and no reference to the change to a now derogatory term. --Paul Pieniezny 00:36, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Thankyou for your comments and support at the above successful FAC.--Jackyd101 18:36, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Hawaii and English[edit]
Hi Septentrionalis I thought I might intrest you in a proposal introduced at the Manual of Style for Wikiproject Hawaii. The Hawaiian language has some ideosycratic symbols in its written form (called the okina and kahako) which are often injected into en: wiki articles on Hawaiian topics. The situation is in some ways analogous to Þ, ß, and etc. The proposal suggests avoiding these marks, and I thought I'd canvas you for some articulate support:) Erudy 21:32, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Reference tags[edit]
Reference tags again see WP:FOOT --Philip Baird Shearer 22:06, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
- It was well done[26]. Let me know if it causes problems. Also are you aware of WP:CITE#Where to place ref tags? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 23:24, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for October 22nd, 2007.[edit]
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 43 | 22 October 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
Sorry for the tardiness in sending the Signpost this week. --Ral315
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 14:40, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your constructive remarks on this FAC. I think the article has been much improved by our collaboration. Coemgenus 23:15, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
South Tyrol disambiguation (again)[edit]
Hello, I noticed that you took part to the debate related to the article on the Province of Bolzano-Bozen. I would like to hear your opinion on a possible different disambiguation concerning the term South Tyrol. The naming dispute for the Province of Bolzano-Bozen has been exhausting and I think that the current compromise is fine, although I might have preferred a forward slash (Bolzano/Bozen) rather than a hyphen. Since the linguistic majority of the province is German (as Icsunonove correctly points out here), it might also be possible to invert the names (Province of Bozen/Bolzano). After all, this is the convention used for instance in the article Åboland, where the Swedish place name comes first, and the Finnish one after. However, the naming dispute has been so long and "acidic" that it seems useless and not constructive to flame it again.
What I find unsatisfactory is the redirection from South Tyrol to Province of Bolzano-Bozen.
I propose something as follows:
South Tyrol (German: Südtirol) may refer to:
- the areas of the County of Tyrol (part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire) south of the Alpine divide, including the Italian-speaking areas of Trentino, in past times also known as Welschtirol in German.
- the German-speaking part of the County of Tirol that was annexed to the Kingdom of Italy in 1918.
- the Autonomous Province of Bolzano-Bozen, a political subdivision of the Republic of Italy, which is also known as Alto Adige (lit. "Upper Adige") in Italian and Südtirol (lit. "South Tyrol") in German.
I think that this suggested disambiguation is informative, balanced and reasonably neutral. This version relates to the current articles Tyrol, History of Alto Adige/South Tyrol and Province of Bolzano-Bozen, so any reader can find the information that matches his/her interests. This version also seems quite language-balanced. I would really like to hear your opinion.
Best regards, FrancescoMazzucotelli 23:29, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Mitchiner[edit]
Hi! I haven't got Mitchiner, unfortunately. Sponsianus 16:48, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Re your map suggestion: I hope there is leeway enough to produce a map such as you suggested. In fact, the earlier maps were done like that, back when everything wasn't so complicated. The reason for Devanampriya falling out with me was however our disagreement over the inclusion of Mathura.
I will not support any map which doesn't include Mathura, but I think it reasonable to remove the south-eastern extensions just around Barygaza from the AdWG map. That would leave a reasonable representation of Strabon's references to conquests on the Indian coast but not the south-eastern inland conquests that Tarn postulated.Sponsianus 21:56, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for October 29th, 2007.[edit]
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 44 | 29 October 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:03, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
ani board[edit]
you must see what is going on now on the ANI board. [27] Icsunonove 07:33, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XX (October 2007)[edit]
The October 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
Delivered by grafikbot 15:16, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
I have reverted your removal of the two paragraphs in the article. At this point, I believe they need to remain in the article until consensus has been reached. I have no problem with them being rewritten. I've also offered my support about leaving out the story to do with the t-shirts if that's what everyone else wants. I urge you to leave them alone and discuss it at this point. Reverting over and over again is just going to piss people off. There are several people who are part of Wikipedia Oregon Project that will likely come and comment on the article.
