User talk:ALoan/Archive11

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

edit User talk:ALoan Archives
2004 2005 2006 2007

 
• Archive to 19 August
• Archive to 14 October
• Archive to 22 November
• Archive to 31 December

• Archive to 11 February
• Archive to 30 May
• Archive to 31 July
• Archive to 30 September
• Archive to 31 December

• Archive to 28 February
• Archive to 30 May
• Archive to 31 July
• Archive to 30 September
• Archive to 31 December

• Archive to 28 February
• Archive to 31 March
 
 
 

Contents

[edit] Pop tarts and dusty old f*rts.

I want to be clear that, 1. I mean no insult to anyone who works on these subjects. Some of the people, notably you, approach such subjects with all the care that any scholar approaches the driest of textual editions; 2. I try to live within the rules, and so, if the guidelines say "you can't object because of the subject matter," I don't, and that's why I have only entered the lists when the content has put such enormous restrictions on the article that it fails FAC in some other way; 3. I'm not interested in fighting the "delete the cruft" battle, especially there; 4. I know that it's a matter of some perspective (one person's fascination with dead land surveyors vs. another person's fascination with choo-choo trains vs. another person's fascination with a pivotal fiction in his or her life), but I hope that all sides can agree that it's not just a matter of perspective, that there are ways of marking observable lines between rich and poor veins in the mine to strike. Geogre 15:40, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More concise references

Hi, ALoan, it's nice of you to take care of the referencing system for Giano's master pugilist/murderer/homicide victim, but I'm a bit worried about the look of the thing now. Are you sure that heavy peppering of non-consecutive note numbers throughout the text, and that non-alphabetical reference list, are an acceptable price to pay for doing without a separate list of footnotes? (The one I started has disappeared.) It sure wouldn't be in an academic text, in fact I've never seen non-consecutive note numbers used anywhere else than at Wikipedia. They're weird and distracting AFAIC. Note, also, that having a separate note list would enable the references list to be just as concise as yours, only a lot easier to find your way about in, because it could be alphabetical, as well as being without that distracting abc effect. (I'm writing to you rather than Giano because he's always letting it be understood that he's too soulful to discuss footnotes.) Bishonen | ノート 18:56, 2 March 2006 (UTC).

Um, well, I removed the separate lists because the footnotes ended up containing most of the references anyway - they could be separated out again. The note numbers are in numerical order - that is how footnotes usually work, no? I see what you mean about alphabetical references, though, but I'm not sure what can be done about that. I'm sorry you don't like it :( -- ALoan (Talk) 22:26, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
They're in numerical order in the list at the bottom of the page, you mean? Sure. I meant that in the text, the note numbers go 1, 2, 2, 3, 2, 4, and so on. That's what I'm not happy to see; I like to see 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. Also, I like to see fewer note numbers in the text. Did you notice my suggestion, when I started the two separate lists, that they would make it possible to cut down on the number of notes in the text quite drastically (by replacing them with parenthetic references or just mentions, of, say "Anderson", since the link to Anderson's text is in the references list, and easy to find because alphabetized)? IMO it's in the text that an excess of notes are distracting, ugly, giving an off-putting faux-learned appearance, and so on; the reader-friendliness of the text, that the reader will actually read, is a bigger deal than the length of the lists at the bottom of the page, that readers are free to ignore, and that many probably will be happy to ignore. Bishonen | ノート 09:03, 3 March 2006 (UTC).
Well, I suppose it depends on whether you think the superscipt numbers are footnotes or citation of references. If they are footnote, then yes they should go in ascending numerical order (1, 2, 3, etc). But if they are citations of references, and the same reference is cited more than once, then surely (IME) you should use the same reference each time (1, 2, 1, 2, 2, 3, 2, 1, 4, etc), no? Perhaps Harvard style would be better, although I'm not sure how you cite a website in Harvard style. I understand where you are coming from, though...-- ALoan (Talk) 10:46, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Lets leave them as they are - so long as you ALoan promise to maintain them, as they are far too complicated for me, I have not dared even to press the edit button to see how you have acheived this wonder - I just feel it in my waters. Once this page is finished, I would like you all to help me hone it up on compelling prose, amazing fetes (that's not the right fete is it?) of grammar, and then lets throw it on to FAC (I should be more than welcome there!!!) and see what the comment on inline cites are, and then see if some form of policy can be agreed, because at the moment no-one knows if we are on foot or horseback. Keep smiling ALoan at leat it's not boring here! (However, did you come to keep such complany as me) Giano | talk 11:48, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Criterion 2a

Never mind that stuff, though, have you seen that Giano is FARCing all his FAs? After Tony's input on Matthew Brettingham, I can't say I blame him. You and your wikilove. Bishonen | ノート 09:40, 3 March 2006 (UTC).

[edit] More Gresham

Hi, ta for tabling Gresham Astrons. Did you find my comments above, asking you to check out various trial versions at User:JackyR/sandbox? Cheers, JackyR 13:33, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I put a lot of work into implementing your idea for a project, and you don't even have the courtesy to reply. As it happens, I'm not convinced by your table design (how does it improve on, say, a well-set-out list?). If you won't discuss it, I'll simply do my own thing with all of these articles. JackyR 16:44, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Marriage?

No I'm not proposing - are we talking about marriage a la mode or metaphorically about something else? Giano | talk 12:19, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Probably Geogre's - I always have assumed they were a cynical view of the moires and behaviour of upper class behaviour of that time. I expect impoverished earls did marry their sons to the daughters of tradespeople and the like, but the daughters as bourgeois would have been less likely to tale lovers than genuine members of the upper classes. So I would think the first half of the story arranging the marriage and it's subsequent unhappiness is possibly based on something the artist knew of, but the second with the lover, hanging and suicide were wishful thing on Hogarth's apart; also I think as in other upper class culture of Europe while the husband could be unfaithful, the wife usually had to have a couple of legitimate children before she started producing cuckoos. Hogarth's couple had not yet had children. That's my view. Giano | talk 13:12, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] arXiv

hello, there was a link at the bottom of the arxiv.org article, about censorship. check it and put back my contribution :-) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Unixer (talk • contribs) 20:14, 8 March 2006.

[edit] Cricket Archive

Err, we already have CricketArchive. Suggest merge, probably at the latter name. Stephen Turner (Talk) 15:52, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh bum. Ok. -- ALoan (Talk) 15:57, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Salon's open

Hi, Al, the salon is open for business!

