User:Stbalbach/talk archive 2

Welcome

Please leave comments below --Stbalbach 17:59, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Barnstar

Congratulations!!! You've earned yourself a barnstar!

FireFox 17:50, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Talk pages

Don't remover other people's comments from Talk pages. User:Zoe|^(talk) 23:21, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm trying to let other people know that they don't need your approval to edit the article. User:Zoe|^(talk) 23:27, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I have reported your inappropriate behavior at WP:ANI. User:Zoe|^(talk) 23:35, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

3RR

FYI, you have violated the 3RR on Talk:Anglo-Saxon literature. Please do not revert any page more than 3 times in 24 hours as per WP:3RR. For now, instead of blocking you I have just rolled back your last edit. Otherwise I am no part of your conflict with Zoe. -- Chris 73 | Talk 23:44, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Pirate image

Hi Ahoy matey! The reason I replaced the fair use image was because, as the image's tag says, we can only claim "fair use" when the image is used for "identification and critical commentary on the film". I'm not a lawyer, but I don't think we can use that image in this context. Coffee 19:21, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Arrr, so it does, so it does. Well, I won't insist on it then. Coffee 19:30, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Category:Usage of main with more than 5 parameters

What on earth is it for? -- SCZenz 05:31, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

So it's a maintenece category? I ask because I'm trying to find a parent category for it (and other orphaned category). -- SCZenz 16:27, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Cool, thanks. -- SCZenz 16:36, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Dickens

I have tried to address my motives for restoring that text on the Dickens talk page but I will explain myself here as well.

You could read Debtor's prison about the place but it is frankly crap. Better to read Little Dorrit which has evocative descriptions. But the point is whole families were imprisoned in debtors prison, they were far more like ghettos. Dickens was not imprisoned as he was able to work but part of his wages went towards his fathers debt.

I admit "shameful lowly past" were not Dickens' own words as he did not write directly of it, but what we see as character-building now would be viewed much more harshly then. Just as Pip's status as a gentleman hung by a thread Dickens own reputation could be destroyed. He argued with his friend Thackery and rarely talked to him again after he dared mention Dickens' humble upbringing compared to his more refined social position. I believe much of Dickens' great work is due to his own catharsis and coming to terms with the events in his past. As for Copperfield his greatest novel, sheesh, more like one of his ten greatest.

That All, it is a bit of screaming POV monster which people see and want to execute but I think without it or with some qualifier Some, Many, Most it destroys the impact of the sentance. Don't worry I wont edit war about that, how about "Authors incorporate autobiographical elements into fiction," MeltBanana 02:21, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikireader.

Hello, I've signed up in the Wikireader spoiler warnings. I'm not sure if it is still active, but in case it is, I'm interested in helping. --Vidarlo 20:17, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikisource-addition

I responded to your comments on Template talk:Wikisource-addition-1. Frankly, I'm just glad someone actually took notice of it this quickly! Kurt Weber 15:43, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Cædmon's Hymn...

I really don't think it should be merged. I don't think I'm up to the task of doing it, but it really should be expanded, not merged. I mean, if the likes of Frosty the Snowman and Puff, the Magic Dragon get their own articles, should the oldest poem in the English language not get one too? elvenscout742 02:00, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I dont disagree that it could have its own article, but the Hymn is allready covered well in the Cædmon article. Have you read in entirety the Cædmon article? It's really well done and professional..im not sure why you see the need to fork off a new article, and a stub at that, for somthing thats allready been covered. Just because it could have its own article is not a reason to do so if it creates a fork in the process. --Stbalbach 04:39, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Communist studies

The section I "added" has been in the article for at least a year, but had gotten lost in the Soviet section. It refers to contemporary American scholars, not to Soviet history. Fred Bauder 22:02, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Image:Long.tail.jpg has been listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded, Image:Long.tail.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

dbenbenn | talk 01:13, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Template:Main

If you want to know my take on it, the simplest and least resource intensive solution for templates like Main (see also, etc.) should take a single parameter, which would allow any number of pages and a great deal of flexibility. Take a look at Template:Further for an example. Of course, to make that change to Main and others, we'd have to run a bot across all the articles to perform that conversion. -- Netoholic @ 19:15, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

That's how it used to be and someone re-wrote it using qif. Can you point me to where I can find more information about the resource problem with qif and the recommendation not to use it? --Stbalbach 19:48, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

WP:AUM is the main description of the problems with using any "template within a template". Let me know if I can help at all. -- Netoholic @ 20:01, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I have created a version of {{main}} that does not call other templates and would require no bot to change from the previous syntax. Five demonstrations of its use are on the talk page. See User:Freakofnurture/Main (talk). — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 21:00, Jan. 7, 2006

I've noticed that the Category:Usage of main with more than 5 parameters is empty, or rather, there was one article that somebody manually added to the category, but I removed it. So it looks like the category, if I could figure out how to conditionally use it without meta-templates (which I can't because a category link inside a "hiddenStructure" is not actually hidden — still appears at the bottom of the screen, I tried) would address a problem that really doesn't exist. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 02:02, Jan. 8, 2006

Please do not put back the redirects on the template:Main series. I understand that these were TFd'd but with the redirects in place we can't truly determine if these are still in use. Please discuss on Template talk:Main2, as I mentioned in my edit summaries. -- Netoholic @ 19:59, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Re: Indentation.

Main pages: User talk:Freakofnurture § pet peeve, and User talk:Netoholic § indenting

Twenty-four hours I would have agreed with what you're trying to say. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 23:28, Jan. 8, 2006

It is indented. Just not as much. You can probably set a customized level of the indentation by changing your css settings (User:Stbalbach/monobook.css) to behave a certain way for objects of class="notice". You might ask Netoholic how to do this. It doesn't matter how deep the indentation is as long as they all match, and that's what I'm working on. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 23:47, Jan. 8, 2006

Hunter Thompson

Out of curiousity, why remove the part about the tribute to hunter in the doonesbury strip? --jfg284 ^{you were saying?} 23:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Re: Talk:History of the world

Hey, thanks for your comments. Could you clarify a bit what you mean by the arbitrary boundaries or personal visions? I guess I had a personal vision for the article but I didn't realize that there could be so many ways of writing it—it seemed relatively obvious to me the format such an article should follow, but perhaps I am just being narrow-minded. I've written a tentative first section at History of Earth and would appreciate your feedback. Thanks! — Knowledge Seeker দ 07:37, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Image:Long.tail.jpg listed for deletion again.

I listed it for deletion on the 12th. I created a free alternative, Image:Long tail.PNG, that should be sufficient in the article. Please let me know if you oppose the deletion, and if so, why. Ral315 (talk) 03:34, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

That's because somebody forgot to add today's page to the list of entries (fixed now). If you're worried about it being too similar, I can change the colors around, though I created the image from scratch, so I'm not too worried about it. Ral315 (talk) 06:45, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Richard Parker (British sailor) Richard Parker (fictional character) Richard Parker (fictional shipwrecked tiger) Richard Parker (urban legend)

Richard Parker (British sailor) should almost certainly refer to the hung Nore mutineer. The Life of Pi is a work of fiction. The section on Richard Parker in the Life of Pi article arises from nowhere, with no explanation. Perhaps (and I can't comment, not knowing the book at all) "Richard Parker is a character in the Life of Pi, based on characters in Edgar Allen Poe and on legends of the sea. I think that a highly notable mutineer and social revolutionary out-weighs two fictional characters and an unverified cannibalism. See the author, "And that's just the start of it, so it was no coincidence when Yann Martel chose this for the name of the shipwrecked tiger in the Booker Prize winning, Life of Pi." in [1] I've fixed this with multiple redirects and disambigs. Fifelfoo 04:22, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Edit summaries

Please remember to include Edit summaries for each edit. (No need for rude words either.) --Mais oui! 23:21, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Well that you would put a huge template onto scores of articles youve never edited before with no regard to how it looks stacking them up side by side in the lead section pushing the text and pictures off the screen, it made me exclaim "crap". There are two Middle Ages templates, one goes along the bottom of articles, one along the side. Each article is unique and you have to play with positioning, not all articles even warrant a nav template, in general one is enough, more is confusing, there are scores of perspectives on history articles that could each have its own nav template. They should also not be in the lead section if theres allready a picture there as a style guideline, pictures look good and draw the reader into the article, which is what the lead section is designed for. The "See also" section is at the bottom to help users navigate elsewhere, navigation aids are secondary to article content. --Stbalbach 23:46, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough (although the fact that I had not previously edited any of the articles is totally irrelevant). i have in fact requested that the three Middle Ages templates be merged:

• Template:Middle Ages
• Template:Middle Ages wide 2
• Template:Middle Ages Tall

(It is the "Tall" format that is really mucking up the layout.)--Mais oui! 23:52, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Impeachment

The information is cited and relevant. This user has a history of randoming removing content from pages Dr Debug 05:58, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

thanks

Stbalbach Thanks for the good suggestion that I follow up good lead information with expanding on it in the article itself. I have begun doing that, see, for instance, the changes to the article on Mehmed the Conquerer. Most people do not realize he was deadly serious about considering himself to be Caesar of the Romans, and intended to resurrect the old Empire. In his invasion of Italy, he came closer than most folks realize to accomplishing at least part of his aims. Anyway, thanks again, it was a good thought, and I appreciate any suggestion which can improve my edits and article quality. Have you considered taking part in the military coordinator's program? I ran, but won't have the votes. I wanted to try, as my expertise, such as it is, is in history, especially military history. Anyway, thanks again. old windy bear 16:27, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Uncyclopedia

It is part of the Wikipedia project because it's owned by Wikia, which in turn is owned by Jimmy Wales. For your question about self-reference, see WP:SELF and Template:Wikibooks; as I understand it, all transwiki boxes are self-references. --M@rēino 23:39, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

"Countship" (sic)

User:Fastifex is rapidly changing "county" to "countship", i.e. County of Foix, at every appearance. This strikes me as a particularly foolish Wikipedianism. What do you think? --Wetman 14:11, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Stevenson

Thanks for your articles on Stevenson's early books. I'm astonished that the central figure of late Victorian neo-Romanticism has received so little attention in this English-language project so far, so I requested the article on him to be expanded. Every line that ever came from Stevenson's pen - from sinister pieces like Thrawn Jenet and Body Snatchers to his correspondence and essays - is superior to that written by uninspired trollopes and eliots. --Ghirla | talk 18:27, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Movement to impeach George W. Bush

Thanks for fixing Movement to impeach George W. Bush. I think it was an edit conflict. Cheers, -Will Beback 04:50, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

DYK

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article An Inland Voyage, Travels with a Donkey in the Cévennes and Silverado Squatters, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--Gurubrahma 17:12, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Please check your WP:NA entry

Greetings, editor! Your name appears on Wikipedia:List of non-admins with high edit counts. If you have not done so lately, please take a look at that page and check your listing to be sure that following the particulars are correct:

1. If you are an admin, please remove your name from the list.
2. If you are currently interested in being considered for adminship, please be sure your name is in bold; if you are opposed to being considered for adminship, please cross out your name (but do not delete it, as it will automatically be re-added in the next page update).
3. Please check to see if you are in the right category for classification by number of edits.

Thank you, and have a wiki wiki day! BD2412 T 04:37, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Movement to impeach George W. Bush

I support your NPOV concerns about the title. Merecat 04:44, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

well, I think it would be less contentious to call it something else, since the word "movement" can be interpreted multiple ways. The lead paragraph says "movement..for the purposes of this article" -- which makes clear that the word is being used generally and not literally. I responded to that other person who was trying to interpret it literally, but that doesn't mean the title is POV, when you take into account the lead paragraph. Titles of articles are not always literal, the lead paragraph is what determines what an article is about, not the title, which is often just a matter of convenience. --Stbalbach 05:48, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

History of Model Railroading

look at http://www.traincollectors.org.uk/history.htm Magi MediaMagi Media

FA candidate

Hi, Just to inform you - in case you've missed - that Kargil War is a FA candidate at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Kargil War/archive1. Almost all the objections raised have been worked out so far. You comments and vote on this are solicited. Tx Idleguy 06:05, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Re. Sphinx's Nose

Hi there! With regard to the source, actually Maqrizi himself mentions the detail about the Egyptian farmers in his chronicle. Here is an excerpt from The Sphinx's Nose

There exists an interesting account written by historian Muhammad al-Husayni Taqi al-Din al-Maqrizi (died CE 1442), in a book called al-Mawa`iz wa al-i`tibar fi dhikr al-khitat wa al-athar (G. Wien, ed., 1913). In vol. 2, page 157 of the Wien edition, al-Maqrizi states that the face, specifically the nose and ears, were demolished in 1378 by a Sufi from the khanqah of Sa`id al-Su`ada named Sa'im al-Dahr. The reason for the vandalism, according to al-Maqrizi, was to "remedy some religious errors." At that time some Egyptians were still burning milk-thistle (shuka`a) and safflower (badhaward) at the foot of the Sphinx while murmuring a verse 63 times in hope that their wishes would be fulfilled.

