User talk:Saddhiyama: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 22:58, 10 October 2009

Welcome!

Hello, Saddhiyama, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! --Happy Bastille Day! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:57, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

transwikied articles

When copying an article from another Wiki, please make sure that it includes proper sources. To not do so creates a huge burden on other Wiki editors. 71.204.176.201 (talk) 00:33, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Self-delusion

You do not seem to like the facts, about Hume's racialism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.160.202.155 (talk) 11:38, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First of all its called "racism", second of all I would say you are welcome to write about this particular issue in the article, but the reference needs to be placed following the specific statement in the article itself. Personally I think it is a redundant bit of info, the general Western outlook at this time period was inherently racist. In fact I would say that it would only be relevant to state whether a person was anti-racist, because that was a stand that really was against the general current of the time and therefore noteworthy. But as I have said you are welcome to add the bit of information, if you reference it properly.--Saddhiyama (talk) 11:44, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

University of Copenhagen

If you look later down the page, those exact surveys and polls, ranking the University of Copenhagen as I have stated, are referenced. I have therefore put back my statement as it is appropriate in the introduction, and not a weaselword. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.36.177.61 (talk) 14:50, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The first mention of a statement should be the referenced one. Furthermore, the wording "It is generally recognized as the best..." is weasel-wording. Instead it should say exactly who thinks it is the best and why. --Saddhiyama (talk) 18:06, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AIV

Please ensure vandals have received a full set of warnings, including a final warning, before reporting them to AIV. لenna vecia 12:30, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did, and the user I reported did have a final warning. Which was why I reported him.--Saddhiyama (talk) 12:32, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Pantone

Hello, I see you voted to keep the Paul Pantone article. You noted it needed rewriting. I've made several attempts to do this, but everything was reverted. I thought perhaps you can review my last version of the article. I'm not sure if there really is anything wrong with it, it looks to me like the article has 3 owners who do not tolerate others to edit it. The page is here:[1] My review of the situation is here:[2] it's a bit long. You don't really have to read it, just glance over my version of the article and the archive if you have time. Thanks, Resess (talk) 19:47, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Frederick III of Denmark

Hi! I didn't intend my edit of Fred III about his fetus collection to be taken as vandalism. I read the article "pickled punks", saw it mentioned him, and when I saw his own article didn't mention it, I decided to BE BOLD and add it myself. I think you owe me an apology. 76.105.183.62 (talk) 17:02, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You edit was unreferenced and thus impossible to verify. I apologize for the vandalism warning, as yours was obviously a good faith edit, but the entry stays deleted until you can come up with a reference for this. --Saddhiyama (talk) 17:08, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just curious...

...why did you undo this edit? I really wonder what bothered you. Surtsicna (talk) 14:33, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, retrospectively an undo was probably overkill, because there was a lot of relevant familiy info added by you, and the problem was only one sentence. The problem was the "{{Infobox Norwegian Royalty|majesty|consort" edit. IIRC this edit was part in a long series where you added this title to a series of Dano-Norwegian royalty biographies. These edits were later undone by me and others, and this one must have been part of this. I would not object if you reinserted the family info in the biography. --Saddhiyama (talk) 14:47, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response! There are two infoboxes: Template:Infobox Danish Royalty and Template:Infobox Norwegian Royalty. It's really irrelevant which infobox is used for Kings of Denmark-Norway. First I placed Infobox Danish Royalty, but then I decided to replace it with Infobox Norwegian Royalty because red is associated with both Denmark and Norway. As I said, it's really unimportant. Surtsicna (talk) 15:46, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see. I do not have a lot of experience with info boxes (and none with designing them), but since the list of Dano-Norwegian monarchs and their consorts (not to mention their offspring ) is relatively long, would it not be more expedient to make an infobox particularly designed for the Dano-Norwegian royalty? --Saddhiyama (talk) 16:21, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would certainly solve the which-kingdom-was-more-important issue, but I'm afraid we would have too many similar infoboxes. Perhaps I can make something up out of the existing infoboxes. I just need an idea - which colours to use? Has Denmark-Norway ever had a specific flag (like the Kalmar Union used to have)? Surtsicna (talk) 20:29, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That would be great, and yes my thoughts exactly regarding it being a nice way to get around the problem of "king of which kingdom?". As far as I know they never made a flag for the Denmark-Norway union (I think possibly they used the kings arms for the navy and armies?). If it is technically possible then it would be nice if it could be in two colours (maybe just the blue and red of the other infoboxes?) to symbolise the two kingdoms. --Saddhiyama (talk) 21:22, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know (and I don't know much about templates), the only way to do it is to use one colour as background and the other one as the colour of letters. I've tried the blue-red combination for Infobox Norwegian Royalty and it looks rather... hideous. I'll see what I can do. Surtsicna (talk) 22:53, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Too bad. Another (possibly impossible?) solution could be to somehow include the two flags of Denmark and Norway at the top and then using some third colour of your own choice. --Saddhiyama (talk) 23:06, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's agreat idea and I can't say it's impossible. I just don't know how to make it work... Surtsicna (talk) 16:34, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nordic Race

