I would say this is bad form, but the whole dispute has tired me out, and I don't really feel like intervening. john k16:37, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I would of told my pal Tridentinus to ask another Admin. Actually, at this point he can delete the entire talk page and replace it with a German discussion if he wants -- it is getting very boring. How is the dissertation writing going by the way? The last six months are usually pretty killer. :\ Taalo16:40, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, you were the first official I recognised starting from bottom up. I can surely ask someone else, but... who? Good luck with your dissertation! Tridentinus18:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A very important note. This mediation offer concerned the greater overall naming convention to use in this region, not just the name of the region itself. We came up with a very good compromise for the regional name itself. I for one am still looking forward for Lar to help us out. Taalo21:32, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have read the pages about this on wikipedia and I have came to you because you seem to be a person who knows how wikipedia is supposed to work and are most likely 100% neutral on this matter. I am involved in a rather intense edit war with two other editors of the article Miriam Rivera. In the last days the user User:Jokestress has quite reasonably asked for the article to be backed up with more reliable sources. Well I found them and that seems to have placated her. She has acted in 100% reasonable way in all of this. The problem arises in that she has asked in the spirt of resolving the conflict we were having other people who are not 100% neutral it seems to comment on the matter. These being the user User:Longhair and the userUser:Alison in particular who have not bothered to justify anything that they have done. Longhiar being an admin seems to feel no need to discuss anything and I feel is abusing her powers. Is there anything you can do? --Hfarmer03:28, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am contacting everyone who participated in the discussion that became inactive in December. Due to the length of the previous discussion, I have proposed a new amendment and you like you to weigh in so that we may actually have a consensus on this matter as it doesn't seem there exists one either way. -ΖαππερΝαππερBabelAlexandria
Since you're an admin, I thought you might know: Has reverting moves been restricted? I find myself unable to undo moves where I would normally be able to do that before. If not, have I accidentally had my privileges revoked? Thanks. Charles19:50, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Novels WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XI - April 2007
The April 2007 issue of the Novels 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.
I find it brings in an unhelpful tone - like you are ridiculing me, I only seek to find a consensus as to what should and should not be present on the page, with the aim of finding the truth. The fact of the matter is that one editer has systematically removed all reference to the railroad and all reference to oil from all articles releating to WWI. Further when this has been questioned on the talk pages editors haave shouted (capitals :)) and ridiculed until objection is quashed. I will provide references, please take a look at my editing record and show me where I have failed to provide references. sbandrews (t) 14:04, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
now you have accused me of original research, and I haven't even written a single word - I am just discussing on the talk page - please withdraw the accusation and strike through your earlier unfriendly comments, sbandrews (t) 17:06, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Since you mention you taught a course on the origins of World War I, and since there are calls to use recently written books and articles as sources to capture and put new information into context, can you tell us, in your opinion, what the key new primary sources after 1945? There were a few documents not found, unavailable, or missing relating to the Balkan origins of the war; but don't limit yourself to the list:
1. The minutes to the Franco-Russian summit of 1914 or a clear explanation of why no minutes were taken on either side.
2. The Buchlau Bargain draft that Isvolski told Aehrenthal he had sent to the Czar for approval.
3. The Montenegran police arrest report on Mohamed Mehmedbasic.
4. The Montenegran police report on the "escape" of Mohamed Mehmedbasic from jail.
5. The name and career record of the Montenegran civil servant who released Mohamed Mehmedbasic from Prison.
6. The service record and passport file of Russian General Victor Artamonov.
7. The service record and passport file of Russian Minister of War Alexander Ivanovic Werchovsky.
8. Prison records of the Salonika Trial Prisoners.
9. The report made by the French Sûreté Générale concerning its investigation into the Serbian Terrorist planning meeting held in Tolouse France in January 1914. See: “Documents Diplomatiques Francais III Serie 1911-14,3”, X Doc. 537, the misnumbered footnote indicated no response could be found.
10. The reports of Father Makarije and Father Zdravko Paunović to the Serbian "Corfu" Government on the confessions of the soon to be executed Apis, Malobabic, and Vulovic. Werchovsky (talk) 17:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Proposal for a page's Extreme Makeover: Template:S-start/doc
You can find it here. I've also posted a message in the talk page of WikiProject Succession blah blah but it doesn't look like people visit that place often.
It says quite specifically that it "is usually identical to the page title, although it may appear in a slightly different form from that used as the title, and it may include variations." In this case, the country the person was King/Queen of is as much a part of their name in historiography as their ordinal. The variations, in this case, would be the toss up between X III, King of Y and X III of Y. Because the bolded section refers to, effectively, the legal, or historical, name of the person involved. MichaelSanders00:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"In a slightly different form" would imply that the information is all still there, but written differently (e.g. Jeanne d'Arc as opposed to Joan of Arc); whereas, if the country the person was ruler of is omitted, then it is not a 'slightly different form', it is a deliberately and notably different and ambiguous form. MichaelSanders00:06, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Consider, for example, Henry IV of France. He wasn't simply Henry IV - he was Henry III of Navarre. To write simply Henry IV in the bold confuses the issue. MichaelSanders00:37, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your objection appeared to be that it was redundant to say X of France, was King of France. My changes removed that redundancy, and kept in step with the manual. MichaelSanders00:58, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As you have been involved in this little dispute, I would ask that you look at User:Michaelsanders' recent edits. I think his behaviour has been out of line, but I do not know the proper way of dealing with this. Srnec16:11, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He was certainly born that, but apparently he changed his surname at some point (I can't quite work out when), and his descendants certainly seem to use the surname "Rufus Isaacs". Cracroft's lists him as "Rufus Daniel [Isaacs later Rufus Isaacs], 1st Baron Reading later 1st Viscount Reading later 1st Earl of Reading later 1st Marquess of Reading, GCB GCSI GCIE GCVO PC". Proteus(Talk)23:09, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Recently created page on James Hepburn, Bishop of Moray. Previously the page had been a redirect to James Hepburn, 4th Earl of Bothwell. I did this mostly because it was easiest and nicest, but please tell me if you think there is an issue of primary usage. The bishop is clearly not primary usage. Do you think he should be moved to James Hepburn (bishop) (the usual way of dabbing bishops)? And if so, should the page be redirect a redirect to Bothwell, or the dab page? Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:06, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The May 2007 issue of the Novels 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.
Thanks for the correction - I didn't have a chance to research it, just was trying to fix the edits that someone else made which were even less appropriate, to my mind. I actually wondered about this one, but left it in for the moment, assuming someone would come along and remove it if it was not supported by history. So thank you for doing so! DOn't know if you had a chance to look in on Talk - you might want to weigh in there. Tvoz|talk23:32, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading Image:4th Duke of Marlborough.JPG. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 21:52, 13 May 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Madmedea21:52, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All images, regardless of copyright status require source information - i.e. where the digital image came from: a scan, a website, your photograph - this applies equally to images that are in the public domain because of their age. An image without a source is like a fact without a reference - there is no way to check whether an image is what it says it is. Although it may seem a pain, Wikipedia policy is clear on this (WP:IUP#Rules of thumb). If you don't know where you originally got it from then I guess the next best thing is finding out where the painting is and providing that source information - or finding an alternative electronic source. By the way, I'm not deleting anything, I'm just tagging for a problem, its up to an admin to decide what to do. Madmedea00:28, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please remember to be civil. I have not done anything outside of WP policy. I do not see much point in having an encyclopaedia which is unreferenced - and that includes the images in it. I spend time referencing my additions to articles and ensuring any images I upload are fully described with copyright information and sources. I don't see the problem in tagging an image as lacking sources. I'm currently working, as are other editors, to transfer images that are suitable to Wikimedia commons, to do this they have to have a source tag - as they should on Wikipedia. So by asking a contributor to state their source this facilitates this process and removes images from wikipedia (by transferring them to commons) which don't need to be there. Madmedea00:35, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The policy is available at WP:IUP which states "Always specify on the description page where the image came from, such as scanning a paper copy, or a URL, or a name/alias and method of contact for the photographer" and "It is important, even in the case of public domain images, to specify the source of the image. However, if the public domain status of the image is not in doubt, such an image should not be deleted simply because the source is not specified". Remember, I'm not deleting anything, but I used the tag that I thought was most appropriate from Wikipedia:Template messages/Image namespace to highlight that the image did not have a source. I did not use a speedy delete tag!. Madmedea00:41, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
User:Mangojuice has just edited the image policy to state that that PD images won't be deleted for lack of sources - which as an Admin I guess they have the right to do - and they're the ones who review the images! I'm sorry about the bot message - when I realised that it wasn't going down well I started to add my own explanation to the bottom which elicited more positive responses. And honestly, I don't have a vendetta or anything, I just want Wikipedia to be as good as it can be - and for me referencing is really important (just look at my List of Pre-Raphaelite paintings which is a work in progress). I think we need a new tag specifically for PD images to request sources... one that isn't so confrontational! For now I think if I spot something I'll used the mainspace {{unreferenced}} tag even if it is the wrong one. Madmedea00:51, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can you check the sources that I added for Abkhazia in Talk:List of sovereign states and let me know if they are any good? Apparently not because some people keep deleting it and I don't want to add anything that is not supported by sources. I spent a lot of my own time on finding these sources and I can try to find sources for other things that people might need, but I won't waste my time if no one takes them seriously.--Britlawyer18:09, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If they don't care what the sources say then what are we even doing here? Ask for mediation and I'll participate.--Britlawyer00:15, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Since you are both an academic in the field of European history and an active contributor to Wikipedia, I wonder if you could entertain an idea with me.
I've seen numerous claims (both here and in print) that the origin and/or reason for adoption of the name Bratislava is shrouded in mystery. Since the name was only adopted in 1919, at the close of WWI, I find it hard to believe that such a mystery can't be pierced.
Of course, Wikipedia isn't the place for original research, which is why I'm asking you to look at the question with me along a different line, if you have the time and inclination. Together I believe that we should be able to answer the questions:
Is the origin of the name really a mystery? and, if not,
What *is* its origin?
I would be very interested to collaborate with you on researching the question. As I'm situated in Bratislava, and both have personal connections with people working in the Slovak National Archives and work full-time as a Slovak to English translator, I could lend research and translation support on this end. Your academic connections in the US should serve to close the gaps in access to material that isn't available to me, as well as make any potential resulting paper publishable.
Please let me know (on talk or in email) if you're interested in such a collaboration.
In addition to the personal attack where your account was accused of abusive sockpuppetry here [1] to which you replied here [2] your edits(which I resotred) are now called "POV" "change the names of Slovak cities into a non-Slovak version" [3] and also "disruptive" and "not real contributions."(same place). This happened after you made an edit to Bratislava IMO improving the article. I feel that your edits were NPOV and improving the encylopedia this is why I decided to endorse your edit and restored it. These accusations of your edit being called "POV", "disruptive", and others I feel are only the start. You should watch out for more personal attacks from the same editors because as far as I can tell they are way too passionate about their edits and you made an edit they did not like. Olivierdb18:38, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is non sense. John, those difflinks are not about you, but about User:Olivierdb, plausibly a "bad hand" sockpuppet of someone from Wikipedia (or, quite likely, a banned user). For some unknown reason, he/she has tried to sabotage our common effort to reach consensus on Talk:Bratislava by reverts of the article, by various accusation posted at WP:ANI, and now by this. Tankred19:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes yes all the diffs are about edits made by John. What I did was I merely endorsed and restored an edit he made, that was never my edit to begin with. Now this restoration of your edit John is dubbed as "sabotage" above. Also an attack took place earlier to which the response was [4]. Diffs show that these attacks happened. Olivierdb19:57, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Olivier, why don't you participate in the talk page discussion rather than continuing to revert, if you're interested in the issue? john k20:02, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your participation in the discussion regarding the use of the names "Bratislava" and "Pressburg" on Talk:Bratislava. I would like also to invite you to a poll that will show us the real support for the two alternatives. I hope the poll will help us reach consensus and close this case so we can move on to other improvements of that (hopefully) future featured article. You can access the poll at Talk:Bratislava#Poll. I look forward to your opinion. Tankred05:51, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Halo John. I've seen that you was recently involved in some dicussion in the article "Republic of Ragusa", so that you have known Kubura. My opinion is that this user has became a serious problem. I am tired to spent time to revert his several vandalism. Because you are an administrator, I ask you a suggestion. Of course I can show that my ideas about Kubura are well supported. --Giovanni Giove13:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You can see more about this here. The vote is not expected to be a thriller or anything; the Project only wishes to get rid of a redundant template.
Basically, I am afraid you should visit the Project's talk page more often; there are several issues that need to be dealt with. Right now it seems to be forgotten by almost all members of the Project.
Also, there is a working version of the /Guidelines subpage at User:The Duke of Waltham/SBS and any input, either a good idea or a simple comment, would be greatly appreciated.
You're invited to the
Philadelphia-area Wikipedia Meetup Sunday July 8, 2007
Time: 5:00 pm
Location: It will be in Center City, Philadelphia at 112 North 9th Street Philadelphia, PA 19107. Tel: (215) 829-8939
Oh, well that's certainly different from the last time I read it. It really would help if you used edit summaries though. Thanks/wangi18:19, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The June 2007 issue of the Novels 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.
I've reverted your last edit to Margrethe II of Denmark. The thorn doesn't appear in the Danish alphabet, but Danish almost always spells personal names using native forms, and this rule always applies when it comes to names from the Nordic Countries. You can see an example on the monarchy's official website: http://kongehuset.dk/publish.php?dogtag=k_dk_familien_dronningen. Interestingly, the accent over the O is missing on the official page. The reason for the odd name is that her grandfather, King Christian X, was still king of Iceland at the time of her birth, so the royal family decided to include a proper Icelandic name. ValentinianT / C08:29, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We are conducting research into the role of social norms in online communication. This research is funded by the European Union and is being undertaken by a coalition of European Universities (see http://emil.istc.cnr.it/?q=node/8). The research is designed to help us understand how social norms interact with the technology that supports online collaboration. We have selected 35 Wikipedia articles flagged as controversial for study. We are analysing the interactions on the discussion pages and are also seeking additional input from contributors to those discussions.
As a participant in the recent discussion about a controversial topic - German Democratic Republic, I would be very grateful if you could follow the link to a simple questionnaire. This should take only 2 minutes to complete.
