== Israel Page ==poo Hi, I'm a long time reader of wikipedia, but reading your comments on the Israel page inspired me to sign up and send you a message commending you for having a clear head! Between you and mongoose, I think we readers can finally look forward to having a clear Israel page in the near future free of extreme bias. Keep up the good work! --Fyrefli 19:49, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Nice to know that there is some intelligent life on this planet. SGW 13:11, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus redux

First, wanted to say fantastic job with the myth/historicism stuff. To see that you aren't a specialist makes it even more impressive.

I am somewhat educated in this subject, and I have real problems with the content in most of the historical Jesus articles as they stand. I want to help, but don't see the point editing whole cloth if people are just going to trod behind me and make a hatch of everything. Or accuse me of being a fundamentalist. I'm not even a Christian.

This "debate" is too similar to that happening between biologists and adherants of intelligent design. I am entirely unfamiliar with any scholar, Christian or secular, specialising in NT studies, history of Christianity or the history of Roman Palestine who would refute the existence of Jesus. None. Zero. Zilch.

In my opinion, the historicity article should reflect that, and simply do what Intros to NT/Christianity do: list the material relevant to Jesus' existence, along with specific criticisms of their veracity (like Scholars disagree as to Josephus' usefulness. Some see the text as whole, others as redacted and a few as an insertion by a Christian scribe.) The myth article can then be merged as a specific criticism of Jesus' historicism, noting that while there is an academic consensus regarding Jesus' existence, some authors have tried to disprove it.

I'd like to know if there is anything I can do to help? I can point people to journals or texts, speak to Freke and Gandy's lack of qualifications, help with a very few textual arguments, or try to target specific wiki text when I have the time. Let me know.--Mrdarcey 04:28, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ta. The reason they are using ahistorical theory is because they've bought into the mythicist position hook line and sinker. The complaint about Christian bias in refutations is straight out of the Freke/Gandy/Doherty playbook. The reason you're having trouble with sourcing is because the question is considered closed in the academy. The only people who are bothered enough to respond to this are by nature reactionary. Beyond that, look at Freke's website: It's clear that he a) represents himself as some sort of gnostic or theosophist; and b) is trying to sell something. If you're going to disbelieve all Christians because of bias, shouldn't the same standard apply to the other side?

I'll try the talk page later, but I have exams soon and can't really spend all that much time here. My texts are, alas, also buried in a British basement at the moment...--Mrdarcey 16:18, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Christian abuse of Wikipedia page

Yes, I have the URL, but I prefer not to post it on Wikipedia because of privacy and security issues. The site recently posted actually link to Jesus-Myth with the title "Christian mythology" (which is odd because that's the title of another article). Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring^TalkTCF 16:49, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS: SOPHIA has reported this to the Administrators' noticeboard.. Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring^TalkTCF 16:53, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dioceses.GIF updated as US Roman Catholic dioceses map.png

I've made a new version of your Dioceses.GIF and uploaded it to Wikimedia Commons as Commons:Image:US Roman Catholic dioceses map.png. I've given each province a separate color (though some look a bit similar), all from the palette that was with the orignial GIF. I've also colored in the islands based on their home states and chopped some of the artifact county lines that were still sticking out. I filled in the Canadian and Mexican territory with a solid grey but didn't have a way to getting rid of the pixel dithering on the edges of irregular water borders. Let me know if I got anything wrong. Thanks! --Closeapple 08:03, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I thought about changing the color scheme; mostly I was trying to preserve the original colors (not for any good reason), but that still changed a bunch of them. Now that I know I have a separate pallette entry for each province, maybe I should just go through and redo the color scheme. I especially want to change San Francisco's color so that it's blatant that Northern California and Hawaii are the same province. As for Los Angeles vs. Washington color: You're right! It's #008080 (LA) vs. #009999 (DC) — Washington was the last I changed because I spent a half hour trying to find out what was duplicating, and found it duplicating New Orleans. Oops. At least it has its own palette entry. I'll redo the colors and reupload it. --Closeapple 08:16, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disruption

I'm asking you privately and civilly here, to refrain from accusing me of disruption on the Jesus talk page. This is twice you've done it. Lets not have three, ok? Arguing on the talk page is not disrupting Wikipedia, even if nobody agrees with me. Quoting from the no personal attacks page: Wikipedians engaging in debate is an essential part of the culture of Wikipedia. However, repeatedly accusing someone of disruption is being disruptive, and you've done it twice now. The next time I'm arguing a point on the talk page, feel free to ignore me; but accusing me of disruption, or telling others to not respond to me is out of line, and I will pursue it if you continue to do it. Drogo Underburrow 20:48, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At least Homestarmy managed to settle this issue. If I'm causing problems, than I'll withdraw. I probably need to clear my head anyway. Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring^TalkTCF 20:55, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attack?

John K writes:

How is it a personal attack to suggest you are violating WP:POINT? At any rate, I accused you of this because of the incredibly byzantine way you've been making this argument. You yourself don't believe that most Christians believe the Nicene Creed, but using a different (but partially synonymous) word from what the Creed uses is original research...in the end I have no real idea what you're saying, and I feel as though just about any response you get (besides surrender) seems to only confirm you the more strongly in your original view. I have to say that I find your behavior puzzling as much as anything else. The way you grab onto obscure semantical points and can continue to argue them in the face of universal dismissal is quite odd to me, and I'm not sure how to respond to them. I suppose I should show more patience, and I won't repeat the accusation that you were violating WP:POINT. john k 20:55, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your text accused me of disruption, even though its linked to WP:POINT. I went to WP:POINT, and failed to find anything on the page that had anything to do with discussions on talk pages. This page deals with issues like gaming the system, such as reverting an edit exactly 3 times a day, and then "innocently" maintaining that no rules are being violated. Furthermore, the page says that "Discussion, rather than unilateral action, is the preferred means of changing policies". Well, that's what I was doing on the Jesus page, I was discussing an issue rather than engaging in an edit war. There is no rule that a person must stop arguing or responding to posts if a majority or even if everyone is against him. That is not gaming the system, it is refusing to accept majority rule. Wikipedia is not a majority rule place. Its primary method of finding consensus is discussion, not voting. That means, until a satisfactory agreement is achieved, endless discussion must go on. What I did was exactly the way things are supposed to be done on Wikipedia, which is to discuss on the talk page on and on until a resolution is reached. You and those agreeing with you, stuck to your arguments, and I stuck to mine, then a reasonable compromise solution was suggested, and I accepted it. A textbook perfect case of how its supposed to happen. Now, imagine instead if I had simply edited the article without discussion, putting in exactly the same words, "buried in a tomb". Maybe it would have been accepted, I don't know. But possibly making any change to the third paragraph would have been reverted immediately without a comment. Or supposing I had given up, saying, "Oh well, the majority don't agree." The article again would have stayed the same.

As to whether I believe that most Christians believe in the Nicene Creed, that is a complex subject. Frankly, I don't know. I've never seen a study of it. I've never seen an authoritative source quoted on it. I don't know if most Christians even know what the creed is. If you sat them down and gave them a formal test, I wouldn't be surprised if most Christians would come up blank when asked to describe the Nicene Creed. Yet, they may believe in it without knowing that they do. They may believe in parts of it, and completely not understand other parts. Certain parts, I think, nobody understands, because they are utter nonsense, made up so that contradictory beliefs about the Trinity, for example, are all held to be true. I simply don't know....and I don't think that you or the others know. Don't forget, we are talking about Christians who are semi-illiterate people in Mexico, for example, when we say 'most Christians'. As to how I can argue "semantic points" even when universally disagreed with, its simple: I value truth more than popularity. I'm not here to make friends or run for admin.

Finally, I still think you and the others are dead wrong on the issue. Using the exact language of the Bible, the Nicene Creed, and the Catholic Church is correct. Making up your own words, even if they mean the same, is not correct. There is a reason that those institutions say exactly what they say how they say it, they have been thrashed out under a lot more scrutiny than we have given to the issues here. But, half a loaf is better than no loaf. If I put my version in you would revert it. -- Drogo Underburrow 22:01, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Drogo, please don't attack Mexicans. Racism is not cool. Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring^TalkTCF 22:10, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not making any sort of racist comment. If anyone who is Mexican finds my comment offensive, I'd be happy to change it to "Brazilian" or "American" or any other nationality. I chose "Mexican" because of the high rate of Christians in that country, and the low rate of literacy. Stating one or both in conjunction is not even close to being racist. Drogo Underburrow 22:29, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mexico has a 92.2% literacy rate. (Brazil has 86.4%, the US 99%, according to the World Factbook). 92.2% hardly seems a low literacy rate to me. john k 22:35, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Haiti, with a 52% literacy rate, and a 96% rate of Christianity, would seem a better example. john k 22:37, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, then replace "Mexican" with "Haitian", my apologies to Mexicans for not knowing their illiteracy statistics. But this is a simple error in statistical knowledge, not a case of my making a ethnic or racial slur. Drogo Underburrow 00:00, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that you would assume Mexicans have a low literacy rate without checking suggests a certain degree of casual racism, even if you were not intending to make a racial slur. john k 02:46, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ignorance of an illiteracy rate is not racism. Quick....what's the illiteracy rate of Indonesia? What, you don't know? You must be a racist. Now get off it, give me a break. Your accusations of racism are a personal attack. Drogo Underburrow 02:51, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stop the personal attacks, Drogo. John has not made an assumption of low literacy rates, in Indonesia or Mexico or anywhere else. You, on the other hand, have made that assumption about Mexico. Lack of knowledge of literacy rates is not the same as assuming low literacy rates. Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring^TalkTCF 03:00, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is getting unnecessarily nasty. I don't think Drogo is a racist, I just think he said something stupid that made him sound like he thinks all Mexicans are illiterate. john k 03:13, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What I said betrays my age. Mexico has made a lot of progress in education in the past decades and my knowledge of that country has not kept up. Illiteracy there used to be much higher. I'm going now, bye bye, see you on the Jesus talk page.Drogo Underburrow 03:27, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This has been a nasty day, hasn't it? I wonder what tomorrow will bring. Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring^TalkTCF 03:44, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't quite understand why the "Ayn Rand cult" article was speedily deleted

Supposedly it was a "POV war magnet"?? I'd be grateful if you could shed some light on the situation. The deletion log is here and the content of the article can be found on my user page. Cheers! -Dna4salE 15:59, 25 April 2006 (UTC) test[reply]

My RfA

Thank you for voting for me at my RFA. I am thankful for your kind words and confidence in me. Even though it failed, constructive criticism was received. In the next few months, I intend to work on expanding my involvement in other namespaces and try a few different subjects than in the past. - CTSWyneken^Talk

Sedition and Jesus

Codex Sinaiticus is challenging the crime of sedition in the second paragraph of the Jesus article. I thought you might like to comment. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 20:50, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Marty Meehan Addition

I am from Massachusetts, and met Marty Meehan a while ago. I am neutral on the subject, and wrote an article on his discussion page to that effect. I wanted you to see it. File:Peace Sign 2.svg Merlinus (talk)

list of languages

Hi John,

I've ended up being the default (okay, self-appointed) guardian of the List of languages by number of native speakers article, but I'll be off the grid indefinately after next week. Would you mind keeping an eye on it? It's not hard to keep up with, but could become a real mess if let go. kwami 02:09, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey John, You might want to look at Reza Pahlavi II. It really is a most appallingly shoddy article, but is being defended by a coterie of Iranian monarchists who think the hagiographic tone is acceptable. Even the name, given that he is not a reigning monarch, is questionable. FearÉIREANN\^{^(caint) 20:28, 1 May 2006 (UTC)}[reply]

The name seems to have been straightened out, at least; but do have a look. I just tidied up a bit around the edges. Septentrionalis 20:19, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Jesus#Cross-Eyed_Jesus

Ouch. Quite a lot of nonsense. IP Address 10:22, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proteus

Since you were a witness to the unfortunate encounter on List of Dukes (which has now been renamed), would you be willing to countersign an RfC? I regard reversions with brash edit summaries as undesirable; and he doesn't just do it to me, he bites newbies with equal ferocity. I realize that he is an old established institution, but even they require a check from time to time.

I may be over-reacting, of course; but I don't think so. If you think so, please do me the courtesy of explaining why. Septentrionalis 20:25, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Descendents of Edward IV and Henry VII

What sort of social rank would one have to bear in their family, in order to be a descendent of either?

How far up the totem pole, would you say?

This is intended to have broad answers and based on gradients of time and population, not going into specifics about exact descendents. About how common is their descent in the English or British genepool today?