Yes, there is a lot of bias in Wikipedia, that's one of the drawbacks of having an online anyone can edit webpage. However, it would help if you can be more collaborative with others in making the changes. I hope you will consider doing that. Davidpdx 03:22, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
- PMAnderson, thank you for engaging in discussion on the David Wu talk page. However, you are being hasty in your edits. I understand that you are new here, and I'm not going to get involved in an edit war -- I don't think it would accomplish any purpose. However, your good approach to discussion makes me think you might respond to a little constructive criticism.
- When in a discussion about a contentious edit, it is best to wait until all parties have had a chance to weigh in before making a change. In the sex incident, I suggested that you rewrite the section; I may not have been clear, but what I intended was that you should suggest a new phrasing on the talk page. (As it turns out, your edit appears to be acceptable to all parties -- though David has not yet commented -- so, no harm, no foul.)
- With the T-shirt incident, two comments (as you pointed out before) does not constitute consensus.
- I think a good rule-of-thumb for these situations is, the more strongly you feel about an issue, the less direct editing you should do; in most cases, somebody will come along who doesn't have a strong position, and is in a better position to assess consensus. (In this case, I'd say Esprqii is playing that role.)
- Anyway, I know that's all a lot of unsolicited advice, and I hope you don't take it the wrong way. I appreciate what I see as your main goal, to make the article better. I've been on Wikipedia for a while, and have a pretty good sense what approaches tend to lead to endless debates and flame wars; so that's just my perspective on how you could achieve that goal better. -Pete 17:33, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
- I just checked your edit history, and see that I couldn't have been more off-base by saying you're new around here. I'm sorry. I had you confused with a different person from a different discussion. -Pete 17:36, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Reference debate[edit]
My word, so many pixels killed for so little! I don't see much to object to in that discussion, although I must say I have no idea why people are getting so worked up about it. Tim Vickers 04:18, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Grand duchesses[edit]
I don't care who disagrees or why, I mostly care how. I certainly do not appreciate the game or contest attitude or the "convince me and I may change my vote" comments. Do you want to know my true feelings? Take a look at the move history of Alice of the United Kingdom. I'm for following conventions and sometimes my personal preferences don't alone with that. So I'm going with what has been consistently practised on Wikipedia. The argument has always been, "Well, don't use X of Y, someone will think she was a queen or empress!". Even if I prefer X of Y, it is what I am trying to avoid. The move should not be hampered or muddled by that with discussions over Baden being sovereign or not. We already did that for Hesse and by Rhine over a year ago. Remember my comments from then, if you may. Discussions at what the conventions should say should be contained at WT:NC(NT). This isn't about Princess Sophie anymore, it's turning into a discussion on one matter going on at the wrong place given your comments about Baden being sovereign. No, I am not surprised. Just tired. Charles 23:41, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
- I have simply stated fact and application of the naming conventions and if that does not convince you, on the basis of the problems you perceive or identify with the naming conventions, then I am sorry, I cannot do anything to convince you. I don't beg or ask please about these things, I just stated the simple facts: In discussions across Wikipedia when moving royals, the form X of Y is nixed because people say, "well, that's for kings, queens, emperors and empresses". My personal opinion is that X of Y should be used for grand duchesses, but that is not how it has been put into practice. I think that any form of Majesty seems to put royals in another category in the eyes of others editors. Really, it makes sense to kind of draw the line there, as that is how it is practised, and I don't see why it should change until the naming conventions are more explicit or concise and outline what are acceptable exceptions. As for what you just post at WT:NC(NT) about this "nom", I don't think it was proper. Charles 23:59, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Templates as leads[edit]
I asked at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style about this, but got no response. I am now spamming people whe participate in MOS with this request: would you look at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football#NCAAFootballSingleGameHeader template usage and tell me what you think? - Peregrine Fisher 07:00, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
My (Remember the dot)'s RfA[edit]
I never thanked you for participating in my RfA a couple of weeks ago. Thank you for your support, though unfortunately the request was closed as "no consensus". I plan to run again at a later time, and I hope you will support me again then.