The Nordic theory is an ideology of racial supremacy that claims that the Nordic race - the Scandinavians and Germans constitute a master race. This would also include the Dutch. Why do you think it's wrong? User:VeronicaPR 03:34, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I dont think that it is wrong that that you included the peoples that you have mentioned. But I do think it was wrong that you forgot that the Anglosaxons (which was in effect UK (and the commonwealth) and USA) was also included. I noticed that in one edit you deliberately separated the English from this category, and that was clearly wrong. If you feel like clarifying the distinction that the Nazi ideology made concerning the Aryan peoples (which I dont think is necessary as it is made in the article on the Aryan race) in numerous articles then you better define it correctly. --Saddhiyama (talk) 03:39, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The British people are not considered part of the Nordic race, not by Nazism at least. The English are the only ones which barely qualified because the Germans believed that they intermixed too much with those non-English Britons, and as such were "tainted". This is actually true. The English are much more "mixed" than the Swedes, the Germans, or Danes, etc. User:VeronicaPR 03:43, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You will need to cite some sources for that claim. The "tainted" and "mixed" theory seems to have been used rather indiscrimenately depending on the political circumstances (especially later on in the war), but when it comes to the actual theory behind the claims I would cite Arthur de Gobineau and Alfred Rosenberg to the contrary of your "tainted" claims. --Saddhiyama (talk) 03:53, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Flagged Revs

Hi,

I noticed you voted oppose in the flag revs straw pole and would like to ask if you would mind adding User:Promethean/No to your user or talk page to make your position clear to people who visit your page :) - Thanks to Neurolysis for the template «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l» (talk) 06:46, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Flagged Revs

Hi,

I noticed you voted oppose in the flag revs straw pole and would like to ask if you would mind adding User:Promethean/No to your user or talk page to make your position clear to people who visit your page :) - Thanks to Neurolysis for the template «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l» (talk) 06:48, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Flagged Revs

Hi,

I noticed you voted oppose in the flag revs straw pole and would like to ask if you would mind adding User:Promethean/No to your user or talk page to make your position clear to people who visit your page :) - Thanks to Neurolysis for the template «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l» (talk) 06:48, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

STOP REVERTING EDITS TO MY TALK PAGE

72.228.150.44 (talk) 20:14, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry if it caused you any inconvenience, but it is preferred that you archive the talk page rather than blanking it. --Saddhiyama (talk) 20:18, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stats for dasource

Hello Saddhiyama,
see answer at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Wiki_Traffic_Statistics_Tool, see also http://wikistics.falsikon.de/latest/wikisource/da/ --- Best regards, Melancholie (talk) 13:24, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re:moves

Why fuss unless someone else does, then? He is virtually never called Canute in modern scholarly texts, i.e WP:RSs. I'd have some sympathy if it was Knútr, but Cnut is the common English form (Canute being archaic). Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:15, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as I wrote I do not disagree with you, and I have no intention of taking this any further. My message was more meant as a heads-up, at least judging by the passionate discussion on the talk page, that a lot of users would likely protest to the article move. --Saddhiyama (talk) 16:49, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Amdi Petersens Armé