I've noticed that American Presidents don't descend from either king, but the most common recent royal ancestor shared by many of us is Edward III. How common is it for anybody in the English or British genepool, to have a Protestant royal ancestor?

There is a general cutoff, isn't there?

Is it because of fratricide in the Wars of the Roses, the Tudors' "new men", or the Union of the Crowns, or the parliamentary union under Queen Anne (I can't think of any non-royal family descent from the Hanoverians within the UK)?

I'm thinking that there is a big difference between Plantagenet and Tudor descents, that the commons in all likelihood have the former and the latter is held by the lords. (just generally speaking) Then again, Tudor descent in the Welsh must be higher in general. I am further curious about pre-Royal Tudor blood in Anglo-British people today, since the status and/or concept of Welsh royalty/nobility is rather hazy in my mind. I found the Blevins aka Ap Bleddyn family of Powys in my ancestry, but have no real idea on what to make of it--or any other Welsh "native aristocracy". I might be able to find Stewart descent somewhere, from way back when. What percentage of Hanoverian background do you think that German colonists had in America?

On the British side, I have to go as far back as Welf himself...but any recent genetic relationship with the Hanoverians or the counts of Nassau are completely obscure. How does one research those other colonial people, such as the Hessians?

UK genealogy is relatively easy when focusing on English (and French) ancestries. What would a "national person" of Jerusalem (or Antioch, for example) in Crusader times be known as?

We say "American" for those Founders, but was there such a nationality-term for the Crusaders in their own domains?

I guess the term is supposed to be Levantine/Outremer, or "Crusader" as our national heritage says "Colonist"...

IP Address 10:54, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussions

John, I don't want to raise a big discussion on Talk:Jesus and have posted only a short reply to wrap things up. However, over at Talk:Adolf Hitler the discussion continues, if you can call that a discussion - it is rather a contradiction, Monty Python style. But maybe you want to weigh in anyway. Cheers, Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 20:53, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AfD for Right- and Left- wing terrorism articles - have your say

Please take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Right-wing terrorism and also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Left-wing terrorism and have your say, if possible. Thanks!Xemoi 00:20, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zhongchan Dao

Hello John Kenney I'm interested to know from where you got the information regarding Zhongchan Dao [1]? Thanks. — Insta ntnood 20:32, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks anyways. :-) — Insta ntnood 00:44, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pretenders Ernst August

Please see Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (names and titles)#Ernest Aug. and constibute to the discussion there. I look forward to people assessing UE:should English be used in all these cases and how; would any sort of numeral be acceptable; what are the correct ordinals anyway; and Is there any other sustainable way to disambiguate these systematically. Shilkanni 11:06, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

question

hi John, how are you? I noticed that there is some discussion going on about the naming format of Polish royals and maybe nobility as well. I noticed that they are all kept in Polish, which I find rather strange considering this is the English language Wikipedia. What is your opinion on this? Do you happen to know where the proper forum is where the discussion is going on? There is so much of that discussion I got completely lost in my search. thanks and with kind regards Gryffindor 14:33, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi John, I guess you're still out of the country? you once moved an article Wenceslaus, King of the Romans, I am trying to get a common policy on the question of "Roman Kings" (Römisch-deutscher König), since at the moment those few kings have all sorts of formats. the discussion is going on here [2] cheers Gryffindor 21:35, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

names

As you possibly are a medievalist, Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (names and titles)#Consorts may interest you, among other points there. Marrtel 14:24, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus the Jew

This may be a conversation you do not care to have, which is why I raise it here rather than on the article talk page. But I want to be clear to you what I see as being at stake in that article: an alternative to whiggish or teleological history that reads things backwards. There is no denying that Jesus is famous today because he is central to Christianity. But as a scholar I do not believe that the best way of studying the history of Jesus is to draw a line connecting Jesus to Christianity and then looking at everything along that line. What would happen if we ignored all the things that happened after Jesus was executed? If we bracketed our knowledge of "what was going to happen next?" I think this is a valid and important way of doing historical research. And while some - perhaps you - disagree with me, it is not just my POV; noted historians like Sanders, Vermes and Fredricksen adopt just this approach. The result of this apprach is a Jesus who is not important as the putative founder of Christianity, or as the Christian deity. The result is a Jewish Jesus whose life and death reveal much about Jewish life in roman occupied Palestine in the first century. Moreover, looking at Jesus in the context of Jewish life in Roman occupied Palestine in the first century and deliberately not looking at him in the context of the development of Christianity opens up other interpretive possibilities for understanding things Jesus purportedly said and did. Again, this is what people like Sanders, Vermes, and fredriksen and I know others are trying to do. Now, I believe more of the results of this worship should be in the article. In this sense it is still a work in progress. But to suggest that Jesus is of historical interest only because of Christianity is to let later events color our understanding of past events. This happens often enough and I am not saying it should not happen. But I do think there is a need and value for the other kind of history. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:16, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your detailed response. I have no objection, in principle, to merging the article on the historical jesus with the one on the cultural and historical background. In fact, I think this should have been done at the start. There are two reasons I think why this didn't happen. Initially, these articles were spun off from an ever-enlargening article on Jesus. You can I think see how the Jesus article could resonably had a section on the historical and cultural background, explaining the meaning of "Temple," "Law," "Pharisees," "Messiah" etc. from a non-Christian POV. This section was just spun off, and perhaps that was a mistake (and I admit that separated from the Jesus article, it is weird). But another reason why there were these two separate articles is simply that different people, with different agendas, then began work on each article. This is just the history, as best I recall. I think the two could and should be merged but I don't relish the thought of reliving battles with people who want to add paragraphs on how according to some book by an Italian philosopher Jesus was really Ceaser, or people who want to keep adding in their own interpretations of Matthew or John. What is your interest in this? I ask a genuine question. Are you interested enough to work with me on merging the two? Given the contentious history behind all these related articles I would want to discuss how best to do that. Be that as it may, I think one of the things that leads you to view the article as weird - the fact that it has so much content that could be seen as plain Jewish history, is because in the process of developin this article it became very clear that many contributors had no idea what the difference/relationship between priests, rabbis, prophets, and messiahs were at the time of Jesus' birth, or what it really meant to identify one's self or another as a pharisee. And I think any article on the historical Jesus will have to have this information in it, however it is organized and presented. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:59, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like working with you on this - but it is getting late here, and I am about to ake off. I don't mind our taking our time discussing things before doing anything. Here is why I would be in favor of merging the two articles and not just incorporating the cultural background into a purely Jewish article: I think the article on the historical Jesus has to emphasize the Jewish context, and I have learned from experience that a lot of lay people have no idea who the Pharisees were and what messiah meant. I do not think it is enough to have a link to the article on the Pharisees - I think such information must be in the historical Jesus article. I also think that for people to really understand these terms, a good deal of history is needed. That said, I do not oppose trimming all the history that is currently in the cultural context article. I agree parts of it are excessive. But I think any word that is part of the Jesus narrative (and that includes Temple, law, priest, pharisee, etc) need to be fully explained in the article itself. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:32, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't turn the Cultural and Historical context article into a separate article unless the article is on the emergence of both Rabbinic Judaism and Christianity - I do think it is important (from the view of a critical historian) to see these as linked phenomena and not as independent. Beyond that, I would not have this as a stand-alone article. Much of it can be merged as it is into a larger article on Jewish history. Much of it can be merged into the article on on the historical Jesus. I think you and I will disagree over how brief brief should be. I agree in principle that the older the history, the briefer it should be. However, I sincerely and seriously doubt that most people will be able to undersdand Sanders, Vermes, Fredrikse's, Crossan's and others theories of the historical Jesus unless they have a very clear understanding of who the Pharisees were, the relationship between Pharisees, Saducees, Priests, and scribes - many people think they map out into simple correspondences (priest=saducee, scribe=pharisee) but it isn't that simple (a good analogy is pre Civil War England - the people in Parliament who supported and oppsed Charles I did not easily map out onto Puritan vs. High Church) as well as "messiah." I suspect you and I will differ as to how much information is needed for people to understand all this. I definitely think we can put in less than what is in the cultural and historical article. i just suspect I would still want to keep more than you. Should we take this on a point-by-point basis? Or do you want to create a sub-page and delete all that you think is extraneous and see how I respond? Slrubenstein | Talk 13:34, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I would welcome your ideas for what an article on the links between the emergence of Rabbinic Judaism and Christianity should look like. Practically all that I know is currently in the Culture/history article (though I am sure there is more research on this). As for the the historical Jesus, I agree with you. It is only out of a fear of appearing vain that I hesitate to say that for all its flaws the Cultural/Historical article is much better than the one on the historical Jesus. Certainly, it draws more carefully on major historical studies. I have always thought that the good thing about the Cultural/Historical article is that it provides all the necessary background for understanding Sanders, Fredricksen etc. And I have long thought that the bad thing about the article is that it does not go into detail on where Sanders, Vermes, fredricksen, Crossan (and half a dozen others) agree and where they disagree. I think this kind of detail is needed. By contrast, the article on the historical Jesus seems awfully vague. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:56, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i agree with your most recent comment. Do you want to start making changes? I don't mind your taking the lead, as long as we go slowly enough and step by step, Slrubenstein | Talk 14:15, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me. I suspect that there is a fair amount we can do in the absense of books - in terms of reorganizing, which will also reveal spaces for (and invite) more research and contributions. Is there anyone else you think would be especially well-suited to join us in this? I think that as long as we are focussing on the matter conceptually (how many distinct articles, how they relate to one another, how each should be organized) it would be more productive to work among two or three or four people maximum. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:21, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Charles II

Thanks for your observations, Mr Kenney. I did in fact edit the main page to eliminate some of the factual errors and misconceptions I identified. The comments on the talk page were merly added by way of justification. I like to make people aware of the process at work. The Irish situation was highly complex in 1649, as you rightly point out. Even so, the Confederate authorities in Kilkenny did at least control most of the island, and were nominally royalist. I have no hard information, but I suspect they must have proclaimed Charles II in the same fashion as the Scots Covenanters. In seeking to recover his throne Charles showed a distinct preference for the 'Irish Road'-until Cromwell finally blocked it off!. Rcpaterson 23:27, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sie and hir

Hello John, I just read your comment about these two pronouns. May you provide more examples to support that "sie" and "hir" are not commonly enough? Thanks. I.H.S.V. (talk) 01:54, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I agree totally. But I am interested to know if they are used frequently. I ask this question out of my curiosity, not of relation to that article. I.H.S.V. (talk) 05:27, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Help

Perhaps you could come to my aid at Wannsee Conference. Adam 13:15, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

cultural and historical background

I assume you have been following this, but I just put in an extensive comment that you perhaps should comment on. My comment responds to a number of comments made over the past two days esp. CTSWynekan's proposal to change the lead "scope off this article" section. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:56, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would you share your opinion at Talk:Zygmunt II August and Talk:Zygmunt I the Old and Talk:Sigismund III of Poland. ObRoy 04:26, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stauffenberg

Do you agree that Claus von Stauffenberg should be titled Claus Graf von Stauffenberg to be in conformity with other articles about German nobility? If so, please move it. Adam 11:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would you give your vote at Talk:Zygmunt III Vasa Marrtel 13:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New article

A week in Berlin has inspired me to write a proper article about the German Resistance. Your comments would be appreciated. Adam 16:35, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Juan Cole

First of all, I never stated he was anti-semitic, I generally do not like to include labels or judgements on the motivations of others. Second of all, Cole has been very inconsistent in what he means by some of his comments, and indeed in many other things as well. Even if he is mainstream on certain issues doesn't not mean he holds mainstream positions on everything he writes about. Bismark was the first head of European government to give out Social security, does that mean he wasn't a reactionary?. Anyways, I am not including any of the content you find so reprehensible on the article, it matters very little what I include on the article's talk page.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 23:04, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I never said we shouldn't. -Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk

argue.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 23:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I meant I never said we should argue.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 23:35, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Consider any rancor that may have existed erased :)- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 04:00, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. city name convention

I noticed your lucid arguments against the city, state U.S. city naming convention in the archives from a couple of years ago. What happened? Article names like Chicago, Illinois, Hollywood, Los Angeles, California (!!!) and Miami, Florida give Wikipedia an "unencylopedic" feel. --Serge 23:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jogaila of Lithuania