Hi, this is meant as a helpful FYI. While the IP chappie probably shouldn't've reverted the neutral position while we're still discussing this, I think your revert technically puts you in danger of flouting WP:3RR; the rule is for 24 hour periods, not calendar days. Cheers. Mark H Wilkinson14:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nowadays, undoubtedly, yes, it would be needed. As I'm sure you know, they weren't so fussy back then. Especially when the clashing title was in the Scottish or Irish Peerage. Proteus(Talk)12:03, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Cracroft's lists the creation as "Baron Campbell, of St Andrews in the County of Fife". Burke's also calls the current holder "The Lord Stratheden and Campbell". The London Gazette also has the shorter version: The Queen has been pleased to direct letters patent to be passed under the Great Seal, granting the dignity of a Baron of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland unto Sir John Campbell, Knt. Her Majesty's Attorney General, and the heirs male of his body lawfully begotten, by the name, stile, and title of Baron Campbell, of St. Andrew's, in the county of Fife.Proteus(Talk)14:08, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm writing to inform you that we are now forming the first local Wikimedia Chapter in the United States: Wikimedia Pennsylvania. Our goals are to perform outreach and fundraising activities on behalf of the various Wikimedia projects. If you're interested in being a part of the chapter, or just want to know more, you can:
Thanks for your contribution to the resolution of the current editorial issues there. I hope, though, that you won't mind moving most of your comments to the "Discussion", and leaving only a brief version in the "Survey". If you like, just put "Support. See my comments in the Discussion." It is quite important, for sake of clarity, that the survey not become a debate arena, and you'll notice that Gbambino06/G2bambino promptly added a riposte right below your comments. If this sort of stuff goes on, the survey is liable to become as cluttered and tangled as the rest of the debate has gotten, largely defeating the survey's purpose, which is to separate out and make clear the relative levels of support and oppostion. If you'll just move your comments down to the discussion (leaving some brief statement instead), and Gbambino's response with them , that'll nip this problem in the bud, without any loss to anyone's contribution. Thanks for your (hoped-for) cooperation. -- Lonewolf BC04:11, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct about not putting a TfD warning on every page which uses these templates however could you explain what you mean in this edit summary by "So far as I can tell, it is not, in fact, being considered for deletion"? Is there something wrong with the way these templates have been nominated for deletion? Thanks Patleahy23:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I was wondering where you got that List of Monarchs of Carthage you created in 2004? It's very interesting, I've been looking for something like this for some time. Also, it would be nice to have a source cited in the article. Best, --91.148.159.401:02, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Novels WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XIV - July 2007
The July 2007 issue of the Novels 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.
Thank you for your input. Would you belive I cut and pasted the discussion in to MS Word and it was almost 12 pages long! It IS time for a solution. -- SECisek21:41, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your figures don't add up. In 1886, the seat count is 393, but your split figures of (316 + 78) add up to 394. In 1892 for a seat count of 313, 268 + 47 adds up to 315. The final one, 1900 does add up. Out of interest what is your source? The seat figures seem to add up nicely to 670 in all those elections around that time, which might suggest there is a slight error in the split count (possibly an overlap of those listed as Liberal when they should be in Liberal Unionist?). Mikebloke09:47, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The United Kingdom's ISO country code is GB and GBR, not UK. UK has joined Olympic Games as "Great Britain and (Northern) Ireland" (shortenly, just "Great Britain"), not the "United Kingdom". Why UK use "Great Britain" rather than the "United Kingdom" in these situations? It seems to me that there are some political reasons. Do you know the reason? ― 韓斌/Yes0song (談笑筆跡다지모)15:16, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think, that some day United Kingodom became a Republic of Great Britain (maybe soon), and definition "United Kingodom" will lose a sense. Great Britain is a definiton of nation, but "United Kingodom" is a definition of current political status.--User:212.98.173.133 20:21 01.08.2007 (UTC)
I know you had a complaint there as well, so I went to see if I could do any rewriting to improve it - as I hope I did at 39 Articles. I am very sorry, but the text you removed is not Anglo-Catholic propaganda but one of the top three most important facts about the Church according to the Church's own "About us" Website: The Church of Ireland: About us
I added it back in along with point number two which was absent and cited accordingly. I do grant that there may be some degree of Anglo-Catholic POV here at Wikipedia, I suspect that is because of the wider POV of the communion at this point in history. Times are difficult in the Anglican world right now, as I am sure you know. Is it systemic bias that causes Erastianism to not have it its own artice? No, it probably is that nobody working on the Wikiproject has the desire, knowledge, or ability to write it. I know I don't. Why did the 39 Articles look the way it did? Easy, that how the Articles are taught today IF, and that is a big IF, IF they are taught at all. I am a convert to the Anglican Church and I have never once seen the 39 Articles in a religious sense. My only knowledge of them comes from my "History to 1688" days at a secular University.
Please don't accuse the confused of bad faith, edit where you feel it is needed and I will support you everywhere I can. Thank you for your interest in these articles. I believe your challenge has already improved the 39 Articles and, by way of additional research, my Cranmer pet-project as well. Thank you, again. -- SECisek22:55, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Like Fomenko, Poggio doesn't deserve that amount of attention. As I said to what's-his-face (who doesn't sign his posts), I'm not going to be writing much there from now on anyways. I think in the previous posts I made on the talk page (which probably amount to about 6 or 7 sheets of typed pages now) I got out most of my steam. Although it will be tempting to respond to them every once in a while, I think I'm done with them.--PericlesofAthens19:09, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is interesting... From looking at the first link I would tend to think that isn't an all-inclusive list, since it has a link at the top that says "Propose a new link." It makes me think it is only a list of churches with web sites known to the WCC. The second link looks more authoritative, but is copyright 2001. So I don't know what the best solution is, except maybe to note we don't know for sure if this list is all-inclusive or that we think it is as of 2001, etc. --MattWright (talk) 04:04, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Novels WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XV - August 2007
The August 2007 issue of the Novels 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 is an automated delivery by grafikbot14:12, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have discovered another issue: there are various articles on History of Poland and the Kingdom of Poland. Personally I think the existence of various articles on the Kindom of Poland superfluous and silly (and most do contain little more than lists of Kings, and identical template (with "fictional" establishment dates):
Dear John,
someone has reverted my moving Stephen Bathory. I have now requested the move, as suggested by the reverter. Maybe you can join in on the talk page.
I have also implement my "Kingdom" changes and hope they'll stand. Str1977(talk)22:40, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dear John, please do comment on Talk:Stefan_Batory. It seems urgent. Otherwise, the whole will get buried by a supposed lack of consensus just because of one single editor disagreeing for no particular reason. Str1977(talk)13:56, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
From Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles), am I correct in supposing that guidelines do not change even when there is 2 to 1 support in favour of a new suggestion? I feel morally inclined to edit new guidelines into the page, but am using my experience-harvested judgment not to (and that's besides the fact that changing the examples linked accordingly would result in red links, which would be rather silly). But no-one is saying anything, and no-one appears to be willing to do anything. Also, I made a suggestion on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Western clergy) about a way to guide titles in bishops articles (badly needed in my view), and likewise, not a response. I mean, as you know I am not a fan of the processes which have led to guidelines (this is Calgacus btw), and much of the time I get them quoted at me, these guidelines weren't designed with the specific matter in mind and are often completely inappropriate for the subject at hand, so I'm trying to work within the system. But this is not increasing my faith in it. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 02:38, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, John. I'd be pleased if you mulled it over. I'm going to be quite busy (and that's an understatement if ever there was one) until next Friday in any case. Changed my name btw because my profile was the second thing to come up on a google of "calgacus", and that began to bother me too much. All the best, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 13:00, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to restart the discussion, I'd continue to favor changing the rule (but only for major cities - I think the default should be "City, State," but that if it's clear that an American city is the primary use, we should move it to just "City").
Hi John, As a historian and as someone who has taken part in discussions on the Talk:India page, would you like to comment in the RfC here, about a content dispute in the History section of India. At issue is the question of what credit to apportion to whom in the Indian Freedom Movement. There are two statements, both long, so a first cursory read is advised. At your convenience. Fowler&fowler«Talk»12:41, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi john k, please, please help key an eye on Province of Bolzano-Bozen. We had a great group of editors (including yourself!) finally move this page to the multilingual provincial name, as cited in Brittanica (!!). Gryffindor is now having a hissy fit and saying this is the work of some "Italian" sham vote. [5] Gryffindor is going back and reverting edits in mass [6]. I've personally had enough of Gryffindor's abuses on Wikipedia. Please give advice on how we can have him investigated for the Administrative abuses he has been guilty of since 2005. Icsunonove05:08, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi John, thanks for the message. I know what Wiki's policy is on the matter, but outside of the main space I retain Anglicized spelling. There's a disclaimer on my page of the descendants. When you have the time to poke at it, just edit the page directly if you want, separating it into sections. Charles16:37, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! I thought you may be interested in joining WikiProject Dravidian civilizations. We work on creating, expanding and making general changes to Dravidian related articles. If you would be interested in joining feel free to visit the Participants Page! Thank You.
Hi. There has been a big debate over this policy. I think you have valuable experience that makes you an important interlocutor on this matter. I suggest you first go here for a very concise account, and then depending on how much time you have read over the WP:NOR policy and the edit conflicts that led to its being protected, or the last talk to be archived ... or just go straight to the talk page. If you have time Slrubenstein | Talk16:36, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The personal union between the UK and Hanover (1714-1837), I wish I'd thought of that (in my discussions with Loxley). Great example. GoodDay00:45, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Novels WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XVI - September 2007
The September 2007 issue of the Novels 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.
For the impressively immense work on European history rarely matched both within and outside the Wikipedia, I award John Kenney the Epic BarnstarPaxEquilibrium20:17, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The summer has passed (unless you live in the Southern Hemisphere), and for most people holidays are over. Therefore, it is time for work again. Not that work ever stops in Wikipedia, but I believe we can at last get over the stage when slow progress can be taken for granted. Like yourself, most members of WikiProject Succession Box Standardization have been away during most of the summer (and some of you have been away for much longer); this lack of contributors has almost led SBS activity to a standstill.
A couple of members have stayed, however, and things have greatly improved in the project. There is a renovated and functional main page; the talk page has organised archives and a dedicated page for archived proposals; the Guidelines page is in a very good shape and I am preparing a further set of guidelines to be proposed for adoption by the project and incorporation into the page; the Documentation page has been again updated and a potential restructuring is being planned; the Templates list is the operations centre for the ongoing removal of antiquated and redundant templates. The Offices page is the only one that has yet to be improved, but there is a proposal for that one as well. Even a new SBS navbox has been created and added to the project's pages, easing navigation between the different parts of the WikiProject, while shortcuts have been created for the three most basic pages.
And the project itself is not the only thing that has been improved; the headers system has been cleared up and rationalised during the last six months, and a new parameter system is being inserted into templates like s-new and s-vac in order to successfully adapt succession boxes to more tricky cases of succession without large, clumsy cells or redundant reasoning. S-hou has also been improved and /doc pages have been added to most of the headers' pages, as well as to many proper succession templates' ones.
Despite all these breakthroughs that have made SBS a better, more functional and more user-friendly WikiProject, things move excruciatingly slowly as far as the adoption of proposals and correction/improvement of succession boxes in the mainspace are concerned. As has been mentioned, this is due to the utter absence of all but two of its members. I completely understand that a few of them might be unwilling to resume work in SBS, and some of them might even have left Wikipedia altogether. However, we are certain that there are people intent to continue improving Wikipedia's succession boxes and helping others to do so as well. If you are one of them, please return. And even if you cannot help at the moment, but want to contribute at a later time, please let us know by renewing your membership. You can do that very easily by removing the asterisk next to your name in the member list in SBS's main page. The deadline is 31 October; members that do not renew their memberships until 23:59 of that day will be removed from the list, as these members will be assumed to have left the project for good.
SBS is a project highly capable of doing some serious work in Wikipedia. These potentials are seriously undermined by the unavailability of helpful hands. I hope you shall consider this message seriously before taking any decisions.
The October 2007 issue of the Novels 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.
I note you commenced this page. My view is the numbering is out. the 2nd Earl was denied the use of the title by the 1488 Act Recissory, but that was overturned retrospectively by the 1503 Act Revocatory. Burkes (1848), and Wood's version of Douglas (1813) give him as the second earl. Anderson (1867), whilst not affording him the actual title in his lifetime nevertheless counts him as second earl as is evident by subsequent earls. I'll see what i can do. For instance William the 8th is in fact the 9th. The numbering thereafter is correct. I shall see what I can do, but I don't know how to change the title pages. Can you assist here? Regards, David Lauder17:42, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I know you have not contributed recently to Genealogy wikia, but I came across your name while working on example articles that support fancy tabbed interfaces and multilingual articles eg [7] (particularly important for the nobility of normandy- they pretty much have to be at least english and french). I am not writing to solicit your active participation again, but I thought you might be interested in the direction we are going. Via Bot, I plan to move over large numbers of WP articles on European aristocrats, and have successfully done such runs on US presidents WP articles eg [8] that harvest the Infobox information for inclusion into our Info pages (a structured wiki approach to serve the strong need of data sharing in genalogical sites). We also copy the wp article for modification to a more family history perspective biographical treatment.
I'd like whatever opinion you can contribute on that harvesting operation for the English nobility, as I about to run those import real soon now. My user talk page on Genealogy wikia is here [9] Thanks Mak21:53, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very specifically, which Template:Infobox British Royalty fields specific to nobility should be moved over to genealogy? I don't want to junk up the data structure with fields that folks won't use, but for example I could put in reign dates, successor/ predecessor, coronation if there is any point in storing them dynamically. I don't expect there is much doubt/ controversy about when William I reigned, so it is kind of pointless to store them in more complicated way so that they can be changed quickly from a central place. But lesser known nobility- maybe some of this information does evolve over time. If so, then it makes sense to store them this way. I don't know the domain like you experts do- Anyway that is the specific request. Of course if you have any more general observations, those are welcome too. EG- content blindspots- "since you can bring over images from the WP article, then for gosh sakes pick up the images from commons and French wikipedia too- there are a ton of them not cat'ed on Commons and they are high quality." Mak22:40, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We are talking only Royalty because it appears there are no infoboxes for nobility on WP at this time. I will drop regent but otherwise will merge all the fields from british royalty and monarch and support them. Thanks for your input. Mak00:27, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey john k, it is well known he does not like the decision that was taken on the Province of Bolzano-Bozen page, but he has gone around removing my text from the various talk pages as well. I won't even try to warn him, I'd rather an Admin set him straight (yet again). He may not like what I bring up, but he can't go around and selectively edit my posts in the talk page. cheers, Icsunonove03:26, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, nevermind. He sent me threatening e-mails now. Pmanderson reported him at ANI, and somehow Future Perfect wants me topic banned from the T-AA pages. Gosh, nice to be back on Wikipedia! :-) Icsunonove08:44, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The November 2007 issue of the Novels 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.
