User talk:John K

User talk:John Kenney/Archive 1 User talk:John Kenney/Archive 2 User talk:John Kenney/Archive 3 User talk:John Kenney/Archive 4 User talk:John Kenney/Archive 5 User talk:John Kenney/Archive 6 User talk:John Kenney/Archive 7

(UTC)

Safavids

John, I am grateful to you for your third party opinion essentially confirming the historical truth that Safavids were Turkic speaking. I have no major problem with your recent editions and would accept the current page as it is, provided no substantial changes are made in order to deny the Turkic origin of the Safavids. But I have a question which is important for me to know.

The initial introductory sentence was: "Safavids, a long-lasting Turkic-speaking Iranian dynasty that first established Shiite Islam in Iran as an official religion." At first you changed it to "The Safavids were a long-lasting Iranian dynasty of Turkic origins that ruled from 1501 to 1736 and first established Shiite Islam as Persia's official religion." and then, quickly afterwards removed mention about Turkic origins of the Safavids and changed the sentence to "The Safavids were a long-lasting Iranian dynasty that ruled from 1501 to 1736 and first established Shiite Islam as Persia's official religion." In doing so, (and I'm mostly concerned about this) you made a comment "i'm removing the Turkic bit from the intro - it implies what has not been demonstrated. I'm leaving the stuff about Ismail speaking Turkic, though".

In this regard I wanted to ask you what made you to make these changes? Didn't the discussion *demonstrate* that Safavids were Turkic-speaking yet from the time of Sheikh Safi and certainly, they used their native Turkic language not only during shah Ismail I, but long before and after that? Weren't my sources credible? I ask you to answer to these questions and explain me what made you to change your initial opinion in such a radical way. thanks.--Tabib 10:39, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hi John, Please check my talkpage and let me know if my suggestion seems acceptable to you. Thanks.--Tabib 05:38, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hi John again. Just a brief notification that I have posted another reply in response to yours. Please check my talkpage and let me know what you think. thanks.--Tabib 07:08, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

John, I have posted another reply. Please, consider restoring the initial introductory sentence mentioning Turkic-speaking character of the Safavids. Hope now the issue will be finally settled. --Tabib 18:07, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Papua

I've made some remarks and asked some questions at Talk:Papua_(Indonesian_province)#Naming.2C_redux. Your response is solicited. -- Jmabel | Talk 08:51, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)

sigh

CheeseDreams has just filed a complaint against me asking I be banned from any articles involving Judeo-Christian topics [1]. If you think there would be any value at this early stage to your commenting on the ArbCom page or talk page I'd appreciate it -- or, if it is okay with you, I can just keep you posted. Thanks, Slrubenstein 23:27, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I don't see why, it hasn't been accepted yet. CheeseDreams 19:52, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Ville Libre

I asked my fellow countryman on his talk page to be more cooperative. I also explained to him the long history of the "Talk:Gdansk compromise". I hope he'll accept it - if it's still supported by the other side. I'm sure it will help, since he's a reasonable guy. Sometimes he simply gets carried away, especially when some anon/puppet users are involved, but he's quite communicative and I believe he'll be willing to talk his problems over. Halibutt 22:19, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)

Good work ...

... on pushing for the replacement of the "Ike" picture. C'etait une bonne idee. Sfahey 02:04, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Arthur Schopenhauer

Hi. At one point you contributed to the discussion on Arthur Schopenhauer. Currently the page is protected due to the same Gdansk/Danzig dispute as before. Comments by any side are welcome. A temporary version is at Arthur Schopenhauer/Temp. Thank you -- Chris 73 Talk 00:59, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

Also thanks for taking on the Gdansk/Danzig problem. This article is in dire need of some more NPOV. -- Chris 73 Talk 01:00, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)

Can you have a look at User:Chris 73/Work? I was preparing a vote, inlcuding other place names besides Gdansk in the area, and also a vote for enforcement. The one thing I am not sure about is the periods to be voted on. Especially the 1739 to 1945 period has two short Free City of Danzig periods included. The timeline is also not yet complete. We could alternatively vote not for each period separately, but give the voters different set options. You may edit the page (in my userspace) if you want. -- Chris 73 Talk

Gzornenplatz

Looks like User:Gzornenplatz is getting banned for good Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Gzornenplatz/Proposed decision. He needs to do something right now before arbcom close the case. Can you ask him to e-mail Jimbo and talk to him about lifting the ban? OneGuy 07:17, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Daeron

He is claiming I am your sockpuppet here: User talk:Jimbo Wales :) Apparently he didn't see the disagreement we had in Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (biographies) OneGuy 05:58, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Gdansk

"revert - reverts should continue until Emax's version at least appropriates the better English I included in my edits into his version" - its not my version...--Emax 13:18, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)

"revert - reverts should continue until Emax's version at least appropriates the better English I included in my edits into his version" - the version that you have now reverted, included your gramatical changes, so why do you still reverting the article? Dear John Kenny, or should i say Burschenschaftler? ;)--Emax 22:30, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

British governments

I notice you've been expanding names and adding links to some of the governmental lists I've put up (e.g. Coalition Government 1852-1855) - thank you very much! However, could I be terribly pernickety and ask you to follow a consistent policy regarding the use of the definite article for substantive peers? At the moment we have "The Earl of Aberdeen", "The Earl Granville" and "The Duke of Argyll", but "Lord Cranworth", "Viscount Palmerston" and "Viscount Sydney", with no discernible reason for the absence of "The". Thanks awfully - I hope I'm not being too much of a ghastly pedant? Donald, 20.51, 9 February 2005 (GMT)

Peers, even those without an "of", are formally known as The Lord Stanley of Alderley, The Marquess Camden, The Lady Thatcher, etc. Courtesy peers, i.e. who hold their title in right of their father rather than in their own right, do not use "The" - Earl of Mulgrave, Viscount Drumlanrig, etc. When writing the lists I just missed out "The" for everyone, because I didn't think it really mattered in an informal context. The Board of the Admiralty was made up of members of the Government (Civil Lords), who changed when the government changed, and officers of the Royal Navy (Naval Lords, or Sea Lords from 1905) who did not. Donald, half eleven at night, 10th Feb. '05

During the Whig government of 1830–4 far-reaching changes were introduced into naval administration. [...] Originally there had been no fixed principle governing the proportion of junior Lords who were naval officers. From 1804, however, it was the rule for there to be an equal number of 'civil' and 'naval' Lords. Until 1822 there were thus three civil and three naval Lords. When, in that year, the size of the Board was reduced, one civil and one naval lordship were abolished. In 1830 all the junior lordships were filled by naval officers. Two years later a Civil Lord was added and from then until 1869 it was the usual practice for the Board to be composed of four Naval Lords and one Civil Lord in addition to the First Lord. Originally all the Admiralty Lords had been eligible for election to the Commons; in 1832 the number so eligible was reduced to five. ( http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.asp?compid=16651 ) Apparently the numbers of both naval and civil lords were dramatically increased during the First World War, but returned to previous levels after 1918. In the 1920s, a fifth Sea Lord was added with responsibility for the navy's aircraft. Donald, 1.25 a.m., 11th Feb. '05

I'm afraid I don't have them to hand, no. Actually, frustratingly enough, I was leafing through a copy of Haydn's Book of Dignities earlier today in my "local" (30-odd miles away on a terribly tiresome road that takes ages if one gets stuck behind a horse-box) reference library. I think I've decided I really need a copy of my own, but http://www.bookfinder.com doesn't look too hopeful, and I don't know where else to try. Any ideas? Donald, half past two in the morning, 11th Feb. (I really should be in bed)

I know, it's silly, isn't it - at my university one couldn't even take out the Complete Peerage. Oh, by the way, I should be getting hold of Twentieth Century British Political Facts by D. and G. Butler soon, which will enable me to extend the series up to 2000 in the other direction (following on from Conservative Government 1895-1905). DJR, 2.45, 11th Feb. (Goodnight!)

I thought you might be interested to know that I have now acquired my own copy of Haydn's Book of Dignities, and in response to yours of the 11th ult. I have added the lists of office-holders from this book for the following:

• the Judge Advocate General,
• the Lord Advocate,
• the Solicitor General for Scotland,
• the Solicitor General for Ireland,
• the Captain of the Gentlemen Pensioners,
• the Captain of the Yeomen of the Guard and
• the Master of the Buckhounds.

I'll do the Attorney General for Ireland, the Vice-Chamberlain of the Household, the Treasurer of the Household and the Comptroller of the Household sometime over the next few days. Donald, 1 p.m., 17th March 2005

Hi - re the above, I've just been checking legislation as to whether it was the Solicitor General or Solicitor-General for Ireland. It would appear that there was a dash - eg, PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT 1906

(1) A prosecution for an offence under this Act shall not be instituted without the consent, in England of the Attorney-General or Solicitor-General, and in Ireland of the Attorney-General or Solicitor-General for Ireland. That is also reflected in the Ministers and Secretaries Act, 1924. Equally there was a dash for the Attorney-General of the Irish Free State. But (and I'd never noticed it before) no dash in the office of Attorney General created in 1937! FearÉIREANN 22:20, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

User 84.154.xxx.xxx et. al.

John, I ask you to express your position on user 84.154.xxx.xxx's vandalism and continuous provocations in Safavids talkpage. Tomorrow I hope to file a formal complaint against him in Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment#General_user_conduct. I already filed a formal complaint against LIGerasimova there. Today I have been virtually terrorized in Wikipedia. Besides continuing personal attacks by LIGerasimova and user 84.154.xxx.xxx today another anon user vandalized the contents of the Azerbaijan page. This makes me think that a deliberate campaign is being waged against me in Wikipedia by several anon and registered users. On a different matter, today I have been dragged in yet another revert war over Nagorno-Karabakh page against my will. Whereas the discussion over the contents of Nagorno-Karabakh page is under control by third party editors Davenbelle and Cantus, whom I asked for a third party opinion, I cannot withstand alone against these anon vandalism edits and personal attacks. That's why I ask you to help me in dealing with the vandalisms in Wikipedia. You certainly saw that the deeds of the user 84.154.xxx.xxx clearly constituted a vandalism and insult based on editor's ethnic background and his malicious postings can also be considered as personal attack and provocation against me. Hope to hear from you on this issue.--Tabib 22:26, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I wanted to give you update about 84.154.xxx.xxx. Now he interferes with his irrelevant and provocative postings to the ongoing discussion in the Karabakh talkpage. Methods used are similar to the ones in the Safavids talkpage page. He is apparently a chauvinist and fanatic who lost in civilized discussion and now tries to take "revanche" through such base and malicious methods.--Tabib 22:39, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

French nobility

Is it common practice to capitalize French noble titles (as has been done on War of the Spanish Succession)? I was under the assumption that one would normally leave French titles in the lower case; this is certainly how it is done in the French language, and we do not seem to be translating "duc" to Duke, etc. -- Emsworth 23:05, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It might look odd to see "Duke of Marlborough" and "duc de Vendome" in the same article, but this might be more attributable to the duke-duc distinction than to the different capitalization. -- Emsworth 00:25, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Talk:Gdansk/Vote

The voting page is now in the preparation stage at Talk:Gdansk/Vote, and introduced at Talk:Gdansk. Comments are welcome. -- Chris 73 Talk 03:49, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the move. About the announcement: Should this be done now or only when the voting starts? I would for now announce it only on Talk:Gdansk, and make a major anouncement when the voting starts. I don't want to confuse voters too much -- Chris 73 Talk 04:05, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

Oh, yes, that makes sense. But you should start the voting soon. People tend to get confused and start voting if there's a poll up. john k 04:06, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Survey guidelines recommends Consensus must be reached about the nature of the survey before it starts. Allow about a week for this process. While I think a week is too long, a few days should be good. My personal preference is also the earlier the better. When should we start? -- Chris 73 Talk 04:10, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

Why don't we start on Friday, or thereabouts? But perhaps sooner... I dunno. john k 04:12, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Changed date to Friday February 18 to Friday March 4 -- Chris 73 Talk 04:19, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

reverts

It's considered extremely bad etiquette to simply revert someone else's work. Jimbo Wales compares it to a slap in the face, noting that it means "I looked through everything you did and found nothing worth keeping". AaronSw 05:01, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

In some instances, reverting is quite necessary, and I will certainly not apologize for reverting in general. And I will certainly not apologize for reverting to the pre-you-and-Kuratowski's-Ghost version of From Time Immemorial, either previously or now (although I will note that, until this time, I have never reverted your version - I reverted Kuratowski's Ghosts absurdities to the version that existed before you or he got to the article.) A version which, in the introductory sentence, introduces what would appear to be a snide comment from Noam Chomsky as though it is a serious challenge to the authorship of the book has no standing to complain of being reverted. Furthermore, you so completely rewrote the article as to make it very difficult to see what exactly the difference is. At the very least, you need to make the argument for why your version is better than the consensus version that most of the other users involved in this page - Jayjg, Zero, and myself, notably, with Zero and myself certainly having at least as low an opinion of the work as you do - have agreed on. And when you introduce egregious, unsupported POV, don't be surprised if it gets reverted. john k 05:11, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I cited Jimbo Wales, Wikipedia's creator. Do you have any evidence for these views? (Specifically, I refer to your claims that attempts to NPOV should be reverted if they are "snide", that additions can be reverted back to a "consensus version", and that whole edits can be reverted if they include "egregious, unsupported POV".)

1) Jimbo's word is not law (or policy, for that matter), unless he is speaking ex cathedra.

No, but it's something. You have provided no evidence.

2) It is also considered bad form to completely eliminate an old article and rewrite it, without prior consultation.

Why? Is this written down anywhere?

3) Reverting is certainly acceptable in some cases, and I think many people would agree with a broader application of it than your quote suggests. To take an extreme example, if Holocaust was modified, and the first line was changed to read "The Holocaust is an alleged murder of Jews created by the Zionist conspiracy", I think nearly everyone would feel justified in simply reverting the change without reading on to see if there were any potentially useful additions added later on. To restate in a somewhat different form what I said before, if an editor is going to completely rewrite an article without making any obvious improvements (and, having looked over your changes, I remain unconvinced that anything you changed is an obvious improvement), and making some highly obvious extremely POV statements, they should not be surprised if they are reverted. Especially since you have never said what is wrong with the consensus version of the article that you are reverting from. john k 05:42, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

On a less important note, I'm sort of curious what my version featured that was "egregious, unsupported POV". AaronSw 05:30, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The insinuation that Joan Peters did not author the book is egregious, unsupported POV, at least in the way you put it. That it is in the first sentence makes it even more egregious. Hundreds of books have been written that claim that Shakespeare did not write Shakespeare. Our article on Shakespeare, however, contains nothing like what you have put in the Peters article, which as far as I can tell, is there simply on the strength of a single unsupported comment by Noam Chomsky. john k 05:45, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Did Peters not actually author the book? I never wrote that, I don't believe it, and I never tried to imply it. Some people think she wrote it, some people think she didn't. My understanding was that the article had to be neutral on the question to be NPOV, so that's what I did. If I had my way, I'd take the line out, but my personal opinions are irrelevant -- NPOV is what matters.