Thanks again! —Remember the dot (talk) 06:39, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for November 5th and 12th, 2007.[edit]
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 45 | 5 November 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 46 | 12 November 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 08:10, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
TfD nomination of Template:Idiom[edit]
Template:Idiom has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Vossanova o< 16:19, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Province of Bolzano-Bozen[edit]
Hello, I made a major rewriting of Province of Bolzano-Bozen which may avoid the creation of a disambiguation page. I basically created a paragraph about the naming dispute where we could explain all the different naming conventions and their cultural/political significance and connotations. Interestingly, this would confine all the debate about place names to this paragraph so that the development of other paragraphs (Geography, Economy, Tourism, etc.) is not derailed. I would really like to hear your opinion. Best regards, FrancescoMazzucotelli 00:48, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks twice[edit]
Thanks for your comments at my RfA and Homotopy groups of spheres. I hope the article editors can agree on a good way to make citation of the article not a big issue at FAC. Geometry guy 20:46, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Milindapanha[edit]
The historicity of the Milindapanha is questioned by the fact that the Buddhist coins of Menander have only recently (80s) been transferred to the later ruler Menander II. There is also little useful personal information, but what exists is usually found also (or only) in the Chinese version, which is said to be earlier.
As for the Reh inscription, there seems to be a lot of doubt about it, as you point out. However the Indo-Greek translations of royal nomenclature into Pali and Brahmi were often quite tentative; you'd find raja, maharaja (high-raja), raja mahata (high raja) and maharaja mahata (high high-raja), with little consequence. Even in Greek, "King of kings" was a title and did not necessarily correspond to having sub-kings, or even more, the absence of it does not exclude sub-kings.
And then there is the profound difference between vasall-kings and sub-kings. We can be rather certain that Menander, an important conqueror, had Indian vasalls on the outskirts of his dominions who paid allegiance to him, because that's how things always work with conquerors. That is why the numismatic arguments are incomplete as regards peripheral territories of the Indo-Greek empire; those rulers may have issued their own currency. It is noteworthy that Strabon uses the phrase "conquered...tribes" which refers to military hegemony, not incorporation into a state.Sponsianus (talk) 09:16, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Sponsianus (talk) 09:16, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia_talk:Footnotes#Rejected[edit]
I would appreciate it if you would look at Wikipedia_talk:Footnotes#Rejected as I do not want to appear needlessly confrontational. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 11:48, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for November 19th, 2007.[edit]
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 47 | 19 November 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 10:34, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Gender-neutral language[edit]
Look at the bottom of Wikipedia talk:Gender-neutral language. A question is there for you to answer. Georgia guy (talk) 19:10, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
1a page[edit]
You're right. Thank you. Tony (talk) 23:43, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Latin pronunciation[edit]
Hi,
You removed the pronunciation of Novus Ordo Seclorum with the comment that the reader should use the Latin link. The problem with that is that the reader will have to work out enough Latin grammar to figure out which vowels are long before they can pronounce the phrase in English. That's asking a lot of some kid who just wants to look the thing up. I know there are varying degrees of anglicization vs. faux Latin, but surely we can add a basic pronunciation. kwami (talk) 07:40, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
- If you object to adding pronunciations to Classical words or phrases which aren't often spoken in English, which I can understand, how about working out a Help guide? I've started one at Help:Pronunciation of Classical names. It's just a start, and a crude one at that, but I'd welcome your ideas or contributions. kwami (talk) 03:35, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
The last pronunciation you added (to Anthe) is not permittable in English. I changed it to (pronounced /ˈænθi/ an'-thee, or as Greek Άνθη), which makes it explicit that there are a variety of possibilities. kwami (talk) 00:08, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
“On the Origin of Species”[edit]
Please do not move the page.
- Charles Darwin named it “On the Origin of Species”, lets not try to change history.
- The book was published in 1859. In the 1850s, 60s, up to the mid 70s it always had “On”.
- Harvard University Press also published it with “On”.
- Even current reprints use “On the Origin of Species”, ISBN-10: 0674637526.