User:Angusmclellan suggested I head over your way with this problem child. I was working on his brother, Hubert Walter, and created the page for him from his son's entry, which gave the title. However, after some more edits, and consulting the Complete Peerage, it appears that the title may not have existed. I fully admit to knowing very little about Irish affairs, especially the Normans in Ireland, but Angus suggested you might know more? Thanks in advance! Ealdgyth | Talk19:20, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, a little digging shows that Magna Carta in 1215 Magna Carta refers to "barons" but generally English peerage law uses baron as a title that is created by summons to Parliment. However, the WP article on Baron has more nuance. I just know generalist historian knowledge on this stuff, since I actually studied the Anglo Norman period and concentrate more on ecclesiastical matters. I'm inclined to think that with both DNB and CP saying that there was no barony of Butler, that we need to either go with Theobald Butler or Theobald Walter, and I have no idea which is more used in Irish history, honestly. Probably need to change Theobald's son too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ealdgyth (talk • contribs) 20:33, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You were interested in the naming of grand duchesses before, but the topic a while ago at WT:NC(NT) died down. I have reposted the topic with some simple choices of forms of names for grand duchesses by marriage. I think it's basically settled/agreed upon that grand duchesses by birth are titled Grand Duchess X Patronymic of Russia, with "Grand Duchess" dropped for queens consort. I only briefly mentioned the topic of regularizing the patronymics. I first want to regularize the titles of the articles. You can see the new topic by clicking the following link: WT:NC(NT)#Russian grand duchesses naming convention. Charles03:55, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi John;
Thank you for your thoughts on the Russian grand ducal naming. After this is dealt with, perhaps patronymics can be investigated. Until then, would you might taking a look at, and possibly voting for, the proposal on the naming of non-"Majesty" consorts? It is located not far above the Russian grand ducal naming segment at WT:NC(NT)#Proposal on consorts. Again, thanks. Charles03:31, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
MILHIST is currently going through an assessment drive of articles that were flagged by a bot as potentially being relevant to the project. This involves sorting through the results and marking those that aren't relevant, while assessing those that are if they haven't been already. Christian X of Denmark was one of the results that was flagged, which is why I took a look at it to see if it did fall within the scope of the project. I decided to add him to MILHIST on the basis of his role as a war leader during the German occupation. As to Denmark not being at war with Germany during World War II, wouldn't you think that an invasion and occupation by one country of another to constitute a state of war between the two, declared or not? --BrokenSphereMsg me16:47, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Our definitions of what constitutes a state of war between two countries seem to be in conflict here. My interpretation of "Denmark remained neutral from the outbreak of the war" is that it was neutral after September 1, 1939. However a German invasion and then Military occupation de facto made it a member of the Allies and it's included here: Allies of World War II#Dates on which independent states joined the Allies. It doesn't matter if the Danes resisted for a few hours or held out for weeks before falling in the case of France, as soon as the shooting started the two were at war regardless of whether or not it was declared. "Never declaring war on the Germans" means they couldn't get the declaration out since the invasion was so fast and they had then surrendered, so why would they then do so and make it harder for themselves with superior German armies on Danish soil? Denmark was hardly the only country during World War II that was attacked without any declaration of war. Its role during World War II also makes it tangential or peripheral - it was used as base for the invasion of Norway and we have articles of reasonable length like Occupation of Denmark and Danish resistance movement as well as more specific ones. Sure it wasn't as important a sphere of operations such as say France or Italy, but its smaller role hardly make it insignificant. --BrokenSphereMsg me18:18, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not a fan of banning 'registered users'. Though, I agree with G2's all are equal stance, I've decided (for the sake of ending the edit-wars) to go with a minimal usage (in this case a footnote), respecting the more common usage of British. Like UpDown, I'm just eager for the schism to end, that's all. As I've said earler, compromise is a Wiki-dirty word, but would you rather edit-wars? Obviously, I can't force anyone to compromise (nor do I assume to), I'm just asking for a truce from both sides (a happy ending). GoodDay (talk) 19:13, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that you didn't actually threaten a ban; you expressed that I should be banned. Hence, I said you're a hair-breadth away from violating policy. Your opinions, however, are noted. --G2bambino (talk) 15:43, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is it possible to exclude TharkunColl & G2bambino from the discussion? Their cat fighting is annoying. I ask this with a heavy heart, as I value both editors (they have more in common, then they would ever admit). GoodDay (talk) 17:29, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to butt in here, but I wanted to ask: would it be better if I just ignored him? That's an honest question, and I can do so if it's for the best and not interpreted as some kind of childish reaction. --G2bambino (talk) 17:39, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello JK. I'm getting the impression that Tharky may not accept British monarchy being moved (if the consensus calls for a move) & may cause disruptions over it. I'm hoping my fears are unfounded of course. Keeping my fingers crossed. GoodDay (talk) 21:28, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in a bit of a quagmire - the same since almost two years now - and would like to ask your seasoned advice.
To start with, my problem seems to be personal more than anything: we are very few - next to none, actually - to edit the Paris pages. In addition to making the content as informative as possible, I've done my best to make them concord to existing reference. Unfortunately there are a few contributors - one namely - that would like English readers to 'know' Paris in a 'grander' way, meaning that he/they try to make the city seem bigger than it is - I'm not sure of the motivation, but perhaps those concerned live in the suburbs. Paris may be backwards in some ways, but we can't pretend things are otherwise - if you remember the "Paris region" debate, I'm sure you get a precise picture.
The problem is that, to forward this agenda, a few have adopted an "international terminology" based on the American system that has never been used by any French institution, and this in spite of existing English translations published by the source of all demographic data - the very official French INSEE statistics institution. The problem with this is that, as few English readers really know what is or isn't in French demographics, the 'international terms' "sound good" to English-speaking those who don't know any better - worse still, one of those promoting this misuse makes it a point of contacting those who don't know any better when it comes time to vote for anything - In addition to using sock-puppets when even these can't be found in sufficient numbers.
So now we're in a vote that will most likely result in the passing of an inventive and unverifiable terminology - and the promotion of the same - that is not only WP:OR, but goes against every official source, even against the very documents cited as support for phrases with misplaced terminology.
What to do in this sort of case? Just let it go? Where can we go for an educated opinion - or at least one that will take into account the obvious facts presented to them? THEPROMENADER18:32, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, that is what I thought myself. What is the source text which asserts this claim of title transference, word for word? Don't worry, I can translate it myself--if it's in the Latin script. Thanks. 24.255.11.149 (talk) 07:52, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You may want to look at what is taking place on this, and I hope that you will. G2bambino is, I think, making moves which do not accord with what was agreed. See the latest commentary at Talk:Commonwealth realm and Talk:Royal Burial Ground, following from G's try at changing "Royal Burial Ground" so that its "British Royal Family" link leads instead to a section of "Commonwealth realm". -- Lonewolf BC22:21, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The December 2007 issue of the Novels 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.
I wonder what's next for royalty content. Will editors declare Juan Carlos I as becoming King of Spain in 1977 (when his father renounced his throne rights)? and will they have JC's father Juan, Count of Barcelona as King of Spain from 1941 to 1977? We must all be carful of rewriting history. GoodDay (talk) 17:55, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am *so* happy that our paths are intersecting on this, as I have great respect for your knowledge from previous debates. It's been awhile though, hasn't it! Last time was Polish monarchs, I think?
As a quick summary: PHG has been running me ragged with POV forks and (in my opinion) biased POV-pushing for months now. He's effectively trying to rewrite history, and has been escalating this to multiple articles. I've posted on multiple WikiProjects asking for help, but it's been really hard to get people commenting since it's such specific and relatively obscure history. And then even when I have gotten 4 or 5 editors into the page to comment and prove a consensus, PHG has continued to defy everyone, insisting that we don't have enough of a consensus to make a difference. It doesn't matter what kind of a talkpage consensus we get, PHG just keeps on reverting. And since he and I have been the only ones really editing the page, it's just been a stalemate.
I've been working my way through the steps of WP:DR, with little success: I've tried consensus-building, polite messages to PHG's talkpage, posts to ANI, requests for third-party comment, and even mediation, which was finally cancelled after about a month because of lack of movement. If at all possible, I'd rather avoid having to go to ArbCom about this, so if there's anything that you can think of to do, to help break the logjam, that would be awesome. :) I realize that the talkpage is confusing (especially because PHG is really good at starting multiple threads), but for a "nutshell" version, check here: User:Elonka/Mongol quickref.
The whole situation is a bit sad, because on many subjects, PHG is an amazing editor, has gotten a few articles to FA (though one was recently delisted after a long fight) and he's brilliant in terms of coming up with lots of high quality images. But on this "Franco-Mongol alliance" issue, he just refuses to back down or cooperate with other editors. :/ I hope you can stick around and help, because I think if we could just break the stalemate, the article could be gotten to FA status fairly easily! --Elonka08:44, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's a deeply disturbing situation, to know that we have an editor who's so good at making articles look well-sourced, that people are waving them through as FAs, even though they're full of crap. :/ That makes what PHG is doing especially dangerous to Wikipedia. I'm glad you can see his behavior for what it is. I may not have to file an ArbCom case after all! :) --Elonka18:36, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am not opposed to your idea, but I agree that one of the main sticking points, is simply a manpower issue. We just plain don't have the experts available to offer peer-review.
However, I think there's another solution. I think we need to make better procedures for dealing with tendentious editing. Right now the policies are pretty toothless. We tell someone, "Don't do that," and if they're sloppy, maybe they get a 3RR warning, but then if they move on to other articles, they're hard to track if they move into another field.
So my feeling is that we need to be more aggressive about identifying editors who engage in POV-pushing, and that we need to just plain block them from Wikipedia, even if they have proven to be useful in other subject areas. We have pretty clear policies on civility and NPA and sockpuppetry, but when it comes to the concept of an editor lying, misrepresenting sources, or adding false information, it's very rare that I see administrator action taken. Getting rid of such a problem editor usually requires months of bureaucracy, consuming dozens of hours of time from "good" editors to deal with a single bad one. I'd prefer if the offense of tendentious editing got bumped up the priority chain: If someone's here on Wikipedia and they're editing tendentiously and refusing to abide by consensus, we can only assume good faith for so long, and then we just need to get rid of them, to keep them from wasting the time of all the other overworked editors who are willing to work in a cooperative manner. --Elonka23:19, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've been giving that a lot of thought as well, so let me ramble a bit here: Mostly I think it's WP:OWN-related. He takes enormous pride in "his" articles, and sees contributions of others as somehow decreasing their quality. He also takes special pride in his FA articles. During my recent RfA, which he opposed with great venom (even being blocked for it[11]), he tried adding FA stars to his signature to give his voice more weight.
There may be some French nationalism going on. At a couple points in the debate, PHG has dropped comments about how French historians are more likely to know the truth about the Crusades, than historians from other countries.
I also have to wonder if there's simply some run-of-the-mill obsessive thought processes at work. There were times where he was watchdogging the "alliance" article nearly 24/7. I was trying to find times to edit when he was asleep (since he was often reverting me within minutes), but I checked his contribs, and he just plain wasn't sleeping. He was getting so obsessive about reverting me, he even reverted when I tried to archive the talkpage.
I could speculate further as to whether this ties into some sort of Freemasonry connection, or fan worship of Jacques de Molay or the Knights Templar, but that may simply be because that's how I first heard about his activities. My attention was first drawn to this situation in August, when I saw that PHG added a large chunk of (seemingly well-sourced) information to the Templar article, about the Mongols working in concert with the Knights Templar to conquer Jerusalem.[12] At first I accepted it since I was in a hurry and it looked well-sourced (I was traveling at the time), but when I took more time to do fact-checking, I got more and more concerned, as I saw this claim about a "surprise attack" on Jerusalem, and how Jacques de Molay had been "left alone" in Jerusalem to re-fortify the city. It was a major rewriting of history! Then I traced backwards and found the "alliance" article, which was already up for FA (only two weeks after creation).
At the time, I'd never heard of PHG, and neither had any of my contacts. His userpage looked legit, so I assumed that he was just one of those quiet editors who churns out a lot of good work in obscurity. So I at first treated him with great courtesy, but as he's proven completely resistant to nearly every comment I have, things have escalated.
Ever since then, as more and more challenges are coming up about his work, I've gotten the impression that he feels that he's fighting some sort of "retreat" action, trying to defend his pride. When it's pointed out that he's wrong about something, rather than just accepting that he got something wrong and moving on, his brain starts twisting sources into pretzels, to try to prove that he wasn't wrong, he just had an "alternate view." He also seems incapable of admitting that something is even a minority view. His main defense, as you've been seeing, is to claim that all sources need to be given equal weight, even if they're primary sources from hundreds of years ago. He even argues that Templar of Tyre is a "reliable secondary source." :/
As for the "was there an alliance" issue, my own position has been that the mainstream view of historians is that there were "attempts" at an alliance, but that there's a small minority view which argues that an alliance actually occurred. PHG, however, can't even acknowledge that it's a minority view, and wants to give it top placement in the article.
Something else that we may need to be concerned about, is that he's pouring a lot of images into the mix, with very questionable sourcing. For example, this image that PHG recently uploaded is obviously from the cover of Peter Jackson's book Mongols and the West[13] (he even cropped it so as not to include the title and author name, see here for an original), but PHG didn't bother listing the source when he uploaded the image. And he's been uploading a lot of images. It appears that he's picking up history books, and then just working his way straight through the book, scanning in every historical image, without saying where he got it. :/ The legality of this is ambiguous. In some countries, it's legal to make copies of public domain art. In others, such as the UK, it's not.[14]
Getting back to the alliance article though, I've been wracking my brain to try and come up with a way to find a peaceful solution. But what I keep coming back to, is that PHG is just going to have to start acknowledging talkpage consensus, and if not, he's going to have to be removed from the article by force. :/
Have you had an opportunity to review the " Introduction sentence" thread? I'd like to get the intro sentence of the article squared away, but every time I try to change it (even though we have consensus for wording at talk), PHG just reverts me. If you agree with the wording though, then we might be able to use that one sentence as a clear sample case for "talkpage consensus must be respected." Then if we can get the lead of the article resolved, changes to the rest might be easier.
We may also wish to continue this discussion on PHG's talkpage, to try and emphasize the seriousness of the situation? --Elonka08:16, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi guys, I just wanted to say that I am still willing to help out here as much as I can. It probably won't be much...this week was probably the last time I'll have random free moments for awhile. But I do think that what PHG is doing is very damaging...it's unfortunate, because if he was a student it would be easy to point him in the right directions. I'm not sure what to do with him here though. Adam Bishop (talk) 05:15, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:DR, we should try messages on his talkpage. I've already done this (multiple times). Perhaps if you attempted as well, to make it clear that his behavior is not acceptable? Talkpage messages can have considerable weight. --Elonka05:51, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've been in a rather intense relationship with User:Elonka for a few months now. Things started back in August 2007 when I began to study the area of the Franco-Mongol alliance, creating the article and most of its content. A great subject, which is very much in sync with my general interest for cultural interaction thoughout history. I do like this kind of obscure, but totally fascinating, instances of cultural interaction (see also Indo-Greeks, Boshin War, Hasekura Tsunenaga etc...).
The subject seems to be contentious with some users however, and I soon entered into heated discussions with Elonka whether there was actually an alliance or not and other details. She first tried to have the article renamed, but failed (here). Despite the quantity of authors who specifically described this alliance (here), she kept arguing that the view was "fringe" and did not deserve balanced representation with the alternative view ("only attempts at an alliance"...). She then tried quite violently to discredit me through the Administrator notice board, but again failed (here), thanks to several users who spoke up for me. I responded by pointing out her behaviour (here), without asking for punitive action. Actually her actions in relation to this article generated many of the Opposes in her recent nomination as Admin (here). She still spends a huge amount of time leaving enormous diatribes against me on various Talk Pages and User Pages (A recent example). I even had to file a claim for harassment (here). Besides, I'm glad I'm not the only one: Elonka has a huge history of dubious disputes and litigations with many other contributors as well (an example).
