User talk:Paularblaster/Archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Messages to Easter 2008

Welcome!
Welcome!

Hello, Paularblaster, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages 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, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to leave me a message. RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 20:40, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hello.

Greetings, Paul. I saw your name come up on the recent edits to the E. F. Schumacher article, and wanted to say hello, make you feel welcome, and thank you for your contributions to said article. I hope you enjoy editing. Please let me know if I can ever be of assistance. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 20:42, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Had I looked more carefully at your contributions, I would have seen that you have actually been here for quite some time. Regardless, no one had ever said hello, so I am happy to be the first. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 22:58, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I've done some minor tinkering before. Today was the first time I put up a new entry and made myself a userpage. --Paularblaster 23:05, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

I'm sure you understand that there was no way for me to know if it was you on the IP blanking your pages, so I appreciate you logging in to do it, thank you very much! Cheers, Ariel♥Gold 02:08, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Christopher Derrick

Why did you trim the article back today? WP:OR? --Orange Mike 22:23, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Partly that - although if minute-by-minute synopses of TV shows have a place in wikipedia I'd have thought one-word synopses of books can be tolerated :). Also because I've been asked to write his obituary for a magazine and want to think carefully about which words to put there before deciding which to put here (and after that "OR" becomes sourced information, regardless that I wrote it here first). The fuller version is currently at

User:Paularblaster/Sandbox. --Paularblaster 23:40, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you for your message

Thank you for the message about my categorisation of Wikipedians in the British Psychological Society. I rather like your idea of making this a subcategory; however, I should say that to belong to the British Psycholigical Society, one does not need to be anything more than a Bachelor's degree in Psychology (and even undergraduates may join as "subscribers" rather than "members"). You may like to read my comments on the talk page at British Psychological Society for more on this. However, I appreciate your message, it is kind of you. ACEOREVIVED 21:19, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


Thanks for the advice. you are correct, but ive only been here two days and i didn't know anybetter. i was trying to put my comments were placed after certin comments i wanted to comment on. and i didn't know how to do that. so agian thanks --ANOMALY-117 (talk) 22:59, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome - I assumed you were acting in good faith, that's why I offered the advice. --Paularblaster (talk) 23:02, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
The Special Barnstar
Thanks for your advice ANOMALY-117 (talk) 22:52, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sir Bela of Eastmarch

Was known to mundanes as Poul Anderson, not Andersen. (He was a Dane, not Norwegian.) --Orange Mike 02:38, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I always hypercorrect that (if hypercorrect is the word I want: think it can't be whatever I initially want to write, so write the other instead). --Paularblaster (talk) 22:32, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dunkirkers

Hi. I've seen your reasons for using this title, which are fully in line with Wikipedia policies (such as "use the common English name"), and moved the page back to Dunkirkers. Thanks. --Folantin (talk) 11:01, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

The contributor in question seems not to get WP:COMMONNAME (see Potsdamer Platz and talk page for another example) but he has been warned about making such page moves so he's unlikely to transfer Dunkirkers to another location again (I hope). There doesn't seem much to discuss. After all, the primary English meaning of Hamburger or Rottweiler is not an inhabitant of Hamburg or Rottweil. Cheers. --Folantin (talk) 13:26, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] secularist

Dear Paularblaster, thanks for the hint, I am not very used to this sandbox concept. Is there anything wrong that I do multiple edits to an article? All the edits I made stand on their own (I use Show preview to test) Best regards, PhiRho (talk) 09:07, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

No, nothing wrong. It wasn't meant to be critical, just helpful. I often do an edit straight to the page myself, then spot a bracket missing, then spot a verb that no longer agrees in number, then realise that I haven't given all the bibliography in the same format, and end up doing two major edits and six minor and wishing I'd used a sandbox. When I do use a sandbox (which isn't often enough) I find the final result much more satisfactory. --Paularblaster (talk) 13:53, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
OK, again thanks, I will try this out.