British Governments

Hi, you should probably know I've created a List of British Governments and put up succession boxes on the pages. Keep up with the good work in transcribing this stuff.--Pharos 01:42, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• I've been adding the succession boxes to the top, just because most readers aren't likely to read all the way down (just taking in the Prime Minister, Chancellor of the Exchequer etc.) What do you think?--Pharos 02:14, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Sorry about the duplicate box on Liberal Government 1905-1915; I didn't see the box you had put up. In general, my concern is that most users (like me just now) will completely miss the box at the bottom of the page (it's many page-screens down, particularly with the later ones), and never get directed to the info on the other Governments. Certainly the table is the main point of the page but a high position for the box does not really imply otherwise and only makes vital information more accessible and stresses the importance of Government formation and dissolution in the parliamentary system.--Pharos 02:38, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well, the early articles that Opera Hat made are good because they have text at the top that explains the formation of the government and has links to both the preceding and succeeding one. We should try to do that for all of them. john k 02:42, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

LaRouche

Hey John, just wanted to let you know, in case you've not been following the case, that the arbcom today closed the case against Herschelkrustofsky and he's been banned from editing LaRouche-related articles for one year, and is also on POV patrol for a year regarding any other edits he makes. Final decision here Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche 2. Best, SlimVirgin 06:08, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

Warbox

I'd be happy to see your suggestion for a warbox. I am also happy to see your arguments on the relevant talk pages. I am definetly not happy with vandalism of the PSW, the battlebox was found useful by many contributors to this article. It can be improved, but deleting it is not a good idea. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 10:57, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

However, using the battlebox as though it is a warbox is unacceptable. Why? Please point me to the Wiki policy that would support this. I find war and battle articles similar enough so that battlebox can be used in both types of article, and I find them very informative whenever they are used. I can't understand why we can sum up things in battle but not in war (note some battles lasted longer and were more complex then some wars). Your reasons are not justified, you base your actions solely on your own POVed opinion 'since you think something is unjustified and wrong'. Using your arguments one can delete anything (sections, categories, etc.). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 00:30, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

To stop that nonsense I created Template:Warbox. Both of you should be ashamed. Instead of losing your time for discussing this, simple creation of separate template by copy and paste took me less than one minute. Przepla 00:38, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Talk:Gdansk/Vote

Hi. Could you check once more Talk:Gdansk/Vote? I will start the poll in about 12 hours, unless Szopen needs more time to select a period. See Talk:Gdansk/Vote/discussion. Maybe you could also put both pages on your watchlist? I really want this to work, and end the revert wars on dozends of pages. Thanks -- Chris 73 Talk 12:52, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

Voting has started, I am announcing it on different pages now. -- Chris 73 Talk 00:12, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)

Yeah! It seems to be working. Voter turnout is pretty good for the first two hours. I also added a small template on related article talk pages and some invitations to vote on user talk pages. The template is Talk:Gdansk/Vote/Notice and text is on User:Chris 73/Work. It would be great if you could also add these to other article/user talk pages. BTW, i have voted on every question except #1: Period before 1308. That one i am no sure about. What is your suggestion? Well, let's keep an eye on it for two weeks, and then count the results. Best wishes, -- Chris 73 Talk 02:32, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)

Vote going well so far. I have created an article for the Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost at User:Chris 73/Signpost, so User:Michael Snow can include it in the next signpost (if he wants to, possibly with some more editing). Please have a look, and feel free to edit the page. It also mentions you as one of the organizers of the vote, hope this is OK. I also included your point about the usage of Danzig for 1466 to 1793, maybe you can enhance this a bit. Thanks -- Chris 73 Talk 02:08, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)

Robert Carr/Leonard Robert Carr, Baron Carr of Hadley

The move has run aground - the software won't let me move the second page to the first, though the disambiguation page has been relocated. Are you able to sort this one? Timrollpickering 01:29, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

IPA Pronunciation

I thought it was there because I've heard so many people (mostly Americans, I guess) pronounce that name with a long a... Wyss 16:29, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

PRC, ROC, mainland China, Taiwan, etc.

Hello John Kenney. Thank you for joining the discussion over the titles of China-related topics articles. Would you mind help explain to the contributors who opposed renaming because they thought the new titles are confusing, that how these terms differ from each other, and how the choice of one of these terms as a title is important. Thanks in advance. — Instantnood 18:13, Feb 19 2005 (UTC)

Same here. I found it difficult to convince the guys who insist in that way, without acknowledging the fact that the meaning of two terms do not overlap. Therefore I need people like you to help and see if there is any alternative way to resolve the issue. — Instantnood 18:23, Feb 19 2005 (UTC)

---

Hello john k. The vote and discussion at Wikipedia:Requested moves#Economy of Taiwan → Economy of the Republic of China is getting messy. Do you think there's anything that we could do? — Instantnood 12:37 Feb 28 2005 (UTC)

Kemal Ataturk -> Mustafa Kemal Ataturk

What the hell are you doing by reverting a redirect? Topic was moved. --Cool Cat| My Talk 01:50, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Atatürk

john, while you are right with respect to the "full name", it appears more sensible to call the article Kemal Atatürk as this is the most commonly used name in Turkey. While King George VI goes by the name George, his birth name was Albert and you will surely agree that no one would go and search for King Albert George VI --StuffedTurkey 02:33, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You are right. But still biograpy has full name. I am glad your intentions were not destructive. While I acknowlege my error, Anyone searches for Kemal Ataturk is redirected to the actual article. What do you think of the man btw? --Cool Cat| My Talk 07:23, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

As you might tell I am new to a lot of functions of wikipedia. How should I take the administrators attention for a move? --Cool Cat| My Talk 07:30, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Deletion of Classical definition

The Wikipedian community has saw fit to delete The Classical definition of republic. I found more corraborating evidence and, on the Votes for Undeletion, They are still voting to keep it deleted. I think this is highly unfair. Is there a cabal going around voting things off that they don't like? I have put external link to Wikinfo:Classical definition of republic and they delete that also. It has been deleted twice from Republic. What's going on here? Wikipedia is not "Free and Open-Content". There is a group controlling what gets said around here. I have been reading about "Republics" all my life. I even quote from a Modern Scholary work that used the term "Classical Republic". And they still delete. Something is not right here. WHEELER 15:04, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

PLEASE VOTE

• Wikipedia talk:Requested moves - help save Requested Moves, bring friends. I'd hope you vote to keep voting at RM instead of running away to cabal at distant talk pages. —ExplorerCDT 19:11, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Cardinal-Infante Ferdinand

Thanks for reworking the article. My english always comes out a bit funny if I translate it from German. -- Chris 73 Talk 03:46, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)

Infante: No that was purely my screw-up. Glad you fixed that, too! Chris 73 Talk 03:53, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)

in German it is also de:Kardinalinfant Ferdinand, and I made the same wrong conclusion, but did not change the page. User:Piotrus asked me if I could translate this for him. -- Chris 73 Talk 03:58, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)

AaronSw on Norman Finkelstein

Have you seen AaronSw's contributions to Norman Finkelstein (re: From Time Immemorial)? Any thoughts on them? Jayjg ^(talk) 22:45, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Infanta Isabella Clara Eugenia of Spain

Thanks again for the fixing. Piotrus asked me for a translation, and I did my best. But, since i am a scientist by trade and not a historian, some things like the difference between viceroy and King are hard enough for me in German, let alone in English. Anyway, Thanks! Also, it seems your edit duplicated one section 1.1 Youth and Family. Could you have a look? -- Chris 73 Talk 03:49, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)

I agree with many of your points in the Danzig/Gdansk discussion which I have read with great interest, but I also believe Danzig should be called Danzig before 1308. You may be interested in reading a short history of Danzig here: http://www.z-g-v.de/english/aktuelles/?id=56#danziger Greetings from Munich

Dawidowicz

Thank you, John, that's very interesting. I've read her The War against the Jews and The Holocaust and the Historians. I take it the Friedländer book you mention is Nazi Germany and the Jews: The Years of Persecution, 1933-1939, which I ordered just recently so I'll be reading it soon. I'll also look out for the Browning. It's hard, as a non-specialist, to know how to judge them, so I appreciate your input. Best, SlimVirgin 06:40, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

RfC

Hello there. I am recently being listed on RfC. Feel free to comment as you wish to. I regard it as a way out and to have the matter settled. Thanks. — Instantnood 18:24 Mar 1 2005 (UTC)

The sharing at RfC seems to be over. I have made a response there. Please take a look. I do hope that with everyone's effort Wikipedia will soon be the best encyclopedia ever. :-D — Instantnood 21:25 Mar 5 2005 (UTC)

Talk:Gdansk/Vote...mopping up

Hi. The vote on Talk:Gdansk/Vote will end this Friday, March 4 0:00. Thank you very much for your support and arguments in the discussion! I think overall it worked out pretty good, although there are always things that I would have done slightly different in retrospect. Especially the Enforcement vote came across too strong, my main goal was to have reverts excepted from the 3RR and to be able to block users if they repeatedly go against community consensus. I didn't really want to have it declared as vandalism.

Anyway, i am currently preparing the text for the announcement of the results of the vote. While the vote still can change, I think most parts are pretty set. I have prepared a text at User:Chris 73/Work#In preparation for the ending of the vote. Of course, if the vote outcome changes, I will change the text accordingly. I also try to tone down the vandalism part a bit, emphasizing assume good faith, don't bite newcomers. Also, about the after 1945 comments: Personally, I think dual naming after 1945 is useful in many but not all instances, but then as a native German speaker i may be a bit biased about that. Hence i added This rule is to be followed in the case of a dispute, if there is no dispute, deviations from this rule are possible. to the notes of the vote results. Maybe we should also add Agreements for a different naming may be reached on the talk pages of individual articles anytime. or so.

Could you have a look, and maybe make some suggestions and changes? The second box This page is affected by the results of ... should go on the template Talk:Gdansk/Vote/Notice, the other text with heading below the respective votes. Also, some of the votes will be ignored due to the low edit count of the voters. Could you doublecheck these, too? Especially User:Silthor, who has about 80 edits, but only 10 after 2003. I would exclude him, but if you think otherwise we can include his vote. I am also planning on writing another article for the signpost, similar to Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2005-02-21/Gdansk or Danzig, to announce the vote outcome. Again, thanks a lot for your help, I really hope this vote ends at least some edit wars. -- Chris 73 Talk 03:59, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)

The vote for 1466-1793 is close, but I think Danzig wins. When i set up the vote, i added that An absolute majority (50% or more) wins the vote, where neutral and abstain votes are excluded. About the edit count: I am not sure if there is a fixed rule somewhere. There is some discussion on Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 20#Sockpuppet voters, mentioning 100-300 edits and 3 months, but no results came out of this. (Note: The german wiki requires 200 edits for voters). A limit of 200 edits would remove more voters, but would lead to lots of discussion. About interpreting the votes: I would love to revord the Enforcement text, but that would be inappropriate. My attempt in summarizing the results is at User:Chris 73/Work#In preparation for the ending of the vote, giving it only a slight spin by adding notes to the results. Oh, and I also plan to protect the page after the vote ends, with further discussion on Talk:Gdansk/Vote/discussion if needed. -- Chris 73 Talk 04:21, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)

Done. Closed the vote. Could you check Talk:Gdansk/Vote and Talk:Gdansk/Vote/Notice for errors? Anything that I should have done differently? I am also planning another Signpost article, draft on User:Chris 73/Signpost. Feel free to edit it. Again, thank you very much for your support! -- Chris 73 Talk 01:42, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)

Well, at least one vote was a not-logged in user, two others have edited only this page. I think it is valid to subtract the total of 12 votes. Maybe one or two votes can be argued about but overall i think it is comparable to what is used on e.g. WP:RfA. As for verification: Well, I asked you :) Do you think the counting is correct? We could also ask User:Jayjg, who listed some voters as low edit count. We could also ask User:Mirv, who did some vote-count-comments, but he seems to have sort-of left with 172. In general we could ask any of the admins that voted. However, I would wait until there are complaints. How does this sound to you? Also, do you think the rewording of vote #10 is good? Any comments are very welcome. -- Chris 73 Talk 05:57, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)

Nazi Party

A year ago, you proposed, and User:Sam Spade supported, a move of the article to the longer form of the name. I'm sorry, not to have discussed the matter then - I don't know how active I was, nor if that page was on my watchlist back then, but now I must conclude that there has been quite a few attempts by Wikipedians to stress what I perceive as fringe revisionist views by means of hinting at the alleged "Socialism" of the party.

I don't know if renaming the article would be of any help, but I think I understand that the Nazi Party is the most common name in English, and that Wikipedia's policy is to give that precedence.

Kind regards!

--Johan Magnus 13:43, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

...matter closed. :-)

French Revolution

You are making some pretty massive changes to at least two articles relating to the French Revolution without citing any sources. While I think that what you are writing is generally correct, there are a few statements I do not necessarily agree with. Since I have no idea where you are drawing your material from, it's hard to follow up. I'm not asking for line-by-line citation, but could you at least indicate in a general way what you are using for sources? -- Jmabel | Talk 22:53, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the prompt response. FWIW, you also hit Causes of the French Revolution. Again, this looks mostly right, and I mostly just wondered where it came from: your source should certainly be added to the "references" at the bottom of each article you are working on. I'll try to get a closer look some time soon and be more precise with any issues I have. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:12, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)

Oops, sorry, I saw some similar edits on both rarely changed (but often vandalized!) articles and didn't notice that two of you were at work! -- Jmabel | Talk 23:19, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)

Godwin's law comment at Talk:Calcutta

I think you forgot to sign. Susvolans (pigs can fly) 09:33, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Bring back quickpolls

I think it's time that quickpolls be re-evaluated as a solution to short term disputes between users. What say you? --Ryan! | Talk 05:19, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)

Lord Denning

There is a move to rename the article on Lord Denning see:Talk:Alfred Denning, Baron Denning. Philip Baird Shearer 09:19, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Talk:Norman Finkelstein

Would you do me a favour and respond to a question on Chomsky/Finkelstein/Peters on Talk:Norman Finkelstein? Jayjg ^(talk) 15:25, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

John, if you can justify spending a few minutes on a very inconsequential question, would you mind reading the most recent posts and casting a vote for either your proposed language or mine, which is "initially rejected"? Or, if you think it makes more sense, perhaps you could endorse my proposal to put the Finkelstein excerpt from Image and Reality in the actual article, which would enable us to insert "According to Finkelstein..." after all, and presumably make everyone happy. I personally think that's the best solution. I'm also interested if you have any responses to my post about the term "journal", just for my own edification, and if you have any personal experience with Finkelstein's scholarship and would like to comment. Thanks. sneaky 01:03, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

"Mainland China" in titles

Hello john k. I have proposed at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese) to change the title of some articles and categories. Would you be interested to join the discussion and say something? — Instantnood 07:31, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)

Livonian states and Holy Roman Empire

John, looks like you and I have a little disagreement about Livonian states in List of states in the Holy Roman Empire. I made some comments about it in Talk:List_of_states_in_the_Holy_Roman_Empire.