An article that you have been involved in editing, Amdi Petersens Armé, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amdi Petersens Armé. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 16:56, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Racism in Europe - Denmark section

It doesn't seem like a joke page to me. It is freqently used on various message boards inside Denmark and abroad. If you are a foreginer, it could look like a such, but you have to remember that most Danes with good reasons consider their nation to be superior to most Covergaard (talk) 11:15, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"As it is quite normal here in Denmark a diplomat drove his car after some drinks. In Copenhagen the police often functions as drivers for foreign diplomatic staff when they have too much to drink and are found behind their own wheels." I am not responsible if anyone chooses to state this as a source on message boards in Denmark, that would be their own problem. Even if it is not meant as a joke page (it certainly reads like one) then it is definately not a reliable source. --Saddhiyama (talk) 11:26, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From a Danish newspaper "Diplomats dont pay fines." and "During the last 10 years the diplomat and their families have committed 1,143 crimes. In all cases none were charged due to their diplomatic immunity". There was 27 cases of DUI's alone. It was even discussed in our parliament where they concluded that those crimes cases are a cost we has to cope with so our human aid industry can bribe themselves inside countries and help people. Endelig besvarelse af spørgsmål nr. af 224 af 15. februar 2007 fra Folketingets Retsudvalg. (Link til the Danish parliament). Crimes done by diplomats living Denmark is quite ordinary and a price to pay to keep up diplomatic relationships. It is not a joke page Covergaard (talk) 12:48, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The crime rate of diplomats in Denmark does not have a direct connection with claim that the website makes about the role of the police in this matter, nor can it be said that it is the culture of Denmark to accept DUIs. As such it is clearly an opinionated site with an agenda, even though the website does not state which organisation is running it or to what purpose (which makes it even less reliable). As I wrote even if it is not a joke page, it does not meet the standard of a reliable source as it can not be said to be a "reliable, third-party published source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". --Saddhiyama (talk) 13:53, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox of styles

Well, that was fast, thanks! I tried to find out when this clearly ridiculous infobox was placed in the article. That was on August 19, 2005, by a contributor named User:Jtdirl. Now it turns out the infobox was a compromise on a long and bloody series of Wikipedia discussions called the Style Wars, see here. So I'm curious what happens now. But it seems plain silly to put an English infobox on non-English royals, especially if they are dead. Glatisant (talk) 14:09, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Question about my history

I have a question concerning this edit. Not so much the discussion about the relevance of the "benevolent dictatorship" section which was mysteriously added without consensus at some point, but rather about your comment that "the most recent user has a history of removing relevent information". As I was the most recent user that had edited that article, I can only take it to mean me. Would you care to elaborate what that alleged history of mine consists of? --Saddhiyama (talk) 19:39, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Read this talk page beginning at the top. Thank you. TeamZissou (talk) 16:47, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the condescending answer. So I take it that means you have nothing to back up your claim with. --Saddhiyama (talk) 19:05, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

...you obviously haven't read your own talk page. Nevermind. TeamZissou (talk) 19:09, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Says he who threw the first stone. Unlike some editors, I do not delete talk page sections (unless they are pure vandalism). Relevant info here.--Saddhiyama (talk) 09:26, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And as I expected this. --Saddhiyama (talk) 17:11, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good job. You sure showed me. Sadman, it's not a big deal. Just don't go deleting large sections of articles that pertain to the topic of the article, especially when it comes down to an interpretation of semantics. Now, add your comment below and then get back to Wikipedia'ing. TeamZissou (talk) 18:11, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Once more I urge you to refrain from taking disputes as personal insults and please leave out the snug remarks and namecalling. As I learned from all this, despite your attempts at hiding it, it is apparently far from the first time you have had problems in this area. My intention is still to remove the section from the article. I am just allowing you the usual time to come up with verifiable sources. I will get back to you on this, but it will be on the talk page of enlightened absolutism. --Saddhiyama (talk) 18:31, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spam patrol

