Jump to content

User talk:John K

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Str1977 (talk | contribs) at 22:56, 3 May 2005. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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:

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)

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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) [reply]

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]

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)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:John_K&oldid=13228285"