Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:25, 5 September 2008

Archives

Archive

Hello Erik the Red 2! Welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Khoikhoi 06:27, 27 January 2007 (UTC) Getting Started Misplaced Pages Tutorial • The five pillars of Misplaced Pages How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting Help Frequently Asked Questions Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Misplaced Pages is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Fair use • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The Community Build consensus • Resolving disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community Portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Things to do Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Pages needing attention • Peer review Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism Miscellaneous Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

HELP US MAKING THE PROJECT OF ANCIENT GREEK WIKIPEDIA

We are the promoters of the Misplaced Pages in Ancient Greek. we need your help, specially for write NEW ARTICLES and the TRANSLATION OF THE MEDIAWIKI INTERFACE FOR ANCIENT GREEK, for demonstrating, to the language subcommittee, the value of our project.

Thanks a lot for your help. Ἡ Οὐικιπαιδεία needs you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.40.197.5 (talk) 19:58, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

linguist Alexander Kondatrov

Just to let you know I've removed this from Location Hypothesis of Atlantis. Not only is he a linguist and this was a claim about geology, he's wrong - the area has been explored, deep plains and a few sea mounts. I did ask a geologist before removing it and can give you chapter and verse with references if you want.--Doug Weller (talk) 19:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Been there, done that, got the t-shirt. :-)Doug Weller (talk) 13:14, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Latin

Hola,

Do you actually speak latin? I'd like a confirmation of my translation of juridicum here. Can you help? WLU (talk) 13:08, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

You actually speak latin. That's the COOLEST!!! I wish I spoke latin.

So does 'day without law' make sense or would it be better translated as 'day without judiciary'? Thanks for your help by the way, nothing better than a good response to an obscure question : ) WLU (talk) 22:05, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Help

{{helpme}} I logged into my account and I realized that all of the Twinkle/Friendly buttons that I normally use were gone. They were still installed on my monobook.js file and their boxes were checked in my preferences page. I refreshed the page and they still weren't there. Erik the Red 2 (Ave Caesar) 23:14, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Try clearing your browsers cache. Please also note the Twinkle/Friendly don't work on IE Alexfusco 00:32, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Why shouldn't IPs edit his user page?

He invites good faith edits, as he makes explicit right on the page. Since your reversion's edit summary called my edit 'good faith', I'm not sure I understand what you're concerned about and ask you to restore my edit. 24.146.21.98 (talk) 01:33, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't disagree that it's his user page; I simply don't understand why that's relevant. He invites good faith edits to his user page, with no qualifications that those edits not be made by IPs. You say there have been numerous discussions about this issue somewhere. If so, I am unaware of them, and the only link you provided me with was a link to the history of his user page. I haven't gone through all the edits to find out, but that seems to be an unlikely place for a discussion of any sort to occur. I do not wish to get into a revert war, so unless you can provide me with something more substantial to indicate that my edit is not welcome, I again ask that you restore my edit. It was factual, provided clarification, and contained appropriate wiki-syntax, which is exactly the type of edit that improves pages. 24.146.21.98 (talk) 01:52, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to WikiProject Catholicism!

Hello, Erik the Red 2, and welcome to Wikiproject Catholicism! Thank you for your generous offer to help
contribute. I'm sure your input will be much appreciated. I hope you enjoy contributing here and being a Catholic Project Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to discuss anything on the project talk page, or to leave a message on my own talk page. Please remember to sign all your comments, and be bold with your edits. Again, welcome, and happy editing! Bewareofdog 01:56, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the editing links, now I can get rid of all these post-it notes. Where do you get the banners that say you're into renewable energy and Sherlock Holmes? Clicking on them takes me to the topics, not the page to get them from. CometHawk (talk) 18:38, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Vandalislisilisilism=

Gee, Thanks! ThegreatWakkorati (talk) 16:19, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

My RfA

Hey Erik the Red 2. I would like to thank you for your support in my RfA and the confidence expressed thereby. I appreciate your trust. :) Best wishes, —αἰτίας •discussion• 18:20, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to the Military history project

Hi, and welcome to the Military history WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of topics related to military history.

A few features that you might find helpful:

• Our navigation box points to most of the useful pages within the project.
• The announcement and open task box is updated very frequently. You can watchlist it if you're interested; or, you can add it directly to your user page by including {{WPMILHIST Announcements}} there.
• Most important discussions take place on the project's main discussion page; it is highly recommended that you watchlist it.
• The project has several departments, which handle article quality assessment, detailed article and content review, writing contests, article logistics, and other tasks.
• We have a number of task forces that focus on specific topics, nations, periods, and conflicts.
• We've developed a style guide that covers article structure and content, template use, categorization, and many other issues of interest.
• If you're looking for something to work on, there are many articles that need attention.
• The project has a stress hotline available for your use.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask one of the project coordinators, or any experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! Woody (talk) 21:19, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVII (May 2008)

The May 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) 00:34, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you!