I hope you can find a will to agree that the one-word solution is better for Jagiello than the current name under which it rests (and which i am not willing to write, because it takes several minutes to find and paste just the right characters, wherever they are available). Do I remember correctly what was your opinion of those names written by Polish spelling...
What is your reasoned opinion about which one word is such he is well known in English (how would you spell that word)?
How willing are you to make the Charlemagne compromise out of this?
Would it be advisable ALSO to amend the NC to allow for a compromise name if names in accordance to directives are all contentious to the point of almost POV, or would we treat this case just as a case without amending any of the requirements to make exceptions written in that NC? Shilkanni 18:40, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:On the Jews and Their Lies

John, would you take a look at this page? I'm looking for a fresh pair of eyes on the issues. Am I crazy? --CTSWyneken 20:34, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Macedonian language

Hi, I apologise if I came on a bit agressive on the talk page. If you're interested in the whole language/dialect issue, check out the whole crazy mess, right from Chinese language, through Arabic language, through German language, Norwegian language, and then Serbo-Croatian language. It is pretty whack I know :) - FrancisTyers · 10:57, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anglicanism and the Anglican Communion

Hello! I noticed that you have been a contributor to articles on Anglicanism and the Anglican Communion. You may be interested in checking out a new WikiProject - WikiProject Anglicanism. Please consider signing up and participating in this collaborative effort to improve and expand Anglican-related articles! Cheers! Fishhead64 22:20, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Władysław II Jagiełło vs Jagiello

Maybe you would like to vote on naming the article Talk:Władysław II Jagiełło Since Jagiello was a ruler of Lithuania originally (including the lands of modern Bielarus and Ukraine) and a key figure in Lithuanian history, then becoming a king of Polish-Lithuanian Union state, isn't it a case of Polish POV keeping his name in modern Polish spelling? Juraune 07:05, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I want to make two more points:

1. Jogaila before forming Personal Union of Poland and Lithuania, was a Pagan Ruler, and the Christian world titles of Kings, Grand Dukes, coronations by Holy Father, cannot be applied to Pagan world. He was a King in Pagan sense. Or do we still live in medeaval times and have to judge by medeaval views?
2. "Jagiello of Poland" is nonsense in your "Wladyslaw II Jagiello of Poland". Of Poland should be "of Poland-Lithuania", by the way. Jagiello is not a second Christian name. It is a polonised first name of Pagan Ruler of Lithuania. Juraune 08:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, your example with Charles I of England is not equal to the situation we have with Jogaila, since Charles I wasn't the first of the English Scottish monarchs, and Jogaila was the first of Polish Lithuanian monarchs. Also, you use a "X of Y" scheme, but X itself is already a complex name: Christian name W, Numeral, Previous name J (not nickname!). Y is also complex - L + P. Now, look at this map:[3]. L is blue, P is red. The story is: there was J of L originally. He established personal union of L and P. For P alone he is W II of P, with the numeral being under discussion. For L he is J I, first and only. Calling the country just Poland is an oversimplification. Calling the man W II J is an overcomplication, if you add an inacurate country name. Juraune 13:13, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So, I guess, English historians write about Polish-Lithuanian matters just very shortly, and in a hurry they are unable to mention both names :) In English you at least have Great Britain as a general term, but when Poland-Lithuania becomes just Poland, it is a great joy to Polish nationalists. I won't point out who they are. Just one example, the excerption of Vilnius article history section: "Vilnius was granted municipal rights by the King of Poland and Grand Duke of Lithuania Władysław II Jagiełło (Lithuanian: Jogaila; Polish: Jagiełło) in 1387." So what does it say: Polish King bla bla bla granted Vilnius city municipal rights. But this bla without titles of the Christian world lived in Vilnius as his own capital before becoming a Polish King in 1386. The harsh language of Calgacus is caused by the Piotr pretending to be what he is not. Piotr also has called Calgacus paranoic. As much as I've seen, Piotr is always able to make any discussion about Jogaila into absurd. Juraune 16:34, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Was nice to talk to obvious non-nationalist :) Be well. And still, James I isn't the case of Jogaila either. Juraune 19:11, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Polish medieval monarchs naming

Hi. I have proposed to move the following monarchs from their current, generally Polish-spelled names (with diacriticals) to the systematical English name, citing my general ground that English should be used, not Polish. Would you share your opinion at Talk:Bolesław I the Brave , Talk:Bolesław II the Bold, Talk:Mieszko II Lambert, Talk:Władysław III Spindleshanks, Talk:Jan I Olbracht and Talk:Kazimierz III the Great. Marrtel 19:44, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

About Mehmet I

I answered your question about Mehmet Çelebi. With respect, the noble member of Kayı tribe, Deliogul 22:26, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TfD nomination of Template:Infobox_prussiakstyles

Template:Infobox_prussiakstyles has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Charles 17:40, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The template was only used for three kings of Prussia, the last three which were German Emperors. The German Imperial template box has been modified to include the royal titles and this template is not longer needed as no page links to it (and there is a standard template for kings). Charles 17:40, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

I did discuss these things on the holocaust page, you know. I have already explained things to Kaseyrn, and Gordon is trying to stir things up. The holocaust page as with other serious topics should be treated with great care. Imagine the trouble that would be caused if someone introduced a topic like that onto a sensitive Islamic page. Sometimes people do introduce things innocently. But unfortunately there are others who are not so innocent. Wallie 21:18, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

German Resistance

I have added some material about the theory that Himmler knew all about the July 20 plot and let it go ahead so that he could succeed Hitler. Do you have any views on this, or know of further sources? Adam 02:11, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wrexham/TT

By all means change it back. Someone made the change in the last week. I really didn't know better, so I let it stand. Guettarda 18:06, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Style and succession boxes

Do we have a guideline on the use of "The Lord X", vs. "So-and-so, nth Baron X"? User:Wjhonson has changed a number of them to the latter. Choess 23:25, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO so-and-so is easier over a long period (incl wikipedia), while he/she may be referred to on the envelope as The Rt Hon The Lord Wharton or whatever. - Kittybrewster 01:14, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See [4]. Choess 08:28, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wallie

No, in the current case I really don't know what the deal is. We've had a few run-ins on Talk:Paris Hilton, but they were usually fairly civil. He can say whatever he wants about me, all he's doing is making himself look bad. Kasreyn 02:31, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Norm Coleman

Hi, I am sending this message to serious contributors who may be interested in articles related to U.S. politics. I believe I am receiving an unreasonable response-- and at times insulting and rude-- from the editors of Norm Coleman article, who refuse to remove a section that may offer some interesting trivia for Wikipeidia users, but is irrelevant to people interested in reading an encyclopedia article on a member of U.S. Senate. If you have time, please take a look at the article. Regards. 172 | Talk 03:11, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Beer Hall Putsch

Dear John, maybe you can contribute to this:

http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Adolf_Hitler&diff=60016409&oldid=60016300

Cheers, Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 16:21, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've clarified the issue but I think you have already answered it by opting for Beer Hall Putsch. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 16:54, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Emperor Nero

On 15 June 2006 20:57, you made an edit to the wiki about Nero and deleted the category tag of Category:Converts_to_Judaism from the article asserting that he actually did not convert to Judaism. However, you are mistaken because the Talmud explicitly writes that he did indeed convert Judaism (obviously after sending Vespasian into Jerusalem to destory to the Holy Temple). Please reply to my talk page. --רח"ק | Talk 23:14, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Constantine XI

The system appears to have eaten my response:

Not much can be done about the "mediator". I can understand the remptation to decide an issue, especially a yes/no close issue, but he should have recused himself and voted. I would endorse an RfC, which might stop him mediating in this manner.
As for the policy issue, WP:NC (names and titles) should cover that question; it might not agree with my position on the matter, and it will not be easy to enforce its decision against the nationalist interest involved; but I will see. Septentrionalis 17:19, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi john k. Contrary to Septentrionalis' allegation, there is nothing Greek nationalist about the consensus reached by English and English-speaking scholars in composing the Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium, although I suppose it would appeal to Greeks more than the Latinized forms. The only issue of relevance is whether Wikipedia should reflect the general standard of current usage in the field. By the way, I have also responded to your posting on my talk page. Best, Imladjov 16:15, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

About that second vote - I was not even aware there was a separate act of mediation. Actually I just assumed the first vote had stalled because there was no consensus. When they came up with a second vote, I picked the one that would be most internally consistent, although I thought both choices sucked - I don't know if I said that in the vote but I remember saying it numerous times elsewhere. I guess I don't really care that much either way - the names aren't being twisted out of recognition (as happens when people try to transliterate some Arabic names in a more scientific manner), and I have seen the Greek-ish forms in academia, so it didn't bother me too much. Unfortunately I have neither the time nor the inclination to get into huge arguments anymore, unlike the good old days 3 or 4 years ago :) Adam Bishop 04:39, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

people's involvment in nominating process

I am not from U.S., but very much interested in some aspects of the evolution of U.S. democracy into its modern form, from congressional caucuses, to the caucus+convention system, to primaries+convention system, till the 1968-72 reform that lead to supremacy of direct binding primaries over party bossism.

When exactly were the people first involved in the nominating process?

The Anti-Masonic party introduced the national nominating convention in 1831. 13 states sent 126 delegates. The National Republicans did the same three months later and the Democrats in 1832.

I have learnt that in the Anti-Masonic convention of 1831 the delegates were chosen by state conventions. Probably the delegates of state conventions were chosen by county conventions, whose delegates were chosen by the local party.

I was wondering how the mechanism did work precisely in those years and in particular, if the "first delegates in the chain" were chosen by local party bosses, or by the people, as in more modern caucuses.

Same question for the National-Republican and Democratic conventions that followed and for the various state conventions that preceded. I read of a New Jersey state convention of the Democratic-Republicans in 1800, for example, and other state conventions of the Anti-Masons and National Republicans before 1831.

Do you know when (and where) were the delegates chosen by the people for the first time?

Drive-by post

Your recent post to [Conservatism Mediation] made reference to ignorant POV's being inserted into the Conservatism criticism article. No one but Rick Norwood has added any content to this section, whatsoever. I'm not convinced you comprehend the full argument. At any rate, your post may be helpful in removing the latest group of quotes from Norwood. However, half the argument is whether criticism sections constitute a fork in articles, and are inherently pov by their nature. Your thoughts on this concept would be helpful. Scribner 11:38, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

conservitivism mediation

Many thanks for your comments. They are the first substantive comments anyone has made on this issue.

My use of the word "conservative" is based on my reading of history -- the historians I read, at least, use the word conservative to describe the Greek and Roman parties that held beliefs parallel to those of modern conservatives.

The reason for using only classical quotes is that the three people who repeatedly blanked this section objected strongly to any modern criticisms of conservatism as "liberal bias". I figured they couldn't claim Livy showed "liberal bias".

From your comments, I'm not sure if you have read the version of the section of the mediation page or the version on the conservatism page. The latter had most of the connective material removed, yet another unsuccessful attempt at a compromise.

I'm off now to see An Inconvenient Truth --shows you how biased I am, that I would actually watch such a movie. But I'll respond more fully to your comments tomorrow or the next day.

Rick Norwood 16:33, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to agree. In the past, I've been able to work with conservatives on both the conservatism article and the liberalism article, but these three seem totally unwilling to even discuss the possibility of any criticism of conservatism, and I've probably gone too far in trying to accomodate people who are not going to compromise. I would certainly welcome a rewrite of the whole section, if you wanted to give it a try. If not, then I will try a rewrite myself that uses modern sources (as well as one or two classical quotes). Rick Norwood 13:45, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if you intended to step in as an additional mediator, or if you were just putting your two cents worth in, but the Conservatism mediation has been hanging fire for a long time now. Meanwhile ED MD and others have been very busy, adding unsupported opinion to many of the political articles. For example, compare the Criticism of Conservatism section to this Criticism of American Liberalism section.

"As with any political philosophy, American liberalism is subjected to rigorous debate and criticism of its ideas and the practical implications of them. Critics of liberalism commonly believe that liberals:

have abandoned their belief in limited government.

attack American traditions, specifically Christian traditions and the traditional American family.

support government programs that benefit historically disadvantaged groups.

punish and/or discourage achievement through taxation and fiscal policies.

use the rulings of the Judicial branch of the government as de facto law, irrevocable by anything short of Constitutional amendment or a future court ruling, thus bypassing the legislative process. Roe v. Wade is the most frequently cited example of "judicial activism".

weaken the military strength and morale of the country by vilifying the practice of armed combat and hestitating to use force when it appears necessary.

engage in and promote politically correct speech codes that actively discourages and/or penalizes free speech that disagrees with liberal dogma or philosophies.

attribute rights and responsibilities to groups, as opposed to individuals."

No attribution, no footnotes.

