User:Dsmdgold/Talk Archive 2007a

Hello Dsmdgold

You were on the Missing Wikipedians page. I removed you after checking your contributions. -66.218.15.162 23:14, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Points Mean Prizes

Why has this page been deleted again? I gave all evidence needed, there was nothing wrong with it. Websites, what we're doing and so on. There was no call to delete this.

Warningimpendingdoom 14:53, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Illuminated manuscripts categories

Hi, As the main category has become so crowded, I have spent the last couple of evenings moving all the relevant Ms into Cat Gospel Books, cat Illuminated Bibles & Cat Meso-american ill MS. All as sub-cats from the main IM category. I have just finished this when User:Andrew c comes along & sweeps them all (not the Aztecs naturally) into a main sub cat Category:Judeo-Christian illuminated manuscripts. I feel this is a very bad idea because:

1) most of the remainder in the main category are of course J-C as well, so it is very misleading. Unless he is going to move all them which I doubt, as he set up the Gospel Books cat in September, and then did very little with it.

2) it gives another stage for the user to have to click through

3) he has also populated the Psalters category, which the creator of that will not like, as he is largely interested in the few printed examples - now categorised as illuminated.

4) currently only about 2 I think of the whole JC sub-cat are Hebrew Bibles, the rest are all Christian MS.

I have asked him to discuss it, but he just ploughs on. I have reverted him on I think two of them, which he just re-reverted. I'd be very interested in your views. Johnbod 02:12, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your very prompt response. I have now made a proposal at Talk:Illuminated manuscript, which I hope satisfies everyone.

Also, other than the ones from the Roman Virgil & Vienna Dioscurides, do you know of any pics of classical author portraits (or later copies) on WP? Wanted for Evangelist portrait, and Author portrait which I am contemplating doing. Johnbod 23:38, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment - my proposed scheme is actually different from the one (by Sparkit) on my talk page - it's at Talk:Illuminated_manuscript#Proposed_sub-category_renaming:_Psalters_to_Illuminated_psalters - essentially all sub-cats like Psalters come straight off the main Illuminated manuscripts cat. Thanks on the portraits also. Johnbod 15:29, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi, any chance of a quick comment at [[1]] again? We have asked for others' comments, with no success so far - the main issue remaining is do we categorize as:

Illuminated manuscripts

Gospel Books

Psalters

Bibles

Other Christian manuscripts

- per me, or as:

Illuminated manuscripts

Christian Illuminated manuscripts

Gospel Books

Psalters

Bibles

Other Christian manuscripts

-per Andrew c.

I feel the intervening head category is a layer too far on the visual arts side; if he wants such a category under a religious head category I have no problem. Your view would be very helpful.

If you have time, it would also be helpful to have a comment at Talk:Illustrated manuscript - User dbachmann has recently created this article and category, essentially to include the Swiss Chronicles and Swiss/German fight-books, plus the Codex Manesse. He attempted to assert that none of these should be called "illuminated", based on misunderstandings of "decorated" and "miniature" as technical terms. He is not very responsive to argument, and a quick comment would be welcome. Sorry to bother you! Johnbod 16:06, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Old Hall MS

Hey, thanks for finding that image! It hadn't occurred to me to look. That's the Gloria by Roy Henry (consensus has been emerging in recent years that Roy Henry is none other than Henry V of England). Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 04:14, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

It's Gloria in Excelsis Deo; we should disambig it. :) There are two Glorias by Roy Henry in the Old Hall, and they have the most spectacular illumination (since he was a king, and that's also the reason the BL chose to feature them, I suppose). If you look real carefully at the top of the page, look at the part in red: it says "Roy Henry". Cheers! Antandrus (talk) 04:31, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

MS project

Thanks for asking! I certainly support the aims, although I'm dubious about the good (especially) & featured articles process, on my experiences so far. I'm not sure how much time I can devote to it, as a) I keep telling myself to cut down WP time generally, b) I really came onto WP to boost old master prints coverage which is in general much weaker than that of MS, & where there are few editors interested. c)I am getting involved in other things, like filling a gaping hole in medieval fashion/clothing coverage - not my area at all, but I am finding it interesting. So count me in, but I'm not sure how much I will be able to contribute medium/long term. On the good/featured articles side, the whole of the Visual arts area is very thin on these, but my general preference is to improve stubs & fill gaps before going for the higher ratings. Plus we would encounter issues like the gallery one, where there are prejudices & policy interpretations in those reviews that would cause difficulties. Also I'm pretty useless at technical stuff like templates, though there are some editors good at that on the visual arts side. Johnbod 13:09, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Aurora consurgens

