User talk:Largoplazo/Archives/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Largoplazo. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Welcome!

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

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Alai 01:41, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Footnotes

I noticed that you corrected my footnotes on Ambassadors from the United States. Actually, either way works OK. As you know, the page processor will actually use the text only at the first location that the named reference is found. However, I usually leave the identical text of the footnote at each location, for the reason that if text on the page gets shifted around so that the full text is no longer at the first location, then the footnote is lost. I found that info on the WP page for instructions for footnotes and I thought it was a good idea. It’s not really a big deal, and I am not going to revert. Just wanted to let you know the rationale for leaving the full text at each footnote. •DanMS 05:51, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

My response. --Largo Plazo 23:02, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

re Line Dance edit

Hi. I believe I added the more commonly used term "sweetheart" before cape position, and added the word 'or' so that it reads something like 'sweetheart or cape' rather than just cape. I don't believe that is the same as deleting your text and inserting new text. I have been line dancing in the US for over 10 years, and have never heard anyone use the term "cape position". Remember, too, that this same article used the term "cape dance". Nevertheless, I did not remove the term itself. If am am in error, I apologize.Steve Pastor 15:37, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Caps

I didn't want to revert since there seems to be genuine dispute. But I still don't get it. This is not the middle of the sentence, it is after a colon. That's the only reason why it is capitalized. It is the beginning of a new sentence, right? Baristarim 14:57, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

A colon is followed by a cap only when it introduces a whole sentence, in which case the cap is a regular sentence-initial cap. The following text is one sentence:

Turkmen (Latin script: türkmen, Cyrillic: түркмен, ISO 639-1: tk, ISO 639-2: tuk) is the name of the national language of Turkmenistan.

The words "türkmen" and "түркмен" are not sentences here, they're just values in the parenthetical list of name/value pairs. —Largo Plazo 15:03, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I replied to you in that talk page. Baristarim 15:09, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

3rr rule advice

Please read WP:3RR and use caution in your editing disputes. You have reverted the Radiocarbon dating page three times in a rather short period of time. Note also that I have removed the problematic section to the talk page for discussion/clarification. Let's settle the misunderstandings there rather than engage in revert warring. Cheers, Vsmith 03:03, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

It looks you didn't wait to settle it in Talk before deleting someone else's contribution without justification, which is what I was trying to avoid. The only justification offered by the person who had been deleting the text was that he didn't understand it. He had no substantial argument against it, he didn't say he was offended by it, he just kept repeating that he didn't understand it. As I did point out to him in Talk, and as I'm now pointing out to you, that rationale would justify a 10-year-old logging onto Wikipedia and deleting 90% or more of the entire corpus of the site. Did you consider the discussion that had already taken place before deciding whether the best course of action in the meantime was to leave the material as is or to delete it? —Largo Plazo 03:10, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Greenland image

Hi there. Oops, I missed the spelling error in the caption - well caught! However, the spelling error the anon and I are "arguing" about lies in the image itself, so is harder to correct. I've left a note on the image creator's page to ask if this is fixable. Cheers, --Plumbago 11:57, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Commonwealth

There is a wikipedia article on it.

The functional difference between a state and a commonwealth, in the United States anyway, is not great. But upon incorporation and becoming independent from England, the framers of the political institution that is Virginia decided to do some very important things differently than England did. For starters, they did not want to call Virginia a "state." That meant (and still means) something very specific about how the government got its authority. A "state" does not exist for any other reason than to benefit the government and to continue to exist. A "Commonwealth" on the other hand exists to benefit the common welfare. Since this latter political theory was far more representative of what the American founding fathers had in mind for the different colonies, the framers of Virginia's constitution decided not to refer to what they created as a state but as a commonwealth.

There are four commonwealths in the United States: Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, Kentucky, and Virginia; there are 46 states. We call them all states because we're lazy and because in common parlance it's not wrong to refer to PA, MA, KY and VA as states. But that is not how each of the four refer to themselves. Each participates in the federal government exactly as the other 46 "states" do, and none of the fifty "states" is really a "state" because a state, properly defined, is a national government with sovereign control over a defined territory and a monopoly on the legitimate use of force. In that sense, the US is a state, the UK is a state, France and China are states, etc; but Virginia et al are really just provinces.

The point of all of this is that in the constitution of Virginia it is referred to as a Commonwealth because the framers intended government to serve the people and called the political entity by a different term to reflect as much. Today, 140 years after the Civil War erased any such thing as sovereign state hood for the different United States, we can speak of "state" and "commonwealth" interchangeably. But Virginia is no more a state than the United Kingdom is England.

As far as how they are still able to have senators, why laws still apply, etc.... that's because the US constitution doesn't really care what the different political entities call themselves, so long as they are constitutionally organized and have a working gov't, etc. If Puerto Rico became star #51 on the flag, it could do so by referring to itself as the "Pineapple of Puerto Rico" if it so chose. All that matters to DC is that it be politically viable, able to collect taxes, immune to coups d'etat, etc. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Almondwine (talk • contribs) 05:24, 27 January 2007 (UTC).

