Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:40, 27 April 2008

• Archive 1
• Archive 2
• Archive 3
• Archive 4
• Archive 5
• Archive 6

This is Rich Dengrove, the fellow who contributed to the article on Mephistopheles. You doubted that Michael Psellos had talked about an order of demons called the Misophaes, or Light Haters. You said you wanted either the passage itself or a citation. Being lazy and not being able to read Greek, I will give you the citation of my source, Jeffrey Russell. J.P.Migne, ed., Patrologia Graeca, "On the Work of the Demons," 122.819-876. Also, The "Life of Saint Auxentius," ed. Perikles-Petros Joannou,Démonologie populaire, démonologie critique au XIe siécle: La vie inédite de S. Auxence, par M. Psellos (Wiesbaden, 1971). I would have written the title of the first article in Greek but I am not certain which of the letters below are equivalent. If need be,I will make this citation into a PDF file and send it to you.

Yours,

Rich Dengrove User:RDengrove

)

Signpost updated for December 26th, 2007.

Weekly Delivery

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) 13:44, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Margaret of Sicily/Germany

Hi. I've made a bit of a cockup of the move request. I had a tiring day, got home, saw that Michaelsanders had put in the move request, was concerned that he might think I was being unhelpful, and went ahead and moved it without checking because I didn't realise it was controversial. Do you want me to undo what I did, or shall we just carry on with the discussion and move it back later if that's what people want? Deb (talk) 18:35, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Augustus

I think you'll find my response amusing at best, juvenile at worst, and hopefully just satisfactory and clarifying as to my stance on Augustus.--Pericles of Athens 08:50, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXII (December 2007)

The December 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 (talk) 23:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Choice words choice

Hey, I don't begrudge you your sentiments, but would you consider rephrasing your last comments on the FJS talk page? We can afford to be gracious, don't you think? Cheers. Unschool (talk) 07:45, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Gaelic names

Just wanted to say good job on opposing the rather daft attempt to rename god knows how many articles to Gaelic names in one fell swoop. I must admit to being a leyman in the matters of scottish history (ONly having studied them in relation to my Anglo-Saxon history) which just makes this seem more bizzare as, well, we didn't use much anglo saxon in studying it (except for loan words like whitten and fyrd and such). Narson (talk) 19:22, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

History of the Peerage FAR

The History of the Peerage FAR is coming to a close. Are you willing to work on it? Joelito (talk) 01:04, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Courtesy notice

No one seems to have notified you that you are being discussed here. --Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 18:47, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for spotting that his response was incivil. I was wondering whether I was mad in thinking he was being abrasive. I must admit, I don't venture into eastern european article alot, despite my family's roots, and only strayed onto the subjects as I watch RM and comment on some. I can't say that I have much desire to venture into the articles if this is the general attitude of the involved editors. Kudos to you for putting up with the toxic atmosphere. Narson (talk) 10:06, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Blocked

24 hours for a violation of the 3RR rule. Try getting consensus before you make controversial changes. Spartaz 19:09, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

This blocked user (block log | autoblocks | unblock | contribs | deleted contribs) has asked to be unblocked, but an administrator has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock request while you are blocked. You may request another review up to a maximum of two per year per block by adding another unblock request.

Request reason: "Compromise almost obtained at Talk:Romania; if this discussion can continue, the substantive issue will go away. Blocks are preventative, not punitive, and the infringement was at best marginal. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:11, 8 January 2008 (UTC)"

Decline reason: "It has been quite a while since the last time you were blocked (by yours truly, incidentally) for a 3RR breach, so I don't take issue with the length being only 24 hours. That said, you really need to be more mindful of exceeding three reverts per 24 hours. Yes, blocks are preventative not punitive, but 3RR is designed to be preventative (a 3RR block would be punitive if the violation was committed, say, a week ago). Which is to say, some line in the sand needs to be drawn and the 3RR is one such line. So, please, be more cmindful in the future about it and let this be a (not too harsh, by any stretch, I don't think) reminder. Regards, El_C 21:36, 8 January 2008 (UTC)"

Thank you for replying. No, I don't think it too harsh, if the four edits consistute a 3RR breach; and I'm not sure how I would see that it weren't me. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:00, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

As the editor break the 3RR 3 times before (the last block for 3RR being 52 hours), I propose to extend his block to at least 64 hours. --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 19:43, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I request that note be taken of the vindictiveness displayed here; especially since there is a reasonable argument that the poll Eurocopter wants should not take place until I am unblocked. If he had nothing to discuss but the issues, we might actually get somewhere. The 52 hour block was nine months ago. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:46, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Seems we already have editors which support the idea of an poll, so it will start in few moments. I also mention that a pool will be the most civilized way to stop this disruptive conflict. --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 19:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

You have one editor, who supports a poll when I return. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:57, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure that more will come. However, I will assume good faith (a thing which you didn't) and wait one more hour to see other opinions. --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 20:05, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

- first and only warning to Eurocopter tigre. Spartaz 20:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks much. See you tomorrow. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:00, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Romania

Hi PMAnderson - at the risk of jumping into a contentious situation, would you consider having Rumania given in the intro but just not in the first sentence? --Reuben (talk) 23:02, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

The only qualm I would have is: Will editors dumped there by the redirect from Rumania see it, and realize they are at the right article? This is the principal reason to include it at all, besides documentation of the obvious stating a mildly important fact, not now included. If (as we probably should) we have an approval poll, please add the wording you suggest to the list of alternatives, and I will probably support it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:07, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the (recently elided) text I put in can fairly be considered equal billing. It certainly wasn't intended to be. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:13, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

That's true enough. I hadn't studied the edit history. --Reuben (talk) 23:16, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Idiom

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. Ddxc (talk) 17:05, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Unblock

Y	Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s): Although a 31 hour block was imposed, stated block time of 24 hours has elapsed. Request handled by: Lara❤Love 21:57, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

link

I fixed a link for you. Sorry if this was stepping on your toes or anything. I just didn't want the new user to click it and be like "what the heck is this?" --Cheeser1 (talk) 00:30, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for January 2nd and 7th, 2008.