- Zerida 22:33, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok thanks followed up on the discussion page. -- Stbalbach 22:51, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Cidade de Deus

Sorry for the cockup! I should have moved/renamed the page to the new title. But the consensus is to use the original title of the film as the wikipedia title. I hope I got that right. I shall now immerse myself in the MediaWiki Handbook:Moving a page and maybe one day.. Anyway, thanks for pointing out the err in my ways! Lathrop1885 00:29, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok. Please discuss on the talk page before moving. There is also consensus to use the name its most commonly known. Im not sure which comes first, it would better to open to discuss first, thanks. -- Stbalbach 00:47, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Adminship

Hey, I think I saw somewhere that you weren't interested in being an admin, but I also notice that you revert a lot of vandalism - if you were an admin you could be three times more productive ("Hey Marge, I just tripled my productivity!") and rollback vandalism with one handy click. I'm sure you know all that, but I just thought I'd see if you have become more interested lately. Adam Bishop 03:30, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, I keep an eye on my watchlist and revert those. I suppose it would make sense to revert additional articles at the same time, on a per-user basis. My concern is I don't want to be under any obligations. This is supposed to be fun (heh), not a job. Also it's not clear how the admin roll back feature doesn't cause some vandalism to slip by, for example if an admin sees an anon vandal on one article, and rolls back across all articles that anon edited, if on another article there was a vandalism prior to the anons vandalism, it rolls back to the prior vandalism making it difficult to detect (in fact some clever anons exploit this by making 2 vandalisms in a row coming from separate IPs). Anyway, it's a consideration that would make sense since a lot of my "rvv"'s would probably get rolled back by an admin anyway. -- Stbalbach 17:55, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Revisionism & former Yugoslavia

Thanks for pointing it out to me. Unfortunately i can't quite respond to deletions of edits right now (although like you say, i am a bit crazy - or "passionnate" - but i suppose that's just wikipedia drugs -- or reason?). Anyway, i'll replace them in the text i guess that footnotes are just not handy in this kind of cases... Too bad, because footnotes allow the name of the source to appear instead of only a number, which permits someone to quickly see from where an article' sources come from -- talkin' bout historiography... Cheers! Lapaz 14:03, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Texan Edits

Stalbach is monitoring my edits. He must have nothing better to do. Also, when I leave a comment for him on his talk page, he deletes it. 67.15.76.185 01:40, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

If being from Texas is a crime, then I am guilty. I cannot see that my edits have anything to do with the user above. The only commonality is the Texas origin. Unless one is a Dixie Chick or George W. Bush, being from Texas is not a crime. user:24.0.91.81

user:24.0.91.81 is very likely a sock/alternate IP for user:CantStandYa/user:155.84.57.253/category:Wikipedia:Suspected sockpuppets of Shran. This user has a long history of using socks. His edits are often positive, but he is also often combative, and he uses the socks to edit the same articles, which is an abuse of consensus. -Will Beback 19:00, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

These are not the charges that Stbalbach made. Does he/she care to recount the charges? 24.0.91.81 02:55, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I responded on my page, but let me add that I'll post something in a few hours and give you a heads-up so you can add whatever you know. -Will Beback 02:30, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

FYI Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Socks of Shran/CantStandYa -Will Beback 05:16, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll leave it to you to add the IP addresses that you identified. As for solutions, we've dealt with similar users. If he'd stick with one ID then his edits would be manageable. Meantime, let's identify the problem. Due to your research, I now realize that it is even more extensive than I'd thought. -Will Beback 06:27, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Per feedback from user:Jayjg, an ArbCommember who confirmed some of the sock puppets, the best way to handle the IP edits will be to Wikipedia:semi-protect the articles that he appears to be working on. Since the main articles that you have been following, and on the IP ranges that you've noticed, are almostly entirely different from the articles that I follow, I suggest that you keep an eye out on articles like Movement to impeach George W. Bush and Pat Tillman. Let me or another admin know if you think he is abusing consensus by using multiple IPs or usernames. WP:RPP too. -Will Beback 01:29, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Children's Crusade

Thanks for catching my over-eager removals from Children's Crusade. I was focusing on getting info for Children's Crusade (civil rights), and didn't pay enough attention to what I was editing. I restored one of the items you removed from the disambiguation, but corrected it to refer to The Dream of the Blue Turtles instead of directly to Sting. -Harmil 23:56, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Movement to impeach George W. Bush

You have made at least 4 reverts to Movement to impeach George W. Bush today. That puts you in violation of WP:3RR. I urge you to roll back your last contribution. If you do not do so, then I will report you at WP:AN/3RR. I urge you to take a break from this article so you do not violate this policy again. Johntex\^talk 21:13, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

4? hmm maybe I'm not reading it right, can you verify, which are the 4 reverts? It's certainly possible that happened, I made a lot of edits to the article today, wasn't intentional. There is an anon sock puppet who has been refusing to discuss issues on the talk page is the real problem that's been ongoing for days. -- Stbalbach 22:06, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

• Sure, here is my count, please let me know if you disagree. Please note that you do not have to restore an identical version, or delete the same text each time, in order for it to count as a revert. Our definition says "Reverting, in this context, applies to undoing the actions of another editor in whole or part, not necessarily taking a previous version from history and editing that."

• 1st revert: 10:32, 8 March 2006,
• 2nd revert: 10:36, 8 March 2006,
• 3rd revert: 10:56, 8 March 2006
• 4th revert: 13:19, 8 March 2006
• 5th revert: 13:50, 8 March 2006
• 6th revert: 14:07, 8 March 2006
• Above by Johntex\^talk 22:17, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Yep, I guess you got me. Like I said, the first three are an anon sock puppet who is essentially hacking the article those reverts are almost akin to vandalisms so I had discounted those, but I guess they are valid for the 3RR. I'd rather work out the issue on the discussion page and if we agree to remove the self-referential I'll remove it, I don't think reporting me would be productive. -- Stbalbach 22:23, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

• I applaud your owning up to your mistake and your willingness to engage in discussion about this. I agree discussion is prefereable, that is why I came to you first rather than making an immediate report. I have posted a reply to you on the article discussion page. I will see you over there... Best, Johntex\^talk 22:29, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Linkspam

We don't allow linkspamming – the adding to multiple articles of links to someone's site – whether or not the site is commercial or contains advertising. At least fifty articles had links added, and that is link spam if anything is. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:39, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

If the link is a good quality and appropriate to the article than it should be there. See Wikipedia:External links. I see no difference between Libvox and Project Gutenberg. How many articles have Project Gutenberg? See also Wikipedia:Spam#External_link_spamming for what "link spamming" is. Just because there are a lot of instances doesn't make it spam. -- Stbalbach 17:31, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually "spam" is defined as the addition of links to a lot of articles (just as, in e-mail, it's defined as the sending of a message to a lot of addresses). Spam can be subdivided into different types, including commercial spam, but it's all still spam, and very strongly discouraged. One person adding links to over fifty articles certanly counts as advertising the site. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:46, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Sphinx

Come visit the talk page when you get a chance

Justforasecond 07:01, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Template:1911 and 11th edition of the Encyclopædia Britannica

Hi -- the article 11th edition of the Encyclopædia Britannica is going to be renamed, per discussion discussion to rename eb1911. However before the move I'd like to co-ordinate with an admin to update Template:1911 at around the same time, since there are thousands of redirects. The new article name will be Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition. Can we set a time window to coordinate the change to the template? -- Stbalbach 17:29, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Or, if you just want to do the move of the article and template at same time, and I'll clean up the remaining redirects. -- Stbalbach 17:32, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

The simplest way to do this is just to do the move (which will make the current page into a redirect), then to change the template at our leisure. I'll gladly change the template once those who are working on the article make the move. -- Jmabel | Talk 21:13, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Looks like User:R. Koot fixed the template before I even saw your message. - Jmabel | Talk 01:01, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

New socks of Shran/CantStandYa

You seem to watching this guy so I wanted to let you know I've spotted 2 more and added a note on ANI. 207.44.237.158 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and 70.85.195.225 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) I don't advocate any specific action yet but I also haven't checked his other contribs for problems and I don't know his history well either. Thatcher131 14:51, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Reminder- I've posted the info about Anon Texan at WP:AN/I. If you want anything to happen about it now is a good time to describe more fully the past bad behaviors. -Will Beback 21:19, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Template request

Some time ago you had requested a template to help advertise the Middle Ages project. As part of efforts to clear the backlog of template requests this was created as {{WPMA}}. --CBDunkerson 17:28, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Thoughts on the 1911EB

I thought your thoughts in "EB1911 More harm than good?" in the article's talk page were dead-on and just wanted to let you know that I wholeheartedly support the idea you discussed of completely excisizing the 1911EB from Wikipedia. RobertM525 10:01, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree as well. The 1911 edition is creating a lot more of a headache than the biased information it provides justifies. Rarr 02:14, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Re: Vandalism

Whoops. Thanks for pointing out my error; I'll be more careful from now on. - S. Komae (talk) 19:30, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Robinson Crusoe

Why did you revert the correct "uninhabited" to the incorrect "un-inhabited"? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:01, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Your correct I thought it was an 18th century sic -- Stbalbach 16:26, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, fair enough — I thought that I was missing something. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 20:40, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Image:Inkvisisjonen.jpg

Hi! I'm afraid I don't know the painter of the image, but I am 100 % certain that it is from the 1400s, and thus Public domain. I'll see if I can find out who painted it. Jon Harald Søby 16:50, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Boethius

Sorry, I meant to leave a message here when I did the moving and link-corrections, but my machine was clogging up, and I had to reboot, and then go out. I've replied at Talk:Boethius. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:59, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Edit summaries

When editing an article on Wikipedia there is a small field labelled "Edit summary" under the main edit-box. It looks like this:

The text written here will appear on the Recent changes page, in the page revision history, on the diff page, and in the watchlists of users who are watching that article. See m:Help:Edit summary for full information on this feature.

When you leave the edit summary blank, some of your edits could be mistaken for vandalism and may be reverted, so please always briefly summarize your edits, especially when you are making subtle but important changes, like changing dates or numbers. Thank you.

--Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:11, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Re:Need help (Potocki)

First, let's hope they have staff that speaks (and reads) English and can answer you if you email them (with some photos, I assume). Try the following emails: obsluga.publicznosci@wp.pl, konserwacja@wilanow-palac.art.pl, dokumentacja@wilanow-palac.art.pl, dzialsztuki@wilanow-palac.art.pl . If they will not reply, we will see what can be done about the translation. Why do you think this is something of this potocki? Initials A.P. might have belonged to many (and even A.Potocki would have more choices, see Category:Potocki).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 23:00, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

It's mighty nice of you to consider donating it. Let's wait a few more days for their reply, then I can send them an email in Polish. In the meantime, what about making some photos of the object for Wikicommons? I am sure they would be a nice addition to Potocki article.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 17:33, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Etymological info

In User talk:Pwqn, you take Pwqn to task for adding etymological information to articles. (I am answering here, because Pwqn no longer seems to be an active user.) I think it is very valuable to have etymological information in articles. Of course, WP is not Wiktionary, but if there is an encyclopedic article, a sketch etymology is often useful in understanding evolution not only of the word, but also of the concept. --Macrakis 20:22, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Umm.. I think if you saw what he was doing you may not be so ready to take up his defense. I agree with you that etymological information can be good in Wikipedia, but that's not what I was talking about in Pwqn's case.-- Stbalbach 22:37, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Can you point me to a diff showing the problem? I don't like the way he's using character entities (e.g. α instead of α) but other than that.... --Macrakis 22:52, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Look at his "user contributions" - he just cut and paste entries from EB1911. As I said, that kind of thing is inappropriate. There was a time when Greek etymology was seen as important because a classical education was seen as vital in the 19th century and many people were educated in Greek; but that's no longer the case, in fact it's seen today as being pretentious; it is specialized knowledge, and if it belongs in Wikipedia at all it belongs in a subsection and not the first thing you read in the lead section. --Stbalbach 23:13, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Cut & paste page-moves

Please do not move pages by cutting and pasting; this disrupts the page histories. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:17, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, since you are an admin, you can correct that problem, by moving Boethius to Boethius (disambiguation), as per the discussion page on Boethius. -- Stbalbach 14:18, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

If I wanted to move the pages, I could do, you're quite right — but you want the pages moved, I don't. "As per the discussion page simply means "as per my opinion", as no-one else is involved in discussion. Other editors might well agree with you, and one way to discover whether or not they do is to request that the page be moved at "Requested page moves". What you mustn't do is move the pages by cutting and pasting; that's against Wikipedia policy for reasons that have nothing to do with this disagreement. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:52, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

charlie

Yeah, I posted the appropriate policy on their talk page and explained why we can't have it. It violates half a dozen things such as NOR, sections 1,3,4, and 6 of WP:NOT and quite possibly copyvio too. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 04:05, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Moving content to Wikibooks

If you move content from Wikipedia to Wikibooks, I would ask you strongly to use the transwiki process. In addition, please don't let Wikibooks be an expanded battleground for conflicts that have come up on Wikipedia.

