User talk:Emperorbma/Archive1
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archives:
Contents |
[edit] lots of edits, not an admin
Hi - I made a list of users who've been around long enough to have made lots of edits but aren't admins. If you're at all interested in becoming an admin, can you please add an '*' immediately before your name in this list? I've suggested folks nominating someone might want to puruse this list. Thanks. -- Rick Block (talk) 18:31, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
[edit] I Need your help on 'Move Tsushima Islands' Issue
- Since you seem to know at least one eastern language, your services in evaluating some of the disputed content from eastern web pages would be particularly valuable in the following matter. If you can help, I can target you on the paragraph to look at to see if it supports one side or the other. Hey -- you may not yet be an admin, but you could be an expert witness! (Hope finals are going/have gone well! Been there, done that! Frank
Hi! You appear to be an QUALIFIED interested disinterested bystander... I'm just making the rounds to everyone that has made their mark on Tsushima Islands which lead me to Fg2, (thence to then YOU! Congrats! Booby Prize, but I badly need some responsible People to help me mediate therein that are familiar with things Japanese... errr English! Sorry, but I infer that's still YOU!) in the last month trying to mediate this flaming revert war — I can use your help — Bring lots O water! (Better yet Beer) Frank
- This is the message I've been dropping on anyone on the Talk or Article pages since 13 May, I'd appreciate it if you can familarize yourself on the small article and stand-by to jump in on Tuesday with some cogent watersprays from a logical firehose! Thanks for the trouble -- the issue is trivial, (Is proper name plural or singular, Forsooth!) save there seem to be at least two teens in a war going well over three hundred edits in this one month sampling interval, over 70 edits in the past three days.
- I would appreciate a rational explaination (after you read my Comments in the subject dispute Talk:Tsushima Islands), of the arguement or arguments you consider vital and germane to the discusion and vote. Frankly, MOST all of you are being silly over nothing of particular importance, since both names can be redirected into the one used. I have left a comment concerning my contribution to the article, which contribution — seems to have triggered the current edit and revision wars. For that I apologize, but see the Comments on the vote. I am also taking the liberty of putting the vote section AFTER the Comments about same.
- Still, I have just spent over four hours of valuable spare time, and would welcome your thoughts after you read and understand the distinction I put forth between a governments termonology as a governing body and a geographical reference like an archepelego, which it certainly is.
- More to the point, I'd like to see your defense regarding your favorite POV of what I had to say viz a viz the mergest attitude of the senior editors and administrators that frequent the Wikipedia:VfD discussions. To my recollection, I don't recollect any of you hotheads in this dispute ever spending anytime thereon, possibly excepting Mel Etitis, but rarely even then.
- In any event, I'm neutral here, and have asked that the article be kept EDIT FREE for the next three days by placing The Inuse template into it — I'd copyedited over two and half hours before I suspended that effort the other night because this shameful fued was going on — proper English grammer does depend, unfortunately, on whether one uses the plural or the singular. I saved that on my hard drive, but I don't need to wade through yet another 70 edits to finish the job. As it is, this matter will probably double the time it takes for such a simple job.
- If you are local to Japan, some history of the canals or Sea-channel is certainly germane to the ongoing discussion, moreover, any cogent arguement you condsider being particularly telling needs to be clearly repeated in the current on going comments if you want them counted on in the vote.
- I will make sure this message goes to each contributor to the article the past month, so you are not being singled out. Now is the time to take a deep breath, for rational concise summaries, not all the arguing that is so wearisome in 66 printed pages - half a novelette, I'd guess! It's certainly a lot to ask your fellow editors to wade through on a minor issue.
- I will also personally be making sure that at least a dozen other Administrators I'm acquainted with take a look at the debate after the time below. I will in fact ask for twenty commitments, so be clear and respectful of our time!!!
- Thankyou for your time, attention, and good professional behaviour. I'll check the Talk state again no sooner than Monday around Noon (UTC), And ask the uninvolved others to do the same. PLEASE BE CONCISE. [[User:Fabartus| FrankB || TalktoMe]] 03:41, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Well that's my heads up, and appeal -- Hope you can help. I really don't have a dog in this fight! If you can alert a few others qualified on matters Japanese, or distinguishing English plurals from singulars, (sort of, sad to say) by all means, please do so!
[edit] Aircraft specifications survey
Since you are a contributor to aircraft articles, you may be interested in a survey currently underway to help develop a revised version of our standard specifications section. Bobblewik 19:40, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Imperia
On 14 June 2005 you deleted two paragraphs on the article about "Imperia". Why? They were correct IMHO.
