Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:53, 29 November 2007

FrankB is taking a short wikibreak and will be back on Misplaced Pages (now 'often missing' due to Real Life! Take a chance and leave a message, I'm still helpful.)

Archive notice

checks

To User talk:Fabartus/Archive09

... through 00:14, 9 November 2007 (UTC), on 13:20ish, 9 November 2007

Template:TOCnestright

Romania: main page - history section

Please do not further expand the history section. It is allready long enough allready. The article is way too long on general (100k), and history is a huge factor. Please do not add large modifications in the history section, unless they are truly relevant and add to the compactness. Nergaal 01:38, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

On the other hand, you are very welcome to modify and expand the history articles (the main one and the subarticles)! Nergaal 01:42, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

1. So kind of you to give me permission.
2. Compactness should not be your primary concern, but instead completeness and a professional looking presentation (appearance).
3. I was "Done"—any expansion was up to the project people, beyond the small amount of glue text I added. You have to trade length for spreading out the link density, and I would urge you to forget any rationale that suggests a main article for a country with as lengthy a history as that one has should meet some arbitrary size cap. WP:IAR certainly applies to some extent. (Try looking at India, if you think you have size issues!)
4. Do you realize undoing my edits, in particular, restoring those obnoxiously long and large section titles is neither encyclopediac, nor professional looking, nor a step forward. I understand your concern on the byte count, but shortening the titles and a few dozens of lines so the article reads intelligibly to the casual reader is not going to kill you folks.
5. ANY important historical era deserves some mention of the high points, and asking a reader to combine millenia is hardly fair to your region... the history is there, it happened, our job is to report on it, at least in a survey form. Putting links (some of us hate to change pages!) is not equivilent to giving a reader a recap of the era—in particular, I find the way you did it in that page to be poorly prioritized.
6. More than 3-4 words in a section title is really unprofessional. WHERE in any print encyclopedia have you seen that? Longer subtitles, as per my changes, sure. NOT TOC entries. Perhaps you've got your nose in too many journals and not enough in "Acceptable practices". It's really off-putting.
7. Since I do a lot of tidying up on pages needing fresh input, and most of it stands up, you perhaps ought to recheck the finished copy I left and compare to the current appearance.
8. Removing {FixHTML} is a bad idea, it does no harm, and solves several different issues on browser rendering order with infoboxes.

Be well, like a moving pen, I generally write just once. For the most part I do it well. Cheers // FrankB 02:22, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Interleaved answers follow in italics // FrankB 14:59, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

1. First of all, I am tired of people who show up to a page and think they have the right to add any modifications they feel like. Next time, before you have the intentions of modifying the alticle considerably (or the contents in this case) it would be wise to write down something in the discussion page, otheriwse you work might end up being in vane.

   This talk page may meet Misplaced Pages's criteria for speedy deletion as a non-free file that is not used in any articles or was only used in a now deleted article and is very unlikely to have any use on any other valid article. See CSD F5.%5B%5BWP%3ACSD%23F5%7CF5%5D%5D%3A+Unused+non-free+mediaF5 If this talk page does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, or you intend to fix it, please remove this notice, but do not remove this notice from pages that you have created yourself. If you created this page and you disagree with the given reason for deletion, you can click the button below and leave a message explaining why you believe it should not be deleted. You can check back later to see if you have received a response to your message. Note that this talk page may be deleted at any time if it unquestionably meets the speedy deletion criteria, or if an explanation added below this notice is found to be insufficient. Administrators: check links, talk, history (last), and logs before deletion. Consider checking Google. This page was last edited by Piotrus (contribs | logs) at 17:53, 29 November 2007 (UTC) (17 years ago)

   Actually, I didn't modify it greatly by my standards. I changed it's look see and feel, but the material add was less than 2k when you figure out the section expansions kept your horrible titles as subtitles in the sections. You claimed I made a 30k change, which is patently ridiculous, as the math in the post I added to the talk page clearly shows the addition text was circa 3k of good text and cites. Insofar as THAT goes, the article is over 30k in cites alone, which makes it rather short for a main countries article. After reverting you (and when you revert some page, it's accepted practice around here to be obvious about that in the summary!) I put the issue up to your fellow editors. One problem I had was you had no discussion on the talk at all about the new format. You certainly disrespected the several hours I put into it, and so now I've made sure you will address it. Bottom line, I did what I think was best, and the rest is up to you who work in the page.

   Bottom to bottom line: you made edits that screwed up the contents section. Besides this, you also deleted about 1k of empty spaces. I am not going to go though every text rearrangement you made to hang onto the spaces you deleted. I chose to simply revert your edits than to spend probably half an hour to get everything back except the deleted spaces.

   1. Secondly, the tempalte for the content is BY FAR THE UGLIEST I have ever seen. It quite hard for a newcomer to realize he has got to look through the text. The old content probably wasn't the best possible, but was significantly better. Also, the old content is not occupied by history in more than 50%.

   • Get used to it. See WP:OWN for a beginning, but also being edited unmercifully is part of the plan in the five pillars. I really don't follow what you are saying about "Looking through" the TOC—the text flows around it, as it does on the many pages its used on.

   I am not going to repeat since you seem unable to concieve that that specific template is simply ugly.

   1. I understand Romania has a rich history, but the notion of independence was not a huge idea before 1800s. India has existed as a 'culture' long before the Roman Empire, therefore there is no point in comparing the importance of the history section of the two countries. Check the Germany article to see the model I have edited the format of the history section. You are welcome to edit the history section, but do not add 20 entries about history in the contents section (i.e.: that is why national awakening, independence and union are in the same section; feel free to modify the name, but do not further split it). Also, for similar reasons, there is little point in expanding the section about Dacia.

