User talk:Loren Rosen

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hello there, welcome to the 'pedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you need pointers on how we title pages visit Wikipedia:Naming conventions or how to format them visit our manual of style. If you have any other questions about the project then check out Wikipedia:Help or add a question to the Village pump. Cheers! --maveric149

Hi. Any idea which species is illustrated in Poppy. It would be nice to have a caption. It might be Welsh Poppy, but I'm not sure. jimfbleak 06:48 21 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Don't know. I'm far from expert in these matters. Loren

Hello, Loren. I'm glad that you are adding entries for some medieval historical figures. Is your primary interest in the history or the literature? Or both? It would be useful if you add something to your main User page. Most people here are interested in other people's backgrounds. Deb 12:33 21 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Hi and welcome here! I just want to make my appreciation of/for your contributions visible. Curious, as I am, I wonder which is your mother tongue? :)
-- Ruhrjung 18:41 29 Jun 2003 (UTC)

...sorry, I forgot to reply: The reason I asked is that I try to keep track of writers who, like myself, have another mother tongue than English, and ...the other way round: of writers, whose stylistic judgement to respect.
-- Ruhrjung 16:25 11 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Man, you've been going to town on the requested articles, thank you! At this rate we'll run out.  ;) - Hephaestos 01:49, 9 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Hi. For the 1st Duke of Somerset, I have 3 more children

John of Somerset ( - a 1453)
Jacinda (?) (c 1434 - a 1469)
Thomasine Beaufort (b 1444 - bt 22 Feb 1493 - 1494)
but no details of the mothers, presumably they were all illegitimate.

Well done on the correction BTW Mintguy 20:50, 10 Aug 2003 (UTC)

There is a mistake somewhere... I have that Eleanor, who married first the 5th Earl of Ormonde, and second Sir Robert Spencer was infact the daughter of the 4th Duke, not the second, she was born in 1471 three years after the death of Elizabeth Beauchamp in 1468, however she is still given as her mother. Mintguy 21:19, 10 Aug 2003 (UTC)

It's obviously my source that is wrong, the 4th Duke obviously didn't marry his mother Mintguy 21:37, 10 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Hi. You may be interest to know that I've kicked of a Wikiproject page at Wikipedia:WikiProject Peerage, so discussion can be lumped together in one place :). Mintguy 10:22, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Hi, you might be able to help with this...awhile ago Jlk7e and I were trying to figure out whether to name the Raynald article Raynald, Reynald, or Reginald. We left it at Raynald because that's what the 1911 EB calls him, and the article already existed when we were working on it. However, normally I see him as Reynald, or sometimes Reginald, so Raynald is apparently 1911-ese. Do you have any thoughts on this? Adam Bishop 19:22, 30 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Hi Loren,

I was looking again at Alfred Tarski and I see that you changed my clumsy "ring with a whole in it" or some such to annulus. Having read the entry, I am not sure it is appropriate. The entry says an annulus is a figure in the complex plane. I know just about nothin about complex numbers, but does the essential reference rule out the reference? After all, topological objects can be defined on the real plane. I don't know enough here, but I worry.

Thanks,

vanden 04:21, 4 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Hello,

thanks a lot for all your work in the math area. In division algebra you write

Later work showed that in fact, any finite-dimensional division algebra must be of dimension 1, 2, 4, or 8.

Is this for real finite-dimensional division algebras, or for finite-dimensional division algebras (over any field) which are not themselves fields?

And a related question, just to make sure that I didn't screw up anything in Normed division algebra: The Gelfand-Mazur theorem applies to associative algebras, yes? Thanks, AxelBoldt 19:16, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Hi! I hope it doesn't seem like I've been stalking you lately to edit your articles :) I was actually planning on writing some of those myself, but I never got around to it. Anyway, nice additions! Adam Bishop 05:33, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Good job at Shing-Tung Yau! Keep it up! --Menchi (Talk)â 14:45, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)

See my comments at Talk:Earl of Arundel. john 06:41, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)

We're voting at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Peerage on naming conventions, if you're interested. john 06:34, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Nice work on Thomas Fitzalan. I enjoyed reading it a lot. Bmills 15:53, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)

For an encyclopedia, prosaic is good, IMHO. Too many articles are either badly written, rampant POV, or overly creative. Great to see someone doing so much outside the arena of so-called popular culture. Bmills 09:09, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Hi Loren, if you are still around, I was wondering if you have any comments about the First Crusade article (I brought up some points on the talk page). It has come to the point where it might be able to become a "featured article" so I thought I would ask for your advice, as you've shown some interest in this area in the past. Adam Bishop 06:17, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Contents

[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:

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:
{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

OR

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:
{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

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)

Hi Loren - thanks for your note, I have added another note on to the talk page of the Constance article. You are right in saying that we need more articles about Sicilian figures outside of the nobility, and Stephen de Perche would be a great one. There is certainly plenty of info on him in Norwhich and he had a very colourful existence in his short time in Sicily. I have to say that my primary objective at the moment is getting the Sicilian wikipedia up and running. I keep an eye on all articles pertaining to Sicily, in a few languages, but at this stage my time is taken up with scn:wiki. I am happy to collaborate on anything you are interested in - I have a massive collection of materials on all things relating to Sicily - in English, Italian and Sicilian - so please feel free to discuss any topics you wish with me - but I am unlikely to write articles for en:wiki in the near future. By the way, as soon as I tidy up scn:Custanza di Sicilia, would you be agreeable to putting it up as a possible Translation of the Week? Seeing that it is only in two languages for the moment, it would make a good candidate. Salutamu --pippudoz 23:47, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Compass page

I would just like to note that anonymous user 130.209.6.40 factually changed the history section of the compass article (which you rewrote) to say that Europeans learned of the compass from Arabs rather than vice versa. If you would like to defend your version, please post at Talk:Compass#Who picked up compasses from whom?. —Simetrical 05:10, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] About Theorema Egregium

I came across this page in a roundabout fashion, but I find some of it confusing. I don't think this is due to the topic, but the use of some words and statements that I can't follow.