Succession after Abdication

Thank you for your reply in Talk:Succession to the British Throne. That makes good sense to me. As such it was and is no big deal at all: parliament can pass pretty much any law it decides on the matter. Thincat 11:48, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Lorraine and France

Category:Dukes of Lorraine is currently under Category:French history. It seems to me that france-stub or france-bio-stub is as good of a classification as any for something pertainign to French history. (Certainly better than the generic bio-stub, which is bursting at the seams right now.) If they were really absolutely not French, then perhaps that categorization should be corrected. (I was just going on the basis of how the categories are already structured.) Perhaps a French history stub would be more appropriate? -Aranel ("Sarah") 14:24, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Württemberg

Since there are no maps and the Württemberg article does not link to Oels/Olesnica (or dukes/duchy of thereof), I am just not sure if this is the right translation of 'witenberg' from Polish text. I will change it for now though, leaving Polish name in parenthesis, in case sb wants to correct it later. I just noticed that German article on Olesnica has a great history section, now I just need to find sb to translate the relevant part (17th century) :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 19:01, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Move for 'Count Loris-Melikov'

A move is requested for the article you had placed your comment on. Please join the voting on Talk:Michael_Tarielovich_Loris-Melikov if you're still interested. DmitryKo 17:31, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Writers

You might want to vote on Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion#Category:Writers_who_have_killed_themselves. -- User:Docu

HRE compared with EU

You removed the following sentence:

Except for its Christian character, the Empire may be thought of as anticipating the European Union of today.

Only rarely do I disagree with your edits, that overall strikes me as just as competent and intelligent that I wish all additions to be. Neither do I disagree with removing this actual wording, which I feel to be a little bit weak, but I wonder if it would be possible for you to address this issue instead of removing it.

A few years ago, I was a student of political science (well, in fact I'm still, but I've hidden from my duties in that area), and my firm impression is that the concept (read: fear) of HRE's spirit re-expressing itself in the inherent weaknesses of EU's inter-governmental structure and processes is a recurrent theme both among academic lecturers and in the more qualified public debate on the European Union.

If this would be possible for you, I'm convinced the result would be much superior to the result of for instance my effort, that always is handicapped by my limited proficiency in your mother tongue.

Best regards!

/Tuomas 17:33, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hey mister historian, telly me history

I need views of what historians think of Armenian Genocide, I want the article to be factual not propoganda based on either side. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 18:14, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Greco-Turkish relations

I am fine with the removal of the lock. I have few productive edits (mentioned on discussion) that I want to proceed with. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 18:14, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Mustafa Kemal Ataturk

I still think his full name should apear as the title. His given name was Mustafa. He was refered as Mustafa Kemal untill he was given his last name. Then He became Ataturk. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 18:14, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Can I ask why you edited my post?

I normaly do not like material I added to discussion removed without me beeing told in my Talk page. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 00:30, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I am teribly sorry I thought it was you but apperantly it was some other user. Please accept my apologies of falsely acussing you. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 00:50, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What do you think of my other suggestions? --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 07:50, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"Mainland China" vs. "People's Republic of China"

Hello John. Would you be interested to join the discussion and the poll at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese) over the use of "mainland China"?

There are also some polls on deletion of categories at WP:CFD for #category:Laws of mainland China, #category:Companies of mainland China and #category:Cities in mainland China. — Instantnood 19:57, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)

Voting Warschau/Warsaw

Hi. Since you have edited on pages with disputes about the names of German/polish locations, I would invite you to vote on Warsaw/Vote to settle the multi-year dozends-of-pages dispute about the naming of Warschau/Warsaw and other locations.--Schlesier 08:41, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Unbalanced

I really didn't appreciate your personal attack on me due to my remarks about the Pope's new moniker. I believe that wikipedia is collectively the people's knowledge. In that it is a device to allow society to form amalgamated definitions of things. Therefore it is not necessary to apply the old rules of social/academic hierarchy to this new animal. The principle that I was arguing against was that very "old animal" that has dominated thought to such an extent that people like you view me as "Unbalanced." I was merely transitioning news into history using our wonderful shapeable body of knowledge that we have (thanks to it's creators, who are also worthy of the title "the great") at our fingertips. While people are very capable of citing exactly what it is that Wikipedia is NOT... I would like to say that wikipedia IS a new system of knowledge management that does not require the same old policies that repressed the common man's input. We don't have to wait to copy-edit word-for-word an article out of a print encyclopedia. Wikipedia has handed knowledge to the masses in nearly the same way that democracy has handed power to the masses. What I am saying is that we don't need fuedal overoards like you coming in and calling our actions illegitimate. We each have an equal amount of authority. And I am sure that that fact just makes your skin crawl.--Wraybm1 21:32, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

User:Schlesier

I am very unhappy with the activities of User:Schlesier, but I find it extremely hard to believe this person is actually German, who is even referring to Litzmannstadt as the "original" name of Lodz. I suspect this is a Polish provocateur who wants to discredit Germans and the Danzig/Gdansk vote specifically. I would suggest the ridiculous Warsaw vote is deleted.

Please come and vote!

Following the long discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese) regarding proper titling of ROC-/Taiwan-related topics, polls for each single case has now been started here. Please come and join the discussion, and cast your vote. Thanks. — Instantnood 06:17, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks John. — Instantnood 08:22, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

The new Duchess of Cornwall

I wonder if we might have your views at Talk:Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall. There appears to be a user, User:Jguk, who insists that it is inappropriate to refer to her as "Princess of Wales." Comments would be appreciated. -- Emsworth 12:28, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"China"/"PRC" vs. "mainland China" for page titles

Following the long discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese) regarding proper titling of Mainland China-related topics, polls for each single case has now been started here. Please come and join the discussion, and cast your vote. Thank you. — Instantnood 12:57, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

Hi. I'd really appreciate your comments on Lodz Ghetto. I've been working on it for two days, and want to find ways to improve it. Thanks. Danny 18:52, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Generic information about popes

I think my reversion was more due to the fact that titles such as "Pope" and "Bishop of Rome" had been removed in addition to some of the more obscure ones. After a bit of thought, I think I'm going to reword the introduction a bit to put the more common titles first, and move the formal title stuff to Pope. Once a new Pope is elected, I agree that it makes sense to copy the title stuff to their page. 64.7.131.61 23:09, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC) Oops, that was me. Forgot to sign in. JYolkowski 23:11, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Greco-Turkish relations

I do not see why it is still locked. It is not wiki to not allow users to contribute. I do not see a reason for it to stay locked as discussion is dead. My recomended edits are clearly visible. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 08:02, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I need your help

Hello John. A request for arbitration has been filed against me at WP:RFAr by Snowspinner as the AMA advocate for jguk. What do you think I can do? — Instantnood 20:45, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

It is a policy dispute, on the conflict between political NPOV and common names, and on the enforcement of the NPOV section of the naming conventions for Chinese-related topics. If you have any comment or opinion feel free to contact me at my talk page, or advocates who are helping me with the arbitration, Wally and Wgfinley. Thanks. :-D — Instantnood 21:55, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

Hungary politics stubs

Thanks for your contributions -- could you add {{politics-stub}} and {{bio-stub}} to them? Thanks! --Zantastik 07:55, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The way you're tagging them is better. Thanks! --Zantastik 16:33, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Head of State (reply)

I was and am fully aware you were fully aware that a provisional president is not the same thing as a king, I didn't ever suppose the opposite. :-) I'm also fully aware that it would be useful if the navigation were made easier, I completely agree with you on this. But in my opinion it would be confusing and disturbing to mention a person in a box explicitly reserved for something else. I suggest we should look for another solution to enable continuous navigation. (Maybe through a more general term, or a separate link under the box?) Adam78 02:21, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

OK, maybe it depends on the formatting as well, how obvious the difference is made. I'm afraid it's a wider problem about succession boxes. However, until we find anything better, do it as you wish, I won't object, as long as the difference is at least as obvious and yet discreet as it is now on the page Karl I of Austria, and if it is done in the same format. Thanks for your job. Adam78 02:45, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Peerage titles

Sorry, was looking for a consistent way to link to the source of the peerage title, and saw a link in another title. Will figure something else out. Willhsmit 05:18, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The article Hamilton does state that it's a clan, so if you know a little about the subject it might need a fix. Willhsmit 05:18, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Duchess of Cornwall

It seems that a change has once again been made to the article "Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall." Do you think it wise to have a vote on the issue? I see no other way of resolving the disagreement. -- Emsworth 22:11, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

We could use something like this: Should the lead sentence include a reference to Camilla as "Princess Charles, Princess of Wales"? This is short, and involves the simple choices of Yes and No. Perhaps there might be an explanatory note stating that "Duchess of Cornwall" would be used in the majority of the article. -- Emsworth 22:56, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have set up the poll; perhaps you would consider voting. -- Emsworth 19:55, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Don't know whether this is still on, but IMO "Princess of Wales" should be out of the question, since it's simply not a title given to Camilla, though her now-husband is Prince of Wales. He is also Duke of Cornwall and Camilla, as his wife, took the title Duchess of Cornwall. Princes Charles might be ok. though, I don't know. Str1977

What Wikipedia:WikiProject Rankings project is not

• This is not suggesting a hierarcal system.
• It will be used only by users who want to use it.
• Only ranking will be assigend to users who want to use it.
• The idea ment to make it like barn stars, but based on regular contribution.
• It is currently a prototype, likely that it is nothing like the final version.

I urge you to reconsider your vote based on this clarification. Thanks --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 08:46, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Titles again

Why are the articles about three successive queens consorts titled Queen Alexandra, Mary of Teck and Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon? Our policy on this is not only absurd, it is also inconsistent. I agree that Queen Mary would be a problem, since there have been other Queen Marys, but she could be disambiguated as Queen Mary (Queen consort) or something like that. I persist in my view that the QM should be called Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother, since that is what she was called for most of her life. But if we have this policy at least let's apply it consistently by moving Alexandra to Alexandra of Denmark. Adam 07:53, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Image:Rzeczpospolita 1920.png

It's mostly about size, you know... I gave the big circles for all the capitals and all the big cities. Cities like Łódź or Warsaw had several hundred thousand inhabitants in 1920's and 1930's (Warsaw reached 1M in 1924), while Kaunas had less than 100.000. Finally, it was not a capital and after the recent problems with some Lithuanian nationalist I decided not to suggest that Kaunas was the Lithuanian capital in any way. Being called a nazi and a Slavic monkey that should be sent to a gas chamber is more than enough to make me think that Lithuania is not the most important part of the world on my map. Especially that it's a map created basically for the P-BW. Halibutt 03:43, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

All the other towns with big dots were big, while Kaunas was small. Stettin had roughly 300.000 inhabitants, Łódź 500.000, Warsaw roughly a million, Kraków ca. 250.000, Lwów had 300.000, Bratislava had some 200.000, Breslau - more than 600.000, Koenigsberg - 300.000, Tallinn - roughly 200.000, Vienna had almost 2 millions, Pskov - almost 200.000, Moscow - almost 3 millions and so on. Kaunas was nowhere near that big.

Perhaps it was the capital, and perhaps it was only a temporary capital, I don't really want to get into it. Sorry, but disputing the status of Wilno and Kaunas as well as history of Lithuania and all those tiny differences in wording is simply not worth my time. I sticked to the criterion of size and I must say that I'm quite happy with it. Halibutt 13:01, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

Conventional ancient Egyptian chronology

I've responded to your post on the talk. I don't know if you've read it, so I'm just letting you know its there. -JCarriker 07:31, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

"Old Encylopedia"

You ask me about articles I created (on popes particularly) taken from an old encyclopedia. Your surmise is correct: It was the Britannica, 9th edition. Malcolm Farmer 18:17, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Centre Party

I see your tag on the centre party page and wonder if you would care to inspect the Pius XII page which needs a revert , badly .I see you study such a subject ,is why I ask ! I guess Im at my talk page ....Flamekeeper 17:40, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Dear John, in regard to the Centre party entry structure, I have done what I can do at the moment, taking over many things from the German wiki. Hope you like it. Str1977 23:18, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Dear John, two things:

1) I have done another big overhaul of the Centre Party (Germany) entry, have a look.

2) Flamekeeper is now Fiamekeeper and he is quoting you to support his point, e.g. at the Talk:Ludwig Kaas. He is referring to you saying: "Trying to find some perspective on this subject, I looked at Priests, Prelates and People (...) Looking at it, I will admit that the basic substance of Flamekeeper's accusations seems to be supported by Atkin and Tallett's narrative - Pius XI and Pacelli were willing to acquiesce in the Centre Party's demise as a quid pro quo in return for the Concordat, and Kaas was, essentially, acting as their agent."

From what I know, the "quid pro quo" certainly was there in the concordat negotiations (not that the "quid" still had left "hope of survival"), but, as you know, FK claims it was the driving force all the way, especially in regard to the Enabling Act.

Could you please check again, whether the book you quoted portrays it this way or that way?

Thanks. Str1977 16:13, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick reply.

But more specifically, my question was whether the quoted book (PPP) claims that the "quid pro quo" was already there in the passing of the Enabling Act (that is basically FK's claim) or only in the Concordat negotiations. I think the latter is true, but I also know that some books portray it the way FK thinks (he doesn't invent these things all by himself) - from what I read this stems back to a claim made by Goebbels late in the 1930s, in response to growing illfeeling from the Church toward the regime.

Again thanks. Str1977 16:42, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Dear John, so I assume that it didn't support FK's claim. Maybe you should point this out at Talk:Ludwig Kaas. Str1977 17:35, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Dear John, FK has called you as a witness again - and I have replied to him that your quote does not support his claim. All right? Str1977 16:35, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks John, for your post on Talk:Ludwig Kaas. In my latest post (on Kaas and Centre Party) I have tried to bring some structure into the dispute and hope that FK will gave a structured answer. Str1977 30 June 2005 10:47 (UTC)

Ancient Near Eastern chronology

Hi John -- synchonizing the dates between Egypt, Mesopotamia, Anatolia & elsewhere has been a hope of mine. (I'm taking a break from it at the moment: I got overwhelmed with trying to understand all of the research I had accumulated, so I'm relaxing by overwhelming myself by researching another topic. ;-)

However, there are a number of challenges to making this so. One is that Wikipedia needs some kind of discussion of how the current chronology for these nations was determined; this helps more serious contributors to WP deal with the perennial problem of kooks, fringe theories, & original research. Another is that even the experts often differ amongst themselves over exact dates, even when using the same arguments (e.g. two Low Chronology proponents may each offer dates for an event that differs by 5 years)! And lastly, to offer such a framework in an NPOV manner requires research in order to say that "Professor X dates the beginning of King ---'s reign to A, while Professor Y dates it to B." (I was very fortunate in finding a list already compiled for the kingdoms of Judah & Israel.)