This is in response to b:Travels With Charley: In Search of America, that I've just marked for a speedy delete. It still hasn't been deleted (yet), but I would like to have a little more background information on why this was moved to Wikibooks (by you, apparently), and what you and this other Wikimedia contributor intend to do with this content.

If this is a real attempt to create a study guide for this book by John Steinbeck, and is attempting to become much more of a Wikibook than it currently is right now, I am supportive of it remaining on Wikibooks. I would also like to see the copyright issues resolved, and I've asked the editor who reverted the page here on Wikipedia to explain his actions that have in effect forced this content off of Wikipedia and onto Wikibooks. That shouldn't be happening either unless there is a legitimate issue that would make this content unacceptable according to Wikipedia policies. My question is what policy is it violating on Wikipedia? I don't see it. The study guide questions could be removed, perhaps, but the rest is standard Wikipedia like content, from my somewhat limited experience.

It seems really bizzare that the content was restored then reverted within two minutes by the same "admin". I put that in quotes because he really isn't using admin authority to do this action, and his opinion is just as valid as yours or mine.

My big issue is that this fight does not really belong on Wikibooks, and policy on Wikibooks is against this sort of spilling over effect to avoid resolving the issue here on Wikipedia. Wikibooks is a very different environment, and should be approached quite a bit differently as well. Homeless content is not a reason to start a new Wikibook. --Robert Horning 18:42, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for cleaning up an apparent hoax

201.102.49.167 (talk · contribs) hacked a couple of dozen film articles, including City of God, adding something he/she called the Wings TEC Critics Awards; two weeks later LuminousSpecter (talk · contribs) created an article about the awards that noted that same concerns we both had (that the awards were non-existent) though in the article instead of the talk page. I'm going through 201.102.49.167's edit history to finish the cleanup... 66.167.137.147 06:51, 11 April 2006 (UTC).

Interesting. Perhaps someones protest of awards in general (which are all biased in some way). --Stbalbach 17:02, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Medieval demography

I have found some logical problem in connection with harvest yield change and life level. Sure it was (the connection). But changes in yields from 1:7 to 1:400 do not show changes in "more than 4 times". It only means a change from 14% to 0.25% LOSS, i.e. from 86% to 99.75% harvest "non waisted" for reproduction.--Sergiy O. Bukreyev 05:03, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Your recent edit to Magna Carta/temp was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept our apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // Tawkerbot2 19:22, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

When you need a page deleted, can you just put {{db|no longer needed}} on the page, that alerts an admin to delete the page, and no Tawkerbot2 auto revert. I've deleted it assuming you didn't need it, please let me know if that wasn't the case -- Tawker 20:04, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok thanks; and that answers a question I've always wondered about, how to delete pages. -- Stbalbach 20:25, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Encyclopedia

See talk. It's confirmed by Britannica.--Primetime 22:09, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind. I double-checked, it's mostly correct, but the guy doesn't seem to be Croatian.--Primetime 23:41, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Pavao Skalić

For anyone who has problems about who was Skalić; he was born in todays Croatia and was ethnical Croat. His surname Skalić (Skalic) is of old croatian origin. Any other version of this surname is due to his work for many years internationally.

Concerning citation,you can find this fact about Skalić in any edition of any Croatian encyclopedia (including english Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Skali%C4%87).

There's another one from CROATIAN MINISTRY OF CULTURE AND SCIENCE (one scientific project about Pavao Skalić): http://www.mzos.hr/svibor/6/01/334/proj_e.htm . You'll find here confirmation that Skalić was Croat very easily.

There are similar misunderstandings with some other Croatian scientists, authors etc., like, for instance, with Ruđer Bošković (R. Boskovic), famous scientist which is very often considered as a Italian, English ... ( because of one of redactions of his original name Ruđer as a Rogero- which was only italian redaction of Ruđer).

Also for those who believe in a absolute accuracy of Britannica- this encyclopedia is full of mistakes and ignorance, especially about smaller european nations and countries (about history, basic facts, names, misunderstanding of terms, culture, ...).

So, it is very necesarry to check any information you believe is truth in many comparations before publish anything- it's the only way things should be done.

Regards

Rens

via Pula, Croatia

Richard I has no son

Please read the article Richard I of England before reverting back again. Thanks.--Taichimojo 23:24, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Reasonable remarks

The anonymous is correct, AFAICT. It is true that Croatia was not an independent country at the time, but it is also true it was a country, and it is true that the Croats did exist at the time (perhaps not as a modern nation that they are today, but certainly in some form). This kind of confusion in old encylopedias when it comes to assigning origin to people has been known to happen - for a time, the adjective "Hungarian" was bluntly applied to all citizens of the Kingdom of Hungary regardless of whether they were Magyars, Croats, Slovaks, Romanians or other. In this case, thankfully, the etymology of the surname is fairly clear. --Joy [shallot] 21:43, 2 May 2006 (UTC) (Also same case with the countries ruled by the Germans, or with people of smaller nationalities/ ethnic groups!)

That's what Joy thinks about this matter. As far as I'm concerned, this argument that four modern encyclopedias have same information doesn't give any credibility to it (false informations should be corrected no matter where and how many times published)! Formerly in many encyclopedias there was a lot of informations in relation to the ex Soviet block and about many countries which were a part of it, with a numerous false informations, all in that and similar prestige encyclopedias. Same case was with Yugoslavia and many republics (today independent countries) which were parts of it. How much accurate can be, for instance Encarta, shows perfectly one exampe; it is said there ( don't know which edition exactly) that Josip Broz Tito was born in a Zagreb which is unbelivable nonsense since he was born in Kumrovec- village near Zagreb, in Zagorje region. In that village you'll find a memorial museum dedicated to him in his family house where he was born. Another example of false informations; in one of that encyclopedias you'll still maybe find one absourd geographical information- that Croatia has only as 129 square miles (!) of a sea ( true fact: more than 11600 square miles, around 3100 miles of seaside and over 1000 islands). :In fact Croatia is a country of a numerous beautifool beaches with very high income out of tourism annually.There are many other examples of a inaccurate informations regarding Croatia, but also about many other countries, esp. smaller ones.

Anon texan

See AN/I and RFCU about recent talk page spam from known Anon Texan IPs; it seems likely that the Anon Texan is User:Merecat. Thatcher131 11:54, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Alert: Spanish Inquisition

I noticed that you reverted a bunch of content at the Spanish Inquisition article. The same user is currently editing the article, and unfortunately, I do not know enough about the Inquisition to verify the veracity of this user's claims, however, they have made six or seven edits back to back with what may be POV. Seeing since you were the last one to revert, can you see if they're adding back content that you just reverted? Thanks. KC9CQJ 18:40, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Re:Caedmon's Hymn...

Sorry to bother you about old hash, but I have recently tried to defend the creation of an article on the subject, with only one user responding with bad faith accusations that I am a POV-pusher and completely ignoring my suggestions. The original article was removed, and that was apparently the result of the belief that I created a fork to highlight a non-mainstream point of view. BTW, please take a look at this, and next time please consult me before you claim such, as those kinds of actions are much more detrimental to the project than a simple bit of (non-existent) POV-pushing. I have outlined precisely why I created the article, and why I think it should be re-writtena and re-instated, at Talk:Cædmon. elvenscout742 22:00, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Establishment of the Spanish Inquisition

I noticed that you reverted my addition of Category:1478 establishments from the Spanish Inquisition article marking your edits with "rv - POV and original research". You also rv'd at good deal of POV nonsense at the same time. Did my edit just get swept up with all the rubbish, or do you have a problem with it - if so then why? Greenshed 22:10, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

your edit is caught up in the middle of a larger content dispute. I tried re-adding it but not sure if it stuck. --Stbalbach 05:33, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

spanish inquisition

the moors did not invade spain in 711bc - that's off by 1422 years - i changed it back24.145.184.199 04:37, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Lead Section in Historiography

Please see my comments on the talk page.

Inquisition

i only saw one other objection to the additions (on this page) but i will admit i have heard from a couple other people. i still haven't seen any disputes about historical facts though. one of the main sources for my additions was Lea who is probably the single foremost authority on the subject over the years. another was J.A. Llorente, also known as Juan Antonio Llorente, General Secretary of the Inquisition from 1789 to 1801 who was already cited in the Spanish Inquisition article before i ever came upon it. i've used Cecil Roth's 1937 publication quite a bit as well: this is one of the most common books used in American universities relative to the Inquisition. so i don't think i've performed what you mean by original research. i would of course welcome changes to my changes but deleting the whole article in favor of a version with much less information doesn't make much sense. there is an "inquisition myth" page for revisionist positions, which are still by no means mainstream, and the page is not by any means brief in the sense of an Encyclopedia Britannica article. i read that guideline as prescribing style, not as a limit on information. i have made a lot of changes so maybe take a look at it again before dismissing it. thanks.24.145.184.199 05:26, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

uhh.. try looking at the edit history for the article (click on the "history" tab), many people are reverting your edits and/or complaining about them with "POV tags" or comments on the discussion page. -- Stbalbach 20:07, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Plenty of good tuff! It just needs weeding out, I agree the article is PoV, but it was PoV the other way beforehand. It's a problem weeding it all out I know, but he has added extra information. HawkerTyphoon 14:32, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Good stuff, like what? Sure it might be good in someones book with their name attached to it, or in a class room by a known professor who takes responsibility for the views, but this is Wikipedia, an encyclopedia with a NPOV rule and a shared community project. -- Stbalbach 21:09, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

As for McMansions, your blazing prejudice is showing through. So far all you've done is repeat what I would expect to hear out of the Sierra Club. If you actually knew anybody that lived in one of these homes you'd quickly realize that they call them "McMansions" themselves without any hint of pejorative connotation. Considering that cost of these homes is typically double that of an average home in a real estate market, any comments I make about those that live there are accurate. You want an edit war, you've got one. Hmoul 03:57, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

User:CoolFox

Stbalbach, you left me a few messgages the other day concering my editing... It was a VERY busy day on the #vandalism-en-wp channel. I'm afraid I did make an astonishing amount of errors. Thankyou for bringing this to my attention. I will attempt be a little more careful in the future. Thankyou. --CoolFox 01:00, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Dark Ages

I thought that you might be interested to know that the information that you removed to the talk page from the article is a copyright problem aside from the other problems. And one other problem: that source is "March of the Titans: A History of the White Race" which can be found at stormfront.org and white-history.com. --JGGardiner 02:19, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Sure. It seemed pretty polemical and when I got to the Charlemagne part I thought it has to be a copyvio. So it was just a google search. I wasn't quite expecting stormfront to come up however. I didn't want to mention it on the article talk page to avoid biting the newcomer. But I'd also like to make sure that a responsible editor is aware of it, in case it should happen again. --JGGardiner 17:20, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Crusading vandal

Hey, Stbalbach, thanks for opposing that crusading vandal who like(s)toedit articles on the Crusades and the Jews. You are right: it goes against all what you read if you read serious scholarship. I don't know whether Encarta really contains such false information but if they do WP needn't copy others' mistakes. Cheers, Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 15:50, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Wimund

Hello ! I have plans to update Wimund. A couple of modern reliable sources discuss him, R. Andrew MacDonald's Outlaws of Medieval Scotland and Richard Oram's David I. That would mean removing most of the existing article, which is more or less a commentary on William of Newburgh. Do you want me to userfy the existing version before I start ? It might come in handy sometime. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:34, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

We could link to the diff in the article talk page once the new version is up. Good luck, look forward to reading more about it. -- Stbalbach 23:36, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Hun talk page

Please stop reverting my edits. I do not think that it is right to start a section in a talk page with my former username, you can rearrange it if you wish but as the section on Scottish football teams has been removed from the article I do not see why my former username should be singled out. --TKK 22:19, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, your not supposed to edit (or delete) other peoples comments in talk pages. I suppose if User:Cdswtchr doesn't care it doesn't matter since the topic is dead now. I'll leave a note on Cdswtchr's page in case he wants to restore it. Reference: Deletion of Cdswtchr's comment. -- Stbalbach 00:16, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

As the initial edit was left by User:Cdswtchr with edit summary as "earth to Karatekid7" then the message consists of telling me that I must provide sources for my claims even though their offensive claims do not need references, and this is all under the heading of my former username surely this is bordering on an attack. As I have stated I do not mind that the question be arranged back into the related talk section, just not under a heading with my former username as the title. --TKK 01:42, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I would agree the edit summary is not a vital part of my comments. Sorry if that genuinely offended you. -- Cdswtchr 03:13, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

==Please Use Edit Summaries==

Hello. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary. Thanks, and happy editing.