Please drop in for a cup of coffee or a fizzy drink! ! Bishonen | ノート 17:45, 10 March 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Rollbacks

One doesn't need a bot flag to revert disputed edits. One needs a bot flag to make them in the first place. I'm open to working out some sort of amicable solution here, but Bobblewik has point-blank ignored me (and quite a number of others) all along, so I have little option but to either revert them or let them stand indefinitely, which I refuse to do. Ambi 05:11, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ODI records

I'd have no objection to sprotecting for a few days. Let's see if we get any more vandalism first though. - Ian ≡ talk 02:26, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FLC promotion

That just shows we spend far too much time in this place :-) Good luck with your new nomination. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 13:14, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Referencing in new article

Hi, ALoan, I don't mean to go on about it, but if you're interested you can see a concrete example of what I consider the advantages of having both a "Footnotes" and a "References" section in this new article. Note the consecutive footnotes throughout the article, and the alphabetical references list. See also how I keep down the number of footnotes by a "covering" note to the first sentence of a section whenever posssible. You like it? (And, oh yeah, you can see the new article itself, too. :-)) Bishonen | ノート 21:29, 13 March 2006 (UTC).

I do see what you mean, but I think it is a case of horses for courses - I'd rather have one section, with repeated references only once, rather than a list of "ibid."s. See Saffron for an extreme example of both approaches together... -- ALoan (Talk) 22:37, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:FARC

It's not your fault. There is some weirdness with the database. Jkelly 01:27, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spoo Farc

A matter of time? Someone making a point? No matter. If you still believe its a good FA, it could use your help. Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates/Spoo. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:50, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

You went back in time one minute after seeing my message! Har! --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:51, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Random Taxiness

You know something about taxes, I presume, so you might be able to shed light on a reference desk question I filed here. Also, whats your opinion of TurboTax? --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 06:34, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry - I am from the UK, so I am not much help when it comes to US taxes. I am a lawyer rather than an accountant, so I am also not much use when it comes to tax returns (or software to do them). -- ALoan (Talk) 09:55, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Scientists needed

Have you seen here? Your trademark 'light copyedits' are always greatly to the benefit of science (and other) articles so I thought you may be interested.

Moon for FA would be good - my plan for the next few weeks was to work my way out through the solar system improving all the articles, so I'm looking at Mercury at the moment. Might find time to work on the moon article by the summer! Worldtraveller 21:24, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks - yes, I have seen it, but I thought I was not qualified to join because I am no longer a scientist in academia. I'm quite happy to help where I can, though. I'm not entirely sure why we need a "board" and suchlike anyway - can't we just get on with nominating articles for review and then reviewing them? -- ALoan (Talk) 11:06, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yet another date links proposal

You may wish to see the proposal at: Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#linking_of_dates. Thanks. bobblewik 11:01, 15 March 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Thank you

I've been in court most of the morning, and will be for at least two hours this afternoon, perhaps you would like ensure the "rose tinted" stays where it belongs. I can then give the job my full attention knowing the Palazzo is safe for a few hours. Fortunately, I was batting late morning and someone decided they wanted to attack me, so I was able to do a quick revert in the adjournment. Oh the important things in life, if only I'd done tax, I could be rich like you and have time to do this as well. I fully expect to see it FARCd before the end of the day for insufficient footnotes and cites - I must have a snarl ready in anticipation. Giano | talk 14:16, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Ha - I have a conference call at 3pm and need to finalise comments on a structure paper, and then review a heap of documents. I'd rather be in court. -- ALoan (Talk) 14:39, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dwingeloo 1

Hello. Sorry if i'm POing you by talking about this galaxy. It's just i've never talked to an astronomical object discoverey (not counting the one leter from Geoff Marcy). I just have a couple of questions that can't be answered on the artical:

  • What was the mood when your team found D1 + D2?
  • Is Dwingeloo 1 a code name (e.g. Messier object) or is it a propor name (e.g. Andromeda Galaxy)?
  • Ever thought of asking HST or SST to get a good look at D1 + D2? (I heard SST looked through the Milky Way's dust and saw it's bar)

I would be really happy if you could answer mw questions. — Hurricane Devon ( Talk ) 12:12, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please take another look

I have tried to address your concerns and the concerns of others at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of largest suspension bridges. I hope you will take another look. Thanks. -- Samuel Wantman 07:40, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Simon Byrne

Is now in main space (complete with the amazing foot note system!) It's not been completed to the standard I would have liked, but there was not a lot more I could find out about him, in fact I think this is probably the most complete page anywhere - so it will have to do, perhaps someone somewhere out there can add more. Thanks for the help. Giano | talk 21:53, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] John Brooke-Little

Greetings...based on some other edits I've seen you do in heraldry-related articles, I thought you might like to join in the peer review of John Brooke-Little's article. Your input would be greatly appreciated. Keep up the great work.--Evadb 15:19, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cricket Quiz

Remember, you got Q154 right! GizzaChat © 15:05, 25 March 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Simon Byrne FAC

Kind thought but no it wouldn't pass! Horrible lead image. Two many short paragraphs. Not enough about his family (did he have one) have you forgotten on Matthew Brettingham's FARc someone even wanted to know why he had only one child? (probably had a small penis). I'm afraid what is here, is all there is, and it won't be enough for the FAC people. If you nominate it fine, but you will have to guide it through. One thing I will say though it has (thanks to you) a wonderfull footnote system and should pass for that reason alone ALoan Giano | talk 09:45, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I think my learned friend may be joshing with me. -- ALoan (Talk) 09:54, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I am of course indebted to you, and defer your superior knowledge on this most complex of subjects. However, learned as you are I fear you are taking an over simplified view or the matter, I will take little pleasure in seeing that so very publicly proven. In Wiki language on your own head be it!. Now I'm off to take my delightful family out for an exorbitantly priced Mothering Sunday lunch. It will be a painful experience for all, one is in the States, so it's mother is already sad. One is sullen because it's had to cancel a rugby match to attend. The other will be objectionable because skinless sausages (its staple diet) will not be on the menu, and the last will doubtless scream the entire time and embarrass us as the English don't really like children out in public. A view I am beginning too to acquire. Have a nice day too. Giano | talk 10:08, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh Go on then if you want to and think it will pass. Let's have a laugh but (A): do not mention me in the nomination or it will fail miserably and (B) You take care of the footnotes - I am too frightened to touch them. Sill though on your own head be it Giano | talk 15:02, 28 March 2006 (UTC).
  • Well, we did it! Well done. I would never have nominated it without the oush from you. Thanks! Giano | talk 16:18, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
You wrote it! I wish my articles were anywhere near half as good. -- ALoan (Talk) 16:55, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The caritas et the stick