And, why do you want to claim that the Vrije Universiteit brussel is secularist? This statement is not NPOV, or at least it would nead a good reference. The Vrije Universiteit Brussel is pluralist according to its statutes in the sense as decribed on Wikipedia: see Pluralism. Furthermore, is it really necessary to make statements about one university in the article on another university? PhiRho (talk) 09:13, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

As I said on the article's talk page, I think to understand the position of a Catholic university in Belgium you have to understand something about "pillarization" - the other institutions create the landscape in which this institution operates. In the sense that Muslims, Catholics, Jews, etc. are welcome among the students and staff, it certainly is pluralist (and the KUL is pluralist in the same sense: they happily hire and teach people with a range of views on religion, including atheists); in the sense that the KUL is institutionally dependent on the bishops, and the VUB is run by Freethinkers (who have to subscribe to the Poincaré principle), neither is really pluralist (and I won't go into anecdotal evidence, because it's anecdotal, but I'm sure you're aware that it exists in plenty). The link you give to Pluralism is to a disambiguation page, so I'm not sure which definition you're referring me to. Have you read the article Secularism? I can't see that there's anything there that doesn't fit the VUB (and indeed its official adherence to the Poincaré Principle). --Paularblaster (talk) 13:53, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
The problem is also in the way the sentence is written. "the University of Ghent and the University of Antwerp consider themselves pluralist". But the Vrije universiteit Brussel considers itself also pluralist. And its statutes are in accordance to what is written in Pluralism (political philosophy) (sorry for linking you to the disambig page earlier). In my opinion, it is impossible to find a difference in the philosophical viewpoint of Vrije Universiteit Brussel and, say, Universiteit Gent. I do have read the page on Secularism before removing the sentence, and you can read there that secularism is about freedom of religion. The Poincare principle, as you call it, is much broader than only that, and it is a wrong interpretation to focus it on religion only. That is why is it not objective to attribute the specific term "secularism" to the Vrije Universiteit Brussel. This is the same as saying that the K.U.Leuven is "religious" without any explanation (which is not the case in the remainder of the paragraph, as it contains further explanation about the meaning of religious in connection with the K.U.Leuven, and which I do find neutral). Also, it is a myth that the Vrije Universiteit Brussel is "run by freethinkers"; there are as well atheists as religious people among its faculty. Forget the anecdotical evidence; as an alumnus of both univ's I know better. PhiRho (talk) 15:12, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
You make a fair point about "secularist", and about self-identifyingly "pluralist"; I've deleted any mention of "pluralism" as it's a value all the universities subscribe to (although they might understand it in different ways), and changed "secularist" to Freethinking (check the article: the first sentence is in effect the Poincaré principle). It's just as much a myth that the KUL is run by Catholics as that the VUB is run by Freethinkers: the faculty at both include all ranges of opinion; but the explicit principles to which each university formally subscribes (and at the KUL individual staff members don't have to subscribe to anything except an employment contract) mean that neither can be seen as "life-philosophically neutral" in the way that Ghent or Antwerp are. The anecdotal evidence concerns people I know personally: a Catholic doctor (sure she was hired, but she got a lot of stick from colleagues for putting a crucifix in her office); a computer scientist who refused to subscribe to the Poincaré principle on the grounds that it was a version of the Cretan liar paradox ("this is a dogma that you can't have dogmas"); and so on. --Paularblaster (talk) 15:37, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

For the work in the article of R. Father Osvaldo Lira, a friend translated part of the article for me. es:Usuario:Emilio Kopaitic/Contribuciones--190.21.202.121 (talk) 01:01, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. I'd never heard of Fr Lira, but when I saw a link had been added to a Spanish version of the article on Christopher Derrick I checked out your other contributions. He sounds really interesting. --Paularblaster (talk) 01:14, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Classical Chinese

A pint of Orval, awarded on 28 November 2007 by Hoary for emergency work on Naitō Tadayuki
A pint of Orval, awarded on 28 November 2007 by Hoary for emergency work on Naitō Tadayuki

I don't quite understand your writing. Do you agree to merge or not?-- Vintei  talk  13:20, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Classical Chinese

Back to you.
Ball's in your court, jc37.
badminton or ping pong?
Here we go round ...
One last round

[edit] Return of the Classical Chinese

I take great exception to your qualification of the discussion at Wikipedia:User_categories_for_discussion#Category:User_zh-classical as "no consensus" and remarking "so far no one has shown why a category is necessary for a classical language": the person putting it up for discussion admitted to simply raising the question out of their own ignorance; everybody who knows anything about the topic was against merging. The fact that I was able to find answers to the proposer's question by using the category to find expert opinion surely demonstrates its utility. If this is going to be an encyclopedia rather than a collection of SpongeBob plot summaries, then classical languages are as necessary as any other kind. --Paularblaster (talk) 11:59, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