Weekly Delivery

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) 09:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Pless

It seems it is happening again. Two or so users are pushing a non-English name; one is citing a single source as "evidence". I have posted on the talk page under "princes of the duchy". Charles 16:56, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Nobody is changing the name of the article into Duchy of Pszczyna. The voting was in regards to the name of the Duchy, now Charles wants to rename the city of Pszczyna into Pless, this was not under the vote, and such proposal should be made at city's page.--Molobo (talk) 17:29, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

What a bold lie. Maybe you should read the article's talk page regarding my views before you foolishly make such assumptions. Charles 20:36, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Please try leaving them a message on their talkpages, about it; if needed I will comment there. Oh, and please archive your talk page, it's a bit on the 'way too long' side :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:29, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Knowing Poeticbent, he will reply at your talkpage. Let me know when he does so. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 02:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I will see about it, but please consider archiving.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 02:17, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I will endorse any just action because I have experienced a fair share of related difficulties. Tell me where and I'll view it and follow up in whatever matter is appropriate and fitting. Charles 19:08, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

LOL, I wasn't aware there was a Piotrus Principle... thanks for pointing it out :) Yes, occasionally good stuff will be added to non-article pages and needs to be moved to talk. Perhaps an even more fitting name would be 'Reference Desk principle' - I have seen this done often, with impressive explanations on RDH (often by Clio) being turned into articles.

As for DoP issue, I lost track a little - I am not sure which argument of mine do you refer to. But yes, Dukes of Pless should have a separate article from Duchy of Pless at some point; even if most of such articles start as as little but lists of office holders, they have a potential to develop into something more.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 05:57, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

A useful editor does not mean perfect. That said, adding tags is not in violation of our policies, usually.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:55, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Duchy of Pless

(You wrote)

You have blanked the following sourced text:

but the Dukes, and later Princes, of Pless would remain owners of its soil, and lords of its inhabitants. The Dukes of Anhalt-Cöthen-Pless inherited in 1765, being descended from the earlier dukes in the female line; the last of them died in 1847, and was succeeded by Count Hans Heinrich X of Hochberg, his son-in-law. The Hochbergs <:ref>Hans Heinrich X, XI, and XIV; the dynastic numbering was, like other princely families, given to all males of the House</ref> were among the wealthiest families of Germany, and lived in great state; they maintained a herd of wisent, given to them by Alexander II of Russia in 1864, but it was reduced to three survivors during the First World War.

The Duke of Ratibor was defeated in the first election to the Imperial German Reichstag, in 1871 by Eduard Müller, one of the founders of the Centre Party, although Hans Heinrich XI von Hochberg not only endorsed him, but had so much control over the local government that he used the constables as election workers, parading the streets with drums to get out the vote; he also threatened, for example, to end wood-gathering rights for those who displeased him.

• This has been edited so as to claim that the Duke of Ratibor in question was defeated by the Polish Nationalists in 1903. This is certainly not the case; the Centre Party held the seat in the intervening thirty years; I am not sure he was still alive.

Hans Heinrich XIV succeeded in 1907; he had married Daisy, Princess of Pless, the diarist, whose memoirs are cited by Barbara Tuchman and other social historians.

Since these are the materials for which the sources are cited, they are now valueless. What form of Mediation would you be interested in? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:42, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

• • You pasted the same text in two different places, here and here, making it look a lot less like a message to me, nevertheless, since you want to be taken seriously, I would expect that you do the same first... and respect my sources. I'm not totally against whatever relevant information there is in your paragraphs, but the cheap editorializing and runaway digressions ought to be edited out. Here are some of the worst examples:
    
  1. "Princes of Pless would remain owners of its soil, and lords of its inhabitants." Gimme a break, is this a blatant WP:COPYVIO or what?
     
  2. "Hans Heinrich XI von Hochberg not only endorsed Eduard Müller (and, what is this guy doing here?), but had so much control over the local government that he used the constables as election workers, parading the streets with drums to get out the vote..." I'm asking you, what does this have to do with the Duchy? Here's a simple answer: nothing! --Poeticbent talk 06:37, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Indian Navy article

I warn you from indulging in edit wars. If you cannot provide the details asked and cannot provide information, then you have no right to remove any content from the article. You will be reported to the Administrator if you continue with these kind of behavior.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 13:14, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I am not a fan of conspiracy theories

"There are those who disagree with my principles, and would indeed like to wipe Poland out of Misplaced Pages." I am not a fan of conspiracy theories. I even don't exactly understand what you mean by that. Frankly it disturbs me, as it seems you are guided by some strange theories in regards to edits. As to the name of the article, nobody is changing it, so I see no reasons of your concern. Nobody is changing the voted on Duchy of Pless into Duchy of Pszczyna.--Molobo (talk) 17:41, 17 January 2008 (UTC) I don't agree with the vote, but as nobody does change the name of the article and I don't see anybody entering the name Duchy of Pszczyna, then there seems to be no problem.--Molobo (talk) 17:48, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I noticed your comment here If anybody moves the article to name not agreed by the vote, feel free to aske me to change it back. --Molobo (talk) 18:59, 17 January 2008 (UTC) Btw my original question was regarding improving the flow of the article, Pless is repeated in every sentence almost, it would be nice if you would come up with more ideas to improve the text and make it less akward by reducing the mention of Pless to reasnoble number rather then having it in every sentence, sometimes numerous times even in one. Which of course reads terrible. --Molobo (talk) 18:59, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Request for mediation accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party has been accepted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/Duchy of Pless. For the Mediation Committee, WjBscribe 01:45, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for January 14th, 2008.

Weekly Delivery

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) 08:49, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Duchy of Teschen#Name in article

Do you have any opinion on this discussion? Note the very lame, age-old "move the other article" argument. This is about one user replacing all English instances of the name with the Polish name, Charles 17:33, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:AN/I#Lil' mouse 2 (talk · contribs) taking over articles and removing tags

Your input would be appreciated here... A user is arguing that surnames can be literally translated and is claiming that I made the claim that only royal names can be translated (I never said that). I made the distinction between surnames, house names and territorial designations but was ignored. The user is asking me to prove a convention which exists only because translation of surnames is rarely exercised in the English language (essentially, I "have to" prove that not translating names is right instead of pointing out that it's never done as it rarely appears anywhere). The user also has compromised sources. Charles 22:28, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect: I am asking Charles to prove with a reference only his POV that commoners' surnames cannot be translated into English. For the rest of my stance on this issue, see my replies here and here. Thank you! Lil' mouse 2 (talk) 22:43, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

University College Dublin move request

I added UCC to the UCD move request. Please comment or append your comment accordingly. — AjaxSmack 01:08, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Hamilton

If the info is so "well known," you should have no problem finding a source. I would encourage you to use said source to rewrite that paragraph so that it's more substantive and informative than "there was a method..." (what method? where were the rules written? etc.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.174.180.145 (talk) 16:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for January 21st, 2008.

