User talk:Flammingo

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Welcome! 2 Nazism 3 Moving pages 4 Ori edits 5 Kipling 6 WikiThanks 7 British (on: Satire 8 little aside

[edit] Welcome!

Hello, Flammingo, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  NickelShoe (Talk) 16:20, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, NickelShoe! I'm mostly with the German de.wikipedia, but I'd like to contribute to both... ;-) -Flammingo

[edit] Nazism

Do you have sources for this claim: "When Socialism was not develolping quickly enough for some Socialists, they decided to violently reject the ideas of Internationalism, and focus on their own nation."? -- Vision Thing -- 22:04, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that was Michael Mann, I believe, or even Hannah Arendt's theory, the focus was on violence in politics in the 20s in general. But I have a better source that would rephrase that, it's just that my exam is on THursday and I fear I wont have time before, use "fact" flag if you like to mark it. --Flammingo^Parliament 21:40, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

No, I don't want to dispute it. I wanted to put something like that in the article too, but I didn't have a source. -- Vision Thing -- 11:07, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Inserted it. I must say, the Nazism article is hard to keep in touch with, with five edits a day and all...--Flammingo^Parliament 04:11, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

It's been removed again. I think the problem is that this is the pov of certain historians, but is not necessarily accepted in the mainstream. You are obviously knowledgeable in the field, but it is not in the scope of an encyclopaedia entry to discuss theories such as these. I think it would be better for us to stick to the widely accepted stuff. yandman 14:48, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Moving pages

Hi, in some weeks when I have a bit more leisure time I was going to take a look at the various Platini and similar pages (derivatives of that word). As a historian and the creator, yould you mind if i move it to the singular Palatinus? Just checking. --FlammingoParliament 19:22, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Go ahead! Fastifex 14:50, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Please do not copy and paste articles, as you did with Palatini/Palatinus. When you do that, all the edit history gets lost. If, on the other hand, you use the "move" tab (top of the screen, between "history" and "watch") the edit history gets moved to the new title along with the article. We like to keep full history on our articles. Just FYI. Fan-1967 16:05, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Seen that. Doesn't work now... i added into the info of the history.--Flammingo^Parliament 16:29, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

You click on "move" and it asks you for the new title, and an edit summary. The edit summary is where you'd put the "should be singular". There's also a checkbox option to move the Talk page with it, which you should always do if there is one. It will automatically create a new page at the old title with a redirect to the new one, but the edit history will be at the new title. (It won't work if a page already exists at the new title. You'd need an admin to remove it to do that.) Fan-1967 16:37, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

If you really want to go to the trouble, you could do it. Here's how:

1. Edit the old article (Palatini) to put it back to how it was, with the full content.
2. Remove all the content from Palatinus and replace with a tag, {{db-move|Palatini}}. This is a sign to an admin to delete the page to make room for your move from Palatine.
3. Wait for an admin to get around to deleting Palatinus. (Might be hours. Deletions are really backed up.)
4. Go ahead and do the move.

Hope this helps. Fan-1967 16:50, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ori edits

Hi fammingo! thanks for your contributions on Ori (Stargate), we always enjoy a fresh point of view ;) sorry for continuously reediting you contributions, I just don't agree with all of them. Maybe you could clear up our differences this way?

Your said in your last edit that the society of the ancients/alterans (the gate-builders) and the ori living in a distant galaxy (which would later become known as the ori home galaxy) were known to SG-1 as the "Ancients" before the discovery of the Ori... But before the discovery of the Ori, SG-1 always thought the Ancients evolved in this galaxy (as was stated in avalon), so the name "Ancients" clearly refers to the ones living in the milky way => not the ori and not the ori+alterans living in a distant galaxy...

sorry for making it so complicated :D Maartentje 15:46, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Maarten, now i see your point! ok, so before avalon, all ascended were ancients and the newbies like Anubis and the Abydonians were just called ascended. Now with the Ori, even SG-1, namely Mitchell and General Landry seemed to have some problems understanding Daniel and Orlin renaming everything.

Do you agree that the Atlantians = Atlanteans = Lantians = Lanteans are the Ancients that left the Home Galaxy?

Alteran can be two things. Either it is Latin for "other", referring to the Ori (they are the Ori, we are the Others); or, self-contradictingly, it means "people living on Altera", which Orlin states would include the Ori - and he just explains to Landry that they are not Ancients when you talk about Ori, but now Alterans. I'd go for the first.

That would mean that "Ancient" is the name for the "ancient" evolution of mankind, the guys building the astera porta in general. Including the Ori, but those were supposed to be kept secret. Now that secret is discovered, Orlin wants a new name.