I've gone over some of the text now -- all piddly little things, really -- but I thought I'd express here what I don't want to express in an FAC vote. The report on the encyclical itself is quite full, with perhaps an overbalance toward excerpts from the text, but what's missing from my ("context! context! context!") point of view is reaction or effect of the encyclical. If a paragraph on reception, interplay, and effect of the enyclical were added, it would balance out somewhat the quotations and place the object in a wider context. I know that the vulgar were all abuzz over how the document wasn't what they'd expected (what they expected differed), but those folks are hardly worth crediting (the news reporters, I mean). In the months that have followed, though, have there been implications (the rulings on homosexual seminarians, for example) or reactions? Does it indicate a pendulum swing from the farthest anti-Liberation Theology position that Ratzinger took when he castigated Ramirez? Has there been more on social justice's divisibility from charity? Hasn't anyone asked how you can love the poor and not struggle to see those who wound them removed from power? That kind of thing.... Any of that would be a corrective to the quotations. Geogre 17:32, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, thanks for looking. To be honest, I nominated it just as a toe in the water - if it swims, great; if not, never mind. I agree that the article is begging for some reaction / implications / support / criticism, but I am not sure if there has been much citable reaction yet. Give it another year or two and we shall see. I am also a little uncomfortable with the quotations (see the talk page) - the rest is mine, but the quote were added by someone else. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:03, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


[edit] A Respected Admin required

Not often do I wish I had admin powers (Oh how imprtant I should feel) but just occasionally I do think it would be helpful. Perhaps Bishonen, Geogre or you would like to bang some heads together here [1] Seems to me like inexperienced admins handling a difficult customer in completely the wrong way, and making the situation worse. Good luck! Giano | talk 12:47, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry - I don't want to intervene. The policy is clear and has good reasons. I don't entirely agree with the (apparently) heavy-handed way they are going about it, although there has been substantial non-compliance with policy for a substantial period so I can see why tempers are getting shorter. Why can't he accept the deletion of the offending images? -- ALoan (Talk) 13:34, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Me neither. You're crazy, mon. [/me resumes desultory banging together of own two heads,
Tulipface and Bishzillahead.] Bishonen, 13:36, 27 March 2006 (UTC).
  • Oh it's a tulip, I thoght it was an acorn (without my glasses) - why have you got this thing about tulips - Oh don't bother..it'll be too complicated - I don't want to know. I think it a great pity you have all decided to neglect your responsibilities as admins - I hope you all get de-sysoped! The simple fact is he does not want to delete his images, because he is a maverick, and mavericks don't always like to conform to the norm. If we did not have mavericks the world would be a very boring place indeed wouldn't it? - Yes it woud Giano! So a nice simple solution has to be found to make everyone happy doesn't it? Yes Giano as always you are so right. Good all agreed then - now go and sort it out. Must I run this site single handedly? Giano | talk 13:46, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Friendly advice: break out the glasses and take a good look at the OTHER HEAD above. Those are atomic rays coming from the mouth. Don't you feel a renewed impulse to be EXTREMELY polite to that head? Bishonen talk 13:51, 27 March 2006 (UTC).
Oh, I always felt a sneaking admiration for Mothra... -- ALoan (Talk) 13:54, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
    • No I don't. I just see a very mean spirited grumpy old monster, with a beautiful rainbow coming out of her mouth, which means she is about to go off and do goodly works about the site - now off you go and be a good girl! Giano | talk 13:56, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Phillipee Edmondees

More than very possibly, in fact certainly. I was typing on the fly at the time.LessHeard vanU 12:33, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hey :-)

Brave to ask her to marry me in the first place! She'll keep me on my toes, and I suspect reduce my time on this place ... which, in some ways is a good thing :P Thanks for your well wishes! - Ta bu shi da yu 12:36, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Roman Emperors by Epoch

I just did some rearrangements of the Roman Emperors template, but basicly reverted to the previous layout. I'm not completely happy with that layout, as you may see at Template talk:Epochs of Roman Emperors. I'd like to invite you to take part in these talks and/or use {{Epochs of Roman Emperors/Temp}} for try-outs. --Francis Schonken 18:03, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Starfleet ranks and insignia and PD by paramount claim

It was not my idea and you are right unless we can find a source to this end but I heavly doubt any explicit statements of PD images. I have revised those images to standard fairuse template until they can be redrawn. --Cool CatTalk|@ 14:44, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Why did you fail the featured list? The copyright thing is a case of copyright paranoia in my opinion. --Cool CatTalk|@ 17:15, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Paranoia or not, between the substantial level of opposition and little support, I could see little justification for promoting it when its 10 days were up. But don't let that stop you re-nominating it if you think it would pass at a second attempt. -- ALoan (Talk) 17:30, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Very well, I understand however the debate is ongoing regarding weather or not are we violating copyrights.
I want to clear the copyright issue of which you may want to be a part of the debate.
A second attempt at this point would be futile as people will use the same excuses...
--Cool CatTalk|@ 12:20, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree that the copyright issue needs to be resolved, and that the list would not stand much of a chance until the isusue is resolved. Thanks for the invitation, but I also know enough about copyright law to know that the area is sufficiently complicated that I don't know enough to venture much of an opinion on the topic. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:43, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The New Prison

I haven't the vaguest where it is. This is a problem, because I got the information from Howson and from (ick!) David Nokes. Gerald Howson isn't that interested in Sheppard, specifically, and a lot of prisons went by multiple names. If your source in the Sheppard article is solid, use it over anything gotten from Nokes, especially, as Nokes's skills as an editor are called into question a hundred different ways. Geogre 15:48, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, I saw the recent drama-doc on Sheppard last night and wanted to expand his article a little - I have added a couple of good-looking external links there (sorry, my standards of scholarship are about four notches below yours :) I have found a reference to a "New Prison" serving Middlesex, but not where it was. There were plenty of "New Prisons" in London later (Newgate was rebuilt; Bridewell too; Holloway; Pentonville, etc...) but they are too late for Sheppard. I wonder what became of the St Giles Roundhouse. -- ALoan (Talk) 16:05, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] References on Deus Est Caritas