Weekly Delivery

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) 00:21, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Polish kings

I'd really love if we could agree on a naming convention for Polish kings; I have proposed one at guideline talk - I am sure you have noticed it (or would shortly). I'd like to seem them standarized; nicknames are popular in many cases and I see no reason why not to use them wherever possible (for standardization). They are useful; people find it easier to associate people with nicknames than with numbers. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:20, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

RE:

Take it to the talk page NC talk page. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:44, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what you're trying to achieve with these messages. They're really irritating, esp. using WP:Point like that. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:52, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: Pressburg

No, I think Pressburg is an excellent example and your wording is very good. Tankred (talk) 15:24, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for January 28th, 2008.

Weekly Delivery

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) 04:08, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Kings of Cilicia

Considering your involvement at Talk:Levon V of Armenia#Requested move, can I get you to look at User:Srnec/Kings of Cilicia and tell me what you think of these proposed moves before I do them? It is designed to remove all inconsistency and ambiguity and favours English forms for non-Armenian names and whatever Armenian anglicisation is most popular in English texts for Armenian names. I am very open to changing "Thoros" to "Toros" or "Hetoum" to "Hethum", for example, based on evidence of superior usage. Srnec (talk) 21:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIII (January 2008)

The January 2008 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 (talk) 01:35, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the support

Thanks for the support for the move on the Brunei Dollar. Just an aside, searching for "Brunei ringgit" gives me 2,060 hits on Google, searching for "Brunei dollar" gives 4,530,000 hits. I should go post that somewhere... --Novelty (talk) 05:30, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

template:History of Manchuria

I have made a request for move on behalf of the editors who's been persistently edit warring to add "Northeast China" to the title of the template. Please join the discussion to help reach a consensus. Cydevil38 (talk) 01:01, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Currency naming guidelines change proposal survey

You have previously participated in a discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Numismatics/Style. If you care, please go here to register your opinion on two proposals for currency naming guidelines. Thanks. — AjaxSmack 03:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for February 4th, 2008.

Weekly Delivery

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) 08:29, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Numerals & Nicknames

Hello Pmanderson, I'm a numeralist when it comes to 'regal names'. However, should any articles be moved to nicknames? I won't revert them (not my style), PS- the article name Gustavus Adolphus of Sweden still gives me heartburn. GoodDay (talk) 16:42, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm curious of something though, about the Swedish monarchs. Doesn't Gustav actually go with Adolph and Gustaf go with Adolf? If so? all those articles are incorrect. GoodDay (talk) 22:09, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

POV tag

Just a quick question - why did you put the tag on Samuil of Bulgaria? I need to know so to improve it and have it removed. I'm only asking cause you didn't point the reasons in the edit-summary or the talkpage. Cheers. --Laveol 13:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Hors d'oeuvre

Based on the overwhelming evidence presented by 2 different users, would you consider stopping by the Talk:Hors d'œuvre to strike or change your vote not to move Talk:Hors d'œuvre to Hors d'oeuvre. Check it out. Nearly all the culinary literature and dictionaries surveyed spelled the term without the œthel.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 01:17, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for February 11th, 2008.

Weekly Delivery

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) 09:09, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

In connection to Other theories by Samuil of Bulgaria

Hellow! Do you now Ostrogorsky was Yugoslavand Yugoslavia was the only country in the world which did not recognise the Bulgarian character of Samuil's state. Great Soviet Encyclopaedia was # 1 in the Slavic world and Eastern Europe! Did you ever read the Bitola inscription for example? Now even the modern scolars in Serbia as Privratich have recognised it's Bulgariannes. Will you invent the "warm watter"? 88.203.200.74 (talk) 13:45, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, of course I do; I described him as a "White Russian-Yugoslav scholar". As for the Great Soviet Encyclopedia: it does help to have the entire Red Army as salesmen. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:54, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Delimiting digits

PMAnderson, are we now seeing eye-to-eye on Talk:MOSNUM. My read of what you wrote is that you like spaces to the right of the decimal point (as do I). Are we in synch now? Here is a nutshell overview of my proposal. Greg L (my talk) 21:36, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Ukrainian names

Hey PMAnderson. Do you have an opinion on this Ukrainian thing I raised of the titles guideline page? You're normally interested in this kind of thing, so I'm desirous of your feedback. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:51, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

The Samuil one doesn't bother me ... I don't think it's the same problem here. If you could convince me this was modern semi-spurious Bulgarianization rather than nativization I would for sure change it. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:20, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I know where the Halych is coming from ... and they're free to use it to refer to the modern place. But historians writing in English do not use it very often. And ... wow ... Danylo of Halych is just a parody of itself. You could do a year of Rus' history and never encounter that in English! Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:30, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (geographic names)

I noticed you were the last to make edits to this policy/guideline. Can it now be considered stable? I appreciate the beliefs about Misplaced Pages you hold, but everything in the known Universe has structure, and Misplaced Pages despite its inherent attempts to be different also has to have some, even if Amoebic, structure. It does become extremely frustrating to edit when one doesn't even know which language the editing conforms to.--mrg3105 (comms) If you're not taking any flak, you're not over the target. 01:32, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Is there a problem with e-mail use, or is there another reason that you will not reply to my e-mails? Cheers--mrg3105 (comms) If you're not taking any flak, you're not over the target. 00:32, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Because I haven't received any. It is possible that they are swept up as junk mail, but I don't think that has happened before. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:36, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, that is what I thought at first. I will try again now in case there were technical issues on the previous occasion. I have sent e-mails to others in the last two days and have not received reply which makes me think the issue is with my ISP.--mrg3105 (comms) If you're not taking any flak, you're not over the target. 00:48, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Manual of Style

As I am sure you have seen, I've started a thread on a proposed new WikiProject to coordinate Manual of Style pages. I think this might provide a mechanism to address the problem without raising concerns about centralization of authority on the main MoS page. I noticed that you believe such a project might do more good than harm, and your comments on how it might work most effectively would be very valuable. See WT:MoS#WikiProject Manual of Style. Geometry guy 19:43, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I've now initiated a draft at WP:WPMoS. Sorry for the delay. I hope you will want to add your name to the list of participants. Thanks, Geometry guy 21:30, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Hamilton

As far as the Elizabeth Hamilton article goes, I don't see any evidence presented that she was called that at the time, but I'll take your word for it and let it go. As far as the Alexander Hamilton article goes however, by stating that "several Republican politicians advanced their careers" by writing biographies about him, it seems that you're implying that they did something unethical or crooked by doing so. Is there any reason that simply acknowledging that those politicians wrote biographies on him isn't sufficient? Thanks. Equinox137 (talk) 01:22, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: Show Me Love

