User talk:Veledan

Archive 1: My Welcome message

Sarracenia

Thanks for the work you've done on the Sarracenia page: I did a huge revamp of all the carnivorous plant pages about two months ago, but ran out of steam (not to mention time): it's nice to see some action on these articles! Could I tempt you to have a look at butterwort and bladderwort too? Feel free to spell hybridisze however you like :)

polypompholyx 19:38, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the note! I was going to drop by your page in any case to add a thanks of my own for your excellent copyediting on my additions to Sarracenia. The article is looking much more polished and it's much more enjoyable to read.

I've just been reading the impressive carnivorous plants page though - and the Sarra article has got a long way to go to catch it up! I'm still intending to add more Sarra info if no-one beats me to it but yes I'm happy to start another one at the same time. Utrics it is.

Last thing: I'm new around here so forgive me asking questions, but when you have large lists of species (such as in the bladder & ping generic articles), is it the done thing to leave them in the expanded article in their entirety, or can they be shunted off to a /subpage? *off now to search for a pd picture of an Utric trap*

~ Veledan | Talk | c. 21:28, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure if there's any convention for this: the lists aren't terribly exciting, but it might be worth leaving them where they are for the moment, at least until the content is a little more extensive. I'm also relatively new, and have no idea how you managed to get your comment posted both to my talk page and to yours. How is this wizardry achieved?

polypompholyx 10:21, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

No wizardry I'm afraid. I manually edited both pages and copied the same comment to each. ~ Veledan | Talk | c. 09:51, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Oh. That's a pity. I've often wanted to cross-post comments. Would be a useful feature for talk pages.

polypompholyx 10:13, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Vatican

I replied on the disambiguation page, basically a big "ok good" and added your comments to the list I had added at the bottom for when to use which. Though I wanted to ask which ypage you would redirect to for uses such as "The Vatican condemed the attacks ...."? I changed one instance of that from Roman Curia to Holy See and am wondering if I should change it back. I think in terms of political involvment there is still some ambiguity between these two, making disambiguating correctly difficult. Dalf | Talk 22:39, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you fully on that one - an official statement or condemnation that important will always come from the Holy See. The Holy See = Curia + Pope :-) . The only time you'd say that an important announcement had come from the Roman Curia would be if for some weird reason, the Curia had issued the statement without the authority of the pope. At least, that's how I understand it ! But minor decisions (the Vatican has postponed the beatification of [...] a week to allow time for the pope to conclude his visit...) can be safely ascribed to the Curia ~ Veledan 22:50, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Ok here is another question. ADO (Südtirol) refers to people during WWII of doing or going "under the protection of the Vatican". My first impuls was that this shoudl be Holy See, but that feels wrong as the actual presence in most locations here and the effectprotection is from church individuals on loaction and facilities. What do you think about linking that to Roman Catholic Church ? I've let it alone for now. Dalf | Talk 02:22, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Having re-read it a few times, I've now changed my mind in exactly the pattern you did and I'm thinking that Roman Catholic Church is the option after all - only research on the actual history would really separate the two, and having just spent the last 20 minutes reading other documents (some extremely detailed) and finding no reference to the Holy See, I guess that any catholic protection did come from indiviual priests and lay people. I'd leave a note on the talk page in case anyone can settle the question for definite. The article is only 2 months old as well, so a note for the original author asking him/her to clarify if s/he can would be good. ~ Veledan | Talk | c. 14:38, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

I can live with that, I did that one very last and only went with Holy See since there were so many others that I had done that were not QUITE as hard as that one that seemed to naturally go that way. For the Ratline (history) article I went with Vatican City as the claim seemed to be agains some specific croatian priests working physically in the Vatican, though I can't say I feel really good about it either way and wish there was a better option. I will go ahead and change the link above to Roman Catholic Church after reading what you said here and also as that was my first thought (first impressions being a decent indicator). Dalf | Talk 19:22, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

I have changed the link and left a note on the original editors talk page. Incidently, are you having any problems with the [edit] links on this talk page? When I click on the edit link next to this section it takes me to edit the section below it (using Firefox). Dalf | Talk 19:32, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes I am having the same problem with IE. Hmmm.... ~ Veledan | Talk | c. 19:56, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

• Seems to be working now I've deleted a section header. ~ Veledan | Talk | c. 19:59, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Friendly Chat

Hi, how you doing? You did a minor edit on one of the articles that I originated Ramiro L. Colon and a very good one at that. Sometimes when I'm not editing or writting an article, I check out the people who've edited some of mine. I'm very impressed with your user page (very artistic) and the dedication that you've shown so far. I've got a feeling that you're going to become one of our best Wikipedians. You take care of yourself and do not allow anyone to stress you out. Your friend in Wikipedia Tony the Marine 06:13, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