Tuspm 13:05, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

RSS feed.

It should be updated now. Thanks. Ral315 (talk) 19:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Long talk page

Greetings! Your talk page is getting a bit long in the tooth - please consider archiving your talk page (or ask me and I'll archive it for you). Cheers! BD2412 T 00:42, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Dark Ages

I sometimes do, I sometimes don't. When it's blatant, I don't. That one appeared blatant. I apologize. --Golbez 20:57, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Laurens van der Post

Thanks for the revert; I unaccountably failed to notice the 'Jan' in his name, so I was quite wrong in removing the aka.

Best wishes, Xdamr^talk 02:35, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikimapia in Sphinx

Hi Stbalbach, I feel that the Wikimapia link can be added to the Sphinx, though it is already available in The Great Sphinx of Giza. As for as I know, there is only one Sphinx. Is there a problem if the Wikimapia link is available in both articles? -- Wikicheng 18:27, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

If there is a more specific article for the link, it should go there, and not in the more general article. -- Stbalbach 00:59, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

External linkspam in Shakespeare and related articles

Please review Wikipedia:External_links before re-adding unnecessary spam links to Wikipedia articles. Wikipedia is not a web directory. While a small number of external links can be useful, duplicative links should generally be avoided. Specifically, however, sites with advertising are less favored than others. A number of the links you replaced have objectionable amounts of advertising while at the same time completely duplicate the free (and Free), advertisement-free Gutenberg links that already exist in those articles. I urge you to think more carefully before restoring such references to our encyclopedia.

Kind regards, Nandesuka 02:30, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Cornish Rebellion

Hi, I've completed the merge that you proposed between Cornish Rebellion of 1497 and battle of Deptford Bridge (there were no comments to your suggestion) if you'd like to take a look? Take care Mammal4 10:10, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Looks good. -- Stbalbach 14:21, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Everyman (play)

I had reverted most of the Luminarium external links just added by User:AJokinen because it's his/her own personal website, which is listed as "limk spam" along with the expected commercial stuff. -- JHunterJ 19:45, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

yeah i see that sometimes people go a bit overboard posting their site in too many articles. In this case I think this site in this article is ok. -- Stbalbach 23:35, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Wolfberry

Did you really mean to use a double negative here: "!--No commercial sites that sell product will be removed--"? Becuse it seems to mean the opposite of what I think you meant. Badagnani 04:22, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Didn't mean too, started out saying "no commercial sites" and ended up saying "commercial sites that sell product will be removed" and they merged. Maybe it will cause people to think twice in their idea to promote their product on Wikipeda? We'll see if it work, feel free to change if you want. --Stbalbach 11:16, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

LoveToKnow wiki copyright

In this change, you wrote "they can copyright the whole thing since its new formating.". I don't think that holds true, because anyone who uses the text as a source of a copy/paste is ignoring the formatting. That's not to deny that the copyright status of the text itself is now highly dubious, so I guess what I'm saying is: right conclusion, wrong reason. :-) David Brooks 15:38, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup Templates

I noticed that you recently applied an improperly formatted cleanup template. I have fixed the template, but felt I should tell you that it needed to be replaced. You can find a list of properly formatted cleanup templates here. Please note that it is never appropriate to substitute a cleanup tag.

Thank you very much for your contributions to Wikipedia. Feel free to contact me if you have any questions. Alphachimp ^talk 13:58, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

The Coca Cola Company

Please look at the talk page for the rationale behind putting {NPOV} on this page - we know very well that there is a separate Criticism page, which is actually the reason we are making the changes. Having criticism entirely removed from the article constitutes a POV fork. There is also a considerable amount of discussion about the situation on wikien-l, where it was originally brought up. --Philosophus ^T 15:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd rather deal with this on the article talk page. Thanks. -- Stbalbach 16:29, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Acre, Israel

Why have you moved the infobox to 'The Greek and Roman periods' section? All articles on cities have the infobox in the lead section. --PiMaster3 01:35, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd rather deal with this on the article talk page. Thanks. Stbalbach 05:08, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Afd Closure

Well, there are no hard and fast rules about it, but one rule is that it's not a vote, it's a debate. At least four of the keeps expressed no preference for keeping the article vs. it being a section of Quackwatch. Furthermore, the delete voters brought up some very solid points; not only does the article include anything on how WP:WEB would be met, but it appears WP:WEB is actually not met, per Scorpiondollprincess' research. The keep voters seem to be mainly expressing a preference for the article to be kept, without getting into why. If you want it reviewed, you can take it to WP:DRV; just let me know if you do, so I can explain my decision there. Mangojuice^talk 21:03, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

AD/CE

You stated that my edits were not vandalism. Maybe you would be interested in showing at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Interpretation, and give your opinion on the matter?--151.47.119.2 23:00, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

The Release Date of "A Christmas Carol"

Hi, I'm currently using A Christmas Carol as reference to edit this article in Chinese Wiki (). Originally in the first paragraph the release date was said to be December 17, while in the book infobox, December 13. It bothered me, so I did a little research, than changed the one in the infobox.

Now I saw you changed in date in the template to December 19, quoting Hearn's book as reference. I don't have any problem with that. But shouldn't we keep the first release date consistent, both in the paragraph and in the infobox? They could be both pointed out to the same footnote that explains all the details. --LoYang 18:05, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

One more thing, the image file you uploaded "A Christmas Carol frontpiece.jpg" could not be revealed in the Chinese Wiki. Is it possible to save it to Wiki Commons? I don't know much about handling images in Wiki, so any advice/help from you would be highly appreciated. Thanks. --LoYang 18:19, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I uploaded the image to commons with the same name. You can use it just as normal, just use the same image name that is currently used in the article and it will find it on commons. If not let me know. I also fixed the date and moved the footnote to the main text. Thanks, good luck. -- Stbalbach 18:56, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I have successfully done all the changes accordingly in the Chinese Wiki. Thank you very much. :) --LoYang 19:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Inquisition dispute

Now, dear sir, let's not get rude, please. I can't help it if the Congregation has the history it has and if, with no solution of continuity and within the same larger organisational frame (the Catholic Church), it inherited what is left of the Inquisition. Since German government has undergone a complete change after 1945, with a complete change of personnel, fundamental law, and policies, including complete and public rejection of pre 1945 policies, that comparison with Nazi government was unfair and unjustified. Unless, of course, you meant that if Cardinal Ratzinger had had the necessary power, he would have seen to it we went back to the good old days of Galileo and Giordano Bruno :p. --Svartalf 22:45, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

The Inquisition ended in the 19th century. It's over. Why do you keep up the myth that it continues? Dealing with heresy is a natural function of any orthodoxy, but that doesn't mean it's the same thing as the Inquisition. -- Stbalbach 00:52, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I *did* state that strictly speaking, inquisition corresponding to what the term usually encompasses no longer exists. However, it never was formally dissolved and disbanded, and the organisation responsible for it was renamed and given a different scope and methods for its action, but still with the same basic responsibility : discovering, exposing and rooting out doctrinal movements incompatible with the stance of the church, and bringing those in error back to the fold if possible before they fall into serious heresy or cause schism. Since

a) the Congregation for the doctrine of the faith has direct historical ties with the former congregation for universal inquisition without a true solution of continuity,

b)"inquisition" means investigation into heresy, rather than denoting specific practices or powers, and that's what the CDF still does I can truly posit that the CDF is heir to the inquisition, even though I don't say that the Vatican has oponents secretly imprisoned or worse, which practice is indeed long abandoned. --Svartalf 12:16, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

The function of finding heresy in an orthodoxy is normal and expected. You can find such activities in any orthodox organization, religious or secular. Any such organization could be said to be conducting an "inquisition", but that word is not normally used these days as a neutral descriptor, its normally used in a pejorative way. Your rationales "it was never officially ended" and "same responsibilities" are trivial and inconsequential reasons for applying a pejorative term to the CDF (other organizations conduct "inquisition" but we don't call it that except for pejorative reasons, as a value judgement or criticism). Simply, the CDF does not warrant such a pejorative description. Even from a historian point of view, historically the Inquisition ended in the 19th century, we no longer call it that. It sounds like your trying to rationalize why its appropriate to attach a pejorative term to the CDF. -- Stbalbach 13:35, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

first crusade

the spoken file is no longer red. (It just took a while to upload). Brinticus 22:14, 29 July 2006

Kilimanjaro debate

I've spent the last two weeks conducting a lot of research into the melting of Kilimanjaro, and I've concluded that it is a surprisingly complex situation. However, there is substantal scientific data which suggests that global warming could not have such an effect on the snows of Kilimanjaro [2] (pdf). Here's my question for you, since you appear to be the major opposition to including this perspective into the article: how can we do so while maintaining a NPOV, exploring both theories and avoiding rhetoric? -b 06:06, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

See, this is the problem with people who try to disprove climate change, they find a report somewhere and leap to their own conclusions. The below was written by Kaser, the same person involved with the reports you linked to:

Kaser, G., D.R. Hardy, T. Mölg, R.S. Bradley, and T.M. Hyera (2004): Modern glacier retreat on Kilimanjaro as evidence of climate change: Observations and facts. - In: International Journal of Climatology, vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 329-229.

In this study we review a variety of papers, ranging from the first observations of Kilimanjaro glaciers by Hans Meyer in the 1880s, to 20th century satellite data of tropospheric temperature. This happens with the intent to develop a working hypothesis for our research. Based on all these studies, a late 19th century moisture drop is by far the most likely event that has initiated the retreat of glaciers on Kilimanjaro. A subsequent drier climate was the main driver for maintaining this retreat. As correctly mentioned in comment no. 8, it cannot be ruled out that this local climate change driving glacier retreat (drying) is connected to the large-scale change of our atmosphere, as we suggest on pages 336 and 337 of the paper. We intend to explore during the next three years (official duration of current project) if such a connection does exist. - - Hence, we certainly don't deny general global warming at all. Unfortunately, climate skeptic groups have misused mainly this study (but also the others below) to argue against the global warming issue. All we aim at is to explore glacier recession on Kilimanjaro in its full complexity.see last comment.