What the heck? I'm here to share knowledge and contribute fascinating, referenced, stuff about ancient history and cultural interaction, and I must say I am not at all interested in Wikipedia politics or lobbying day long against specific users. Best regards to all and Long Live Wikipedia! PHG (talk) 06:06, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
When you have time, please drop by Karl Marx and review recent edits by TelAviv (and Vision Quest to a much lesser extent). I have added content to restore NPOV but more work is needed. Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk16:06, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm relatively new to this article, but I'm getting the sense that something very wrong is going on there. The idea of presenting a description of this fallacious view of history, with appropriate rebuttals, seems to be a valid encyclopedic activity -- it serves as a warning to those who might be taken in by it. Unfortunately, as you are better aware than I, there are advocates of the New Chronology who are trying to sell it as the truth. And sell it may be the correct term, as the Russian Astronomer, Michael Gorodetsky, recently (6 Dec 2007) said on the History of Astronomy Discussion List (HASTRO-L):
Fomenko is a respectful scientist in mathematics, though not unequivocally (see the devastating review of one of his books by Almgren). Moreover he is a member of the Russian academy of Science. But in history he is definitely a pseudo-scientist with all characteristic features of pseudoscientific activity. And his activity in history was claimed pseudoscience by the same academy. Just as an example - he with his coauthor has published in Russia more than 60(!) books for wide audience on New Chronology. Today it is even not pseudoscience but commercial enterprise. It looks he decided now to earn in wider American market.
Gorodetsky's comments made me sensitive to the spam-like qualities of the article, with links to advertising sites and a large image of Fomenko's books (since removed).
The main advocates of the New Chronology appear to be closely related to each other and to the publisher. They are:
and anonymous editor(s) who edit from NW France using a block of randomly assigned Wanadoo addresses in the range 81.xxx.xxx.xxx to 86.xxx.xxx.xxx). Sometimes addresses in this range have signed their postings Poggio[15] or Franck Ver Stut[16], suggesting a close relationship among the Poggios, Franck Ver Stut, and the anonymous editors).
Here's my take on what the advocates of Fomenko's New Chronology have been doing:
Poggio Bracciolini has added links to advertising videos (described below) to the list of links in this article[17] and in the related article Anatoly Fomenko.[18]
Various advocates of the New Chronology have engaged in extensive defenses of the ideas of the New Chronology and attacks on its critics, peppered with occasional sarcastic comments on other editors.[19]
In the past, Franck Ver Stut had developed a fork known as New chronology fomenko, apparently with the intention of providing a space for advocacy of the ideas of the New Chronology.
What we are seeing on Wikipedia may be related to the wider use of the internet to advertise Fomenko's books. On YouTube a French user named mithec has posted over 100 short videos that are ads linking Fomenko's new chronology to a wide range of searchable topics, and providing price, web address, and toll free telephone number. A few of them have French titles despite their English language narration. These appear to be connected to the publisher since the name Mithec also appears in the web address of the publisher on the copyright page of History: Fiction or Science?, http://history.mithec.com; Mithec Distribution Services is the name of the US distributor; and Mithec is listed on Amazon.de as the publisher.
If the French editor(s) on Wikipedia are closely related to the French Mithec on YouTube, we have an unacceptable conflict of interest that needs to be monitored carefully. Since Poggio seems to be away for the holidays, any advice on how best to proceed on his return would be welcome. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 05:07, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
John,
Thanks for the suggestion. I'd already removed the linkspam and posted the appropriate warning message on Poggio Bracciolini's talk page. I plan to wait until after the New Year to see how they react. If things run smoothly, fine; if things turn nasty, I'm thinking of turning to some more formal route (arbitratrion or WP:AN/I). If you have time, I'd like to run a draft past you to draw on your experience before I submit it. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 14:26, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I moved it back because there is a board game called Origins of World War II which would really muddle things. I recently branched out to Origins of the Franco-Prussian War, and noticed it right away.
I am just upset that the article is not in a good state the way it is (a mess of unsourced material and red links), and then you change the title and assume it would be accepted based upon the word chosen by a couple of authors who wrote a specific book, as if their selection is the best one because they created it first and others used it.
I'm trying my best to improve these articles and use the best possible sources- I would think that it would be the single most important thing to do before concerning ourselves with titles. I would hate for a teenager to read something totally off-base and incorrect on here and take it as gospel rather than think 'Causes' is better than 'Origins'. Do you understand my frustration? Monsieurdlmon talk-mon contribs
13:22, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
I never would have gotten involved had I looked to see how other "Causes of" articles are formatted- right now, I'm trying to improve both Franco-Prussian War and the new Causes of the Franco-Prussian War (a branch article suggested to me by the head of the Military Wikiproject) to an FA status. I wish I had time to improve every single one, but I don't. All I wanted was more help on improving articles, and I haven't commented further on the title because like I said it isn't worth fighting for. Have you ever had a bad week? This week has been particularly brutal- maybe that is why everything seems so complicated and frustrating to me. Monsieurdlmon talk-mon contribs
John, a similar message I sent to Srnec. I noticed Sanders moved (without any discussion I can see) a bunch of the pre-Holy Roman Empire neo-Roman emperors. E.g. Lambert II of Spoleto is now Lambert, Holy Roman Emperor, &c. I think this is ridiculously unnecessary, and I would normally just move them back, but am I gonna be the only one objecting to these new names? I don't wanna waste any more of my time on that kind of thing. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 06:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Novels WikiProject Newsletter - Issue XX - January 2008
The January 2008 issue of the Novels 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.
Dear John, I have run into another conflict with Michaelsanders. Could you please comment on the situation. The dispute is about the following:
should the German Kings William of Holland, Richard of Cornwall, Alfonso of Castile should be treated as all Kings in succession boxes or should they have special "title in pretence" boxes? (The "pretence" seems somewhat fitting only in the case of Alfonso, but even he has a place among German Kings IMHO.)
in these succession box, should the factual succession of Conrad IV - William of Holland - Richard of Cornwall (opposed by Alfonso) - Rudolph be maintained or should Conrad IV be followed "vacant and eventually Rudolph"?
Also, should Alfonso (retire 1275, died 1282) be followed by Albert I because Albert was (for a short while) the next anti-king?
Contrary to what Sanders claims, this is not about writing the Interegnum out of history but about retaining the actually existing sucession. William was unopposed as German King for two years, 1254-56 and was de facto succesor to Conrad IV - not Rudolph twenty years later. Rudolph himself was elected in succession to Richard. Richard is clearly labelled German King by the Lexikon des Mittelalters, so Sanders' claims that historians never call these rulers proper Kings is clearly mistaken.
On a lesser, less urgent field:
Should there be separate succession boxes for Consorts of the Spanish Netherlands, when the women in question were actually Consorts of the Spanish Kingdom and only as such Consorts of the Netherlands.
Thanks for your quick reply. Could you also try to break it down to Mr Sanders. To me he doesn't listen on that topic.
I totally agree with you on Alfonso - he is the one case where I would consider using the prentense box though not to the effect that he had no immediate successor. But even in his case I wouldn't cheer for such a move, with the others it is absolutely out of the question.
I have never heard that Alexander crowned Richard and think it very unlikely. However, I will look this up when I find the time. (The Catholic Encyclopedia only says that he supported Richard [20], Bautz says no more [21].
Yes, the box for William is tricky ... but I am sure I will find a way out. Actually, I think the current version works: his predecessor is "Heinrich Raspe (as anti-king)" but in his title it is mentioned that he was "anti-king against Conrad IV until 1254" ... so both are mentioned.
Hi John. Ages ago, in June 2006, you asked if "Is the second Marcus Livius Drusus the same as the maternal uncle of Cato the Younger whose name there links to this article?"
Hiya John, do you have a source for your claim that the style Prince/ss X of Wales wasn't used until Albert Victor? DBD18:33, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hiya, hope your holidays went well. :) FYI, I'm trying to take another run at the Franco-Mongol alliance article. If you have time to participate at talk, it would be much appreciated. Active threads are "Introduction sentence" and "Article title". Thanks, Elonka01:57, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, my apologies for nit-picking at the article title. Really, I'm fine on the title "Crusader-Mongol relations". :) I think I was just quibbling because we were recently discussing the "Who is or isn't a Crusader" at Saint Louis University, and debating finer points such as how much action someone needed to take before they could be considered a Crusader, and this overflowed into things like whether or not Armenian and Georgian combatants were Crusaders or not. For example, we've already established that Armenians aren't Franks, though there were definite Frankish elements there. But again, it's just a very minor quibble, please don't let it derail the larger discussion. :) If you want, I'll retract my statement. --Elonka23:08, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that 75.84.230.67 needs to talk to someone in the real world about what he is feeling. I would suggest limiting our responses when he provokes us. Is there anyway to get him some help?Werchovsky (talk) 01:29, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I got your message. I have been trying to respond briefly and courteously recently, but that does not seem to work. Neither does hitting him over the head. I think we ought to try ignoring him except in regard to specific edits or plans to edit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Werchovsky (talk • contribs) 23:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't you have anything better to do than criticizing me for calling someone a troll because they want to insert allegations that Bill Clinton supports scientology into his article? He is a troll. A trolling troll of a troll. Troll troll troll. Maybe he contributes usefully on other subjects, but he's trolling there. I suppose I will leave open the possibility that he is a crank, rather than a troll, if you'd like. john k (talk) 04:49, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, just wow. I presumed a fellow administrator would know a better way to solve a content dispute, but obviously not. discuss edits in an amicable manner, the way you have done it it not how we go about these things. I'm shocked that you continue the attacks here. Please be aware that I will block you should you continue this behaviour. Ryan Postlethwaite05:03, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ryan, making threats to people for disagreeing with you is unproductive. John did the right thing, per the essay you linked to. When someone is trolling, the best advice you can give is "don't feed the troll". Of course, I think calling Farenheit451 a troll is overly generous - he's engaging in personal attacks and editing in a disruptive manner. He deserves a block. If anything, your threat of a block is the problem behaviour here - it's not at all civil, and it's a threat to abuse the privileges that the community has extended to you. Threats and bullying are never acceptable. Please refrain from doing so in the future. You should know better. Guettarda (talk) 05:48, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
John, you are correct in wondering what I was talking about. I was thinking it was Casimir 'The Great'. Please accept my apologies. I have amended my comments. Regards, David Lauder (talk) 20:19, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Another editor has added the "{{prod}}" template to the article King of Babylon, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 22:59, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Novels WikiProject Newsletter - Issue XXI - February 2008
The February 2008 issue of the Novels 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.
Thanks for bringing a neutral opinion to this fiasco. As you can see, the situation is yet unresolved. What is the next step I should take? I've managed to stay away from this sort of thing in the past, so my knowledge of dispute resoultion is slight. Coemgenus16:57, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just wanted to make you aware that Frania W. has employed similar dirty tactics (i.e. lies about me - Petit souri - and my work) on the French Wikipedia also, to have my dissenting POV's deleted and my account banned. For more on this, please, see this message. Lil' mouse 3 (talk) 22:38, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
John, I would really appreciate your input on the Talk page in the RFC section. Coemgenus is trying to shut down ongoing negotiations for a compromise by repeatedly instituting a Poll, breaching three WP rules (Negotiation, Consensus, and AGF). I don't think, given these violations and his partiality, that he should be the referee on whether or not a Poll is waranted at this stage. Thank you very much in advance! Lil' mouse 3 (talk) 15:10, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for commenting on my naming proposal for Russian grand duchesses! I am wondering want your preferences for patronymics are. At the end of my proposal is a chart of patronymics. If you have any questions, comments, concerns or suggestions, please feel free to mention them on the proposal talk page. I know patronymics is where opinions differ at times in this sort of discussion and I am interested in any and all suggestions as to which ones we should use. I, personally, am most interested in ones which appear "English" in form because I find transliterations closest to the most Russian form have many different spellings. Charles20:28, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
First, I want to thank you about your contributions, especially Major religious groups (its Talk Page). So now, in Religion in China has had controversies between me and Saimdusan (strong anti-Buddhism and Chinese religions). Please give us your opinions and let people know more about the truth of Asian culture. It's really needed!
The March 2008 issue of the Novels 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 is an automated delivery by KevinalewisBot --16:53, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
An election has been proposed and has been set up for this project. Description of the roles etc., can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/Coordinators. If you wish to stand, enter your candidacy before the end of March and ask your questions of anyone already standing at Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/Coordinators/May 2008. Voting will start on the 1st April and close at the end of April. The intention is for the appointments to last from May - November 2008. For other details check out the pages or ask. KevinalewisBot (talk) 13:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
John, would you care to comment on two issues? The first is whether Vladimir Lenin ought to be moved to Lenin, on the grounds that he never called himself Vladimir Lenin (see debate at the article's Talk page). The second is whether de Gaulle and the Free French did or did not claim to be the government of France in 1940 or at any time before 1944. I say they didn't. This is being debated at the article's Talk page. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 13:06, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This Arbitration case is closed and the final decision has been published at the link above. PHG (talk·contribs) is prohibited from editing articles relating to medieval or ancient history for a period of one year. He is permitted to make suggestions on talk pages, provided that he interacts with other editors in a civil fashion. PHG is reminded that in contributing to Wikipedia (including his talkpage contributions, contributions in other subject-matter areas, and contributions after the one-year editing restriction has expired), it is important that all sourced edits must fairly and accurately reflect the content of the cited work taken as a whole. PHG is also reminded that Wikipedia is a collaborative project and it is essential that all editors work towards compromise and a neutral point of view in a good-faith fashion. When one editor finds themselves at odds with most other editors on a topic, it can be disruptive to continue repeating the same argument. After suggestions have been properly considered and debated, and possible options considered, if a consensus is clear, the collegial and cooperative thing to do is to acknowledge the consensus, and move on to other debates.
PHG is encouraged to continue contributing to Wikipedia and Wikimedia projects in other ways, including by suggesting topics for articles, making well-sourced suggestions on talkpages, and continuing to contribute free-content images to Wikimedia Commons.