- Also “On the Origin of Species” ISBN-10: 0486450066
- Also “On the Origin of Species” ISBN-10: 1592242863
- Also “On the Origin of Species” ISBN-10: 1551113376
- Also “On the Origin of Species” ISBN-10: 1434616851
- Also “On the Origin of Species” ASIN: B000JML90Y
- Also “On the Origin of Species” ASIN: B00079PSPG
- The photograph on the main page also says "On the Origin of Species".
- Encyclopedia Britannica also uses “On the Origin of Species”.
- Almost every college, university and high school uses "On the Origin of Species".
- Some businessman decided to take off the “On” over a decade after the book was published so he could make a quick buck, why fall into his trap??--Persianhistory2008 (talk) 06:50, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for November 26th, 2007.[edit]
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 48 | 26 November 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:30, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Regarding your diff here, please try to avoid personal attacks. Thank you. Epbr123 (talk) 10:50, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
on second thought[edit]
Reading this [[28]], makes me wonder if the many threats of legal action by Rarelibra were actually dealt with to conclusion. I of course have kept the e-mails as well. Your thoughts? Icsunonove (talk) 18:40, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
- will they ever leave me alone? [29] Icsunonove (talk) 19:20, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXI (November 2007)[edit]
The November 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot 03:09, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for December 3rd, 2007.[edit]
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 49 | 3 December 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 09:51, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Question[edit]
I confess to be asking out of pure curiosity, but in your oppose here, to which admin's desysopping were you refering? WjBscribe 21:08, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Your ArbCom voting comment[edit]
Re your comment: "The candidate has long been of the opinion that all policies on WP should be completely locked and not subject to editing by anyone, including admins within the WP itself. Development of policy should only ever be conducted at Wikipedia:Meta. This is insupportable; it would in practice empower our worst policy bullies, who snuck in their favorite crank remedies when no-one was looking. A symptom, I suppose, of being out of touch with what we are now doing"
While I respect your right to your opinion, I have numerous grounds for my statement, and none of which reflect my "being out of touch". I base this belief on several principles:
- Meta was and always has been the forum for the development of policy, this was one of the reasons for it's creation and that charter has not changed.
- Locking of the policies on WP and incremental releases means that when people make reference to the policies in any way within WP, they have a reasonable expectation that the content has not changed unexpectedly.
- By removing policy discussions from the WP itself, the ongoing evolution of the project away from "process" to "quality content" will be enhanced
- There is no reason why "policy bullies" will be in any way granted an advantage by moving to Meta. Consensus building would occur much as it does now, and if anything, it would decrease participation by those who are only attention seeking and intending to cause disruption. Participants would most likely be those who are most motivated to see workable, stable policy creation, as is the case with the majority of Meta activities now.
Of course I would not insist that you agree with me, but with respect, I believe my argument is not without a reasonable foundation, and hence do feel I have been maligned unfairly by your comment. Furthermore, I am thoroughly aware my viewpoint is a minority one, and I have no expectation that it will ever be implemented, nor do I intend to attempt to do so (as it would be a waste of effort). It remains my opinion regardless.