You reverted my change about how big references should be. Most FAs have this (eg today's featured article Voter turnout, Electrical engineering, Frog (ie three of the last four Today's Featured Articles), Saffron and many others); I just thought it was best to make this style "standard". Batmanand | Talk 16:02, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

As far as I am aware, most articles that do it use it to save space. To my mind, it is a rather poor form to tell readers what font they should be using. As I said in my edit summary, I don't think we need to save space for 14 refs. -- ALoan (Talk) 16:05, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
That is fine, if that is what you want to do that is absolutely fine. I am not sure about "poor form", but if you do not want to have it at 85% then don't. I was just being bold, but this time it was unnecessary. Batmanand | Talk 17:29, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, font and font size is surely a browser or skin issue rather than an article issue, no? I appreciate that you are being bold and would not want you to stop - it is just that I don't think this is a "standard" yet in all cases. -- ALoan (Talk) 18:01, 29 March 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Yours I think

Do you want to handle this one [2]? I quite like it as it is, so am tempted to ignore, but I suppose one can't - can one? You have a fiddle and rename I won't complain whatever you decide. Giano | talk 21:22, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Images: problem is they all look fine on my screen. I have moved the final image further down the page and made smaller - is that any better? I suppose the one of George IV could go. I won't touch them. any more,you have a go first ALoan or we will be conflicting each other and no-one having a clue what looks best. Giano | talk 09:19, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
They look fine to me too - I think the long, thin newspaper one is the major problem, so have downsized it further. I have no idea what else to do. -- ALoan (Talk) 09:22, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
He must have some very small lap-top or something? I don't like what I did to the final image it looks stipid stuck down there, I'll leave for the tme being though and see what results. Apart from that object it's looking OK (so far) isn't it? Giano | talk 09:26, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
I had no real doubts about it (unlike my papal missive - I am pleasantly surprised so far). -- ALoan (Talk) 09:54, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
I see we have just had a copy edit from Hoary so it's getting some interest. I must turn the internet link off now, as I'm not getting on with what I am supposed to be doing - prepping for next week, will have another look in an hour or so - so long. Giano | talk 10:10, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I know it's very mean, but I followed the links from your message below, and can't help but smirk - the problems I have ghad with that FARC crowd (I note Miss Madeline is to the front) perjhaps now they will aloow themselved to be told! Anyway the page is still looking good (ours I mean) Giano | talk 14:24, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
    • The problem with this place is that there is so little collective memory - us old-timers are very thinly spread, what with people giving up, taking wikibreaks, etc; and the constant influx of well-meaning tyros makes us a herd of goldfish condemned to repeat history. Sigh. It is a struggle to stay even approximately in the same place. But your page is great; I need a friendly Catholic theologian to sort out my one. But 18th century thieves are much more interesting :) -- ALoan (Talk) 14:31, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Don't worry look the Vaticano have released the photo to all the main agencies to publicise. it's nit just a Reuters own [3], I'll have a hunt arownd the other It. sites thay tend to have a lot more stuff like this than the English speaking Giano | talk 15:01, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

No, only the same foto realy all over the place, I'm sure Carnildo is wrong about it. If he is going to be tiresome though there is one that would do on commons in category Pope Benedict XVI.jpg that would sort of do, ther is also the Papal arms there that would add a little colour too to the page. Giano | talk 17:14, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Something

Thanks, I was aware of the FARC but was busying myself with other matters. Johnleemk | Talk 14:14, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Was that a keep then? Giano | talk 22:33, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sheppard

I've added DNB to the article. I'll add the citation to the DNB later, as well as the reference to Gerald Howson. Anyway, I got to knock out one of the long standing irritants ("workhouse"), and I've added some detail. Geogre 17:20, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Excellent - much better. Many thanks. -- ALoan (Talk) 17:37, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

References added. I really need (or someone really needs) to (re)-read Albion's Fatal Tree. It's fairly popular fare, but it's good, solid scholarship on how the condemned were treated. Also, before stumbling away from the Sheppard article altogether, here are sources the DNB authors used:

  • (Daniel Defoe?) The history of the remarkable life of Jack Sheppard 1724
  • Two more anonymous pamphlet lifes.
  • Applebee's Original Weekly Journal (certainly by Defoe), July-November 1724
  • 1933 H. Bleackley and S. M. Ellis, Jack Sheppard.
  • Gerald Howson on Wild (already cited).
  • P. Rawlings. Drunks, whores and idle apprentices: criminal biography in the 18th century. 1992.

That last one sounds most interesting to me, if P. Rawlings knows how to write in a lively manner. Geogre 19:14, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Geogre, Questia don't got it, but typing in Rawlings drunks whores got me these (in a list of twenty):
  • THE OXFORD HISTORY OF THE PRISON: The Practice of Punishment in Western Society, edited by Norval Morris and David J. Rothman, 1995.
  • Gwenda Morgan and Peter Rushton, Rogues, thieves and the rule of law: The problem of law enforcement in north-east England, 1718-1800, 1998.
  • Clive Emsley, Crime and society in England, 1750-1900. Second edition, 1996.
Sounds pretty good, don't it? ALoan, this is a "virtual library" with a (very reasonable) subscription, but you can search and get lists of books from keywords, like I just did, without being a subscriber, and order 'em through your local library or Amazon or whatever. It comes in handy sometimes. Bishonen | börk börk börk 17:55, 3 April 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Judicial Appointments Commission

Thanks for expanding this article. I see you changed some of the names of members back to how a previous editor had written them. Some things such as including the titles "Mr", "Ms", and whether or not to use commas between postnominals is a matter of personal preference, so I won't revert those. However, why should "Mr Justice" be linked when there is no article on that? Please only link it again if you intend to write an article. Instead, I've linked it to the High Court section of Judiciary of England and Wales which explains it. The same goes for President of the Law Society. There are too many red links on that page anyway. As for "Baroness Usha Prashar", that's simply an incorrect form of address. I hope to see articles on some of the other members appearing! JRawle (Talk) 19:53, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments, and my apologies for inadvertantly cutting across your changes - I'll change them back. I was editing the version from User:Amuller and I think there was a silent edit conflict. I didn't feel very strongly about the "Mr" etc, but I prefer your version (my original version from January did not have them).
I have created a redirect for Mr Justice, like the one for Lord Justice, and we ought to have any article for President of the Law Society too - just that no-one has written it yet! - so I've created another redirect. We also ought to have articles on the other members of the Commission, particularly the senior judicial members, such as Lord Justice Robin Auld, and Lady Justice Heather Hallett. I'm not so sure about the lay members, although they are all "the great and the good", with other interesting appointments. -- ALoan (Talk) 09:37, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] sret1