In the introduction you start off with...

the theorem says that the curvature of a surface can be determined entirely by measuring angles and distances on the surface

This seems clear. However...

that is, it does not depend on how the surface might be imbedded in (3-dimensional) space

This is opaque. I do not understand what this passage is trying to say. How would a surface be embedded in a space? What does it mean to be embedded? And why would I find this statement at all surprising? It would seem to me, at first glance, that the surface would have nothing to do with the space it is embedded in.

I can see that perhaps under some specific spaces, non-euclidean for instance, then the measure of the surface might be effected by the space. Is this what the passage is about?

It is also not clear exactly what the theorem means. The article goes on to talk about guassian curvate, but never defines it. It also gives examples which are completely gibberish (you did not write them, they were added later).

I would like to improve this article, can you help me understand the topic better?

Maury 21:16, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sources for Edmund FitzAlan, 9th Earl of Arundel

Hello, some time ago you added a fair bit of content to Edmund FitzAlan, 9th Earl of Arundel. As you may be aware, we are currently trying to improve Wikipedia's verifiability and reliability by making sure articles cite the sources used to create them. Do you remember what websites, books, or other sources you used to add content to Edmund FitzAlan, 9th Earl of Arundel? Would it be possible for you to mention them in the article? See WP:CITET for some quick templates to use for citing sources. Thanks! --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 02:39, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Herleva

Hi, you've wrote almost entierly the Herleva article, and you've added the 2 sources of the article. I would like to know if you still have an access to them ? I would be interested to have a copy of van Houts' article to have a source for her mariage and children's birth dates. Thank you ! PurpleHz 22:03, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Erff, and welcome back ! I just remember you've wrote Roger le Poitevin too. Bye PurpleHz 22:05, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I think I have both references here. Are you looking for the actual contents or just a summary of the documentation used? Loren Rosen 05:46, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm looking for the content. I have some interesting documentation on Anglo-Norman England too, mostly articles from j s t o r.com if you're interested. Regards PurpleHz 11:58, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

The vanHouts paper is entirely about Herleva's father's occupation. In the appendix to Douglas' biography of William he discusses the matter of the dates of her marriage and her children's births (William included). He doesn't give any definitive conclusions but does state his opinion based on the available evidence. Do you still want that? (Also, note that some the information in the current Herleva article, added by others fairly recently, is dubious at best and mostly likely completely erroneous.) Loren Rosen 09:38, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

It depends on the difficulty for you to transmit them to me. If you have van Houts' article in pdf format, then yes i'm interested, else, I would like parts where are exposed mariage and children births dates theories.
What I would be interested in too is :
Victoria Chandler, "The Last of the Montgomerys: Roger the Poitevin and Arnulf", Historical Research, 62 (1989) 1-14. You used it to write Roger the Poitevin and Arnulf of Montgomery. I already translated Arnulf's article, but I've stopped Roger's because of contradictions between this article and C. P. Lewis, "The King and Eye: A Study in Anglo-Norman Politics".
Thanks in advance ! Regards, PurpleHz 12:34, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
PS: My email is at gmail.com, just add my nick before it.

[edit] Herleva as Richard Fitz Gilbert's mother

I noted my reference on the page as Domesday. Certainly looking through the domesday reference for Surrey Surrey Domesday Book these four men: William the Conqueror, Richard Fitz Gilbert, Odo of Bayeux and Robert, Count of Mortain do seem to own most of it. SuzanneKn 16:40, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

There's no proof she was Richard Fitz Gilbert's mother. It's an invention from Planché I think. MedLands' prosopography project (link to Richard de Brionne) found no contemporary source for that statement. So, what is your contemporary source ? PurpleHz 12:36, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your extensive comments on my talk page. I am new to this area really being a geographer. Do feel free to change anything I've done if it is not reliable. If the four men though have the same mother (which I note that you think is doubtful with regards Richard Fitz Gilbert) it is quite intriguing that they owned so much land ie 30%. Therefore lumping them together seems sensible. It is also intriguing that invading England made them so wealthy. Quite interesting when you think of the modern context of war. SuzanneKn 17:26, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Putting Richard de Bienfaite (aka FitzGilbert, de Brionne, d'Orbec, de Clare, de Tonbridge) 's "numbers" together along Odon's + Robert's (de Mortain) + William's is just total non-sense, and means nothing. Richard wasn't the 4th richest in the country, he was probably de 9th. See this webpage made up from C. Warren Hollister's 'Greater Domesday Tenants-in-Chief', Domesday Studies (1986). Using that technique, is William de Warenne William's half brother ? Odon received Kent, Robert had Cornwall, and Richard ? PurpleHz 09:16, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, indeed, the distribution of so much land to a few magnates is a major theme of Anglo-Norman historiography. We ought to have an article on it if we don't already. A number were William's relatives, not just his half-brothers, but cousins.Loren Rosen 01:54, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Waiting your answer on the above section :-) By the way we have an article on this subject in the french wiki : fr:Partage de l'Angleterre en 1066 (Sharing of England in 1066). PurpleHz 09:16, 29 August 2007 (UTC)