And I proposed at one point that when discussing the history of the Pharaohs in an article, we should adopt the practice of stating, say, "in the 5th regnal year", rather than "in 1320 BC", seeing how the experts themselves don't always agree which exact year in the contemporary era the Pharaoh's regnal years equate to.

Something of a start has already been made in the article Chronology of the Ancient Near East, where a number of synchronisms have been set forth. But I feel we need to build a broad consensus first over which dates we should standardize on. My list was offered as a first step towards this, but I don't feel I was able to stir up any interest in this topic. -- llywrch 16:31, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Normally, I'd be happy to help, but I'm trying to focus on getting some articles written on Ethiopian history. I have about 40 queued up in various states of completion I hope to post within the next few days -- & berate me if they don't appear, because it will be only because WP distracted me again! But a couple of editors I have worked with in the past (besides the names on the WikiProject:Ancient Egypt) who have shown an interest in this topic & should be recruited for this are Dbachmann & Wetman. And I'm probably forgetting a couple of folks who might be equally interested. -- llywrch 03:27, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Pietro di Candia

You write: "What the fuck do you think you're doing?" I'm not entirely sure what your question is here, although your manner of going about asking it is so obviously inappropriate that it hardly needs to be commented on. I moved that article to a better title. - Nat Krause 03:36, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The idea you seem to have that other Wikipedia editors deserve to be verbally abused by you ought to be offensive to anyone who is interested in having a modicum of civility in this project. Since you are interested in Wikipedia policy, you make want to take a look at Wikipedia:Profanity and Wikipedia:Wikiquette. Can you please point me to which naming conventions you are looking at that say Pietro di Candia is simply wrong as an article title? - Nat Krause 03:51, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Incidentally, I'm not hiding behind wikiquette: I'm quite happy to discuss the merits of the move and it's entirely possible that I was mistaken. I'm taking the substantial portion of this discussion to the relevant article talk. - Nat Krause 13:04, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Pope Benedict XVI

It seems that people are needed to defend the His Holiness style on Pope Benedict XVI. There is a campaign right now from a handful of people to unilaterally remove it. FearÉIREANN 23:15, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't think it will be that easy, John. Benedict's page will be visited for months by a lot of people, as will the page on John Paul II. I expect that edit wars over HH will be going on there for months. And everytime another person with a style is in the news the same thing will happen on this page. BTW the person making an issue of it now is not the only one. People having been fighting over the use of HH this page from the day the pope was elected, indeed earlier, over the style to use when his name was Ratzinger. Past rows over styles are just buried in the archives.

I think we will be dealing with the HH issue on this page for the forseeable future. :( FearÉIREANN 11:23, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Chinese naming convention dispute

Hi, John. I'm Wally, and I'm representing User:Instantnood in an arbitration case over the China naming conventions. Reading some back talk pages on the issue I noticed that you were an active contributor to the discussion and wonder if you might be able to share with me your views on the whole dispute. I look forward to hearing from you and thank you in advance. Wally 23:04, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Cisneros

please see Talk:Francisco Cardinal Jiménez de Cisneros

TW

There's a dispute between me and a couple users who want to label Taiwan a "nation". If you can, please take a look at Talk:Taiwan and weigh in...--Jiang 06:24, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Max I

Hi. I presume you had a good reason for moving the article to Maximilian I of Mexico, but for the benifit of myself and anyone else for whom the reason may not be evident, could you please mention why on Talk:Maximilian I of Mexico? Thanks much. Cheers, -- 06:47, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Succession box

John, what's your problem with this succession box in Stefan Batory ? I find it both useful and informative and it does not cost much to have it. What's wrong with this particular king that made you remove it ? Wojsyl 17:40, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Please use the respective talk page to reach consensus before removing it again. Thank you. Wojsyl 13:43, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Pope Benedict XVI

John,

This article has gotten so big it now cannot be edited by some people using particular browsers. I am one of those. It has one error in the opening paragraphs. It speaks of Benedict having been enthroned in a Mass of Papal Installation. There is no such thing. The correct name is Papal Inauguration, through in this context it probably should be piped as Papal Inauguration Mass. Could you make the change for me? It is irritating to see that error in there when it in a part of the article that cannot be edited except by entering the entire article. If I did that and saved the change, I would wipe out 70% of the article. (We are supposed to keep articles under 32K because of browser problems. This one seems to be at 87%. If Ben would allow it, I'd swear bloody hell!!!. Thanks, FearÉIREANN 02:08, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

For the pointer to the recent editing activity of three of the Prussian Holocaust Five. I don't have time to get involved right now, but I'll keep an eye on it. --- Charles Stewart 19:27, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Heir Apparent

There is a battle going on at Heir Apparent. Leifern wants to apply American English capitalisation rules to the article and believes that there is no reason why the article should not be written in American English. *sigh*. What is it about Americans and lowercasing everything? Your opinions would be welcomed.

Thanks, BTW, for making the change on Pope Benedict XVI. Slán abhaile FearÉIREANN 02:36, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Haham hanuka

Please add your comments and sign your name in the section titled Users certifying the basis for this dispute for his repeated reverts adding Category:Socialist parties to National Socialist German Workers Party, and add any other vandalism by him that you know of. Thanks. --brian0918™ 21:49, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Habsburg monarchy

Hi, what is the reason for the edit to Habsburg monarchy which you explained with "Dukes and Archdukes of Austria would not be considered monarchs". Why not? What is the particular reason for letting the Habsburg monarchy start in 1526? My understanding is that the only thing that changed at that time was the acquisition of the crowns of Bohemia and Hungary. The Habsburgs already had been Holy Roman Emperors without interruption since 1438, and they had already been Archdukes/Dukes of Austria, Dukes of Styria, Carinthia, Carniola etc. for a longer time. Martg76 09:19, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Papal Tiara

I've nominated Papal Tiara as a candidate for featured article. I would be very interested to hear your views on the issue. You are usually a good judge of these things. FearÉIREANN 06:51, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Why the hard line on the Arian/Aryan disambig?

Hi there. I'm wondering if we could come to some sort of compromise on the Arian/Aryan disambiguation notice. I know that it may seem painfully obvious to those who are informed on these matters that these are different concepts, but they are routinely confused by those whose interest in history is cursory at best. I was once in grad school doing work on early Christianity, and I found that in talking to non-historians, mentioning "Arians" almost always resulted in people thinking I was talking about Nazi racial ideology until I clarified it for them. Admittedly, this was in conversation, when the spelling distinction would be less obvious, but the fact is that nonspecialists are much, much more likely to have heard of Aryans than Arians, and were prone to confuse the two. Again, just looking at the Arian talk page will show that a lot of Wikipedians who are apparently interested in this topic suffer from this confusion. I certainly find it frustrating, but I don't see what active harm it causes to end any confusion from the word go in the article. Surely if the goal is to create an article for both specialists and non-specialists, then we should be sure that the article is as clear as possible, rather than declaring anyone who is uninformed to be "stupid" and refuse to acknowledge any potential for confusion. --Jfruh 21:07, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Reply

Dear John, Thanks for your kind words. I don't know what to make of this flamekeeper. He's all over the place ranting about the same things all the time, though hardly intelligible. Str1977 22:56, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Dear John, It's me again. The flamekeeper situation has heated up. Could you please have look into it as well. Battleground is mainly the Pius XII talk page, but he is all over the place, also on the "theology of Benedict XVI" page. Could you please answer the query I set up there. Thanks. Str1977 23:02, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Need some help

Hi John. I sure could use some help hooking up the internal links at Constantine. 4 May 2005 Charlie

Oops!

Sorry about that. I was desperately trying to repair the damage left by the vandal and Wikipedia was running incredibly slowly while I was sending move and deletion requests, so I'm not quite sure how it all happened but at least it's been sorted out now. Thanks for fixing it! — Trilobite (Talk) 04:13, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Jesus

Care to check out the brewing revert war on Jesus concerning BC/AD -- and the stubborn comments by Arcturus and Rangerdude on Talk:Jesus? I think your input would be valuable. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:54, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Serial comma

Hello. In the past, you've spoken in favor of the serial comma in the WP Manual of Style. Currently, two or three users have been taking out all guidance on that in favor of a statement that the MoS takes no position. They've said they reached a consensus on the talk page. Would you care to comment there? Jonathunder 22:07, 2005 May 9 (UTC)

And the sky rained frogs...

I surely didn't expect to see you restore a comment of mine over in the MoS kerfuffle. Thanks. Not that I have time to fight over inclusion of a silly off-hand joke; but it is weird Whig took it out. The Dishonorable Dr. Lulu

India Office

Sir: I'm thinking of beginning an article on the British India Office, i.e. located in London, not to be confused with British Raj. Can you steer me in the right direction on sources, since all I come up with is Oriental and India Office. Thank you very much. Nobs 16:11, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Mythical Chronology of Greece

Any attempt to give real world dates to things that were only myths is doomed to failure. I believe Argyos is a well known netkook (who goes by a variety of names) who believes that the Greek gods were all actual human beings and all the myths are just retellings of historical fact. This view goes completely against what basically every scholar on the planet says. The mere existense of an article with that name violates NPOV in a huge way by suggesting that there's any basis for this person's claims. DreamGuy 23:40, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

Jesus again

Please comment on Jguk's most recent actions [2], [3]. It seems to me that he is destroying what I thought was a carefully constructec (though not, of course perfect) NPOV article.

I know you have not gotten involved in this topic in the past. But I really think the views of a trained and professional historian are needed here, and I trust your committment to NPOV. Frankly, I think we may have reached the point where arbitration or at least mediation is required. I honestly do not believe Jguk understands or cares about NPOV. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:14, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

I t don't have a strong objection to putting the biographic information about Jesus first. But I do think that when Jguk claims that this (Gospel accounts) is "what Jesus actually did," I think he is violating NPOV. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:50, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree. I did revert, he reverted back — I will not revert again. But I would ask you to read my most recent comment on the talk page of the article, if you do not mind. Then, respond or not, as you see fit. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:03, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Avast

Ye has caught and changed that cursed error regarding the spiritual beliefs of the gallant mate Starbuck on the Pequod. Twas on my list of petty annoyances this long time, and 'tis a smiling pleasure to see that others do value the truth in small matters. -- Decumanus 21:24, 2005 May 16 (UTC)

Indeed. Twould be a strange sort of Shaker to be out at sea so long. I see yon scury anonymous dog [4] didst make the egregioius error. -- Decumanus 23:37, 2005 May 16 (UTC)

Template:Gdansk-Vote-Notice

Thanks for the support. Could you also look at Template:Gdansk-Vote-Notice, halibutt is changing the results, reasoning that all votes are to be included. -- Chris 73 Talk 11:11, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

RfC

John, I appreciate that you have strong opinions, but please do not make a further shambles of the already contentious RfC that you've endorsed against me by imposing your criticisms into the outside views of others. You are not supposed to do this, it is disruptive to the process and makes it seem to the reader as if Maurreen's statement incorporates your disagreements. If you would like to author a constructive opinion of your own, then you should do so under your own heading, and not interrupt others. RfC is a somewhat formal process, as I understand it, and I've tried to take the matter as seriously as the process requires, while I have made clear at the same time that I feel the complaints made to be inappropriate and inaccurate. Whig 05:00, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Whatever. I've removed the comments. john k 05:07, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Governors-General

You may want to look at Government of Australia. One user is intent on claiming that the Governor-General is the head of state. Others have disagreed but to no avail. User:Adam Carr is convinced at this stage that the user is a troll. I am suspicious. Independent observers would be welcome. FearÉIREANNFile:Ireland flag large.png\^(talk) 00:03, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

There needs to be a word for users who are intelligent and well-informed, but nevertheless behave in a troll-like manner. That's what Skyring is. Adam 07:14, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Constantine Revisited

It is a hack job (as usual) but I think I'm giving this entry some meaning and sparkle. 19 May 05 Kazuba/Charlie

St Peter and early "popes"

Hi, I recently posted a comment on the John Paul II talk page about referring to St Peter as "pope" without any qualification and the POV problem thereof. I got a contradictory response from one person but frankly, they seemed not to have a very firm grasp of the relevant historical issues. Nonetheless, nobody else has commented and I'm wondering if people take the one comment as dispositive despite its shortcomings. I noticed you commented on the anachronism of calling bishops of Rome before Siricius "popes". I was wondering, if you had the time, could you drop by the talk page and add your views? thx- Sumergocognito 18:32, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Hey Thanks. Somebody responded to your comment, and I posted a response to them. If I left anything out, by all means, chime in Sumergocognito 22:11, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Subhash Chandra Bose

John, if you have the time, it would be great if you could take a look at Subhash Chandra Bose, which seems to my (non-historian, but still) eyes to have run into considerable POV trouble. New user Ulflarsen is kind of beleaguered there, and an appeal to El C elicited your name. Not sure if you'll thank him for this or not! ;-)--Bishonen | talk 02:22, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

re 'vote'

Sorry if I caused some confusion. I never intended to give the impression that there was a vote on Pete on Talk:Government of Australia. He demanded evidence that he said nutty things and I went through to archives to find chapter and verse on them. While there I noticed how many people were really annoyed at his behaviour all through the debates. Lest people who came to page think it was just one or two people, I thought it wise to show how people have been making the same complaints about his behaviour, and that as some people had just given up and gone away, more arrived and were driven to fury by his hehaviour. I probably should have worded the heading better.

Re your point about ignoring him - I can sympathise totally. The trouble is that he seems 100% determined to force his zany understanding of constitution law on the page. I decided the best plan would be to demonstate in great detail just how nonsensical his claims are. Unlikely though it was, it might have woken him up to the facts, or gotten the message through to him that he is in a minority of one. But it meant that if an edit war did erupt, there would be ample evidence that it would not be an edit war of views, but over everyone against one user with his own, illinformed, ignorant understanding of constitutional theory, principles and practice.

