User talk:Tamfang/Archive 2006

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Tamfang. 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.

Vampire (Buffy)

Welcome to Wikipedia!

Kudos. It's a good starting article. I moved it to Vampire (Buffyverse) to be in keeping with some other articles that we (see below) have been maintaining, but of course you weren't expected to realize that. I'm going to work on it some in the coming days, but it's got all the essentials. Thanks a lot for that.

You might want to consider signing on to the efforts at WikiProject Buffy. Stop on by and see what we're about. :) - Che Nuevara: ^{Join the Revolution} 18:30, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

White Willow as in Chosen? nope, just the search term I tend to used when working on plant databases. --Salix alba (talk) 20:18, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you!

Hey! Thank you VERY MUCH for the major improvement on my webpage. I know it was a small thing but it made that table (and the whole page) look much much better. I will try to duplicate it on the other table there. Please feel free to edit more! :-) Lawyer2b 01:35, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Heraldry generally

Re heraldic bucket shops - good point. I would like the referral to go straight to definition 4 but havent worked out how. It was definition 1 out of 3 but I removed it to 4 and inserted No 1. Yes, I have in mind to write articles about how arms pass (to women, etc) incl England & Scotland & exceptions to each, coparceny, bogus arms & fake titles and bad heraldry. Kittybrewster 23:33, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Usurping arms

It's only fair to indicate in the edit summary when you propose an article for deletion. (And maybe a merge would be more appropriate?)

I'd also like to suggest that you notify the creator of the article when you prod an article. Prod is for uncontroversial deletions only, so it's particularly important that we not side-step controversy by keeping things on the d/l. There's a template available at {{PRODWarning}}. NickelShoe 00:51, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Plurality of Baronets

Two people in a room, both called Sir John Moore, are collectively the two Sir John Moores present in the room. The word Sir is never pluralised. Kittybrewster 23:37, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't object much to the change, but this absolute claim is rubbish. —Tamfang 00:52, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Why do you think so? Do you have any authority to say it is rubbish? Are you not an American? Kittybrewster 12:36, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

What is your authority to say what is never said?

Would you say "Lord Mars" rather than "Lords Mar"?

I find "Sirs John Moore" more logical than "Sir John Moores". "Sir John" is short for "a knight (sieur) named John", and "two Sirs John" is short for "two knights named John". (I also prefer "Johns Moore" to "John Moores", because a surname is more like an adjective, because there can be two Johns in one family but not one John in two families, and to avoid the ambiguous appearance of a surname that happens to be plural in form as many are.)

One says "Sirs" when addressing more than one, and I heard once that when two knighted actors (Olivier and Richardson, I think) were in the same production the rest of the cast referred to them as "the two sirs"; so much for "never". —Tamfang 16:57, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I should have said what is never correctly said. "The two sirs" is a solecism and was probably used in the knowledge that it was horribly wrong. The word Lord is a noun, in contrast to a titular prefix. "two Sir Johns" is the correct abbreviation for two knights named John. It seems equally bizarre to pluralise John and Moore but it is the surname rather than the christian name that gets pluralised. Possibly because that is what one would do if they were both Mr - the Mr Moores rather than the Misters Moore or the Mr Johns.Kittybrewster 11:31, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I think I've seen "Messrs Moore" far more often than "Mr Moores".

"two Sir John Moores" strikes me as most likely to mean two of something named after a Sir John.

—Tamfang 16:57, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes. "Messrs Moore" is certainly fine. But "Sirs John" I am afraid is not. I think the usual phrase would be "This is the first time I have found myself in the presence of three knights" rather than "three Sirs" - and of course the chances are against their all being called Sir John. Kittybrewster 00:12, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

John Brooke-Little

Anton...with your interest in heraldry, I thought you might like to join in the peer review of John Brooke-Little's article. Your input would be greatly appreciated. Keep up the great work.--Evadb 15:06, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

You'll turn my head with such flattery! As it happens, the officers of arms are an area about which I know little. —Tamfang 17:07, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh well...it was worth a shot. I've been reading your contributions to rec.heraldry for years and you seem to know much about heraldry. I thought I'd try. You're welcome to add check for spelling errors. :) --Evadb 21:49, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Dashes

See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dashes)

"The hyphen, or more accurately the hyphen-minus (-), is the shortest dash-like character visually. Traditionally, this was used only for hyphenating words, creating line breaks, or as the minus sign."

and

"The en dash (–) is slightly longer than the hyphen and figure dash and about half the width of an em dash. It indicates duration, such as when you could substitute the word "to" (as in a range of dates). An en dash placed between numbers or in compounds does not have spaces around it: for example Paris–Brussels timetable, Ages 7–77. Some writers, however, prefer to place a space on either side in complex ranges: January 1, 2003 – December 31, 2004. The en dash can also be used as a hyphen in compound adjectives in which one part consists of two words or a hyphenated word: for example, pre–World War II period . . ."