• Thank you for your kind words and for the Barnstar, I feel honored to be the first person awarded a barnstar by you. Remember, if you ever need me for anything, just drop me a line. Your friend Tony the Marine 19:39, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

Phatcat68

Hello Veledan. I really appreciate the message that you posted on my talk page. It makes me feel better to know that you could see that my opinion about the argument meant alot to me. Sometimes, I can be very forceful at times with my beliefs on specific subjects. It is not your fault or any of the people who shared your opinion on the matter that I felt ganged up on. It was just a topic that I was the minority opinion on and I probably overreacted to feeling ganged up on. I do not hold any ill will toward you and hope I did not rub you the wrong way with my passion about my viewpoint. I really do appreciate the message! It adds to the pros of staying on Wikipedia! --phatcat68 20:20, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Disambiguation

Thank you for helping with disambiguation link repair, but please try to repair more carefully. For example, in Alexander Young you changed Irish to point to Ireland, when really it should refer to Irish people. Make sure you consider all options before picking one. Generally, using the name of the actual country is a last resort when no other option is appropriate. Thank you and happy damming! Soo 21:02, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

• Hi Soo. Re the dab I made to Ireland, I've consistently followed the same pattern on that type of link after reading all the linked articles a couple of times. I may be wrong, but it honestly wasn't just sloppiness.

I've usually used Ireland as a dab for an Irish person where there is no link to Ireland on the article, where the link isn't part of a list (when you match what's there), and where the context doesn't concern the history or dispersion of the Irish people (which is what that article concerns). I think the article on Ireland is fuller and covers the overall concept of Irish more comprehensively and I still think it feels more the sort of thing someone browsing Irish on most of these articles would naturally expect. But if you disagree, please explain because I'm still learning the art :-) ~ Veledan • Talk ^{+ new} 21:30, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

There's quite a scope for personal opinion in these things so if you're happy with linking to Ireland then I'm happy with that. Personally I prefer to refer to a specific article if there is one, but either way it's better than nothing. Thanks for helping and keep up the good work. Soo 21:34, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

You have me doubting now; it occurs to me that I am linking away from Irish people because that article is a bit too narrow at the moment. It would only take a really good expansion of the article though, and my links to Ireland would look like they wanted dab'ing again. Hmm, I'm off to go and find another dab page until I stop wavering! ~ Veledan • Talk ^{+ new} 22:18, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

More disambiguation

You "disambiguated" on the Erin Go Bragh page, making Gaelic point to Irish language. I reverted it with a comment, saying that it was pointing to the generic Gaelic page ON PURPOSE, and should NOT be pointing to the Irish language page. You ignored this and did it again. Could you please stop? There's a REASON for this. Read the page and you'll see why. Bjimba 20:54, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

Hi Bjimba, and sincere apologies for the double edit.

I'm about to fix the link on Erin Go Bragh properly, but I'm stopping here to explain before I edit the main page. Apologies for not seeing your edit summary advising against the change after my first edit by the way — I do check Talk pages if I'm at all unsure about a meaning, but I don't often check the history before disambiguating. And I didn't spot I'd already seen the page on account of the sheer number of pages with similar contexts that have to be read when you're dab'ing.

I'll pipe your link to Gaelic (disambiguation) which is a redirect to the Gaelic dab page. This way, your link will point to the same place but won't look accidental anymore, and you won't be troubled by disambiguators passing through any more (promise!).

Incidentally, I've re-read the article and I think I've understood your point re the link to the dab. Have you considered piping the link to Goidelic languages though? That article is about the Gaelic languages generically, rather than any one specific Gaelic language (which is what I think you were trying to avoid).

Anyway, thanks for stopping me before I (or someone else) changed the link a third time! Peace, ~ Veledan • Talk ^{+ new} 22:35, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks -- I think your solution is the correct, and cleanest, one. The real messy part of this is that the Gaelic (disambiguation) page is more than just a disambig page -- it actually has a bit of discussion about the different meanings of the term, and that was what I wanted to link to, rather than the Goidelic languages page. Then again, if it wasn't marked as a disambig page, then you wouldn't be finding all the links where people who do mean Irish are mistakenly saying Gaelic.

Again, thanks.

Bjimba 23:28, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

Warburton, Greater Manchester

Noticed your "link" repair on this article -- changing Saxon to Anglo-Saxon. Although not entirely inaccurate, technically their Queen Ethelfleda was a Saxon who married into a largely independent Angle dynasty. The Anglo-Saxon unification, which developed into England, came about a few years after the death of this particular queen. Perhaps we should think of some way to make this distinction? Best wishes. WBardwin 00:26, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Hi WBardwin and thanks for the info. I re-linked to Anglo-Saxons rather than Saxons mainly because the Saxons article ends its discussion of Saxons in England shortly after they arrive; the story of Saxons on British soil is handed over to the article Anglo-Saxons at roughly 450 AD, long before the days of this great Queen. On this occasion I was going for relevance to the story rather than semantic precision, but I couldn't pretend to be an expert and I have no strong feelings either way, so if you'd like the link to point to one of the other meanings instead, please go ahead and revise my dab! Cheers again, ~ Veledan • Talk ^{+ new} 01:07, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Hello --- do you like ancient history, too? Probably the Saxon article is the one that needs additional work. I'll add it to my to-do list (sigh). I think it was Ethelfleda's brother who started, shortly after her death, really consolidating the more-or-less independent kingdoms under one authority. And, of course, it took more time for "England" to be come an entity. Will try and work on it. Hope to see you around. WBardwin 02:38, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

