User talk:Dejvid

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

User talk:Dejvid/archive2010

Celtic Skirmishers[edit]

Be aware that anything involving the Celts can be a bit of a minefield. Unless you have some evidence, such as dispatches written by Brennus, Vercingetorix or Cassivellaunus expressing 'contempt' for skirmishers, this idea is only supposition, based perhaps on the "wild Celtic warrior" stereotype. Distinguish carefully between the Ancient Britons and the modern British Paul S (talk) 10:41, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I've no problem with the new wording, except that you continue to confuse Britons with British. The Britons are the ancient people. The British are citizens of the United Kingdom. Paul S (talk) 23:27, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Absolute PC Britspeak nonsense are ancient Germans or Irish not getting references as German or Irish — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.48.174.224 (talk) 22:09, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Talkback[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Dejvid. You have new messages at Monstrelet's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Monstrelet (talk) 13:10, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Hamilcar's victory with Navaras[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg

You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles. See the Article Wizard.

Thank you.

A tag has been placed on Hamilcar's victory with Navaras, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article that does not provide sufficient context to identify its subject. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you plan to expand the article, you can request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material. To do this, affix the template {{hangon}} to the article and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Cyberthrone :) 13:23, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

The Cut[edit]

Hi there

Please do not reinstate the sign indicating 'other characters'. I find this sign to be pretty pointless, since many of the characters in that section play a huge role in the show, particularly in the second series. They all appear on the official characters list on the site, so they should all be important enough to go in one section. For less important characters, there is a 'Recurring Characters' section. I would consider a recurring character to be anyone who has appeared in more than one full-length episode, but is not important enough to have a character profile on the site. George.millman (talk) 09:36, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

The question is ...[edit]

Why are a tiny handful of obscure European articles using the wrong system in the first place when the major European articles do not?
and not:
Why should a truly glaring error be corrected?, a ridiculous question that for some reason apparently needs to be asked over and over and over again, ad infinitum ad nauseam. In case there is any confusion on this point, the Latin language is not part of Chinese culture.
Varlaam (talk) 15:17, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Here's an idea. You go and correct the remainder of the bloody articles yourself, and then you can document the changes however the hell you like to do it.
My gift to you. Have fun with it.
Varlaam (talk) 15:37, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
This kind of trash talk is not encouraged at Wikipedia. My apologies, Dejvid, on Varlaam's behalf.--Wetman (talk) 19:22, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
I can speak for myself. Thanks.
Since Dejvid loves playing Devil's advocate, let him do the actual work as opposed to obstructing others who are wasting their time doing it.
What is your story, Wetman? Why are you intruding in other people's private conversations? Do you also open mail addressed to someone else? The sheer rudeness and arrogance around this place is unbelievable.
"Trash talk". I'm not American. Wrong guess.
The word you were seeking was "disparagement".
What I was actually using was irony. I have graciously provided the Wiktionary link. You failed to note the tone.
Varlaam (talk) 18:30, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
I didn't react because responding to rudeness rarely helps not because I thought what you said was okay. The "its only a joke" line is so calculated to wind someone up, I begin to wonder if that is not your intention. If it is not your intention then please think carefully about how you are expressing yourself.Dejvid (talk) 21:10, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Timeline of Canadian history[edit]

The calendar was changed by a vandal in July.
Why weren't you all over that guy instead of harassing me in some fit of pique?

Don't bother to answer. I'm really not interested in whatever your motivation is.
Varlaam (talk) 03:14, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

If you had put in the edit summary "revert undiscussed era change" I would have realized that your edit was valid. Instead you left the edit summary blank. Surely you can see that if someone does not give a reason then other people will assume that you have no good reason. And why do you call that anon user a vandal when you did the same on the Gaddi Torso page? You seem unaware that the two styles have equal status and see a BCE for as a simple mistake.Dejvid (talk) 12:01, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

In fact (Dejvid and also Wetman) have been involved in a number of edits in which they have either blatantly or slyly changed the era setting on articles - always to displace the BC/AD system with the BCE convention. THAT is what Dejvid's motivation is and also why the previous July vandalism of Timeline of Canadian history was of no interest! --212.74.26.3 (talk) 13:07, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Notability?[edit]