Hello. The edit I had reverted was part of a mass-reversion of spam. User:Sxhpb (Contribs) had added a lot of links in articles, all linking to books from the University of Chicago Press. These are the only edits that account has made. It looks like advertising to me. 152.16.16.75 (talk) 01:12, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, my bad then. I see it has already been reverted back. Just a little hint: By providing an edit comment you will most likely prevent these kind of misunderstandings from happening in the future (and its no problem with mass reversals, a cookie will remember the edit comment, so you will only have to press the first letter to reuse the comment). --

Query

I did not ask for your opinion on how i should socialize. When i want it, i shall ask. And i do not know any of you people.Liamr9983 (talk) 15:19, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Page protection on Marie Antoinette

Bonjour Saddhiyama, please go to Marie Antoinette talk page where I left a comment. Cordialement, Frania W. (talk) 13:48, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What personal attacks are and what not

Calling someone a troll, and claiming that someone is a sockpuppet despite the investigation not even having begun is a personal attack and a transparent attempt to smear other editors. Pantherskin (talk) 18:41, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Fisk

Stating one person's conspiracy theories as a fact on an article page is completely unacceptable according to Wikipedia policies. I stated my opinion about Fisk's theories, and such opinions do not amount to personal attacks or insults, and certainly not on editors. The article on Fisk is very thin and biased, and it is bizarre that such a strange view (which does his career very little credit) should get such attention. So save me the lecturying. --Leifern (talk) 11:57, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Robespierre's talk page

Bonjour/Bonsoir Saddhiyama: How can we stop anon IP 174.6.26.254 from reverting the Question/Answer on Robespierre's talk page? The question may have been from a teenage student (where is the crime?) but the answer was from me (far from being a teenager!) & I am a regular wikipedian doing extremely serious work (throwing roses at myself!), so I cannot understand why my answer & its related question should be deleted. Cordialement, Frania W. (talk) 23:48, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I just read your warning on IP 174.6.26.254's talk page. FW

Yes, as the IP-user has ignored several explanations and warnings, it is my belief that we can only treat this as vandalism. If the IP-user deletes the section again we will have to report it to WP:AIV cheers --Saddhiyama (talk) 08:51, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Saddhiyama: The section was again deleted, someone - Oskar71 - put it back & I just left a note at bottom of Q&A section. Please go read it. Bonne journée! Frania W. (talk) 05:09, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Marie Antoinette

Bonjour Saddhiyama! Since the recent back & forth reverting sessions with previous editor, the lead in the article of Marie Antoinette has become a heavy mess as stuff has been added that was not there before & is not necessary in the lead.

Details that need to be only mentioned are too developed.
The "let them eat cake" Rousseau's quote has no place in the lead. In my opinion, it should be either somewhere in the article - in the period leading to the Revolution, or at the very end in the section Historical legacy and popular culture.

What do you think? I just worked on portions of the article & do not feel like doing it now and, besides, I wanted to ask you about it before touching it. Cordialement, Frania W. (talk) 04:18, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I support the move of the "let them eat cake"-bit to the legacy section. Although this should perhaps be discussed at the article talk page, as it might be profitable to hear the opinions of even more editors. Cheers --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:10, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oops! I already did! Moved the brioche down... I feel it does not belong in lead, but you can revert if you like: I won't send you to the guillotine. Bonne journée! Frania W. (talk) 13:38, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the edits seem sensible and uncontroversial. No need to do anything unless someone objects. --Saddhiyama (talk) 14:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for checking. Frania W. (talk) 14:29, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war on Talk:Maximilien Robespierre

Hi. I'm an administrator here on the English Wikipedia. As requested, I have looked at the edit war on that talk page. Please do not restore the misplaced discussion on Talk:Maximilien Robespierre that you have been edit warring over. It falls under Wikipedia:Forum#FORUM and does not belong on that talk page. Thank you. Toddst1 (talk) 15:31, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copenhagen Edit

Sorry, my bad. I'd looked on the talk page but I couldn't find any discussion for this wording. (RockDrummerQ (talk) 15:20, 12 September 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Reversion of edits by Dgroseth to Tycho Brahe

Hi, First I want to note that Dicklyon appropriately reverted the final of four edits by Logicus.