Ah, you've found out my secret identity... Stephen Turner (Talk) 14:40, 6 April 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Sanssouci

ALoan dear friend would you be tremendously kind - as only you can be! I have just completed a mammoth copy-edit and rewrite of Sanssouci which a group of people translated from the German original, unfortunately with some of it's mistakes etc. as well. They and now me too would like to see it on FAC - it actually languishing there as we speak - but will almost certainly fail this time. It still need work, but could you quickly give it one of your once overs........please? I'll be nice to you for evermore, and never laugh at your obelisks again! Giano | talk 14:46, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Suggest you put {{inuse} when/if you do as there is alot of fiddling about going on with it. Giano | talk 15:02, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

It is unlikely to be today. Perhaps this evening. -- ALoan (Talk) 15:07, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Oh you're a star ALoan! Giano | talk 15:10, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Phew - a pain that was. Written by Germans orignally you can tell it was quite clearly. -- ALoan (Talk) 00:07, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
OH hell, can you still tell? I've reduced it by half, and altered so much, I really thought removed the efficient and thorough feel. You've done a really great job - Thanks. What more do you think it need for FAC?..........Giano | talk 06:25, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the FAC vote. I only noticed it this afternoon - the page is now firmly re-launched, I really hope for the original crew it succeeds, there is something very worthwhile about undertaking such a mammoth translation. Working on it has negated my guilt for never undertaking anything similar - but God it is such a boring laborious job - I admire anyone who can do it for more than half an hour. It sounds daft but I can't think in two languages at once, so no matter how fluent one is the task, for me, becomes no easier. Horrible.Thanks ALoan for all your help. Giano | talk 14:26, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Other minor editing tips

Thanks, and I'm glad to see you left an edit summary! ;) JRawle (Talk) 16:07, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of test cricket records

Hi ALoan. I'm a bit confused with these edits of yours. Why have you unbolded Lara, Hayden and others? AFAIK they haven't retired. Mikker (...) 10:01, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Jayasuriya has retired, but the others haven't as far as I know... Mikker (...) 10:02, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Hi - I could not see much point bolding, for example, Lara's 400* - that record is not going to change. He may score another 400+, but that 400* is never going to get any bigger. Before I started, Lara was not emboldened in the "Most runs in an over" section (nor indeed was Shahid Afridi) and I thought that made sense - perhaps I have made a mistake, but I thought we should only put a person's records that could change in bold. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:23, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Howdy, sorry for the delay in getting back to you, I wasn't watching your talk... Mmmm... now I get what you did. However, don't you think it would be better simply to bold all players who are currently active? Could possibly be confusing otherwise (someone might wonder why Lara is bolded in one place but not another). That said, this isn't too important so if you wanna keep it your way, feel free. Cheers, Mikker (...) 13:21, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
I find making them non-bold unintuitive, and it seems other people do too because it's just been reverted once again. I understand your logic, but it still feels wrong to me. I suggest leaving them alone this time if you don't want to keep reverting it! Stephen Turner (Talk) 11:17, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Well, do we use bold to draw attention to current players simply because they are current players and so may extend existing records or add new ones, or to draw attention to records that may change? Perhaps some inline comments would help, or perhaps I should just give up :) -- ALoan (Talk) 11:27, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Wisden almanac bolds current players (though it is not good enough a reason for us to do something !) Tintin (talk) 11:29, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Shrug. As long as we explain what we are doing and are consistent, it does not matter too much. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:35, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Lists

Thanks for your note. I'll correct the bot, but I'm actually not sure the lists are worth keeping at all: see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket#List of Test cricketers and List of ODI cricketers. Stephen Turner (Talk) 11:00, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] In Appreciation

Thanks, ALoan! I just figured out how to send my appreciation to you on your own talk page! I also left some thanks to you on my talk page, and in the 1755 Lisbon Earthquake talk page. There is much to learn here about contributing and editing, so I do appreciate the helps you posted on my talk page. Best of Luck on your contributions! Polycarp7 17:12, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] {{FCpages}}

Um - have I missed a discussion about moving the generic section of {{fapages}} and {{FLpages}} to a sub-template? The nice little "←" doesn't display on WP:FLC any longer, for example... -- ALoan (Talk) 17:08, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't think of the arrow being useful on the sub-pages. I made a change to the sub-template to show the arrow for various sub-pages, but there are always going to be sub-sub-sub pages which it won't take into account. I think having one common structure for all is a good thing, but if the arrow on all pages is more important we can switch it back. --CBDunkerson 21:11, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
No problem - you were just being bold, after all. Raul654 and I struck on the arrow as a handy hint so a reader can easily identify which part of the featured content they were looking at (some discussion in my talk archive). I still think it is useful, but I'm not sure if your "#if" expression can work it out for the various sub-sub-pages... -- ALoan (Talk) 21:21, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Substubs change

Hi. I've been a quiet admirer of the good work you've been doing for quite a while now, but I'm not convinced that your change in this instance is an improvement, because to move a name from one column to another now takes two edits instead of one. I'm about to get stuck into these again, having completed the Wisden Cricketers of the Year redlinks earlier in the week. Johnlp 21:35, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. Actually, having done a few today and having spotted as well that User:QazPlm had tackled Tom Horan, I had a blinding flash about why you'd done it, and thought it highly sensible. So I withdraw redfacedly and unreservedly: it's a very marginal inconvenience and a very worthwhile gain. And now there are only 1,398 of them to go... Johnlp 23:32, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sanssouci is a Featured Article

Hi ALoan, this is not spam as you are a valued editor to Sanssouci so I think we can give ourselves a brief pat on the back as Sanssouci is now a Featured article. Now it is time to comment here [4]. Regards Giano | talk 08:11, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Ah, congrats are due to you, too, ALoan. Tony 01:29, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

You are too kind: someone else does the difficult job of writing the right words, I just do the easy job of trying to put them in the right order... -- ALoan (Talk) 20:33, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] TfD nomination of Template:Fpopages