I see Adam has suggested a vote. I think that is a wise option. It would allow it to be formally voted that the community disagrees with him. And if he persisted in enforcing his dodgy claims at that point he could clearly be seen as a POV vandal and dealt with accordingly. Boycotting someone and ignoring them works in some cases. But some particularly stubborn individuals, and this guy is one, still wouldn't take the message. A detailed rebuttal, and if necessary a full vote of the sort Adam has called, would be a stronger response in dealing with this individual. And it might just achieve an end to Pete's POVing without a nasty edit war. Or if a war did result, just how isolated Pete is, in terms of support, in terms of facts, in terms of his hilariously ridiculous comprehension of constitutional law, would be there for all to see. Slán. FearÉIREANNFile:Ireland flag large.png\^(talk) 22:30, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Lulu

Please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters. A new issue has arisen. FearÉIREANNFile:Ireland flag large.png\^(talk) 20:19, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Vote on policy positions at Government of Australia

I note that Skyring has said that he doesn't intend submitting a proposal for the position this article should adopt on the matters in dispute between him and other uses. I think we can all draw the appropriate conclusions from this. At the expiry of the 24-hour period I gave Skyring yesterday to submit a proposal (10.10am AEST), I will announce a vote at Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board and at Wikipedia:Village pump. Since Skyring has wimped the chance to have his views voted on, the vote will be a straight yes/no on my policy position, which appears below. Amendments or alternative suggestions are of course welcome. I have an open mind on how long the voting period should be and how many votes should be seen as an acceptable participation. I will be posting this notice to the Talk pages of various Users who have participated in this debate. Adam 23:03, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

My proposed policy position is this:

• That in Government of Australia, and in all other articles dealing with Australia's system of government, it should be stated that:

1. Australia is a constitutional monarchy and a federal parliamentary democracy

2. Australia's head of state is Queen Elizabeth II, Queen of Australia

3. Under the Constitution, almost all of the Queen's functions are delegated to and exercised by the Governor-General, as the Queen's representative.

• That any edit which states that (a) Australia is a republic, (b) the Governor-General is Australia's head of state, or (c) Australia has more than one head of state, will be reverted, and that such reversions should not be subject to the three-reversions rule.
• Edits which say that named and relevant persons (eg politicians, constitutional lawyers, judges) disagree with the above position, and which quote those persons at reasonable length, are acceptable, provided proper citation is provided and the three factual statements are not removed. Adam 23:14, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

RfAr

You might be interested to know that Whig has opened an arbitration case against Jguk, Jtdirl, Proteus, and myself. Mackensen (talk) 17:38, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

I thought your exclusion might annoy you somewhat...but yes, a trifle. Still, it was enough to draw me back in, and I'd hope to stay off until June. Bother. Mackensen (talk) 04:08, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Admin's credibility

Some time ago I asked you some rather serious questions here. I would be really happy to hear your answer. Halibutt 00:58, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

Proposed move to Gustavus Adolphus

Sorry, in the section "Proposed move to Gustavus Adolphus" I got your name mixed up with User:Karmosin's contributions earlier in the page. You of course have voted quite clearly, so I have deleted the rubbish I wrote in that section. Fingers but not brain engaged! Philip Baird Shearer 20:45, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

I do not see any policy requirement for Gustavus Adolphus of Sweden unless it disambiguates; can you show me one? I suspect most of the link texts are plain Gustavus Adolphus and that this is the only material stake to the discussion AFAICS. Septentrionalis 20:52, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC) (reply to my Talk, please.)

Reluctently I have cast a vote for "Gustavus Adolphus of Sweden" as my primary choice (which is the same as yours) was in third place at 20:00 hours tonight. Perhase you should consider re-instating your secondary choice as well. Philip Baird Shearer 20:10, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

List of states in the Holy Roman Empire

Hi! You contributed most of the present list of states, including the division into old and new princely families. I want to add more (quite a lot of states are getting articles recently), but I'm not sure where to put them. What is your definition of old and new (after 1648?), and wouldn't a completely alphabetical list (with dates of formation and dissolution, predecessor and successor state, reichsunmittelbar or vassal) be better? See Talk:List of states in the Holy Roman Empire. Markussep 11:59, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

User:JohnKenney

This user is to be impersonating you, and has copied all information on your talk- and userpage to his page. He has also added information to the article on Walter Mondale, indicating his death. →Iñgōlemo← ^talk 23:48, 2005 Jun 4 (UTC)

I've blocked him indefinitely, but I haven't undone the damage yet. Mackensen (talk) 00:05, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Gdansk and Koblenz

John, I thought you'd me more willing to enforce the vote results, especially that you supported Chris 73 and others on similar issues. What makes it childish? As far as I can tell introduction of the "Germanic language" name to articles similar to Amber or Lacznosciowiec Szczecin (to name but a few) was not considered childish, neither by you nor by others. So how come my behaviour is childish now? Double standards anyone?

Anyway, your help in preparing such a vote will be highly appreciated. After we enforce the previous ruling we might want to change it. You know just as good as I do that I don't like the current voting result, and especially the cross-naming part. But what can I do? The community consensus enforces it... Halibutt 07:24, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

While you are entitled to your opinion on what is covered by the vote and what is not, it is but your oppinion. Unless you can point me to a source that would claim otherwise, I will continue to add the Polish name to the former Polish capital and all pages that link there. As the example of German names on all pages linking to Danzig, Gdansk, Szczecin and other places showed, it is commonly accepted. And the city of Dresden clearly has a Polish-German history.

Perhaps you hadn't noticed, but I'm not violating any rules here. I'm not trying to prove any point (what would be the point anyway?) nor am I trying to disrupt Wikipedia. If the behaviour of you or Chris 73 is not considered disruptive, then why do you find my arguments "childish" or "disruptive"? Just because? Or perhaps the rule in question was intended to work only for current Polish cities while current German cities should remain unaffected? If so, then perhaps there is a rule that says that? Or is there a rule for double standards here?

Listen, John, you don't have to like me or support my versions, but please refrain yourself from such insults in the future - unless you can point me to a rule I'm violating and a set of diffs and links that would support your claim. Also, calling my behaviour childish just because you don't like the rules I'm following is not exactly what I expected of you.

BTW, don't you find it funny that once you are a German or a Brit and behave in a certain way, it's all considered right and fair. Once you are a Pole and act in the very same way, you are instantly bashed for alleged nationalism, breaking God-knows-how-many rules and so on? And the funny thing is that nobody is willing to provide any evidence, it's all accusations... if that's what you'd call a fair treatment, then I must've been misinformed. Halibutt 14:40, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

Also, if you really want to compare my behaviour with that of Chris, then you should at least aggree that I'm much more cooperative. Halibutt 14:50, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

BTW, as a sign of my good will, I will stop introducing Polish names to the articles on German cities other than Dresden and the towns in the Ruhr valley, which clearly fall under the current rules established by the Talk:Gdansk/Vote. I hope that others will follow my example. This hopefully will restore peace until the whole matter is resolved - be it by a new voting or by ammending the current one. Halibutt 15:53, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

Towns in the Ruhr Valley? Are you serious. Quit the whole enterprise, please, and lets get to work on a new vote. john k 15:58, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Vote clarification proposal

Glad you agree with the modifications I am suggesting. I agree that the "shared history" criterion needs to be much more clearly defined. My aim was limited to proposing minimal changes which could be introduced without much discussion and maybe prevented some of the more ridiculous revert wars. However, things have clearly deteriorated quite a bit since I suggested these changes. My feeling is that a new vote, on the general policy of city naming, is urgently needed. This is no longer a German/Polish names problem, see also Naming conventions/Vote on city naming about the ongoing conflict over naming cities in Poland and Lithuania. A uniform set of guidelines that would apply to all cities in Europe is the minimum needed. Balcer 18:23, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The UK and constitutional monarchy

Hello, John. Might I ask for your comments on Talk:British monarchy? User:Stevenzenith has deleted parts of the article which state that the Queen acts on the advice of ministers. He states that such an assertion is POV. Thanks. -- Emsworth 22:08, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Gdansk/Danzig edit wars

Hi, would you mind protecting Amber Room to stop the edit war that has broken out with Space Cadet (talk · contribs) (who has gone into a Danzig->Gdansk revert frenzy, even on pages where it's manifestly silly, like Johann Wilhelm von Archenholz). Thanks... Noel (talk) 04:14, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sigh, I know how you feel. I wish I'd never added the blasted information about those other carvers to this page, because now I'm "involved" in the whole Gdansk/Danzig thing. It just so happens that amber, and the lost art of WWII, are some of my interests, so I happened to know something about this particular topic. If I knew then what would happen, I never would have touched the damn thing. How stupid is it that an article about the Amber Room has to say "Gdansk" instead of "Danzig"? Every English-language history book I own which talks about the Baltic region in the 1700's calls it Danzig. Pfui. Noel (talk) 04:33, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I hate how an issue which is essentially one of English usage has to become a nationalistic football for people who dodn't have any idea what English usage on the issue is. - Exactly! Sigh, if this gets reopened, we should ask them to actually list English-language history books they have which call it Gdansk/Danzig (not that they are likely to 'fess up about the latter, if they find any) in this time period, and do the same ourselves. Should be interesting... Noel (talk) 05:22, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

opinion

Sorry for bothering you with this, but bour opinions are earnestly sought on for deletion:Crowns. To put it simply, there were various lists on crowns and state symbols buried on files, hardly touched, and full of unwritten articles. I created a series of I'd say thirty articles on crowns, types of crowns, crown jewels etc, at considerable time and effort. I created a provisional template to link the articles together, which I planned, once I had all the information in place, to separate into a series of templates as there was too much information for one large one.

SimonP, who has been waging war on templates for ages (usually as a minority of one, through he usually forces his opinion on pages - such as his deletions of the Template:Commonwealth Realms from articles on Commonwealth Realms - by wearing people down on the issue) nominated the template for deletion. While some users have praised the template for creating a workable themed group with a visual unity via the template, a couple of people are determined to delete the template and use their beloved, hideously ugly, lists, the same lists that had proved to be a dead end for all these articles before.

The antics of SimonP makes me wonder why bother doing any serious work here, when all one get is attempts by a small number of people to replace professionally laid out information by visually unattractive, frequently complicated and because of the ease of edits, perrennially inaccurate long lists. I would very much like to hear your views on the matter on the TfD page linked above.

God, being on Wikipedia and having to deal with the Skyrings, the Whigs and the SimonP have made me so grouchy!!! L-) FearÉIREANNFile:Ireland flag large.png\^(talk) 21:47, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Blur

I do not deny this. I really tend to copy some of the info (mainly factology) from there, which I admit, and which is apparently illegal. However my goal after this is not to leave it just like that, I build on the material, bettering it as far as I can, putting additional info, additional words, bettering it in grammatical and lexical way, as far as I can. Look in the article if you want - you'll find some Allmusic info. But as far as it is "wholesale" - I disagree. I'm trying to build on the rather boring and tedious factology and make as far as I can good, informative and useful in their own right articles. And I think that I have created different articles, which I want do continue to expand and better... Painbearer 15:36, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

OK, I know it's illegal, but that way you'll fuck my work. I have worked for many months for these articles and my work in Wikipedia I consider as one my dearest and proudest achievements. At least let me rewrite the copyvio and make the article according to the rules. Painbearer 15:55, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

National Socialist German Workers Party

Please give an explanation for reverting my edits. --Haham hanuka 16:43, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[[Katharine Graham]'s tit

FYI: That lovely quote from John Mitchell was already in the article. - DavidWBrooks 02:00, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Nebuchadrezzar

Do you still think Nebuchadnezzar should be moved? I'm a little hestitant to do it myself as this isn't really my field but the arguments in favor seem to me very strong.Dejvid

Need help/advise

Hi John,

As a person who is familiar with my past activity in the Safavids entry and my personal experience with User:Pantherarosa, I decided to turn to you for advise and possibly, help.

Just recently, I got a weird insulting message on my userpage from Pantherarosa. ([5]). I was genuinely surprised, because, first of all, I havent been in touch with this person for months (!) and frankly, I thought that whatever our past experience was, it's now over and he doesn't care about me as much as I dont care about him. Second, I could have imagined that this person would attack me on some nationalist grounds, but I would never expect this person to lower himself to such blatantly childish and street abuses. I left a message in his talkpage expressing my surprise and also expressing my determination to make him punished for his insults. ([6]).

So, in short, I need your advise. Please, let me know how you think would be best for me to go about this insult? I really do not want to appeal to ArbCom and go through this painful and time-consuming process again, but if there is no other way to punish this person, I am prepared to go till the end.

Hope to hear from you. Thanks in advance.

p.s. btw, I'm still struggling against this Rovoam, which turned to be the most obsessive vandal that any one of us have ever encountered. Also, another anon suspiciously resemling banned Baku Ibne/LIGerasimova/Osmanoglou is also vandalizing and disrupting Wikipedia.--Tabib 14:25, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

thanks for promt response, John. But, I will not sit and wait until he does this again. If you have some idea in mind on how I could proceed with my complaint, please, let me know. thanks once again.--Tabib 14:33, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

Mc and Mac

What's up with these edits to misspell names in the categories? Are you trying to get them to sort differently? If so, I think you are fighting a losing battle over time. Hal Jespersen 18:21, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"Mc" names are supposed to be alphabetized as though they are spelled "Mac". Similarly, "St." names are to be alphabetized as though they are spelled "Saint." The correct spelling still shows up on the category page, so that's not a problem. john k 18:23, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, the problem will be that the 10,000 Wikipedians who don't know the details of category sorting or the nuances of name spelling will just think they're seeing easily correctible typos and 'fix' them, as I did for the first couple of edits you did. I would recommend you include a comment in the HTML that explains what you're up to and save yourself some trouble down the road. Hal Jespersen 19:34, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There are all kinds of things people might think are typos and mistakenly correct. An html note would be useful, but I'm not going to go back through and add them in now. At any rate, when somebody is specifically going in to change the spelling for categories, but not the spelling of the name itself, doesn't that imply that, well, it has something to do with alphabetization, and not with being a bad speller? john k 19:43, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Up to you. I'll point out that I'm a reasonable guy and, until I saw that you were doing a series of similar edits, assumed you were just one of the many careless editing people who inhabit Wikiland. My mistake was treating you like one of the anonymous IP address guys. Sorry about that. Hal Jespersen 19:52, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Duke cats:

I just wanted to say top notch on the laborious task of adding the ducal categories to the royal pages. Keep up the good work! :-) Craigy File:Uk flag large.png (talk) 19:15, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

Survey guidelines fixing

So that the Gdansk/Vote horror never repeats itself :) Please see the proposal at my userspace, it is an updated version of Template_talk:Gdansk-Vote-Notice#Constructive_proposal. After I hear (or not) and incorporate comments from you and several other users I know are interested in fixing this, I will officialy move this to Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) and I would like you to be one of the co-signatures of the proposal. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 20:05, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Tnx for the comments, I incorporated most of your points. See Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Fixing_giant_loopholes_in_Wikipedia:Survey_guidelines. As for Gdansk/Vote, I'd support a revote for clarification of some rules, so we can end the ongoing revert wars. Btw, when I raised the Gdanks name question on Polish Usenet, I got one very interesting responce: 'It was known to Danzig to most of its inhabitants, but as Gdańsk to most of the inhabitants of the PLC. And besides the now-remaining Danzig/Gdanks, contemporary historical sources used also Dantzigk, Gedanum, Dantiscum (both latin!), Dansk and Gedanzyc' ;) Now, I'd agree that it is likely that the name Danzig was also more popular in Europe (due to the prominence of German language), but what I'd like (and be content with) is the right to use Gdańsk instead of Danzig in articles dealing specifically with PLC (for example, the very PLC article itself, of course with the first reference mentioning Danzig spelling). Btw, my interest in this and similar cases is not based on the grounds of nationalism, just historical correctnes - i.e. I ask myself 'what would contemporary people call this place'. What do you think about this solution? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 19:32, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I like your edits.

