User talk:No Account

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, No Account, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! . I have changed some of your edits, eg in Lincoln Thompson and Joseph Owens we should avoid a redirect by directing to Rastafari movement rather than rasta which will just redirect. Anyway your work is appreciated, SqueakBox 18:01, May 29, 2005 (UTC)

Contents

Too soon to be changing links in articles

Hello, No Account. I see you have been systematically changing Gustav II Adolph of Sweden to Gustavus Adolphus of Sweden in many articles. This is premature, as there's a vote going on at Talk:Gustav II Adolph of Sweden about moving the page to Gustavus Adolphus of Sweden, and the issue isn't resolved yet. In fact the voting is just now starting over, because the original vote was badly set up. Please await a decision about the page move before making any more changes. Thank you. Bishonen | talk 08:10, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • It was quite clear who won the last vote, and a quick Google search will show you that is also the most common name. So I saw nothing wrong with implementing that result. I voted again, though -- the third time I've been asked to. No Account

Too soon to be changing links in articles indeed

I too find it sad that you've decided to propagate the Latinate form in English by using Gustavus Adolphus in place of Gustav II Adolph of Sweden on various other pages, bringing your name war to these other pages. Please go win the war where it should be won – in the vote. And once we get a Wiki consensus, let it go.

The use of the Latinate form in English writing for Swedish terms is a puzzling (and confusingly inconsistent) practice. For example the List of European regions with alternative names suggests using the Latinate Scania for the Danish, Finnish, Swedish and Norwegian “Skåne”.

Polling a series of geography & history books (all published in English), one finds:

  • A History of Norway by Karen Larson, Princeton University Press, New York, 1948 uses Gustaf Vasa, Gustaf Adolph and Skaane
  • Sweden and the Baltic, 1523 - 1721, by Andrina Stiles, Hodder & Stoughton, London; 1992; ISBN 0-340-54644-1 uses Gustav Vasa, Gustavus Adolphus and Skåne
  • The Struggle for Supremacy in the Baltic: 1600-1725 by Jill Lisk; Funk & Wagnalls, New York, 1967 uses Gustavus Vasa, Gustavus Adolphus and Scania
  • The Northern Wars, 1558-1721 by Robert I. Frost; Longman, Harlow, England; 2000 ISBN 0-582-06429-5 Gustav Vasa, Gustav Adolph but then uses Scania
  • History of the Norwegian People by Knut Gjerset, MacMillan Company, New York uses Gustavus Vasa, Gustavus Adolphus and Skåne
  • Admiral Thunderbolt by Hans Christian Adamson, Chilton Company, Philadelphia, 1958 uses Skaane
  • South Norway by Frank Noel Stagg, George Allen & Unwin, Ltd., London, 1958 uses Gustav Vasa, Gustav Adolph and Skaane
  • West Norway and its Fjords by Frank Noel Stagg, George Allen & Unwin, Ltd., London, 1954, uses Gustav Vasa, Gustav Adolph and Skaane
  • The Heart of Norway by Frank Noel Stagg, George Allen & Unwin, Ltd., London, 1953. uses Gustav Vasa, Gustav Adolph and Skaane
  • Scandinavia; An Introductory Geography, by Brian Fullerton & Alan Williams, Praeger Publishers, New York, 1972. uses Skåne
  • Scandinavia; at War with Trolls by Tony Griffiths, Palgrave MacMillan, Australia, 2004 ISBN 1-4049-6776-8 uses Gustav Vasa, and Gustav Adolph
  • “A Revolution from Above” by Øystein Rian and Nils Vilstrand, Odense University Press, Denmark, 2000, uses Gustav Vasa, and Gustav Adolph
  • “Urban Development in the Alpine and Scandinavian Countries” by E.A. Gutkind, The Free Press, New York, 1965, uses Gustavus Vasa', Gustavus Adolphus and Skåne

So it is pretty much a matter of taste. I have two recommendations, in the order that I’d prefer following:

  1. Leave well enough alone. If you find “Gustaf Adolph” and think this might mislead someone, revise it to “Gustaf Adolph (also Gustav Adolph or Gustavus Adolphus)” the first time it appears in an article.
  2. And lacking agreement on that approach, we could contact the Svenska Utrikesdepartementet (Swedish Ministry of Foreign Affairs) and ask what they use for their style guide when writing about Swedish kings & provinces in English.