CeCe Peniston may be notable but is this song notable?Dejvid (talk) 12:57, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi, just noticed your message. You are right and I know what you mean, but my intention was to build the comprehensive discography of Peniston. Also, I am discussing the title with its producers and trying to get more details as for the release including possible chart positions. Benuliak (talk)

Kosovo[edit]

Hello,

I'm curious why you're disputing the fact that Kosovo became the crux or cradle of Serbian culture, religion and national identity, while not at all disputing the sentence about the Albanian national awakening. It is a wide known fact that Kosovo means a lot to the Serbian national spirit, anyone who does the tiniest bit of research will see that outright. Providing a reference for that, which is what I did, was the most absurd thing I have ever did on Wikipedia, because it's like asking a reference for the ocean being salty. I sincerely hope you didn't have a hidden agenda in your revert, as many on the Kosovo article do, because it just seems strange to me that someone would target a reference to what Kosovo means to the Serbs while being content with the introduction only discussing what Kosovo means to Albanians. The article, as I'm sure you'd agree, should be written in a fair manner, and the introduction carefully brushes any hint of the significance of Kosovo to the Serbs, perhaps due to the current political situation in the region. However, this is an encyclopaedia and we have an obligation to provide fair and unbalanced information not only for ourselves, but for future generations as well.

--Cinéma C 20:05, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. My reply is on Talk:Kosovo#the_cradle_of_Serbian_culture?.Dejvid (talk) 11:16, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Please participate in this discussion[edit]

You were involved in the old AfD for this article and I request that you leave a comment and your opinion on the question I have raised on the talk page. Thank you for your time. SilverserenC 22:28, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

The frogs seek a king[edit]

I'm at a loss to see what it is you're objecting to in the interpretation of the fable by Phaedrus, unless it is my generalising that it is his intention to demonstrate that the restraint of law is a good thing and that tyranny is not. The opening lines translate as follows:

Athenae cum florerent aequis legibus,
When the Athenians flourished with equal laws,
procax libertas civitatem miscuit,
Impudent liberty confounded (or stirred up) the state
frenumque solvit pristinum licentia.
And license loosened the former restraint (lit. rein).

It goes on to outline the historical context of a take-over of the state by a tyrant and how Aesop rationalised the situation. I must therefore ask you justify from the Latin that Aesop's moral is that a boring king is better than a 'glory seeker'. I think you're reading later interpretations of the story into a discussion in the article of what Phaedrus/Aesop is saying in the poem. I don't want to start an edit war, so I have left the tag in place until I have a clearer idea what point you're trying to make. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 13:59, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Okay, your translation seems much closer to your interpretation and you are right in suspecting that I was unable to read the Latin. Putting the translation into verse does seem to have done serious violence to the meaning. Putting my own interpretation (which was based on another version) in the edit description was probably a mistake when the actual query was closeness of your interpretation to the source.Dejvid (talk) 21:45, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Dejvid. I've removed the tag now we've sorted that out. Actually, I thought Christopher Smart's version was pretty close to the original, considering the restrictions of style. I'm not really a Latinist, so just to check I ran those lines through the function that gives word for word alternatives. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 23:09, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Battle of Cannae[edit]

Hi, I'm from Wp:Italy. I now you did this edit in the page Battle of Cannae, so I ask you if you could kindly answer the question at the and of the talk of the page. I would be very grateful to you, because in italian version near the sentence «He [Daly Gregory] suggests that at the Battle of Zama Hannibal was quoted saying that he had fought Paullus at Cannae» there is the template:Please clarify. Thank you. --Innocenti Erleor (talk) 22:06, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Undue template[edit]

Dejvid, you have added the Undue template to the International recognition of Kosovo article, stating "over representation of views hostile to Kosovo". If you want this issue to be properly discussed, then you will need to create a new section on the talk page in which you put forward your arguments. I know you have already raised this issue in the "Libya and outdated info" section but this is getting lost amongst the wider discussion about Libya. I suggest you start a completely new section to make sure the discussion goes well. Regards, Bazonka (talk) 07:13, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Fair point - I'll need to take a little time to make a fair summary which doesn't just repeat myself.Dejvid (talk) 15:52, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Discussion about removal of adminship on shwiki[edit]

Kolega2357 has asked me to notify you of this discussion on shwiki. The reason they want to remove your adminship is inactivity. Regards, πr2 (tc) 17:59, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Imaš odgovor tu u komentarima. --Kolega2357 (talk) 14:36, 10 March 2014 (UTC)