User talk:Vanished user kijsdion3i4jf

Willebrord Snellius

Newer editions of the Winkler Prins and the Grote Oosthoek give his name as "Snellius, Willebrord (eigenlijk W. Snel van Royen)". When moving a page please do not copy and paste and paste the content as this causes the page history to be lost. See Help:Moving a page. Cheers, —Ruud 13:11, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ok, one thing at a time. let's start with the first name. have a look at the image that goes with the snellius article. you'll see "Willebrordus," which makes sense - if one latinizes one's last name, be consistent and latinize one's first name too. next i'll get to the last name. smile. Iterator12n Talk 23:02, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

"Willebrord Snellius" is the name that appears on his marriage certificate (which is probably the closest thing as official as you can get for a name in the 17th century) and, as far as I have been able to determine, the most widely used name in various reference works. The "Snell" you sometimes part is likely due to the fact that "de wet van Snellius" became known as "Snell's law". Encarta Winkler Prins, the Grote Oosthoek and Brockhaus all state his name as "Willebrord Snellius (actually Willebrord Snel van Royen)" (well Brockhaus states the actaul name as "Snel van Rojen" (not Royen or even Roijen)). Britannica gives it as "Willebrord van Roijen Snell" in the articles on Snell's law and trigonometry and Encarta as "Willebrord Snell" in the article on optics, though. —Ruud 01:19, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Dictionary of Scientific Biography (which is usually the most authoritative source on the issue of scientist names) has his entry under "Snel, Willebrord". Cheers, —Ruud 01:28, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But then, also see Image:Tiphys Batavus (frontispiece).jpg and Image:Eratosthenes Batavus.jpg for a few other Latin declensions of his name. —Ruud 01:31, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Asking whether his first name was latinized is a bit of a silly question as this name was not the one given to him at birth, but his scientific name, for which he clearly used various different spellings himself. It is best to follow convention here which quite clearly favours "Willebrord". —Ruud 01:41, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You said: "Asking whether his first name was latinized is a bit of a silly question as this name was not the one given to him at birth, but his scientific name, for which he clearly used various different spellings himself." Response: His parents named him Willebrord. Snellius himself seemed to have preferred a latinized name. Then, the various printers at various times may have acted on their own best understanding. His tomb stone in the Pieterskerk in Leiden, with a Dutch text, has "Willebrordus Snellius" as name. I would take that to mean that for posterity, he wanted to be known by that name. (BTW, while Snellius was proficient in latin - he translated works for Stevin etc. - he was also known as a sloppy editor. With the title pages, maybe he didn't care, or maybe he was too busy with other things. Besides, publishers have a way to sneak their idea of a title page past the author, maybe even change the title.)

You said: "Willebrord Snellius is the name that appears on his marriage certificate (which is probably the closest thing as official as you can get for a name in the 17th century) [...]" Response: I did some research into early 17th century family records. I have a rather simple family name but was surprised by the many ways in which the various recorders could (mis-)spell the name. Whatever else, consistency was not a strong point at that time. Of course, limited literacy etc. may have been contributing factors. Also, family names didn't quite play the role that they do today - Napoleon changed all of that.

You said: "The Dictionary of Scientific Biography (which is usually the most authoritative source on the issue of scientist names) has his entry under Snel, Willebrord." Response: Now we're getting somewhere. I propose to recognize two authorities: the DSB and the Nieuw Nederlandsch Biografisch Woordenboek. I will go to the closest university library that has both (over here not an easy thing for the NNBW) to see what they say. Re. the DSB, I would like to see whether it also has an entry for Snell. Anyway, it will take a few days before I get to it.

My final argument: In the UK and the US, at least some people know of Snell's law. (If I would use "Snellius's law" still fewer people would understand what I was writing or talking about. In the Netherlands, there is a problem the other way around: I say Snell, people would take a few seconds, and then say, Oh, you mean Snellius.) Anyway, Snell's law is the common expression. In writing, changing that to Snel's law would mean a small but unnecessary irritant in the communication process - as if one is trying to take attention away from the subject at hand.