Now, I know you are busy, so please just let me know if you are the person to ask for advice on how to cope with this, or if I should turn to the original mediator. The position of ED MD, Scribner, and beneaththelandslide remains exactly what it was two months ago: no criticism of conservatism is to be tolerated. Rick Norwood 12:45, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Partisanship

Rjensen really is a partisan; although it may be a Federalist partisanship for all I know. He's exaggerated Alexander Hamilton to the point of saying that "Along with his friend John Jay, he was the most conspicuous Founding Father in opposing slavery." (It would be dubious neutrality to say that on Benjamin Franklin; but I certainly wouldn't say it anywhere else.)

I attempted to make a sourced addition (in the body of the article), to put both sides of this much quoted letter; and he's called me pro-slavery four times (listed here).

I always thought him opinionated but useful. Is this sort of thing new? Septentrionalis 20:44, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you can keep an eye on the page, it might help; Robert West's comments seem to have had some effect. Beyond that, I may have to begin collecting materials for an RfC, a long and tedious prospect.

One fundamental problem is that several of the printed sources are distinctly Hamiltonian, and say rather extreme things, which he insists on reproducing as uncontested fact. The other (and perhaps more serious) problem is that he cites printed sources for things, like the estimate of Jay and Hamilton above, which they don't say at all. But since many of them are not on-line, or not freely available, this is difficult to prove.

And where is it to be proven? This sort of thing is damaging to Wikipedia, probably more than the anon inserting "Hi, world", which anyone can revert; but ArbCom (to take an extreme) will dismiss it as a content dispute.

I hope you have some thoughts on this; in any case, thanks for a reassurance that someone else deprecates what's been going on. Septentrionalis 18:15, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And again: see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Rjensen. Septentrionalis 02:46, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

British Isles

A few days ago, Jtdirl posted the following note on my user talk page: Your skill is required on British Isles where some users are intent on POV-pushing and downplaying the fact that many people find the term offensive. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 16:55, 4 July 2006 (UTC) Now that I'm involved in the article, I see that the problem is one that two editors together cannot resolve. So, if you have the time, a skilled editor such as yourself is quite needed on the article. Regards. 172 | Talk 22:26, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John, you misunderstand the point. The problem is simple. The term British Isles is used in a host of ways: geographically; culturally; historically and politically. Most Irish people, and many Scottish and Welsh Nationalists, have problems with the term because of the historic baggage. Some Irish people regard the Republic as part of the BI. Many don't. Many users simply want the article to reflect the fact that the term has a complicated meaning and that the issue of whether the Republic is in or out is controversial. That is perfectly NPOV and accurate. A handful of users (some of whom on other pages have launched into rascist attacks on Irish people) insist that the article must say that the term has no other meaning but geographical and that Ireland must be described as part of the BI. That is neither accurate nor NPOV. All that is at issue is one paragraph. Though there was agreement that the paragraph was NPOV three users have decided to replace it with their own paragraph full of POV claims. It is that straight-forward. Being accurate and NPOV in explaining the complex meaning of the term and how it is perceived in 1 paragraph. FearÉIREANN\^{^(caint) 23:38, 6 July 2006 (UTC)}[reply]

Thanks for taking a look. I don't necessarily see the point of Jtdirl's text in British Isles as describing how Irish people find the term offensive, but rather presenting the relevant historical context on the term. In this case I think one should avoid reifying geographical terms, which, of course, are culturally, politically, and historically constructed, and thus do not necesarily have a fixed meaning. Over the years, the term has become somewhat of an anachronism to some. Jtdirl pointed out on the article talk page, for example, that alternative terms have been adopted by major media covering the U.K. and Ireland: British and Irish Isles", "Anglo-Celtic Isles" or "Islands of the North Atlantic" have been used at various times by the BBC, ABC, the Prince of Wales, the US State Department, the Foreign Ministry of the Federal Republic of Germany, Pope John Paul II, academics like Norman Davies, Unionists like Sir John Biggs-Davison, and many others. I agree with Jtdirl that the article should take these facts into consideration... Thanks again for your quick reply to my message. 172 | Talk 01:11, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From the article talk page: Well, I suppose since I went to the trouble of reading through this morass (thanks to 172 trying to recruit me for reversion patrol, I think), I should comment. This comment surprises me. I did not contact you for "reversion patrol." Over the years I had never contacted you for such a purpose. In the future I would never contact you-- or any other user deserving of respect-- for such a purpose. I would never assume that you'd be so uncritical and unable to analyze the situation for yourself. I contacted you for the same reason as always: Because you are a graduate student in modern European history and one of Wikipedia's most skilled editors. I tried to "recruit" you because I expected you to deal with the issues at stake more seriously than TharkunColl and Feline1, even if you happened to agree with them. 172 | Talk 01:40, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What I mean by offensive, guys (and BTW I don't share that view) is that British Isles is used very often in as a subtext for British which offends many people (and not just Irish people) who don't view themselves as British and find the implication that they are as offensive and demeaning to their own nationality. Mikhail Gorbachev in 1989 caused considerable offence to Irish politicians when he misinterpreted the claim that Ireland is part of the British Isles to mean that Ireland is part of Britain (ie, the UK). Some asshole in his Foreign Ministry told him that Queen Elizabeth was the Irish head of state, presuming that the British Isles = the UK. When an annoyed Taoiseach, Charlie Haughey, told him bluntly that the Queen has nothing to do with Ireland, Gorbachev apparently asked "so why then do you call yourself part of the British Isles?" Haughey at that stage lost the head and growled "we fucking well aren't. The Brits keep calling us that. And then people like you keep thinking we are part of Britain." As far as the Irish are concerned, we are no more part of the British Isles any more than Belgium is still part of Holland. It doesn't bother me much. (Heck. Look at all the stuff I write about the British monarchy.) But it does offend a lot of people. Nancy Reagan, again hearing that Ireland is part of the British Isles, put her foot in it when she asked how often the Royal Family visited Ireland. She was told that they didn't (they do now, but not then) and said something along the lines of "But you are part of the British Isles. Aren't you linked to the Royal Family?" A more diplomatic Garret FitzGerald simply told her that we had had nothing to do with the British Isles and the Royal Family since 1922.

Similarly, people regularly say that U2 are from the British Isles, therefore they are British. As Bono memorably said at an awards ceremony after hearing a five minute speech about how he was the best of British, a member of the biggest band from the British Isles, "I'm Irish. We're Irish. That is I fucking R fucking I fucking S fucking H. We have nothing to do with Britain, nothing to do with the British Isles. We are Irish." That is why references to the Republic of Ireland being in the British Isles is such a sore point. People hear British Isles and think that means part of Britain, ruled by Britain, or with the British queen as our head of state. Which is why, for millions of Irish people, when asked if they are from the British Isles, are likely to say "fuck off". Theoretically British Isles may be officially a geographic term, but in practice it is used to refer to politics, culture, history, identity, you name it. Irish people are fed up saying "we are not British". They then go ballistic when the next question is "but why then are you in the British Isles?" The response of most people is "we fucking well aren't." FearÉIREANN

\^{^(caint) 01:49, 7 July 2006 (UTC)}[reply]

From your post on Jtdirl's page: But we should be careful that we are positing that the term itself is controversial not that Ireland's position within the term is. This makes sense to me. I'll wait to hear Jtdirl's reply, as the area is his-- and not at all my own-- area of expertise. 172 | Talk 02:04, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Metropolitan Areas WikiProject?

John, did you ever get anywhere with the proposed project? I just came across your request today. I've thought for months now that some of the articles need improvement. I assumed that people from those areas would be best to edit those articles. In my opinion, DC, LA, and Boston need the most work. San Francisco Bay Area could also use some work. Let me know if you are interested in working on any of these. Thanks. Ufwuct 17:51, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your user talk page is on my watchlist, so there's no need to contact me on my talk page, unless you wish to. Ufwuct 17:52, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, that was a long time ago, I'm not sure what I was suggesting. Could you refresh my memory? john k 18:02, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You suggested the idea here, although I don't see where you suggested it at [Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cities]. Ufwuct 16:43, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Porath political worldview

Porath was a leftist back than.He was part of Merez party extreme left on Israeli politcal compass.And word prominent is defiantly a pov.--Shrike 20:02, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well Meretz is defiantly a leftist look on its political agenda anti-religious, pro-gay rights, supporting welfare policies and social democratic economics policy. So it defiantly leftist. But you know what I agree with you Pro-Palestinian is more adequate term. The readers should be informed about views of Porath like they informed about the views of Finkelshtein and Pipes--Shrike 17:43, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Move request for emperors of the Palaeologus/Palaiologos dynasty

Hi. There is a move request for several Palaeologus/Palaiologos dynasty emperors at Talk:List of Byzantine Emperors. I tought you might be interested in.--Panairjdde 22:11, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I still admire your fluency, John, but why, why, why did you not think twice before stirring up Panairjdde again? Have you looked at User talk:Panairjdde/Archive2 and User talk:Panairjdde/Archive1? Enjoy! Best wishes Andrew Dalby 09:42, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did the request for just few emperors because it is not possible to request the move "of all the Byzantine names into their previous Latinized forms" in Wikipedia:Requested moves. And I asked for a move, instead of a change in policy, since in a move you are obliged to vote and take action instead of talking, talking, talking, talking, talking, talking, as we did for some months.--Panairjdde 15:07, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Panairjdde, do you happen to remember that when you started this whole thing you were taking issue with me for not "talking, talking, talking, talking, talking"? Imladjov 16:22, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

???--Panairjdde 17:51, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This page is for messages to me, not for you two to snipe at each other. Please take it somewhere else. john k 17:56, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Right. My message was:

I did the request for just few emperors because it is not possible to request the move "of all the Byzantine names into their previous Latinized forms" in Wikipedia:Requested moves. And I asked for a move, instead of a change in policy, since in a move you are obliged to vote and take action instead of talking, talking, talking, talking, talking, talking, as we did for some months.--Panairjdde 15:07, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Any answer?--Panairjdde 21:05, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have posted my thoughts on the article talk page. john k 22:08, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Byzantine names: suggested moratorium

On Talk:List of Byzantine Emperors I've suggested a limited moratorium because I don't think the current discussion is leading to, or can lead to, consensus. I hope you'll vote, for or against! Best wishes Andrew Dalby 13:23, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

count karl ferdinand von buol-schauenstein

Hi, forgive me if I make any mistakes in typing this, It's the first time I've posted on a talk page. Anyway, I saw that you wrote the article on von Buol, and I really appreciated it. Can you guide me to any books or articles I could purchase that have more information about him?

Thank you, --Vonbuol 18:06, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification of opinion

John, hi, I'm not sure if you're following the mediation cabal discussion at Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-06-07 Polish Cabal and myself as its leader, but we seem to currently be discussing something that you said in December, so I was wondering if you could pop in and offer an opinion? The specific issue is whether or not you opposed the moves of the Polish monarch pages to Polish titles. Please check here if you'd like to participate. Thanks. --Elonka 23:51, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for participating, and for expressing your concerns. As for (what I regard as) Piotrus' abuse of admin access, I've posted a summary of the admin issues here, and my summary of the current mediation that Piotrus started here. Specific admin power abuses involved reversing lockouts on other Polish editors, and using his admin access to push through controversial page moves by deleting redirects that were in the way, or protecting articles that he was actively involved in editing (another big admin no-no, especially when he was including abusive edit summaries in the process [5]). I am also concerned because, no matter what evidence is presented, Piotrus continues to claim that he had consensus to engage in dozens of page moves of articles from English titles to Polish titles. If he were willing to admit that he might have been mistaken, and apologize for the confusion, we could move on. But instead, he continues to complain quite strongly that he's right, everyone else is wrong, and he throws in some personal attacks and false accusations as well (like claiming that you never clearly opposed the moves). This, too, makes me question his judgment, and his fitness to remain as an admin. --Elonka 00:59, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John, I am sorry for taking your time with this mediation. I knew it would be a sink for my time, but I didn't expect so many innocent editors would be drawn into this... one reason I prefer to abstain from politics in any format :( We are here to built an encyclopedia, not engage in petty politics :( But, since Elonka saw it fit it to repeat has accusations here (and on who knows how many other talk pages...), I will just reply with some (obviously, selected by me :>) quotes from some neutral parties: "The suggestion that Piotrus should be desysoped was overkill to begin with... I have not seen any personal attacks by him, and feel that Francis and Calgacus should cease their suggestions that Piotrus is a cabal leader" (Olessi), "I think they have been incivil to you...I don't believe that he should be desysoped" (Keitei, mediator, conclusion (apparently not satisfactory for Elonka)). The neutral parties have stated that I have been the victiom of incivility and I have not abused my powers. Yet Elonka refuses to accept this :( --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 03:55, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cities and towns in Italy

I would love to get your opinion on the Italian geography question, since it's been a very confusing project. I've moved all the related discussions off of people's talk pages, to a central location at Category_talk:Cities and towns in Italy. Please feel free to participate! --Elonka 01:30, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi John - I've copied a message that I just wrote to the above talk page in response to what you have written. I have confirmed that "commune" can be used in the way you mention (I didn't know that), but...