Especially about the Peerage. Thanks for the good work! ScapegoatVandal 21:02, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Advice

John, sometimes naming disputes make me absolutely livid. I wonder if you'd care to have a look at Talk:Mary Vetsera and let me know what you think. I find fighting over names very disheartening, but you've proved to be able to approach even Gdansk/Danzig problems with aplomb. - Nunh-huh 00:58, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for pouring oil upon the troubled waters. If only everyone could remain so calm....<g> - Nunh-huh 23:15, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Category:Peers

John, I've gone ahead and created the rest of the new categories for you. Before I begin re-categorizing peers themselves, a question: are we only categorizing based on the highest title held? What about an Irish earl who got a UK barony? Mackensen (talk) 16:24, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Mackensen (talk) 16:28, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I was wondering why you did that. Yes, I think you're right. I'll go ahead and change it (Lords of Parliament) once I've dealt with all these Barons de Ros. Mackensen (talk) 16:33, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Earls of Richmond

John, there's a minor content dispute over at Talk:Earl of Richmond. Could you please have a look? Mackensen (talk) 14:17, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yeah. Perhaps we'd combine the sources somehow, but leaving either out is not going to work. ScapegoatVandal 14:44, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Harry Dexter White

I am available now to discuss any problems with the article. The reference to McCarthy you just reverted to is clearly out of place, seeing all the McCarthy business came much later, and was perhaps even motivated after the Harry Dexter White matter was disposed of. Please read the Time magazine article at the bottom of the page regarding the White matter in 1945- 46; while does give a good insight into how American percieved the matter in 1953, according to the notorious McCarthyite publication Time Magazine, the material I added in for factual refernce to pre-1948 is indisputable. Nobs01 16:28, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry if that is the impression, and I will be happy to work with you to achieve a NPOV vis-a vis Harry Truman. However this matter relates to the entire period of American history, basically from 1921 onwards (see History of Soviet espionage in the United States). Clearly, Truman was no communist symapthizer, witness Truman Doctrine, Containment etc. However, the primary source to gain proper perspective is FBI Venona file pgs. 61-75, where we see Venona project evidence was kept secret from President Truman himself, which explains why he went ahead with the appointment of White. (See also Talk:Whittaker_Chambers#Psychiatrist for the basic thesis, that while it was true a large Soviet appartus existed in D.C. in the 1930s & 40s, McCarthy began with a half truth and went after the wrong people. Most probably because in his perception, the FBI wasn't doing anything about it. Hence the real significance of the FBI Venona file pgs. 61-75). All this information needs to be inserted properly throughout a host of articles). Trust me, I am no defender of McCarthy and not a critic of Truman, but it seems while McCarthy persecuted innocent people, many of the truelly guilty have been able to hide & escape on the cloak of being McCarthyite victims. For now, until you have had time to examine the documents, to achieve a NPOV, I propose removing the McCarthyism reference in the Harry Dexter White article to where it can be reinserted later after the pre-McCarthy Venona material is properly handled. Thanks. Nobs01 17:14, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Very good. I will be happy to work with you if you are interested. This article Politics and the Attack on FDR's Economists I beleive is comes from an IMF publication. While I don't agree with all its conclusions, offers some balance. The case of Lauchlin Currie is somewhat even more disputed, and personally I have trouble with it cause I genuinely like the guy; but it appears he was not just an ideological informant, but a paid informant. I placed the reversions on the Talk page and will makes some changes and submit them to you. The notorious right-wing rag, Time magazine, is interesting in that it gives a glimpse into the atmosphere of popular public perceptions in 1953 apart from McCarthy. For now (and I expect for a quite a while), I am not really even dealing with the decade of the 1950s. Thanks. Nobs01 17:40, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Rewrite of disputed text.

On December 4, 1945, the FBI transmitted to the White House a report entitled "Soviet Espionage in the United States." The report summarized White's espionage activities. Copies of the report were sent to Attorney General Thomas Clark too. The evidence indicated a substantial spy ring operating within the Government and involving White. Given the secrecy of the Venona project materials, the president went ahead six weeks later and nominated White for appointment to the International Monetary Fund.Nobs01 18:12, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Good points; I don't wish to be too hasty. I will however also include National Security Archive (two extracts from the mongraph: "Exploitation of VENONA exposes major KGB espionage agents such as Klaus Fuchs, Harry Gold, David Greenglass, Theodore Hall, William Perl, the Rosenbergs, Guy Burgess, Donald Maclean, Kim Philby, and Harry D. White" and "UN conference (attended by KGB agent Harry Dexter White") link to the External links where anyone can access the decrypts themself. This I beleive may even be overkill. The accumulated evidence over the decades is overwhelming to the point of being conclusive. One would expect an apologists of course, perhaps even from the IMF itself. But I beleive any issues in the [cooperativeindividualism.org] link, vis-a-vis White can ultimately be refuted. Lauchlin Currie, however, is where the dispute really should take place, IMHO. In his case, there does appear alot of evidence against the guy, to the point of even being paid, but the motive issues dont' always square with what appear to be his fundemental beliefs. Truelly a much more complex character. Nobs01 18:45, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There will always be a legitimate dispute, seeing he was never tried and/or convicted. I have is no problem with referencing that within the Harry White article, but the more of those stale arguements you wish to site, then the more of the overwelhming evidence I would have to ask to insert within the article. This article has graduated from being a glorious bio page about a dead New Dealer (and that issue must be addressed, how FDR himself was betrayed by people he trusted) to an article that is going to be more related to the History of Soviet espionage in the United States. I'm really sceptical about the ability to rehabilitate this man's reputation. (Haven't finished reading the interpretive analysis you sent me, but will do) Nobs01 19:52, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Reading the Prologue to Treasonable Doubt I find this immediate distortion on pg. 4[7]:

What was the evidence that enabled Chambers and Bentley, in 1948, to declare Harry Dexter White a Soviet spy...

Chamber left espionage work in 1938 and I don't believe ever met White. White I don't believe was recruited into Soviet intelligence until 1941. Thus, they author seeks to draw upon the sympathies of those who have vilified Chambers credibility for 57 years now by suggesting Chambers was one of White's accusers. A distortion, reverting history back in the same manner as suggesting Joseph McCarthy was one of White's accusers in 1948. Source is prejudiced. Still reading. User:nobs01

Let me correct myself (I spoke to soon). Chambers did name White as member of the CPUSA he knew in 1938 (Chambers Testimony). However, he was never an accuser of White's espionage activities during the war since he had no knowledge of them because he defected from the group in 1938. Here is a relevent excerpt from August 3 1948 Testimony:

Mr. HEBERT. Was he considered as a source of information to the Communist cell?

Mr. CHAMBERS. No. I should perhaps make the point that these people were specifically not wanted to act as sources of information. These people were an elite group, an outstanding group, which it was, believed would rise to positions as, indeed, some of them did-notably, Mr. White and Mr. Hiss-in the Government...

The motives for a distorion are obvious, there is still a huge market to sell books to, to defend Hiss, etc. Nobs01 22:01, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

From the Truman Library Oral History Interview with Stephen J. Spingarn, President's Temp. Comm. on Employee Loyalty, 1946-47, see pgs 770-772 to get a good first hand account of the Truman White House dealing with this matter, good flavour of the personalities involved, attitude toward FBI bungling etc. Nobs01 01:20, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The author in footnote 2 you sent me yesterday Robert Louis Benson is the same author I quoted from the NAS Monograph National Security Archive so I hope we're back on the same song sheet. I'll make one more comment in FDR header bellow & leave it at that so as not to confuse the issues. I'm sorry for doing so. Nobs01 14:18, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

FDR

I hope I'm not piling on too much information to fast, but in light of these articles:

• Yalta Conference
• Western betrayal
• Gulag Archepelago, Alexandr Solzhenitsyn
• President Discusses Freedom and Democracy in Latvia "The agreement at Yalta followed in the unjust tradition of Munich and the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact." Pres. G.W. Bush, May 7, 2005
• How Good Was the Good War?

Excerpt from 1976 English trans of Nobel Laureate in Literature Alexandr Solzhenitsyn's Gulag Archipelago:

In their own countries Roosevelt and Churchill are honored as embodiments of statesmanlike wisdom. To us, in our Russian prison conversations, their consistent shortsightedness and stupidity stood out as astonishingly obvious. How could they, in their decline from 1941 to 1945, fail to secure any guarantees whatever of the independence of Eastern Europe? (written while in the Gulag during the Korean War)

The real issue may be sparing FDR the criticism for the enslavement of 350 million people by letting Alger Hiss, Harry Dexter White et al, be the fallguys for thier own sins. They betrayed FDR too. Regarding this whole group of spies, it is no longer a "he said, she said" as Hiss defenders have tried to make it for 60 years. And their pure hearts and ideological motivations still don't justify their actions and its consequences. Some food for thought, cause this is where this is all going.

Jesus Christ, you expect to convince me with this hoary old nonsense? I don't know enough about White to say anything for sure, but you throwing this garbage at me does make me fairly sure I can't take your word for anything. john k 05:36, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, its midnite my time, be back in 9 hours. Please note, the above are referenced articles are not my words, they are the authors of Yalta Conference, Western betrayal, Boston Globe, G.W. Bush & Alexandr Solzhenitsyn. It all boils down to Hiss telling the GRU the U.S. would do nothing to oppose Soviet non-compliance with the Yalta Conference, North Atlantic Charter, and United Nations Charter, i.e. the U.S. would not got war to defend Eastern Europe. Nobs01 05:52, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That was obvious in any case - nor should we have. Assuming that spying is responsible for things that common sense could've told Stalin is problematic. Also problematic is that you've brought in this wholly irrelevant subject for no reason at all. I had thought we were discussing the specific question of whether or not it is accepted that Harry Dexter White was acting as a Soviet spy. john k 13:23, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Here's the incriminating decrypt damning Hiss [8]. Yalta was not much of a negotiation seeing that Stalin read FDR's briefing books before they sat down at the table. In recent weeks, G.W. Bush compared the FDR-Stalin deal to the Nazi-Soviet pact. That, I believe is an unfair POV. Our Polish friends who authored the Yalta Conference, & Western betrayal, (as well as a Nobel Laureate in Literature) make no mention of Hiss. My theory is a more NPOV can be achieved by placing Venona materials in their proper context. Nobs01 14:31, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

W. Mark Felt

Salve!
I nominated W. Mark Felt as a WP:FAC. As you commented on the Deep Throat talk page, I'd appreciate your comments at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/W. Mark Felt. PedanticallySpeaking 15:52, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

Skyring

John,

Skyring has been harrassing and stalking me and also Petaholmes on Wikipedia. I have raised the issue directly with a new Request for arbitration. I know that individual is not a favourite of yours after your experience, but I thought you should know. The ArbComm is already dealing with him over Government of Australia and it looks like he will get a year ban from writing on the topic, though he has already threatened to produce other users to push his viewpoint. I think at this stage he needs an outright ban. FearÉIREANNFile:Ireland flag large.png\^(talk) 06:53, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Categorizing Peers

I can tidy up Category:Peers with my bot, but I would need to do it in two steps: move all the pages to Category:British dukes, etc., then do each of those subcategories individually. Do you have any objection to this? It would be much quicker... – ugen64 19:29, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Which ones go in two categories? People with, say, a barony in the Peerage of Ireland and a viscountcy in the Peerage of England? – ugen64 20:04, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sorry for not responding earlier, I'd been on vacation. What you propose sounds sensible to me. Mackensen (talk) 20:39, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Do we consider Anne Boleyn a member of Category:Marquesses in the Peerage of England? Mackensen (talk) 01:13, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Royal consorts and monarchs

hi there. i´m trying to get a discussion going to change the rules on naming consorts, monarchs, etc.. it´s a bit of mess at the moment. maybe you wanna join in and give your opinion? feel free [9] cheers Antares911 00:04, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

i liked your comments. maybe we can keep this up a bit and see what others think and swiftly come to a conclusion before this fizzles out and nothing happens again..Antares911 00:44, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

hi John, thanks for your help so far. this discussion is really exasperating me, never thought it would be so difficult. are you familiar with how to propose changes of the rules to the administrators? do they have to be involved in the discussion as well? i thought maybe some points we can start wrapping up or is there a minimun of time of how long a discussion needs to be? looking forward to your reply, cheers... Antares911 28 June 2005 23:25 (UTC)

ok, so we discuss, come to a conclusion, if it´s 60% support, then we can change it, right? but an administrator has to make the change to the rule officialy, or do we just go in there and change it? Antares911 29 June 2005 01:05 (UTC)

Left-right politics

Since you've weighed in before at Left-right politics, and you usually have had worthwhile things to say, and you are specifically from a less Marxian background than myself, I wondered if you would look in on the recent changes in Left-Right_politics&diff=0&oldid=15031025#History_of_Usage and the recent discussion at Talk:Left-Right_politics#Evolution_of_the_terms. I don't think it is productive for me to keep arguing back and forth with User:pearlg, but your views and/or edits might be useful. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:21, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Frankfurt

There are two cities commonly called Frankfurt, Frankfurt am Main and Frankfurt an der Oder. I would have thought it was obvious that if someone searches for "Frankfurt" they should be taken to Frankfurt (disambiguation) so they can decide which one they want. Adam 00:22, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The difference is that there is no such place as "Frankfurt." Adam 05:03, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Duke of Mar

John, I ran across Duke of Mar quite by accident today, and I thought that we ought to try and integrate the article somehow. Perhaps have a category on Jacobite peerages (I think there are more than this one)? Mackensen (talk) 23:51, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There won't be many, so I think that two categories, Category:Jacobite peers and Category:Jacobite peerages, would suffice. In a few cases, such as Margaret of Mar, 31st Countess of Mar, we'd have overlap with "real" peers. I suppose both would be subcategorites of Category:Peers. Thoughts? Mackensen (talk) 23:55, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you yet again, but I've run across Category:Dormant Dukedoms, which seems to have been created by anon IP, who also edited Duke of Windsor. I'm going to refactor the latter, and I think the former is wholly in the wrong (see my comment on the associated talk page). Mackensen (talk) 11:57, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Edit summaries

I've noticed you've done a lot of categorization recently. Would you mind putting something as simple as "add cat" in the edit summary? Thanks! :) Cburnett June 28, 2005 04:45 (UTC)

Seconded. Incidentally, I've reverted your addition of two categories to To Have and Have Not. They're both appropriate for To Have and Have Not (film); one was already there, and the other was not, so I've just now added it. -- Hoary June 28, 2005 07:20 (UTC)

Restore

I just wanted to tell you that I restored the redirect at John Connor. That name is a (minor? I don't know because I don't know the series) charachter in the movie series it redirects to. It was made because the article had more detail than the article that was there. This link is Broken 28 June 2005 04:58 (UTC)