      This talk page may meet Misplaced Pages's criteria for speedy deletion as a non-free file that is not used in any articles or was only used in a now deleted article and is very unlikely to have any use on any other valid article. See CSD F5.%5B%5BWP%3ACSD%23F5%7CF5%5D%5D%3A+Unused+non-free+mediaF5 If this talk page does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, or you intend to fix it, please remove this notice, but do not remove this notice from pages that you have created yourself. If you created this page and you disagree with the given reason for deletion, you can click the button below and leave a message explaining why you believe it should not be deleted. You can check back later to see if you have received a response to your message. Note that this talk page may be deleted at any time if it unquestionably meets the speedy deletion criteria, or if an explanation added below this notice is found to be insufficient. Administrators: check links, talk, history (last), and logs before deletion. Consider checking Google. This page was last edited by Piotrus (contribs | logs) at 17:53, 29 November 2007 (UTC) (17 years ago)

      Alas, many of us understand that the present is built on the shoulders of the giant "History"...

      Check the article on India

      1. I might be worong, but you seem to play around a lot with the position of the images. Please do not. Right now they are placed where they are because of some specific reasons.

      I will add more comment laterNergaal 07:43, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

      This talk page may meet Misplaced Pages's criteria for speedy deletion as a non-free file that is not used in any articles or was only used in a now deleted article and is very unlikely to have any use on any other valid article. See CSD F5.%5B%5BWP%3ACSD%23F5%7CF5%5D%5D%3A+Unused+non-free+mediaF5 If this talk page does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, or you intend to fix it, please remove this notice, but do not remove this notice from pages that you have created yourself. If you created this page and you disagree with the given reason for deletion, you can click the button below and leave a message explaining why you believe it should not be deleted. You can check back later to see if you have received a response to your message. Note that this talk page may be deleted at any time if it unquestionably meets the speedy deletion criteria, or if an explanation added below this notice is found to be insufficient. Administrators: check links, talk, history (last), and logs before deletion. Consider checking Google. This page was last edited by Piotrus (contribs | logs) at 17:53, 29 November 2007 (UTC) (17 years ago)

      So far as I recollect, did nothing with an image. I may have moved one slightly—above or below a section title as I expanded them. But its not your place in life to tell other editors what they may and may not do. I'm far ahead of you in the queue to be nominated as the next Emperor of the Universe! <G> Do YOU for example, test your precious images on 4-7 browsers? On different zoom-in and zoom outs on each? I do such checks quite frequently. I even borrow my sons MacIntosh on occasion. At the least, check layouts on IE6 and IE7 as well as a good browser, even Netscape has an occasional surprise in page rendering.

      Go check the page on the Web Browser market share and see that about 5% of the web users do not use IE or Firefox. I believe that the experience of the 95% of the users should not be altered in a bad way for the sake of 5% of users that probably do not even care about aestetics if they did not get the free Firefox.

      I actually don't know where you swerved here below, ?talk:Romania??? Now the answers:

      1. You are welcome. Next time you add about 30k+ of information to an article and somebody comes and starts freaking with the article, you will be really happy.
         Unexpected use of template {{5}} - see Template:5 for details.this is the gayest reference needed tag I have seen. If you would have cared you would have gotten thorugh the archives form 1 month ago.
         Unexpected use of template {{1}} - see Template:1 for details.
      2. Appearance and professional looking? Is that what you are calling the template for the contents section? Come on, try to be objective and agrre that even the contents section on the present page is really ugly.
         Unexpected use of template {{1}} - see Template:1 for details.
      3. I have allready replied to this and I do not feel the need to throw away some of my time to add more reasoning to this rather retarded dispute. Note: The big size also has a real outcome, and that is the article is really annoying to edit because it takes almost 10secs between the press of the save button and the reloading of the page (and it is not my connection). Also, have you actually checked the India article and saw how many entries into the contents are about history? ONE!

         This talk page may meet Misplaced Pages's criteria for speedy deletion as a non-free file that is not used in any articles or was only used in a now deleted article and is very unlikely to have any use on any other valid article. See CSD F5.%5B%5BWP%3ACSD%23F5%7CF5%5D%5D%3A+Unused+non-free+mediaF5 If this talk page does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, or you intend to fix it, please remove this notice, but do not remove this notice from pages that you have created yourself. If you created this page and you disagree with the given reason for deletion, you can click the button below and leave a message explaining why you believe it should not be deleted. You can check back later to see if you have received a response to your message. Note that this talk page may be deleted at any time if it unquestionably meets the speedy deletion criteria, or if an explanation added below this notice is found to be insufficient. Administrators: check links, talk, history (last), and logs before deletion. Consider checking Google. This page was last edited by Piotrus (contribs | logs) at 17:53, 29 November 2007 (UTC) (17 years ago)

         Sigh... that's a wiki for you. The page used to have about 30 sub-pages and was over 150 Kbytes, and I can relate to the loading issue, but that's your pictures, not a mere 250,000 bytes of text. Try globally replacing [[image with [[:image and see what that cost is.

         I am not sure what is your point here. Are you giving India as an example before it got to the FA status? You are trying to say that the present FA-status version of the article is worse? If yes, then I am impressed and you have no more right to state anything.
         Unexpected use of template {{1}} - see Template:1 for details.

         1. Again I allready explained this. The issue was not the byte count but the length of the contents section that took several pages to scroll down (and I think more than hald of the contents were SMALL entries into the history section).