--Stbalbach 12:08, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I've read that. From my user page:

This user believes Wikipedia is a place for objective, not subjective, reasoning

It's not his opinion that matters, it's his research. It's not his personal conclusions, it's what his data shows. -b 16:22, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

It's what your interpreting his data to show. He says clearly, it cannot be ruled out that this local climate change driving glacier retreat (drying) is connected to the large-scale change of our atmosphere, as we suggest on pages 336 and 337 of the paper. and he says We intend to explore during the next three years (official duration of current project) if such a connection does exist. IOW, they have not fully explored the issue and have not ruled out climate change. -- Stbalbach 17:54, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. But at the same time, there is substantial evidence which points towards other theories. While the greenhouse gas effect may well prove to contribute to the melting of the glaciers, that does not change the fact that in that article he establishes that there are many other contributions with direct and proven effects on the glacier, and as such, deserve to be included in this article. -b 18:23, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Spelling of Medieval

The standard spelling on Wikipedia is "Medieval". It is the modern form. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Middle Ages/British spelling of Medieval. Although it is sometimes spelled with an "a" in England, Medieval is still the most common form, even in England. -- Stbalbach 00:28, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

This is in regards to this edit. -- Stbalbach 00:30, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely. You're quite right, and I've updated my spelling list to reflect that. Cheers, CmdrObot 14:08, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Courtly love: possible Muslim influence

hello. before re-editing the article on courtly love, please explain the edit on the article's talk page. thanks. Mohamadkhan 16:59, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

"Humbug!"

Hi, I'm still in the process of writing A Christmas Carol in the Chinese wiki. Since I am not a native speaker, I've been always struggling with the word "Humbug". Judging from context, seems to me its modern equivalent should be "bullshit", though not very elegant. Is my understanding correct? Or is there a better modern equivalent word? Thanks. --LoYang 20:12, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

hmm good question! There is actually a wikipedia article humbug, and it means roughly "nonsense" or "rubbish". If you need anything else let me know. -- Stbalbach 21:34, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Very interesting article! Didn't know that the Scarecrow denounces the Wizard as a humbug in The Wizard of Oz, too. Guess I was just too focuing on the Chinese translation when I watched it before. I really enjoy this info. Thanks. --LoYang 22:43, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Template main

Yeah sorry about that. I had intended to revert my change right away since I was just testing really, but unfortunately my computer crashed so I couldn't revert right away. jaco♫plane 15:36, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

A Christmas Carol: Two Editions within One Week?

Hi, me back again. :)

In the footnote 1: "Dickens sent out advanced presentation copies on the 17th while the official release date was the 19th. He was sold out by the 22nd."

In the first paragragh: "The story met with instant success, selling six thousand copies within a week. "

How did these two add up? The first edition was sold out within three days, then the publisher instantly published the second edition, so the total books sold within one week, both the first and the second edition, added up to six thousand? Or the first edition itself had six thousand copies in total, and all were sold out by the 22nd? In that case, however, the first paragraph should be changed to "selling six thousand copies within three days". --LoYang 05:40, 14 August 2006 (UTC) 05:38, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi LoYang. I think the confusion is with "presentation copy". A presentation copy is a copy given to reporters who will review the book and write about it in newspapers to coincide with when it is published, it gives them time to review it before it goes on sale. Presentation copies might also be given to special people as a gift, friends and family - they are small numbers of free copies given away before it goes on sale. So it was a single edition, from the 17th to 22nd, that sold out 6,000 copies. My guess it was probably less than a 100 presentation copies, but just a guess, somewhere in that range would be logical. -- Stbalbach 16:30, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

So that "one week" started on the 17th, instead of the 19th. Got it. Thank you. --LoYang 21:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Life of Pi symbolism

Afraid I don't have any sources, just that the idea that it's got any argument against the religions is just balderdash. Those particular quotes are taken completely out of context; he says that orange is the color of survival, because all the stuff on the lifeboat was orange. When he says that green is the color of Islam, he also says that seeing it is like music to his eyes and that it is his favorite color.

Unfortunately, any analysis of the messages and symbolism would certainly violate NPOV, no original research, or both. I'm against having such discussions on wiki pages, as they are really just excuses for different people to fill them up with their opinions, which Wikipedia is not for. The one I removed from Life of Pi even spoke in first-person, not to mention coming from an iP that had only editted 5 other times. Not saying it's vandalism, just by someone without a complete understanding of wiki policy. Atropos 17:18, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

DYK

On 17 August, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Claude Glass, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

The John Karr Issue

Hi there, I didn't realize there was a discussion on whether or not to redirect from John Karr to John Mark Karr on the JMK discussion page. I wouldn't have acted unilaterally if I had known that. I still feel, however, that the redirect should be restored. To quote from the comments I left on the talk page, "The author is not at all notable; he seems to have had only one book published, by a tiny publishing house. The Google results for John Karr the author will vanish within a week. The instinct to 'protect' the author, so to speak, from the ignominy of being linked to the 'real' John Karr is a noble one, but ultimately it isn't practical. Thousands of people share unfortunate names. That doesn't mean that anytime someone searches for, say, 'Joel Rifkin', they shouldn't be pointed to a dab page that mentions a different Joel Rifkin who currently waits tables in Peoira." Raggaga 03:49, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Moby-Dick: Why was my Jed McKenna comment removed?

Hello, I asked this question on the Moby-Dick talk page but maybe you didn't see it. I've only dabbled on Wikipedia in the past - in fact I haven't even created an account yet, so bear with me. User Stbalbach removed my comment (below) about Jed McKenna's book citing a reason of "not literary criticism but pop spiritualism". First of all, I'm not sure what you mean by "pop spiritualism" but I sense it may be derogatory - can you explain further please? Secondly, how did you make your decision as to whether or not McKenna's book may or may not be literary criticism? Thirdly, why does a comment on this page have to be one of "literary criticism"? I found McKenna's take on Moby-Dick very interesting and feel other Wikipedia readers may find it like-wise. Should I instead add my comment to the References section?

thank you. Brian--62.231.39.150 13:31, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

In his book Spiritually Incorrect Enlightenment, Jed McKenna argues that Moby-Dick is actually Melville's description of his spiritual awakening, and that the novel only makes sense when seen from the perspective of spiritual enlightenment. He also claims to have identified what happens to Ahab at the end of the story, that in fact Ahab doesn't die in the destruction of the Pequod.

As you haven't replied, I've reverted. Please don't revert without discussing with me. Thanks, Brian83.71.171.217 08:38, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

DYK

On 24 August, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Recollections of a Tour Made in Scotland, A. D. 1803, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--Blnguyen | rant-line 00:23, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

3rr

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three revert rule in regard to the article Paul Skalić. Other users in violation have also been blocked. The timing of this block is coincidental, and does not represent an endorsement of the current article revision. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future on the article's talk page (Talk:Paul Skalić). —Mets501 (talk) 20:47, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

This is your second time violating this rule, the first time you were not blocked. —Mets501 (talk) 20:47, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Ad hominen attacks

• While I agree with you that ad hominem is not a good description, there is no doubt that the use of the word attack is valid. Attack is defined as " To criticize strongly or in a hostile manner ". This is certainly what Barrett does to both individuals and practices he does not agree with and some of his " victims " respond in kind. So attack is not POV in this context but an accurate description of what is happening. As for references you can check the web sites of those who are critical of Barrett.

I included the word ad hominen in the posting your reverted because it had been suggested by other editors.

I did read the Discussion page, by the way.... NATTO 05:00, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Paul Skalić

Hi - It's still not clear why you put a total lock down on that article. There is broad consensus in the talk page that the article, in its current form, is what everyone wants. It was only one rouge anon user that was causing problems - using unreliable sources, NPOV, 3RR, uncivil, etc. etc.. that is why I put in the request for the semi-protect and didn't see any problem in violating 3RR myself, based on the 3RR rules -- which you implied agreement with by semi-protecting that article (which makes your subsequent block of me mystifying). I almost think you did a total block on that article to justify the block of me, not because there wasn't a consensus problem - there is no consensus problem, the article should not be full-protected. Look at the talk page. -- Stbalbach 14:05, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, fine, it's just semi-protected now. —Mets501 (talk) 14:32, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

RfC

I've decided not to pursue an RfC over the blocking incident, I don't think it would be constructive for either of us. However I think you made a poor judgment call in blocking me. Since you agreed that the semi-protection was required to stop the anon user from violating multiple rules, I was exempt from 3RR myself, according to 3RR rules. Of course technically you had a right to block me for violating 3RR since the *timing* of things were such that I violated 3RR *before* you made the semi-protection, but you implicitly acknowledged that the anon was in the wrong and should be blocked, therefore making me exempt from 3RR in spirit if not technically. There was no content dispute, I was simply defending a page that had been in place and static for months based on many users consensus - it was one rouge anon user pushing an un-sourced, POV nationalistic agenda against many honest legit wikipedia users. I think you should have known this if not by reading the talk page, but looking at the edit history, or by the anons behavior (ie. his lies that I was from Germany, read my user page, it says where I am from, etc..). Anyway I hope in the future when dealing with legit and long-term Wikipedia users versus anon fly by night users that you will give legit editors some benefit of the doubt - anon users who get into conflicts remain anon for a reason, they have no reputation and could care less about Wikipedia rules. -- Stbalbach 15:42, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, thank you for not starting an RfC. In the future I will looks more into these things before making a block. —Mets501 (talk) 15:47, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Talk like a pirate

Why did you revert my edit of 12:48, 30 August 2006 on International_Talk_Like_a_Pirate_Day? "rv" is not a very helpful edit comment --Amaccormack 11:07, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry it seemed obvious I left a message on the article talk page. -- Stbalbach 12:19, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Why did you revert my edit of 15:42, 19 September 2006 194.151.95.22 on International_Talk_Like_a_Pirate_Day? --Marrem 12:23, 20 September 2006 (UTC) You can listen to the 19 September Scott Mills show on BBC Radio player, choose 'Radio 1' 'Scott Mills TUE show (up to a week after Sep 19). He really did feature ITLaPD prominently on his show. This is a relevant addition to the paragraph mentioning media coverage.

We're not listing every media coverage of the holiday, there are literally 100's of such references every Sept 19th every year. It's non-notable and trivia. Imagine if we did the same for other holidays, Christmas for example. There has to be a significant and notable reason why media coverage should be listed. -- Stbalbach 16:22, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Guard of Honor

Quite seriously, your "no better worse" evaluation of Guard of Honor entry is quite pleasing to me. One generally cannot mover from unsatisfactory to excellent without passing through mediocre.

Peter Reilly 19:39, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

University of Constantinople

Concerning this edit of yours. What today is known in english as 'University of Constantinople', was called during the period u are refering to as 'Πανδιδακτήριον' (etymology: παν=every + διδαχή=teaching/education). The modern greek word for 'university' is 'πανεπιστήμιο' (etymology: παν=every + επιστήμη=science). these words are synonymous in greek and both represent the greek equivelent of the latin word, from which the english word comes from. Maybe the word 'university' did not exist in english back in the 9th century, but its greek equivelent did exist. There is no dispute concerning the name or the nature of this institute in the Byzantine Empire. Regards --Hectorian 22:32, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

See Byzantine university (which I wrote). There have been schools of higher education since the Greeks, but what we think of as a "University" - an autonomous institution - did not first appear in Byzantium; it was an Italian and French institution of the 11th century. Using etymology misses the bigger point, University of Constantinople was nothing like we think of Universities today (or in the 11th century) Italy and France). -- Stbalbach 14:22, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I've read both University of Constantinople and Byzantine university (u did a good job, btw). However, i can't see why the University of Constantinople cannot be considered a university in the 'true sense', or at least why the western european can be considered, but this cannot. The article about Medieval universities should not look to the issue from the Catholic perspective. The Pope did not have the privillege to recognise which institution of higher education is a university and which isn't. Moreover, saying that the U. of Const. received money from the state/church, so it was not 'autonomous', contradicts with what we know for the w.european universities as well: they also received money from the Roman Church and/or their respecive states/kingdoms. I am not only talking about the whole thing by mentioning etymology (if i did so, i would even include Plato's Academy!). I am not going to add back the U. of Const. in the list for the moment, waiting for your reply. It is a list about medieval universities, not about Catholic universities. if it remains with the current title, Constantinoupolis should be included as well, if not, lets rename it into 'Roman Catholic Medieval Universities'. --Hectorian 00:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Followed up at Medieval university talk page. -- Stbalbach 13:34, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

your revert on Great Famine of 1315–1317

Hi Stbalbach, please respond with your comments on the article's talk page. Thanks! Ambarish 05:38, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

On an "irrelevant and polemic" note on The Divine Comedy

While I anticipated that my contribution might be misread as anti-Islamic, I meant no such thing, and merely had difficulty getting the phrasing right. It needs to be acknowledged somewhere that Dante considered Muhammad to be something of a heresiarch; that irony if anything strengthens the extraordinary claim that he lifted part of his eschatology and cosmology from Islam. Otherwise the whole paragraph reads like a Dante-was-Muslim-not-Catholic gotcha. I've been doing similar work (some of it also since reverted) over at John Coltrane, where contributions insinuating that Coltrane was a practicing Muslim (like Art Blakey or McCoy Tyner) have been retained, but contributions incontrovertibly demonstrating that he was not have been deleted, on the basis of "speculation" or, indeed, "irrelevance" or, er, "polemic...al...ness...osity".