Template:Fpopages has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. (I am telling you because you have edited it). Batmanand | Talk 22:38, 15 April 2006 (UTC) Sorry rush of blood to head. Ignore it. No longer listed. Batmanand | Talk 23:34, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

There is no problem with being bold. Keep up the good work. -- ALoan (Talk) 23:35, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Talk Ex-Yugoslavia

Talk:Kosovo#2 Administrator for Ex-Yugoslavien articels in Wikipedia- The voice of Kosovar

[edit] Wikilove

Thank you. I was dreading opening up my talk page just then after recent events, and was pleasantly surprised by you! -- Francs2000 23:54, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lord Oaksey

Hi there. I noticed you've created Lord Oaksey as a redirect to the first Baron. I'm no expert on the nobility, but would this not be better as a redirect to Baron Oaksey instead? --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 11:24, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi - I am just populating some redirects for Law Lords from articles on legal cases. Chances are that a reference to Lord Oaskey will be to the first Baron, Geoffrey Lawrence, 3rd Baron Trevethin and 1st Baron Oaksey, who was a judge at the Nuremburg trials and later a Law Lord, rather than the rather less well-known John Geoffrey Tristram Lawrence, 4th Baron Trevethin and 2nd Baron Oaksey, who is a redlink.
Most Law Lords are life barons, so it is not a problem, but I don't have a strong opinion on where the redirect should go for the hereditary ones.What about Lord Buckmaster? -- ALoan (Talk) 11:59, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
In that situation, I'd probably have piped them to the appropriate person rather than redirecting, but I'll take your word for it that one Lord is much the most notable. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 09:04, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Oh, no doubt piping is the right thing to do (I know some people runs bots for that sort of thing) but I think it helps to create the redirects to pick up plain links in other articles or to help people find the article when they are searching. In another case, Lord Keith, I took your approach and redirected to Baron Keith as there are a handful of well-known ones, including more than one Law Lord. Lord Clyde is another instance. -- ALoan (Talk) 14:27, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vietnam Veterans Memorial

Thank you for your comments. I have consistently found the worst weak link in Wikipedia are inaccurate timelines which often either misstate or place opinions in the story. The timeline is a *****VERY***** effective to notice these mistakes at a glance (parituclarly in controversial areas). Once the timelines are accurately established folks can revert back to the conventional paragraph articles. Many of my corrections adopt this approach which involve some VERY controversial topics (e.g., Vietnam).

The timeline is very much in play in comparison to the World Trade Center Memorial. I believe that stories where I've gone to the trouble to contribute timelines (which take a suprising amount of time) greatly contribute to the accuracy.

As regards to the sandbox comments, welcome to the world of wiki! I focus on content. I thank the folks who contribute format corrections. If I see a bunch of corrections by a contributor I assume they are reviewing and then re-reviewing and then re-re-reviewing their comments. I wish I could get it right the first attempt. But my corrections sometimes occur over several hours (days).Americasroof 03:24, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments and advice!21:02, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DYK

Updated DYK query Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Miller v. Jackson, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--Cactus.man ✍ 08:25, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re the whole de-bureaucrating thing

Hi, I never came to thank you for the message you left for me a month ago when I stepped down from being a bureaucrat. Thank you for the things you said, it's good to know there are still plenty of good people about in this project. I do not see myself standing for bureaucrat again anytime soon though who knows what the future may bring! Thank you once again. -- Francs2000 09:42, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of DanceSport Dances

Yeah, I guess so—I'm going to reevaluate it and try to figure out what it's missing. Going for three and a half days without comment while the nomination right above it got half a dozen posts suggests that there's more to be done. If it would have succeeded, the votes likely would have been along the lines of "well, I guess it's ok", not "wow, what a great list", which is what I would want. So I have more work to do, and I didn't see any sense in letting it sit around cluttering things up. --Spangineer[es] (háblame) 23:46, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Red Cross article split

Greeting ALoan, I came across the Red Cross article recently and was shocked to realize we have only one huge article to describe the whole Movement. You and the other editors have done a great job, the article is terrific, but I think it should be split -- or maybe "create subsidiaries" is a better term.

We can certainly keep one unified article that discusses the braoder Movement and the relationship between all of its parts. But, we should also have subsidiary main articles as well. Users shouldn't have to comb through the huge Movement article to glean bits of information about, say, the ICRC. I think the ICRC in particular screams for a separate article, plus probably the Red Cross Federation and even some national chapters if some industrious editors are willing to write it. I've only read Forsythe's two books about the ICRC, but I'd like to start the the subsidiary articles and hopefully get your help. If you know anyone else who's passionate about the subject, sign them up as well. Thanks - Draeco 01:19, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestion Request

I notice you often comment on Featured List requests - I think that List of temples of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints meets the criteria; however, since I am new to that process I am asking for any advice/suggestions to identify any deficiencies prior to nomination. thx in adv. Trödel 02:28, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments - will get to work on it over the next few weeks. Trödel 12:40, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dorset Garden Theatre

Nice! —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 15:37, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Very nice — I'd put it up for DYK if I knew how, but I never could figger that weird "template" thing. Bishonen | talk 18:08, 3 May 2006 (UTC).
Thanks. Well, there was this nasty redlink, and I saw we had some nice images. We could do with writing articles for the King's Company, Duke's Company and United Company though. I have immodestly already added this one to the suggestions list at DYK. -- ALoan (Talk) 18:31, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reminder

Qz. Tintin (talk) 18:40, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DYK

Updated DYK query Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Dorset Garden Theatre, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--Cactus.man ✍ 21:39, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


[edit] A Firm hand

Thanks for fixing my page up, with BoG's beautiful barnstar. On another matter completely would you please be so kind as to ge here [5] readl all about it. and then permatan Le baron it will come to that in the end, so we might just as well ban him now and save lots of trouble later - a couple of years should do the trick. Perhaps I should be an admin - I have a very developed sense of Justice - I was only told that somewhere the other day, when the result I suggested was halved! Anyhow don't let me hold you up! Be firm in your resolve ALoan to uphold justice and fairness of Wikipedia. Giano | talk 13:25, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