Manning (talk) 00:09, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Arbitration Committee Election - Comment[edit]
Good evening. I moved your comment at Manning Bartlett's voting page to the associated talk page. I also moved the candidate's response and your further comment. According to consensus generated at the ArbCom Elections talk page, comments longer than two short sentences should be placed on the talk page. Further, all discussion should also be placed on the talk page. I have moved your comment and included a link directly to the comment on the talk page. I also included a notation indicating that the candidate responded, and a link to the response and your further discussion, also on the talk page. Feel free to edit your vote and the talk page comments to your preference, keeping the two sentence rule in mind. I apologize for any inconvenience, and thank you for participating in this year's election. Best, ZZ Claims ~ Evidence 04:01, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
- That works really well, actually - I didn't want to presume which statement you'd want as a key point. Again, sorry for any inconvenience. Best, ZZ Claims ~ Evidence 04:07, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks[edit]
Thanks for calling my attention to this which also contains this. As you know I have strong feelings about this. However I had better say no more as I have told that any 'canvassing' will be blocked instantly. (Guys, if you are following my trail, I am just discussing a significant change to policy that this man has brought to my attention). Best edward (buckner) (talk) 13:10, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
- Just to explain my reading: if we have an article about some scientific subject (creation of the universe, medicine) we have to include 'notable' viewpoints such as Genesis or homeopathy. Atually, I'm not sure what a 'scientific' bias is. edward (buckner) (talk) 13:12, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Also, what is the meaning and significance of your point about OTRS membership. edward (buckner) (talk) 13:14, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
- thanks i did link to the OTRS thing, but don't understand what it means. In a sentence or two, what actually is OTRS, and why should it matter with this individual? edward (buckner) (talk) 20:36, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
- Ah yes, thanks. Probably needs some further explanation to the world at large. I've worked on WP for 4 years, and didn't know about this. Best edward (buckner) (talk) 20:48, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry, what is BLP? I'm an old man. edward (buckner) (talk) 20:54, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Edward Teller[edit]
Kudos on the efforts to improve the article in general. I still have issues with the state of the article, but its quality is vastly improved from the article that enterted the WP:FAR process. Lost in all the huffing and puffing across the podium is the fact that this is an very encyclopedic contribution to the project. I wish we could see eye to eye on something, but we are both helping the project, which is what is important. The whole debate has me in a foul mood and is affecting my contribution to the project. I have a nominee at WP:FLC (Lists of Michigan Wolverines football receiving leaders) that I nominated in a very undercited format because of the ongoing debate here that was making me think that citing is not necessary. I think I am almost over this. I may cite the article up to my usual standards in the next few days. Fortunately, the mood I am in has not affected the citation standards of the nearly two dozen WP:GACs I currently have over there.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 22:20, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
- First, I know Edward Teller improved from my perspective because I made the change myself so I could understand why he was showing up in the WP:CHICAGO WP:CHIBOTCATS list. He improved in several other ways in large part due to your efforts. WP:DASH bothers me and at the WP:GA level that I do most of my work at it is not important. I am going to be in trouble when I try to promote Tyrone Wheatley to WP:FA if it passes WP:GA and gets a good WP:PR because dashes are important to his article. There are several times when a GA rises well above the basic WP:WIAGA standard and would not be an embarrassment on the main page. I rarely produce such GAs, but have several GAs I am looking at for the WP:FAC queue. I am embarassed by none of my GA work and even stand by all of my WP:GACs. Most are not ready for prime time yet though. I personally would not even contest Horace François Bastien Sébastiani de La Porta for being overcited. I like to know how to track down interesting facts.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 22:11, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
2007 ArbCom Elections[edit]
First, archive your talk page. Second, please see my comments at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007, near the top of the page. Thanks. - Mtmelendez (Talk) 01:11, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Statement regarding Durova/!! matter[edit]
FYI, I am alerting user's who have voted to oppose based on my comments about the Durova matter that I have written a longer statement regarding my views on the matter which I hope clarifies a few points of apparent misunderstanding. See User:JoshuaZ/Statement regarding Durova and !!. Thanks. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:15, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Escalating disputes[edit]