            This talk page may meet Misplaced Pages's criteria for speedy deletion as a non-free file that is not used in any articles or was only used in a now deleted article and is very unlikely to have any use on any other valid article. See CSD F5.%5B%5BWP%3ACSD%23F5%7CF5%5D%5D%3A+Unused+non-free+mediaF5 If this talk page does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, or you intend to fix it, please remove this notice, but do not remove this notice from pages that you have created yourself. If you created this page and you disagree with the given reason for deletion, you can click the button below and leave a message explaining why you believe it should not be deleted. You can check back later to see if you have received a response to your message. Note that this talk page may be deleted at any time if it unquestionably meets the speedy deletion criteria, or if an explanation added below this notice is found to be insufficient. Administrators: check links, talk, history (last), and logs before deletion. Consider checking Google. This page was last edited by Piotrus (contribs | logs) at 17:53, 29 November 2007 (UTC) (17 years ago)

            We seem to really have a disconnect on this... what size font are you browsing with? I zoomed in and zoomed out setting that up with respect to the width parameters, and the infobox always dominates... as they always do; you must use really large fonts.

            small entries=======the contents entry linked to a section that was a short paragraph long. why not link every single paragraph in the contents?! or even better, every sentence!
            Unexpected use of template {{1}} - see Template:1 for details.

            1. The article is about Romania, not about the History of Romania. Again feel free to click this link and edit. The history is there, it happened, and therefore the history ARTICLE should be expanded. "(some of us hate to change pages!)" Some other readers hate to search stuff about Romania and have to scroll down through pages of history to get to some more present facts." Putting links is not equivilent to giving a reader a recap of the era—in particular, I find the way you did it in that page to be poorly prioritized." This is your opinion. The page has beeen previously reviewed by other users (check the article milistone) and they found it actually really aggreable and felt the need to specify the usefulness of the way it was 'prioritizied'.

               This talk page may meet Misplaced Pages's criteria for speedy deletion as a non-free file that is not used in any articles or was only used in a now deleted article and is very unlikely to have any use on any other valid article. See CSD F5.%5B%5BWP%3ACSD%23F5%7CF5%5D%5D%3A+Unused+non-free+mediaF5 If this talk page does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, or you intend to fix it, please remove this notice, but do not remove this notice from pages that you have created yourself. If you created this page and you disagree with the given reason for deletion, you can click the button below and leave a message explaining why you believe it should not be deleted. You can check back later to see if you have received a response to your message. Note that this talk page may be deleted at any time if it unquestionably meets the speedy deletion criteria, or if an explanation added below this notice is found to be insufficient. Administrators: check links, talk, history (last), and logs before deletion. Consider checking Google. This page was last edited by Piotrus (contribs | logs) at 17:53, 29 November 2007 (UTC) (17 years ago)

               So move it down—MOS is a guideline, not shackles. If you think I did violence to your article just wait and see what happens when you try for FAC!!! You won't like the result, and will probably not recognize the result.

               This talk page may meet Misplaced Pages's criteria for speedy deletion as a non-free file that is not used in any articles or was only used in a now deleted article and is very unlikely to have any use on any other valid article. See CSD F5.%5B%5BWP%3ACSD%23F5%7CF5%5D%5D%3A+Unused+non-free+mediaF5 If this talk page does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, or you intend to fix it, please remove this notice, but do not remove this notice from pages that you have created yourself. If you created this page and you disagree with the given reason for deletion, you can click the button below and leave a message explaining why you believe it should not be deleted. You can check back later to see if you have received a response to your message. Note that this talk page may be deleted at any time if it unquestionably meets the speedy deletion criteria, or if an explanation added below this notice is found to be insufficient. Administrators: check links, talk, history (last), and logs before deletion. Consider checking Google. This page was last edited by Piotrus (contribs | logs) at 17:53, 29 November 2007 (UTC) (17 years ago)

               The article has been updated to the present version after a review and a FAC-reject+suggestion.
               Unexpected use of template {{1}} - see Template:1 for details.
               1. For exampel in Europa Yearbook (a kind of printed version of CIA Factbook that is printed yearly). Also, your example with journals is at least annoying. Journals are actually reviewed by professionals, which means that people who nt what is happening agree on those formalities. This is not Libertatea where you need to put catchy titles to make people buy your crap. This is an encyclopaedia and should have some professionalism in the way titles are given.

                  This talk page may meet Misplaced Pages's criteria for speedy deletion as a non-free file that is not used in any articles or was only used in a now deleted article and is very unlikely to have any use on any other valid article. See CSD F5.%5B%5BWP%3ACSD%23F5%7CF5%5D%5D%3A+Unused+non-free+mediaF5 If this talk page does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, or you intend to fix it, please remove this notice, but do not remove this notice from pages that you have created yourself. If you created this page and you disagree with the given reason for deletion, you can click the button below and leave a message explaining why you believe it should not be deleted. You can check back later to see if you have received a response to your message. Note that this talk page may be deleted at any time if it unquestionably meets the speedy deletion criteria, or if an explanation added below this notice is found to be insufficient. Administrators: check links, talk, history (last), and logs before deletion. Consider checking Google. This page was last edited by Piotrus (contribs | logs) at 17:53, 29 November 2007 (UTC) (17 years ago)

                  Piffle... such article titles are not found in encyclopedias, but can be found in journals and as book sub-titles. No where else I can think of, off hand. Maybe an occasional text book.

                  This talk page may meet Misplaced Pages's criteria for speedy deletion as a non-free file that is not used in any articles or was only used in a now deleted article and is very unlikely to have any use on any other valid article. See CSD F5.%5B%5BWP%3ACSD%23F5%7CF5%5D%5D%3A+Unused+non-free+mediaF5 If this talk page does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, or you intend to fix it, please remove this notice, but do not remove this notice from pages that you have created yourself. If you created this page and you disagree with the given reason for deletion, you can click the button below and leave a message explaining why you believe it should not be deleted. You can check back later to see if you have received a response to your message. Note that this talk page may be deleted at any time if it unquestionably meets the speedy deletion criteria, or if an explanation added below this notice is found to be insufficient. Administrators: check links, talk, history (last), and logs before deletion. Consider checking Google. This page was last edited by Piotrus (contribs | logs) at 17:53, 29 November 2007 (UTC) (17 years ago)

                  please explain what is the point in me replying to your questions with specific examples? for you to simply ignore my examples because of your ignorance and superficiality? ok, I will become as ignorant when you are going to try to state/exemplify something
                  Unexpected use of template {{1}} - see Template:1 for details.
                  1. I checked and decided the contents section is REAAAAALLY "off-putting". It is unfortunate, but I find it fair to undo edits from people who do not ask first, than to reedit their edits.
                  2. IT IS UGLY!!!!!! Also, what browsers? Anything that is not Firefox or IE has no weight. (i.e. even Opera is a niche browser)