And I should think that my history wresting "white pride" away from the white supremacists and neo-Nazis who wrote it in the first place attests to the fact that intolerance has never been my intention. - Maggie --70.50.79.251 16:09, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Maggie, I guess "irrelevant and polemic" was a harsh and quick assessment - you seem to be a good editor and mean well. I went back and looked at it more carefully and better understand what you are saying. My objection would be this: despite the fact -- basically your counter-arguing Professor Asin (perhaps rightly so), finding reason to doubt his theory - that is original research. If you can find someone else who said these things it should be included to present other points of view from his critics. -- Stbalbach 15:00, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I've given it another shot. "Despite the fact" has been deleted as per your suggestion that the phrase could be read as an attempt to discredit Asin. "This is ironic in light of the fact" has been inserted instead. Have a look. - Maggie --70.50.79.251 16:55, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Renaissance Fairs

Thanks for being a vigilant monitor on the article. Cynrin 18:45, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I hope it is helpful to someone. It seems like the page is mostly a vanity for people in the business. -- Stbalbach 23:39, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Caine Mutiny Book

Hi, in response to your question, I think it is a 1st edition, but one of a number of reprints. I am not an expert, but I have seen the following on ebay:

[Claim to be first edition, first printing]

[Claims to be first edition, 19th printing]

I am just using the ebay links to help with your research, I am not connected with either auction, and feel free to remove these after you check them out. Cheers! Seaphoto 21:14, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

International_Talk_Like_a_Pirate_Day

Regarding your removal of the {{High-traffic}} template from this article, I'm a little confused. Would you please reply at: Talk:International_Talk_Like_a_Pirate_Day#High_Traffic_Notice_Removal. Thank you, — xaosflux ^Talk 02:36, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Historical revisionism

I hope you like the "French attacking formations in the Napoleonic wars" I have added to the Historical revisionism. I stumbled onto it while expanding Column (formation) article. I like it because not only was it short enough to quote with its pithy ending, (a) it is easy to understand, (b) it clearly has nothing to do with negationism, and it includes the use of "paradigm" to describe a change in the historical view. Regards Philip Baird Shearer 17:33, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

RLS and Children's Lit.

Please see my note on the talk page of the RLS entry. Sanjay Tiwari 02:17, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism of The Divine Comedy

Do you think it would be appropriate for you to visit User talk:192.115.29.209 and add the final vandalism warning there, for the deletion you reverted today? I did the reversion the last time this anonymous editor did the same thing. It is not an "unexplained deletion"--see Talk:The Divine Comedy, where (without signature) 192.115.29.209 previously posted a threat that he would delete this section as often as it is reposted. (See also my response there.) When you add this explicit threat to flout the WP ethos to the editor's extensive vandalism elsewhere (which has been the subject of complaints by many Wikipedians), it becomes a bit much to ignore. Wareh 17:42, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Sure, don't mind helping out. I'm not an admin so can't take it to the next level but left a nasty sounding note. If anon keeps at it we can request semi-protection for the article for a while, blocking an IP wouldn't stop them. --

Proposal to merge Stephen Barrett, Quackwatch, and NCAHF article

I have started three separate proposals to merge these three articles. The discussion for each amalgamiton of the merge begins here. I would appreciate you taking the time to give your thoughts for each proposal. Thanks. Levine2112 00:48, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Crusades

Hello!

I see that you have added some original research tags to Crusades. Thankyou for your contributions. I would be grateful if you could give further information on the crusades talk page.

You write: "I've added a number of Original Research tags to two sections - these sections take select quotes from select sources (some of them very weak) and leap to broad definitive conclusions that are POV and unbalanced".

Your statement seems entirely reasonable in principle. Unfortunately I am unable to understand to what excactly you are refering. I would be grateful if you could be more specific as to exactly which quotes you consider "select" and "weak"; and which "broad definitive" and "unbalanced" conclusions are leapt to.

Thankyou!

81.103.144.108 22:43, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I can do that with fact and balance tags, it may be sporadic over the next week or so when I can focus on it. The Crusades have always been seen from two views, there is no single "traditional" view, it's always been a word mixed with the horrors of violence and blood with the honor of triumph of God and country - there has never been a single take on it. So what I see in those sections is a strawman by saying there is a single traditional view, and original research to use the 19th C catholic encyclopedia to "prove" it. -- Stbalbach 17:15, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Thankyou for you comments! I am sorry I was not signed in for my last comment.

You are right, obviously we should put in different points of view. The Catholic Encylopedia (which is incidently 20th Century) is a completely acceptable source used in many articles, but should be put alongside other sources.

Personally I would say that there is a single traditional catholic point of view, but is you wish to say it is just one of the catholic viewpoints, that seems acceptable.

My main concern is that those arguments with which you (presumably) disagree be placed alongside competing arguments, to give readers an overview of different viewpoints, rather than being deleted. If you feel the phrasing of the article overstates the points of view presented, a rephrasing would of course be appropriate.

Incidentally I will move this discussion onto the Crusades talk page for the convenience of our other contributors.

N-edits 13:09, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Life of Pi

I didn't want to load more the article's dicussion with my experimentation, so I give you here a possibly better alternative for the three first paragraphs of the deleted symbolism. Not that they are free of research, but they seem to attract less the thunderhead on them. If you think I offer some improvement, you can reply here or in my talk, as you wish.

During Pi's time adrift, he is exposed to three separate, deadly entities: a tiger, the sea, and a floating island of algae. Each is symbolic of one of Pi's religions. The tiger is Hinduism, as evidenced by the quote, "orange — such a nice Hindu colour" (pg 138). The island, most notable for its verdant green hue, represents Islam: "Green is a lovely colour. It is the colour of Islam" (pg. 257). It can derived that the sea represents Christianity, with the fish an early Christian symbol.

Whereas the tiger, sea, and island all represent mortal dangers to Pi, they also each contribute to his salvation. Richard Parker may devour Pi, but he also keeps him company and forces Pi to develop a discipline. The sea may drown Pi, or he may get killed by sea animals, but Pi is also able to feed himself and Richard Parker with fish and sea turtles. The island is carnivorous, but also grants Pi and Richard Parker the chance to fortify themselves before departing.

Obviously if Pi isn't cautious, any of the three threats may consume him — literally and spiritually. This correlates with the fact that any religion that offers salvation also has dangers associated with it, and the devout follower must be careful not to be devoured by them.

Hoverfish 19:12, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

By the way I discovered the Life of Pi by searching in IMDb for the works of Jean-Pierre Jeunet, who is currently making a movie out of the book. Apart from loving Jeunet's films, I was quite drawn to the topic of the book (which by the way I still don't have). One idea, which may take some time though, is to wait for the film (release is pending for 2007) and include symbolism there. From what I observe, such topics are more welcome in films. One way or the other, as soon as I get to read the book I will be able to contribute. --Hoverfish 21:29, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I personally think your observations are fine and good. The problem is other people will consider it to be original research. Some people may even disagree with the conclusions. Quoting page numbers and passages from the book in support of an original idea and synthesis is the very definition of original research. We basically act as reporters, reporting on what other people say, so everything has to be cited on who said it - if someone else had this idea and published it somewhere, then it would be fine. Wikipedia is not a good place for creative and insightful people with new and original ideas, unfortunately. -- Stbalbach 00:01, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's an Encyclopedia, so following a discipline is ok I guess. What I failed to say is that when it becomes a film, it is bound to get some high-standing reviews, so one can quote from there. --Hoverfish 01:05, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Re: BOT

Sorry, Vandal Proof 2 Bot is in Alpha/beta, so it has been making some mistakes lately, the main app has been crashing unexpectedly... The Fox Man of Fire 12:25, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Re: Kargil War

I have unprotected the article and updated the figure. Please check if I did it right. Thanks for the heads-up. Regards, Ganeshk (talk) 19:48, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Cite tag in Reference section

That is an excellent idea. Thanks for taking the time to suggest that. I will do that going forward. :) Agne 22:04, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Crosses

The link I was posting lists over 50 different cross examples and their meanings, giving Wiki users a resource to view an additional example of the cross on the page and compare with other cross examples. It also provides verification of information for each cross example. Therefore, it's useful on each cross page. Would you agree with this? Dulcimerist 04:14, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your concern, and for bringing this to my attention. Which discussion page would you suggest I start this discussion on, as this spans multiple examples? As an alternative, is there an easier way to allow Wiki users quick reference access to this external link, possibly by directing them to the Christian cross reference links? Is there much harm in a small reference link with each cross design? Also, some of the individual cross pages are so small, are they even worth having an entire page devoted to them? Dulcimerist 04:23, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

All the individual cross articles should have a link back to the christian cross article since that is the logical hierarchy - it's the umbrella article, a survey, and lists all the various crosses - also the logical place for your external link since it is also a survey. I'm wondering what your sources were in naming the crosses on the web site as things like "eastern cross" are obviously not what they call it in the east - is that what Roman Catholics call it? If so, are the rest of the names Roman Catholic? -- Stbalbach 04:32, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I guess I wasn't aware of the overall hierarchy. I apologize for that. As for my sources, most are taken from the book "Church Symbolism" by F.R. Webber, published in 1938. My sources aren't Roman Catholic. They do call themselves the Eastern Church, Eastern Orthodox Church, Greek Orthodox Church, Russian Orthodox Church, etc. All could be grouped under "Eastern Church;" as "Western Church" could encompass the Roman Catholic Church, Potestant Churches, Presbyterian, Lutheran, etc. Dulcimerist 04:55, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

New wrinkle in the Oscar Wilde uncyclopedia saga

Hello Stbalbach. I know that you haven't really been involved in the ongoing debate about uncyclopedia and OW before but I read you name on several comments on the discussion page on the uncyclopedia template talk page and I wanted to bring to your attention a new addition to this situation. User: Mary Beard, a relatively new editor, has created a new uncylopedia template and has only placed it on the OW discussion page. I reverted it once but am refraining from doing so again so that I don't violate the 3RR. Aside from the numerous discussions about this situation it is huge and dominates the top of the page. There was no discussion or attempt to reach a consensus before this showed up so I have turned to you and User: Jmabel to try to help and resolve this situation. My thanks ahead of time for any aid or direction that you can give. MarnetteD | Talk 21:17, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Grossman-1945.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Grossman-1945.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

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

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 07:10, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Taken care of by another user. Thanks. -- Stbalbach 13:59, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

re: rv 1 edit (Middle Ages)

Sorry, I'm completely new with VP2, I must have misread something. --The Great Llama^{(speak to the Llama!)} 13:54, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. --The Great Llama^{(speak to the Llama!)} 13:58, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Volkwandering map

Hi there! Love the map, but you forgot to add the invasions of Brittania by the Scotti, Laigin, and Attacotti from Ireland! Tut tut! Fergananim 19:08, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Divine Comedy

Why did you delete my image in the Divine Comedy Article?DocEss 15:36, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Scrooge and Marley: A Counting House

Hi, I'm trying to understand more precisely what the nature of Scrooge's firm is. From the original text: "The firm was known as Scrooge and Marley...Scrooge sat busy in his counting-house..." Counting-house is not a familliar term in modern English. Is it an accounting firm? --LoYang 22:24, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

According to page 10 of the Norton Annotated edition:

G.E. Stembridge in "What Was Scrooge's Business?" (The Dickensian, April 1924) reported that Scrooge was a "financier," "something in the nature of a company promoter or a moneylender" (p.100). Scrooge thus does not provide any actual services or goods; he deals solely in the exchange of money.

I have read elsewhere (I forget where) that Scrooge was a money lender. Knowing Scrooge he probably loaned money at high interest with lots of collateral. Money lenders traditionally have a bad reputation in European history (it was known as "usury"), which was considered a sin in the Middle Ages, only Jews could loan money because Christians would be ex-communicated (expelled from the church) if they did so. By the 19th C this was no longer the case, but the bad reputation was still there. Even today money lenders are sometimes called "sharks" and other derogatory names.-- Stbalbach 01:43, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks so much. That's very detailed information. Yeah, now that you mention it, taking every clue from the book into consideration (Scrooge's bad image and reputaion, and those cash-boxes, keys, padlocks, ledgers, deeds, and heavy purses that made the chain on Marley's waist, etc.), being a money lender makes much sense.