What I think you're not seeing is what I implied, but apparently didn't get across:
  • "so far no one has shown why a Wikipedian category is necessary for a classical language" (emphasis on added clarifying word)
These are not categories for anything to do with classical chinese. These are groups of Wikipedians who claim to write/understand classical chinese. And take a look at the discussion, the discussion is about the notability of classical chinese. That's all well and good, but that has little to do with whether a Wikipedian category for the topic should exist.
And note that that was only one of three main reasons for the "No consensus".
Please feel free to renominate if you feel that the categories should be renamed. (Or even start a discussion somewhere discussing options, if you wish. And nominate once you feel that you (plural) have a consensual agreement.) Perhaps this time clear consensus will exist. - jc37 01:12, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
  • The issue was never "are these relevant?", it was "are these languages different enough not to merge?". The discussion was not in any degree about the notability of Classical Chinese, it was about the factual question of what it is. You brought up the issue of relevance (for the first time) in your closing summary. Take a moment to think about that.
Now that you've reflected, can I add that it's hardly surprising that nobody had sought to demonstrate the relevance of the category, when relevance wasn't in question until the discussion was closed?
In fact, it is precisely as a Wikipedian category that I have empirically demonstrated its usefulness: when the question was raised whether "Classical Chinese" was just a writing system, I could use the category to seek the advice of contributors with a better idea of what Classical Chinese is. The category has, even before our eyes, fostered encyclopedic collaboration. To clarify my own earlier remark: If this is going to be an encyclopedia rather than a collection of SpongeBob plot summaries, then contributors who can be identified as knowing something about classical languages are as necessary as any other kind. Paularblaster (talk) 01:34, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Well thank you (I think).
As for your comments, I think you misunderstand. Wikipedian categories have nothing to do with whether an editor is valued or "necessary". We could nuke the entire category scheme and editors would still be valued and necessary.
I hope this helps clarify. - jc37 01:50, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
No - nothing to do with valued or necessary. A lot to do with identifiable when you need one. Paularblaster (talk) 01:56, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Excellent! Now please find where you said that even once in the discussion. The closest I see is a single example where you said you found it useful to find the members of the category so that they could discuss the category itself. Read the discussion. Discussion of the category as a Wikipedian category was distinctly absent.
And remember, this (again) was only one of three reasons listed : ) - jc37 02:04, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
If we're not careful we'll end up going round in circles at the same time as back and forth. Again: nobody was "defending" Classical Chinese as a user category, we were just explaining why it would be inappropriate to merge it. In your summary you correctly pointed out that there is no distinct ISO and that zh-chinese is the abbreviation used on CC-wikipedia. So far so consensus to keep separate. The relevance of the user category as such was never mentioned by the nominator, or anybody else, until you brought it up in the closing statement (where no reply can be given). That's what bothers me. You know, one day you might have a question about Classical Chinese yourself. Paularblaster (talk) 02:18, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Consensus to keep separate may be also considered "No consensus to merge" : )
Hope you're having a great day : ) - jc37 02:23, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
More like a long night - Paularblaster (talk) 02:26, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


[edit] C&S

Thank you for your very kind comment re the above, which I do not deserve, as it is a ludicrously short item compared to what this interesting church merits - I hope one day they will get a properly-written and detailed piece. Your sources will be a good start. HeartofaDog (talk) 00:38, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Inquisition

Hi... Please see my comment at the talk page for "Dutch Republic" -- I think the approved way to handle the multiple viewpoints is to describe the fact that there is disagreement and cite the sources on both sides. Please comment on [1]. Thanks! Paul Koning (talk) 12:01, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Over Groot-Bijgaarden

Beste,

Alle franstalige namen van Vlaamse gemeenten zijn in de zomer van dit jaar afgeschaft, toen de Vlaamse regering de desbetreffende resolutie van het Vlaams parlement uitvoerde. Dit was wat de VRT er een jaar geleden over te vertellen had:

Zeg niet "Fourons", maar wel "Voeren" vr 15/12/06 - De Vlaamse regering heeft alle officiële Franstalige benamingen voor Vlaamse gemeenten afgeschaft. Daarmee voert de regering een motie uit van het Vlaams Parlement.