                     This talk page may meet Misplaced Pages's criteria for speedy deletion as a non-free file that is not used in any articles or was only used in a now deleted article and is very unlikely to have any use on any other valid article. See CSD F5.%5B%5BWP%3ACSD%23F5%7CF5%5D%5D%3A+Unused+non-free+mediaF5 If this talk page does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, or you intend to fix it, please remove this notice, but do not remove this notice from pages that you have created yourself. If you created this page and you disagree with the given reason for deletion, you can click the button below and leave a message explaining why you believe it should not be deleted. You can check back later to see if you have received a response to your message. Note that this talk page may be deleted at any time if it unquestionably meets the speedy deletion criteria, or if an explanation added below this notice is found to be insufficient. Administrators: check links, talk, history (last), and logs before deletion. Consider checking Google. This page was last edited by Piotrus (contribs | logs) at 17:53, 29 November 2007 (UTC) (17 years ago)

                     A bold and chauvenistic statement... who are you to decide what someone uses? IE5 is still used by many, and the backlog numbers of IE6 and IE7 users is mind boggling. Most people have turnkey systems and no desire or reason to change to some modern browser, so suggest you refigure your prejudices. Your youth and naivety is showing in stating an attitude like that. Firefox in comparision has maybe 2-3 million users—barely shows on a graph of percentage versus users' browsers used—whereas the IE's are bundled with every system sold. So take a reality check on that one, only the youngest generations rush off to change things which work fine. (And I say this as a Firefox fan, it's the reality!)

                     I am getting more and more facts suggesting you are lacking some rational abilities. ANYTHING that is not Firefox or NOT IE has no real weight! if even this is hard for you to process, then please leave me alone.

                     Also, I did not get the joke about first of July. If you were refering to the date I have created this account, then... you are at least superficial to base your opinions on that. There are al least two possibilities that you cannot prove with this kind of research: 1) that I did not have another account before then. 2) that I did not do real publishing in real life (i.e. in real Journals, were people review your stuff before publishing) Cheers and have fun at not modifying the contents section in a way allready described why not to.Nergaal 08:07, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

                     experience

                     Nooooo, it wasn't a joke... merely a reference to your lack of experience on wikipedia since your account doesn't even show 2,000 edits. For example, the other night I trimmed my watchlist by over 1200 articles and elimiated all non-main space pages... The damn thing still has over 4,500 pages of articles!

                     Did you go in front of a mirror and adulated yourself when you stated this?

                     As I posted on the talk... this is all issues for all of you working on that page. I've taken my lumps on my time invested in good faith, and you folks can mess things up fine without me... You were doing a good job of it, as I saw it, and now you know it. Cheers // FrankB 14:59, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

                     Peace my bro! Nergaal 17:06, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

                     re: this is the gayest reference needed tag I have seen. If you would have cared you would have gotten thorugh the archives form 1 month ago. Nergaal 17:06, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

                     Let's get something straight— this project is not for us who devote time and effort to it, but to the readers who may or may not be using a browser you find acceptable or mainstream. That means all pages have to work in all browsers. PERIOD, DOT.
                     Unexpected use of template {{2}} - see Template:2 for details.What I see here is ample evidence of someone who is over-focused on a single article and who needs to learn to play nice with others. My only edits going back 2,000 edits have been the last few days. That doesn't mean I don't care—but only that I contribute in a different way. Someone needs to pay attention to page integration, and I spend many hours chasing down discrepancies between this article and that and sometimes, get the feeling I'm the only idiot spending time seeing that things do agree, and that there is balance. OTOH, there aren't all that many regular editors with the years experience and breadth of reading that can do that—most editors here are students before starting a family stage, not professionals with kids in school in mid-life or later like myself. That the youthful exuberance has been a good thing is beyond contestation, but JUST AS SURELY is the "hurry up and change it now" attitude that prevails has created a hostile environment to most people in the fullness days of their lives. It's a oroblem, especially a quality problem that's not getting better. (See the essay on Expert Retention.)

                     This talk page may meet Misplaced Pages's criteria for speedy deletion as a non-free file that is not used in any articles or was only used in a now deleted article and is very unlikely to have any use on any other valid article. See CSD F5.%5B%5BWP%3ACSD%23F5%7CF5%5D%5D%3A+Unused+non-free+mediaF5 If this talk page does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, or you intend to fix it, please remove this notice, but do not remove this notice from pages that you have created yourself. If you created this page and you disagree with the given reason for deletion, you can click the button below and leave a message explaining why you believe it should not be deleted. You can check back later to see if you have received a response to your message. Note that this talk page may be deleted at any time if it unquestionably meets the speedy deletion criteria, or if an explanation added below this notice is found to be insufficient. Administrators: check links, talk, history (last), and logs before deletion. Consider checking Google. This page was last edited by Piotrus (contribs | logs) at 17:53, 29 November 2007 (UTC) (17 years ago)

