User talk:Ewulp/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

ARCHIVED TALK PAGE: APRIL 2006-MAY 2007

Contents

Beckmann and arts project

Hi, good edit re. triptychs and Beckmann. I noticed you'd edited Monticelli as well - a relatively rare subject...

I wonder if you'd be interested in participating in the arts project which Ham is trying to get off the ground: Arts project

Tyrenius 03:29, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

bonnie and clyde

Greetings! I have working on the Bonnie and Clyde article for over a year, and your help is greatly appreciated. You have made some good edits, and I feel, as you said, that the group of people - including myself, i hope! - who have worked on this have finally gotten a pretty good article about the duo online. I did add some information on her youth, and will add more. old windy bear 12:45, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Ewulp I pasted your revision on the introduction in, as it preserved the issues, and was better writing than mine! Thanks! I did leave the intro sentence, which you did not indicate needed changing - that there was an ongoing controversy as to her role. Hope that was okay, I took what you cited as current, and simply pasted in your rewrite, and then linked the sources. Nice contribution, and thanks for all your help on this article. old windy bear 17:39, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Ewulp More nice work in cleaning up the popular culture section - the way you arrange it explains better why then, especially then, yet still today, so many people regard them as Robin hood like, striking back at an uncaring establishment, rather than criminals. And we are not saying they were that, JUST THAT PEOPLE THEN, AND MANY NOW, REGARD THEM THAT WAY, which is simple fact according to every historian. Thanks again! old windy bear 10:17, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words oldwindybear, it's great to have a part in this article -- Ewulp 02:47, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Ewulp I am truly sorry if I insulted you - for some reason, I assumed you were female. You have been unfailingly helpful, knowledgable, a better writer than I am, and very polite during the Bonnie and Clyde work, and a real joy to work with. I changed the BAR lines to reflect the actual weight, which unloaded was 20% of her body weight, and loaded - almost a third of Bonnie's body weight - and the incredible rate of fire, up to 550-600 rounds a minute - and let people draw their own conclusions. On the devolution quote, you are absolutely right, as usual. Thanks for all your help - and for not being (I hope!) mad at me for my error. I must be getting senile, lol. old windy bear 09:36, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Ewulp, thanks for your work on the Bonnie and Clyde page. You have a knack for contributing to wikipedia, while maintaining civility and good humour. Mytwocents 06:39, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Hey Buddy!

Ewulp I noticed you over helping me with Abdur Ad Rahman's page. Interesting guy, beloved in Muslim history, but had his head handed to him by Charles Martel. In history, a case of a good general being upended by a great one, lol. THANKS FOR YOUR HELP! We do run into each other all over this place! Looks like everyone was pretty contented with your edits on Bonnie and Clyde, thank God. old windy bear 10:02, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Modernism

Some nice changes there. Elitist wording just makes stuff hard to understand... it's easier to read now, I think. Great job! :) Jobjörn (Talk | contribs) 12:48, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Hey My Friend!

Ewulp Long time no talk to! I have been ill, but came back recently and began working on projects in the Roman Era, including trying to rewrite the messy Flavius Aetius article. I had to explain to one of our brighter, (though non-english as a first language), editors that we could not have original research in the article, no matter how well reasoned it was. ANYWAY, after that, I have been rewriting, and wanted to enlist you to double check it, if you did not mind. Your editing skills are superior to mine, and now that I have eliminated the factual inaccuracies, and original research, wondered if you would do an old man a favor, and take a look at the wording? THANKS! old windy bear 00:14, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Charles Martel and Battle of Tours articles

