User talk:Djnjwd

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hello. You seem to have been here a while without anyone saying hello to you. So I will. Deb 19:33 Apr 18, 2003 (UTC)

Hi again. We seem to be interested in a few of the same subjects. There's still lots of scope for work on the Civil War period, so go for it! Deb 20:39 Apr 19, 2003 (UTC)

Hi! The headings should be in nested form:

[edit] Heading one

fsdfsdfdsfdf

[edit] Heading two

dsfdsdsfsdfsd

[edit] Heading three

dfdsfsfasdfsaf

Otherwise, the new TOC will be messed up (when it appears after three headlines are made). See Wikipedia:Manual of style. If you have any other questions, feel free to ask at the Wikipedia:Village pump. --Jiang 20:25, 1 Aug 2003 (UTC)

You can sign your name with ~~~~ (w/ date) or ~~~ (w/o date). --Jiang

Thanks for contributing the article about the Battle of Mons Graupius. It's been on my todo list for months, but other things kept getting in the way. Its omission has been a glaring hole. -- llywrch 03:32, 4 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Óscar Arias: No harm done! Peace, as the Nobel committee would say. –Hajor 14:59, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Hello...

Have you been working on anything lately? If not I wouldn't mind some help with this list: Noted_translators - suggestions and additions welcome! -- Simonides 03:35, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Article Licensing

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 1000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
Multi-Licensing Guide
Free the Rambot Articles Project

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

Option 2

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)

[edit] WSC

Good catch on the vandalism. Thanks. Stirling Newberry 21:18, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] re my Swinburne edit

Thanks for your upcoming wikifying or wikification of my Swinburne rewrite. During that time, you have my authority to cut out someone else's half-sentence or so that says some critics believe Swinburne's lines were rhyme-forced. No professional critic ever said that about Swinburne, any more than they ever said it about Gilbert: both men were masters of rhyming and everybody knew it.

The vaguer offense of writing for the sake of MELODY instead of GOOD SENSE -- yes, that was a charge that Swinburne often encountered, and when he parodied himself in THE HEPTALOGIA OR THE SEVEN AGAINST SENSE, he good-naturedly produced some deliberately senseless stuff. In fact, however, he is a very intellectual poet, with a highly complex sentence structure and a lot of difficult, if not always profound, ideas. His melodic skills hide this intellectual difficulty, and let lazy readers (even including relative sharpies like Max Beerbohm) skip over the hard-to-figure-out content of what he writes.

The above paragraph is more controversial than I wanted to get in my rewrite of the Swinburne article itself, but no critic of Swinburne, or indeed of Victorian poets in general, misses their intellectual complexity. This was the age of the great logical puzzle-makers like Dudeney and Lewis Carroll, after all.

Perfect rhyming was really impossible much before the Victorian era. It requires a settled pronunciation with very few accepted dialectical variations, and this was the case IN EXCELSIS in Swinburne's and Gilbert's era. Though exact and clever rhyme lives on in writers like Stephen Sondheim, modern rap songs use near rhyme just as they use non-standard English, and even in Swinburne's time Whitman was showing that Americans (who after all couldn't pronounce English in the "proper" British manner) could give up rhyme and meter altogether and stick to free verse -- a stance which has since conquered the English-speaking world.

Swinburne and Gilbert are thus the absolute peak of clever, exact rhyming before competing dialects made that kind of effort problematic. Swinburne, Gilbert and Lewis Carroll are at the same time all masters of what I might call "empty logic," reasoning closely from one's premises, no matter how absurd those premises may be. Not one of the three has gotten any real scholarly attention. I wouldn't be surprised if the much-neglected Swinburne were actually the best represented in academic publications.

Thanks very much for your Wikification. I have some general questions. Who are you and how do you react so fast to wikifying needs? And what do you mean by NPOV, as when you said someone might object to my edits as not being NPOV enough? Could such a person be diverted or tempted into a discussion? Is this a talk site or what? I'm still a little confused.

[edit] Having trouble

I am having trouble with a simonP. I edit Arete (virtue) and he immediately reverts the edits. Him and his friends have deleted [Classical definition of republic] and after the many facts and the quoting of material they will not acknowledge they won't even let an external link and the talk is ongoing at Talk:Republic. This man doesn't know what he is doing. I ask that someone step in and stop this please. This man has no expertise in the classical field. He is an anonymous user. Please see also Talk:Arete (virtue).WHEELER 17:37, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Roman Empire