See Talk:Fucking Åmål --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 17:18, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Dove1950

I'm tired of rebutting Dove1950 when he doesn't even choose to respond to my statements and questions. Instead, as you said, he just regurgitates the same argument ad nauseum without trying to respond to anything else or trying to persuade anyone over to his POV. I find it interesting that even User:Chochopk is agreeing with me, despite the initial disagreement (on the Brunei dollar vs the Brunei ringgit) that started this whole discussion. Oh well. Sometimes it's fun watching a trainwreck. --Novelty (talk) 00:34, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Chinese cash article split

If you are interested, a continuation of a discussion you participated in continues at Talk:Chinese_wén#Article_split. — AjaxSmack 04:55, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:RM Darius the Great

I don't what you mean "incomplete" and I don't know what you mean about the title. Srnec (talk) 23:47, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I see what happened. I always place the notice at WP:RM before editing the talk page. Srnec (talk) 23:55, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Proposed Kosovo naming guidelines

I've drafted a set of naming guidelines for Kosovo, loosely along the lines of the earlier WP:MOSMAC, which I created ages ago. Could you possibly take a look and see what you think? It's been a pain drafting them, and I'm sure I've not got everything right first time around, but I would very much appreciate your views in the light of your experience with ethnic conflicts. Please see User:ChrisO/Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Kosovo-related articles). -- ChrisO (talk) 01:40, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for February 18th and 25th, 2008.

Weekly Delivery

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) 08:06, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Comments needed

If you have the time, would love to hear your input here. Rarelibra (talk) 21:18, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Princess Helena FAC

Hi Pmanderson, thanks for the comments at the Princess Helena FAC. I've made a change so it now reads: " In the latter, Prussia and Austria defeated Denmark, and retained the duchies de facto, but following the Austro-Prussian War, they became Prussian. The annexed Duchies of Schleswig and Holstein, formerly the personal property of Danish kings, were then given to Prince Christian's family." Is this correct? Unfortunately none of my sources talk about the Austro-Prussian war, which seems strange now that the facts have been clarified. Best, PeterSymonds | talk 16:12, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Right, after over an hour of puzzled thought, I've found out what happened and put a reference with it. Every book I have seems to have a different train of events, which made it pretty confusing, but the version as it stands is backed up by a reliable reference and the articles here. Best, PeterSymonds | talk 17:20, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Reign of Terror

Sorry, I don't have time to wade in. If you have any specific questions or need comment on some specific matter, I might be able to help, but I definitely can't drive it. I'm already to the point where interruptions have been interrupted. I'd been trying to work on several topics in Seattle history; that was interrupted by the FAR on Blackface (which I'm still trying to sort through), which in turn has been somewhat interrupted by the FAR on Che Guevara (where I'm trying to suggest approaches and to do what I can do quickly as a "pure editor": I don't plan to hit the books on that one). So one more level of interruption is probably more than I can handle competently. (Unlike last year, I'm working a full time job, which is my plan for the next several years.) If you think you can drive it, great. In any event, it's a little after the period where I'd call myself really knowledgeable, anyway. (I've focused on the period from the mid-1780s to the September Massacres; after that, I am still clueful, but probably no more so than 100 other Wikipedians.) - Jmabel | Talk 18:03, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

FAC etiquette

I'd like to request that you please don't add your own comments under mine at FACs unless they are needed. For example, you added More important, what were its numbers in proportion to the followers of other flags? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:10, 29 February 2008 (UTC) in the midst of my issues list. This should go in your own section, not mine, so that I (and Sandy) can better track who is asking for what. I'm also very curious as to which of the FA criteria you think we ought to follow, as so far I've seen you dismiss pretty much all MOS-related issues and now citations. A well-written article that looks ugly and can't be verified (which means it is also hard to know for sure that it is comprehensive) isn't that useful in the long run. Please stop being dismissive of others' good-faith efforts to follow the rules as currently written. Karanacs (talk) 20:39, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with responses that are addressing my comments, but at least one of your comments appeared to be an additional issue with the article, and that needs to go in another section. Karanacs (talk) 21:12, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Signpost

You mentioned taking "FA from the trenches" -- two things. First, if you're talking about writing the Dispatches article, you'll want to take a look at WP:FCDW, where it's being developed. Second, I'm not sure what you mean by "a parody", but if you do write an article, please ensure it's written in standard news article style. Ral315 (talk) 09:33, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

• Yomangan's excellent parody. Can you do better? Let's see.--Yannismarou (talk) 19:12, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Peer review/Walter de Coventre/archive1

Brought Walter de Coventre into main space. I think you know what I'm after! ;) Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 10:07, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. I'm gonna get around to it soon, promise! BTW, thought you should know, you are being discussed at Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Biruitorul 2 ... partially my fault ... but thought I should tell you anyways. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 21:48, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Give it up

IT really baffles me that you keep putting up the same opposing answer, that Granicus is just Granicus, then how do you explain the Battle of the Hydaspes River! YOU would not complain that after hydaspes comes river, but for some reason its okay for Granicus not to have the word river after it, ive checked in history books, and most called it Battle of the Granicus River! So do some research and then make the same old answer, and please comment on the discussion page of voting i set up, and dont put the same old answer, and both Hydaspes and Granicus Alexander the Great fought in! Even the article of Granicus river its called Bigi Cayli check it out for yourself the ancients called it Granicus river as do people today, and no city is near where Alexander fought the battle. So it should be identified with the rivers name which is the Granicus River, all other ancient battles that took place at a river have river at the end except Granicus thats why i want to change it in the first place mr smarty pants! Thanks for reading.--Ariobarza (talk) 01:16, 4 March 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk

okay hold on

ON granicus im willing to call a truce, but for Siege of Tyre im concerned because as you know it was besieged by the babylonians and assryians and others, so if it was besieged the first time by Alexander i would not give it a date, but Alexander besieged it probably the 5 time in history it was not the first time, and just because he's Alexander i dont want to give him a special privilage that all his battles should be without dates, to match a consistensy of not dating his battles, so explain to me why Tyre should not have a date, and i think one of the battles of the neo assryian empire feature Tyre maybe, but i know that they besieged it at least 400 years before the Siege of Tyre, so there you go.--Ariobarza (talk) 03:28, 5 March 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIV (February 2008)

The February 2008 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 (talk) 07:55, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for March 3rd, 2008.