                     personally, I hope we're entering into a transition stage and some controls will eventually be applied to endless editing. I'm crossing my fingers, otherwise, I've wasted three years and more.
                     Unexpected use of template {{2}} - see Template:2 for details.That some editors get involved in a page to obsession is a thing I've see repeatedly as an WP:AMA arbitration volunteer, and your attitude is really starting to look like obsession is perhaps too mild. Getting rebuked by someone that's been with the project since the first 100 articles like Mikkai should tell you something.
                     Unexpected use of template {{2}} - see Template:2 for details.Why don't you reset and try thinking about something outside the box. Use a different approach, as the issue here is how the history is presented and looks... hence a summary will work fine as long as the titles are succinct. Template:ISince an article needs some history, rewrite your sections into a single summary section sans section titles but for "History". Hit the highpoints and tie into other main articles without getting too many links.
                     Unexpected use of template {{2}} - see Template:2 for details.Consider this outline:Template:IMention the oldest human remains, then the antiquities peoples, Illirians, Dacians, then the Roman conquest and withdrawal etc. {{main}} will gladly take multiple main articles, so split and spit those out above each survey paragraph.Template:IAdd another paragraph on the Middle ages, and so forth. SUMMARIZE with main to your two or three subarticles. Template:IAND SO FORTH (sos... RL calls)

                     re: please explain what is the point in me replying to your questions with specific examples? for you to simply ignore my examples because of your ignorance and superficiality? ok, I will become as ignorant when you are going to try to state/exemplify something.

                     Oh for Pete's sake... India changed. Period, DOT. Since I was addressing length, try Ronald Reagan (edit talk links history), or any other number of long articles. There is no hard limit, and your loading time is rendering of pictures. Simple math... at 1Mb/sec transmittal speeds, how long does a hundred Kbytes of text take???

                     your latest just in... sigh

                     You see, here is the problem--I'm addressing the article's issues (And your FAC Comments BTW, are just preliminary, hardly even begun! Hardly any participants, so beware!) and you're experiencing emotional entanglements with it. I've no record with Mikkai beyond a single post well over a year ago, so you are reacting catty. Please give him and me the respect we've earned for having been around a while. For what it's worth, I know of him from an old list of those having the most wikipedia edits... at the time, he was somewhere in the 60,000 range, iirc and had started 10,000 articles.

                     This talk page may meet Misplaced Pages's criteria for speedy deletion as a corrupt or empty file, or a file description page for a file on Commons. Try previewing a resized thumbnail before deleting. See CSD F2.%5B%5BWP%3ACSD%23F2%7CF2%5D%5D%3A+Corrupt+or+empty+file%2C+or+a+file+description+page+for+a+file+on+CommonsF2 If this talk page does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, or you intend to fix it, please remove this notice, but do not remove this notice from pages that you have created yourself. If you created this page and you disagree with the given reason for deletion, you can click the button below and leave a message explaining why you believe it should not be deleted. You can check back later to see if you have received a response to your message. Note that this talk page may be deleted at any time if it unquestionably meets the speedy deletion criteria, or if an explanation added below this notice is found to be insufficient. Nominator: Please consider placing the template: {{subst:Db-noimage-notice|User talk:Fabartus/Archive12|header=1}} ~~~~ on the talk page of the author. Administrators: check links, talk, history (last), and logs before deletion. Consider checking Google. This page was last edited by Piotrus (contribs | logs) at 17:53, 29 November 2007 (UTC) (17 years ago)

                     I saw that my first month as a registered user, and then marked his user page as one I wanted to emmulate, for it was really nicely done. The one time I talked to him since was an edit question, and he'd put up a sign saying he wasn't taking talk posts on his page and would likely not respond. So I wrote him that I thought it was a shame. End mutual experiences save for occasional wikipedia talk pages where we both opine. So not even acquaintances--just wikipedians who've crossed paths. What he did was likely triggered by your failure to give a summary.
                     Unexpected use of template {{2}} - see Template:2 for details.Reverting is not an acceptable option without a clear notation as to why and so forth... there are too many eyes patrolling recent changes—and they are all looking at diffs first— and further, it could have been one of dozens of people I know here or not, but I make enough quality edits, most patrolling admins know of me.

                     This talk page may meet Misplaced Pages's criteria for speedy deletion as a non-free file that is not used in any articles or was only used in a now deleted article and is very unlikely to have any use on any other valid article. See CSD F5.%5B%5BWP%3ACSD%23F5%7CF5%5D%5D%3A+Unused+non-free+mediaF5 If this talk page does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, or you intend to fix it, please remove this notice, but do not remove this notice from pages that you have created yourself. If you created this page and you disagree with the given reason for deletion, you can click the button below and leave a message explaining why you believe it should not be deleted. You can check back later to see if you have received a response to your message. Note that this talk page may be deleted at any time if it unquestionably meets the speedy deletion criteria, or if an explanation added below this notice is found to be insufficient. Administrators: check links, talk, history (last), and logs before deletion. Consider checking Google. This page was last edited by Piotrus (contribs | logs) at 17:53, 29 November 2007 (UTC) (17 years ago)

                     Try the summary and loose the sections if you don't want to follow my lead. Kick it around first on the talk, and stub in a replacement section as a talk sub-page. That's a good way to make a strategic change... you can see what the outcome will look like, and can just use it as a template as a trial in the meantime. Be well. // FrankB 18:33, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

                     
                     In short: I have allready spent enough time on editing that article. You came and made some modifications. Except for some things, your modifications did not add (in my opinion) to the quality of the article (i.e. instead of splitting the history, you could have modified and shortened the titles such as the content would not have become so long). There have been a huge increase of low quality edits lately on Romania. This, together with what seemed to me another low quality edit, made me decide that it is not worth reediding your edit, and it would be more efficient to just revert it. With the revert, I left you a brief message trying to explain why I thought your edit were reverted. You got pissed off you threw away about an hour of your life, and tried to impose your point of view, even by calling some more 'powerful' friends - and also not accepting that you might be wrong. The involvement of an admin combined with threats that had (in my opinion) no significant explanations really pissed my off. Furthermore, instead of double checking my statements, you just decided to hang on onto your edits and pinions without really putting any energy into reasoning them.