Zo'n veertig Vlaamse gemeenten en deelgemeenten hebben zowel een Nederlandse als een Franse officiële naam.Het gaat dan vooral om een aantal grote steden, kustgemeenten en taalgrensgemeenten. Bijvoorbeeld Anvers, Malines, Le-Coq-sur-Mer, Herck-la-Ville en Bruges zullen zich voortaan aan hun Nederlandse naam moeten houden.Voor toeristen of buitenlandse folders mag Kortrijk nog wel Courtrai heten en Gent Gand.

Tot nu toe konden de gemeenten met twee officiële namen Franstalige naam bijvoorbeeld gebruiken op officieel briefpapier, als ze dat wilden. In faciliteiten- of taalgrensgemeenten pronkten de Franstalige benamingen, zoals Rhode-Saint-Génèse en Fourons, al eens op borden en wegwijzers. Dat mag dus niet meer.

Politiek gevoelig moment

De afschaffing komt op een politiek gevoelig moment, na de omstreden RTBF-uitzending van de RTBF over de zogenoemde onafhankelijkheid van Vlaanderen. Maar Vlaams minister-president Yves Leterme wil niemand voor het hoofd stoten. Het tijdstip is niet met opzet nu gekozen: "We hadden afgesproken om deze beslissing van het parlement uit te voeren in een niet-electorale periode. De timing is wat dat betreft correct afgesproken."

De N-VA is zeer tevreden met de beslissing van de regering. Vooral in de faciliteitengemeenten zal de schrijwijze van de naam alleen al aantonen dat de gemeente tot Vlaanderen behoort, zegt de partij.

De naam 'Grand-Bigard' is trouwens nooit officieël geweest, en wordt noch in Dilbeek, noch in Brussel gebruikt. Ik woon in Dilbeek en studeer in Brussel, dus geloof me vrij als ik zeg dat ik weet waarover ik spreek. Kent u trouwens de situatie in Dilbeek een beetje? Deze gemeente heeft zwaar te lijden onder de invloedssfeer van het grotendeels franstalige Brussel, en heeft dit soort reclame dus helemaal niet nodig.

Ik vind het overigens jammer dat ik hierover in conflict moet gaan met u, want in uw profielpagina las ik dat u veel van mijn passies deelt (de Middeleeuwen, barokmuziek, Tolkien, het feit dat u katholiek bent,...).

met vriendelijke groet,

Winter1988 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Winter1988 (talk • contribs) 22:26, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Beschouw het niet als conflict, gewoon als discussie. Ik ga direct mijn antwoord op het praatblad van het artikel zetten. --Paularblaster (talk) 22:55, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

PS: Mijn welgemeende excuses voor de hoofdletters in de summary. Ik verloor eventjes mijn geduld. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Winter1988 (talk • contribs) 22:39, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Geen probleem hoor. -Paularblaster (talk) 22:55, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Category:South Tyrol

supparluca emptied and redirected Category:South Tyrol despite consensus at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 November 28#Category:South Tyrol to leave it alone. Chris (talk) 05:57, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ongoing RPG notability/AfD situation

Hi, Paularblaster. Was wondering if you wouldn't mind reading my take on this situation around here of late, with all the AfD stuff going on in the RPG sector. My user page article is here. Thanks in advance. Compsword01 (talk) 21:35, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Attila Joachim