The Manual of Style does list several styles, saying to be tolerant of what other editors have used. It doesn't mention using hyphen as n–dashes, which is what I think you're advocating, but I don't want to get in an ongoing disagreement over it. I'll leave any changes to your discretion. Dvd Avins 00:44, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

What do you make of the Paris–Brussels timetable example? Dvd Avins 02:17, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

That's a range (though not a range of numbers). I'd be less willing to accept a dash in Champaign-Urbana (the double town where I grew up) or Mary-Anne or Spencer-Churchill. —Tamfang 02:38, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Do you see "well-placed" as something other than a hyphenated word? —Tamfang 02:44, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Heraldry

Thanks for catching the vandal who removed the section. Eternal vigilance pays. --EncycloPetey 06:04, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Grass and mass

Just curious do you pronounce "ass" in "grass" and "mass" the same way? --Philip Baird Shearer 13:02, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I pronounce the ass in grass as in arse and the ass in mass as in ass, so I do not see why a French accent mark on a word to tell anyone how to pronounce a word in English when words like Cirencester do not have any such indicators. --Philip Baird Shearer 19:37, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

How can common English pronunciation of English words be miss pronunciation? That words are not spelt as they are pronounced in English makes it a punny language, but we could follow this down a Mousehole, (or into a pub), so I guess we will have to agree to differ.--Philip Baird Shearer 21:49, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Quebec English

Thanks for cleaning up those links! Thanks also for updating the version in my sandbox! CJ Withers 20:21, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Dominick Browne, 4th Baron Oranmore and Browne

Thanks for adding the bullet indents, for some reason when I tried to do that it gave me two bullets not a doubt indent distance. There's not much else to wikify now do you think we can remove the cleanup tag?Alci12 16:43, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

"cite" v "allege"

Hi Tamfang, regarding the criticisms of capitalism section, I take your point that some criticisms such as a tendency toward oligarchy and imperialism are contentious. But others listed there, such as inequality, unemployment and economic instability pretty obviously are not merely "alleged" problems. To put it another way, neither "cite" nor "allege" can suffice to adequately address all the phenomena listed.

Therefore I have altered the sentence structure somewhat toward what I think is a more neutral expression all around. Regards, Gatoclass 07:31, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Heraldry Portal?

Hey. I've proposed the creation of an heraldic portal. If you think that such a thing would be helpful, you can voice your support HERE and hopefully we can get the heraldry category items organized better. Thanks for all your hard work on heraldic topics.--E va ^db 08:48, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Merlin Hay, 24th Earl of Erroll

"Does he also succeed his father as chief of Moncreiffe?"

No. At least he doesn't seem to have but there is something wrong here and I think wiki has erred. What seems to have happened is that their eldest son inherited the earldom and changed his name to Hay so he could become Chief of the Clan Hay, their younger son (The Hon. Peregrine) kept the name Moncrieffe so he became the Chief of that Clan. However Scottish_clan and Clan_Hay list the earl with the surname Moncrieffe which he can't have or Lord Lyon wouldn't recognise him as clan chief.Alci12 17:12, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Irgendwer RfC

I've filed a request request for comment at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Irgendwer and your input would be appreciated. --rehpotsirhc ^{█♣█ ▪ Talk} 05:06, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, and a barnstar

I award this Barnstar to Tamfang for assuming good faith.

I am extremely impressed and greatful for your "translation" here. I made an attempt to do so, but simply could not make sense of it. As I noted earlier in the discussion, I do not have the intestinal fortitude for prolonged edit wars, and have removed myself from the fray, but have been watching with keen interested. Keep on keeping a level head, and happy editing, --D-Rock (talk) 06:08, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Woohoo! —Tamfang 06:12, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

re: Fürsts of Schwarzenberg

I agree completely and will do so, just didn;t have the time! Where does it go? Congrats on the Barnstar. Johnpallen 20:12, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Fürsts of Schwarzenberg

There seem to be some serious issues with this article, largely due to hoaxing by Johnpallen (talk · contribs). (See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Earl of Amersham). Looks like I was premature in nominating this article for AfD, but I am unclear how to clean it up. There seem to be some gross discrepancies with the House of Schwarzenberg article, even after you remove the hoax presumptive heir. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fürsts of Schwarzenberg. Seems to me we need one (only one) article about the family, and should restore Karl Philipp Fürst zu Schwarzenberg to this version and remove the information about his descendents from there. But why isn't Karl Philipp listed as a prince in House of Schwarzenberg?? I'm really confused here. Fan1967 05:01, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Hopefully we can find someone who knows something about the family who can clean these up. I don't think we need to delete any of them, just figure out what's what. Fan1967 05:27, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Convex