- I'm of an age where "commune" has a very specific meaning - I'll come to that in a moment. Wikipedia has a disambig page for Commune which includes an article on Communes in France, but I do note that the word commune is italicised in that article (as is the word comune in Comune. My Chambers dictionary shows: 1. a number of unrelated families and individuals living as a mutually supportive community with shared accommodation supplies, responsibilities, etc (i.e. the hippy thing - that's what I see a "commune" as being); and then 2. in some European countries, the smallest local administrative unit.

So, I certainly don't deny that the word can be used - but I am still not overly convinced that it is the best choice. If "commune" is an appropriate English word, then the Wikipedia article should not italicise it, and the comune article could then define the Italian word as a "commune" - but it does not because I don't think that that is the primary meaning (at least not anymore). Do you know what I mean about the hippy thing, or is it just a British/Australian usage? ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 12:23, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John - your point is well made - I have copied both of your notes to my talk page to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sicily - please feel free to come by and elaborate or respond to any comments you see from others. While we are not the be all and end all of the Italian regions, we've already done a lot of work in this area, but having said that, we would much prefer to fall in with what ends up happening for the whole of Italy. That the whole of France has been done in this way is a strong point, because I was basing our categorisation of the Sicilian provinces and towns along a similar basis (initially using the term municipality instead). I still feel 50/50 about it, but I am certainly now a bit more accepting of the idea. ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 12:59, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
John - I am wondering how we now get this exchange exposed to a wider audience other than just those working on the Sicilian comuni. Given the early stages that all the Italian provinces and comuni are at currently, it is the perfect time to have everyone whistling the same tune (whatever that may be). ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 23:15, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

For addressing the POV edits of the Authorship of the Johannine works. Please the other edits this person did to so of my additions. 1 2,3.

Thanks LoveMonkey 16:52, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey let me know when I can revert the edit. And again thank you! LoveMonkey 13:26, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DNC chairmen

With this edit, you added a full list of DNC chairpersons, but you did not provide a source. Where did you get this list? Thanks. --tomf688 (talk - email) 22:25, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --tomf688 (talk - email) 01:03, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for setting me straight, Tomf688 and John K. Also thanks for the table format change. I am slowly picking up the many format functions. Now on to the Republican list. B-)WVhybrid 01:50, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Margaret, Maid of Norway &c

If you think Margaret should be included as Queen of Scots, you should speak up for the idea at Talk:Margaret of Scotland. You'll find that it's not easy to find much explaining why she should be counted as queen, the dead hand of tertiary sources aside, and that it's far from difficult to find things which say she shouldn't be. As for Amlaíb, he was included in Warlords and Holy Men 20 years ago and the Annals of Ulster and Tigernach centuries before that, details in the notes. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Loudoun

Are you totally certain that the current earl of Loudoun is not also descended from Mary Tudor? Finlandais 10:02, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Genealogical tables available to me say that also Earl of Loudoun descends from Mary Tudor. Also, the heirship of Mary Tudor seems to be in dispute due to several problems of some marriages, illegitimacies, validities and so forth. There is/ could be a case that Earl of Loudoun is a/the heir of Mary Tudor, in some reconstruction or interpretation. Are you certain that there is a line which is uncontestably senior to Loudoun in descent from Mary ? I mean without contest - no possibly invalid marriages, no possibly illegitimate births... marring it. And if, what is that lineage precisely? Finlandais 11:28, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Île-de-France has disappeared

Someone (who??) deleted the article Île-de-France (province). You can fin a cached version of the article here: [6]. Can you do something about it? Thanks. Hardouin 00:34, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brought over from my talk page...I see you speedy deleted the article Île-de-France (province). If you'd bothered to look at the history, you'd have seen that the text of the article was deleted on that same day, either due to vandalism or to an editing accident. The article in its complete form, while still a bit stubbish, was certainly not a candidate for speedy deletion.

The power to delete an article is a serious one. You should make sure that you know what you are actually deleting before you do so. I've restored the article. john k 01:56, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Server lag, didn't show me any links or history, and all I saw was the following...[7]...maybe it needed cleaning up but no history or links were observable to me due possibly to some server problems we had. --MONGO 05:59, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't aware until reading about it later that there were server problems, and the database was later locked...no correlation was obvious.--MONGO 22:15, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Conrad of Teck

Dear John, could you please comment on the Conrad of Teck issue: Talk:List_of_German_monarchs#Lothair_III_and_Conrad_V. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 18:22, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Île-de-France map

You mentioned that the article could use a map. There is already a map of French provinces at Provinces of France. Or perhaps you mean a detailed map of Île-de-France? It is very difficult to make such a map, because ancient provinces had quite blurry borders: different sources show different borders, so I don't know exactly how we could make a map... Here you can find several documents showing the borders of Île-de-France before 1789: Russian map showing ancient provinces and modern départements, American map, another American map showing modern départements and ancient provinces.

Have you done maps before? Personally my map skills are limited. If you're interested, you could make the map, and I would add important cities and towns. HOWEVER, you'd need to find a way to make a map that somehow agrees with all sources (the three that I gave you, and others if you know of other sources), which means that where sources do not agree on borders, you'd have to use your wit and common sense to draw the most acceptable border (which is exactly why I don't want to make the map myself, because I am too aware of the complexities of pre-1789 France and I couldn't decide on where to draw the border). If you're interested in making the map, I recommend you draw a border that doesn't appear as a clear-cut line but rather as a blurry zone indicating to people that the border is only tentative and is certainly not a clear-cut border in the modern sense. Perhaps coloring Île-de-France without actually drawing any border line around it, such as was done at Gasconymap,

Last but not least, what's particularly discouraging is that this map of Île-de-France that you and I could make based on the above documents would in fact be a map of the gouvernement of Île-de-France, which was a military territory without any real significance after 1660. Its existence was more theoretical than real. The governors had no powers and were not allowed to leave Versailles. The only administrative territory that was significant in the 18th century was the généralité de Paris, led by the intendant de Paris. The généralité de Paris, however, had borders completely different from those of the gouvernement of Île-de-France. You can see the borders of the généralité de Paris here: [8]. So in a way, I wonder whether what we would be doing wouldn't be just a post-reconstruction of an Île-de-France that never really existed, although this post-reconstructed Île-de-France is certainly the one found in most books and maps showing ancient French provinces. A tough subject as you can see. In any case, let me know what you think we should do. If what I wrote doesn't deter you, I'll be happy to comment and add main cities and towns. Hardouin 19:39, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Click on this: [9]. Still no map appearing? As for provinces, it is important to understand that they never existed as such. It's not like, say, English counties that existed since the Middle Ages. French provinces were simply territories that people identified as such, and that people identified with, but legally speaking, they have never existed. I think many people don't understand this. That's why it is so hard to figure out what their borders are. As for Île-de-France, the name appeared late in history, towards the end of the Middle Ages if I remember correctly, and it was never exactly clear what territory Île-de-France encompassed. Below the provinces were so called pays (from Latin pagus), which people identified with and which were much smaller than the provinces. The pays had their roots in the old Gallic tribes that existed when the Romans conquered Gaul. One such pays is the pays de France, a rich and fertile plain whose main town was Saint-Denis, the necropolis of the French kings. The pays de France is now for the most part covered by the sprawling northern suburbs of Paris and by CDG airport, located at Roissy-en-France (which means "Roissy in the pays de France"). Another pays was Hurepoix to the south of Paris. There was also Mantois to the west of Paris, Valois to the north of pays de France. All these pays are undeniably part of the province of Île-de-France, but beyond those, it's debatable how many more pays belonged to Île-de-France. Other pays that in my opinion belonged to Île-de-France (remember that we can only be sujective here, since there was no official administrative province of Île-de-France) are : Vexin français and Brie française (the adjective "français" in the name of these two pays means they belonged to Île-de-France and not to Normandy or Champagne: in Normandy there is Vexin normand, in Champagne there is Brie champenoise). Then there is also Beauvaisis, Multien, Laônnois, Soissonnais, Gatinais, and a couple other pays. Some of these pays are undeniably part of Île-de-France, while for others the opinion of people vary.

I'm going in great detail so you can understand this better. Île-de-France is a very vague concept historically. The pays had much more reality (although not an administrative reality). This is so much true that even today many communes still refer to the name of their old pays, so we find Roissy-en-France, Magny-en-Vexin, Crépy-en-Valois, or Marolles-en-Hurepoix. The gouvernements were created by François Ier in the beginning of the 16th century. However, we shouldn't assume that there existed such a thing as neatly defined provinces before François Ier and that the king simply gave a government to neatly defined provinces. That is true only in a few special cases, such as Normandy, Brittany, or Dauphiné, because these provinces were formally independent fiefs with borders defined by international treaties. The border of Normandy, for example, was set at the Treaty of Saint Clair-sur-Epte in 911 and remained unchanged until 1789. But for most other provinces, the ministers of François Ier chose which pays to include, and which pays not to include, and their choices didn't necessarily reflect historical realities. And even what I am saying now is simplying things to the extreme.

Anyway, despite this being a very arduous task, it would be interesting to create an historical map of Île-de-France, with caveats and footnotes. Can you recommend someone good enough with maps and history? Hardouin 22:40, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nice Job

Just wanted to thank you for your intelligent debate on the Talk:Israel page.Smitty Mcgee 15:55, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

city naming conventions

You've referred to the [[city, state]] naming convention for U.S. cities as stupid (with which I agree), yet you now appear to support a similar convention for Italy. Am I missing something? --Serge 19:17, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your insight is needed

I recently finished working on a stub on Human_rights_in_Israel I would appreciate your insight and ideas on keeping this article as NPOV as possible.--Oiboy77 13:46, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Czech Jews

Hi John. Thanks a lot for your contributions. I'm glad we're finally getting some material cleared up - especially the distinction between "Czech" and "Czech-born/Bohemian". I totally agree with what you said about how we shouldn't call "German-speaking Jews in Bohemia" Czech Jews. This is one of the points trying to be made. Leave a message on my talk page if you want to discuss anything futher. 72.144.183.250 18:28, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John, since clearly you have made good contributions on this, and unlike the other who have been on the deletionist side you seem to be presenting coherent arguments, I'm guessing that you are the one most likely to be able to reply constructively to my remarks at Talk:List_of_Czech_Jews#Epistemology. - Jmabel | Talk 22:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, John. I agree on Galician and Polish. Same problem comes up at the other end of the country with Odessa: it was part of Russia, not the Ukraine until some point in the Communist era, 1920 I think. Jacob Adler just might have spoken Ukrainian (he was fluent in at least half a dozen languages) but he would certainly have characterized himself as a Russian Jew. - Jmabel | Talk 23:49, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi John. We can't just target Bohemia, since Moravia is part of Czech lands too. A good approach might be to move the list to List of Jews from Czechoslovakia but I see nothing wrong with the way it is. Kafka and Ungar are the only exclusive German-speakers on the list I believe and they can be moved to List of Austrian Jews. 72.144.158.14 01:18, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response. So what do you think would be the best approach? What exactly are your grievances with the list as it is now? Maybe we can address them one by one. 72.144.158.14 01:26, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That was my problem too, but as of now we have very few German-speaking Austrians on the list. Kafka and Ungar, and maybe Moscheles, are the only ones I can pick out. 72.144.158.14 01:34, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, as of now Czech Jews has at most two or three German-speaking Bohemians on it. Those being Kafka and Moscheles. But Kafka himself did have Czech ancestry (given his surname) and did speak Czech, so its possibly he might be applicable. Are there any other problems you can point out as of now? Oh and Viktor Ullmann. I think if we specified that these people were Austrian/or German the list can finally be perfectly accurate. However, there are sources which incorrectly attribute them to be "Czech-Germans" (w/e that means). Nonetheless, the list is pretty much dead-on accurate aside from that. 72.153.53.100 20:36, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Teamster vs. the teamster

Good catch on Wyatt Earp. I've read that paragraph dozens of times and never considered that there was any difference. Of course the union is capitalized, and Wyatt would not have been a member when he was a teamster in the late 1860's, because there was no union. And of course the union was originally animal-drivers haulers in 1903 when founded, and moved to truck-driver haulers later. The meaning of "driver" like the meaning of "pilot" has changed with technology. "Computer" used to be a job description, not a device. Anyway, interesting comment, and thanks.S B H arris 21:55, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amsterdam

Hi there, I took the liberty of reverting your last edit in the Amsterdam article, as it contained incorrect information. I understand that the whole goverment/capitol thing is puzzling to most people, and some erroneous assumptions about this situation crop up now and then. The Dutch wiki has an extensive section on the subject, if you're interested in this topic I'd be happy to translate it. Lomedae ^talk 01:04, August 3, 2006 (UTC).