After having a brief revert conflict with Sandy on {{FAR-instructions}} you very obviously followed her contributions to elicit further argument at the AfD for Operation Pliers. Escalating disputes by trailing users to other debates is strongly discouraged and violates WP:STALK. As a long term editor you should know this. Marskell (talk) 08:49, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
- You happened to find the AfD interesting? Sandy reverted, rightly, because you edited without any discussion (as usual). Bizarrely, you considered her edit summary a personal attack. You disagreed on talk. A sudden interest in Venezuela, minutes later, led you to a completely separate discussion where you badgered her further. It's textbook Wikistalking. Don't insult my intelligence, Pma. Marskell (talk) 19:44, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Hey, I have worked on most of your comment of the FAC and would you be able to take a look and tell me what you think of it. Thanks. Kyriakos (talk) 20:21, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Edward Teller FAR[edit]
Please do not use the Edward Teller FAR as precedent for in-line citations or lack thereof. Each article is evaluated individually and what is considered adequate citations for one article such as Edward Teller (small controversy) may not be adequate for Global Warming (highly politically debated article). I have refrained from engaging in conversations with you regarding in-line citations because I feel that, even though I do not agree with many of your postures, I understand the point you are trying to present. I will, however, prefer if you desist from trying to make this point in every FAR because it disrupts the process. A debate/discussion in the FAR talk page or any related talk page would be more satisfactory in my view. Joelito (talk) 22:33, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
- Re: Teller—I didn't write that line and know nothing of it. Today's the first time I've seen it. Personally I find the concern expressed to be a little silly (the Soviets would have had little to gain at that point from spying on Plowshares shots) but not necessarily absurd enough to dismiss out of hand. --Fastfission (talk) 23:17, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
- I guess what I meant was, I found it dubious that Chariot would supposedly encourage espionage (the US wasn't doing anything that the Soviets didn't already know how to do, and the harbor was of no military value). There are, of course, other, better reasons to encourage Soviet espionage in Northern Canada (e.g. the DEW line). Anyway, again, I don't know whether he worried about it or not in reality, just because something doesn't make sense to me doesn't mean it didn't happen. :-) --Fastfission (talk) 03:03, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Featured article review/Venus[edit]
Hi, I'm a bit confused by your last edit at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Venus. You seem to have signed at one point as [[User:Pmanderson|Septentrionalis]]. Maybe I have missed something, but perhaps you could clarify there. Regards, — BillC talk 00:46, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for December 10th, 2007.[edit]
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 50 | 10 December 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 07:52, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for removing all the duplicates. There should no longer be a problem with the new instructions. What are you trying to do that's re-substituting the entire page? –Pomte 18:53, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
- {{WP:RM}} is causing all the trouble due to the WP: prefix automatically changing to Wikipedia:. Use the redirects {{RMlink}} (and {{RMtalk}}) instead. –Pomte 18:58, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
My RFA[edit]
Thank-you for your contribution to my RFA. While your !vote was oppose, I still appreciate your time and consideration. I do recognize that articles which attract a lot of tags do so for a reason, however I think a single Deletion template and a cleanup tag with comments on the article talk page would be much more useful. From what I have seen, altogetherly too often tags on articles are used instead of comments on article talk pages, and are sometimes used to send a message to an error-prone newbie user that his/ her contributions are not welcome. The tags, like any tool, can be very useful and also can be misused. Thanks. JERRY talk contribs 03:13, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for December 17th, 2007.[edit]
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 3, Issue 51 | 17 December 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 19:25, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Re: surcomplex number[edit]
- In On Numbers and Games, Conway used no name; he simply called the field of surcomplex numbers No[i] (No being the field of surreal numbers.) The term surcomplex is used by Alling (ISBN 0-444-70226-1, §7.10), who called No[i] a surcomplex number field. Alling also defines other surcomplex number fields by restricting the surreal numbers used to those having birthdays <κ, for some regular cardinal κ>ω. Spacepotato (talk) 22:30, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Re:Ta-hsia[edit]
Ta-hsia may well be referring to Bactria, but I wouldn't merge it. Narain has some doubts,and modern reconstructions are - as so often - more cautious. In the very least, Ta-hsia was the Chinese conception of Bactria which was possibly unlike the Western; the borders could be different. When Zhang Qian was there, Bactria was not a coherent state, and there is little certainty of how far south he actually went. Some scholars, such as Joe Cribb, keep the possibility open that Greeks maintained themselves in southern Bactria down to perhaps 100 BCE.