                     I am tired of this and has allready taken waaay more than the time I would have needed to edit your edit. I am out-a-here!Nergaal 19:52, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

                     Now you get it

                     • NOW you get it... evolve things, not revert them.
                     • Look I'm real sorry you're feeling like you lost something here, but in the long run, you'll have gained.
                     • For openers, I haven't fought for "MY" version, but only for time for people to cycle through and add their two cents. Recognizing that such will ALWAYS happen around here is half the battle— it saves you from getting upset when things drift away from the ideal 'you think it should be. THAT is an unlikely ideal, which if it's ever reached, will be ephemeral... We humans all think differently all the time for the most part—otherwise I'd be you and vice versa.
                     • Second, the discussion should come before the revert. Not after. Ever So while you're bemoaning lost time, recognize your taking a walk in the shoes you uncomfortably put on my feet. The succession of edits I did took a while, and respecting the contributions of others is part of the society here, or you will never fit in comfortably.
                     • Lastly, recognize the distinction—I did some relatively minor formating and added some material on historic matters which ought be mentioned in some way. I make no claims as to the completeness of that, whether some should be set aside or not, or whether it is the best way; but do feel the article needs some coverage that at least 'glosses' the long history of the region and state. Some of us could care less about current events, and government, etc. but do care a great deal about history. Encyclopedia's have always contained a section on the history of the subject, even if its parents in a biography. Elements have the history of their discoveries in the article, so do famous math algorithms and engineering or software advances.
                     • Adding a bit and doing some mild formating is very different from throwing all that away and never giving other editors a chance to see or process the format changes and content and make up their own mind. Funny how no one else is reverting to your format. Hmmmm, no talk about it either. For what I can see from the history, it's mainly you editing the page. One other bad thing that happens here is other editors see that single minded focus and stay clear... they don't want captured by a single minded editor that ends up in a lengthy quarrel like this discussion. Trust me. Had you not reverted, let it ride for a while, I'd have never seen the differences, nor remembered the long edits. Bottom line, reverting is disrespectful to all and assumes they lack good faith. Making such assumptions is a slippery slope, and leads to quarrels. Notice? Q.E.D.
                     • Bottom line, making a lot of changes in a single or a few pages and not letting some time go between edits is rarely a good idea. The only time that makes sense is when you are building a page from a stub or emptiness.
                     • Be well, but don't be a baby. Facing the ownership thing is something we all have to grow through here. Just spread out your interests and keep your emotions out of any page. That way lies grief.

                     Honest best wishes, FrankB 21:01, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

                     
                     

                     User:Nergaal

                     Nergaal is warned about inappropriate reverting. Please cotinue your work. `'Míkka>t 15:12, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

                     Xpost reply at Míkka

                     Long time no see... nice to know you're still about and around!

                     Thanks on the intervention warning on Romania (edit talk links history) at User_talk:Nergaal, but tis but the usual sound and fury with the same significance as per usual. The talk page either has other editors paying attention, or it doesn't. I'm not going to get into a pissing contest over format preferences (at least not any further! <G>) but common courtesy did require some discourse. Give him credit for contacting my talk with his bold move, if not for marking the history appropriately. All in all, things are friendly enough. I've other fish to fry! I've done my one revert, and am always reluctant to do THAT one. I'm glad you jumped in with yours though! Again thanks! // FrankB 15:39, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

                     
                     

                     It is so cute when two friends meet

                     and one of them is an admin and abuses his privileges to defend the other friend.Nergaal 17:47, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

                     CBD reply 17:46, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

                     Advice on Dacian Wars

                     Re: user talk:Kirill Lokshin#Advice on Dacian Wars

                     I'm not sure who our expert on this period would be; it may well be that we don't have one resident at the moment.

                     The situation is not an uncommon one; the same thing comes up with, say, the Italian Wars, which have a dozen different numbering schemes. Personally, I'd suggest either of the following:

                     • If there's little material on the individual wars, merge the war sub-articles into the main Dacian Wars one, leaving us with one article about the overall series of conflicts and some sub-articles for the battles.
                     • If there's a desire to have individual articles for the wars, disambiguate them by name rather than number; so we'd have Dacian War of 101–102, etc.

                     The battles should be disambiguated by date unless they're in the same year in any case; so we need to have Battle of Tapae (87), etc.

                     Hope that helps! Kirill 19:48, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

                     OK Thanks -- the years suffixing is a good idea. But things just got WORSE! this guy Says the Dacian king was two different people (ca. page 82) and neither of them "Duras" (if I recall that right) our Decebalus article is claiming preceded him. OTOH, he establishes the Romans themselves used the term for the '88 encounter. He also mentions that a lack of contemporary names generally means the issue was open or unresolved and ongoing, and by no means unusual. Since he's clearly regurgitating research from primary sources, he probably knows his stuff! Darn it. <g> Sigh. // FrankB 20:16, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

                     I'm not very familiar with the exact capabilities of Adobe Editor, but I had no problems copying the text via Adobe Reader. Or were you looking to do something more sophisticated than straight copy-and-paste? Kirill 01:59, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

                     Pardon my butting in...Frank had asked for some references. I'm not sure what exactly you-all need verified, but you can take a look at Talk:Dacian Wars for some of my notes. A couple of points: The king who united Dacia is cited as Burebista, murdered in 44 BC; the king mentioned after him is Cotiso, but by then the kingdoms were fragmented again. I can find no reference to anyone named "Diurpaneus" in any other publication besides the 1974 book Frank found with Google; nor to the possibility that this was Decebalus' original name (as mentioned in the Decebalus article). The only references I can find for "Duras" point to Duris of Samos. More as it happens...Her Pegship (tis herself) 23:20, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

                     Stop the presses! (G) I just found in my little high school library The Provinces of the Roman Empire: The European Provinces, by Theodor Mommsen, c1968, University of Chicago Press, LCCN 68-16708. In it he says: "How much the real moving-spring lay in personality is shown by the story that the Dacian king Duras, in order to bring the right man into the right place, retired from his office in favour of Decebalus." (p. 232) Still looking for Diurpaneus. Her Pegship (tis herself) 23:30, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