Weekly Delivery

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) 08:19, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

My RfA

Operation Straw Poll

Hi, since you took part in the discussion about renaming this article, you may be interested in participating in a most evil poll to determine the public opinion on the naming issue. --Illythr (talk) 20:07, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Treaty of Jassy was written in three languages, Russian, Arabic (Turkish) and German since a copy was forwarded to Russia's ally, Austria. Catherine IInd also was much more conversant in German then Russian.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 01:00, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

ACTUALY

I HAVE REQUESTED MOVES FOR TYRE ALREADY, check on march 1 or 2 on the wrpm or requested moves page of wikipedia, and youll see that nothing has happened. SO i do that first then put up a requested move in the comments area after.--Ariobarza (talk) 11:46, 6 March 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk

WikiProject Parliamentary Procedure

I just wanted to let you know about the formation of WikiProject Parliamentary Procedure. We hope to cover all the major motions and parliamentary procedure terms. You are welcome to join. Thanks, Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 19:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Edit

Sorry this was not usourced you didnt have to remove it.Megistias (talk) 20:43, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Parliamentary procedure

I'm also writing this essay analyzing the similarities and differences between principles of parliamentary procedure and Misplaced Pages. Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 20:35, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

your revert on UE

Hi Septentrionalis, I have no problem with you reverting my edit, but I would appreciate that you revert to the real previous version (which had "Latin alphabet"), and not change the text to "English alphabet" with the comment "no consensus". I found the comment quite misleading, and it took me some time to find out in the history where the "English" crept in. I have reverted to your version which immediately precedes my edit you find problematic Jasy jatere (talk) 18:08, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Glory to Augustus? No, let's criticize the bastard!

Hello once again. I've been sulking over what you've mentioned on the talk page recently about Augustus receiving too much praise in his article, so I've decided to knock him down a peg with a new "Criticism of Augustus" section at the end. It's not finished or anything, but it's a start. I hope this better displays my NPOV, if my NPOV came into question previously.--Pericles of Athens 18:21, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Looks interesting; but you will get the reaction: "work it into the article", as you should.

Well, maybe I can "have my cake and eat it too" in this regard; I think I can mention criticisms of Augustus within other sections of the article without having to scrap a valid section devoted to criticism. Thanks for the swift reply, though, as I intend to check out Syme as you suggest.--Pericles of Athens 18:37, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Yassy-Kishinev Strategic Offensive Operation

Just so you don't think I am advocating this from sheer stubbornness, my position is that good article research should discriminate between good and bad original research, even when it is the source for the article. I don't think reference work editors should compromise on article quality in any way as a proof of our integrity expected by users--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 01:09, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Talk:MOSNUM: {{delimitnum}} template

I just wanted to make you aware that I made a post here on Talk:MOSNUM regarding the new {{delimitnum}} template. See you there. Greg L (my talk) 22:12, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for March 13th and 17th, 2008.

Weekly Delivery

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) 23:33, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Qing Dynasty empresses

I notice you have previously participated in discussions about the article titles for Qing empresses. I am interested in getting opinion on the correct location of the articles on Qing empresses which are almost all currently located at hideous violations of pinyin rules. I don't have opinions on the format or even the names themselves so I would like to get some consensus before proposing moves. (But please, no hyphens and no CamelCase.) The articles in question are every CamelCase or hyphenated name plus Empress Xiao Xian and Abahai at Category:Qing Dynasty empresses and Category:Qing Dynasty empress dowagers. If you are interested please discuss it here. Thanks. — AjaxSmack 03:09, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

EB On-line

Thanks - I had thought that discouraging use of on-line EB was stronger than that. If we can all cite EB, WP will simply become "EB Lite" as editors will be less likely to do the hard work of finding and citing primary and secondary sources! NorCalHistory (talk) 21:58, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Grab bag

Hey Rich, things swimming around in my head this morning:

1. Thank you kindly for all the work you're doing in many forums where I participate, and a lot where I don't. As I was telling another guy this morning, all that's important to me is how much time people spend doing useful things on Misplaced Pages, and you do a ton. You regularly speak up quickly and intelligently on a number of pages, such as WP:CITE, especially when it's needed, and you make a lot of solid article contributions.
2. You said on WT:STYLE1.0 that Jimbo said something on the front page ... I missed it, what did he say? It's not in the history.
3. You made a comment on your userpage, sometime before this month, about the "effort to format Misplaced Pages identically in every article". I just want to make it clear that when I'm talking about standardization at WT:STYLE1.0, I am probably not talking about anything that you would object to (or at any rate, should object to, given my understanding of your feelings). I don't mean "standardization" in the sense of "one rule to cover everybody", I mean a reasonable number of rules reflecting actual practice, with an eye to erasing the things from Version 1.0 that would seem sub-standard to, say, a very well-read and broad-minded academic.

I think there was more, but my brain isn't working, I'll have to reboot. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 17:50, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh right, what do I call you? I think I've used Rich, Anderson, and Sept, because Septentrionalis doesn't come very easily to my fingers. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 18:12, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

non-Roman transliterations

Anderson—Can we try to nut out a wording here, since the more verbiage at MOS talk, the harder people will find it to engage with a proposal, I suspect. First, I'd like to know whether inserting Greek/Hebrew originals in parentheses is useful to anyone in this "Naming and etymology" section (at least we're not hit with it in the lead, as in the Chinese example I provided at MOS talk).

The lion's name, similar in many Romance languages, derives from the Latin leo, and before that the Ancient Greek leōn/λεων. The Hebrew word lavi (לָבִיא) may also be related, as well as the Ancient Egyptian rw. It was one of the many species originally described, as Felis leo, by Linnaeus in his eighteenth century work, Systema Naturae. The generic component of its scientific designation, Panthera leo, is often presumed to derive from Greek pan- ("all") and ther ("beast"), but this may be a folk etymology. Although it came into English through the classical languages, panthera is probably of East Asian origin, meaning "the yellowish animal," or "whitish-yellow".

Why is the Egyptian item not rendered in the original script? And why not pan and ther, for consistency?

Another issue: where there are several transliteration systems for a particular script/language, does the chosen system need to be specified? Is it necessary to place a diacritic over the o in leon?

Noetica and I have come up with a short, simple draft:

Except when giving etymologies, place original, non-Roman script in a footnote to avoid clutter in the main text.

Can you reply on my talk page? Tony (talk) 12:13, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid I have no idea what you mean. Who is Narson. Why is a paucity of syllables relevant to relocating clutter into footnotes?

"I do not see your agreement with Narson; your proposed mandate would be most unfortunate. Do you realize that Chinese, in any dialect, has only a few hundred syllables, or less? Distinct words can only be distinguished by the characters." Tony (talk) 01:13, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for March 24th, 2008.