Hi Erik the Red 2 - Thanks for the barnstar! I really appreciate it! -Classicfilms (talk) 23:58, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Your note

Hi Erik, questioning the neutrality of an article is fine, and even encouraged, but it should be done on the talk page. Adding "disputed" templates to articles we don't like or don't agree with, is defacing the encyclopedia, since virtually every article has some disputes. If each disputed article had a template like that, this would degrade the appearance of the site, without improving its quality. If you don't like something, keep complaining and discussing on the talk page. Crum375 (talk) 23:39, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you — the NPOV template is much abused, and rarely if ever useful. Just think about it: if people followed your example, then virtually every article with any amount of controversy, which is likely the majority of all articles here, would be saying that this article is not neutral and is disputed. It is far more logical and helpful to discuss and debate issues on the talk page, and to try to reach consensus there. Crum375 (talk) 02:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

RE: old account

Ahh ok, thanks. Ironholds 22:39, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

My RfA

Thanks for taking the time to make your opinions known, i'll be trying to enact a lot of the changes people have mentioned. And also a quick thanks for not getting involved in the entire userbox thing, although i am thinking of removing it in the end anyway since i'd rather have my next RfA decided entirely on merit rather than partially on "burn him! burn the heretic!". Ironholds 20:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

My Rfa

Thank you for your input. The edit I made regarding the editor who didn't know what they were doing was a vandalistic edit. He edited many articles on that same day very quickly and all removing essential information. I reverted almost all of his edits due to that. I believe it was a computer that made those edits, or someone with very quick hands. WP: Airlines has a very good layout to follow and I've been one to promote it since I've been a member of the project. I just wanted to clear that up with you. Thanks though for your thoughts. I'm overwhelmed about the amount of commentary I've been receiving... all appreciated of course.--Golich17 (talk) 01:26, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Notice

I wanted you to know that I reply on my talkpage so look there for my responce.Gears Of War 02:03, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Template 'Secret Page'

Hi, I was wondering whether you have a use for {{Erik's fun/User talk:Erik the Red 2}}. Such pages should really belong in Userspace, not Template space, which is for global (Misplaced Pages-wide) templates. If you like I can move it to your userspace, or if you have no further use for it then just tag it with {{db-g7}} and it will be deleted. Thanks. RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 15:19, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVIII (June 2008)

The June 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) 18:39, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

Thank you for my barnstar, for "all-around improvements to classical-themed articles." It makes a difference to be noticed in such a positive way. --Wetman (talk) 02:08, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Beowulf

I don't disagree with your decision to revert those edits, but your edit summary is the first suggestion I've ever heard that the story of Beowulf is set in the 9th century. The earliest audience for the version of the story we have today was probably during the 9th century, but the story is probably in or around the 6th century, as the anonymous editor suggested. Dppowell (talk) 04:09, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Though Norse sagas and other documents date Hygelac and Beowulf to the 6th century, the Danes in Beowulf are clearly Christian, and there is not much evidence that the Danish royalty and populace were Christian in the 6th century, indeed documents say the the Danish king Guthram was a pagan until converted by Alfred the Great in the mid 9th century. Other minor technologies also give us a 6th-century world with 6th-century characters with 9th-century ideas and minor technologies. This gives us a dilemma in wording. I'd appreciate your thoughts on this matter, or if you disagree with my reasoning. Thanks, Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 15:07, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm absolutely not a specialist on Beowulf, but a common conventional explanation for the Christian overlay (and it does have a somewhat tacked-on feel to it) is its addition by Christian transcriptionists who were adapting the story from an oral, pre-Christian tradition. The debate over when Christian elements began entering the story and when Beowulf was first transcribed from its oral form is still going on...scholars have been deconstructing Beowulf for clues to these questions for years. Dppowell (talk) 22:37, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Romeo and Juliet collaboration

Greetings! The current Shakespeare Project Collaboration is Romeo and Juliet. This project is currently going a thorough peer review and copyedit before moving on to FAC. The link to the peer review is Misplaced Pages:Peer review/Romeo and Juliet/archive1. Have a look! « Diligent Terrier Bot (talk) 20:46, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Userboxen