Furthermore, the article should be disambiguated, since "Imperia" is also the Italian city "Imperia" ([1]) in the Italian province "Imperia" ([2]), a German software producer ([3]) of a content management system of the same name, an ancient German motorbike brand ([4] in German), and also an Italian maker of pasta machines ([5]). Feel free to contact me for further questions.
[edit] Mass (liturgy)
Hello,
Re: Your recent edits to "Mass (liturgy)".
I noticed that you added a couple of links to this article relating to Lutheran practices. I was wondering whether it's entirely appropriate to that article: its concern is the form of the normative Roman Rite; as such, the liturgies of other denominations don't really pertain to it. Furthermore, for balance, it would be necessary to include links to the liturgies in Anglicanism and Orthodoxy and so forth, which would again constitute a departure from the article's purpose. I'd propose that the best solution is to leave such links from this article, perhaps adding them to the appropriate places on the Eucharist page, to which this article already refers users who are seeking information on liturgies other than the Latin Rite.
I'd appreciate your opinions on the matter.
Pax tecum,
--Oogaland 13:41, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. I see your point: the structures of the two liturgies seem very similar. However, I still feel that the article's original author intended to present a description of the normative Latin Rite. Consider the opening paragraphs:
Mass is the term used of the celebration of the Eucharist in the Latin rites of the Roman Catholic Church. The word itself is derived from the phrase with which the liturgical celebration concludes in Latin, Ite, missa est, meaning: "You may go, this is the dismissal."
For the celebration of the Eucharist in Eastern Churches, including those in full communion with Rome, other terms, such as "The Divine Liturgy", are normally used. Western Churches not in full communion with the Roman Catholic Church also usually prefer terms other than "Mass", although it is used in some Anglican and Lutheran churches. For information on the theology of the Eucharist and on the eucharistic liturgy of other Christian Churches, the reader is referred to the article on the Eucharist.
The user is pointed towards the Eucharist page if non-Catholic liturgy info is desired, although I understand your qualms about putting your links there; they don't quite fit. Indeed, not only does the article restrict itself to Catholicism, it is limited to one particular rite. The old Latin Rite, the myriad Eastern Rites and other assorted rites (Dominican and so forth) are not treated here; links are provided to appropriate articles. Perhaps the Lutheran Mass should have its own page? This should probably coincide with a renaming of this article, since "Mass (Liturgy)" is a bit too general for what it actually covers.
A side note: there's a new English translation of the Missale Romanum in the works, so concordance between the two liturgies might be less accentuated in the future than it is currently (for example, the dialogue before the Preface that you mentioned is likely to change).
Pax,
--Oogaland 18:51, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
The disambiguation sounds like a good idea. Probably not something that I should touch, though, largely due to the fact that I'm not familiar with the mechanism. If it's something that you feel like pursuing, though, might I suggest that the articles on the Divine Liturgy be referenced somehow? The term 'Mass' isn't used in the Eastern Churches (Orthodox or Catholic), but it would probably be useful to include such links. In fact, a considerable amount of disam. would be required (something I'd be happy to have a go at at a later time, if a minimal, functional disam. page was already in place), due to the number of Eastern rites and the current clumsiness of the naming of the articles on the Latin rites.
Thanks,
--Oogaland 20:41, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Vitamins?
Last year, you contributed to the Vitamin D article, saying (among other things) that the formal name for Vitamin D5 is "irridated 7-dehydrositosterol".
Where did you get this information? More importantly, what do you mean by "irridated"? If it's simply a misspelling of "irradiated", well... that doesn't make any sense in this context. Was your source talking about isotopic labelling, maybe? But in that case, wouldn't it have given locants? And if you knew enough about chemical nomenclature to understand what isotopic labelling in a formal name means, and why you could eliminate nuclear locants and just call it "radioactive (whatever)", then you'd also know why doing that in this context would be worse than pointless. Usually if I saw something like this in an article, I'd just blame it on a vandal and snip it out, but you're clearly not a vandal.
I dunno, man. Look, I'm going to be bold and snip it out of the article, but if you could maybe explain what the hell it's supposed to mean, it can go back in.
Okay? DS 14:24, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
- Ah, okay. Typo for "irradiated", except meaning by UV instead of by free neutrons. A better name would be "UV-activated 7-dehydrositosterol". The problem is that your original typo now exists on 200+ wikimirrors; I hope the correction spreads as well. DS 11:42, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