                     
                     

                     Stop the whats

                     re: Stop the presses! (G) I just found in my little high school library The Provinces of the Roman Empire: The European Provinces, by Theodor Mommsen, c1968, University of Chicago Press, LCCN 68-16708. In it he says: "How much the real moving-spring lay in personality is shown by the story that the Dacian king Duras, in order to bring the right man into the right place, retired from his office in favour of Decebalus." (p. 232) Still looking for Diurpaneus. Her Pegship (tis herself) 23:30, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

                     Well aren't you a great little asset! Tell the hubby I be jealous! Haven't peered in the talk, as I'd missed your first post (And Kiril's answer too! Ooops!) and am in the middle of disemboweling and reconfiguring a cite template, so there is no big hurry on my end. I'd located another couple of sources too,

                     Okay, in your honor, I reconstructed... so far as I'd gotten (Skim reading mainly)... upgrades to Trajan, move of old to Trajan's Dacian Wars, and tentative title , disambig at Dacian Wars... likely a change or tweak in Decebalus and perhaps first Tapae...

                     Major sources:

                     • search, pages 1st: 1st pages
                     • search, pages 2nd: 2nd

                     (Google books online: The Student's Roman Empire: A History of the Roman Empire from its... author=John Bagnell Bury |pages= pp. ca. 423-428 ? |url=Very long winded! <g>

                     |author=Davies |url=[ http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0075-4358%281917%297%3C74%3ATFDW%3E2.0.CO%3B2-I&size=LARGE&origin=JSTOR-enlargePage JSTOR doc] |title= Trajan's first Dacian war |misc=The Journal of Roman Studies, Vol. 7, 1917 (1917), pp. 74-97 doi:10.2307/295582 This article consists of 28 page(s).

                     |author=Daniel R. Blanchard |title=An Unenviable Task: The Roman Army's Punative Expeditions into Dacia, 86-88 |url=Classical studies

                     If you can pin down King Duras, and stub him up with a cite or two that would be big, also anything on Tapae/Tapae pass. Seems to me the name/name shift pinned and cited is lower priority to getting most of the articles straight, the sources all seem to agree that Decebalus was the Dacian needed for a clean write up... but you go girl! KUDOS!!! Many thanks and keep me briefed unless you cite with quotes... which I recommend. The articles are short, so best to put things on a firm footing. The "Punative Expeditions into Dacia" seems to have put paid to the other issue... was there two or three battles at Tapae. Apparently just two, which is backed up by a brief page in all Caps... (see this title: NEW TOPOGRAPHICAL APPROACHES TO THE DACIAN WARS OF TRAJAN)

                     (xpost lost bottom?) // FrankB 00:29, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

                     Re: Adobe

                     I expect it'll vary somewhat among the different versions of Reader out there, but on mine, there's a button right next to the "hand" button on the toolbar which shows a regular text cursor; it's labeled as "Select Tool". Kirill 02:36, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

                     About my edit in Romania

                     Excuse me! It is not my fault that the spelling of invaded was ivaded. What I change is that in the sports section. Thank you.--Joseph Solis in Australia 09:13, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

                     I will answer your question why I cannot provide an edit summary in Romania. It is because I forgot to describe what my edit in Romania sports section last Saturday. --Joseph Solis in Australia 09:13, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

                     And, I am not do any vandalism in Misplaced Pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joseph Solis in Australia (talk • contribs) 09:53, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

                     Dacians

                     Re: query here

                     If you have access to JSTOR you can get it...or you could email the author at oprean@personal.ro. I will check my other resources when I'm back at work tomorrow. What exactly are you looking for?? Cheers, Her Pegship (tis herself) 21:55, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

                     See this post and follow some links! I'll see if I can figure out what JSTOR is! <G> (one preview and reading later) OK, I might be able to get there via the local Library. Now onto accessing text snippets for quotes in those damnable pdf files! <G> (I like the Bean Free Library approach far better!) Thanks! Cheers! // FrankB 22:13, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

                     User talk:Nergaal on suggestions

                     from thread at User_talk:Nergaal#Sorry about all that

                     1. share this: Image:ClassicalBalkans1849.jpg to see if you wanted it for the page
                     2. To request you rethink and reattach Thracia as one of the main articles cited. See about half way down and the meaning once meaning everything south of the Danube... that's part of Romania, so far as I know, even if the Province (Thracia) after Roman times was scruntched down into and between Macedonia... which is the whole point... geo-historical terms are neither geo nor hist without the other! Mostly, in Greek times, Thracia was meant to include Dacia up to the mountains north of the Danube.

                     1. I have added another image instead - that is easier to read
                     2. I have checked the Tharacia article and I wasn't able to find refereces to either Dacia and present-day Romania. Also, the text in the histor section of Romania does not mention the word Thracia at all. I am not sayin you are wrong, but that there would be a main link to an article that makes no reference to the parent article. Nergaal 05:32, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