Haha, thanks. I actually removed it myself to calm people the heck down, even though i'm not sure i'll run for admin again. Ironholds 22:38, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Good Olfactory RfA

Regarding your comment here: Look, I agree that Gazimoff's but especially ChaoticReality's ("drama fest") comments were not useful in that they didn't pertain to that particular oppose and that particular RfA. I was considering moving their posts to the talk page, but didn't do it in the hope nobody would reply. If you find it in you, I'd like to ask you to try and be the better man on such occasions. Kurt can perfectly handle it by himself, and those weren't any personal attacks or gross incivilites. Alleging that "It's only a drama fest if you start the drama by commenting on the oppose" however is thoroughly invalid in content and form and I'd definitely appreciate it if you wouldn't turn up the heat and turn down the light with such a remark. Anyone is absolutely welcome to comment on other's comments and reasonings, that's why it's called a discussion (and not an exchange of opinions). It's the meta-bickering on all sides that causes disruption — and with comments such as this one, you are just as guilty of that as anyone who comments in a way that has nothing to do with the issue at hand, namely the RfA. user:Everyme 16:01, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I am commenting on other's comments, and I think I make a valid point. If no one commented on Kurt's opposes, there would not be a huge discussion and therefore no chance for drama. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 19:27, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

You and people like you are creating and indeed celebrating the drama by including meta-commentary that has no place in those discussions. Please do not comment again to the effect of challenging others' right to freely comment on other comments as pertains to the particular discussion, because, contrary to what you appear to believe, your comments do not pertain to the discussion. If you take issue with the way another user comments, preferably contact them at their user talk page, like I did here. Thank you. user:Everyme 20:01, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Your comment on RfA

Dear Erik,

I was wondering if you could explain to me what you mean with your comment on my RfA. I know it's frowned upon by some to comment on people who oppose, but I couldn't help but wondering if you hadn't misunderstood me, in which case I'd like to clarify.

You quote me as saying "a minimal amount of civility is needed". Of course I literally mean that a maximal amount is needed. I believe that everyone should think very carefully about what they say, and not rush into comments or bluntness which others might interpret as insults because of the online and not face-to-face communication. If you understood this differently, I think this might be because I'm not a native Anglophone (the 'minimal' is probably influenced by my native tongue, which is Dutch).

Second, you say I dodge Kurt's question, which I can understand because, in retrospect, that was not my most brilliant formulation to say "no". Yet on the other hand, you say I don't let another admin handle the unblock request, but I clearly said that "Of course it would be preferable for other admins to review the block, to get a second opinion." By second opinion, I don't mean 'after I've denied the unblock request', I mean 'after I have blocked, let someone else decide if unblocking is the right thing to do'.

I hope I'm making a bit more sense to you now!

all the best,

--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 17:33, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

You should say what you literally mean at all times because, as you say, there is no face-to-face communication on wikipedia. Second, if the main point you wanted to make under Xeno's question was that you'd let another admin review the request, you should have said that and not that you'd deny the unblock request. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 19:32, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

My main point was what I myself would think about the validity of that specific unblock request, but as a secondary point I mentioned that I would leave it up to another admin as a second opinion. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 22:21, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Non-heterosexuals article rewritten

Hi, I've rewritten Non-heterosexuals and would appreciate you revisiting Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Non-heterosexuals to see if your concerns have been addressed. Thank you! Banjeboi 13:33, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposal for standard infobox for History of templates

Hi there! You're a member of WikiProject History, so I'm just informing you about a proposal I've made about standardizing History of templates (like Template:History of France). The discussion is located at the talk page for WikiProject History—your comments and criticism are welcome. Thank you. Mr. Absurd (talk) 05:15, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

User_talk:24.18.4.115

Hi and thanks for the wiki-welcome. This is me when I am not logged in. Hard for me to tell if I am when I am mobile editing. I will try to do better! ∞☼Geaugagrrl/_(C) 05:23, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

RFA Thanks

Well, I might wait a while for the really fun stuff. Okiefromokla 23:44, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

RfA Thanks

Thank you for participating in my RfA, wich was successful with 73 support, 6 oppose, and 5 neutral. I'll try to be as clear as I can in my communication and to clear some of the admin backlog on images. If there is anything I can help you with, don't hesitate to ask me on my talk page! Cheers, --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 14:30, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

RFA thankspam

Thanks for your support in my RFA, which passed with 140 supporting, 11 opposing, and 4 neutral. I will do my best to live up to the trust that you have given to me. If I can ever assist you with anything, just ask.

Cheers!