Weekly Delivery

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) 07:59, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Move request for Dąbrowski's Mazurka

After you stated your opinion at Talk:Dąbrowski's Mazurka#Requested move (second time), I included Poland Is Not Yet Lost as an alternative target page name in the move request. You may want to change your vote now. — Kpalion 08:43, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

FAC thanks

Thank you for all of your input at my first FAC, which was recently closed with the promotion of Flag of Germany to FA. Your comments and insight were instrumental in helping me get the article up to standard to pass FAC, and have also given me a lot to think about for when I attempt a second FAC in the future. Thanks again. - 52 Pickup (deal) 09:50, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Judaism/Todo

Please tell me where it was broken and I will fix it. I thought I caught everything and I just fixed Template:WikiProject Judaism. Epson291 (talk) 23:09, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion

Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion, a page you created, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Elfits FOR GREAT JUSTICE (klat) 10:49, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

RE: FA

I agree it shouldn't have been closed, and would think that even if it weren't my article. But you know what would happen if I nominated immediately, don't you? People being people I'd get opposes just to punish for being so pushy. It's a fait accompli now, so I'll have to wait a dignified period of time before renominating. It's good though that you and other users continue to improve it! Kinda feel the topic doesn't really deserve the attention though ... Thanks again for your continued help! All the best, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:42, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll be here for another week, that's not a problem, though I'm going to bed rather shortly for this particular day. Worry that renominating it would piss people off. That said, I'm not averse to you renominating it, but maybe you could run that by SandyGeorgia first? Might come across as a slight to him/her if you didn't. All the best, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:04, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

FA nom of Richard Mentor Johnson

Thank you for your comments on my FA nom of Richard Mentor Johnson. Some of your comments were identical to ones I was about to make. Every time I make an FA nom, I get the same response: "There are too many errors that need fixing; I'll cite a few and leave you to find (or guess at) the rest. A thorough copyedit is needed." It's extremely frustrating, to the point that I rarely even try to get articles promoted to FA anymore. There are no doubt some areas for improvement in this article, but I don't think I'm that bad of a writer.

Complaining aside, if you can provide any help in terms of improving the copy, I'd really appreciate it. I think I must be too close to the prose to see its faults. And BTW, I haven't missed your comment regarding the chronology of 1850. I hope to take a look at that later today or tomorrow. Thanks again. Acdixon 19:13, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your continued work on this article. Your explanation of RMJ's education is quite good; certainly better than I could have come up with. It's taking a while to get through the Meyer work, but I'll keep adding/clarifying as I find things. Acdixon 20:34, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

A constructive conversation about MoS?

Top of the afternoon to you. I read on your user page that you oppose any efforts to create conformity among Misplaced Pages articles, and took that statement into consideration before leaving you this message.

Is there any chance of my convincing you that a clear, concise, simple-to-reference style guide would be advantageous here? I know a thing or two about why style guides are created and how they grow into the monsters they sometimes are. I might be able to persuade you that some style guidelines are desirable.

If you're closed to the possibility, I won't waste your time or mine. I assure you that our audience is my primary concern. Not confounding our editors is my secondary concern. Let me know. --Laser brain (talk) 20:03, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

All right. So what precisely is it that bothers you? That there is an unwieldy MoS, or that it gets cited on FAC pages? We could fix the former, but I'm not sure the latter is reasonable to try to control. Some reviewers are grammarians, some are subject matter experts, and some look for MoS breaches, or a mixture of the above. I don't think that will ever change. Do you think that the MoS should not be part of the "professional" standard of writing that's part of the FA criteria? I'm interested in understanding your position.

I write for a living. We have a style guide that, among other things, helps readers understand what to expect through visual cues. For example, we italicize the names of other documents; the result is that when our readers see italics, they know they are seeing the name of a document. Would my editor return a document to me with the comment, "NEEDS ITALICS"? You bet. Would you consider that a similar niggle to commenting on em dashes or commas? Or more to the point, would you consider it out of line? --Laser brain (talk) 02:40, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, it sounds like people's behavior bothers you more than anything. I'm not sure any amount of MoS editing would reduce edit warring over the things you mention. --Laser brain (talk) 03:51, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Sir, now we're getting somewhere. I like to connect that idea with "audience" because I think it is what you are implying. You may want to avoid spaced em dashes because they're annoying as hell for the reader to jump over while they're reading, right? You may want to keep the British English if the article is about a British topic and 80% of the readership will be British, even though your spell checker doesn't like "colour". *Shrug* I think it may be possible to hammer out something if we get everyone on the same page, which is that only the audience matters. --Laser brain (talk) 04:26, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

So you agree that we should be writing to the 80%, not the 20%? You also bring up an interesting point. If you flat ask someone (who isn't a professional writer or editor) about their opinion on most style issues, they will likely respond, "I don't know." or "I don't care." Em dashes are a perfect example. However, I don't think that necessarily translates into "No style needed." The reason is that, like I said earlier, styles become visual cues for readers. If someone reads two articles that have unspaced em dashes, they will have no idea they are seeing unspaced em dashes but their mind will associated that visual with a pause in speech. If they see a spaced em dash somewhere after that, their mind will recognize something "off" which creates a disruption in their reading and an impression of an error. The result is a worse reading experience and less credibility for Misplaced Pages. I know this is getting sort of deep into rhetorical topics but... maybe you see my point. --Laser brain (talk) 14:09, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for March 31st, 2008.

Weekly Delivery

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) 21:47, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXV (March 2008)

The March 2008 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 (talk) 03:15, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

"Bangalore "vs "Bengaluru", again

The article on Bangalore has yet again been moved to "Bengaluru". That move was done hastily and in disregard of the long-running controversy about it and past lack of consensus for it. (It has also been made irreversible by ordinary editors.)
If your opinion is still that the article belongs at "Bangalore", please say so on the article's talkpage. -- Lonewolf BC (talk) 16:54, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Re:Renom

Thanks .. I think ... frigg ... I didn't sort out the David thing. I was waiting for Karanacs to respond, but he never did. I'll need to get on it quick!. All the best, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:11, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

K, think I may have sorted it. But who knows!, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:20, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Oops!

copied from my talk page (and there's another comment before it): Oops ... I misspoke, I didn't mean "most of the things you say", I meant "most of the things I was talking about that you said"; there's a big difference. Your contributions are helpful, in general, as everyone knows. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 03:58, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Victoria County History

Please note that the reliance on this source has already been greatly reduced. I now have no more problems with it for precisely the reasons you stated. Awadewit (talk) 03:22, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Franjo Tuđman

On user:Aradic-en demand I have started request for arbitration . You are involved party in this request.--Rjecina (talk) 07:42, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for April 7th and 14th, 2008.