Thanks for your note. When a word is being used in its normal English-usage way, for example "convex" meaning something physical that is curved consistently outwards, there is no need to link the word. The same applies to almost any adjective. The fact that other authors felt a need to link to "convex" when there is no article for the sense of "convex" they are intending does not mean to me that the articles should either link to "Convex" the disambiguation page or "Convex set", an overly technical and overly specific term. I think the links should be removed, or if they must link to something, that they should link to the Wiktionary entry for "convex". You disagree, and I can respect that. I won't revert anything you've done. If there are other pages linked to "Convex" that fall into the category that I would remove the link from, feel free to move the link now, so that we don't go through the double work of my removing the link followed by your putting one back. Dpv 05:52, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Nice work!

I saw you organized the list of Unseen characters who were spoken of for a long time and then eventually seen. It looks much nicer now! --The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 07:02, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Irgendwar

Serge and I are of the opinion that it's time for arbitration. Neither of us have the time to properly prepare the evidence necessary to request arbitration, and I was wondering if you felt the same and would be willing. I'll happily be a full party to the arbitration if it should be started. (Our discussion: User talk:Serge Issakov#Irgendwar / User talk:Saxifrage#Arbitration?) — Saxifrage ✎ 19:09, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

The procedure is laid out at Wikipedia:Requests for Arbitration. I haven't opened any before myself, but I've read many and I can try to help with setting it up if you have questions. — Saxifrage ✎ 20:11, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Nomeculture

Hi Tam, its sort of described in Template talk:Polyhedra DB. Basically take the initials of the words in the long form names, with capitals for Tetrahedron etc and small letters for modifiers, s - stelated. So great truncated Cubeoctahedron becomes gtCO. Not far removed from Bowers system, he basically does the same but adds a few vowels to make then real words. --Salix alba (talk) 19:55, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Second front

I think I've accidentally stumbled on a communication method that works: stay on message, have only one message, and utterly ignore the flamebait that he throws out in his frustration as if it wasn't there. We'll see if I can keep him focused on the issue at hand long enough for him to actually grasp what it means and why his edit is problematic. — Saxifrage ✎ 06:39, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:Bitruncated cosmotetron stereographic close-up.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Bitruncated cosmotetron stereographic close-up.png. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 19:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:Omnitruncated tesseract stereographic (tCO).png

Thanks for uploading Image:Omnitruncated tesseract stereographic (tCO).png. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 20:08, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Solar Boat

I have searched for this with zero result: some Seventies song ends with the narration "But now we must descend, for there is another side to this vision." It may be the same song that contains the line "Freud and Jung are holding hands and saying I'm with you." Does either bit any bells? —Tamfang 04:57, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

That would be "Solar Boat" from the album The Golden Scarab by one Ray Manzarek, of The Doors fame. --Tagishsimon (talk)

Academy ratio

Hi Tamfang,

Just wanted to let you know that I've reverted your edit because the concept of integer ratio aspect ratios for imaging formats was (to my knowledge) a creation wholly associated with video standards many decades later. AMPAS standardized the Academy ratio by thousands of an inch, and this includes two different standards - one for the camera aperture and one for the projection aperture (the latter is always smaller). Both of these can be found on the list of film formats page, and as you can see by doing the math, neither is close enough to 1.375 to suggest an 11/8 ratio. One is around 1.374 while the other is closer to 1.370. I don't claim to understand the specific choice of sizes, but I think it's fair to say that the numbers don't match. Please feel free to contact me or discuss on the article talk page if you want to continue to the conversation. Thanks! Girolamo Savonarola 20:23, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Agorism

Thanks for your response the agorist page. If it doesn't bother you, could you answer a few questions? I'm kind of interested in political philosophy (I'm no authority on the subject, obviously) and this is a bit puzzling. How can people respect public property without coercion? And what are the criteria for public property that should be respected as opposed to public property that should be privatised? Thanks for your time :). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Onias (talk • contribs) 10:31, 17 September 2006

I'm no authority on agorism, either, and cannot answer these questions. —Tamfang 19:10, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks anyway. --Onias 19:19, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Featured article candidate review: Buffy article

Hi

You maybe interested to know that the article 'Buffy the Vampire Slayer' has recently been nominated as a candidate to become a featured article. Should it become a featured article, it will be possible for the article to appear on the Wikipedia main page on March 10th 2007, the 10th anniversary of Buffy (the premiere, "Welcome to the Hellmouth" aired March 10th 1997).

Any feedback you can offer to improve the article and/or to either object or support the nomination, would be wonderful. Thanks -- Paxomen 18:22, 21 September 2006 (UTC)