Williamborg 16:38, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Name war? I strongly object to that. It was clear which name was prefered in the vote already taken. The time for that vote expired on June 2. I saw no reason not to carry out the vote. No Account 17:52, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The vote was certainly not decided. Just have a little patience, please.
Peter Isotalo 22:22, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

Plagiarism

Hi: At Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sydney Riot of 1879 you described JGUK's use of letters as 'plagiarism'. Is this not rather harsh? I understand plagiarism to involve passing off: the use of another's work without proper attribution. You may be right that the verbatim use of such extensive material is inappropriate in an encyclopedia but it is clear here that no deception is intended. Please consider rephrasing your comment. --Theo (Talk) 06:06, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The bible

Firstly let me say that I am sorry to have to bother you.

Secondly, I wish to let you know that a recent VFD that you took part in has closed. The result was that 32 people voted to keep all individual bible verses as seperate articles, and 34 voted that they shouldn't (2 abstensions, and 3 votes for both). This is considered by standard policy not to be a consensus decision (although the closing admin stated that it was a consensus to keep them).

Thirdly, the subject has now been put to a survey, so that it may remain open until there is a clear consensus for what appears to be a difficult issue to resolve. You may wish to take part in this survey, and record a similar vote to the one you made at the VFD there. The survey is available at Wikipedia:Bible verses.

~~~~ 18:39, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

What are you doing?

The MoS quite clearly states that BC/AD is perfectly acceptable notation and that articles should be internally consistent. The ArbCom has also recently ruled that WPians should not go unilaterally changing date styles. Therefore, please stop what your doing, as it's contrary to our accepted practice, jguk 18:37, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

I might ask you why you have changed BCE to BC in dozens and dozens of articles. All I'm doing is changing it back.
As the edit summaries noted, I was making the articles internally consistent. If you look, you'll see that all those articles used a mixture of BCE, BC, CE and AD notation. The MoS states articles should be consistent in this respect. That is what I was doing. ArbCom has explicitly welcomed such copyediting. Therefore please leave the articles as is - I don't really want an edit war over this, jguk 18:46, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
BTW, "BCE" does not require a following period. (You had one in your last edit.)
Personally, I don't see why we shouldn't have "BC" for both systems (Before Christ/Before Common), and only use "CE" distinctively. More familiar and easier to read than "BCE/CE". kwami 18:51, 2005 July 25 (UTC)

WIkipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)

As you are probably aware, recently there has been a somewhat divisive campaign by supporters of BCE/CE notation to encourage it on Wikipedia - and to change our guidelines on date notation to support their views. The Wikipedia community voted down the first proposal, ArbCom neutralised an attempt to enforce the first proposal despite its failure to gain a majority, let alone consensus, which is what WP is effectively governed by. A new (slightly watered down) attempt to change the guidelines is also about to fail. What this means is that we are left with the guideline as it currently stands. In summary, this guideline, which applies globally, is that either BC/AD or BCE/CE is acceptable, consistency within an article is desirable, and no-one should go changing articles that are fully consistent in their style to the alternative style.

You will note that my recent edits, being edits to make articles consistent in notation, are recommended by the guideline (and also recently by ArbCom). Whereas your edits, which were to change articles that use fully consistent notation (post my editing) to your preferred notation were not.

It is far from being an ideal guideline, but if we are to progress and edit amicably on WP going forward, we all need to accept this guideline (at least until there is support for an alternative - which there isn't at the moment). Kind regards, jguk 07:21, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Cease-fire on eras

I've suggested a cease-fire on eras, at the Village pump. Maurreen (talk) 09:55, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Jguk for admin?

You may be interested in this: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/jguk CDThieme 20:50, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Reverts of Template:Foreignchar

You seem to have four reverts in the last 24 hours on Template:Foreignchar (history · watch). You may not be aware of the three-revert rule, but you could be blocked for reverting a page more than three times in a 24-hour period. I am letting you know, so that you don't revert the article again within this period. --Gareth Hughes 18:39, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

The Southern States