Two points. On the deletion page you wrote, "a pointless redirect - most of the links to John Connor are *not* even about the Terminator - it is a common name." Most is an exageration. It's 50/50 for the terminator charachter and some minor Irish legislator, in a list. A redirect to one of the terminator pages which talks about the charachter would be usefull to someone looking up the charachter. WP:FICT guidelines do say to redirect pages to lists on the main article if there is no indiividual page. This seems similar to the John Connor redirect's purpose. Often the page for the first movie in a series serves as a page for the entire series as well as the first work (see Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy, a featured article). My second point is "hu?". You didn't delete the redirect. Instead you deleted Terminator (movie) which in turn broke several (double) redirects, which I just fixed. That page may indeed be useless (but the rational you provided seems like it was for the John Connor page). [But is seems you just caught this error, or whatever it is, yourself]. This link is Broken 28 June 2005 15:13 (UTC)

Samuel Hoare

I see about a week ago you moved the page to simply his name rather than his name combined with his title. Why? He's certainly not a figure well known enough for it to cause confusion. Wally 29 June 2005 01:01 (UTC)

I don't understand the policy to be such at all. As I am informed the title is always used unless the person is substantially, commonly and currently known without, or by a different one — Robert Stewart, Viscount Castlereagh rather than Robert Stewart, 2nd Marquess of Londonderry or Anthony Eden rather than Anthony Eden, 1st Earl of Avon. However, absent present familiarity — which is the key — the proper title is used; in this case, including Hoare's peerage. Wally 29 June 2005 01:19 (UTC)

List of German Kings and Emperors

Dear John, I have posted some questions and did some editing on the List of German Kings and Emperors page. Please have a look. Str1977 29 June 2005 10:13 (UTC)

Dear John, have a look at Talk:List of German Kings and Emperors Str1977 29 June 2005 20:45 (UTC)

What might still could be added (from Talk:List of Frankish Kings)

Some things that might be missing and could be added:

• what about the struggles between Louis the Pious and his sons and among the sons - the distribution of kingdoms during Louis lifetime are not given (and his son Pippin is missing alltogether)
• what about mayors that were not Carolingians, but were nonetheless powerful (Ebroin, Erchinoald, Wulfoad) - there is a unhealthy focus on the Carolingians when discussing mayoral power (up to the allegation that Pippin the Middle instigated the murder of Dagobert II - why? because he's the only one known who could have done it)
• what about distinctions within the Carolingian family (after Pippin the Middle's death)
• separate from any mayoral questions, maybe the Carolinigian template should give - for that period - heads of the family and not so much offices (though these can be included)

Any thoughts on these issues? Str1977 18:44, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

regarding 217.140.193.123

hi there John, if you followed the discussion on naming convention, this user 217.140.193.123 is continuously attacking me, wrote some stuff on my talkpage that i had to delete. is there a possibility to block him for a while so he comes to his senses? it´s getting more than annoying, keeps on making snidy remarks while hiding behind the anonymity like a coward... thanks. Antares911 29 June 2005 18:40 (UTC)

If I may be so bold, I'd like to jump in this topic. I'm beginning to get worried about this anon's attitude. He is impatient, sometimes on the break of abusive. He might mean well, but he is trying to determine single-handedly the naming procedures for all royals and noblesmen articles he can get his hands on. I started the article on Prince Luiz, like I said I would, and placed a Work In Progress tag requesting that people gave me some time to translate all the material and finish constructing the article. He edited the article severely, and then accused me of "abusing the wip tag" and trying to keep others from contributing. The tag had been there for less than a day. He seizes red links that others have created - in my case, with the intention of creating an article under the title later - and turns them into redirects to nonexistent articles, whose titles he comes up with, obviously. I had created a template where the name of the Princess Isabel the Redeamer, the only Princess Imperial Brazil ever had, appeared as a red link with a naming the followed the same rationale that had been discussed for the Prince Luiz of Orleans-Braganza article. He turned it into a redirect to Isabel of Brazil, where he wrote an assay on the Princess. I'm actually beginning to worry it may be copyvio, since he appears to simply have wanted to beat others (in this case, me) to starting the article, mainly (I believe) so that he can secure the title he feels to be appropriate. He is not registered, so he's probably unaware of the possibility to move articles. It's getting really annoying. Perhaps we should discuss some sort of collective approach to this? Regards, Redux 3 July 2005 18:41 (UTC)

Hi John. Thanks for your answer. Well, according to Antares, there are indeed problems with his attitude (disrespectful, abusive behavior, etc.). Incidentally, just noticed that he also created Imperial Family of Brazil — a half-baked article which, although may seem well-intended, his behavior suggests that his goal was just to secure his point of view. This, plus the incident at the Isabel article, although the Isabel article chiefly (plus the many redirects to nonexistent articles) indicates that he is disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. he keeps breaking policies, which I don't think we can argue he may be unaware of because he is a newbie, since when he makes his comments in the naming conventions talk page he does talk about naming policies in Wikipedia, even if I believe that his understanding of it is severely lacking. And his attitude may be one of those "potential problems" that Wikiquette talks about and suggests we "try to nip in the bud".
About the Isabel article, is the name you suggested the common English name used for her? I was unaware of it (but then again, I had not done the research yet). If that's the case, it definatelly should be the title. If not, I'd say we should follow the same rationale of Prince Luiz's article, being that Isabel never reigned, and in the end remained as Princess and de jure Empress. I'd like to find that out, about the name that is. I antecipate the anon will create problems for moving the article though. We'll be stuck in an endless circular discussion involving misconcepted "naming procedures". Regards, Redux 3 July 2005 19:07 (UTC)

Oh, and to back Antares's claims of behavior problems, check the Naming Convention talk page in this section. Look at the very last couple of comments: severe personal attacks against Martg76. Provided Martg76 did loose his cool, but that's not that difficult to understand, since the anon was abusive towards him from the get go. His comment about me [allegedly] "abusing the {{wip}} tag" was also abusive, not to mention utterly unjustified. But I didn't loose it. Regards, Redux 3 July 2005 19:30 (UTC)

As I said, Martg76 did loose his cool. But then again the user was rude to Antares and myself, which shows a pattern of behavior. The one difference is that Martg76 reciprocated in the same coin (which is not commendable, but understandable). In the case of the wip tag, the anon did not make witty remarks insulting my intelligence as he did repeatedly with Martg76 — he dismisses everybody's opinion as stupidity because he doesn't agree with them — but he did accuse me, pretty much out of the blue, of using the tag to keep him from contributing, and pretty much said that he would ignore me and do what he felt like doing (in other words). I was very careful with the way I answered that, if I had said out loud that he was "wrong", had been "precipitated" or anything similar, I have no doubt that he would have responded recommending that I read and learn before speaking or something similar. Not to mention an argumentation that boardered the absurd: it takes but a couple of clicks to find out how long the tag had been there; when he posted, it had been there for hours, not even a day, and he argues you've had enough time, the tag is being abused and should be removed... I mean, is that to be taken seriously? And what about the personal attacks (if not Martg76, there's Antares...), the disrupting Wikipedia to make a point and the abiding by policies only when [he believes that] they suit his need for argumentation? It seems to me that he is perfectly aware of how things work or should work around here, but chooses to ignore it and go about as he pleases (his actions seem to center around royals and nobles and nothing else — this may sound somewhat biased, but it has been my experience that single-theme obsession is usually a distinctive mark of trouble makers in the project, be it a registered user or an anon). Regards, Redux 4 July 2005 01:56 (UTC)

Yeap, being mindful of my words didn't cut it. There it was the witty remark on Prince Luiz's article's talk page. I won't even answer that, so as not to entice further aggressivity. He may be clueless, but I believe that he's just being coy and doing and saying what he feels like. Regards, Redux 4 July 2005 02:04 (UTC)

I hear you Redux. don´t registered users have a precedence over non-registered users, why is he allowed to get away with this all? Antares911 4 July 2005 09:07 (UTC)

Holocaust

Slim Virgin reminds us that no work has been done on User:SlimVirgin/draft, which she is kindly hosting, for some time. I'm willing to spend more time on it if you are. Adam 07:14, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Further to this, I have now almost finished Browning's Origns of the Final Solution and Breitman's Himmler: Architect of Genocide. Over the next week or so I intend rewriting the Holocaust draft in the light of these. The next draft will be much less Goldhagenish and I hope will meet with everyone's approval. Adam 30 June 2005 05:10 (UTC)

Left-Right politics

Yes, the "Nazis were socialists" line gets very tiresome, especially when people say, in effect, "Hayek said so, that's all I need to know." Lord deliver us from people who have read one book (or, in this case, one book on the topic). Sort of a right-libertarian fundamentalism. Of course the early Nazis included some (anti-semitic) socialists. And of course they were among the many losers as Hitler came to the fore.

I do hope you hang in there at left-right politics. I think it is an important article, one that a lot of people look up, and I think it is important that it stay scholarly and NPOV. You and I have our disagreements (I am more inclined to look at these things in terms of class and interests, you in terms of overt politics), but at least we both have clearly read broadly on the topic and have some sense of the turf.

Actually, what I find more tiresome than the "Nazis were socialists" line is the "I don't think this politics is workable in the real world, so we shouldn't describe it accurately in the article" approach. No, you won't find a lot of Hebertists running around today, but it doesn't mean we should try to give Hebert a viable politics for the 21st century! -- Jmabel | Talk July 1, 2005 00:09 (UTC)

At some point you need to accept that inquiring minds disagree on these subjects. To accuse all of us in a sweeping fashion of being poorly read is downright unjust. I will repeat, time and again, that there is no single coherent system of discering left,right,liberal,marxism,socialism,etc. Do you base your opinions only on what people claimed they were? Do you merely trace the historical usage and mark all descendents the same way irrespective of ideology? Do you group by ideology? Do you group by methods? Do you group by rhetoric or practice? How do account for for time. e.g., the evolution of the social-democratic movement, To simply and rigidly behave as if these concepts are well-defined is ahistorical and is itself a form of fundamentalism.

The purpose of this article surely must be to help answer the question "What might person x have meant when he said..." More over NPOV suggests you cannot judge except at the extremes whether person x was right to say that. Therefore, what belongs in the article is "Hayek introduced the proposal that..." from there the reader can further the pursue the topic on her own to determine whether she is actually convinced by his reasoning.

That you find yourself constantly fighting battles to exclude certain perspectives is ipso facto proof that you've failed to achieve NPOV. NPOV is in everyone's interest because that is the only thing that permits articles to stabilize. --Pearlg 1 July 2005 07:09 (UTC)

Actually I believe I said "He goes so far as to say that feudalism is a form of socialism" from which the "so far" was meant to imply further than I would take the argument. Further, I said that as I understand mercantilism--that is as merely a policy of gold or, in modern times, currency retention--your question of whether I believe it is a form of socialism, makes no sense. They are not even in the same class of idea. Communist, Socialist, Capitalist societies can all adopt mercantilism. Most notably, China is currently the worlds primary mercantilist.

Thus, I dispute that I claimed any of the things you imply I claimed. Moreover, I did not say you in particular were being ahistorical. I said only that insistance on a single understanding of the word socialism is ahistorical. Further, as I mentioned, these terms can reasonably defined historically as well as ahistorically. They are reinvented continually--some of those reinventions are ahistoric. But, once schemes have been published it becomes ahistoric to deny them their due.

I've really enjoyed reading some of your commentary in this discussion. I only want you to moderate your determination that your understanding of the "x and socialism" question should be the only one given space in the article. It isn't our jobs here to try to hash out what conclusions should be drawn, how different facts should be weighed--though such discussions can be interesting and useful. Our purpose is to accurately portray what other people have thought about the issue. --Pearlg 1 July 2005 07:33 (UTC)

Line of succession to the British Throne

Awesome job expanding the line of British succession by more than 50 places, John. Terrific detail in the Family Branches section, too. EgbertW July 4, 2005 05:41 (UTC)

Duke of Wellington

You should probably look at Wikipedia:Request for immediate removal of copyright violation#Copyright Violation. Bovlb 2005-07-07 13:17:16 (UTC)

• May I respectfully suggest that you look at Wikipedia:No personal attacks as well? Thanks, Bovlb 2005-07-07 15:52:27 (UTC)

• • I think he's aware of it, might I suggest you aid in the resolution of the copyright dispute? Mackensen (talk) 7 July 2005 16:06 (UTC)

• I think I have to agree with John Kenney's proposed solution that neither picture goes in. I can't justify putting Wikipedia in the position of defending a "fair use" claim for this image when an apparent representative of the copyright holder objects. As I commented here, once it's suggested that the image is made available with permission, then it falls under Jimbo's prohibition. Bovlb 2005-07-07 17:40:10 (UTC)

• John, you said "I was angry and overreacted, but I don't feel especially bad about making a personal attack on someone who has been nothing but a pest." I can sympathize with the first part, but I feel obliged to point out that our obligation to remain civil to other Wikipedians is independent of how pestiferous we feel they are. If it only applied when it was easy, then it wouldn't be much of a restriction. ☺ As Wikipedia editors, we are part of Wikipedia's public face. I don't want to belabour this point, and please be assured that I value your contributions to Wikipedia, but I felt I had to respond. Bovlb 2005-07-07 17:40:10 (UTC)

Your opinion sought

I have re-opened the issue of the royal stub at [10]. I think having it produce a noble link is farcical. Those who did it originally were no doubt well meaning but I don't think they really understood what they were doing. Nobility and royalty are not the same. Your opinions would be welcomed.

FearÉIREANNFile:Irish flag.gifFile:Animated-union-jack-01.gif SOLIDARITY WITH THE PEOPLE OF LONDON\^(caint) 7 July 2005 23:22 (UTC)

Irish Not Celts et al

Hello John. For furher information on this argument, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celts#Celts_in_Ireland_and_Britain

This argument is indeed fairly widely accecpted. Calling the aincent (i.e., pre-historic) peoples of the British Isles Celtic is now not generally held to be correct. While it is true that they did (and some of their descendants still do) speck languages that are a branch of Celtic, this does not mean that their ethinic background was the same. For example, people as far apart as India, Kenya and Iraq all speck English; this does not mean that they are of Anglo-Saxon descent.

Also, I have spent years examining old Irish genealogical records, and none of them claim any Celtic ancestry.

The general consensus now is that most Irish people today share genes that indicate a background in the same people that are the ancestors of the Basques. Remember, most Irish Milesian families claimed descent from Mil of Spain, which seems to be a mythical explanation for our acutal background. See Gaul and Aquitani for further detail.

Just as French later became the predominant language of Gascony (replacing Basque), something similar seems to have occoured in Ireland and Britian. The people remained broadly of the same descent, but took on a new language, replacing whatever it was they once spoke. This must have occoured a considerable time ago in our antiquity, as scholors have struggled for decades to try and find any words of any pre-Gaelic languages in Ireland, and have only come up with, at most, half-a-dozen words, that might, maybe, fit into this category.