John as you see Rama maintains his stubborn refusal to allow the references to the Free French being a "government in exile" to be removed. I can't cite chapter and verse on this since my books are in storage while I am preparing to travel, but you know as well as I do that his position is false, and that the article as it stands is ridiculous. Since you are an administrator and I am not, and since I have neither the desire nor the time to engage in a long edit war with Rama, I will have to leave it with you to find a solution to this problem, and to impose it. Regards Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 04:13, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have now presented documentary sources on this issue. If I now revert the article to the form in which I re-wrote it, will you support that move and stop me being blocked under 3R if Rama starts a revert war? If you won't do this, I will not make the revert, and the article will stay incorrect. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 01:45, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Let me invite you to take a look at the article on Montgomery County, MD, specifically the section on the county's government. Also, take a look at the discussion. I found the answers to the question you raised. (A big chunk of the story was left out, and the beginning and the end were telescoped together.) I've made changes, but I'm not familiar with ways of citing information. But I think I've explained clearly in the discussion where I got everything. 71.163.37.245 (talk) 17:36, 22 March 2008 (UTC)Stephen Kosciesza[reply]
Thanks for uploading Image:TX28 110.gif. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.
As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
Are you going to do something about this, as you said you would? If not, I will take the article off my watchlist and it can stay as absurdly wrong as it is, thanks to the stubborn ignorance of one person - a typical Wikipedia outcome. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 08:40, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding my proposal at the above linked location, what patronymics do you think are best? There is a chart handy at the page. I am going to bring the grand duchesses up for a move shortly. Charles21:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any opinions on Constantinova/Konstantinova? I aimed for forms I thought to be as "English" as possible to avoid issues of which transliterated Russian forms to use. After I hear back from you I will make the changes you suggested and then just ask for your vote in agreement so it all goes without a hitch. Thanks! Charles21:36, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Last question before I create the survey, what about Cyrillovna/Kirillovna? Sorry to have left that one out, but thanks again! Charles21:44, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I noticed that your edit to Thomas Jefferson did not include an edit summary. Please remember to use one for every edit, even minor ones. You can enable the wiki software to prompt you for one before making an edit by setting your user preferences (under Editing) to "Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary". Thanks, -MBK00422:24, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your ongoing involvement in this dispute is needed. I have again reverted, but that is the last time I will do so. Unless someone (such as you) intervenes to overrule Rama, I will abandon this article to its fate. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 09:15, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your intervention, which is what I was asking you to do and keep on doing. I have never yet seen mediation or arbitration work at Wikipedia on matters of fact, as opposed to matters of conduct. What is needed is for more well-informed people to weigh in and out-argue Rama and Med, and then regularly to revert them until they desist (or, if they don't desist, until they are blocked or the article is protected from them). In my experience that is the only way to win disputes against stubborn fools of this kind. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 09:34, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, since you object, I let this message stay. To John Kenney: This user doesn't seem to know how to edit Wikipedia. He gave me two vandalism warnings for a mistake I made and which I fixed, and spammed 7 users asking for their opinions before I could answer. Disregard this. Thanks a lot. Herunar (talk) 16:04, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article on Bangalore has yet again been moved to "Bengaluru". That move was done hastily and in disregard of the long-running controversy about it and past lack of consensus for it. (It has also been made irreversible by ordinary editors.) If your opinion is still that the article belongs at "Bangalore", please say so on the article's talkpage. -- Lonewolf BC (talk) 17:02, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The April 2008 issue of the Novels 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. John Carter (talk) 22:19, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While "member of congress" is more commonly used... Congressman is not an incorrect way to refer to a member of congress. Your edit summary makes it sound like congressman is incorrect. This is not the case. See Congressman for more details. Now if you had said "Member of congress is more commonly used" that would've been less argumentative. I have left your edit the way it stands on Whitten;s page... just wanted to point that out.--Dr who1975 (talk) 16:59, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. According to dictionary.com Congressman = a member of a congress, esp. of the U.S. House of Representatives.
I made a proposal on House of Aragon to split the article [24], summarized more concisely on my next comment [25]. I have proposed to the active editors there to agree to it avoid editwarring. As you can see, my position has changed a lot since 2006, and is probably nearer to the one you proposed. Can you weight in on the talk page on wheter it's a an adecuate proposal? --Enric Naval (talk) 19:14, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The May 2008 issue of the Novels 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. SteveCrossinBot (talk) 08:03, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think it quite strange that I and another editor are suddenly implicated into an ArbCom case neither of us had a part and which was on a range of articles (Israeli-Palestianian conflict) that our dispute (Banu Qurayza) has nothing to do with.
The June 2008 issue of the Novels 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. SteveBot(owner)02:31, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You added that USF is a Jesuit school. I agree and have outlined an argument for why it should be there. the user Usfcastudent keeps reverting it without providing an explanation or justification. I had added extensive comments for why I think it belongs on the discussion page he refuses to comment there, just continues to revert the article, what should I do. I don't like giving in on a point without discussion, but it is becoming a reversion war.--Mitamarine (talk) 19:18, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe either yourself or somebody you're aware might be able to double check this. If you check this photograph and the description from the LofC, it identifies the two people as Marie and Carol of Romania. Carol was born in 1893 and Marie was born in 1900, but those children do not remotely look like they are seven years apart in age. Just a suggestion, but far more likely candidate for the little girl is Elizabeth, their sister, who was born in 1894. Maybe you might shed some light on the matter. Isis Simone (talk) 19:14, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I was just wondering if you know when the Babylonian king invaded Media if he ever did, because sources say he invaded in 560 or 559, and was wounded in the battle, which is the same year Cyrus the Great came to the throne, which is unusual, because he had to do something amazing, because he was not yet 20, but 17. It is usually when they are 20 when they come to the throne, but I think the son of the Babylonian king, as said by Xenophon when invading Media and lost, was because Cyrus was really brave in the battle, as said again by Xenophon. And we know that Amels father was still alive, which would make Amel SON of the Babylonian king. So sorry if this is getting to long, but I think by solving the mystery of who attacked Media, we could know when Cyrus was born, which is another mystery too, because Xenophon says Cyrus was 15 to 16 years of age. So finally, my main question is that WHY do historians consider MOSTLY that it was Amel and not another Babylonian king, becuase other sources say Cyrus may have been born in 600, so they place the invasion in 585 or 584 which would make the king some other one, other than Amel, and that the 585 king was never in a invasion, that would prove it was then Amel. But because I THINK that you might be an expert on the subject, as to which king, either Amel or someone else which the name escapes now, was that invaded Media. And that because I also don't trust the ridiculus dates put by the religous historians of the Torah, though I don't have anything against the religion, and I consider some of their dates important, I think that Amel did not riegn more than two to three years too. So if you can just give a little commenting response to my question I will greatly appreciate it, coming from a proffessor. And by your response, I will hopefully be taken more seriously by other users of Wikipedia, for this battle article which I am to create, Battle of the Median Fort. I thank you.--Ariobarza (talk) 05:55, 6 September 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk[reply]
Though it is considered an romance, it provides allot of historical info in the middle of the book, on Cyrus' tactics, numbers, and in the first part WHEN a the small raid or invasion happened which the Babylonian king caused. So TOMMOROW you will see the sourceS, for now I have to go, thanks.--Ariobarza (talk) 23:26, 6 September 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk[reply]
I'd be happy to support a merger. The last time I tried merging this I ran into what I considered to be a religuious zealot who was desperate to separate the archeological/historial Uruk article from the Biblican Erech. In the end I found I didn't have historical source I needed to prove Erech and Uruk are the same place, only the conventional assumption they are, so I left the articles separate. Mdw0 (talk) 23:35, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WikiProject Novels is currently holding a roll call, which we hope to have annually. Your username is listed on the members list, but we are unsure as to which editors are still active within the project. If you still consider yourself an active WP:Novels editor, please add your name back to the Active Members list. Also feel free to join any of our task forces and take a look at the project's Job Centre to get involved!
The members list is currently under review so we have moved all past active member's name to a Incumbent List and are doing a Project Roll Call. If you still consider yourself an active WP:NOVELS editor, please add your name back to the Active Members List. You may also wish to add your name to any of our many Project Task Forces.
Devil May Care, written by Sebastian Faulks ("writing as Ian Fleming"), has become Penguin Books fastest selling hardcover fiction title. It is the latest installment in the book series about British secret agent James Bond and was released to coincide with the 100th anniversary of late Bond creator Ian Fleming's birthday on May 28, 1908.
Me Cheeta: the Autobiography, written by a ghostwriter, is the autobiography of Cheeta the Chimp who is listed in the Guinness World Records as the oldest recorded non-human primate at the age of 76. He has appeared in various movie roles which included twelve Tarzan movies and even battled addiction to alcohol and cigars. The book is not published until October 1, but judges for the 2008 Guardian First Book Award were sent a early version and were so impressed that they have included it on the 10-strong longlist.
Stephenie Meyer, who is listed by Time magazine as one of its 100 most influential people of 2008, has decided not to continue with writing her draft for Midnight Sun after 12 chapters of the unfinished manuscript were leaked on the internet.
Current debates
Categories for Discussion has a series of discussions about whether to categorize certain specific types of fictional characters: double agents, dictators, characters with eidetic memory, etc. Advice from any Novels project members would be valuable in assisting them.
WikiProject Media franchises aims to help editors with the coordination of articles within the thousands of media franchises which exist and has requested input from our members. They are currently discussing a naming convention for franchise articles. Since this may affect one or more articles in our Novel project, they would like to get opinions before implimenting any changes.
With the Newsletter being almost three months overdue, I have decided to take on the position of Editor to make sure it reaches you regularly on time each month. The Newsletter is meant to inspire and encourage our team of Editors and so my goal shall be to make it informative and interesting each issue.
We now have many positions vacant in our Project Team, so we are looking for members who have the time and interest to take on the various roles, details of which can be found at the Job Centre. Shortly a Coordinator nominations notice shall also be sent out to all members, which will commence the annual Coordinator selection process.
Next month's Newsletter will include a message from our Coordinator Maria, who will introduce herself and speak on our forthcoming elections for extra Coordinators.
This month's Collaboration has been selected by popular vote and is Look Homeward, Angel. The next collaboration is due for selection on 14 September, 2008 so cast your vote.
Newsletter challenge
Our last newsletter's challenge The Pure Land was completed by our member Maclean25, who also provided us with tipline news for this newsletter.
The first person to start the article is mentioned in the next newsletter. This month's article is Leslie Ann Moore's first book in her fantasy 'Griffin's Daughter' trilogy, which was named by the Independent Book Publishers Association as the 2008 Ben Franklin Award winner for Best First Fiction, Griffin's Daughter. Note: This article was previously deleted due to lack of notability, but that now can be established since winning this award.
To unsubscribe from further issues of this newsletter please remove your name from here.
Hi, John Kenney, I wanted to reply in more detail than an edit summary would provide. Per WP:UNLINKDATES, "dates purely for the purpose of autoformatting is now deprecated". This is a relatively new change to the MOS, which is guideline. That "functions provided by these tools nonetheless remain available" is based solely upon an essay, and is neither guideline nor policy. As it stands now, date linking has more disadvantages than advantages, which is why it's depreciated and why most GAs/FAs are being purged of them by bots and users acting alone. Three out of four of my FAs have had all of their autolinked dates removed by Tony1 and his bot (the other one had its autoformatting removed during the FAC process on the urging of other users), so understand that this is a Wikipedia-wide action. On a side note, your recent edit included the linking of lone years, which has never been condoned by the MOS; it's always been depreciated, while the full date formatting is brand spanking new. I hope this helps clear things up. Take care, María(habla conmigo) 12:10, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're misunderstanding the terms. Linking full dates causes autoformatting, and because autoformatting is now depreciated for various reasons that can be read here, linking full dates is also depreciated. Linking single years has always been an MOS no-no, but I can't exactly tell you why; from what I gather it's mainly due to WP:OVERLINK -- see Wikipedia:OVERLINK#Dates especially. I did not say that UNLINKDATES was policy, so I'm not sure what you mean. The MOS is composed of style guidelines, but articles of higher quality (like the Crane article) tend to follow them more closely because of higher standards. I hope this makes sense. María(habla conmigo) 17:08, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The entire "overlinking" thing is a mystery to me, as well, so don't feel alone! I have a tendency to underlink, but there's always someone to point out that such-and-such term isn't common enough, so it needs a link, or [[1993]] is no good, but [[1993 in film|1993]] is okay according to revision 9.34 of the MOS, which is supported by 51% of the Wikipedia community, but consensus is that... sigh. As long as the articles I've worked on retain their awesomeness, I won't put up much fight, but sometimes I'm utterly confused. Sorry if I confused you as well. :) María(habla conmigo) 18:40, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Some important information of an historical nature
Hi, I just thought I would let you know that the only time I have ever laughed out loud while reading something on Wikipedia was when I read this. The article was utterly worthwhile also, and I couldn't believe nobody backed up your point that nowhere else contained the information about the description contained in the 2001 edition of the original article. By the way, I was led to all this by a meandering route that led from the "Incidents" noticeboard, somehow to a Village Pump proposal that discussed the differences between a sphere shaped wiki and a bowl shaped wiki (sphere was considered a good shape; bowl less good — don't ask), underneath of which somebody referenced the greatest ever article on Wikipedia. Thanks. BCST2001 (talk) 13:00, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nominations have now commenced for Coordinator Candidates for the Novels Project. Any member of the project may nominate themselves. Nominations close on October 27, so if you wish to run make sure you add your name before then. Details on the election process and the role of Coordinators can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/Coordinators/October 2008. The voting and question phase of the election will open on October 28 and end November 28.
After the recent roll call, the Novels Project now has 74 active members.
15 positions still remain unfilled at the Job Centre, members who are interested are encouraged to apply.
Yllosubmarine (talk·contribs) has been a member of the Novels WikiProject for nearly two years, and a coordinator since May. Aside from her work outside the project (including four FAs and six GAs in various areas), she has been active in the Project's Assessment and Peer Review departments. She hopes to continue in these roles as well as help encourage more activity and community research within the Project. With the upcoming coordinator election, she hopes that others will volunteer to become more active in their roles as Project members so that we can continue to provide quality articles to the readers of this encyclopedia.
On the advice of Coordinator Maria, the newsletter is now only distributed to active listed members of the Novels Project. A new section has started with this issue called 'In Focus', which will feature various members and task forces each month.
Members are requested to post any news items to the Tip Line (found above) to make sure it reaches the next newsletter before closing date, which is always the last day of the preceding month. Any task force news should be added by the coordinator of that task force. Having news items helps inform members of what is happening at the various task forces and so can be a way of encouraging more membership and participation.
Editors are required to assist with the newsletter for Task Force News and Peer Reviews & Assessments News, which involves the gathering of news items from the main project and the various task forces. These positions may be applied for at the Job Centre.
This month's Collaboration has been selected by popular vote and is : Steppenwolf (novel). The next collaboration is due for selection on 1 November, 2008 so cast your vote.
Hello, there is an updated debate regarding whether the Phillips and the Armstrong-Jones should be included in the Order of Precedence above the Gloucesters and Kents. Your view would be appreciated. Eddo 17:52 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Coordinators election voting and question time is now open. Project members should vote for any candidates they wish to support by November 28 at the Coordinator Elections. Yllosubmarine, aka Maria, has decided not to be reappointed, her work as sole Coordinator since the last elections in May is highly appreciated by all members of the project.
18 positions remain unfilled at the Job Centre. Members who are active project contributors are encouraged to apply even if they can only do a position for a short time.