This is a mix-up without a drawing! ;-)

Ancient evolution (Altera Galaxy?)

| split into |

"Ancients", main group and Ori

(Milky Way & Pegasus) (Celestus in unnamed Galaxy, now in what SG-1 calls Ori Home Galaxy)

=> new name: Alteran

(ie. "not Ori")

1)So I thought when there is a paragraph "Ori vs Ancients", it should include the oppositon bit and that both are one race, not coincidently both ascended beings. 2)You asked why talk about how jaffa prefer their traditions in a section about ori religion?, it's because the Ori do not tolerate other traditions, an important aspect for the traditional Jaffa (most of the galaxy!) and Earth (Free Will and Reason)--Flammingo^Parliament 16:01, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

wow, this is getting really complicated, no wonder mitchell and landry get confused :p now this is the way I see it:

=> Ori + alterans/ancients living on celestis in the ori home galaxy => we have no idea what their civilization was called
=> according to dialogue in avalon and the fourth horseman: alterans = the group that left the ori home galaxy millions of years ago (still long before Rising (Stargate Atlantis)) and came to this galaxy, where they eventually became known to the second evolution of humanity in the milky way (us) as the "ancients" (daniel in origin: "it stands to reason they weren't always called the ancients")
=> Lanteans/Atlanteans: the ancients/alterans that left from the milky way "several millions of years ago" according to Rising (Stargate Atlantis) and went to Pegasus.

And about your other 2 comments: 1) yeah, the paragraph "the ori and the ancients" was rewritten to included the opposition bit and that both were one race (see the subparagraph "before ascension").
2) the jaffa just don't belong in a paragraph that explains the ori religion. okay, jaffa traditions and origin might be difficult to reconcile, however, so are origin and christianity, judaism, budhism, etc. however, they're not mentioned there, and they shouldn't be. the paragraph about origin doesn't serve to compare the ori religion with the traditions of all the people in the Stargate universe, it just explains the basics about origin... PS: plz answer on my talk page, as is customary on wikipedia... Maartentje 07:27, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kipling

Hi, I read with interest your additions to Rudyard Kipling and your note on the talk page. I am in the process of rewriting much of that article. I've got as far as Kipling's yearly visit to South Africa. Unfortunately, I haven't got to the Death and Legacy section and that is where most of the problems are. I had left a number of "citations needed" tags in the article and especially in that section, but couldn't finish my rewrite in time and people objected to the sections looking unsightly, so I removed then two days ago. I more or less agree with many of the things you say. If you look at my treatment of the Recessional or White Man's Burden in the "Career as a Writer" section, you'll notice that I give a number of interpretations. I didn't mention the Biblical interpretation specifically only because I didn't want to overdo the interpretation in the life-history section. Kipling was certainly influenced by the Bible especially in his writing style; however, he was not particularly religious himself, certainly not in the same way, say as the Christian evangelists (like William Wilberforce from an earlier era) were in their view of India. And his view of India was one of leaving the natives alone for the most part in matters of religion. I quote from David Gilmour's recent biography, "The Last Recessional: The Imperial Life of Rudyard Kipling": "In his adult poems he often invoked a Divinity--whom he vaguely believed in--and certainly he respected other people's religions. But he was never, in any real sense, a practising Christian. Whatever bigotries he may have collected in the course of his life, religious ones were absent." (Gilmour also mentions in a footnote that in 1908, Kipling described himself as "a godfearing Christian Atheist.") At any rate, I hope to finish the rewrite in another week. Sanjay Tiwari 20:23, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WikiThanks

For rescuing an infant article from oblivion after it had been buried by another Wikipedian's ill-advised redirect: Thank you, Flammingo! —Athaenara (talk) 23:08, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] British (on: Satire

Hello, when you want to link to the article about something British, please do not link to British, as that is a disambiguation page (which nothing should be linked to). Instead link to the one of the options found on that page such as United Kingdom or Great Britain by writing out [[United Kingdom|British]] or [[Great Britain|British]]. Regards, Jeff3000 20:14, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

It seems you spent some time fixing that on many pages yesterday, thank you. Although I disagree and think that [[1]] is perfectly fine and explains more about culture than United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, it shall remain. Please mention which page you refer to next time! ;-) --Flammingo^Parliament 19:02, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] little aside

See User Talk:Notinasnaid little aside. Brian.Burnell 16:33, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm very sorry for you. Though your English is very good, your manners are not English at all. Knock yourself out, best regards to the President of my university, but this seems all very off-topic. I'm sorry --Flammingo^Parliament 19:54, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Flammingo, if anything comes of this, please contact me or leave a note on the administrator's noticeboard. Off-wiki harassment is a serious offense. | Mr. Darcy talk 01:59, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Heh, no need to worry. I can imagine Prof. von Figura's secretaries chuckling and shaking their heads in amusement. Like, for half a minute or so. But the guy has clearly earned himself a ban here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:36, 11 December 2006 (UTC)