Ewulp Greetings my friend! Both the above articles could benefit from your superior editing skills. They are both good articles, and very accurate historically, but they need your magic touch, if you have the time. I hope you are well, and thanks in advance! old windy bear 00:17, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello old windy bear, I hope you're doing well! I'll give both of these a look during the next couple weeks--Ewulp 03:25, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Ewulp Thanks! The editing you have done in the Martel article has already helped considerably and is greatly appreciated! Many people really do not appreciate how important this man was in western history. An editorial which says it very well is at [[1]]. Anyway, thanks a lot for your help, I am staggering along, lol, and hope you are doing well also! old windy bear 10:28, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Kudos to you & the other contributors responsible for these two articles! They're excellent -- I've just finished giving them both the once-over & will probably make a few more tweaks, but they haven't needed that much work Ewulp 07:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Ewulp Kudos to you too, my friend! The articles are vastly improved by your hard work! Smerc and I did most of the original research on Martel and the Battle of Tours, (and the other campaigns of Martel, actually!) but, as I pointed out to Kirill, (coordinator fo the Military History Project), and I hope you don't mind, I think you and I make a good team. I am good at research, but not so good at article construction. You are GREAT at editing and article construction, in addition to being a pretty darn good researcher yourself. It is a great pleasure to work with you, and thanks! old windy bear 23:46, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Ewulp Hey buddy, I don't know if you are interested, but there are elections for the military history project coordinators and assistant coordinators ongoing. I believe Kirill should be reelected as coordinator, and have nominated myself for one assistant spot, but there are six open, and if you are interested, I will nominate you (I am going to ask Smerc as well, you both would be good). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Coordinators/August_2006 is the link if you are interested in going and looking, or commenting on the current nominations. If you are interested yourself, let me know, and I will nominate you, I think you bring a great deal to the table as a wikipedia contributor. old windy bear 23:46, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the vote of confidence! It's an honor to be considered for this, but I have to decline the nomination -- military history is a little out of my line, and the number of hrs/week that I spend on WP is already doing bad things to my sleep habits -- but I'm glad to see that you're in the running. You'd be a strong addition to the coordinating team -- I've put in a word for your candidacy & wish you success when the vote comes down. Ewulp 02:59, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Ewulp I understand why you would not be able to add to what you are doing - and I feel badly somewhat, because I have repeatedly asked you for help! (But you are so darn good!) I do greatly appreciate your kindness in putting in a word for me, and will do my best whether elected or not. I came in 4th last time, when we elected a coordinator and two assistants, and simply tried to work harder. If you reconsider, please hollar, because you really would be a superior choice. You work so very well with other people - witness your pretty much single handedly ending the Bonnie and Clyde debate. But believe me, I understand the situation with time. Many days wikipedia tasks eat half my sleep! Thanks again, old windy bear 09:59, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Ewulp Greetings my friend! They have begun the elections for the military coordinator positions. I was very grateful for your support prior to the election, and if you can vote for me, would appreciate that as well! [2]
Also, I hate to impose on you, but if you have a chance, would you review the way I am trying to rewrite the history of the "Decline of the Roman Empire" subject? I really value your input, as you are well aware. They did not have Bury's theory listed at all, and had really shortchanged Gibbon. I have just begun to add on and rewrite, but would value your input, (and editing of course!) as I continue to expand the section on Gibbon, the section i literally just added, the part on Gibbon I am expanding, and the part I am getting ready to add on Norwich. Thanks in advance! old windy bear 00:24, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey there, old windy bear, I'll take a look at the article over the next couple of weeks and see what I can add. You have my vote for the coordinator team, but there's one problem--voting is limited to project members, and I'm not a member. If I sign on today so I can vote for you, would it be seen as carpetbagging? I don't want to do anything improper & create a problem for you! I have no experience with WP elections, but I can't find any rule here against registering on election day so to speak. Say the word & I'll go do it--I know your value as a contributor. Ewulp 02:15, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Ewulp Greetings my friend! No, there is no rule against registering today and voting today. I don't think we would accused of carpetbagging in any event - I have strong support for an assistant's position, but I would welcome yours for several reasons: first and foremost, because I respect you and your work, secondly, because I have sought your editing help from our Bonnie and Clyde days, and you are a TERRIFIC editor whose help in military history articles is invaluable; third and finally, because I hope wide voting support shows wide support for my ideas, such as enlisting other editors to do what you do for me routinely. (Just look at the wonderful job you did in the Battle of Tours, and a number of other military history articles I have sought your help on!) Whether you voted for me or not, I think you should be a member, because you are kind enough to respond to repeated requests for your help! And I am sure you know, I will certainly be asking for even more help from you if I am an assistant coordinator, so you should have a voice in it! SO, by all means register. If you feel the slightest bit uncomfortable, don't vote for me, but do register as a member, because you do so much work in the project! I personally don't think it improper for you to vote for me, because it is not a close election, i. e. I could not be accused of soliciting votes to change the outcome. But I do see strong support accross the board as valuable since it shows members our thoughts (all those who vote for a candidate) that that candidate's ideas, such as, in my case, actively seeking review of articles and article changes before problems arise, enjoy wide support. I really am going to try to get more peer reviewing as a natural part of the writing process - look how well you and I have worked together, as I hope we will in about a month, when I try to put together a new article on comparing all the bows of history in one comparitive article. I have Wandalstouring, who is a really fabulous expert on weaponry, to proofread it for factual accuracy while it is still a draft, and am hoping you will also go over it for structure, and general tightening of my work. You take good research and turn it into great articles! SO, no, there is no rule against registering and voting, and I would actually ask you NOT to vote for me if your vote was critical to the results - but it is not. So I would appreciate the vote simply because I hope it shows my ideas enjoy wide support. old windy bear 16:44, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to the Military history WikiProject!

