User talk:Franzeska

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Welcome to the Wikipedia

I noticed you were new, and wanted to share some links I thought useful:

For more information click here. You can sign your name by typing 4 tildes, like this: ~~~~.

Be bold!



(Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 09:23, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Medieval: Total War

I notice you are responsible for the latest disambiguation in this game's page. Please do not change the link again. Gothic knights in this game are not members of the tribe that disappeared hundreds of years earlier. Feldmarschall 08:08, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Sorry about that, but it really shouldn't link to the disambiguation page either. I see someone has changed it so that it does not link anywhere, which is probably the best solution. Franzeska 00:15, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Yohji Yamamoto

Thanks a lot for your translation :) -Nikai 16:33, 3 December 2005 (UTC)


[edit] MY RfA

Hi! I'd just like to thank you for your support in my RFA! - Trysha (talk) 10:03, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ama no Jaku

Thanks for editing that page. What made me hesitate to make the changes, though, was that the ocean is often associated with monsters in Japanese folklore (or monsters associated with the ocean), so I thought that there might be some sort of reason behind that. In any case, "imps of heaven" sounds a bit odd, doesn't it? Sky would probably be more appropriate, except that Amanojaku has absolutely no apparent affinity to the sky, either. What an annoying name it's got.

Oh, and thanks for the reminder about my page. It was in fact sabbotaged. Funny how easily that was done. Uly 04:51, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Carers

"your use of "literate hemisphere" does little to inspire confidence in your reliability" Quite right! I'm fed up being beaten up by people who dont know the subject and that affects my editorial judgement - funnily enough that particular jibe has survived for around six months before you spotted it, which shows that more people appear to be interested in the talk page than the article itself! I've made the point before that I'm not really interested in editing the article any further unless it conforms to the self-identification principle - and the result is that it is a fairly rotten article because nobody else seems to want to do any work on it either. Originally I started to do some work on a new article for carers and was forcibly redirected into the stub voluntary caregiver which was and remains a demonstrable nonsense and is actually quite insulting and offensive. And as I don't get involved in wiki-politics, I don't seem to be able to stop folk with zero subject knowledge ganging up on me to make some obscure point of their own. It's very frustrating - having spent 17 years caring for others on an unpaid basis, and as a former trustee of two carer-led charities campaigning for recognition of carers human rights, I know this is all very wrong and to be honest I need some help here, but I am also feeling very depressed about this whole thing Excalibur (talk) 12:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] What do you think about a split into Caregiver and Carers movement?

I quite like it actually - its a very fair compromise given the difficulties we are having. thanks! Excalibur (talk) 15:55, 12 January 2008 (UTC)