– Position of editor for 'Task force news' is still available at the Job Centre.
Peer review and assessment news
Peer Reviews are still open for three articles – At Swim-Two-Birds, The Emberverse series & Flowers for Algernon. Feel free to submit any novel-related article that you are working on for review, and please consider stopping by and reviewing an article, as we need more reviewers for our articles!
– the_ed17 (talk), Editor – Peer review and assessment news
Member in Focus
Hi, I have been around this project for quite some time now. Bit of a hiatus earlier this year, but back now just contributing. The Novels WikiProject wasn't started by me but my interest in the subject initially attracted me to what was here. It has developed substantially in the last few years and now takes in all forms of Narrative Prose Fiction within its scope. We are about the content not the format of the prose so WP:Books differs a little in that an implied format is entailed; also they can also focus more clearly on non-fiction. WP:Literature are the "new boys on the block" and are a little more focused on the "quality" aspects of literature, and again they have less emphasis on pure fiction and the prose aspect. Our biggest problem is to maintain a certain focus of interest across such a broad subject area and we need workers who can develop task forces, teams for assessment, teams for peer review and so much more. "So much to do, so little time, I'm late, I'm late, I'm late" to misquote from Alice in Wonderland.
The featured listNarnian timeline has been nominated for removal. You can comment here. The Narnian timeline is a featured list, which means it has been identified as one of the best lists produced by the Wikipedia community.
As I shall be leaving Wikipedia, this will be my last newsletter. Any member who is interested in taking over the role of editor can sign up for the position at the Job Centre.
Over the last month I have been working on a portal for our project. So am happy to announce that the Novels Portal is now up and running.
Boylo: Thank you for getting this newsletter back on its feet and going again. No Boylo equals no Novels Portal...heck, without you, we wouldn't have had a newsletter for these past months...so, for all of the members of the Novels WikiProject, I want to thank you for the time and effort you have put into this project, and I wish you the best of luck in all of your future endeavors. Thanks, pal.
This month's Collaboration has been selected by popular vote and is : Novel. As this is our Project's premier article, all members are asked to assist. The next collaboration is due for selection on 21 November, 2008 so cast your vote.
Recently a new worklist had been created and quietly arrived, the Cleanup listing which gives a fairly comprehensive hit list of "novels" related articles that have been tagged for something or other.
Since then a new Article alerts listing has also been added of more topic and "urgent" items worthy of our attention.
Regarding your comments, the "Philadelphia Almanac and Citizens' Manual" stated that Old City's boundaries go up to Spring Garden Street, but the Redevelopment Area goes up to Vine. I noted the two separate definitions in the page. WhisperToMe (talk) 19:48, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
John, your comments [26] directed at Betacommand are inappropriate. Please comment on issues and content, and not the contributor. Whether or not Betacommand is "disingenuous" or whether he has ever argued for retaining an image is not relevant to the discussion. You're an administrator, so I'm sure you're well aware of WP:NPA. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 16:16, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see that back in 2004 you created List of Kings of Tyre, which was a useful thought. People have been very respectful and have left in place your basic list with its years assigned to the various kings. Someone has pointed out that these years no longer match the years assigned to the various kings that have their separate articles. This was true even before my recent editing that updated regnal years according to the work of Frank Moore Cross and other scholars.
Would you mind looking at that page again, and also at the updated individual articles? As it is, we have your original years, and then below my "Alternative to above list, Hiram to Pygmalion." I would like to consolidate this into one list. As it is, I have been unable to determine where you got those numbers. The dates for Hiram I are only 2 years different from the F. M. Moore dates, which are derived by assuming 825 BC for Dido's flight to found Carthage, but when we get down to Pygmalion (and Dido), you are using the 814 date. Also, there are no textual variants giving 34 years to Baal-Eser II, etc.
I propose that we update your dates, or, if you don't agree to that, that you provide the source from which you got them, which is currently not specified. Then the whole article won't be so confusing to the reader.
Hi John, there has been a lot of recent work on this article and it has changed quite a bit - if you have not, I hope you can take some time to look it over - my main concerns are insufficient historical contextualization, but also please see this discussion thread about the introduction. Best, Slrubenstein | Talk17:27, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading File:Hintze.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
Thanks for uploading File:Nevada counties.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
John, on 16 December 2008 I cautioned you regarding personal attacks. On 13 January 2009, you twice attacked another editor [28][29]. You're well aware of our civility policy, yet you are blatantly violating it. You've been an administrator for years. You've been on the project for more than six years now. There's no need for this, and I suspect you know it. Please, don't do this again. Please.
The requirements for images have evolved over the years. There's considerably stricter standards now than there were back when you started on the project. This has been necessitated by a flood of inappropriately uploaded images that are highly problematic. We've had to become more direct in our means of handling such cases. Even now, File:Nevada counties.jpgstill isn't properly sourced and your removal of the no source tag was inappropriate. Stating the source as "US...government" is entirely insufficient. There's no way to verify the copyright status of this image. The US government is a massive organization with hundreds of offices and departments. Verifying where this image came from and its copyright status is impossible with simply stating the source as "US government".
Please correct the sourcing so we have a means of verifying its copyright status and please avoid using the language you have been using in addressing other users.
I won’t explain here why I want this page to be renamed "Islom Karimov". I just want to apologize for my long silence.
Wikipedia is a drug, and I want to reduce my consumption. Those last times, when I logged in, I was taken by a great anxiety before I read my watchlist, fearing a new inappropriate change in an article I keep an eye on. Sometimes, new conflicts break out and I see with fear that I'll have to write very long discussions to convince other people that I’m right and that they're wrong — too often in vain. Sometimes, there is nothing new and then I’m disppointed in my boredom.
I must agree that — alas — when long discussions occur, the last result is the desertion of one party, independently of the (un)correctness of his argumentation. So I’ve decided to slow down my participation. I don’t participate anymore in English speaking Wikipedia in general and I strongly reduce my participation in French speaking Wikipedia.
But it’s easier to decide it than to do it. It’s hard to decide to renounce to defend ideas you once fiercly fought for. I fought for the idea of using the exact official name of people, as for Islom Karimov, for Gurbanguly Berdimuhammedow, for Emperor Shōwa, for Pope Stephen IX and for a lot of others. I can’t support the idea that the most commonly used name of a person is the best name to use because it’s the most commonly used. If it is the best name, it must be explained why it is, but the great number of people using it is not and can’t be a reason by itself. I’m ready to discuss every particular arguments for or against one form of a name, but I definitively refute the argument of the number. An encyclopedia can’t be based on most widespread ideas, but on established facts.
It’s doubtful I’ll again take part in this discussion on the English Wikipedia, but maybe I will. A new discussion means for me a new slavery: I’d have to keep an eye on it, to answer any argument and to be under stress. I’d prefer to avoid it.
Dear John, since you commented on this article before, may I ask to have a look now. I want to ensure that the proper and correct spelling of Habsburg is used in all non-fiction occurences referring to the Austrian dynasty but I am opposed on this article as well as on Talk:History of Gibraltar. Thanks, Str1977(talk)21:18, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Baron Atholstan, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Baron Atholstan provides no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent.
To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Baron Atholstan, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click hereCSDWarnBot (talk) 23:39, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
CfD nomination of Category:Secretaries of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs
As someone who has contributed to the Eugene O'Neill article, perhaps you would be willing to look at the (rather one-sided) discussion on that article's talk page regarding Emerson7's deletion of cited materials, Ah, Wilderness NOT O'Neill's only comedy. I would like to have a Request for Comment process initiated, but must have at least one other editor to have contributed to the discussion before an RfC can be started. Thank you. Monkeyzpop (talk) 21:02, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You must understand the party affiliation was extremely vague. It's almost impossible to have two sets of results that agree with each other for these elections.
I based my info on what was available on Roi-et-President at the time, and at the time they indicated Republicans. I think they changed it since. You must also understand that most of these pages were created quickly and I forgot to come back and check them for errors. --Petrovic-Njegos (talk) 16:42, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi John K. (I've noticed your compilation (Sandbox) Privy Council list.) Ref: The Duke of Gloucester; (Whitakers Almanac PCs: (WA 1947) = 1935: (WA 1951) = 1935: (WA 1972) = 1925?) Do you know why he is not named as a PC in his article, & is missing from all other Wikepedia PC lists etc. Is he missing from the (Wiki) Ref-source for all the other PCs, &/or could you suggest any reasons for the conspicuous exclusion of such a prominent HRH? Regards Steve: Stephen2nd (talk) 13:35, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVI (February 2009)
The February 2009 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) 22:39, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just joined this community and am impressed with your wisdom & humor. I am writing a historical novel that takes place in Edinburgh during the mid 19th c.
Can you offer any advice or guidance in using language & dialogue appropriate to this time period or am I attempting the impossible ?
Plan B is abondoning this approach and use a more nuetral, less time specific language style.
After all my goal is to paint an accurate historical picture of a real place and time but also to entertain and sell a popular book.
As you can see, this is about as bare-bones of a newsletter as you can get. The reason for this is that the newsletter has and will be inactive, but we wanted to get a last one out detailing the current state of our project. The truth is that WP:NOVELS is in bad shape. Only a few editors are active in editing inside of our project. Our Peer Review section, this newsletter, our task forces, and our collaboration center are all dead; although a collab is picked each month, not a lot of work seems to occur.
Out of these ashes, we are proposing that the project start an A-class review system. This will hopefully bring people together for reviewing, and will perhaps get the project some sorely-needed attention from others who can come in and help rehabilitate it. Final plans have not been established, but we will see about getting a mass message out to all of the project members if/when it is set up; discussion of this can be conducted on the General Forum.
This newsletter will probably be the last we will have for a long time, as neither Ed nor Kevinalewis have the time to create these every month. However, if any editor is willing to step up and create one, we would be glad to assist you in making it up.
If you don't want to create a newsletter, but would still like to help, there are plenty of things that can be done. As detailed on the right, the Novels Peer Review section has four articles needing attention, but only one review has been done; one from May, one from November, and one from December have not had any comments left on them. Please consider helping out there; even a 15-minute review would help.
Talk between Kevinalewis and the_ed17, the two project coordinators, has led to us deciding to suspend elections for coordinators indefinitely. With the exceedingly low amount of participation in the last elections (five total votes), we do not feel that it is worth it to try to set up another election.
20 positions remain unfilled at the Job Centre. Members who are active project contributors are encouraged to apply even if they can only do a position for a short time.
Collaboration of the Month
This month's Collaboration has been selected by popular vote and is : Shantaram (novel). The next collaboration is due for selection in April, so cast your vote.
Peer review and assessment news
Peer Reviews are still open for four articles – Sector General, Petals of Blood, Scenes of Clerical Life, and Flowers for Algernon. Feel free to submit any novel-related article that you are working on for review, but please consider stopping by and reviewing an article; we need more reviewers for our articles (there is a PR that has been open since May)!
Recently a new worklist had been created and quietly arrived, the Cleanup listing which gives a fairly comprehensive hit list of "novels" related articles that have been tagged for something or other.
Since then a new Article alerts listing has also been added of more topic and "urgent" items worthy of our attention.
In the evening, we'll share dinner and friendly wiki-chat at a local Italian restaurant. This has been an automatic delivery by BrownBot (talk) 20:22, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
From Chronic2 (talk). Greetings John. Can you take a look at the Bryant Wood page and let me know your opinion about what is going on there? PiCo entered some information saying that a 1995 radiocarbon finding discounted Wood's scholarship. When I enter more modern radiocarbon data, he dismisses it as "tendentious", not giving any citations, etc. Thanks for any advice you could give.Chronic2 (talk) 13:41, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVII (March 2009)
The March 2009 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) 02:53, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You know, that's a very good idea, and to be honest I'm not sure of the answer. I'm leaning towards Air Force, but I'll need to do some more investigating. Skinny87 (talk) 08:50, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
CfD nomination of Category:Secretaries of State for Education (UK)
Hi, your new edits make sense, OK by me. pointer there is a rather nasty row about "India", Pakistanis get upset because they were part of the Indian Empire and dont want to be included with. I could not care one way or other. Regards--Woogie10w (talk) 23:03, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The April 2009 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) 23:23, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Louis-Philippe of France vs Louis-Philippe, King of the French
In the evening, we'll share dinner and friendly wiki-chat at a local sports bar. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:54, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Robert Stewart, Viscount Castlereagh GA Sweeps: On Hold
I have reviewed Robert Stewart, Viscount Castlereagh for GA Sweeps to determine if it still qualifies as a Good Article. In reviewing the article I have found several issues, which I have detailed here. Since you are a main contributor of the article (determined based on this tool), I figured you would be interested in contributing to further improve the article. Please comment there to help the article maintain its GA status. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 02:19, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The May 2009 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) 03:01, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Most scholars do not find the terms right and left very useful with regard to fascism, which incorporated elements of both left and right, rejected the main currents of leftist and rightist politics, and attracted adherents from both ends of the political spectrum. Hence, fascism can be called sui generis. Some scholars do place fascism squarely on the right or left.
Most academics describe fascism as extreme right, radical right, far right or ultra right; some calling it a mixture of authoritarian conservatism and right-wing nationalism. However, there exists a dissenting view that fascism represents radical centrism. Moreover, a number of writers highlight aspects of some types of fascist ideology which may typically be associated with the left.
Following this RfC, there is currently a proposal regarding the issue of whether or not it is appropriate to characterise fascism as "right-wing".
Even if you don't have much to say, it would be useful if you could let your view be known in order to help guide the discussion towards some sort of conclusion.
Coordinators election. An election has been long overdue, and therefore one will begin shortly. If you wish to stand, please put your name in by June 28, when voting will start. Members are encouraged to vote for the candidate they wish to support by July 21 at the Coordinator Elections. The Ed17 has decided not to stand for re-election. His work as Assistant Coordinator, along with Kevinalewis, since the last elections in October is highly appreciated by all members of the project.
17 positions remain unfilled at the Job Centre. Members who are active project contributors are encouraged to apply even if they can only fill a position for a short time.
On April 23, a fact about the protagonist Cousin Betty in Honoré de Balzac's La Cousine Bette appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column.
On April 25, a fact from the article Blanca Olmedo written by Lucila Gamero appeared on the main page in the DYK section.
On June 15, a fact from The Road to Yuba City by Tracy Kidder appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column.
- Contributors are Alan16, (who searched the archives).
Task force and related news
His Dark Materials task force has begun. This task force is dedicated to improving all articles in the scope of Philip Pullman's His Dark Materials trilogy. The main purpose of this taskforce is to expand, cite, and promote all articles in scope of the series. They welcome any advice or help that members of WikiProject Novels may be able to offer. If interested, drop a note on their talk page.
– Position of editor for the task force has been undertaken by Pmlinediter.