Regarding This reversion you made of my reversions. The first edit was reverting an earlier edit by Logicus who replaced a word on a hunch and I may have poorly described the reasoning in my comment. It can be sourced that he sometimes made multiple measurements of stars as well as perhaps planets, to test out the accuracy and calibration of different instruments, as well as bias.

See Victor E. Thoren, "New Light on Tycho's Instruments", JHA 4 (1973) 25-45 1973JHA.....4...25T

Also see Walter G. Wesley, "The Accuracy of Tycho Brahe's Instruments," Journal for the History of Astronomy, 9(1978): 42-53, table 4. 1978JHA.....9...42W where there are multiple observations of meridian altitudes of stars not planets considered.

There is a big difference between a single measurement and constructing an astrometric catalog, which requires multiple measurements, assumptions and an accurate stable clock really helps. Really good clocks did not exist then, nor did established values for refraction. Tycho's adoption of values (plural) for obliquity were biased by multiple ancient values from another method. (Obliquity changes slowly)

See Wittmann 1979 A and A 1979A&A....73..129W and Rawlins page 54, footnote 190 for obliquity values Tycho used.

I made the second edit because the next edit by Logicus is a legitimate complaint. The article currently contains:

To perform the huge number of multiplications needed to produce much of his astronomical data, Tycho relied heavily on the then-new technique of prosthaphaeresis, an algorithm for approximating products based on trigonometric identities that predated logarithms.

My comment is in agreement with the rest of the article, as well as I understand it to be true. It pains me to agree with Logicus. I don't want do revert your edit. My wording here might be poor, am willing to delete or replace the clause with something else as I have not verified it. --Dgroseth (talk) 05:39, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I realise that my edit comment was probably insufficient to explain my reasons for the revert. I am not qualified to question your knowledge on the subject, and neither was that my object. My problem with the edit was simply that the result was some questionable prose: "Tycho is credited with the most accurate astronomical observations of his time, and the data was used by his assistant Kepler to derive the laws of planetary motion. No one before Tycho had attempted to make so many redundant observations, and the mathematical tools he used to multiply were inferior." There is no obvious connection between the two sentences, even though they are the only ones in that paragraph. I would not object to the information being added (with sources), as I stated I am not qualified to judge which claim is correct, but please try and fit it into the text. After looking at it again it seems that it may be as simple as inserting a "However..." at the beginning of the second sentence. --Saddhiyama (talk) 07:52, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, the first edit restored a fairly bland, even lame reading to a lead that is already longer than it should be. It cries out for something better. I have just found some more cool stuff out (at least for me, Lunar theory!) for the body of the article to post initially on its talk page for now. Perhaps next week I will try to actually help improve the lead also instead of just preserving cruft. I am interested in any criticism good or bad on my writing as I know it is something I really need to work on. That's why I'm pushing myself here. Thanks in advance, --Dgroseth (talk) 16:51, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your changes

Hello there. You recently posted on my talk page that you removed my changes under Voltaire. I'm glad to see that Wikipedia is as active as ever! Anyways, I'll take note to the problem and correct it. I plan on adding the information under a newly-created "Trivia" section, if possible. Thank you for your quick response, by the way.

@@ Line 182: / Line 182: @@
 ::You are right, the first edit restored a fairly bland, even lame reading to a lead that is already longer than it should be. It cries out for something better. I have just found some more cool stuff out (at least for me, Lunar theory!) for the body of the article to post initially on its talk page for now. Perhaps next week I will try to actually help improve the lead also instead of just preserving cruft. I am interested in any criticism good or bad on my writing as I know it is something I really ''need'' to work on. That's why I'm pushing myself here. Thanks in advance, --[[User:Dgroseth|Dgroseth]] ([[User talk:Dgroseth|talk]]) 16:51, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
+===Regarding your changes===
+Hello there. You recently posted on my talk page that you removed my changes under Voltaire. I'm glad to see that Wikipedia is as active as ever! Anyways, I'll take note to the problem and correct it. I plan on adding the information under a newly-created "Trivia" section, if possible. Thank you for your quick response, by the way.