Hi, and welcome to the Military history WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to military history.

A few features that you might find helpful:

There are a variety of interesting things to do within the project; you're free to participate however much—or little—you like:

  • Starting some new articles? Our article structure guidelines outline some things to include.
  • Interested in working on a more complete article? The military history peer review and collaboration departments would welcome your help!
  • Interested in a particular area of military history? We have a number of task forces that focus on specific topics, nations, or periods.
  • Want to know how good our articles are? The assessment department is working on rating the quality of every military history article in Wikipedia.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask one of the project coordinators, or any experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! Kirill Lokshin 04:34, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject Newsletter - Issue VI - August 2006

The August 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot -- 12:07, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history Newsletter - Issue VII - September 2006

The September 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by Grafikbot - 19:10, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue VIII - October 2006

The October 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 21:22, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Degas

Good work editing in general, and particularly the recent work on Degas. JNW 01:09, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Thank you very much for the kind words. I did venture some minor changes to Picasso, and soon noticed how prone to serial vandalism his and other high-profile artist bios are--at which point I threw in the towel. As with Modigliani, the details of his personal life intrigue lay people more than the work. Best wishes, JNW 05:32, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue IX - November 2006

The November 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 22:18, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Just a Hello!

We have not "talked" much recently, but I wanted to say hello, and thanks as always for your hard work and great editing on my favorite articles! old windy bear 23:56, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue X - December 2006

The December 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 22:38, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Cagnaccio di San Pietro: book details in Wikipedia disagree with Worldcat

Hello Ewulp! Please take a look at [3]. These libraries don't show Renato Barilli as the author of the book. It would be ideal, when an ISBN is provided in the reference list, that it should agree with SOME entry in a bookstore or a library. If the author is not even the same, it makes the citation confusing. Possibly, of course, the librarians made a mistake. Can you at least respond with the names of the co-authors on your copy of the book, and give the dates of the exhibition. Worldcat believes the primary author is Edoardo Castellan. It says that the exhibit took place from April 20 -June 30, 1991 at Museo Correr in Venice. EdJohnston 06:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

First off, thanks for acquainting me with Worldcat--I hate to tell you what I've relied on in the past to try to resolve who is lead author of a given book. The details here are consistent with the book I've used as a source: exhibition dates April 20-June 30 1991 at Museo Correr. Edoardo Castellan is credited with the catalog entries (schede e apparati in catalogo: I'm about 0.5% literate in Italian & pick through with a translating dictionary). Renato Barilli wrote the lead essay, other essays are by Giuseppina Dal Canton and Toni Toniato, and I overlooked the credit to E. Castellan entirely, hence my confusion in the citation. Thanks for uncovering the mistake--I'll try to get it right this time! Ewulp 07:15, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XI - January 2007

The January 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 20:34, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:MILHIST Coordinator Elections

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are looking to elect seven coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by February 11!

Delivered by grafikbot 10:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Military History elections

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting seven coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of sixteen candidates. Please vote here by February 25!

Delivered by grafikbot 14:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

OMG Jellybeans

You have been awarded these Jelly Beans from -The Doctor- Please, enjoy them.
You have been awarded these Jelly Beans from -The Doctor- Please, enjoy them.

Here are some Jelly beans for you. I love jelly beans as they have sugar in them and most people love sugar. But on the other hand just receiving somthing from somone else just makes you happy and also just giving this to you makes me happy. I hope to spread the jelly beans all over Wikipedia, so here, you can have this lot. Please enjoy them. (I like the lime ones.)

Editors need a bit of a sugar high too.