Iterator12n Talk 05:21, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

My university library is only a three minutes walk away, so a was able to put some facsimiles of the articles in the DSB and NNBW up at http://www.ruudkoot.nl/snellius/. Cheers, —Ruud 08:58, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Re. the last name: The authorities are clear, it’s Snel, not Snell. Damned the irritation. The only question left is, What changed Struik’s mind between 1948 (when the first edition of his A Concise History of Mathematics was issued, with the Snell spelling) and whenever later he wrote the DSB entry? (Until now, I didn’t know that Struik was the writer of the DSB entry. If you would have asked me yesterday for a third authority, I would have mentioned Struik.)

Re. the first name, the authorities don’t give much support for Willebrordus. However, the last name history shows that authorities may change their mind. I will mount a campaign for Willebrordus. Next time in Leiden, I’ll take a picture of Snellius’s tomb stone, post it with the Wikipedia article, and expand a little on the kerfuffle around the Snellius name. (Maybe I'll get into the "Snell's law" convention even before that.)

Last request: Could you post (here or on your website) the bibliographic data for the DSB and NNBW sources – full name, name of chief editor(s), year of publication, name of publisher, ISBN number. Thanks again.

Iterator12n Talk 16:16, 23 July 2007 (UTC

In the 1988 revised Dutch edition Struik still calls him Snell. My guess would be that even the greatest historians don't have as much attention for the details when writing a overview instead of an in-depth biography. —Ruud 17:48, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

True. However, the dispute about Snellius's name is nothing new, and Struik must have been aware of it. Besides, Struik was a geometer himself and seemed to have been into the subject of Snellius. Strange. -- Iterator12n Talk 17:58, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Bob Evans

You asked about a picture of Bob Evans. For fair-use criteria, you really need to do a search for a free license one first. I like to look at what other articles have in the way of justifying fair-use in their images (ones that have stood the test of time). The powers that be are more strict these days than ever about allowing fair-use. I think that it is basically that you have to show that no free image is available, and that the one you do use is of poorer quality than the one you derived it from, and also that it is never used in a gallery of images, and just for the one narrow purpose. That last one won't be a problem for an image of Bob Evans in the Bob Evans article. And, also if you find a freely licensed image later on, you are obligated to remove the fair-use one. - Bevo 23:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll get to it. Iterator12n ^Talk 23:28, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See the text I added to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bob_O._Evans - Bevo 23:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Coetzee

Why you think Coetzee, a great-grandson of a Pole is not a Polish Australian? Kowalmistrz 18:21, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First, it makes the term "Polish Australian" meaningless if we let a generation thrice removed determine the nature of citizenship. Second, there is nothing in Coetzee's output particularly Polish. Cheers. Iterator12n ^Talk 19:54, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dutch Revolt

Sorry for getting back to you so late, I missed your message. Anyway, I believe the article is going to be delisted anyway as there are still many "citation needed" tags that haven't been addressed. Additionally, it appears the article is having a difficult time with NPOV as you stated, and the current back-and-forth editing, is probably effecting the stability of the article is well. I'll take a final look on the 27th, but at this point it will probably be delisted. However, if the article's issues are addressed, the article can then be renominated at WP:GAC. --Nehrams2020 08:14, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'Charles of Spain'

Now I can't write this without looking like a pedant but Wikipedia is a pedant's charter, so here goes! He inherited the kingdoms separately at different times and from different sources; he never sought to unify them politically or economically. The idea of Hispania goes back to Roman times but in the early modern era it was not used by Charles. Ironically, it was only after the incorporation of Portugal in 1580 that his son, Philip II, started to refer to himself as King of Spain. So it's okay to give Charles this title as a shorthand, amongst friends, with a sly smile and an ironic inverted comma but it's not accurate. All the best, --OhNoPeedyPeebles 21:51, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response. Indeed, the present version of the Charles V article is fine. Still, the "King of Spain" matter is worth two notes. (1) Columbus claimed American lands in the name of "the King and Queen of Spain," not the King or Queen of Aragon or Castile. (2) Around the middle of the 16th Century, "King of Spain" was in general use, see for instance the Dutch national anthem, and P.C. Hooft's De Nederlandse Histooriën (at least in my abridged version). (Of course, Hooft wrote his work 75 years later, but he is said to have been extremely precise in his facts and words.) Cheers. -- Iterator12n ^Talk 02:18, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, evidence of the primacy of "Spain" is right in front of us, in the Wikipedia article of Charles V where it shows a coin from the early 1540s with "Hispaniarum" on it! A second case is Charles's appointment of Philip in 1543 to "Regent of Spain." By that time, apparently the power of Charles already had become absolute enough to drop the niceties of "Aragon and Castile." -- Iterator12n ^Talk 05:28, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amsterdam

I like your edits on the Amsterdam article. All too often when editing simultaneously with someone else there is a conflict and a possible edit war, so it's nice when it works in harmony! Regards SilkTork *SilkyTalk 07:40, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Take this....