Hi, I have been a member of this project for a few months now, and after finally gotten to grips with Wikipedia I have decided to take on the role of writing this newsletter (currently by myself, but any help would be appreciated) with some helpful tips from The Ed17. After undertaking this I realise why it was so difficult to keep it going. I will, however, persevere. From the members, I would encourage you to vote in the Coordinator elections, and take up roles at the Job Centre. The project has struggled recently, and I am hoping to try and revive it. If, with the publication of this newsletter, there are a couple of things that aren't quite up-to-date (like the Collaboration part), you can be certain I am working on it. I will be trying to get a newsletter out on around the 21st of every month. Finally, thanks for the help Ed. Regards, Alan16 (talk) 23:41, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Current debates
A Kenneth Oppel task force has been proposed. You can comment here. Oppel is a Canadian author who specialises in Young adult fiction.
Novel related news
American writer Michael Hemp wins the 2009 Next Generation Indie Book Award in the Action/Adventure category for his novel, The Nadjik Pheromone.
This is my first attempt at the newsletter, and I hope it at least gets close to the previous high standards set by Kevinalewis and The Ed17. I will once again encourage you to vote in the Coordinator elections, as I hope it could be the springboard to revitalise the project. I'll keep working on the newsletter, partially because I like the stress, and partially because we need it to get members and would-be members interested. Hopefully the start of great things. Regards, Alan.
Collaboration of the Month
Because there has been little activity on our Collaboration page for a long time, I have made an executive decision, and chosen The Tin Drum as our Collaboration of the month. All members are asked to assist where they can. The next collaboration is due for selection on 21 July, 2009 so nominate and vote.
Newsletter challenge
This month's article is Mindplayers by science fiction author Pat Cadigan. It is a previous, uncompleted challenge.
Announcements and open tasks
WikiProject Novels • (inc. novellas, novelettes & short stories) Announcements and open tasks
Recently a new worklist had been created and quietly arrived, the Cleanup listing which gives a fairly comprehensive hit list of "novels" related articles that have been tagged for something or other.
Since then a new Article alerts listing has also been added of more topic and "urgent" items worthy of our attention.
Hello. To begin, every member of WikiProject Novels will be getting this message (the joy of macros) so if you wish to get in touch with me, please post a message on my talk page. I would encourage anyone who so wishes, to stand in the Coordinator Elections. If you wish to stand, please do so by 23:59pm, June 27. Voting will the continue to 23:59pm, July 21. Can everyone please check-out the Coordinator Elections page. Also, the collaboration of the month is The Tin Drum, so if you have any spare time, please check it out. And I apologise to the seven of you for whom this will be a repeat message. Regards, Alan16 (talk).
Hello. The Coordiantor Election has begun. All members are encouraged to vote by the deadline, July 28. To vote simply add support to the comments and questions for.. section of the member of your choice.
Hello! I hope you've been well! I'm very glad to see you're still around ... If you have time, please take a look at the state article. I am worried that the article will never be brought back up to standard, given the objections of some clueless yet opinionated editors. Having taken a break from working on this site for over a year, my Wikipedia diplomatic skills are very rusty... Your expert opinion on that article is very needed. 172 | Talk01:05, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if this seems to be coming out of left field, but I noticed you made the change last may and put down a reason Gerald Ford's birth name as to why you removed Ventura's legal name.
The difference between Gerald Ford and for that matter Bill Clinton and Jesse Ventura is that both Ford and Clinton legally changed their names at some point in their lives. Ventura's legal name and the name by which he took the oath of office as was/is James Janos. Smith03 (talk) 20:10, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The ballot he appeared as JV, but his name on the voting restration was/is JJ and again when he took the oath it was JJ (sorry no source for the oath, just remember watching it)
[30] 6th paragraph about his legal name written back in Nov '98. Smith03 (talk) 17:08, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I resent your repeated comments. Whether you are aware of it or not, or like it or not, you are on what is normally known as 172's "buddy list" at his user page, and are one of several members of that list summoned by 172 to support his blatently out of process moves and revert-warring, reversing without prior discussion a proper move discussion from just 3 months ago (Talk:Sovereign_state#Requested_move). He had, and still has, barely bothered to explain or justify these actions on the talk page, leaving it to those he summoned to do so. The abusive tone of 172's summonses clearly breaches WP:CANVAS. Instead of addressing these issues, you have chosen to add to the abuse. "Nasty" indeed. Please stop this behaviour. Johnbod (talk) 12:37, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Look, given that you basically accused me of being a crony of 172 whose opinion shouldn't be respected, I don't see where you come off getting on your high horse about personal attacks. As far as personal attacks go, the conversation between 172 and catslash was perfectly civil until you arrived. Virtually your first comment was that you were glad 172 was not an admin. After that, the conversation was civil again until you started accusing 172 of bringing his cronies over. If anyone is violating WP:NPA here, it is you. Certainly any accusations from you of others on that front ought to be dismissed as worthless. As far as WP:CANVAS, I don't think 172's messages had any problem with excessive cross-posting (he only contacted three users), votestacking (he can have had no particular idea whether we would support his position or not, only his own conviction that he was right and that we would see that), or stealth canvassing (he did it openly on our talk pages). It does violate the "campaigning" rule, but that is, I think, the least important of the four. But, sure, 172 ought to have left more neutral messages. As far as WP:MOVE, yes, I agree that 172 violated that, and that ought to be reversed.
Now, perhaps you could be bothered to reply on the actual substantive proposal I made, instead of calling the kettle black about personal attacks? john k (talk) 13:38, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, also "a proper move discussion from three months ago"? Looks to me like an inappropriate decision to move from a partisan. Two signed-in users supported a move, one signed-in user and one anon opposed. That's not a consensus to move by any reasonable standard. john k (talk) 13:46, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think your horse is a good deal higher than mine! Whether you agree with the last move discussion or not you should respect the process. I may comment on a proper move proposal, but won't continue with the discussion at Talk:State, which has degenerated into displays of self-righteousness in support of blatent abuses of policy. Johnbod (talk) 13:54, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting, had Leopold (not renounced the sucession) outlived his younger brother King Carol I, he might've ascended the throne. A rarity, older brother (and heirs) following younger brother. GoodDay (talk) 18:00, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sir, I do not know you, but I am offering here a friendly warning: do not pollute yourself or your good standing by engaging the lunatic aggiebean at Talk: Anna Anderson. My appeal to you in good faith is as a former faithful editor, who was savaged then banned thanks to aggiebean. Please, keep offering good advice, your suggestions were excellent as posted...but do not acknowledge her, do not allow her to bait you as she has obviously been doing...and please report her to either DrKiernan or Gwen Gale. Neither of these admins is worth a damn, but they ought to be alerted to aggie's old tricks. Aggiebean is an arriviste and a brute. Beware that nazi junk-yard dog, John75.21.122.118 (talk) 02:20, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello John. Sorry, you're wrong. The closure of a move proposal does not depend on past move proposals. In fact, if it did it would make the job of having a current discussion and proposal totally pointless. There was almost one year between the proposals, which is perfectly valid, and no opposition to the move. Thus, complete consensus to move. It is assumed that if no opposition dropped by during the time the discussion was open, then it's because there is overall approval. If you do not agree with the current title, you may request a new move following instructions on WP:RM. Regards, Húsönd09:01, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mechanical it is, but awfully it would be far more if one had to focus on previous move requests upon closing a current one. Little interest in a move proposal such as this is an indication that opposition, if any, is sporadic. Users with interest in a specific article will watchlist it, and for this one not even the watchlisters seemed to drop by to raise any opposition. You're dissatisfied with the outcome and thus dissatisfied with the process, but it's actually the only practical way of doing it. Try closing move proposals and you will soon realize that the closing admin can only focus on a discussion happening now, not the ones gone by. Not feasible otherwise, at all. Regards, Húsönd18:32, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Bully for you, and give it to aggiebean again but good! About time someone else besides me called her out for her lies and tar-feather tactics. Only one further tiny bit of warning: don't underestimate her power with admins here. She's got about 5 of them on my tail. I'm only safe and posting because A)I'm the Revolution; B)I'm an unparalleled genius.76.195.92.44 (talk) 00:19, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi John, I see aggiebean has pulled the old "I've-been-here-all-these-years" routine on you. Don't let that uneducated hillbilly scare you off; you have good ideas, and all those challengers she had kicked off the talk page is exactly what has held up progress for 3 years. You are more than welcome for the latest pep talk.75.21.103.13 (talk) 22:30, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't be fooled, this troll has been harassing all of us on AA and other pages for months and has been banned and blocked many times. He is a huge problem and has trolled all our talk pages and stuffed the main talk page with his outrageous accusations and extreme behavior. Naturally he jumps at the chance to go around to all talk pages trying to trash me behind my back, but please know that no matter what you think of me, this guy is much, much worse. BTW too he is one of the originators of the delete everything/go to short article idea so don't think he's on your side just because he doesn't like me.
John, honestly you need to look at the history of the article. It was long, and it included a lot of info, but we had to do away with it because of all the problems. Here is just one example: when we added the quote from Olga A. in the Vorres book saying AA didn't know who she was and asked the nurse 'is that the aunt' and we put a reference to the page number, Chat comes in in the middle of the sentence and adds that AA allegedly said 'of course I know who she is that's papa's sister' and then leaves it to appear as part of our sourced quote, yet it's his own POV vandalism. Most of what Chat puts as 'facts' are now completely discredited by the fact that AA turned out not to be Anastasia, yet he continues to add this info as if it were fact. We take it out, he adds it back, edit wars go on for weeks until someone locks the article. The problem here is that AA supporters refuse to accept that she wasn't Anastasia and do everything they can to make it look like everything went her way but the DNA tests, meaning to cast doubt on those tests, not in so many words but in message. However, everything DID NOT go her way and most of what they add were never true to begin with and we can now prove it. We need an accurate, fact based article for the information of those who come here looking for the true story, we do not need to appease a few brokenhearted AA supporters who can't let it go. We owe them nothing since their side is proven false. It is impossible to get into the details of the story w/o all these things hitting brick walls of disagreement and even if you leave it alone check back later and see that AA supporter has changed it again. This NEVER ENDED- I'm telling you for nearly 3 years- until finally the mods had to do away with it all and go to the brief details. As was stated before, we can't have a 'bio' of her because most of her life was based on impersonating a dead person and you cannot tell her 'side' without giving credence to her claims. Go ahead, look back at the old edits and the wars and see for yourself. Also see the archived talk pages. And if you want to see what I'd put in a long article check out my website, Anna Anderson Exposed. However, this cannot be done here.Aggiebean (talk) 03:04, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you still don't believe me, you have still not read the history. The proof is all there. This is why the page was turned over to the admin page and why we are now under the control of mods. ALL of us are subjected to this due to the past problems, but it is the only way. You so innocently suggest 'add this AND this' but you fail to realize two things: one, that the 'this is papa's sister CANNOT be true, so therefore it was a lie by supporters, and should not be included in the article, and second, the 'add this AND this' is what got to be called 'tit for tat quote matching' that made the article so long- I mean it was longer at one point than articles about presidents, world figures like Napoleon, and even Jesus Christ- and also very confusing to readers as 'too many cooks spoiled the stew' each with their own writing style, attitude and POV. THIS is why we have come to strict moderation and consensus and keeping it brief. Three years (two of which I was not even here, so don't blame me) have proven the article cannot be worked out sensibly due to the attitudes and personalities involved. (IMO CHATNOIR is the biggest problem because he refuses to accept the reality that AA wasn't Anastasia and still tries to insert that POV into everything. If we could get rid of him, or at least change his mind, we could do it, but apparently we can't.)11:30, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
There, John! Sooner or later, she couldn't resist! Here she is in all her paranoid schizo glory! You know why she pushes people to read the whole history of that talk page? Because she knows no one ever will!! Ignore her if you can, and stick to your guns man. Someone has to be a voice of balance over there, since that idiot Kiernan is letting her call the shots all over again, just the way she wanted it.76.195.92.123 (talk) 02:02, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XL (June 2009)
The June 2009 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) 22:48, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, my man, I'll give you a low-down and hope you pay heed.
The article is being built, slowly, by some alleged "consensus", based on the template proposed by me and Kiernan.
One section at a time is being laid down like foundation-work. It is being done through 'limited' agreement (since you're not too welcome to input there).
Once the entry looks structurally sound, bits and pieces may be added--again through this phony consensus--to flesh it out realistically.
Did I mention that most of these were originally my ideas?
Now, you are right, aggiebean (who somehow bought her way into being the foreman at that page) will NEVER allow a hint of anything directly relating to Princess Anastasia. She thinks 'if we say it, Anderson supporters will come'. So don't expect her to give you 1mm leeway in any direction but mine--OOPS, I mean "hers".75.21.149.8 (talk) 06:35, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's the famous troll, not me. See how he says "Princess Anastasia" that proves he's an AA supporter. Why else would he torment finneganw and I so much and defend anyone who seems to take her side? He has been a big problem on other pages too and has been blocked many times.
John, I do hope you are not falling for the fallacy that GD Ernst was 'out to get her' because she 'revealed' the 'trip to Russia' story. Ever consider he was just upset someone was trying to profit from his murdered niece's tragic demise? How would you feel if it were your family member? Did you know that it was no 'bombshell' as AA supporters like to claim? There were actually two books out in the early 20's alleging the trip took place, including one in German only called "In the Face of the Revolution" from 1922. An online friend of mine owns a copy. Clearly, just like with so much else, Rathlef got ahold of this book, which was obscure and not a big seller, and used it to try to help AA 'amaze' people with 'inside info.' AA did not mention this story until 1925, three years after the book was out there. It is totally the invention of AA supporters that Ernie wanted to 'discredit' her for 'exposing' him. If you look at the history and the sources, especially Kurth's book which is heavily based on Rathlef's notes, you will see that most of the obviously faked (now that we know the truth) info can be traced to Rathlef. She had plenty of info there to help AA learn, and used it in the guise of 'helping her remember.' She even said 'if you are right, I will tell you'- how would she know if she didn't have the info in front of her? Re-read Kurth's chapter "Shadows of the Past" and you will see how hokey and invented it all was! We can't allow this shameless fiction to be given any value or consideration by anyone!Aggiebean (talk) 20:22, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
John, I know who you are and respect what I have read about you. You have all the answers you need by reading Ms. Crazy's post above, and looking more closely into what finneganw and she are doing now. Up to their old tricks. I sure as hell hope I did NOT give you the impression that I am aggiebean!!
I do not know aggiebean, I do not "hate" anyone. I hate what people do, what they represent. aggiebean is a mannerless, loudmouthed fascist when it comes to this subject, as you can easily see. Since she is finally receiving a modicum of discipline in this matter, she's now acting the saint. Don't you fall for it. This is a user who says she "knows" the Romanov Family. She says she has been an expert of Anna Anderson's case for 30 years. And she says anyone who disagrees with her notions is an AA supporter. Apparently, she's too dimwitted to understand that "Princess" is a title applicable to Anastasia--but you see, since I use "Princess" as an appropriate honorary, well!! That must mean I am an AA supporter.