Paris

I've replied to your message at Talk:Paris. Hardouin 11:48, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

London

You've brought up an interesting point , but I don't want to complicate things further on the Paris talk page so I'll ask you here.

What could one call "London" in an encyclopaedia over the years? Today Greater London is generally and even officially referred to as just London, but (to my limited knowledge) before 1965 the only other "London" bigger than the City of London was London county.

By what I understand, "Greater London" was just a common and non-official/non-administrative term then. If only administrative/official delimitation could be used as geographical references in an encyclopaedia, then it would seem Hardouin would be right - before 1965 that is. I'm not at all sure about the 1985-2000 period though. I'd be interested to know something more - and your 'local' view - on this.

Of course none of this reflects on Paris' "legal existence" - as I've already indicated, this city is quite another case. thepromenader 07:14, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. I asked not only out of curiosity but to 'sound' out your opinion on what legitimacy "common appellations" have as fact - every time I have to conclude that the "official" definition (what one sees on a map) works best as a go-between for foreigners, locals and the uninformed. Not all are of this advice though. thepromenader 15:26, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Note that the city of London has always been considered to be much bigger than the City of London"

...one of the very reasons for my question : ) Official and administrative share about the same 'reference-able' rank I think, but I was wondering if it is ever possible for 'common use' to outweigh even these. Very rarely it would seem. Thanks for your help in this. thepromenader 16:34, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Core bios

Hi, John. When you nominate people at Wikipedia talk:Core biographies, I'd appreciate it if you'd integrate them into the alphabetical order. Maurreen 06:26, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. Maurreen 16:46, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A Move

Hi John. Can you please help me and move List of Czech, Bohemian, Moravian and Slovak Jews to List of Jews from Czechoslovakia to solve confusions given off by the list as it is. We can finally add people based purely on their residence in Czechoslovakia. 70.146.15.38 15:55, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gdańsk

Wouldn't it make more sense to say that the decision to give Gdansk to Poland was insisted upon by the Soviet Union, and acquiesced in by Britain and the United States?

-- Yes, but of course it wasn't just Gdańsk/Danzig.

Sca 16:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Privy Council

I'm considering rationalizing our current categories, and I'm having some difficulty with nomenclature. Obviously, between 1707 and 1801, the body generally called the "Privy Council" would be the "Privy Council of Great Britain". Since the Privy Council of Ireland remained a separate entity after 1801, was the name ever actually changed to "Privy Council of the United Kingdom"? Choess 18:49, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attack

Hello JK,

While discussing in Talk:Iran (section: "The same Israelis who have been attacking Wikipedia & is now being documented are attacking all Iranian articles"), User:Matthew A.J.י.B. launched a serious personal attack on me. Please handle it according to Wikipedia rules.

Thanks, okedem 08:44, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Byron

Hi, John. Technically, since Byron's Scottish, he should be listed among British, rather than English, poets. Antonio Giusti 22:05, 14 August 2006 (UTC)Antonio Giusti[reply]

Sorry about the placement of comments -- I'm new to this. No, I agree it's not easy, but neither is it exactly clear. Byron's Scottish roots, etc. have been discussed in the past decade at conferences, and I'm sure in publication, though I'll have to check for titles. Hence I'd suggest "British," (more general and inclusive than "English"), which skirts the issue without being inaccurate.

Here's one example: The Association for Scottish Literary Studies

1800: Scottish Literature's Grand Tour ASLS/DACE Conference: 18 November 2000 Tom Hubbard, University of Edinburgh

...At the Bibliography of Scottish Literature in Translation (acronym: BOSLIT), we count Byron as a Scottish author. He grew up in Aberdeen, and it was there that he absorbed the Calvinistic theology and the folk culture of Scotland – specifically the folk culture of the North-east. In Don Juan he declared that he was "half a Scot by birth, and bred/ A whole one"; elsewhere he renounces the "smooth-flowing fountains" of the English south in favour of "the valley of dark Loch na Garr." ...

Antonio Giusti 22:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC) Antonio Giusti[reply]

FYI: vote to change Chicago, Illinois to Chicago

FYI... there is an ongoing vote to change Chicago, Illinois to Chicago. If this change succeeds, then it will be the second (after New York City) major U.S. city to ignore the Cityname, Statename guidelines, paving the way for more exceptions to the unconventional "convention". Thanks. --Serge 22:33, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paris input

Good lord, I hadn't realised until just now that I had already spoken with you on other matters "Paris". Thanks for summing up the entire polémique quite nicely in a couple passages. I'll do my best not let (my) discussion sway from that line of reasoning from here on. thepromenader 00:02, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is becoming utterly ridiculous. Because of my earlier de-double-redirecting on all the pages concerning the towers in the list in question, I see that User:Hardouin has just created a Category:Skyscrapers in Paris and placed it on every suburban tower without exception. I had a look at his contributions: beginning his 'tower tour' just after midnight, his last contribution was a vague answer to your message on the "Tallest structures" talk page. This would seem to be all quite calculated with the intention to spite. What makes it even sillier is that there already exists a Category:Tall buildings and structures in Paris containing all the same suburban towers. Anyhow, I've had enough for one night. Take care. thepromenader 00:34, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input earlier today - again all the right questions. I can assure you that they'll never be answered by the person you asked them of, as we all seem to already know what the answers are.

In all, since the fact in all this is quite obvious, I think waiting for the only real opposer to any move at all to 'prove' the unprovable is a waste of time - Rather it would be more constructive to just move on to developing a consensus for a new name. Unfortunately I must say that if this is not done in a clear way, any move will be reverted outright on even the smallest pretext by this same person, like he has so many times in the past.

The fact that the knowlegeable in this issue are few makes consensus 'thin' ? Would you know of some others outside ourselves who can bring some lucid light to the matter. or people actually willing to look at the where and what of things? - It pains me even to ask that. Anyhow, thanks for your continued time and wisdom in all this. thepromenader 22:26, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any suggestions on how to end this? Every time someone makes the fact of the matter clear and verifiable to all, Hardouin will just introduce another "wookie argument" (like the "Metro" interjection) to keep the discussion going in circles. Sorry to complain specifically, but I've been seeing this since a year now. Perhaps it would help if you re-formatted your last answer into the line of discussion (above mine). But whatever.

Is it really necessary to vote on the fact of the matter? If so, a first vote should be on this only, and only then should we consider a vote for a choice of name. Otherwise all will just balk at a 'choice of name' vote and the circle will go round again. But voting for verifiability is but a silly waste of time IMHO.

Lastly, it does not make things simpler that the person knowing fact best out of us all, by knowing where not to argue and forwarding propositions flattering to ignorance, a doing a marvellous job of perpetuating this (what shouldn't be a) standoff. thepromenader 08:53, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very tempted to propose List of tallest buildings and structures in Paris for WP:Lamest edit wars ever. Is there any possible way for fact and reason to prevail here? I'm open to any suggestions. thepromenader 21:52, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message. it's not a question of agreeing with us, it's agreeing with fact. If only the right attention can be drawn to this reason will prevail - a few people willing to look at a map would be enough! The article has been extremely unlucky until now in this regard. It's actually on WP:RFC, and this is the second time. I've also tried WP:RM - and the vote for one name over another somehow got turned into a 'no move at all' consensus - perhaps this was a wrong approach?

One must remember that this is a question of something not concording with fact - through its title, the article content is not verifiable in any way, and as Captain Scarlet already mentioned, nor can it be categorised properly with other administrative and geographical areas. Find me one reference that takes the largesse that article does - none, not even the organisations in La Défense themselves will say they are "in Paris" - yet in spite of this, the article is in a standoff because of... sophism?

Yes, this is all out of proportion, but because of the resistance. One referee asking both sides (if It must be put like that) for reference would be enough to end the matter.

Should I open yet again another WP:RfC? Do you know of anyplace where there are people interested in actually looking at and discussing fact? Perhaps in the French pages. thepromenader 23:37, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, an WP:RFC can be done again. I can tell you that we've just gone the full round of argument and will not be doing so again. I've asked one final time for justification for the validity of their claim - if it is not verifiable, it is not publishable on Wiki, and that's as complicated as it should get. Quite frankly, they are breaking the rules, and attention should be called to this because articles like this are a chink in Wiki's credibility.

I do understand your frustration, and I can't tell you how many I've seen give up in the face of that constant (non-)argumentative wear 'em down (or revert 'em) technique since one year now. It's precisely because of the low editorial traffic in certain areas of English wiki that a (very) few with an agenda have taken a quite comfortable largesse with fact - take, for example, the Demographics of Paris article with its purely inventive statistics (a metropolitan area in 52BC ?) and more of the same at Economy of Paris with its fallacious citations (to numbers indicated as being 'not available' when when in fact they do not exist). It is some of all of this that we are arguing against in the "Tallest structures" article.

I do not think this should be left alone - it has to be dealt with eventually! I'm sure it will be when knowledgeable traffic increases, but if we all without fail give up, how and when will this ever happen? It is namely for this that I stick it out. It's been almost two years that I've been reading nonsense on Wiki, and one since I've been trying to make things fact, so I don't think I'll be going anywhere too soon. I hope you'll continue to help, as I'm sure you can see, knowledge such as yours is sorely needed. thepromenader 00:34, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Although the article in question was edited this morning, last night's talk page messages were ignored. This would be a best time to conclude as any. I think to successfully do this it would help to invite the attention of those actually interested in fact - and in Wiki credibility. Myself I will work to this end. thepromenader 08:32, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - but I don't think you'll be getting an answer. Even if the incacuracy of the title is 100% proven (and especially because it it has been), discussion will be ignored, the page will just sit there until some move attempt is made when it will be promptly reverted back, a claim of (no) 'consensus' will be made made (but not always if there is none) and the talk page shennanigans will begin once again. I can't tell you how many times I've seen this scenario before, and not only on this page. This sort of tactic is nothing short of 'bullying an agenda' and it must cease. I really think we need the support of a few others interested in fact. I will leave a few messages today.

In the meantime, it would be useful to direct discussion in some direction - could you make some sort of suggestion for a solution? Even if ignored, this would leave a discussion point for eventual newcomers. Thank you your aid in this - fact will prevail, but it may take some time and additional help. thepromenader 09:38, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good news! Talks seems to be moving in the direction of finding a new article title. Your wisdom would I'm sure be helpful to this end. Thank you. thepromenader 16:18, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Using the comma for disambiguation

Thanks for the advice. For what it's worth, I'm not giving up on the comma usage for disambiguation issue, because I think it's inherently flawed for several largely overlooked and/or underestimated reasons, and I care about Wikipedia professionalism and success in the long term. I also have faith that, eventually, reason and logic will prevail, though I understand the comma method, flawed as it is, has a lot of momentum behind it for now. In the mean time, my priority is to "professionalize" obviously mangled pages like Chicago, Illinois. --Serge 01:28, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congreve

John - going way back, you moved William Congreve to William Congreve (playwright). We are contemplating switching this back at Talk:William Congreve. Do you have an opinion about this? The playwright seems the most likely target. Of course, we would move the dab page to William Congreve (disambiguation). Cheers, (John User:Jwy talk) 14:35, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you good sir!