I don't know if you know anything about this. The article fell between the usual two schools of being about a text or a manuscript, so I have converted it to being about an MS - all the pictures clearly seem to come from the same MS, though as they were all uploaded by Cristianchirita, there is of course no detail given. The ext link identifies it as the Zurich one. Perhaps you could cast an eye - it won't take long! Johnbod 19:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Good Article Review

Hi, I don't know if you noticed that Carolingian Gospel Book (British Library, MS Add. 11848) & the Schuttern Gospels have been placed on GA review. They want inline citations on all GSs & are getting aggressive about removing them. Johnbod 03:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Tulsa, OK FA Nomination

Thanks for your input, but I have many reservations about your requests, and while some of them I agree with, such as religion, etc, I must disagree with most of them, since many of your requests are more suited for this article's daughter pages and there shouldnt be any need to make the article excessively long with every detail - it isn't a cityguide. Respectfully, I'll go point by point and say why:

The article is already pretty long - Most of your requests deal with adding very specific details. Since this article is an encylopedia overview, I don't think people want to read of every venue, person, or place in Tulsa, as this would be excessive. The article is meant to convey the "gist" of things, not a list of specific places or things. There should, however, be just a few examples to illustrate the "gist," but not a comprehensive listing of everything in Tulsa. Once again, it would be excessive.
The American's prominence is not overstated; if you take a look at the recent news coverage that is cited in the article, (dated in april 2007) the developer has recently announced that the project will break ground in 2007 and that it is definently going to be built.
Of the tulsa history sources cited, there is no mention of the reason Tulsa became a big city is because of the bridge, but in my opinion, we don't need to go that detailed in the history section (the history section is already the size of the other FA cities). However, it could be mentioned in the main Tulsa history article.
The Tulsa Race Riot has its own article which is linked to within the history section, so a more fuller discussion I do not think is required - the significance of the event is mentioned, again, I don't think the article need be overly long.
The BOK Center is mentioned in history to show the significance of Vision 2025; it's mentioned in architecture because it's intended to be a culmination of all architecture styles in tulsa (this is cited in the article); its mentioned in sports because its a huge development in Tulsa sporting capabilities, and will be the biggest sports venue; its mentioned in performing arts in that it will be the cities largest performing arts venue - I believe all these are neccissary and important in the article.
The information on the history of Tulsa's government is taken directly from the Tulsa City Council website as a source - I ave never heard about the civil rights lawsuit nor can I find it anywhere to use it as a source.
I don't think there is a reason to get specific with the actual flood that made the Tulsa city flood plan go into action - it isn't mentioned in any of the sources Ive seen, but I don't think its neccisary to get that specific, do you? You are talking about it being mentioned in climate - the section already says Tulsa was prone to flooding.
Art Deco architecture: Tulsa has one of the largest concentrations in the nation; if we started mentioning specific examples too much - well, there is a LOT. That sounds like it should be a daughter page called "Art Deco of Tulsa, Oklahoma". I can, however, mention a few that already have articles on wikipedia, like the philtower, etc.
The Schusterman center doesn't offer undergraduate course work.
The Spartan School of Aeronautics is mentioned. (look towards end of the education section).
Tulsa Tech is mentioned - it's a vocational school and the largest in the state. No FA City article goes very deep into the subject anyway, as it is an encyclopedia article and not a cityguide to mention every single vocational school in Tulsa would be way too excessive.
Gambiling is very arguably a sport, and it fits in the section with the sports betting at the race tracks. SInce there is no entertainment section and an entertainment section would overlap with other sections in culture, I think gambiling should stay in sports.
The sports box is a common thing, and is present in almost all city articles that are FA status - it violates no wikipedia standard.
Garth Brooks was born in Yukon but moved to Tulsa at a very young age and lived here most of his life. It is cited in the article (in the popular media section) that those musicians are from or got their start in Tulsa, and they were all taken directly from the source.
The History section's last two paragraphs are from 1982 and on and they both cover significant events - the oil bust was very important in Tulsa's history. In other words, it is not "almost half" of the history section - its about 2/10 of the history section - but remember, Tulsa was incorporated only 100 years ago - its a very young city and therfore the history is going to be less far back as most other cities.