UK Cabinet reshuffle, May 2006 See your editing here - why is there no mention of the appaulingly awful mess that Margaret Beckett made at DEFRA with the RPA. If I were part of the electorate I would mention it very strongly. Wgat have they done withall the Farmer's money - where is it - I would like to know. She should be forced to explain not promoted, to hide the fact the NFU was calling for her resignation. Perhaps they hope her caravan will cut dowon on travelling expenses, only reason I can think of. Really! Can you immaginge an Italian politician travelling arownd like a diddicoy - what is your once great country comming too - I despair. Giano | talk 13:46, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
My dear Giano - Re your user page: you are most welcome. I'm not all that exercised about honorifics, to be honest. But you should see the horrendous edit warring over a single exernal link at Richmond Herald which has lasted for about a month...
I guess you are talking about the Rural Payments Agency and the Single Payment Scheme? I have not noticed a growing scandal on The Archers - pray tell more. Even so, I'm not sure that warning Ms Beckett for vandalism, or even blocking her from editing, would achieve much... -- ALoan (Talk) 14:05, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Mrs Becket owes all the British farmers millions of pounds which she should have paid to them in Feb/March. now they are all overdrawn at the bank paying interest while Mrs Beckett has skipped off as Foreign secratatry. The money - where is it I ask. The NFU (National Farmer's Union) had put her on notice they were to call for her resignation. She, Lord Bach and Lord Titty and other high ranking people at DEFRA all have to appear before a special investigative committtee at Westminster to say why the farmers have not been paid. But now she is Foreign Secratary she cannot resign as DEFRA Secratary of State so another imminent scandal has been avoided - very neat you see. You miss out on so much when you only read British papers - remember the abdication crisis - You must remember all those lovely holidays that nice signor Berlusconi gives all your polliticians, perhaps now Mrs Beckett can have a rest from her caravan and a nice holiday instead - You miss out on so much stuck in tax! Giano | talk 15:27, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, farms do not figure terribly highly in my area. We have Gordon and Red Dawn and now Ed Balls to watch. I see Lord Bach has taken the opportunity to go while the going is good too.[6] Lord Titty? Sounds like someone from a farce... -- ALoan (Talk) 15:47, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Descendents of Edward IV and Henry VII

What sort of social rank would one have to bear in their family, in order to be a descendent of either?

How far up the totem pole, would you say?

This is intended to have broad answers and based on gradients of time and population, not going into specifics about exact descendents. About how common is their descent in the English or British genepool today?

I've noticed that American Presidents don't descend from either king, but the most common recent royal ancestor shared by many of us is Edward III. How common is it for anybody in the English or British genepool, to have a Protestant royal ancestor?

There is a general cutoff, isn't there?

Is it because of fratricide in the Wars of the Roses, the Tudors' "new men", or the Union of the Crowns, or the parliamentary union under Queen Anne (I can't think of any non-royal family descent from the Hanoverians within the UK)?

I'm thinking that there is a big difference between Plantagenet and Tudor descents, that the commons in all likelihood have the former and the latter is held by the lords. (just generally speaking) Then again, Tudor descent in the Welsh must be higher in general. I am further curious about pre-Royal Tudor blood in Anglo-British people today, since the status and/or concept of Welsh royalty/nobility is rather hazy in my mind. I found the Blevins aka Ap Bleddyn family of Powys in my ancestry, but have no real idea on what to make of it--or any other Welsh "native aristocracy". I might be able to find Stewart descent somewhere, from way back when. What percentage of Hanoverian background do you think that German colonists had in America?

On the British side, I have to go as far back as Welf himself...but any recent genetic relationship with the Hanoverians or the counts of Nassau are completely obscure. How does one research those other colonial people, such as the Hessians?

UK genealogy is relatively easy when focusing on English (and French) ancestries. What would a "national person" of Jerusalem (or Antioch, for example) in Crusader times be known as?

We say "American" for those Founders, but was there such a nationality-term for the Crusaders in their own domains?

I guess the term is supposed to be Levantine/Outremer, or "Crusader" as our national heritage says "Colonist"...

IP Address 11:03, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for a considerate reply. IP Address 11:46, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Colonel Francis Charteris

Wow - You doubled it up! Thanks and well done! --Irishpunktom\talk 18:47, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Heraldry Portal?

Hey. I've proposed the creation of an heraldic portal. If you think that such a thing would be helpful, you can voice your support HERE and hopefully we can get the heraldry category items organized better. Thanks for all your hard work on heraldic topics.--Eva db 08:56, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Gosh - I didn't know there was an process for proposing new portals! When I created P:UK last year, I just did it.
A Heraldry portal could be useful as a way of showcasing our heraldry content. Creating a portal is easy; maintaining it is harder. And if the intention is to co-ordinate efforts, then a Wikipedia:WikiProject (Wikipedia:WikiProject Heraldry?) may be more helpful. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:30, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Geometer Meets the Geogre

I've issued a 3RR warning to the editor at Gresham College. In fact, he was at 5 reverts in 24 hours, so he can be/could have been blocked. I've watchlisted the article, so if he reverts again, I will go with a 24 hour block. It's a really weird change, especially without any tirades or reasoning over the change. Geogre 18:03, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DYK!

Updated DYK query Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Colonel Francis Charteris, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Since you did so much work on this article, it only seems fitting to let you know as well. Thank you for your efforts. ++Lar: t/c 02:46, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


Updated DYK query Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Lord Simon of Glaisdale, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

[edit] GA spam on featured template

hi, i see that the "good article" spam has been put back in Template:featured despite objections from several users. this seems to be the way the GA project works: boldly putting something into a page that doesnt want it, then claiming consensus is required to *remove* it again (consensus is never required to put it there in the first place).

this is exactly the same behaviour as witnessed on the attempt to create an article space "good article" star, which i & raul654 finally managed to have deleted (a huge effort since they had already spammed a 1000 articles with it), and on the Community Portal where this non-policy wikiproject has pride of place - its apparently far more important than any of the other dozens of collaborations!

they even had the cheek to remove the "non-policy process" template from the top of their project pages claiming they now had "enough support to be policy" - this is despite clear consensus on the talk page that its NOT policy. an attempt to put it back was quickly removed.

i would appreciate any comments on the template's talk page. i'm really fed up with fighting these GA spam battles everywhere, its quite tiring. why do they have to constantly spread their GA spam everywhere? hope you can help! Zzzzz 09:45, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Have a SMILE!

Eva db has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk pages. Happy editing!