I'm not sure you really get the point, but I'm not going to go into an edit war over political theory. Ultimately you can call something a state in shorthand when you're referring generically to the political entity, but that does not make it a state in the sense of the framer's intent. Almondwine 14:51, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Another thing you should consider is that there really is and are no such thing/s as 'the 50 United States', and there has been no such thing since 1861. At one point in American history, the states were true states that were united under a federal government. The chief effect of the Civil War was to make the federal government so strong that what was once a bunch of national states that were federally united at the supranational level (consider a stronger european union) became a single national state composed of several subnational states. really, province is a better word than state since the use of the word "state" mis-characterizes the political organizations at the subnational level. a "state" by definition in political theory is the highest possible level of political sovereignty, and that is not true of minnesota, new york, montana, california, et al. Almondwine 15:02, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

that's what definitions are, my good man. you should treat them with respect. in my field (which happens to be international relations, so i know a good deal about this business) the word "state" means something very specific, and it has to or else we'd become confused and have long arguments about what a state is when such an argument would not happen if our ideas were clear at the outset. wikipedia, and in fact most things, have little patience for careless usage of words and such careless usage usually causes more confusion than clarification.Almondwine 15:27, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

your point on flexibility of language and its evolution is well taken, but it is hardly relevant. official documents still refer to virginia as a commonwealth, jim webb still calls himself the junior senator from the commonwealth of virginia, and and nobody here in Charlottesville calls it the state of virginia. we may no longer restrict uncle to our maternal uncles, just like we may no longer restrict state to national-level governments. but when we are being specific, as is the case on wikipedia, then we must use language according to its specific and not impressionistic meanings. Almondwine 15:40, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Arlington

Good to hear it; I definitely didn't intend to do that. Almondwine 15:35, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Clarendon, Virginia

Thanks for the quick pickup on the rv spam. You beat me to it. Vees 14:39, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Flights from Baltimore to Greenland

Hi Largoplazo, the edit I mistakenly reverted has already been fixed and you can see an explanation of my error here. Thanks for keeping an eye on the page. ;) Robotman ¹⁹⁷⁴ 22:43, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

RE:Anartic winiries

Hello Largoplazo. I am not sure what the point of creating an article to request it be deleted in two days is, but that kind of rubs me the wrong way, since WP is cluttered enough. But since I can't really think of an expedient reason to delete it (other than your admission that it should be deleted) and don't really feel like going through that process at the moment, I'll take you word that you will nominate it in a couple days. Anyway, I would hope that you make entirely productive edits in the future.--Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 12:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Antarctic wineries

Welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome your help to create new content, but your recent additions (such as Antarctic wineries) are considered nonsense. Please refrain from creating nonsense articles. If you want to test things out, edit the sandbox instead. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. andy 12:46, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scouting in Vatican City

Hi, I've taken the lòiberty to create a fresh page for the second nomination as the originla one shoudl not be modified but only referred to. Please have a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scouting in Vatican City (2nd nomination) and check if everything is as you intended. --Tikiwont 14:19, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks very much. I hadn't known the proper way to handle the situation, and I did see that the way I'd had it messed up the notification. —Largo Plazo 14:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Cut-and-paste move

Just a reminder about your edit of 14 December 2006 to Alexandria County (and redirection of Alexandria County, D.C.). "Swapping main article with redirect" is fine but it should be done by moving the page or by requesting a move at WP:RM. Cut-and-paste moves remove the important edit history. Thanks. — AjaxSmack 05:17, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

re:East West, North South Jersey

Sorry about the revert but your edit looked like a misinterpretation of a minor potential problem that was more than covered by the general description "roughly." Just calling it as I see it, as I suppose you were too. I was actually born in North/East Jersey, but don't consider myself an expert on it. In partial answer to your comment on my user page, I think Northwest Jersey was pretty much unsettled at the relevant time period. If you still disagree, I'll ask that you check with somebody who knows about New Jersey and see what they think. With the "roughly" in there it's just an eyeball question and different eyeballs differ (as any baseball ump knows). All the best, Smallbones 18:51, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Short pages

Please don't revert long comments placed on short dab pages as you have done. Those of us who patrol short pages looking for vandalism don't want to see the same articles over and over again. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:04, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

It probably would, but when one does hundreds of them, shorthand is often used, like people using rv for revert and rvv for revert-vandalism. One falls into habit. And adding an innocuous comment could hardly be considered vandalism. Read WP:VANDALISM to understand what it means before making accusations. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:58, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
- Well, I meant it was vandalism insofar as (a) it made it clear that there is a mechanism for listing short pages, (b) it implied that that mechanism exists to serve a valid purpose, and (c) therefore an edit made to prevent a short page from registering as a short page looked like an attempt to circumvent whatever that purpose might be—as though, perhaps, someone was trying to obstruct the removal of review or reorganization of a page that really deserved to be removed or reviewed or reorganized. —Largo Plazo (talk) 19:48, 27 December 2007 (UTC)