I, SilkTork, hereby award you **The Exceptional Newcomer Award** for the quality of your edits.15:59, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've just looked back at your contribution. I was surprised that you've only been here a few months. Your work progresses Wikipedia, and you have communicated fairly with only one edit war, which you handled well in the circumstances. I was given this award when I started editing and it pleased the hell out of me. It's nice to pass it on. Cheers 15:59, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:NOT

Well, they're still on the discussion page for the most part. Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Not_a_trivia_collection and Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Removal_of_trivia_criteria will give you the gist. -Chunky Rice 22:01, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Systems

Thanks for joining the WikiProject Systems. I hope together we can make a difference. If there are things you want to discuss or initiate, please let me know or leave a message at the WikiProject Systems talk page. I've been running the WikiProject Systems with lot's of support for half a year now, and things are still moving. The Announcements archive gives just a little impression of the things we have been doing. This doesn't tell that we are not that active. Things are moving with a stop and go... and in a way (after four years now) I am also still learning about the opportunities and limitations of wikis. Good luck. - Mdd 20:52, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Multatuli

About the atheism of Multatuli see Idea 919:

"De atheist die aan elken 'Heer'(...) den dienst opzei, heeft hoger plichten te vervullen, en moet zyn genot zoeken in zware verantwoordelykheid.(...)Ik verzeker u dat we talryker zyn dan ge meent..."

About Vosmaer:

He supported Multatuli in articles in "De Nederlandsche Spectator". In 1874 he wrote the book "Een zaaier. Studiën over Multatuli's werken".

Frut 11:22, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The support of Vosmaer was influential. He played an important role in the "Literature scene" in Holland in the 19th century (he published also the poems of Perk). In personal life he knew Multatuli very well, he was witness at his wedding with Mimi and visited Multatuli and Mimi several times in Wiesbaden.Frut 19:03, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Engineering Learning Wiki

I noticed that you removed my links to the Engineering Learning Wiki, and I believe you felt my links might have been SPAM. This could not be farther from the truth. I apologize if this is not the perfect spot to post a response, but I am a bit of a Wikipedia newbie. If you inspect the engineering learning wiki you will find that it is a web site which provides links engineering learning wiki and knowledge collaboration content. There is not any advertising, and it does not promote me or my place of employement (Honeywell). Instead it is an attempt to provide better access to free engineering learning resources available via the web. The wiki is a consortium efforts of many large companies ... although I am the primary driving force behind it. You can learn more about me at my blog. eContent. I may be contacted at rhoeg{at}comcast{dot}net

It seems that Tangient LLC (apparently the sponsor of ELW, correct this if necessary) is a normal, commercial business (again, correct this if necessary). Nothing wrong with business but it would be wrong for Wikipedia to serve as a conduit for traffic to Tangient's wikis. Cheers. -- Iterator12n Talk 20:54, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Rhoeg"

Also note that other editors - Mdd and User A1 - have take similar removal actions. -- Iterator12n Talk 21:08, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Rhoeg"

Hi ... Rich Hoeg here answering your two questions. Tangient LLC is the not the sponsor of the Engineering Learning Wiki, I am! I actually paid Tangient LLC $50 (per annum) to gain more services via their wiki service, and insure that they could not post advertisements on my individual wiki space. Just like individuals on the web who need various services for blogs, etc, I wanted to create a wiki which supports engineering education. If you Google "engineering wiki" you'll find there is not any resource like this content. I believe in providing free access to these kinds of service, and am willing to put my money where my mouth is! While I understand why you might not want a link to Tangient, it would have cost me far more money to rent server space and install my own version of Media Wiki. Essentially they are just a web hosting service.

Thanks for taking the time to ask your questions!