Sorry, it seems that the bot quit before completing its run last week. Here is the last two weeks' worth of Signpost. Ralbot (talk) 08:55, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Weekly Delivery

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) 08:55, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

units

You've inserted "for US-related articles, and where idiom requires it for articles written in American English, the main units are US units". Why not just "for US-related articles, and where idiom requires it, the main units are US units", since idiom may require it in other varieties too, since they have all switched to metrics at one time or another? TONY (talk) 16:02, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

By "idiom", do you mean, say, "the four-minute mile"? No one's going to use metric units for that and convert them. TONY (talk) 16:13, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Your recent change: "For US-related articles, and where idiom prefers it (especially likely for articles written in American English)"—US-related articles have to be written in AmEng, so it's already covered with the parenthesis. The idiom bit surely refers to other varieties. TONY (talk) 16:16, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

So if your poundcake is in an AmEng article, no problem, it's pound. If we just say "and where idiom requires it" (your "requires" was better than "prefers", I thought), that means in in other varieties you don't say "464 g (pound) cake", if anyone were so out-of-touch as to try that. TONY (talk) 16:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Jenna Syken

I removed what was unsourced, and sourced the rest. Bearian (talk) 16:05, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Tomislav II of Croatia, 4th Duke of Aosta

Some users requested a move to Aimone, Duke of Aosta. I opposed that and invite you to do the same. We have successfully opposed the move once before - we will do the same - but we need your help. Thanks for your participation. We have additional grounds now. See my discussion in the talk page, there was a Law decree on the Crown of king Zvonimir to which crown the right of rule has been transffered (like in the case of Crown of St. Stephen of Hungary). -- Imbris (talk) 00:38, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:Canvassing by Imbris. Please use your own good judgment and facts in making decisions. --DIREKTOR 00:58, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

New naming convention

A new naming convention for places in Slovakia is being discussed at User_talk:Elonka/Hungarian-Slovakian_experiment#Proposed_naming_convention. Your input will be greatly appreciated. Since these new rules might be later regarded as a precedent by non-involved editors (remember the Danzig/Gdansk case?), I think you will find this ongoing discussion and a poll interesting. Tankred (talk) 02:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Request for mediation not accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/Alexander Hamilton. For the Mediation Committee, WjBscribe 17:45, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Action potential at Featured Article Review

Hey PM,

It's been a long time since Laplace-Runge-Lenz vector, hasn't it? I hope you've been well. Foolishly or no, I took on the task of saving action potential at its FAR and, basically, the article is totally different 500 edits and a month later. I hope you like the new version! :) You voted Keep before, so I thought it only fair that I give you the chance to withdraw your vote, in case you didn't like the new version. If you don't like the new version, could you please leave me a list of things you'd like to see improved? That'd be great. Hoping all's well with you, Willow (talk) 19:26, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

10%

Yes, I thought of that. But what if it's 10% and the other ten of eleven are 9%? Or better, 40/30/30. No majority (which is > 50%)? TONY (talk) 16:53, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

"The majority" doesn't work, because it assumes that in all cases more than half will be in agreement. Can you think of a better way of expressing it? TONY (talk) 17:33, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Alexander Hamilton

Hi Pmanderson,

Wow...I feel like you and I have really gotten off on the wrong foot. It wasn't my intention to anger or offend you or anyone else. I must tell you that I don't feel my minor edits warranted such a strong reaction, nor such a peremptory tone. I would really like to work together amicably, particularly as it would seem you are very close to this article, and take it upon yourself to overturn many, many good faith edits to it.

Ironically, my intent in attaching detailed explanations to the edits was not to seem snotty, but simply to prevent users from thinking my edits were too casual. I am trying to offer more of an explanation for my edits so they will withstand any potential criticism, knee-jerk reverting, or edit wars. Edit explanations aside, I am confident that the minor punctuation changes themselves were for the better, and you would seem to agree, albeit with an unnecessary technocratic parting shot. I know there are other ways to go, but this is an American article, and as you stated on my talk page, the usage I chose is "preferable" in this case. I don't think the bit about British usage was particularly relevant or civil.

I am further puzzled and a bit upset that you seem to have deleted a minor--if elective--change I made when I swapped the slightly awkward term 'wide-reaching' for the word 'extensive'. I don't understand why you would jump all over me for what you call a "declamatory" and "annoying" edit summary, and then turn around and make a seemingly retributory edit 'declaiming' my edit as a "cliche" compared to the so-called "vivid metaphor" of the term 'wide-reaching'. Incidentally, the main reason I wanted to change 'wide-reaching' in the first place was because the very next sentence uses the extremely similar phrase 'far-reaching'. It just sounds awkward to use the two nearly identical terms so very close together, so I hope that you will see fit to reverse your choice to 'undo' that edit.

I was driven off of Misplaced Pages a while back, like many people, by edit-warriors and self-appointed gatekeepers of certain articles. I hope that 'Alexander Hamilton' does not have such a gatekeeper, since I have every intention of making improvements to the article when necessary. I'm sure you know how frustrating it is to make genuine improvements to an article, only to have them reverted for disingenuous reasons, on technicalities, or because of an undisguised control-freak or POV editors.

If you feel you might be a bit too close to this article, that you might be a gatekeeper, perhaps it is in its best interests that you not edit this particular article for six months or so, so that other wikipedians can more freely infuse it with fresh ideas from a wider variety of perspectives.

I say these things now because Misplaced Pages is about the gradual improvement that is itself a product of the gradual give, take, and compromise among responsible, good-faith edits and editors. When one stifles new edits to an article, the effect on the article, the editors, and the Misplaced Pages community is just awful. The article suffers, and its editors are unnecessarily denigrated and locked out. I hope you will not take these comments personally, I simply feel that some people have so deeply invested themselves in Misplaced Pages that they sometimes need to loosen their grip on it from it from time to time in order to let it breathe and grow anew--especially where pet articles are concerned. Obviously, I am passionate about this, and I hope you took the time to read it since I took the time to write it, and because I would really like to avoid going through the same garbage I did last time since it is so totally unnecessary and painful. I will continue to make good edits. I hope you are not one to stifle other people's good-faith, positive, edits. For the record: I intend to make quality, well-sourced edits based upon the consensus of opinion about a given subject, as it should be. I will not be driven away by gatekeepers and edit-warriors ever again. If you should choose to continue to work on this article, please work with me. Please. I absolutely beg you.