J.delanoy_adds 19:39, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Deletions from Shakespeare authorship

I noticed you cleaned up the lead section (a nice attempt, by the way), but in doing so deleted a lot of information, much of which was properly sourced (I know because I provided some of the references). The template you were responding to asks to move the extra information from the lead into the body of the article. It appears you have simply deleted material instead. I don't want to assume anything, so perhaps you were not done yet and are planning to move the information into the article body. Is that your plan? Thanks. Smatprt (talk) 01:17, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for the reminder (I was planning on doing it anyways, but got sidetracked- stupid Real Life :)!) I didn't move all the deleted content because some seemed rather redundant with existing material. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 01:44, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Personal attack accusation

Isn't the accusation of an attack itself an attack?! After all, how do you know I'm not being humorous? The Vikings invaded my country years ago, but I'll forgive them for that, and I'll forgive you for your accusation. Felsommerfeld (talk) 17:21, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

RFA thank-you

Thank-you for your support of me at my recent RFA, which was successful. I have appreciated everyone's comments and encouragement there. Good Ol’factory 03:32, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

RfB Thank You spam

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIX (July 2008)

The July 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) 01:10, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

thankspam

Thanks to everyone who participated in my RfA, regardless of their !vote. I have withdrawn the nomination as a failure at 19 supports, 45 opposes, and 9 neutral statements. As has been written and sung, you can't always get what you want, but if you try sometimes, you get what you need — and what I need is to go back to working on our shared project. Not everyone has to be an admin; there is a role for each of us. After reflection, I feel I don't have the temperament to secure community consensus as an admin at any point, and I will not be applying again in the future — and hey, that's all right, 'cause I stay true to the philosophy that adminship is no big deal: I tried, I failed, and now I'll return to doing what I've always done. I have an extremely strong belief in the consensus process, and the consensus was clear. I will be devoting my energies to volunteering at MedCab and working up a complete series of articles on the short stories of Ernest Hemingway, among lord knows what else. Thanks again to everyone who spared the time to weigh in on this one. It was made in better faith than it probably seemed. Mr. IP 《Defender of Open Editing》 14:48, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the very kind words at the RfA. It looks like adminship is not gonna be for me, but I'll be a Wikipedian 'til I die, so we'll definitely be working together in the future. Cheers! Mr. IP 《Defender of Open Editing》 14:48, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks!

Thank you... ...for participating in my RfA, which closed with 119 in support, 4 neutral and 5 opposes. I'm honestly overwhelmed at the level of support that I've received from the community, and will do my best to maintain the trust placed in me. I 'm also thankful to those who opposed or expressed a neutral position, for providing clear rationales and superb feedback for me to build on. I've set up a space for you to provide any further feedback or thoughts, should you feel inclined to. However you voted, thanks for taking the time out to contribute to the process, it's much appreciated. Kind regards, Gazimoff 22:14, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for the welcome. :) Still learning but I think I'm doing pretty good.--Rrand (talk) 15:57, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Inappropriate removal of speedy tag on James C. Bates

You have removed a speedy deletion tag from James C. Bates, an article which serves no purpose but to promote its creator. It, along with articles spelled slightly differently, has already been deleted on those grounds several times. I have restored the speedy tag, and I would ask you to explain on the article's discussion page why you think it should not be speedy-deleted before you remove it again. 206.116.63.240 (talk) 03:55, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Your review here

 Done You have been reviewed. (Muhuahahahaha!)just adds the drama don't you think? H2H (talk) 09:07, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Thankyou

Just a little note to say thankyou for participating in my successful RFA candidacy, which passed with 96 supports, 0 opposes, and 1 neutral. I am pleasantly taken aback by the amount of support for me to contribute in an administrative role and look forward to demonstrating that such faith is well placed. Regards, WilliamH (talk) 08:50, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Shadow ArbCom

Just an update on the SAC. I set up a page for all news and updates at User:Mr. IP/Shadow ArbCom. We'll soon be taking on the stalled C68-FM-SV case soon (at the proposed decision talkpage for the case itself), as the real ArbCom seems unwilling to deal w/ it :D Mr. IP 《Defender of Open Editing》 00:59, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

I don't mind that you voted Neutral in the RfA. The important thing is that you gave your honest opinion, and you obviously gave it a lot of thought. I really appreciate that, and I'll try not to disappoint the community. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 23:58, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

RfA thank you

Thank you for voting in my RfA, which did not succeed with 41 support, 21 oppose, and 1 neutral. I appreciate both the supports and the opposes. Thanks again and cheers! TN‑X-Man 18:46, 2 September 2008 (UTC)