                     1. Well, that I find likely... though those old maps are cool in their own way, as one thing they do well is use the historical names everyone referred to in classical times, literature, and studies. As such, they are a good second source when modern text is muddled... as is quite common with our writing on wikipedia.
                     2. No, it probably doesn't, but it should, which is the message. Ancient Thracia, as the Greeks would have figured it included that part of Romania which became Dacia, as well as the part (south bank) of the Danube conquered by Rome earlier in Augustus' time (Moesia). The other question is what they meant by Illiria, or however that latin term originated in Greek histories and literary mentions, but it's pretty clear that region is to the Adriatic side of the Balkan penninsula, the mountains, as always, being a barrier to both culture and armies. Template:IKeep in mind, the Romans copied much of what they knew of the world from Greeks. In other words, the north of "old (Greek) Thracia" is the Dacia you agree is part of the region. What century "one is in"— is the point, and my meaning would apply before the founding of Rome. But that it was part of the region before the meaning changed, means it should be included... it's part of the history of the region, and the linguistic language analysis back up the point, as do the skimpy historical records or cultural references from those early days in "written history". // FrankB 07:24, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
                     3. Look at the last sentence of the introduction to 'Dacia': "The inhabitants of this district are generally considered as belonging to the Thracian nations." There's another cross reference in Moesia, which again is north of the Balkans and west of the Black sea. Bottom line, geography determines a great deal of history for getting around on foot was the only way in most places until the last century, and still is today in much of the world. That's the whole underpinning of geolinguistic analysis of ancient peoples, which is by the way, the thing which brought me into Romania... there are slavic groups north and south of Romania and Hungry—but the slavic language died out in those central regions. Why? I'd guess a thorough bloodletting by the Huns and Avars, and so forth effectively burying the prior culture and its social underpinnings. That's another reason an article covering the geographic-historical region that happens in 'this century' to be a modern nation state coinciding with that longer existence. The article has to service both, not just the nation-state. // FrankB 07:24, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

                     CBD response link 06:04, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

                     Ram Rebellion and other 1632 book articles

                     Nothing has been done to address the bloated state of these articles, full of boilerplate not about the novels but about the 1632 series in general. You reverted my bold edit, but nothing has been done about it. Suggestions? --Orange Mike 17:54, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

                     
                     

                     Actually, a lot has been done, but it's indirect... putting the infrastructure in place so we can reference a character in 1632 characters, a section in one of the anthologies (e.g. Template:ROF-1, a term that has significance in the neohistory (1632 series battles, 1632 institutions, and so forth) as well as adding content, in particular in the anthologies which have been neglected per usual practice since day one. \

                     As that all goes together, trimming the articles becomes easier and easier as one need not explain there, but link.

                     Had one setback though, Afd killed one important spacesaver and we're going to have to appeal that. Wish this society would growup and face the fact not everyone has time to watch a watch list. Notifications of long standing pages nominated for any Xfd ought be mandantory!

                     I was looking Template:34TRR this morning at 3:00ish (and thinking of you! <g>) and figured I'd pare it down this afternoon. Right now I have to fixup a bunch of templates first. By the weekend for sure, as I'm off on vacation come saturday.

                     I really should do something today to make a living too. Both my boys are enterng college the next two years and I need new wheels! (Bad timing! <g> What else is new in a full life?) Does that all make sense and is it satisfactory? // FrankB 18:17, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

                     Wall? You mean the one I'm banging my head on??

                     1632 Cites query... Thread starts

                     with a query

                     Sorry bout that Frank!! I truly don't know what it is you're looking for. I read & re-read your posts and get the impression you want to know how to format a second cite within the same document?? As we say in the library biz, can you be more specific? Meanwhile, kids are already conked out & DH is at a sleep clinic tonight, so I think I will go chase some zzzz's. Cheers, Her Pegship (tis herself) 05:18, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

                     Yeah that one... it's a good thing to do, for sure—at least I know that when I stop I'll start to feel better! <bseg>

                     My interest is to draw on your experience with other fiction articles, as well as citations in general, and perhaps get you to look at some of the cites I've already put up in 1632-verse, with at least a two-fold feedback/suggestions, and bearing in mind (the new "development" in thinking on this for me, that we've got an article on the book cited "In-house" to backstop the initial citation data—signifying I can "trim" the large first "data splurge" to a mininum; my request to you is thus your judgment of what is an acceptable mininum data set A: In my "long" format and B: in a subsequent post following that. ):

                     Taking "B:" first in normal Polish ass-backwards order: Template:ISee some ways (uses) via links of Template:Cite Sm(edit talk links history)

                     Then sample the cites (and search for to find how I'm using, Template:Cite 1632(edit talk links history), which is the predominant book cited so far (Template:Cite 1632(edit talk links history)).

                     Keep in mind this is all recent fiction, and external refs are hard to come by, hence the only things we can cite are occasional web announcements by the author, postings on http://www.1632.org ("The Canonical source site") or the books and gazettes themselves.

                     What that adds up to in my thinking is a quotation heavy manner of citations in general... which surveying the stuff I've put up should make plain.

                     Given all that, integrate the role of the anthologies... part of my recent changes has been to begin putting together both a synopses and character treatment in each, but more importantly, their role in the canon. See for example the stubs Mike Stearns & John Chandler Simpson and (alas I lost a longer edit on) Template:ROF-1.

                     Another place to get a feel is the notes on 1632 characters... which is getting to be a pain to edit around!

                     In essence, I be asking how much is enough, and how much is too much.

                     Resulting in a concrete suggestion for:

                     1. (A:) long cite data in each cite book call
                     2. (B:) Briefer second... nth occasion of same

                     I think I'll ask SandyGeorgia in on this, too, as I'd like to get the FAC viewpoint. Thanks for what ever you do! (BTW- I'm not seeing time to get back to Dacia's issues until after I get back from Thanksgiving in Florida. I figure on making a formal 1632 sub-project by early December as well, and before I travel I really need to document the template support on the series talk page for other "occasional" editors who appear for a few days and fade off to other things, it would seem. I certainly don't want to be doing all this meself! But some of the side trips lead to places like Dacia and Romania and other matters historical—those keep me sane, if disposing of even more of my time!)) // FrankB 16:31, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

                     Bean's Bar

                     Was deleted (11:42, January 31, 2007 Radiant! (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Baen's Bar" ‎ (online community with severe lack of google hits (not to mention sources), hence A7)) and than the content was saved by yours truly by adding it to Baen Books, from which it appears it was removed later in September when about half of the content was deleted!. Will you restore it? I have enough trouble dealing with trolls elsewhere... I'd be happy to support you on talk page, of course.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 17:53, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

                     New response from CBD 23:16, 27 November 2007 (UTC)