		The Original Barnstar
		For an amazing contribution in the discussion, Talk:Denmark-Norway, putting such effort in explaining to a difficult user the background of monarch unions, that if it were turned towards the article, we would have a few new sections right now. Orbit One ^[Talk

Nah, not backhanded at all. Comanche cph is a difficult editor and if he did not gives us so many problems, several articles could be featured articles right now. --Orbit One ^[Talk|Babel] 23:01, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Grand Duchess Anastasia Nikolaevna of Russia

Anna Anderson lovers have been at it again. PMA 22:50, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nunh-huh

User:Nunh-huh keeps adding a pointless Ancestery table to the Grand Duchess Olga Nikolaevna of Russia article. PMA 05:28, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And you keep deleting it without discussion. - Nunh-huh 05:53, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Military History

Hello, I read that you've made some edits on Italian history articles in the past, and I was wondering if you'd like to join an Italian Military History Task Force as part of the Military History WikiProject. It's about to open up, as soon as we can find enough editors for it to really make an impact, but we're hoping to improve the fairly sad articles on Italian wars as well as some missing articles based on Rome.-KingPenguin 11:07, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The page has yet to open up, it is possible that we may start a separate talk page for it, but for now, you can go to this talk page and if you're willing to sign up say so there, plus add any comments you may have. The actual page will be made as soon as we have five or so promise support for the project, you would be the third. Oh, the thing is only called military history because the main wikiproject is for military history, it doesn't especially matter, but we may focus a little more on articles involving wars than, say, Giuseppe Mazzini.-KingPenguin 23:52, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The page is now up!: Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Italian military history task force-KingPenguin 11:49, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All the British royal templates, having had their images removed, are now being proposed for deletion at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 August 21. No wonder people leave this project in frustration. FearÉIREANN\^{^(caint) 15:10, 22 August 2006 (UTC)}[reply]

The picture thing is crazy. It isn't even right in law. Now it seems Wikipedia going so overboard in the wrong direction that it has even ruled that even where it is legal to use them they cannot be used. To make it worse then, those applying the dodgy rules aren't lawyers themselves and rush in with rash judgments, jump all over other people's work and tear it up. It is no wonder at this stage so many good users have jumped ship in frustration.

On balance I think the templates work. There are however small cliques who want everything either to be

"listified" (only Wikipedia could come up with such a stupid term), or
put in frequently unhelpful categories

Either that or one lot one everything in templates at the bottom, then another don't like templates at the bottom and propose them for deletion.

In a final twist, you aren't supposed to tell people about votes on deleting things. So people who, say, work on the royal pages are meant to either stumble across a deletion notice, or read people's minds. So in reality some people work hard on a section, then behind their backs another crowd (bands of deleters who spend their entire day on the deletion pages voting to delete things) votes to tear up their work and delete things. No wonder I am getting so fed up of this place. FearÉIREANN\^{^(caint) 15:33, 22 August 2006 (UTC)}[reply]

More Structures

Here's another question that may once again 'flower' our debate were it not posed correctly: What exactly are Wiki geographical designation standards? Are we obliged to use only official administrative areas, as it would seem by what I have seen until present? I would think that this would actually depend on how other references treat the subject, otherwise anything published here would be original research. How exactly are we to define a "Paris area" if no other reference does? The very problem with the "Paris" title that it is an oft-referenced and clearly-defined administrative area, but the next "official" step up is much much larger - Paris is in a rock and a hard place when it comes to finding an official name for itself and its suburbs, as there is even no association representing the city agglomeration as a whole.

I had a look around for a few other examples and found Boston-area streetcar lines (redirected from Streetcars in Boston) and Transportation to New York area Airports... so like examples do exist, but I know comparison is not fact. Anyhow, I find the "Paris area" suggestion perfectly acceptable in spite of the above... it's perhaps better to be vague than downright wrong.

Any suggestions on how to proceed with as little fuss possible? A new vote? A new WP:RM? In-page consensus? A new in-page vote? It would be nice that simple fact and common sense prevail here, but it seems even these are sure to be contested, so a vote it must be, or so it would seem.

Regards,

thepromenader 10:38, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject British Royalty

John K/Archive 11, WikiProject British Royalty wants you!
WikiProject British Royalty is an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to British royalty on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you should visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

D B D 16:04, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Province of Maryland

Need your help. Please share your knowledge and/or resources on aristocratic conventions. Hasbro 17:26, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Province of Maryland

(N.B. I added a new section from the top of the page without noticing that Hasbro was already here.) Hi John. User:Hasbro has been making a bit of a noise over at Talk:Province of Maryland and appears to assume that editors who are asking for verifiable citations to reliable sources are part of some cabal with an anti-Irish agenda. He has mentioned you [10] as an editor he apparently has some respect for. Perhaps you could drop by and help sort out fact from heated rhetoric. I've no special knowledge or interest in the subject, I only noticed an unsourced edit that seemed a little odd to me. older ≠ wiser 17:28, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's merely a matter of naivete coloured by Anglophilia and/or United Irish nationalism, which have sadly distorted the nature of Englishmen as Irish aristocrats and the special case of one such Irish peer of English ancestry who founded American colonies. My opponents, like the one above, would like to erase all Irish connections to the Catholic nature of these palatine lords and remake it as a completely unrelated English issue. One must wonder if it is worth it to the Irish purists to remove any and all contributions Englishmen have had in "coopting" Irish identity by "going native" or becoming "more Irish than the Irish themselves". I never claimed the Calverts were ancestrally, but only politically, religiously and governmentally Irish. They embraced Irish culture as it has been known to the world. Please do not allow revisionism to swamp an historical topic such as this, which is a rare gem. Hasbro 17:36, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hasbro, the Calverts became Catholic for reasons having nothing to do with Irish culture - in fact, George Calvert's family had been Yorkshire catholics in the 16th century, and his son married into one of the great families of English Catholicism. They were not particularly politically Irish, either - George Calvert was an English secretary of state for years. I'm not sure what being governmentally Irish means. But the basic fact is that these people lived in England for most of their lives. I'm not sure how either of them can be considered to have become "more Irish than the Irish." It's merely fortuitous chance that this family of absentee English landlords happened to convert to Catholicism at about the time they got Irish lands. john k 19:47, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the Northern English minority culture, but they were rejected by the new establishment and only barely found refuge in Ireland. They tried what appeared to be greener fields in America, but remained inactive politically in England. After all, it was "extremely stigmatic" and they were forbidden from holding English offices. Their first natural outlet was Ireland and when that failed, they believed America would work. Obviously, their social interests were progressively curtailed everywhere. They could not identify with the new standards and would have better lived in the Plantagenet era then when they went through all that, but they were outcasts nonetheless and "unacceptable"--they were disowned, rather than the other way around. Hasbro 20:12, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

English Catholics were allowed to hold office until the Test Act in 1673. At any rate, being an English-speaking Catholic aristocrat in 17th century Ireland was not any more in the mainstream than being a Catholic in England - I would guess there were more Catholics in the House of Lords in Westminster than in the one in Dublin. john k 20:16, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's because the Ulster lords replaced the old Catholic regime. Calverts would be anachronistic depictions of the Old English, sort of mired by time. They were merely tardy reinforcements for the old ways. Westminster would have more because English law was more severely applied in Ireland than England itself, a hypocritical and inegalitarian use of force because the English viewed the Irish as a subject people. Just because the Calverts were not one of these subject people, does not bar their Irish presence. Their commission was Irish and they subjected nobody for religious or political reason. Hasbro 20:29, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paris nonsense

It's frustrating just as much as it's silly. What you're witnessing is an animosity created by a year of revert-bullying and other nonsense having little or nothing to do with fact. If you would like a clearer picture, you're going to have to have a look through the Talk:Paris archives - if you have the will or the time to do so that is. Look also at the state of the article how it was before - it was as if the city of Paris didn't exist. I think I have indicated to you before where you can find other examples of quite gross largesse with fact in other articles.

In all, it is a story of one contributor using aggressive tactics to enforce his own opinion that his word should be the unquestionable last, even if what he publishes counters or ignores fact. I have found no effective way of countering this, and have only found recourse in trying to bring an increased knowledgeable contribution to the articles in question. Yet while traffic remains low, there can be no consensus (on fact?) - and newcomers grow tired of the pettiness if it cannot be overcome. The best solution would be to leave the articles in question until knowledgeable traffic increases - but how can this traffic increase if the nonsense continues? Already, in spite of your (totally ignored) quite developed and fact-based arguments, you have been listed as being 'opinionated', and I see that you are ready to throw in the towel as well. All of this grief - because of one contributor intent on forcibly showcasing his often unverifiable version of reality? Has Wiki no effective way of countering this quite corrupting and disruptive behaviour? it is discouraging to more editors than just myself. thepromenader 08:50, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen the error in over-limiting the Provost's role to "merchant-only", so left the "provost" part as it was, yet added a clarification that ties the whole paragraph together. Taking some distance from the affair did help reflection. thepromenader 10:20, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

vote to move San Francisco, California -> San Francisco

Trying to establish a consensus for not following the comma convention, at least for famous cities for now. See Talk:San Francisco, California. Thanks. --Serge 19:54, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOBLE

		The Society Barnstar
		For your invaluable help with WP:NOBLE and your tireless explanations of the finer points of nobility, I award you this Society Barnstar. Kafziel 15:28, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please change my name back to red

I have no idea how to do this, but I much prefered it when my name was in red. Since it was you who changed it, I want you to undo what you did. Thanks. TharkunColl 23:41, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't really matter, I've still got to work out how to put pictures and things on yet anyway. TharkunColl 11:51, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't really given much thought to what I want on it yet, so I'll get back to you on that one. TharkunColl 12:44, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re

That's a good list; the book has my faith. However, the authors you listed who are still writing favour the Gaelic forms; if Duncan and Broun aren't using these forms, then this would contradict their recent work, and this would imply it was forced upon them by the editors. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 23:48, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, not much hope I guess. All you barbarians have on wiki is Angus and me (for the moment). I really doubt so much discussion went into it as all that; unlike me, these scholars probably wouldn't have cared all that much what form the name took, and either were told not to write certain things or just had it edited after submission. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 00:15, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By "documents", you should understand that this refers to obits in Irish annals. Not the most extensive data base. Broun in this passage is drawing a distinction between "Pictland" and "Scotland" which doesn't exist, and doesn't point out the linguistic situation; i.e. obits go from rex Pictorum to rí Alban, not from "King of the Picts" to "King of the Scots". Broun is actually the one responsible for bringing linguistic matters such as these to the attention of other scholars, in other articles. It was Broun who established with a high degree of probability that Alba meant Pictland rather than Dál Riata. Broun makes almost exactly my argument in another article (I'll need to go search to find out which one). In the passage you're quoting, it seems to me that Broun is simply choosing not to go into the topic, but I could be wrong. Can you tell me the date of that article (the article I say, rather than the book)? Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 19:58, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK. That makes sense. I wasn't sure what to make of that at first. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 20:27, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can I ask you, are you just concerned with the names of the articles, or do you have plans to try to alter the text of the articles themselves in accordance with anglicized names? Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 20:59, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as you can see from the vote page, that won't have the same support as changing the article title. Many of the arguments you've applied (which consist mostly of regurgitating guidelines), would have to be rephrased and altered for this. I would, of course, oppose changing the names in the text. The names were like that before the articles were moved, so I see no reason for them to change now. So you can take my opposition for granted. It's a shame, because I'd much rather be doing other things. **PS, just got your added comments. Dave Souza's position describes exactly how it was before I moved the articles; glad we can nearly agree on something. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 21:39, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So you aren't just picking on the Scottish ones? Ok. Well, Dave Souza's view should appeal to your educating side. People not being familiar with the names (I guess having been using them for ages and knowing how to pronouce them makes me biased), will arrive at the article, be introduced and then become familiar with the names and prepared to deal with them in better sources. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 22:30, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies

OK, I am sorry if I've come across as rude. This is one of my flaws I think. Possibly many of my experiences on wiki have given me an abrasive argumentative style and an inability to assume good faith. Excepting some innuendo about nationalism and ignoring your position on these issues, you have conducted yourself good manners, and for that I applaud you. In my wiki world this is rare these days. I hope you understand where I'm coming from though; I'm sure wiki conventions have brought a lot of good, but I do resent them being so thoughtlessly used in the way they are by so many people. I shall maybe send you an email in the near future. Fundamentally, I don't think wiki has to have some of these dogmatic principles just because a few people say it should. I appreciate that you have made some effort see the other side though, even if you haven't been convinced. Regards, Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 14:43, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, stating "Calgacus should insert his obligatory insulting comment here" on a talk page is against the spirit of discussion, and unlike my comments, has absolutely no reference to the issues. I'm sorry you felt it necessary to say that. It's taken away any hope you had of holding the moral high ground. And there was me working on reconciliation. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 16:59, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I understand. Apologies. You have to acknowledge tones were not the friendliest on either side, with you putting out innuendo about nationalism and all, and me being ... well ... me. You might as well end all this crap now and move the titles back; I don't think it's doing anything now other than taking up time and irritating people. Regards, Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 17:14, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, some of the early Scottish monarchs do need to be fixed. I hope you, I, Angus and others can come up with a way of resolving the names for some of the more problematic monarchs. When this ends, we can start. What do you think? Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 17:19, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good starting point. Would you mind pasting/repeating that on Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medieval_Scotland/Royal_naming. That will get the discussion started; then I can post a notice of the discussion on the project talk page. Regards Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 17:56, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Title issue

Dear John, I have advised User:Qp10qp to contact you. He has some issues with the current WP pratice regarding the title of the King that ruled that entity that began as the Eastern Frankish Kingdom and ended 200 years ago. The debate is on his talk page. Cheers, Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 13:11, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Marduk-apal-iddina I

I just updated Marduk-apal-iddina I with the info from the German wikipedia, but the figures do not match up with your list. Agathoclea 22:01, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will have to look at the years at a later stage, when I have more time, I am more worried about the different spelling of the name. Especially as there are other Kings in the list that use apla rather than apal. Could that have been a typo? Agathoclea 10:36, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese city naming

I didn't realize there was this MoS for Japan-related things that prefers the use of the unnnatural <cityname, prefecture> style. It seems that a debate on this happened last year with no consensus and no real resolution ending up with the status quo. I've proposed a something there so please do give your comments. Thanks. --Polaron | Talk 05:45, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Correct link to discussion: [11] --Polaron | Talk 15:46, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't give up!