There is an essay from 2005 by Francois Thierry in the volume "Afghanistan, ancien carrefour.." (where Cribb's article is also found). Haven't read it, but from the review I see that it is highly critical of how much certainty can be put behind Chinese names from this period. For example, several ideograms in ancient Chinese sources have been exchanged posthumously when they became parts of a ruling emperor's name, the characters of which apparently were taboo to use for other purposes. So I reckon Ta-hsia should be kept separate. Best regards Sponsianus (talk) 19:53, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your support in my RfA. It was definitely a dramatic debate! I paid close attention to everything that was said, and, where possible, I will try to incorporate the (constructive) criticism towards being a better administrator. I'm taking things slowly for now, partially because it's the holiday season and there are plenty of off-wiki distractions. :) I'm also working my way through the Wikipedia:New admin school and double-checking the relevant policies, and will gradually phase into the use of the new tools. My main goals are to help out with various backlogs, but I also fully intend to keep on writing articles, as there are several more that I definitely want to get to WP:FA status! Thanks again, --Elonka 10:40, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Apologize[edit]
If I did anything offensive to you, I apologize. I have apologized at Talk:Ta-Hia. And I like to also apologize personally at your talk page. Please forgive me. I hope that we can continue our rational discussion. Thank you. --Neo-Jay (talk) 18:24, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
BTW, I am not a nationalist. I am quite liberal and support that Taiwan has the right to be, and has already been, an independent county. My opinions on Ta-Hia have nothing to do with nationalism. If my any speech misleads you, I apologize. --Neo-Jay (talk) 18:27, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
I apologize again for my using the word troll. I really had no idea how offensive it is, but just though it means repeating something when another wikipedian, Ghostexorcist, used it to me at 01:47, 5 October 2007 on my talk page. I also used it in this sense to you in our discussion (see my context: "...are trolling and just repeating ...") After reading troll (internet), I realize that I was really guilty. I beg your pardon. Please forgive me. --Neo-Jay (talk) 00:21, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Reopening of Padan Plain[edit]
Please don't unilaterally reopen a closed move proposal again simply because you don't agree with it, Septentrionalis, that's totally out of process, not to mention it is rather rude. If you disagree with a closure, please contact the closing admin first and explain why you think that his or her closure should be undone. Thank you. Húsönd 17:36, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Battle of Dyrrhachium[edit]
Hey, I think I have regularised all the names now. If you can please take a look. thanks. Kyriakos (talk) 00:17, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Pm, I am sorry for the problems that I caused. But this whole episode has given me cause for optimism, actually. We have fought so many battles over this issue, and this was the first time that we clearly won—even though it was stolen from us. In the long run, I'm now hopeful, we might be able to actually effect change. We don't even need to attempt to be persuasive, because 90%+ of en.wiki editors are going to agree with us, once they know that this is being discussed.
I do understand that everyone is frustrated with the outcome of this discussion. But I think everyone's anger should be reserved for me, rather than User:James086. I do believe that he acted in good faith, believing that he was defusing the situation. I've checked his entire contribution history—he has never once added an edit to a single article with ß in the title, so I think he's an honest broker. I am a more appropriate focus of wrath; as an editor for over two years, I should have been aware of WP:CANVASS.
And even though his decision goes against everything that I believe to be just, I also believe that the ß-pushers would not have let go of this, even if he had ruled our way. I've noticed that they use every rule in the book to bend things their way, and we just need to keep up the struggle. One week ago, before User:Erudy proposed the move of the JSF article, I thought that, with that core of dedicated (and some of them, in my mind, fanatical) ß-pushers allied against us, that we could never convince enough people to support WP:UE. Today, I am optimistic.
Again, sorry for letting everyone down. It's sad, really sad, that you and I and others constantly marshal cogent arguments that are ignored, and we lose, not on the merits of our case, but on technicalities. I did my best, I really did. I know you have, too. Someday, it will be enough. Unschool (talk) 18:33, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Re. Notification[edit]
It's good that you started a new poll with more options, the outcome will probably be much clearer this time. But I would appreciate if you refrained from telling me to stay away from it. I may, or may not close your poll, depending on chance. Thank you. Húsönd 21:47, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
August 1, 2003[edit]
I was stunned to see the discussion on this closed as "no consensus, default to keep", since very few people suggested an outright keep, and most would have been satisfied with a merge. I honestly don't think the closing administrator paid attention to any of the comments. Regardless of how you felt on this issue-- delete, merge, keep -- I think that everyone's comments showed that a lot of people care about this issue, and "no consensus" was similar to a snub. I've asked for a review, and invite everyone to give their two cents worth at [30]. Best wishes. Mandsford (talk) 23:55, 17 November 2008 (UTC)