I will work on some of the things you have stated, such as healthcare, religion, and certain other things you've mentioned that I haven't included on my list of reservations. Pending further discussion, I do not think the article should be a cityguide, but rather an encycopedic article on Tulsa giving the "gist" of things with few examples.Okiefromokla•talk 19:06, 7 May 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.234.97.244 (talk) 18:03, 7 May 2007 (UTC). (sorry, I forgot to sign it and I wasn't logged in - the previous comment was by me, Okiefromokla•talk 18:06, 7 May 2007 (UTC))

PS: I agree with the religion, I will include religion information and healthcare and some of yoru requests - but for the most part, I frankly feel that your requests are unneccisary for the article's quality or to meet wikipedia standards. I don't mean to offend you or to discourage you from your suggestions,as they are welcome, but I would ask you to please look at Boston, Ann Arbor, Michigan, Lexington, Kentucky, San Jose, California, Houston, Texas, Seattle, and San Francisco, as these are all Featured city articles to make sure your requests meet with the content of these articles, as many of your requests for detail should be included in Tulsa's daughter articles, and maybe not the main article.Okiefromokla•talk 18:22, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for all the suggestions and for working with me to make the article better. I have gone through your suggestions that have been agreed upon by all of us and they are fixed (I think and hope, at least). However, if you have any more suggestions or concerns that aren't really that important to the article's Featured Status nomination, I ask you to please address them on the Tulsa article's talk page, so we don't have to clutter up the feature nomination page too much more. If they are neccissary for the FA nomination, then obviously we'll keep going like we have been doing. I look forward to your support for Feature Status or any further discussion on the article!Okiefromokla•talk 19:32, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

haha. Yeah. Thanks. Your help is always appreciated even if the article goes featured. Feel free to continue to contribute to make the article better no matter what. For a long time it's only been two of us from Tulsa working on it, so it's good to have more. Thanks again!Okiefromokla•talk 00:19, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

The article has been promoted? It looks like its still in nomination mode to me! But either way, thanks. Its been hard working on this article but I am proud considering that it was very below average just about a month and a half ago. I actually haven't had enough though. I've started some work on the main Oklahoma article but I'm going to try to enlist the help of others to get this up to featured status too. You're very much invited to help if you'd like. Thanks for the encouragement. Okiefromokla•talk 00:29, 12 May 2007 (UTC) P.S. Oh, nevermind, I guess it has been promoted! They just haven't updated the page yet. Wow!Okiefromokla•talk 01:08, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

St Denis

needs a bit of a proofread when you have a minute. I left it alone as I wan't sure about the "framnet" bit. Johnbod 17:08, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

==The Life of Saint Denis I moved it because we have no other article on the Life of Denis, so I though it was more appropriate to have it at the common name, as there would be no risk of confusion with another article. I have no strong feelings about it, however, as long as the The Life of Saint Denis redirects there, or becomes a disambig page that links to the MS page.--Cúchullain ^t/c 22:08, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Image:1stBibleCharlesBaldFol011rInitGen.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:1stBibleCharlesBaldFol011rInitGen.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.

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-no-disclaimers}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, 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.

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 21:37, 13 May 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Madmedea 21:37, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I understand that this is an image of an ancient manuscript but the digital image still has a source - somebody took the picture - and wikipedia image policy requires that a source be included on the image page irrespective of the copyright status. Madmedea 21:56, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Historic places AFD

At least you're admitting a mistake and correcting what you've done wrong. I've met some admins who are real dipwads. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 03:58, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I try not to be a dipwad. Dsmdgold 04:02, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

For the record, your undeletion was not disfavored by policy, and, whilst you've apologized for doing something wrong, you've not really erred at all. An article deleted by PROD is immediately undeleted upon request, and though, as I noted at DRV, the interests of transparency may counsel that another admin undelete (although even the most process-wonkish of us—me—would suggest IARing here), there is surely no proscription against your retroactively contesting the PROD of an article of which you were an editor and your undeleting straightaway. Indeed, your listing of the article at AfD was exceedingly decorous—when I remove a PROD about the justification for which there may be some debate, I list procedurally at AfD, but users, especially editors of the deprodded content, often do not undertake even to inform the original prodder in order that he/she might consider AfD—and was unnecessary. The non-admin speedy close of the AfD was out-of-process and unnecessary (although you appear to have acceded to such closure) and, in any case, accusations of abuse of admin tools are plainly without merit. Cheers, Joe 06:48, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Contested prod