Compare this with Britain, where you can find placenames of pre-Gaelic, pre-Anglo-Saxon, pre-Daneish, origin.

Also keep in mind that many still cannot agree who or what constituted a Celt in the first place.

Lastly, keep in mind the fact that before any raids by the Vikings or Normans, Ireland inhabited by several different races (Cruithne, Fir Bolg, and others) who did not hold themselves to be related.

You've just walked into a very complicated subject. Failte! Fergananim

Hello John, thanks for replying.

Well, I thought all the sources I listed - and I have added some new ones - would help clarify the matter. And I'm not sure if I understand you correctly about the "irish not celts" line in the article; I though it made it perfectly clear.

I've no problem with you being skeptical; is'nt that how we learn in the first place?

As you say, Celtic is indeed "normally seen to be a term referring to linguistic identity" and when applied in this manner is correct. Maybe we just ought to be more specific.

"I still feel like the whole thing suggests a kind of ethnic essentialism that is unpleasant." I'm sorry to say I don't follow you here either. Would you mind explaining? Cheers! Fergananim

That was fast! Okay, my reply ...

• 1-"I mean - the argument that they were not Celts is expressed in a way which seems misleading."

Fair enough. How would you amend it?

• 2- "The claim that "they did not call themselves Celts," for instance, is meaningless - no Celtic peoples ever called themselves Celts. That's like saying that the ancient Athenians weren't actually Greeks because they didn't call themselves Greeks."

Well, that's not entirely correct. In the very first few lines of "The Gallic Wars", Ceasar writes "All Gaul is divided into three parts, one of which the Belgae inhabit, the Aquitani another, those who in their own language are called Celts, in our Gauls, the third." (my emphasis.

So there were such a people who called themselves that name. In the case of the Greeks, sure they thought of themselves first as of Athens, Sparta, et al, but they all acknowledged their commen Greek (Hellenic) heritige. Same thing applied here in Ireland till the last few centuries; you would think of yourself first and formost as of Mumhain, Thomond, Ui Failge, etc, but acknowledged your Irish heritige and that of those living on the island.

No, I mean, the Greeks called themselves Hellenic, not Greek. That was my point there. john k 9 July 2005 00:36 (UTC)

I have to emphasise yet again that at no point have I ever seen in our (massive) genealogical records any affinity claimed by our ancient historians between us and known Celtic peoples such as, say, the Atrebates, Brigantes, Caledonii, Cantiaci or Catuvellauni.

At least some branches of certain of these people did arrive in Ireland (Belgae=Fir Bolg; Dumnonii= Fir Domhainn, a branch of the Fir Bolg; and Menapii. But not in huge enough numbers to overwhelm the people already here, and certainly not enough to overwhelm us with a new tounge. Rather, the same thing happened with those peoples as would later happen to the Vikings and Normans; they were assimilated into the Gaelic cultural and linguistic mainstream.

• 3 "This suggests some kind of hidden POV lurking somewhere."

I'd be lying if I said I don't have my own POV's, but I'm far more interested in facts and the truth. If my take on it turns out to be wrong, so be it. I am a historian, after all!

• 4 -"Beyond this, having read a bit more, I think we need to a) make clear that the Irish were Celts in the normally accepted linguistic sense of the term; and b) acknowledge that the question of how Ireland came to be Celtic-speaking is controversial. In terms of b, it needs to be mentioned that there are still historians who think there was a Celtic invasion/settlement of Ireland in the first millennium BC."

I don't think anyone completly dismisses the notion that there was indeed (at the very least) some settlement (if not invasion) in those years, or indeed later after the fall of Gaul and Britain to Rome. Its the degree of this settlement/invasion that's in dispute, and what effect it had.

Lastly, if you have not seen this check it outhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_history_of_Ireland

Be delighted to hear more from you, especially if your veiws are contrary because you might be right! Cheers! Fergananim

3 RR =

I violated the 3RR in Ahl ul-Bayt article. Im sorry. I was just on my way to revert myself, but you made it befor me. Sorry :(

--Striver 8 July 2005 23:33 (UTC)

Is this you?

I said on the description page that if you didn't like it, I would delete it, you asshole. You are a completely absurd person, fuck you. john k 7 July 2005 15:05 (UTC)

If so, I am disappointed. I expect better from admins. Don't let them trolls suck you in! hydnjo talk 9 July 2005 01:06 (UTC)

Not one of my prouder moments on wikipedia, I'm afraid... john k 9 July 2005 01:08 (UTC)

Well don't do it again or someone will whack you upside o' the head! hydnjo talk 9 July 2005 01:21 (UTC)

Hydnjo, you do realize that if that wasn't him, i. e. if John Kenney's account has been compromised, then that reply probably also isn't him? Bishonen | talk 9 July 2005 01:29 (UTC)

I suppose so. How will we ever know seems like a song title. When I last ckecked John's contributions, they seemed legitimate, hydnjo talk 9 July 2005 01:45 (UTC)

This is getting rather silly. john k 9 July 2005 08:42 (UTC)

John, do you mean that your account was not compromised?217.140.193.123 9 July 2005 11:33 (UTC)

Of course my account was not compromised. john k 9 July 2005 16:26 (UTC)

John, I hope that you realize that my tongue was planted firmly within my cheek with all of this. If not then I'm really gonna take that frying pan and whomp you upside yer head! ;-) hydnjo talk 02:06, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Left-Right politics

I seem unable from this particular computer to get a good enough connection to interspersed comments into long dialogues. You seem to be doing better. Two remarks for Talk:Left-Right politics: if you can place them in the appropriate places, it would be appreciated. Thanks in advance.

On malleable v. fixed:

• • • Interestingly, I've encountered people on the left who would also say that this is one of the major distinctions: [[H. Bruce Franklin], for example. (No, I don't have a citation, but he was one of my professors in college, and I remember him lecturing on this in the context of lecturing on science fiction writer Olaf Stapledon). -- Jmabel | Talk July 9, 2005 05:54 (UTC)

• • • The Hoffer remark I think this is notable only because of who said it, and may not be notable enough for this article even at that. Maybe belongs in the article on Hoffer, though. -- Jmabel | Talk July 9, 2005 05:54 (UTC)

Striver

If you are interested, I'd be eager to hear your comments here. BrandonYusufToropov 9 July 2005 10:48 (UTC)

Bloated succession boxes

Some guidelines? I'd be happy to cut them down to size again, but I'm not sure which ones, exactly, to cut off. Choess 22:15, July 9, 2005 (UTC)

Thoughts, please? Would Template_talk:Succession_box or Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (names and titles) be better fora for discussion? Because now that you've removed Leon from the Castilian succession boxes, Valencia should probably be stripped from the Aragonese monarchs. Choess 18:58, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

Proposal ignored

Hi John. I'm just letting you know that your proposal to have Isabel of Brazil moved to "Isabel, Princess Imperial of Brazil" has been completely ignored (not by me, of course). As you can see right here on this message, the link to it, which was red when you first wrote it in your comment, is now blue. That's because in less than 24 hours after you wrote your message (and FearÉireann almost immediately gave his support to your proposition), that same anon turned your suggestion-link into a redirect to the article, under the title he had single-handedly chosen, of course. There were two users supporting the title, but he never bothered to discuss it. I have decided to discontinue conversations with that anon, and in fact to prevent further frivolous altercations on that and other talk pages, I will not join the chorus, although I did like your suggestion. But that's how he opperates in that regard: anything you propose and write in as a red link, he will quietly turn into a redirect to his own conception of the title, even if he hasn't created it yet (I've listed several of his redirects to nonexistent articles for speedy deletion already). Just thought you ought to know. Regards, Redux 23:12, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Oh, how sad whining from a person who possessively tried to make everything possible to have her at Isabel of Orleans-Braganza... Obviously it did not come to the mind of the whiner that I refrained from voting as I regarded Isabel, Princess Imperial of Brazil quite acceptable, and opposed that "IofO-B" variant...217.140.193.123 00:05, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Really?? As in hastefully starting the article so as to make sure the single-handedly picked name was there, and then turning every red link, including those in discussions aimed at renaming the article, into redirects to the already-named article so it can't be moved to the suggested names? Oh wait, that was you. How interesting, since as I recall it, I started a discussion on the talk page. Incidentally, not commenting because you thought that the name you used is fine and ignoring the discussion and turning the links to the suggested new titles into redirects to your naming is the exact opposite of what you should do in the 'pedia. What didn't cross my mind is that you could have done it by accident, and as it turns out, I was right.
John, I'm sorry about this being posted on your talk page... It's like I said... Regards, Redux 04:55, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Oh Redux, I am not responsible for your mental health. And, of course, your obsessions and your paranoias are not the most important things to discuss here.
As you apparently have grave problems, we understand certain outbursts, though I believe tolerance towards you is wearing thin.
What has made you think that an article cannot be moved, and that an existing redirect page is insurmountable? A sysop can make such moves. -Perhaps it is a good thing that only sysops may do that thing, as otherwise certain whackos (I am not naming any names here) would make very problematic moves and namings... Most sysops have enough sanity for actually to refrain from e.g a heading Isabel of Orleans-Braganza
In your possessiveness, you apparently did not understand that I started the article in order to make the article, to write text there. (Would it be too difficult to have you understand that such is the purpose of Wikipedia.)
Were you not under your own paranoia, you would understand that if I had wanted to keep the original heading unchanged (as you try to allege as my purpose, mistakenly), I would have strenuously opposed it in the vote John arranged, and perhaps I would have collected others to support my position (going around and whining for support is possible to others too, not only to you). But, THAT heading was quite acceptable, as good IMO as the original. No one had supported YOUR version for heading. 217.140.193.123 06:33, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Spoken like a true paranoid. Who do you think you're fooling dude? Rambling on will not change anything. Would you rather I stop talking and start acting like you? You think that will accomplish anything? You realize you've just admitted to your little scheme of creating hurdles for the moving of pages.. Redux 13:42, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Alright, both of you, take this somewhere else, please. john k 15:14, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Again, sorry about this John. Regards, Redux 19:25, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Ali ibn Abu Talib

Thanks for the edit. It does make the first para clearer and less cluttered. Zora 02:31, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Re-insertion

Actually, two other people re-inserted it before I did. I wasn't going to get involved until I saw the crap that guy was writing. I hate to say it, but his insistence on, and rationale for, keeping it out really weakened any argument for keeping it out. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:04, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

E-mail

Hi, John. I got your e-mail. Thanks, HKT 02:44, 14 July 2005 (UTC) (P.S. I had bolded that post (about the e-mail) on the talk page so that if anyone would see me try to reinsert the info, they would clearly see why I was "flip-flopping". Given that my post was right in the middle of the page, it may have been difficult to spot it otherwise. Thanks again).

List of islands by population

Thanks for expanding the list. I'd be interested to know your source - was it the page given as an external link? Warofdreams 12:16, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism

John, just noticed a red named user called User:AllanHainey has added a wikisource link to a blank page to the 1st Duke of wellington article, and a user called User:YurikBot is adding ?? or ??? to the languages boxes which lead you to funny pages such as:- http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E3%82%A6%E3%82%A7%E3%83%AA%E3%83%B3%E3%83%88%E3%83%B3%E5%85%AC%E3%82%A2%E3%83%BC%E3%82%B5%E3%83%BC%E3%83%BB%E3%82%A6%E3%82%A7%E3%83%AB%E3%82%BA%E3%83%AA%E3%83%BC

Are those the type of problem users you warned me about? The User:YurikBot appears to be going mad according to his contributions page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/YurikBot Richard Harvey 21:04, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the info / advice on links. RE: the second Vandalism example you mentioned. Looking at the contributions on the IP, I think I know who it was, if so it would have been accidental, by a curious small person, wise beyond her years. I have had a word with someone and he has changed the WiFi encryption codes to his Broadband link, which may help. Richard Harvey 09:33, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

for watching over New Chronology (Fomenko)! --Pjacobi 19:18, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

Elizabeth II renaming (round XXXIV)

You may have noticed *mega sigh* that yet another user has dragged up the lets rename Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom farce, only 9 days after the last vote ended. I have proposed instead this vote:

That Wikipedia stop wasting time on endless revoting on this goddamned issue and ban votes on this issue from this page for at least six months.

Hopefully this will put this nonsense to bed for at least 6 months. Your (hopefully final) vote would be welcome. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 20:59, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Alexandra whatsit

Dear John, I would also be glad of your participation in the latest re-naming vote at Talk:Alexandra Fyodorovna of Hesse. Deb 23:09, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Hmm. Do I have correct information that you have written the following: "I would suggest that we just use their Russian name, i.e. Empress Marie Feodorovna of Russia, Empress Elizabeth Alexeyevna of Russia, Empress Alexandra Feodorovna of Russia, Empress Marie Alexandrovna of Russia - but then we get to a problem, in that we get repetitions of Marie Feodorovna and Alexandra Feodorovna. I would suggest, then, a bastardized hybrid version - Marie Feodorovna of Württemberg, Elizabeth Alexeyvna of Baden, Alexandra Feodorovna of Prussia, and so forth...not perfect, but at least unique... john k 23:42, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)" 217.140.193.123 18:44, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Skyring

If you get a chance, could you keep an eye out for a sockpuppet from Canberra (almost certainly the banned user Skyring who is targeting royal articles and the Bob Geldof article for reversions. He has been mounting a stalking campaign against me (that is why he was banned.) I've been blocking his sockpuppets all right. He is bound to come back for the umpteenth time tonight. He is particularly targeting George VI of the United Kingdom, Bob Geldof and some other articles because I edited them lately. I'm going to protect the above two but he is bound to try other royal articles now.

Thanks for any help you can give. (So much for a ban having much effect on him. David Garard has already banned him indefinitely as HisHoliness and other names. I've been blocking him all night. He has stopped even professing his innocence at this stage, just comes back and hits articles.)

FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 00:09, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Just a Q.

Hi John. For some reason I thought you might know (feel wanted lol :-), it just came to me there, when people are granted CBEs, if they are given say a KBE later, do they lose the CBE post-nominal in place of the KBE? Craigy File:Uk flag large.png (talk) 14:42, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

Tajiks and Iranians

Mr. John Kenney, you're right...I think "Tajiks" are just "Iranians" who live east of the supposed Iranian homeland. But certainly, being a frontier people (living as far east as China), they certainly would have varied in terms of culture or language at least to some extent. - Le Anh-Huy.

Famekeeper/Flamekeeper

Are you one of the historians who has tried to work on articles about the leaders of the Catholic Church in Germany in the 1930s and 1940s? If I have the right name, and it is difficult to find all of the parties because the flame war went on so long, could you please visit Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Famekeeper and see whether you agree with my summary? I have given up on trying to get Famekeeper/Fiamekeeper/Flamekeeper to provide a readable summary of what he thinks are the errors in neutrality because he rants at such length that he is essentially conducting a filibuster.

Thank you. Robert McClenon 23:09, 24 July 2005 (UTC)