Can't explain what happened on Chicago. All I can tell you is I found out about it only after the votes were well under way, and it was already running almost unanimously in support of the change at that point. I did notify a couple of people, but notified more about the others that failed before I was informed I shouldn't do that. Change takes time. The new arguments take time to sink in. There are many people who support the status quo who still don't fully understand the problem. But reason and logic is on our side. The key points are:

The status quo is a problem - all the turmoil and endless discussions, etc.
The status quo violates WP:NC(CN) because city, name is not the most common name used to refer to any city.
The current "convention" is not a legitimate convention - because while the guideline was voted on, a bot created all the articles in accordance to the format. They were not created by individuals which is what it takes to establish convention.
The artificial/illegitimate "convention" in the U.S. is inconsistent with the conventions that were legitimately established in other countries.
The solution is simple: Adopt the guidelines already established for all other Wikipedia articles, including for city articles in other countries: only dab when there is a known name conflict.

--Serge 20:16, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rulers of late Anglo-Saxon/Anglo-Danish Northumbria

We have two lists, one at List of monarchs of Northumbria, and one at Earl of Northumbria, which need merged. Before I set off on that, and on revising the articles, I have some concerns about the article naming, which uses "of Northumbria" and "of Bernicia", the same naming used for pre-Viking Age Anglo-Saxon kings. Naming guidelines, and common sense, suggest that "X, Earl of Y", would be rather more obvious (the alternative would be "of Bamburgh". Some of the orthography (Osulf rather than Oswulf, Eadulf rather than Eadwulf) also seems eccentric, and however bold Earl Uchtred was, no sources I have call him "the Bold". Does your trusty Oxford DNB cover any of these people, and if so, how does it name them ? Thanks in advance. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:19, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very useful indeed. I may not follow it exactly, but I shall take it under careful advisement. Thanks Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:24, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

US urban areas

It seems we have duplicate articles. I've added merge tags on both. Yours includes all urbanized areas but there is a bit more information in the intro text on the other one.

Also, large cities located within US urban areas can be easily identified by looking at the Central Place Table of the U.S. Census Bureau. This might be useful for the city naming guideline discussion. --Polaron | Talk 18:22, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In which I lose SAN

Today's discovery at the grocery store: Walker's Shortbread (with the picture of Bonnie Prince Charlie on the tin) will not fight the "Hannover Biscuits" when the two are placed adjacent to one another. The sight will, however, cause me to laugh in a manner suggesting serious marble loss. At least the store was relatively empty. Choess 05:34, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Naming Conventions

John,

Did I miss something? You sounded quite heated in your last answer. I'm doing my best to maintain an objective point of view, but if the points I brought up have been covered already (I have not read the entire discussion and archives) I can very well abstain if my involvement is ill-timed.

Regards, THEPROMENADER 23:16, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Or am I taking things way too seriously again? Wiki has got to be the only place (of late) where I don't have a sense of humor... THEPROMENADER 23:25, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tallest structures - "Paris area"

A few of us have managed to come into agreement over an "in the Paris area" title - as a former participant in the discussion, your views and vote on the matter would much be welcome at Talk:List of tallest buildings and structures in Paris. Thank you. THEPROMENADER 17:34, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your supporting vote. Even if the "move to move" should lose, at least I can walk away with the comfort that I wasn't alone in my lucidity : ) THEPROMENADER 15:58, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please help

Hi Please help me to move Sukhumi to Sokhumi.[[12]], [[13]], [[14]], [[15]], [[16]]. CIA, National Geographics and all these sources call it Sokhumi and also other well known encyclopedias such as Brittanica and Encarta. Administrator Khoikhoi is biased. You can see my discussion on his talk page. Please help me out. Sosomk 00:26, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment moved from User page

Comment moved from your user page. -- Gogo Dodo 20:19, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was glad to see you write that living in Africa doesn't make one black. I take it you use the same logic when the subject is subscribed to others like Ptlomey, Ceaser, Alexander, living in Greece or Macedonia doesn't make one white either I would presume. Nationality and race are quite different. Just look at the old U.S. OF A. Could these ancient cities and states have been multi-cultural as well. Oh my God what a unique thought! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.198.7.34 (talk • contribs)

culturaland historicxla Jesus

Please comment here http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:Cultural_and_historical_background_of_Jesus#Proposals Slrubenstein | Talk 17:56, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ethelweard

This is a horrid stub article, which was worse before. I can't see any justification for the odd name. My books, and Google books too, says Ælfweard. However, Anglo-Saxon kings are generally disambiguated by epithet or by number and kingdom. Whether the subject should be Ælfweard of England or Ælfweard of Wessex is a good question. What little I can find suggests, as it says in the article, that he and Athelstan, and then Edwin and Athelstan, fought it out over the succession, Athelstan in Mercia against Ælfweard and Edwin in Wessex. That makes "of Wessex" more sensible, but that rather ruins the prevailing fiction that Kings of England start with Alfred the Great. Please leave a note at Talk:Ethelweard if you have any thoughts on the matter. Thanks. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:51, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Himalayas/Himalaya

Dear John, Please see my notes on the Himalayas discussion page. Stiwari 22:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tallest structures mediation

I know the issue became overblown, but here we have a chance to examine it constructively. Please participate! [17] Thank you. THEPROMENADER 07:10, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually discussion has been quite constructive today. Thanks if you can add a word too. Cheers. THEPROMENADER 23:42, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did my best to sum it up factually/concisely with an overall description of why it is factually impossible for commune names to "bleed" over others... but the debate seems to be turning to theory again. Could you have a look and see if there is anything you can do to clarify the situation? Much appreciated. THEPROMENADER 09:11, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen your contributions over the past days, and I thank you for them. Unfortunately they've been buried under a pile of cruft, and for this I am in part responsible. I did my best to rearrange the discussion in a coherent manner this morning, but this has been since undone. Thanks for sticking it out : ) THEPROMENADER 17:02, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi John. Advice taken - I made a table of all possible solutions and posted it here.

I do find this phrase - ...and those who do not like the current title obviously won't be happy with any alternate title - a bit of a paradox. I assume you meant "those who like the current title" ?

In any case, I do apologise for not including your suggestion - I hope I've repaired that error. It's market day so off for my Sunday vegetable 'mission'. Continued thanks, and take care. THEPROMENADER 08:42, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the correction. Now that the table's there, I've suggested we move on to choosing a proper title. Even if there are further objections, at least this way we'll be moving towards something. I do like your suggestion, so please support it. THEPROMENADER 13:51, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please vote

Hello, there. Please take the time to vote for the various candidates over at Core_biographies#Voting_booth. If you can, try to read a bit about the candidates you don't know about so you can get a better idea of how to vote. Thanks! ♠ SG →Talk 10:44, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NC(GN)

I apologize for spamming your talk page, but since you had contributed in the past to the WP:NC(GN) proposal, which is currently ready for a wider consultation, I thought you might want to give it another look now and, hopefully, suggest some final improvements. Thanks. --Lysy^talk 22:56, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Turkey

Could you give me a hand reverting that Netz... guy? I don't want to break 3RR for something as silly as this, and he's now vandalising my user talk page too: [[18]]. Yandman 17:34, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the debate in the talk page before doing random reverts.. I will also like to mention that the resolution in question was non-binding.. Please remember that use of citations that don't back up what is written is called original research.. The fact that Turkey must recognize the Armenian Genocide is not in any of the accession documents, please see talk page.. This is not a gang war where we try to get the most thugs on our side as much as we can.. Baristarim 00:45, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kipling

Those are all the footnotes I added in the last day or two. I was hoping that the template would make others do the same and some people have indeed responded. I know that the temp looks unsightly, but people do take notice of the problem. Except for the first three paragraphs (that I've attended to), the rest of the article is still mostly unsourced. Will you mind if I leave the template in for a few days more, say through the weekend? Sanjay Tiwari 15:58, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, what you say, makes sense. I won't put the template back in, and will bring the topic up on the talk page again, if things don't change much in a week. Thanks for replying. Sanjay Tiwari 16:33, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Missing Privy Counsellor

Edward Thompson of Marston (d. 1742), sometime MP for York. According to this History of Yorkshire he was a Privy Councillor, and Foster's "Pedigrees of the County Families of Yorkshire" refers to him as "Rt. Hon.". He was also briefly a Lord of the Admiralty, and Commissioner of the Land Revenue in Ireland. Any idea where I could try and look up the date of his appointment to the Council? Choess 01:00, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The online ref (from A History of the County of Yorkshire, 1961) calls him a "privy councillor", and appears to be independent of Foster, who doesn't explicitly say "privy councillor" but does call him "Rt. Hon.", which should amount to the same thing. Perhaps he was an Irish privy councillor? Rayment says his list is incomplete. Choess 04:46, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scott's novels

I was interested to see that you regraded The Bride of Lammermuir as high. I was a little concerned to see that a lot of Scott's novels are getting the same grading as "Tom Clancy's" whatever, i.e. "mid-importance". I know Scott is not as popular as he once was and can be a windbag, but surely Tom Clancy's ghost written material will be barely remembered in half a century's time, unlike Scott... --MacRusgail 10:14, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Byrd and So-called Fake Quote

I'm not sure if you are being serious or you are being sarcastic. According to the rules of good faith, I will assume that you were being serious when you stated this because if you were being sarcastic, you would be dead wrong, I know you aren't completely dead wrong: Ooh, rushlimbaugh.com. Well done. I don't think it's fair to call Byrd a segregationist if he did not explicitly defend segregation. Byrd was, at any rate, an unimportant senator in 1964. I think it's best not to dwell on the issue, except to note the fact that Byrd generally opposed civil rights legislation. john k 19:38, 29 September 2006 (UTC) However, at any rate, another editor who did not like my edits accused me of making up quotes and getting the quotes from Rush Limbaugh. I thought you would be interested in the facts: From the Robert Byrd talk page: Let's get something very straight, Mtmdem. You charge, falsely, that I have placed in this discussion, in your own words, "a fake quote from Rush Limbaugh". This is a incorrect statement. You made an assumption, I don't know why, but you made an assumption that because I credited the Rush Limbaugh website for the quote then it was, in your personal opinion, a "fake quote." That is faulty logic and it is not good faith discussion efforts. I have tracked down other sources to back up the quote that took from the Rush Limbaugh website. Limbaugh got the quote from a PBS American Experience production called "Citizen King," which I had previously quoted. However, I did not provide a link to the PBS program because I could not find the link in my earlier Google search. I have now found the link to the PBS production "Citizen King" and PBS has a transcript of the show where they show Senator Robert Byrd making the comment about MLK right into the camera. You can review the transcript of the great Senator Robert Byrd making segregationist-style comments here: PBS, The American Experience, Citizen King--Getaway 20:24, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Byrd

I noticed that you quickly archived my comments concerning the false charge that I made up "fake quotes" in the Robert Byrd article. Have a good day!--Getaway 20:49, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rober Byrd

I never said that you charged with using fake quotes. I was just setting the record straight. You implied that because a quote comes from Rush Limbaugh then it must be suspect. But it was from a fine source, PBS' American Experience program. That's all. Talk care and remember to archive often!!!--Getaway 20:55, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]