And I can't agree with you more on the comment "Knowing Scrooge he probably loaned money at high interest with lots of collateral." ^_^ --LoYang 19:44, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Image:Justinien 527-565.svg

Hello - thank you for the map. It is very difficult to see the difference between "orange" and "red" - the colors blend together and look the same. When the map is small at 250px. -- Stbalbach 11:17, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi, what colors do you propose ?

Actually, I made this map as a template for other languages. People from different wikis should place town and battle of the Byzantine empire at the time of Justinian ; by doing so, they could also change the colors.

Bye. --NeuCeu 06:39, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh I don't know, I'm not good with colors, two colors that have more contrast and are not close to one another on the spectrum. -- Stbalbach 13:18, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

1911 template

At Template_talk:1911#Please_restore_template: is it restored to the state you want? If so, could you either strike your comment or just note that this has been done, and if not could you indicate what state you want it restored to? Thanks. - Jmabel | Talk 06:31, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Medieval revenant

Hi, I see that you reverted parts of my recent changes to the article, so I thought I should state my reasons for them (I didn't expect objections, which is why I didn't state them on the talk page at first and simply wrote that they "seemed" necessary in the edit summary). I think it's difficult to say whether "vampires in the modern sense were invented by Byron and Polidori", and it would be better to do without that statement. Western vampire fiction wasn't just two men's invention (or rather, one man's - Byron shouldn't be credited with the invention at all, because his incomplete story about Lord Ruthven doesn't actually mention vampirism). The Western fictional vampire has a long history and an even longer prehistory. XIXthe century vampire fiction, which did start with Polidori, was (loosely) based on East European folklore and had its precedent in the 18th century European vampire craze. Also, "vampires in the modern sense" is a bit vague; a lot of writers have contributed to the modern vampire stereotype, which is constantly changing. Folkloric vampires are admittedly quite different from Western fictional ones, but early Victorian vampire stories don't contain all of the modern "features" of the vampire either, so Polidori certainly didn't invent everything at once.

So, IMO, the statement in question is an unnecessary simplification. Of course, I could have modified it in accordance with what I wrote above rather than just remove it; but I think that all these details are unnecessary in this article - after all, we do have a vampire article which is devoted to these things.

Regards, --194.145.161.227 11:11, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, do you disagree? --194.145.161.227 19:21, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

The article is about revenants in the middle ages - some people have drawn a connection these stories represent the earliest "vampire" stories. However, no one in England in the middle ages used the term Vampire, it's an anachronism. It was invented by future writers (etymologically and definition) and layered onto the past. Thus, we need a footnote to qualify the use of the term "vampire" when describing medieval revenants. I agree the footnote is simplistic, and I'm open to change, but it serves the point in providing a qualifier on the use of the term "vampire" - I picked Byron and Polidori because they are generally recognized as creating the vampire that we known through fiction and movies today (as the vampire article says "John Polidori authored the first "true" vampire story called The Vampyre." and "Lord Byron introduced many common elements of the vampire theme to Western literature in his epic poem The Giaour"). -- Stbalbach 04:35, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

OK. Frankly, I think the absence of blood drinking (except for a single vague suggestion) should be sufficient for a reader with common sense to make his/her own conclusions, but I have tried a re-formulation. --194.145.161.227 13:52, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Frankenstein in popular culture

What 'important information' did I remove? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.110.235.31 (talk • contribs) 16:19, October 21, 2006

• I've put some commentary at Talk:Frankenstein in popular culture. It's quite possible that the anon's edits were spot on. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:43, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Whether the Victories at Constandinople assured the survival of Christianity

Stbalbach We have certainly debated this at great length in the article on the Battle of Tours - most historians certainly rank it as at least as important as the successful defenses of the Mother of Cities. I changed the language though, because you have a point that the Bzyantines themselves probably did not even know of the battle at the time - they certainly knew of it later, as the Carolingians began to expand into their territories. The Question of the Muslim histories is more complex, as you know, the Battle of Tours was referred to - within 50 years - as Creasy argued:"The enduring importance of the battle of Tours in the eyes of the Moslems is attested not only by the expressions of 'the deadly battle' and 'the disgraceful overthrow' which their writers constantly employ when referring to it, but also by the fact that no more serious attempts at conquest beyond the Pyrenees were made by the Saracens. Supporting this, such writers as thirteenth-century Moroccan author Ibn Idhari al-Marrakushi, mentioned the battle in his history of the Maghrib, “al-Bayan al-Mughrib fi Akhbaral-Maghrib.” According to Ibn Idhari, “Abd ar-Rahman and many of his men found martyrdom on the balat ash-Shuhada'i ("the path of the martyrs).” Dr. Santosuosso's said in his book Barbarians, Marauders and Infidels: The Ways of Medieval Warfare, on p. 126 "they (the Muslims) called the battle's location, the road between Poitiers and Tours, "the pavement of Martyrs,"

But you are right - as far as we know - that the Bzyantines themselves certainly did not rank this battle highly, if they knew of it at all. (I feel certain, given their fairly formidable intelligence service, that they did know of it, even if the rank and file did not) I felt a reasonable compromise was to say what is historically true - that historians rank the Battle of Tours as least as highly, but the Bzyantines themselves certainly believed they had defended the faith and assured it's survival themselves. You had a good point, but the idle reader needed to know that this was not the only defense of Christianity which has achieved macrohistorical importance during that era, so I hope you will feel the language changes were reasonable to address all concerns. old windy bear 13:52, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure the Constantinople article is the right place to get into the details. The Battle of Tours article does a good job of detailing the historiography. -- Stbalbach 15:04, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

tags

Hi, thank you for your reply. I unfortunately involved in some other issues, for this reason could not find time to explain the case. Sorry. The reason is actually obvious, if you check the Istanbul article, there are sections about Constantinople and Byzantium. The Constantinople and Byzantium articles would fit there quite well. Furthermore, these articles contains material common to Byzantine Empire (even Roman Empire). By merging the articles we would have a chance to avoid to represent the same staff in different places. E104421 16:57, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Collapse, related discussion you deleted

Was wondering why you deleted the WSJ newspaper article you deleted under Collapse. I've read the book, and the tree wall being planted in Mongolia is perfectly related to the content in Collapse.

thxs, Mike

This is probably better discussed on the article talk page so anyone else can comment. I didn't think it was appropriate for Wikipedia editors to add "xyz ecological problem" to the article as a suggestion of Societal Collapse, it is original research. If we start that, I could think of many other examples also, and we just end up with a random list made by random people. An interesting exercise in brain storming, but not very encyclopedic.-- Stbalbach 14:24, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Mary 1

I know that current FA standards include inline citations, and all current FA articles must comply with new standards. Maybe they let it slide in older article reviews, but now it is a crucial component of its status. Judgesurreal777 17:49, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Moby-Dick

I noticed today that you removed a highly unnecessary edit that was placed on the Moby-Dick entry. Since it seems like you're watching that page, I wanted to ask your advice. I've been on Wikipedia only a little bit, and I'm blocked by the Chinese government from seeing the site more often than not.

I just finished reading the book, and the entry on the page is pretty limited. If my access to Wikipedia stays solid, I'd love to contribute in this area, but I don't have any background working on novels on Wikipedia.

Please feel free not to bother with me, but I'd love to have a mentor like you who has worked on fiction and literature. If you've got some advice for how to approach the idea of working on this project then I'd be grateful. If you've got time to drop a few pointers on my talk page, I'd pay a lot of attention to that.Zero37 16:08, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Huns

Which source? You mixed/combined the references as Walter Pohl (1999), "Huns" in Late Antiquity by Peter Brown, p.501-502 .. further references to F.H Bauml and M. Birnbaum, eds., Atilla: The Man and His Image (1993). Peter Heather, "The Huns and the End of the Roman Empire in Western Europe," English Historical Review 90 (1995):4-41. Peter Heather, The Fall of the Roman Empire (2005). Otto Maenchen-Helfen, The World of the Huns (1973). E. de la Vaissière, Huns et Xiongnu "Central Asiatic Journal" 2005-1 pp. 3-26 You should separate them first. Secondly, i changed the pov sentence "it is fruitless to speculate ..." as "Thus mainstream of scholars believe that the Huns were originated from different ethnic origins and geographics" which is more suitable for an encyclopedia. Do not start revert wars. The sytle of the article is not neutral. There are many sources on this topic and do not try to push your favorite ones. Regars, E104421 14:44, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

The source is Walter Pohl (1999), "Huns" in Late Antiquity by Peter Brown, p.501-502 - it is disturbing that you continually delete sourced material simply because you don't like the way it sounds. Please read WP:Verify. -- Stbalbach 14:48, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

No, you totally misunderstood. Have you ever read my comments in the talk/discussion page? You combined/mixed the sources. The style is a pov style. Should i add all the counter arguments with sources there in order to neutralize? Try to be calm down. There is a way to represent the issue more concisely and neutrally. You are not considering the issue i commented neutrally but in your way. That's why the problem continues. E104421 14:56, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Font

Can you tell me what is the font you used in the "Map of the "barbarian" invasions of the Roman Empire showing the major incursions from 100 to 500 CE."? Thanks -Tchlouis

I did not make the map. See [3]. -- Stbalbach 20:07, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Image:Ralph.Cosham.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Ralph.Cosham.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. -- Chowbok 20:32, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Walter Pohl

Thank you for checking the source and quoting. Sincere Regards, E104421 06:59, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Battle of Agincourt

Hi, thanks for looking after Agincourt. I assume you've got it in your watchlist as well!

I've left a note on the discussion page of 82.43.170.96. I thought when reading his Agincourt version that I recognised some of it from a while back, and in fact you can see that he had reverted to an earlier version of the page, which contained some edits he had made which he wanted to keep. Those edits had been taken out because they were highly dubious. I thought we should say something to him about this, rather than just reverting.

Thanks once again,

--Merlinme 15:43, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, will keep a closer eye on it. -- Stbalbach 16:34, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Removed photo - why?

Why did you remove my aerial photo of Kilimanjaro. Many of the pictures you've left add nothing to the article yet an aerial view is an essential image. Please put it back. Charlesjsharp 23:53, 8 November 2006 (UTC) Charles

thanks :)

Seven Wonders of the Medieval World

Not sure if you noticed, but Seven Wonders of the Medieval World has been nominated for deletion, and the nominator also removed its see also link from the Seven Wonders of the World article. --Kralizec! (talk) 01:32, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Black Death edit

Hi there, you said you weren't sure why I removed an edit out of Black Death -- that is because what I removed was this. It didn't make much sense and I saw that the Plague of Justinian was covered in the article Bubonic Plague. Best regards, Icemuon 10:29, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I thought that whole part had been added in. Thanks for fixing it back. Icemuon 11:20, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Weekly Notification - 2 episodes released!

This is just a friendly reminder that Wikipedia Weekly has been released with two new episodes!

• Special Episode I - User:Poupou from de.wiki joins us to discuss the writing contest contoversy and Larry Sanger from Citizendium joins us to discuss Citizendium.
• Episode 4 Jason Calacanis from Netscape joints us to discuss his recent advertising on Wikipedia proposal as well as your full rundown of Wiki news.

As always you can download old episodes and more at http://wikipediaweekly.com/!

Please spread the word about Wikipedia Weekly, we're trying to spread the word so that people know about the project, we've got some cool guests lined up and it makes it much more fun if people tune in!

For Tawker and the rest of the Wikipedia Weekly crew -- Tawkerbot 06:38, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

You are recieving this message because you are listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaWeekly/delivery - if you do not wish to recieve such notifications please remove yourself from the list.

Personal attack information

Thank you for the link. I was aware of it but not at the time I went thru the AfD. Many of the comments on that AfD amounted to personal attacks but everyone got away with it. Strange how somethings are quick to be called and others don't even get noticed. I guess it is who you know. :) --Kf4bdy ^{talk contribs} 19:56, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

AfD

I don't take it personally, if the article survives AfD, I will simply find sources for any number of other purported wonders and add them. Carlossuarez46 02:17, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

That's what it's all about. They are all "purported". See also Wonders of the World. -- Stbalbach 04:36, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Middle Ages Group

Hello, I saw your userpage and thought that I would ask for more information on this Middle Ages community group. Lostcaesar 13:01, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Weekly Notification!