Hi. I wasn't sure of your intention in removing the Prod. Are you suggesting that we redirect it to Ferenc Joachim, using whatever material might be appropriate, or that we delete it, after using whatever material might be appropriate? My feeling is that Attila Joachim would likely only be searched for on Wiki by his relatives as he appears to have no notability outside the family - however, I do have a preference for redirects over deletes, so would support a redirect if you have knowledge that Ferenc Joachim is more than just a minor painter. I did consider putting Ferenc Joachim up for AfD as there is no clear assertion of notability in the article. The article gives some evidence that the man existed and did paint, but that it concludes that a few of his paintings are in the basement of a non-notable museum doesn't present him in the best light! What do you know about him? SilkTork *SilkyTalk 00:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Either is fine by me. I've incorporated everything that seems relevant into the Ferenc Joachim article. I'm a bit puzzled about the assertion of notability myself: you wouldn't expect him to be mentioned in a general history of Western art, but he seems to have a place in the history of 20th-century Central European art, as witnessed “stub”-type entries in a couple of standard reference works:
  • Hans Vollmer, Allgemeines Lexikon der bildenden Künstler des XX. Jahrhunderts (Leipzig, 1953) - a basic work of reference
  • Emmanuel Bénézit, Dictionnaire critique et documentaire des peintres, sculpteurs, dessinateurs et graveurs de tous les temps et de tous les pays (Paris, 1976)
And this seems to indicate that one of his paintings ("Kőbánya Albániában") is in the Hungarian National Museum Gallery.
I'm having trouble coming up with something that clearly establishes notabiity without wildly overstating it. --Paularblaster (talk) 01:05, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
My feeling when I looked at the article was that given the context of the related articles and the history of how they were created that it was the enthusiasm of a grandson who had been doing a bit of family research that had prompted their appearance on Wiki - however, there was enough suggestion of the possibility of notability for reasonable doubt to set in on Ferenc Joachim. A bit of research would do the article good. In the meantime I'll redirect the related articles. Regards. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 08:19, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Great! Your assumption of good faith is rather more noble than mine: my first thought was that the author was from a gallery with a couple of his paintings to sell, and was trying to boost their market value by increasing his international profile. But you're right - the attempt to provide a whole set of articles detailing one family's sufferings in the Holocaust suggests grand-filial piety more than anything. In any case, the "specialized encyclopedias" provision of the first of the "five pillars" means that if he's in Vollmer and in Bénézit he should be in wikipedia. --Paularblaster (talk) 08:30, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I've now redirected Attila Joachim and Julia Graf to the section within Ferenc Joachim that appears to make reference to them, but it's not that clear. I think Ferenc Joachim could do with a clean up to make matters easier to follow there. The images could certainly be cut back! Regards SilkTork *SilkyTalk 01:36, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Right; I'm in the middle of tidying the article up. Since it's an article about a painter I'm not averse to keeping more pics than would be usual otherwise (one in each section, say, rather than just one at the top). Particularly problematic is the Esti Kurir interview: aside from a Hungarian newspaper archive I'd guess this is the only way to access the source (which ironically attests his name in the form "Csjetei Joachim Ferenc", as well as his poverty). --Paularblaster (talk) 12:43, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Yasuko Tasumi

Thanks for your comments concerning my prod of the article on Yasuko Tasumi, and I apologize for the late reply, as I've been traveling during the holidays. In terms of the searching I did for my prod nomination, I did a google search . The bulk of the responses come back to sites selling one CD, Auschwitz Requiem, or announcements of her performances. Having the one album doesn't meet the requirements of WP:MUSIC alone, and I don't see any of the other specialized criteria applying. In terms of generic notability criteria/coverage by third parties, the only non-trivial one I see is this one; the Kyoto Shimbun reference appears to me (via the imperfect glasses of Google Translate) to be a brochure with announcements of public lectures being given. In my mind, this doesn't add up to sufficient notability. It would help support a claim of notability if there were other sources, but isn't enough on its own. I assume you disagree since you pulled down the prod nomination. I still believe the article as it stands doesn't show sufficient notability, but I won't pursue deletion over the objections of another editor since I think it isn't too far off from acceptability. - Fordan (talk) 04:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Federal monarchy

Sorry to be blunt, but you're not listening. I asked you to define a federal monarchy. You give plenty of examples, but no definition.And don't try to fob me off by referring me to the 'sources'. I'm asking you.--Gazzster (talk) 22:50, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I told you already, and I quote: "a federation of states (monarchies or otherwise) which has a monarch as head of state for the federation as a whole who isn't necessarily internal head of state of each of the constituent parts". Very straightforward. --Paularblaster (talk) 23:01, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

A federation of states (monarchies or otherwise) which has a monarch as head of state for the federation as a whole who isn't necessarily internal head of state of each of the constituent parts. You call that straightforward? OK.--Gazzster (talk) 23:21, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks from a noob!