I am a history freak (spotted!), but my 'home' period is high medieval rather than 1st millenium. Most of my hobby reading centres around the life & times of Henry II with occasional forays into the wider medieval period and world. (although I am reading Bede right now, which I expect is why I started work on the Saxons dab).

I like source texts and a more fleshed-out story. I find archaeology without contemporary texts painfully tantalizing.

Incidentally, I do think the term 'Anglo-Saxon' is used of the AnglesSaxonsJutes generally before the kingdoms were unified. There is much discussion on the A-S talk page about what should belong to which article, and a few people seem to think the ASJs may have merged before even setting foot on British soil. ~ Veledan • Talk ^{+ new} 20:08, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Catholic encyclopedia

I've noticed you have worked on incorporating information from the Catholic encyclopedia into wikipedia. I've created a project page for the Catholic Encyclopedia as part of the Missing encyclopedic articles project to coordinate efforts and hopefully make the work easier. Reflex Reaction 14:31, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Hi Reflex, and thanks for the info on my talk page re your CE wikiproject. I think you may have sent it to the wrong person though... I'm sure I haven't added any info from the CE to Wikipedia. I have been disambiguating Vatican, however, and if I came across a CE stub, I may have added the appropriate template / category — I'm not sure, but that's all I can think of as an explanation!

Anyway, best of luck with your project :-) ~ Veledan • Talk ^{+ new} 23:41, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Even more disambiguation

Hi, now that the work disambiguating articles that link to Gaelic is almost done, could you maybe help me disambiguate articles that link to Celtic (disambiguation)? There seem to be hundreds of them; vast majority of them actually link to Celtic, but that's a redirect to Celtic (disambiguation). Thanks! --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 12:37, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Hi Angr. I'll be happy to assist.

I think the first thing that needs to happen is that the content from Celtic (disambiguation) needs moving to Celtic. Celtic should be the actual dab page and Celtic (disambiguation) should be a redirect to it. Links that do need to go to the dab page then should be pointed to Celtic (disambiguation) (so they end up at the correct page but do not look accidental). That's the normal pattern I believe, and it would tie in with the fact that there are only a couple of pages that link to Celtic (disambiguation) right now, while 460-odd link to Celtic.

Once that's done, it's happy dab'ing! I'm at work right now and I haven't checked the available dabs... are you happy with the current list? I usually end up adding two or three entries to a dab when I first attack a page that hasn't been touched in a while.

I'll have a more detailed look at home later! Thanks for the invite

~ Veledan • Talk ^{+ new} 13:15, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

If you want to move the content of Celtic (disambiguation) to Celtic and make the former redirect to the latter, go right ahead. I don't care enough about it to do that myself. I haven't added anything to the list, but I have often needed to dab to Celtic mythology, which isn't on the dab page, so maybe it could be added. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 13:38, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

I noticed in Dumnorix that you had disambiguated Celtic tribes of Gaul to Celtic tribes of Gaul. I found that unsatisfactory, and instead changed it to Celtic tribe in Gaul so that 'celtic tribes' linked to the list of peoples in Gaul. I would have linked the whole phrase, but did not want to loose the link to Gaul. I think that makes more sense than just linking to Celt. I appreciate that your disambig was probably highly automated, but I think this is better in this instance. --Nantonos 21:28, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Hi Nantonos and thanks for letting me know but I have to say that I can't really see the reasoning behind your edit. I think that someone clicking on Celtic tribe will expect to find themselves reading about Celts, not find themselves at List of peoples of Gaul even if the context happens to be a Gaulish tribe. And Celt is an article, suitable for browsing, not just a list (always an advantage!). If you strongly prefer linking to the list in this context, I won't raise further objections, but I do think you should reconsider the wording of the pipe. ~ Veledan • Talk ^{+ new} 21:58, 7 September 2005 (UTC) p.s. I'm not a robot! (although I do like my new scripted edit summaries :-) ~ Veledan • Talk ^{+ new}

My reasoning was pricesely that of context; that Aedui is clarified by Celtic tribes of Gaul wich is exactly what people will find out about by clicking on the link. I agree that Celt is an article, so putting that word somewhere else in the article on Dumnorix would be perfectly fine. --Nantonos 23:52, 7 September 2005 (UTC)