For a contested prod, just restore it. Since it is an automatic restore then there shouldn't be any issue in restoring it yourself. Indeed if when going through prods which have expired admins should look at the article, can contest it by just removing the prod notice. If you don't think something is a prod but think it would benefit from an AFD then list it, but it is no way mandatory. --pgk 10:28, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Pretty much what I meant to say, although I opted for the much longer, less clear approach... :) Joe 03:05, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

List of Registered Historic Places in Coconino County, Arizona

Sorry for replying to this so late. It seems that everything was eventually straightened out. I'm sorry if you didn't see the prod tag in time, but all I did was delete an expired prod that I thought should be deleted. In any case, the article's back and things look okay. Have a great day and happy editing! ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 15:40, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I would say that a list in the article space that consists mostly of red-links is pretty much useless. I could see that being a worklist for a WikiProject or something, but not really in the article space. As for uncontroversial or not, I didn't see it as being controversial. It's not really regarding POV or notability or things like that. ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 17:30, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Catalan Atlas

Hi, regarding this article. To be sure, I just did a Google translation of the source, it came out almost identical as the source. Same sections, some sentences etc. If it's not a copyvio it is extreme plagiarism. But I am pretty sure it is a direct translation from the source. Since I don't want to upload another copyvio, I e-mailed you two examples through "e-mail this user" Garion96 (talk) 17:08, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Well...e-mailing was kind of pointless. :) You already uploaded the entire article to your sandbox. Garion96 (talk) 18:09, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

>>

hey, just asking why you needed to delete the page on rita suvarti? Just wondering why. Ladyspanky 22:32, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

>i am OnlyButAlso>

hi,Dsmdgold : i write a article with title "Lingwu",and soon i can't find it again. and Lingwu is different with Lingzhou,bucause Linghou is only use 100s years ago.now only lingwu is using. what shall i do? i am a newer here.thanks.

Manuscript question

Hi -- I recall you as being knowledgeable about manuscripts; would you happen to know anything about this question? Any help much appreciated; thanks. Mike Christie (talk) 03:06, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Article

Why did you delete Guy in Red Shirt and Guy in Blue Shirt under CSD A7 when it is not true?

Suzzane weyn

I hardly think that the simple phrase "She has written many books for young adults" is a legitimate assertion of notability, especially on a two-sentence autobiographical article. I have tagged the article for speedy deletion once again. Realkyhick 21:34, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, 60 titles is a bit different. :-) (By the way, can you send me a link for looking that sort of thing up at the LOC? I can see that being very useful.) But I think I'll put up an {{nn}} just to let her know that we still have some issues. Unless she can show some third-party refs, I see a prod or AfD in her future. Realkyhick 21:53, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the link - didn't realize it was right on the LOC main page. (Duh!) I left a message for the author/subject telling her why we rescinded the speedy and the issues that remain. Realkyhick 22:06, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:UtrechtPsalterUnkFolios.jpg

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Image:UtrechtPsalterUnkFolios.jpg, by Sailko (talk · contribs), another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Image:UtrechtPsalterUnkFolios.jpg fits the criteria for speedy deletion for the following reason:

moved to commons with same name

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Image:UtrechtPsalterUnkFolios.jpg, 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. Please note, this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate Image:UtrechtPsalterUnkFolios.jpg itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. --Android Mouse Bot 2 20:34, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Manuscript shelf numbers

I stumbled across your post on this issue on WikiProject:Middle Ages, and thought I'd ask if you have a copy of Wilma Fitzgerald's Ocelli Nominum: Names and Shelf Marks of Famous/Familiar Manuscripts (originally a series of articles in Mediaeval Studies, subsequently published in book form by the Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies in Toronto). This would be a useful and convenient basis on which to resolve ms nomenclature disputes--the whole point of the book is to help connect shelf marks (which we need to actually find the library where the book resides) to nicknames (ocelli nominum). As you know, this is even more fun since some mss have multiple (and sometimes contradictory) nicknames. Wish there was a way we could legally incorporate Fitzgerald's data onto WP... SGilsdorf 20:36, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Bedick

Good catch on the references, thanks :) Jeepday (talk) 14:44, 30 June 2007 (UTC)