An apple a day keeps -The Doctor- away. Or does it! (talk)(contribs) 02:20, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

New Issues

Ewulp Greetings my friend! I hope you have been well, I had to not run for reelection as an assistant coordinator, which saddened me - but he needed someone not in and out of the hospital. Perhaps next time...If you have a chance, please go look at the argument over deleting the new article on macrohistorical battles crucial to the survival of European Civilization. Yes, it probably could be renamed, but the attacks on it are the same ones brought against our articles on Martel and Tours. Your help would be GREATLY appreciated, here is the link to the debate on whether to delete what could be a very good article. [4] old windy bear 04:10, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello old windy bear, I hope you're doing better! I've taken a look at the Macrohistorical battles article & discussion, and apart from the title it seems the article has a problem, maybe not insurmountable. The list of six battles is said to derive from a consensus among historians, although it is also admitted that historians have their differences on the subject. This means that WP contributors have sorted out the competing claims, and decided on a list of six battles representing consensus, and this raises NOR issues. The same problem would arise if WP had an article called The 100 Greatest Americans--to draw up a list, ranked #1–100, by weighing the judgements of all the historians of left and right, public opinion surveys, and the like, and to synthesize a consensus would involve OR and inescapable POV problems (although 100 Greatest Americans does redirect to an article about a media-event survey, and so involves no OR). The article The Fifteen Decisive Battles of the World avoids the OR problem, being a factual summary of a well-known and influential book--so the solution may be, is there one particular historian's account that could become the subject of the Macrohistorical Battles in Europe article? I note that one editor wants to fold this article into History of Europe, which seems a bad solution--it would lead to a pretty bulky article. Any subject that can be covered in History of Europe can be spun-off outside the main article, so let's let this be that article. Ewulp 07:34, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello Ewulp my friend, it is good to "talk" to you! I agree with you on this article - I did not write it, and there are problems. Like you, I don't think they are insurmountable, and I also don't think it should be folded into the history of Europe, making it even more ungainly. I do think there are POV issues with the list - but I think they are salvagable too, using Hanson's work, for instance, or Paul Davis's. If the article is not deleted, I would appreciate your help, and I will research and source it, if you rewrite it afterwards! Ha! You are the best editor on wikipedia and together we could straighten it out. Thanks for asking about my health - I am hanging on! old windy bear 22:54, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

"Best editor"? I'll accept "above-average editor", that's safe to say, since 1/2 of contributors are vandals! I'll be glad to pitch in with copyediting this. The suggestion from Pavel Vozenilek seems a good one: could this material become the core of an article titled European macrohistory? A few redirect pages or a disambiguation page could be created to help people find the article when searching for "European invasions" & similar word combinations. Ewulp 00:28, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Ewulp Help my friend! The effort to save the article worked, and I am trying to repair it, and your superior editing talents are needed! Look at the discussions, and please add your thoughts, and please also help rewrite the information I am pouring in on these battles! old windy bear 00:32, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XII - February 2007

The February 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

Delivered by grafikbot 15:07, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Change the title on Macrohistorical invasions of Europe

User:Ewulp Hey Buddy, your proposed title change got 3 votes for, and none against, 4 for, counting yourself, so do you know how to change the title? if you do, would you change it? THANKS, I feel stupid, but I don't know how to change the title! old windy bear 12:28, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Ewulp Hey Buddy, Would you give me your opinion on the changes on the article? I have been working on it, adding content, sourcing, adding pictures, maps, and trying to make it in all ways a better article. I would love your opinion, and help! [5] old windy bear 22:18, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Other issues on the Battle of Tours article

Ewulp what do you think of Stillstudying 's proposed change to say "most" historians support the view of the battle as a macrohistorical event, based on a web site which is simply opinions? (Actually, I think he is right, but I also think it is impossible to prove, and would simply set off an edit wwar on an article that took months of ahrd work to achieve the present, well balanced compromise - a compromise article that is labeled, thanks to you and lots of others, as a "good" article, with a GA rating). I am sure Stillstudying means no harm, but I just feel this would upset the balance that was so hard to hammer out in this article, and which literally earned the article it's listing as a good article. old windy bear 14:52, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Veronese

Thank you, Ewulp. As always, the compliment is returned--I have noticed your long-term improvements to Ingres, which as of last summer was pretty much a cut-and-paste from Britannica. Very best, JNW 14:29, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

TX

any IP. 16:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

René Magritte

Very nice cleanup job on Magritte. Surely nobody will miss that bullet list, and the size of the new section seems just right. I watched this article for a while in the past and was rather disheartened when I peeked in recently. Regards, CliffC 14:31, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the good word! Ewulp 06:30, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.