User talk:Classical geographer

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Roma Termini 2 Binary prefix history 3 Minoan eruption 4 Please use edit summaries 5 SaarLorLux 6 Community Innovation Survey 7 Campo Imperatore 8 List of Antarctic countries 9 Discussion of Paul, the former Apostle

[edit] Roma Termini

Re the name of the station: you are very welcome! I see you have contributed a lot to the article. Thank you! I intend to add something about the architecture as soon as I can. --Goochelaar 13:30, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Binary prefix history

Regarding [1], we've already been gathering references about the history of the terminology on the talk page. I'd love if you could help. There's a reference from 1963 on there already with an explicit "(1K=1024 words)" definition, for instance, which predates your example. — Omegatron 17:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Minoan eruption

I reverted your good faith edits that included a reference to how the eruption might have been a part of the Exodus myth. Unfortunately, the link didn't work (it went to a web page registration that is not really acceptable), and you didn't use the WP:CITET format. I'm trying to fix the article so that it might get an FA eventually. It's a fascinating article, and anything you can add, especially to the biblical section, would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. Orangemarlin 22:34, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

"Minoan eruption of Thera" sounds kind of strange, as if the Minoans themselves caused the eruption of Thera. Do you think there might be a better way to write it? There have been arguments on the discussion page between "Thera" and "Santorini" as the name of the article, so maybe we can clarify the lead somewhat. I'm not a geologist nor an archeologist, nor do I play one on TV, so I might defer to you on this point. Orangemarlin 09:04, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please use edit summaries

Hello. Please be courteous to other editors and use edit summaries when updating articles. The Mathbot tool shows your usage of edit summaries to be extremely low:

Edit summary usage for Classical geographer: 31% for major edits and 6% for minor edits. Based on the last 141 major and 18 minor edits in the article namespace.

Using edit summaries helps other editors quickly understand your edits, which is especially useful when you make changes to articles that are on others' watchlists. Thanks and happy editing! --Kralizec! (talk) 02:45, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] SaarLorLux

You removed the Interreg III part of the article, because there was no relation to SaarLorLux. I have to tell you, that there are relations. I only forgot to show them. I undid your removal and added some content (including links) showing that relation. Please could you have a short look and tell me if it´s ok now. Thank you.--Thw1309 09:21, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Community Innovation Survey

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Community Innovation Survey, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://cordis.europa.eu/innovation-smes/src/cis.htm. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot 08:13, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi, the main problem was the copyvio. Changing a few words here and there does not solve the problem. Speedy deletions generally do not preclude posting a new version of an article, as long as the deficiencies are addressed. So feel free to write a new version, in your own words, taking care to explain why the subject is important or significant. Good luck! -- But|seriously|folks  19:08, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I've filed a request for recovery of the deleted page to salvage those parts which were not copied, and I'll attempt to write a new article from scratch. Classical geographer 20:59, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Campo Imperatore

Please read the "discussion" before editing this page. If you wish to contribute some text, fine. Campo Imperatore to Italians is our "Little Tibet".

SilviaManno 00:41, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of Antarctic countries

Hi, Classical Geographer. This is Inkan1969. I see you went ahead with the merger. But I was away for the U.S. Thanksgiving day holiday and so I was not able to argue against the merger. What is the exact procedure of the merger. I feel this merger was an arbitrary action that was done without consensus. I did not see any strong movement to merge the article.Inkan1969 (talk) 15:32, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Inkan, indeed there was no strong movement in any direction - I had waited a few days and just went for it. That was a bit rash, I admit. The article I made List of Antarctic countries redirect to already contains a quite complete list of Antarctic territories, that would be the equivalent of the country lists for other continents. However, if you feel these should be in a separate article, we might also consider moving those to a separate article List of Antarctic territories to comply with the territories-by-continent system. I would not call them Countries, though. Classical geographer (talk) 16:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. If you have no objection, I can restore the "List of Antarctic Countries" page and move it to "List of Antarctic Territories", to reflect the fact that none of these political units have indigenous populations. Again, this "List of Antarctic Territories" page will include the four subantarctic island territories that Antarctic Territorial Claims does not include, those territories being of a different nature. This list of page will feature only a list, while "Antarctic Territorial Claims" goes into detail about the territories. That would be the same setup as Asia and List of Asian countries, or Europe and List of European countries. In those cases, the continent pages already list the countries in detail, but the "List of" pages are still considered non-redundant. Inkan1969 (talk) 17:16, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a nice alternative. You could even integrate the list-part of the discussion article to the "List of"-page. Or we could move the discussion to the main Antarctica article, which would conform even more to your parallels with Europe and Asia. Classical geographer (talk) 08:42, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

O.K. I've moved the article to List of Antarctic territories using the move button so that the discussion page is preserved. I'm not sure what you're referring to when you say "the list-part of the discussion article" or "move the discussion to the main Antarctica article, which would conform even more to your parallels with Europe and Asia", though. Inkan1969 (talk) 16:21, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I meant Antarctic_territorial_claims#List_of_Antarctic_territories which still contains some extra information - claim dates and limits. I guess the dates from there could still be introduced in the list in the List of Antarctic territories, and the limits might go into the footnotes. My proposal would be to then remove the article Antarctic territorial claims completely; the only bit of info left there then would be the top half, giving a summary of the Atlantic Treaty, but that treaty already has a main article elsewhere, so that Antarctic territorial claims would be completely redundant. Classical geographer (talk) 16:38, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

( Continuing ) I see. You then want to move all the information from Antarctic territorial claims to List of Antarctic territories, making the latter page replace the former. I have no objections to that. List of Antarctic territories may be more useful by covering both the unrecognized territorial claims and the undisputed island territories.Inkan1969 (talk) 14:36, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion of Paul, the former Apostle

Somehow I missed out on Paul being stripped of his apostleship. Could you point me to that discussion? For that matter, people have questioned that he was from Tarsus. Maybe we should just change it to "Paul, just guy who supposedly wrote some material in the New Testament"? Student7 (talk) 13:21, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm afraid I don't get your point here. Does this relate to my adding a wikilink to the template 'Second journey of Paul of Tarsus', linking the title to the article named 'Paul the Apostle'? Classical geographer (talk) 13:35, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes.Student7 (talk) 14:48, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

In what way, exactly? Classical geographer (talk) 15:39, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

The former name was "Paul the Apostle." The new name is "Paul of Tarsus." Why did it need changing? What is going on? Why was it changed? The article is still the same so why does anything need changing? Paul's leaders and trailers are widely discussed normally. The last one was that he could not be called "St. Paul" outside of the article. Where is the discussion this time? Who were the "deciders?" Student7 (talk) 16:25, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I haven't followed those discussions, I must say. I only noticed there was no link in the title of the template, so I changed that from of Tarsus to the Apostle. Classical geographer (talk) 12:16, 23 January 2008 (UTC)