What do you mean by "OTT"? -- llywrch 18:02, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No, I don't think that you are "over the top" about this editor's changes. I'd have reverted them myself upon first glance, but because you gave me a clue that she/he's on a campaign to push a rather odd POV, I asked that person to supply references for this opinion. Because it is at the least a case of original research (know any published writings that claim every inhabitant of the Roman Empire spoke Greek -- er Koine -- as a first or second language?), I think that as long as no one loses their temper over this, it can be handled. -- llywrch 22:45, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've noticed that he has reverted Roman Empire to the same version at 01:10, 11 Jun 2005, 17:57, 11 Jun 2005, & 18:33, 11 Jun 2005. If he does it a 4th time before 01:10 12 June 2005 (i.e., within 24 hours), leave a note at WP:AN/3RR, & someone will ban him. Having said that, since I've been involved in this matter -- as have you -- it is best if an admin outside of the dispute does the deed. He seems to be headed for the ArbCom in a hurry. :-/ llywrch 21:29, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Nevermind, he crossed the line already. I have reported him. -- llywrch 22:36, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Scandal (novel)

Hi, why would you want to have two See also sections at Scandal (novel)? What's wrong about Read on? All the best, <KF> 21:07, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply! <KF> 21:16, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Roman Empire/reorganization

Hi Djnjwd, according to the Talk:Roman Empire a long time ago you were interested in the reorganization of Roman Empire. If you still are, please visit Roman Empire/reorganization and feel free to contribute and discuss!--Hippalus 09:48, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image Tagging Image:Chichestercathedraltoday.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Chichestercathedraltoday.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{GFDL-self}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Shyam ^(T/C) 14:40, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Perugia references

Hi Djnjwd, at Perugia we have some inconveniences about the references. I'm sure of the quality of the article and I quite agree with his reliability, however I did a little research on the history of the voice and I noticed that most part of the history section comes from your former addition to Perusia. So if you could add some references to your contribution it will be worthy of further consideration. Otherwise if you have lack of time and cannot help there isn't any problem, and as all you have added is absolutely true I'll demonstrate it in the same way of the rest of the article. Faithfully yours, --Grifomaniacs 17:01, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Albigensian Crusade

I'm contacting you out of courtesy as you have contributed to the page and may wish to supply your own citations. If you feel this doesn't matter to you, please ignore it. This page was rated as a Good Article, but has been downgraded because nobody did the donkeywork of listing the attributions to the various statements provided, which is after all a fairly serious dereliction of duty in what's suppoed to be a historical record. Having discussed the withdrawal of GA with LuciferMorgan, I give notice that I am sitting down with the three classic original source texts (Puylaurens, Vaux-de-Cernay and de Tudèle - the last in the Livre de Poche edition as the Martin-Chabot is long out of print) to add the missing inline citations to this page. I do not intend at this point to make any textual alterations, but if comments are made which are NOT justified, be prepared to state your sources now. Jel 21:47, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Galla Placidia

Hi Felipe; I know that the image has changed, but my question is: is it the right image? It's derived from a glass portrait of Galla, Honoria and Valentinian. It's obvious which one's Valentinian, but of the two women do we know for sure who is Galla and who is Honoria? The Wikimedia Commons link takes you to a page where the other woman is captioned as Galla (as do several other language wikis). Now the woman with the pearls looks older to me, but on the other hand she is depicted alongside Valentinian. Is it a known fact which one is which? Djnjwd 20:01, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Galla was Honoria's mother. Did you read the articles? FilipeS 20:03, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure which is which, but someone else has corrected the caption to indicate that the woman in the middle is Galla and the one one the right is Honoria, and that makes more sense than the original caption. Of course, the original caption could have been wrong in some other way. For example, if the people depicted are not actually Galla, Honoria and Valentinian III... FilipeS 20:11, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

But the previous version of these articles said the woman on the right was Galla!... FilipeS 20:23, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, I think I've seen the portrait currently at Justa Grata Honoria described as that of Galla Placidia in books, too. However, it makes absolutely no sense that she would look younger than her own daughter... FilipeS 20:36, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

See this comment: Talk:Valentinian_III#Portrait! FilipeS 12:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs: Norman St John-Stevas, Baron St John of Fawsley; Ernle Chatfield, 1st Baron Chatfield; Via Francigena; John-Paul Clarkin; Ceol of Wessex; The Road to Wellville; Cynric of Wessex; Roman era; Fuji Xerox; Wan Chai Sports Ground; Send Marsh; Shaft mining; Germanic Wars; Ansfried of Utrecht; Airport Authority Hong Kong; Archaeogenetics; Iapyges; WTO Ministerial Conference of 2001; List of historical novelists

Cleanup: Confederations of Germanic tribes; Plastic wrap; Black Sea deluge theory
Merge: Chain shift; Usipetes; Insert (SQL)
Add Sources: List of the most popular names in the 1890s in the United States; John Hare, 1st Viscount Blakenham; Lentienses
Wikify: Sigrid Undset; Respect; The 451 Group
Expand: Indigetes; Welcome Break; Ilergetes

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.