[edit] Making Love vs. Buying It Pre-Assembled

Dammit man, I was going to create A Harlot's Progress. Oh well. I snooze, I lose. (You didn't add the picture to the article? Whyfornot? Want a scan of Moll's sickbed with Misaubin? I've considered scanning in the whole series, as well as the other "Progress" series Hogarth did.) (Do not go get one of the web versions. They're all hideously low res.) Geogre 02:51, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I did the first scan of plate one just to illustrate Charteris, and to use as a joke various places, so I intentionally cropped it. I'll do a full high res scan a bit later and upload it, so pretty soon the image will show the clergyman, as well as the housewife doing her washing (who stands as a moral opposite to Moll, both in terms of profession and in plate 5's clothing metaphor). Moll can choose between her right (dull wifeliness) and her left (whoring), her dexter and sinister. I will also add some of the literary analogs, if necessary. (The plot is similar to Moll and Roxana's lives, from Defoe, but there were numberless whore fictions coming out of Curll's shop -- all of which for pornographic purposes.) Geogre 17:29, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of Fullmetal Alchemist episodes

This is the second anime list I am trying to get featured. Based on your comments on another nomination, I feel you might be interested in this nomination: Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Fullmetal Alchemist episodes --Cat out 13:59, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill

I put back in everything except for the Stalin reference, that was just seeming to me stupid and inlammatory. There are already numerous references to the eroding of civil liberties and democracy, without bringing Stalin into it. Also I removed the Hitler reference for the same reasons. Shall we continue this discussion on the Discussion page of the article? UserAllPeopleUnite 17:40, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 149.9.0.25 is a proxy Server IP

If this IP still continue to vandalize pages, please block it.--149.9.0.25 09:24, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Meta-data

Ok, I'm getting fed up with repeating myself, so I've gone ahead and written Wikipedia:Keep metadata out of articles Raul654 22:26, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I call dibs!

Dibs on Gonson the whore-hunter! Geogre 02:49, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I'll race you for Richard Rock, though. :-) Geogre 12:15, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Richard Rock. John Gonson? -- ALoan (Talk) 16:58, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

It'll be Monday, but I still want dibs on John Gonson. The liberry was closed today, but I'll get at print, then web, on him Monday. Geogre 20:31, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Dick Rock looks good ("My new band is classic Dick Rock"), although I'll see if DNB has anything more to add, or different to add. No doubt someone wants to make the point that Hogarth didn't like foreigner doctors. I know you were reading a source that was trying to rehabilitate both of them, but they did both outrage the public. Otherwise, they couldn't have been satirized so consistently or effectively. The moderately innocent get by with only one whipping. Misaubin gets several. Anyway, I'm also going to see if Mother Needham and/or Mock Hackabout have entries. For that matter, I'm still looking for a "famous" whore Brewley or Bewley from the 1680's (for Robert Gould's satire on woman). She's said to have gotten a bad back from all the sex she was having. Geogre 03:15, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Are you planning to do James Dalton? Anyone want it? He's a good story -- not a Jonathan Wild but close to a Jack Sheppard. Geogre 21:18, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, DNB struck out, big. There is no Gonson account, no Hackabout account, and no Richard Rock account in the 2004 DNB. Amazing, really. I need to find the old edition (it's in some colleague's office, and I want to TAKE it from there and use it. The old DNB had much more detail on some figures, like Walpole, even if it wasn't always correct). Geogre 19:51, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

You know what would be good? A category for redlink lists, with subcats for types of list, so that all of us who keep lists could call others (or not, by not putting the cat tag). It would function like an actually functional Requests for Articles. It's a simple solution, in fact. Oh, hell, I wonder if I should do this? I suppose I could, but then I'd have to spam talk pages, make announcements at pump, an, etc. Hmmm. It might be worthwhile. Geogre 11:21, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

If you're interested in Bristol, England and its port, there is Alice Chestre. The DNB article was a mess, and my distillation of it doesn't do all that much better. All the same, she gave Bristol a crane and really decorated All Soul's there. Geogre 12:39, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Not my bag, but I found some snippets. -- ALoan (Talk) 14:18, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Hmm, what you added in was mostly stuff that had been in the DNB that I didn't want to talk about without some knowledge of the importance to the area, but the fact that her house became an inn (and survives?) would make it relevant. The DNB just told how much the carpenter was paid and where he was from, etc. I was thinking, at the time, "That's nice. Now why would I tell people about this?" Knowing that the contract survives makes it more interesting. I gather that she's something of a local legend in Bristol for some time to come. There is an ocean between me and there, though. Geogre 15:31, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Earl of Shrewsbury

The town can be "Shrewsbury" or "Shrowsbury" (the latter tends to be the posher pronunciation), but the title is correctly "Shrowsbury" (title and place name pronunciations often vary, anyway, like Londonderry and Leinster). (And I don't use IPA because the vast majority of people don't understand it, so I feel it's more helpful to provide an easy-to-analyse pronunciation.) Proteus (Talk) 16:09, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Static version

Afternoon, ALoan! On the discussion going on at Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates, you sounded pretty keen on the idea of a stable version of Wikipedia. I just put together a very rough draft of an idea - your input would be most welcome. Worldtraveller 18:13, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Schloss Blankenhain

I have announced your new stub at Portal:Germany/New article announcements#New stubs. If you write more articles about German castles, please add them there. Thank you and happy editing, Kusma (討論) 20:51, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request for help switching articles

It seems that there is at least some form of consensus at Talk:Imperial Russia to switch with Imperial Russia with Russian Empire, which is currently a redirect. Seeing as how there were no objections to my request for a move on that talk page, it would be beneficial if you could help out. Thanks Tev 19:17, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

There is not a great deal of discussion there - it would be best to formally request the move at WP:RM. -- ALoan (Talk) 23:41, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I wasn't sure what the protocol for this was, I will request a move there. Thanks for the help. Tev 17:28, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DYK

Updated DYK query Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Exeter Exchange, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

[edit] Tri Nations Series champions

Hi Aloan, I have completed most of your requests at the FLC, but I havent been able to use to colspan on it, I have messed around with it a bit, but I havent been able to get it to work, would you know how to do it? Thanks. Cvene64 23:51, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Like that? -- ALoan (Talk) 00:08, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes! Thanks very much Aloan. Cvene64 00:10, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shrewbury

<<Are you sure that is how it is pronounced? Locals, IME, call it "Shrews-bury".>>

Fwiw I agree with Proteus. The historic and middle/upper class pronunciation is shroze-bury.Alci12 14:40, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/l/o/User_talk%7EALoan_Archive11_9f0e.html"