Take this fool at face value, John. Same goes for me, but I am transparent. aggiebean is the worst of the worst...she's worse than a ghost.75.21.107.92 (talk) 22:46, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Troll-What it means is you think AA was Anastasia and a princess. AA wasn't Anastasia and Anastasia wasn't a princess, she was a Grand Duchess. In Russia, princess was a lower title than Grand Duchess. In England, Princess would be higher than duchess. I do not know the Romanov family and have never claimed to. I have been interested in the Romanovs and AA saga for over 30 years, but I only consider myself an AA expert the last two years. To John-This guy's trolling spam and hatred of me and finneganw has polluted many a page. He also loves starting new categories for each rant to draw attention to himself. The only way to be rid of it is to get your page protected against anonymous users. If I were you I'd delete all his garbage as well as my responses for cluttering the page. My opinions on the article remain the same.Aggiebean (talk) 00:02, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Worse-Than-Troll: don't you mess John's page with your schizoid rants, and don't you DARE tell me what "I think". You are a peasant, ignorant and a liar. ChatNoir was right about you 100%, even if he is a pro-AA kook. You said you knew the Romanovs! A search through the archive will find that post; no wonder you want John here to delete the posts and protect the page! Also, Anastasia wasn't English in case you hadn't noticed and in Rusiia they'd have had no problem referring to her as "Princess". You truly are an idiot. John, she doesn't like being called out. No matter what happens to those of us in the Resistance, don't let this pig-farmer push you about--she's a liar and manipulator. If you wish it, I will post here NO MORE. For God's sake, don't get sucked into her fascist world of aggie-only "facts"!75.21.108.45 (talk) 02:46, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Stopped as of now as far as I'm concerned. She's not worth a response and I apologize for all this. Now, I also know you do not need the support of someone like me. You are in a better place than that. Abientot!75.21.97.99 (talk) 08:43, 16 July 2009 (UTC) John, let me hop back in here and say a few things: 1. That article, while we may not care much about it at this stage, is vital to American historical record. 2. What you have posted about it is very good work so far. 3. Anna Anderson's fraud was brilliant, almost the kind of thing Harry Houdini tried to expose in his career--don't you think it's worth keeping up the fight about listing correct historic facts about that fraud? I know you do think so, but will you fight for it?75.21.104.101 (talk) 09:23, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, troll, princess is the incorrect title for a Russian Grand Duchess. Troll, I also want to know if you are so in favor of a short article as you claimed why are you attacking me, who wants that, and backing this guy, who's against it? See you give yourself away. You only back those who will have pro AA things in the article because that's what you want. This is why you like him and bookworm and hate me and finneganw.
John, if you want to get rid of him, please protect your page from anonymous users. No one up to any good will refuse to register for an account. I promise not to return unless I have something important to say to you personally. I have nothing else to say to the troll, anywhere.Aggiebean (talk) 15:35, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Now to get away from Planet Zog...I think your most recent post at the talk page is perfection. You argue what certain others hate: telling an unbiased truth in an encyclopedic entry. The truth about this woman is that she was a fraud, succeeded in most ways, conned many people--but people did believe in her. There is a history of conspiracy theory as you know, regarding both PRINCESS Anastasia and the entire Imperial Family. You also may have an inkling that Anna Anderson meant something to people! We do not believe she was Anastasia. But John, my papa, born in 1911, and mama born in 1917, in their time, KNEW Anastasia was alive and well. They believed that, they felt they KNEW. Ever so many people felt that. And I have asked certain others there at the page, Can we ignore that simply because we don't like it? Or because AA was a fraud? I tell you, some encyclopedia this is. Why not keep going, John. My respect is with you, you have the mind of a scholar and historian! Let's see if the user threatening to leave actually will do. THEN you'll have an article to conjure with!...an article that tells of this amazing fraud! Truth is not so damned hard, as some would have you believe. Godspeed, John. Don't turn into another of these zombie admins here, you are too good for that.
John, I've leapt back in because I want you to see something. This is aggiebean's post at Finneganw's talk page, and don't think the other admins ignore her! QUOTE:
I refuse to have any more to do with the article if they are going to give equal value to the AA side and go back to a long article allowing Chat imput. That was a long miserable headache that was finally locked and it will happen again. I am too stressed in real life to go through that again. I can't understand why no one believes us, we were the ones who were there and suffered with it long before it was taken to the mod page. The situation is hopeless because of the AA supporters. Since their side is completely disproven, I don't know why their POV has to be represented or appeased.Aggiebean (talk) 20:20, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for trying to help. Aggiebean (talk) 21:25, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
I am now convinced this JohnK was sent by Kurth/Chat to plead his case in a more civilized way than he ever could. Note that Chat has disappeared since this person appeared. The goal of Chat is to get a longer article so he can insert his pro AA stuff that we can't fight because we don't have sources directly stating the obvious, that she was coached and that her memories never happened. Just as Penny got Tsarfan and Simon to fight her battles because she couldn't do it without getting upset and looking like a crazy fool, that is what Johnk is doing for Chat/Kurth. I'm tired of it.Aggiebean (talk) 02:58, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
CLOSE QUOTE--see that John? Now YOU are ChatNoir/Peter Kurth...a sock puppet accusation at least, I hate to think what it is at most. I wanted you to see who was doing what around here. This user has been told exaclt ywho you are, and look at the result. I wanted you to see this because this is exaclty the kind of tactics that drove me mad!
Ah, see that? You were sent "at the urgence of someone" [emphasis mine]...is this the type of grammar you guys want to see at the Anna entry?
For the record, the difference between Grand Duchess and Princess: In 1886, Alexander III changed the law, limiting the grand ducal title to the child or grandchild of a reigning emperor, past or present. Those less direct descendants who were more distantly related were given the lesser title of Prince or Princess of the Blood. All daughters of the Tsar were Grand Duchesses only. A princess would be a female great grandchild of a past Tsar, more distant cousin, etc. Princess is the incorrect title for Anastasia Nikolaievna. Aggiebean (talk) 00:29, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, John, back to some basic and necessary reality: 1)I told you this harpie wouldn't ever leave the page; 2) I can't believe I'm agreeing with the pitbull Nishkid, the one who keeps trying to roast me alive...we have the same goal;3)Stick to your guns! The article can consist only straightforward truth...but you are indulging in arguments about sources that have no place there. You are playing into the traps laid by certain users! STICK TO THE GUIDELINES KIERNAN LAID DOWN: agree on the skeleton of the entry, then flesh it out...gosh, why is that so hard to understand? There is no need to sway this article in favor of Anderson/Schanzkowska anymore than to sway it against her as a human being. She was a crazy fraud, science has just now proved conclusively she was a fraud. We have to balance that with something, but not what you seem to be proposing. Other users are too flamboyant about how they want 'their' article to look; in the end, it must BE truthful and cited well--no matter how it looks.
John, would you please be a little more of an enforcer on your own page and demand that aggiebean RESPECT your requests? I'm commenting to you with absolutely no regard for aggiebean. I will not disregard your demand that there be no 3rd party scrapping here. And please ask her to STOP VANDALIZING my posts here, unless you have the same problem she does with consistency. She has been accused of vandalizing posts before. And no, I will not bloody sign anything at this essentially nazi website.
For a moment I meditated and I think this is some grand truth in a homespun dress for Anna's entry:
1) Proceed with structure/content as proposed by Kiernan....
2) At most, there are TWO "editors" at the Anna talk page. They are as fanatic as one can get, and think because the truth is their exclusive property, they can post whatever they wish. Seek reasonable consensus from them; otherwise exclude them for disruptive editing. DISCIPLINE them, as I was deservedly disciplined whenever I got out of line! Have I ever in any place denied that I am the Resistance here?
3) John, you need to be cautious about using citations and especially this contentious garbage about I, Anastasia. There is an excellent book, forgive me I have no link, but it's about the crazy world in the "court" of Anna Anderson--looks fairly new. An excellent citation to consider...no cover-ups about AA's fraud, and some rather intriguing stuff.
4) I follow your general vibe about Anna's biography, and how the world saw her, etc. Even Massie acknowledges her, though he calls her "pathetic" (vid. Nicholas and Alexandra). Here again, great care must be taken to perhaps create a special section explaining why people helped/believed in her.
Forgive me, it's just that as a forced-out observer, I see these above as the main trouble. Get past the "two" and their incessant screeching, and you'll be in editing heaven indeed! Ah, yes, sorry to make this even longer, but I think the alleged time-well-spent on the article in the past--by certain users--ought to be thrown out the window. Work in the here and now, as so many admins have stated should be done. I think whatever Trusilver said months ago can be canned-as-corn from now onward. Or does Trusilver still have some say in the process??
John, I admire your sand and tenacity, because of your excellent points along with Kiernan's arguments at Anna's page. However, you are both actually doing very little good at present--replying to users who use 1,000 words needlessly, for one thing. But it is good progress; good to argue it out properly albeit briefly. One other thing: it is an excellent idea to put a section into the entry stipulating damage done by AA's fraud, that strikes me as very fair and balanced. And truly, I really think I, Anastasia ought to be left alone. What good does that do in the entry? A fraudulent book written about a known fraud? And you people are discussing its merits? It doesn't even speak to the actual subject and does NOT belong there. You will note how certain users, in the past, demonized Kurth's work and would have none of it.75.21.145.152 (talk) 05:09, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Lord, I'm using IPs to sign my posts. You're a good influence on people, John. I mean that. NOW: I think I see the true, core problem of the Anderson entry. It cannot be achieved by consensus alone: she was very, very well supported throughout her life. She was believed, and believed by MANY. She even drew in a young man in the late 1970s who ultimately wrote THE book on her biographically, though it is a dubious book. So the thing about this entry is simple; how does one biograph a fraud who really lived no known life of "her own"? It's never been done, and that in itself is some proof to her tenacity as a pop icon. Why not treat the fraud as a fraud, no leeway, but acknowledge her status as a pop icon? This gives no possible quarter to "Andersonians" (I love your coined term) and it tells the historic truth. And everyone from Botkin to Grand Duchess Olga can be quoted to that effect. This would balance the damage she did to others, the scoundrel Finny is quite right: that ought to merit a section of its own. See, easy.75.21.145.152 (talk) 05:56, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You will mark me as tedious, John, but I ought to expand for you on a part of the little Anna problem: sources. As I said, you're arguing the merits of something like I, Anastasia and with reason. However, I would put it to you that in this particular case, sources should not be used if they don't have to be used absolutely. CASE SCENARIO: If you were to find reasons, as some did, to exclude Kurth on grounds of personal bias, you'd have to afford the same to the other side, even though the other side is the truth. Or to be more clear: which source do we use as the most convenient when referring to Andersonism? We use Kurth. He was her friend, he strove to prove she was Anastasia, he believed her and made a lot of money from her as well. There's a reason for that...scholastically, her debunkers were essentailly ignored until 1998 or so. To rectify all of this, which debunkers do you quote, if any, to strengthen a position that is now well known? You use the scientists' discoveries about Anna's true identity and the mtDNA proof. To borrow a phrase used in the debate, why lengthen the article with tit-for-tat quotes? To re-argue the case? No. It isn't any journalist's job to do that--only to present known facts. You need to get on with the structure/presentation of the entry. Quotes can be plugged in or removed later, per consensus...if you can accomplish it.75.21.147.93 (talk) 06:45, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
John, it is entertaining and fruitful for you to fight the editors at Anna's page; they are at last being called out, a reckoning is near. However, if you think you're going to sway them in some way, you've GOT to know you've lost already--they have marked you as the enemy. They will never seriously entertain the suggestions you have made. I love the way you clearly proved their POV agenda-pushing, in manner of content and expression. They'll never let you live it down now. Time for that moron Kiernan to start doing at least part of his job over there. YAWN75.21.103.101 (talk) 06:05, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Could you cease the "encouragements" on my talk page? I was hoping that if I ignored you, you'd stop, but that doesn't seem to be working. john k (talk) 07:22, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I could and I will--gone as soon as this last is posted. May I ask in return that you not take it out on me that you've done nothing on that page, except to indulge those jerks? In any case, you're pretty much a non-entity there, just as aggiebean wanted from day one. Good luck on other better endeavours.75.21.99.46 (talk) 18:12, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just anxious, that we present the fact that the Scottish & English monarchies became the British monarchy. Not, the false claim that the English monarchy expanded & was re-named the British monarchy. GoodDay (talk) 14:18, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I understand what you're saying: England is the dominant partner. What I'm saying is the 1707 Act of Union present it as otherwise. Keep the Scottish & English monarchs in the Template, as we got seperate articles List of English monarchs, List of Scottish monarchs & List of British monarchs. Either that or 'split' the Template 3-ways (English, Scottish & British). Just don't go back to 'English and British'. GoodDay (talk) 14:39, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I know how revolting I am to you--but I'm here solely to enquire: since I do enjoy keeping up with the debates at Anna Anderson, and I think this would please everyone, could you suggest the archiving of the discussion? It isn't selfish, that thing's getting hard to read, and way too long. It doesn't look logical to have that hanging in the open and I don't think the majority of the page needs to be immediately seen. It looks like older posts at the very least can be archived and Kiernan is good at that. Ask him?
I wanted to be rightly understood: I don't mean hide anything or other nefarious activities. I meant what I wrote before: take some of the crap out of there and archive it, especially places where you and aggiebean argue something like 3,000 words over the cart story. Sorry, but I can't help the feeling I've always had that none of you wants this thing to be completed, ever. Now I'm officially gone. And don't tell yourself, "Yeah, I've heard that from him before," because we all err, do we not?75.21.99.125 (talk) 20:36, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi John. Whitaker Almanacs of 1947 (pg 250) & 1952 (pg 256) specifically state: His Majesty's Most Honourable Privy Council: Gloucester, H.R.H. Duke of, 1935. Only in later editions under; Her Majesty's Most Honourable Privy Council is this dated 1925. As such, I raised this matter with you on 3rd March 2009, (on your talk page; no# 205: "Missing HRH Privy Counsellor") to which you replied on same day on my talk page. I also stated this matter on the (List of Privy Counsellors (1910-1936)) talk page.
Can you tell me why you now think the later 1925 date is correct, rather than the original 1935 date? Regards Steve. Stephen2nd (talk) 11:01, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again & thanks for your reply. In further reference (to the LoPC (1910-36)); When I get a Whitakers edition; 1925 to 1935, if he's not listed. I must accept the 1935 date, and edit the article accordingly. If thats OK? Regards Steve. Stephen2nd (talk) 12:15, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The July 2009 issue of the Novels 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. Alan16(talk)
Per here, could you carry out the "edit protected" requested hered. No-one is respoding to the edit protected template and I'd like it fixed before the we get more problems on the Ireland vote.
![[13]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Mongol_soldiers_by_Rashid_al-Din_1305.JPG){kind=link}
![[28]](https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=File%3ANevada_counties.jpg&diff=263760863&oldid=263048604){kind=link}
![[29]](https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=File%3ANevada_counties.jpg&diff=263760934&oldid=263760863){kind=link}