Thanking you in advance: AdRem (talk) 01:39, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello,

The material in the lead on the Quasi War as it stands now is a reasonable summary given its relative importance. The Revolutionary War has only one sentence in the intro, and it is far more important than the Quasi War. To give the Quasi War more weight seems inappropriate. There is ample info in the Quasi War section that delves into all the details.

Again, 'extensive' is not supposed to be a metaphor. It is a plain old adjective. That being said, it is simply NOT a cliche, no matter what you say.

I must also reemphasize that by reverting to 'wide-reaching', the paragraph sounds awkward because only one sentence away, the nearly identical term 'far-reaching' appears. One of those terms needs to go in order to keep the paragraph somewhat readable. I would argue that 'far-reaching' is the one that fits better where it is, and that it is the one that should be kept--but take a look. I will restore my edit only because you have NOT acknowledged nor addressed this fact. I would appreciate it if you would not look upon this as a personal attack, or engage in retributory edits.

Finally, I notice you don't seem to like Hamilton very much. That's fine. Know that I will strive to be fair in my edits. I would like to see this article attain good article status within a year, but I can't see that happening unless the article is based on the consensus of the current scholarship on the subject. That means the more recent top-tier scholarship and biographies need to be given more weight than the old, since by their very nature the older ones had a less complete set of facts and tools with which to work, whatever you might think of their scholarship. That being said, it is also essential to include significant dissenting viewpoints where there is disagreement. However, I have noticed there is a lot of strange anti-Hamilton stuff cited place in the leads of certain paragraphs, or given undue weight overall. You don't seem to like any of the recent Hamilton scholarship. Do you prefer the older, outdated biographies? I really mean that not as a dig, but as an honest question. It has surprised me that this article is as contentious in some ways as the current political articles. Hamilton was a strange guy, but a fascinating one, and one who had great influence on the direction of this country. Let's each try to actively seek out and chip away at our respective biases, and thereby, do justice to what Hamilton actually was--whatever that might be.

For the record, my bias, my view of Hamilton is that he came from nothing to exert astonishing influence on the structure, direction and identity of the early United States. He was extremely intelligent, but deeply flawed. He was extraordinarily ambitious. He had a mercurial personality that led him--more than once--to make terrible mistakes, which were made all the more terrible and complete by the way his brilliant mind seemed to deal with everything in an exhaustive, comprehensive, all-in, all-or-nothing fashion. There's a lot more that could be said, but, so that you know where I stand, that is my view in a nutshell.

I hope you understand where I am coming from a little better, and that we can work together well to improve this article drastically over the long haul. Thanks again AdRem (talk) 20:12, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I compromised with the word 'widespread' instead. This preserves the 'wide-reaching' quality of your desired term, while eliminating the near repetition that caused me to make the edit in the first place. I think that is a reasonable compromise--what do you say (assuming you have read my reasons for changing it above--that is important). AdRem (talk) 20:32, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much for having a dialog, PMA--I think it helps a great deal. Again, in the interest of making my biases transparent, I must say that I do not share your negative opinion of Chernow's bio. By the way, if you have never read it all the way through, I can say that you would likely not regret making he time to do so. My view of his Hamilton bio is very close to that David McCullough, who calls it "Grand-scale biography at its best--thorough, insightful, consistently fair, and superbly written...a genuinely great book" or that of Joseph J. Ellis, who called it "a robust, full-length portrait, in my view the best ever written." Whatever you might think of Chernow's very, very detailed style (I happen to think it serves the subject matter quite well), I think if you look at his work again, you would be hard-pressed to find much if anything in his treatment of the subject matter that is even remotely unfair or slanted. He went out of his way to examine and all the new information available, and to analyze it exhaustively. He even commissioned genetic testing of some of Hamilton's hair to put to rest one of the many, many old rumors that found their way into many of the older bios. His scholarship is excellent in spite of the fact that he does not come from a history background, but a financial one. I have read two other Hamilton bios, but not Flexner's partial bio (it is only the younger years, right?). However, since you think it is good, I will make it a point to read Flexner's book as soon as I can. Just out of curiosity, would you be willing to share with me specifically why do you dislike Chernow's bio so much? I would honestly like to understand. Thanks again for the dialog. AdRem (talk) 19:18, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Straw poll on Talk:MOSNUM

I appreciate your post on my talk page and agree with everything you said. It was unwise to have started a straw poll but it doesn’t surprise me in the least that someone started one. And I also tend to agree that now that one has started, it is best to participate. Francis Schonken said “I advise against vote-like procedures (now and probably also later)” and I quickly understood what he was talking about.

As I am here on your personal talk page, I will not mince words; I will speak the truth as I feel it. The most extreme elements of promoting SI (what I refer to as “SI Nazis” when I’m in a less charitable mood), and the proponents of the IEC binary prefixes are extraordinarily vocal and extreme and don’t represent the views of the vast majority of Misplaced Pages’s editors. They are using the visibility of Misplaced Pages and the access it affords any editor as a soap box to promote systems of measurement that only confuse readers. Warning flags should have been raised years ago when Misplaced Pages was the only damned place for a general-interest readership that was using the the IEC prefixes. You and I both know why this went on for so long: because a small, entrenched minority of editors and one active administrator gamed the system to block change. Misplaced Pages is absolutely broken beyond all recognition when it comes to affecting change for the good. Votes are the very tool this minority used for so long because the moderates aren’t as impassioned.

Having said all that, a poll has started. It was coming and it was only a matter of time before someone got one going. It just happened to be you. Fine. Once started, I believe it is incumbent upon all of us—including you—to drum up votes from the others. So many editors simply want to have an enjoyable time at editing on Misplaced Pages. They’ve had a belly full of the conflict that the most extreme elements seem to absolutely thrive on.

Finally, Fnagaton is doing the heavy lifting here. Though I agree that it is now time for me to participate in the vote, I will honor all of Fnagaton’s efforts and unflagging, long-term energy on this matter by waiting until he sees fit to vote. Sorry, I believe that is the right thing to do here. Greg L (talk) 21:27, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

• (copied from my talk page) Regarding WP:CANVASS: without ever reading it, I had anticipated that there must be such a policy and decided that the right thing to do is send the same message to all participates—even the “no” votes. That satisfies the spirit of the policy. I never let myself be hemmed in by piss-poor rules. And fortunately, there is no need to violate any rules with even-handed canvassing. It boils down to being fair to all parties; doing the right thing. Greg L (talk) 21:40, 27 April 2008 (UTC)