Oh, I'm sorry. I forgot to put on the page that the U.S.A. is split up differently. See there are 2 different ways to split it up. Some people assume that Missiouri is in the southern states. So the government says there should be 2 different ways to split it up. I use the 2nd way. Alaska, Hawaii, California, Oregon, and Washington in one. Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming in another. Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, and Oklahoma in another one. North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Missouri, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Iowa, Ohio, Wisconsin, and Minnesota in another. Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Tennessee, Kentucky, West Virginia, Maryland, Delaware, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida in another. Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and New York in another. And Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusets, Rhode Island, and Connecticut in the last. So I'll do something to tell people that it is the 2nd way to do it. Tcatron565

I love y7our user name. 65.35.197.181 00:08, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Laozi

There is no consensus to use "Lao Tzu", which is why the article hasn't been moved. Your attempt to impose your favoured spelling means that the article and the text are inconsistent. Please stop. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:31, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Page move

Completely without announcement, an article was moved from its common English name Nidhogg to the old Norse version Níðhöggr, even though a proposal to move mythology articles to non-English spellings failed to gain consensus. You have expressed interest in simular page moves in the past. Please take a minute to look at this one. CDThieme 18:38, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment, it is not unreasonable. For two months the article used the spelling Níðhöggr. I would say that was a pretty strong hint that it was going to be moved there. If anyone objecting to the renaming had been watching the article there was ample opportunity to get in a dissenting view.

But quite aside from that I think boldly moving pages is often the right thing to do, especially when no-one else is working on the article. That's how most moves are done and it usually works just fine. Yesterday, for example, Galdr was moved to Galðr (not by me) and no-one contested it. If we are to consider every move to a title with diacritics to be controversial and requiring a WP:RM debate then we will do nothing but participate in WP:RM debates. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 18:30, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Galdr was not "moved to" Galðr. Galdr had been a redirect to Seid, and I created an independent article, at Galdr at first, moving it to Galðr immediately to leave behind a redirect. dab (ᛏ) 13:00, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

My Request for Bureaucratship

You said you were worried about my comments in edit summaries. What worries you, if I may ask? I feel I have adequately explained the circumstances surrounding them on the page — Everyking's case was a prolonged period (weeks) of provocation through constant bad faith reverts and misleading comments. The other case was of a troll who had been making a lot of bad faith edits, including a page blanking (the edit that I reverted). She (CheeseDreams) was eventually banned indefinitely by the arbcom. I understand if you insist on voting only for a candidate who has always been perfectly civil, but I thought I'd just make this clear. Johnleemk | Talk 06:58, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi No Account,

Thanks for voting to support my RfA. I wasn't expecting an unopposed promotion (I thought I'd hit some die-hard edit-counters at least) and I'm touched by the trust shown in me. I'll try my best to continue to earn that trust. But first, I'll have to work on not sounding like a politician; that last sentence was awful. Oh well. Let me know when I screw something up with the shiny new buttons. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 05:26, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

I am not Chris Theime but I have been blocked

I have been blocked from editing because I was called a sockpuppet of CDThieme. I am not him, though I know who he is. He's a somewhat obsessive guy who hangs out in the media lab and tells everybody about Wikipedia and other stuff he's into. He pointed out some page move votes to anyone who would listen, and I did vote the same way on some of them because I agreed. On most stuff I just ignore him, though. I am not Chris. No Account 18:18, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

"the lab"? It's a HOME DHCP ACCOUNT. Far from it being a question of "a few move votes" and "otherwise ignoring him" No Account has been voting with CDThieme in dozens of votes on requested moves, page deletion, request for adminship and request for comments. I can't find a single instance of them voting on opposite sides. No Account has also been used in CDThieme's revert-campaigns, date-style warring, country-name warring and wikistalking. In a quick and dirty search I can't find a single substantial material contribution to any article in his contribution log. This talk page is being locked - David Gerard 02:11, 11 December 2005 (UTC)