This is just a friendly reminder that Wikipedia Weekly has been released with two new episodes!

• Special Episode 5 - Viruses in Wikipedia, ArbCom, Wikipedia in China, Wikipedia 0.5 and more!

As always you can download old episodes and more at http://wikipediaweekly.com/!

Please spread the word about Wikipedia Weekly, we're trying to spread the word so that people know about the project, we've got some cool guests lined up and it makes it much more fun if people tune in!

For Tawker and the rest of the Wikipedia Weekly crew -- Tawkerbot 06:02, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

You are recieving this message because you are listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaWeekly/delivery - if you do not wish to recieve such notifications please remove yourself from the list.

Wikipedia Weekly Notification!

This is just a friendly reminder that Wikipedia Weekly has been released with a new episode!

This week's topics include - China’s re-block of Wikipedia, better searching, wiki markup parsing, Wikimedia board and executive level decisions, bylaws, committees, trademark, and fundraising + a cat w/ an MBA!

• Episode 6 MP3
• Episode 6 OGG

As always you can download old episodes and more at http://wikipediaweekly.com/!

Please spread the word about Wikipedia Weekly, we're trying to spread the word so that people know about the project, we've got some cool guests lined up and it makes it much more fun if people tune in!

For Tawker and the rest of the Wikipedia Weekly crew -- Tawkerbot 08:14, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

You are recieving this message because you are listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaWeekly/delivery - if you do not wish to recieve such notifications please remove yourself from the list.

Erase recommendation

Hello Stbalbach, Can I know the reason why my addtion on the articles of the Cathusians had been erase, the Halfway to Heaven book by Robin Bruce Lockhart, is a good introduction on the Carthusian way of life,

Wikipedia Weekly Notification!

This is just a friendly reminder that Wikipedia Weekly has been released with a new episode!

This week's topics include - 1.5 million articles, an exclusive of Danny's latest contest and more!

• Episode 7 MP3
• Episode 7 OGG

As always you can download old episodes and more at http://wikipediaweekly.com/!

Please spread the word about Wikipedia Weekly, we're trying to spread the word so that people know about the project, we've got some cool guests lined up and it makes it much more fun if people tune in!

For Tawker and the rest of the Wikipedia Weekly crew -- Tawkerbot 23:47, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

You are recieving this message because you are listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaWeekly/delivery - if you do not wish to recieve such notifications please remove yourself from the list.

Block

You have been blocked for threats and similar personal attacks for a period of fifty hours. To contest this block, please reply here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock}} along with the reason you believe the block is unjustified, or email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list. -- tariqabjotu 23:04, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

See also: here. -- tariqabjotu 23:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

See WP:AN#User:Stbalbach -- Over-reaction. Others agree. See rationals at WP:AN, not warranted in WP:BLOCK. I admit my mistake and was "unequivocally wrong". I would have certainly backed down and even apologized with a warning. Apologizing now. Some of the things I said were meant to be taken lightly but didn't come across well online. Also was preparing a better response to Ctrex explaining my position but I was blocked before I could post it, a warning certainly would have been appropriate.}}

Sorry about the block; it can be tough deciding what to do in cases that are not pure vandalism or egregious disruption. And I don't want to plead new admin just to get off the hook, but I could say that contributed to it. Anyway... keep doing what you do... Forgive me. -- tariqabjotu 02:20, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Black Death

I think it might be best to leave out that sentence you are reverting in Black Death. It doesn't really add any information, and I can see Illiterate11's point in that it is redundant. Best regards, Icemuon 15:41, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Children's Crusade

I briefly explained why another crusade was considered needed. Please explain your deletion of that.--Patrick 18:54, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

See article talk page. -- Stbalbach 15:09, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Image:Black beauty cover.jpg

is a fair-use image that you once uploaded. It has been orphaned now, having been replaced in the article Black Beauty by this public domain image. Lupo 08:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Castle

I largely revised the article. I seem it looks more equilibrate, it has some informative images, and has got rid of unrelevant detail about Scotland. Of course much work is still needed... if you have time, you might check my English, as I'm not motherlanguage. Thanks and good work. --Attilios 14:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Did you know?

On 12 December, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Girdle book, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 18:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Weekly Notification!

This is just a friendly reminder that Wikipedia Weekly has been released with a new episode!

Actually, it's a couple of new episodes. I've been moving to an place closer to campus (my commute was getting to me) and hence, the reminder message was a little slow in coming out. So slow we put out 2 where before we had 1.

Anyways, all is good now, here's the new episodes!

• Episode 9 MP3
• Episode 9 OGG

• Episode 8 MP3
• Episode 8 OGG

As always you can download old episodes and more at http://wikipediaweekly.com/!

Please spread the word about Wikipedia Weekly, we're trying to spread the word so that people know about the project, we've got some cool guests lined up and it makes it much more fun if people tune in!

For Tawker and the rest of the Wikipedia Weekly crew -- Tawkerbot 05:49, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

You are recieving this message because you are listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaWeekly/delivery - if you do not wish to recieve such notifications please remove yourself from the list.

Atlantic Roundhouse edit

Why see also towers for Atlantic roundhouses? Only the broch towers - a small and largely unrepresentitive subset of the monument type - have ever been called towers, and they are not really towers anyway, as they were all wider than they were tall. Lianachan 15:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Follow up on the talk page of Atlantic roundhouse-- Stbalbach 15:22, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Query re "Goths" vs "barbarians"

Question: why did you change the word "Goths" to "barbarians" on the Battle of Adrianople page? This is your version: "The battle signified that the barbarians, fighting for or against the Romans, had become powerful adversaries". Whereas a previous editor had used "Goths". I find "barbarian" less precise and less neutral. Please respond on my page. Thanks, Hu Gadarn 16:40, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

The Ruin

I have provided the source and license for the translation, which was also given in the comment for the edit and mentioned in a comment inside the article text. I think this translation is much better than the public domain ones and the license is compatible with the GFDL. Fourdee 21:07, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

NY Times Book Review

Good job adding the The New York Times Book Review article. It's written quite well, and I can't believe it didn't exist before. -- Kicking222 16:17, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, thanks. If your interested, highly recommend the linked documentary, it's fascinating, and could be used to further expand the article with more detail. -- Stbalbach 16:20, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Re:Louis de Jaucourt

Thank you for pointing out that article. I had never heard of the fellow, but he deserves a much better article. I've expanded it somewhat and hope to do some more in the future. - SimonP 00:02, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Media circus

I see you added a use of the term from before the one I added. But why did you put back the incorrect claim from OED? If they are wrong, and the error is not itself a notable one, why include it in the article? Shall I now add a sentence to the effect that the OED is wrong, per the cite from Newsweek a year and a half earlier? Edison 03:04, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by OED being "wrong". OED doesn't claim it is the oldest, it is just the oldest they happen to have in their dictionary - this is a common source of confusion. As I noted in the edit note, I included both those together because they both dealt with courtship, which I found interesting that the term was being used in that fashion in its early days. I also think its helpful to list the OED entry in general. -- Stbalbach 04:43, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

NYPL photos

{{Wrong-license in reference to Image:AcrePalestine.jpg All photos from New York Public Library are copyrighted NYPL and must be authorised by them and purchased! Even for academic use. Unfortunately, several of the great photos uploaded by Stbalbach come from this source.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jeltje (talk • contribs).

I don't believe that is correct, these photos were taken pre-1923, they are simply reproductions, I don't think the NYTPL can own the copyright. That would be like saying whatever museum owns the Mona Lisa can restrict anyone from using a picture of it. That is what the Wikipedia PD-art license is made for, and what these are licensed under. -- Stbalbach 17:53, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Image:Invasions of the Roman Empire 1.png

I understand that you did this map. Are you in a position to get me a copy without text that I can edit for sw.wiki? If so, kindly upload to commons (and put the adress here; generally interesting also for other languages, I guess) or to my sw.page. Thank you!! --Kipala 18:18, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I didn't do the map, see the image page who did the map, I just left a comment about it. -- Stbalbach 18:21, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Stacked images

Your recent edit to Byland Abbey moved one of the images and commented (please don't "stack" images per the MoS). I have since read the Images section of Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style and there is nothing about stacking images. The technique of stacking images to get more than one image close packed whatever the browser settings, window size, etc., is widely used. Is there a problem with it? Please point me to the right place in the MoS as I couldn't find it. Thanks - Euchiasmus 20:09, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Wire/Wired

I disagree that these should have been combined. Looking at the current dab page, it looks like most searching for Wire or Wired would not go wrong, especially if we add "see also's" pointing to the other. Normally, I'd jump in and break it up, but you've got a good track record here. . . Would you combine them again? (John User:Jwy talk) 14:41, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah because even I have been confused when looking up an entry (I looked up "wired" but it was actually an entry under "wire") - they are too close and easily confused, the test for disambig is if there is possible confusion. There's really no reason to have separate pages when there are not that many entries and it makes it easier for the user to see all the choices in one place. -- Stbalbach 15:00, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Weekly Notification!

This is just a friendly reminder that Wikipedia Weekly has been released with a new episode!

Episode 10, lots of new stuff, read about it online and not in this talkpage spam message :)

Anyways, all is good now, here's the new episodes!

• Episode 10 MP3
• Episode 10 OGG

As always you can download old episodes and more at http://wikipediaweekly.com/!

Please spread the word about Wikipedia Weekly, we're trying to spread the word so that people know about the project, we've got some cool guests lined up and it makes it much more fun if people tune in!

For Tawker and the rest of the Wikipedia Weekly crew -- Tawkerbot 07:26, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

You are recieving this message because you are listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaWeekly/delivery - if you do not wish to recieve such notifications please remove yourself from the list.

What Is the What

I have edited your additions, particularly the word "loosely." By calling it a "novel" the reader knows it is fiction. Yet as revealed by the book's short preface, Eggers spent several years interviewing Deng. "I told my story orally to the author," Deng writes. "He then concocted this novel, approximating my own voice and using the basic events of my life as the foundation." I think using the term "loosely" is misleading.

In this manner, "What Is the What" is a kind of nonfiction novel, like Truman Capote's "In Cold Blood," or (an albeit, ghost-written) memoir, like Egger's AHWOSG.

As Gore Vidal stated in his own memoir: "a memoir is how one remembers one's own life, while an autobiography is history, requiring research, dates, facts double-checked." --D-Looth 19:47, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Encyclopédie intro

Hi Stephen- Why do you want to keep the Encyclopédie intro in the past tense? The work still exists. We say Candide is a book written by Voltaire, not was, right? Could you write "...is an encyclopedia that was published...", or are you treating it more like a periodical because of the multiple revisions and supplements? -Eric ^(talk) 19:49, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Just because we are supposed to maintain a single tense and usually past tense when talking about historical subjects and the article is mostly about a historical subject, but I guess it's not crucial. -- Stbalbach 15:37, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Sock Puppet?!!

Why are you calling me a sock puppet?!! What is your axe to grind with me? I am not a sock puppet. I do not have multiple accounts. I don't appreciate your actions. Jtpaladin 21:36, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Please take a look

Hi Stbalbach. I have left this note here because I know that you are one of the wikipedians who takes special care in keeping the Dracula article in good condition. I have just created an archive for its discussion page which had become fairly bloated. I did leave a few items on the main discussion page that I thought might come up again. I thought that I would also ask that, when you have the time, would you please give it the once over. Please feel free to move any items either to the archive or back from the archive to the main discussion page as you see fit. My biggest debate was whether to leave the daylight analysis section but, as it was lengthy I went ahead and moved it over. Any mistakes I might have made please feel free to let me know and thanks for your time in this matter and keep up the good work here at wikiP. MarnetteD | Talk 02:29, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

That image

The image certainly wasn't created in the thirteenth century, and I didn't mean to suggest that it was. It was a nineteenth-century depiction of a thirteenth-century machine, presumably the one described in the article where I put it. Harper's did describe it as a Greek Fire engine. —Chowbok ☠ 22:15, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

OK. My concern is 1860s Harpers is not a reliable source for depicting a historically accurate scene. Will mod the caption to qualify. -- Stbalbach