Sir, just like to say thankyou so so much for you wonderful advice and help on my talk page. You really went out of your way to help a wiki noob, and its a very kind thing of you to do. Thanks again! :D —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lukedddd (talk • contribs) 04:26, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] grammar on Rosary of the Unborn

I didn't think it was wrong to begin with, but I don't mind yours either, so i'll leave it. -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 23:24, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn;t have said it was wrong - but I did think it was ambiguous. --Paularblaster (talk) 23:29, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Ok, cool, i didn't think that either, but if other people might, I welcome it, thanks =) -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 23:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AfD for Wilmington Montessori School

Paularblaster, You recently commented on Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Wilmington_Montessori_School and gave a 'weak keep'. Since that time I have been reviewing many of the WP policies and guidelines over the last few days. I have also been revising the article with the help of other editors and have completed the following,

  • Two additional references regarding national grants - the first by the US Environmental Protection Agency; and, the second by Toyota and the National Science Teacher's Association.
  • Added Montessori Life reference that "Wilminglon [sic] Montessori School ... Delaware's oldest and largest Montessori school..." [2]

With the additional recent work toward establishing notability and the additional comments by other experienced editors, I would appreciate if you could review Wilmington Montessori School, Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/Wilmington_Montessori_School, and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Wilmington_Montessori_School again and provide your opinion.

Regards. --Daddy.twins (talk) 00:38, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] {{Oldprodfull}}

Hello, Paularblaster ... please see this talk page and tell me what you think of my newly created Template:Oldprodfull ... would you use it, or update it if you encountered it?

Also, what are your thoughts on my proposed WP:FLAG-BIO protocol?

Happy Editing! — 72.75.72.63 (talk · contribs) 01:51, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rates

In reality I also charge less than that, however I've been told I'm undercharging by about half based upon the going rates in my part of Canada, and with my rent skyrocketing this year, I'll probably end up charging something like that. However my rate as a book editor (as opposed to magazine editor) does in fact hit around that number. 23skidoo (talk) 15:39, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


[edit] William Allen

Your message helps me. Regius Professor is specifically about the chairs founded by and subject to the approval of The Crown (that is, the English, Scottish, Irish, or United Kingdom crown). When I noted "no Regius Professors at Douai", I meant there were none of the kind wikilinked. Clearly, Douai had Regius Professors founded by a different crown. I think the answer is to restore 'Regius', with a footnote to explain it, and without the link to Regius Professor. Xn4 22:36, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reopened discussion on Category:Wikipedians interested in books

You were part of the discussion of the ucfd of Category:Wikipedians interested in books. I have reopened the discussion. If you wish to particpate in this second discussion, it can be found here. - LA @ 00:04, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Robert Henry Elliot

Just a friendly reminder that you had indicated a plan to improve this article after removing the prod. Thanks! --Stormbay (talk) 21:16, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

If you take a look at my userpage you'll see that it's on my "to do" list. But I don't think there's a deadline, is there? --Paularblaster (talk) 21:39, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Not at all! I had thought of Afd but will move on. Cheers! --Stormbay (talk) 22:51, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstar thanks!

Many thanks for the "bot-breaking barnstar"! What a cool idea! 23skidoo (talk) 14:40, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Heptalogy

Hi, I placed the tag in the heptalogy article because I think the lack of any decent discussion or definition is a problem, and one that needs to be rectified. Nothing has changed since that tag was placed. A lot of people agree with me, including the author. You may disagree. That's why the tag says "this article may not meet..." People are allowed to express their concerns without having them unilaterally deleted. --Lo2u (T • C) 20:32, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Quislings

Personally, I think "quisling" is POV, "World War II collaborator" is not. Some Flemish nationalists may object to calling Vande Wiele a traitor. In fact, he was not in favour of making Flanders a part of Germany - while Degrelle at one time famously claimed all Walloons are Frenchified Germans and should be allowed to become citizens of the Third Reich. Degrelle was also a bit more important (Vande Wiele did not "serve" the entire war) - that is an interesting point here, because comparing these guys to Quisling may in fact be making them more important than they really were. I am not going to revert you (actually, you kept the rest of their description, so this is now purely a POV case) but I am asking around for second opinions. All the best.--Paul Pieniezny (talk) 16:00, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Nonsense of Category:Wikipedians interested in books as objects

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Category:Wikipedians interested in books as objects, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Category:Wikipedians interested in books as objects provides no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Category:Wikipedians interested in books as objects, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 16:00, 24 March 2008 (UTC)