User talk:Flammingo

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Please click here to leave me a new message.

Talk:Hamid Dabashi[edit]

Hello Flammingo! Due to the personal attacks and the "edit wars" during my attempts at wikifying the article, by multiple "exclusive" users, I had taken a break from editing the article. I thank you for your efforts, which were also reverted, and would like to receive more feedback on the talk page with possible suggestions to its remaining issues (I had already transferred it from a quote collection into an article). Hamid Dabashi is a respected scholar and it is somewhat surprising and even troubling that there is so much vanity around him, which could hurt his reputation. Thank you and best regards, gidonb 15:30, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I was going catfixing, and don't know him; there seems to be a problem with the adding of categories, so I may have poked a sleeping dragon, however, I found the article interesting, not at all as "promoting" as the talk page suggests. --FlammingoHey 07:54, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
The article could use more balance, and definitely there is place to delete the cats which you deleted and get added time and again. I did not know Dabashi until I cleaned up the root of Category:Social scientists and the cat got re-added right away. gidonb 10:42, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Germany Invitation[edit]

Coat of arms of Germany.svg

Hello, Flammingo! I'd like to call your attention to the WikiProject Germany and the German-speaking Wikipedians' notice board. I hope their links, sub-projects and discussions are interesting and even helpful to you. If not, I hope that new ones will be.


--Zeitgespenst (talk) 01:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!--FlammingoHey 10:00, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Postmodenrism article[edit]

Hi- I noticed you contributed to the postmodernism article/ discussion. I'm new to the whole Wiki community, but have a questions about one of the entries. I searched an archived copy of the Hibbert Journal and found no evidence to support the claim made in the PostModernism Intro that "The term was used as early as 1914 in an article in The Hibbert Journal written by J.M.Thompson." (J.M.Thompson, The Hibbert Journal Vol XII No.4 July 1914 p.733). Do you know who made that addition or how to contact that user? Thanks for your time Mahinm (talk) 19:38, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

It's been in there for a long time (~3 years), so unless you want to go through the entire article history, no, there is no other way to find that person. If you have anything on the matter (ie. first definition of the term in the article's sense), WP:Be bold and go ahead!--FlammingoHey 09:54, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Post-colonial literature article[edit]

Hi, I've made a couple of changes to that article on post-colonial literature. I think it needs more work. Do you think it can be expanded better? Cheers!--Supriya (talk) 10:14, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Wik[edit]

Eh... you left banned madman Wik a message? - Face 09:10, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

No, that was an automated message.--FlammingoHey 11:36, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Image tagging for File:Wappen Gerdes.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Wappen Gerdes.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 08:31, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Krüger's list of globularists[edit]

Thank you for your recent edit to the Flat Earth article. While I have my doubts about the quality of Krüger's scholarship, I don't believe it's appropriate to selectively delete names from his list. I have therefore taken the liberty of restoring them. I have outlined my reasons for doing so on the talk page. Please discuss there.
David Wilson (talk · cont) 14:34, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


I replied there.--FlammingoHey 13:42, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Grasswidow[edit]

First of all there is no such word as 'grasswidow'; the term is 'grass widow' and WP should not promulgate this inaccuracy. Secondly, even if the word existed this is a dicdef without the necessary encyclopedic content.-- Bridgeplayer (talk) 22:32, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

"replied", that is, you forgot to write about that on talk, also you even copied the "this is not to be copied" warning in the tag... ;-) Keep it up! --FlammingoHey 13:41, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Grasswidow[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg

An article that you have been involved in editing, Grasswidow, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grasswidow. Thank you.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Bridgeplayer (talk) 15:24, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Corn[edit]

Please stop reverting to your version, which is not tenable. Wheat is the "main cereal crop" of Kansas, but "corn" means maize there, just like everywhere else in North America. Take any further issues to talk. Johnbod (talk) 21:13, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

That's not true. The reasons have been given there a long time ago, and the Original Research of articles using American English is an analogy.FlammingoHey 10:39, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Sociology reviewer[edit]

Hi Flammingo. At the sociology article, we're looking for a reviewer, with a view to getting the article to good article and then featured article status. It's not featured quality yet, but I'm confident it's a good quality page. Please be a reviewer if the mood grabs you! --Tomsega (talk) 19:13, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Christmas tree[edit]

Hey Flammingo, you reverted my edit in the origins section. I am referring to the phrase 16th century Northern Germany and their settlements in the Baltic region. First of all, it's not a grammatical sentence in English. Second, the Baltic region in the medieval context (as opposed to the 20th century geopolitical connotations) is way too large an area to be unequivocally understood. Lastly, their (I assume Germans) settlements? Tallinn was an Estonian settlement long before a German set his foot there. Germans actually followed Danes who had conquered the city in 1217. Why don't you mention them? Even in 16th century Tallinn, that is three centuries after the Northern Crusades, two thirds of the population were ethnic Estonians. There were also Estonian members of the Blackheads Brotherhood. As it stands now, your current wording seems to imply a hidden agenda. I think it's best to refrain from ethnic identifications in this context. I the light of this I am going to revert your change. Livonia, a medieval political entity that comprised all of Estonia and northern Latvia, is a neutral term that should not offend anyone. I hope you agree.

I also felt compelled to delete your qualification of the Blackheads Brotherhood as a union of North German merchants active in Riga and Reval. How on earth do you expect to prove that they were all from North Germany? Any sources I am not aware of? Actually, most of the members were local Baltic Germans, plus a minority of non-Germans of indigenous and other backgrounds. If this was a North German organization as you claim, how do you explain the fact that the Blackheads were active only in Livonia? There were no brotherhood houses in Germany. --Vihelik (talk) 01:30, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

my, the page is loading slow today. Well, the last bit is what I read as well, which you just quoted there is still the case. [1] and that the Blackheads were expelled and today only remain in Bremen [2] since the foundation of Riga was initiated by Bremen merchants, and Reval as well was mostly comprised of Danes and Germans. This is not to denounce anyone, we only should be very, very careful not to make an impression like "the Christmas tree was invented (especially not: by the XX) in Tallinn and spread from there." I didnt say (or, if you prefer: You fail to point out etc...) that there was an "agenda". Finally, talking about grammatical sentences isn't the best way to start a conversation, or is it? btw [3] Well, I won't bother much about proving every sentence myself (mind you, what's there now is easily challenged), just as long as the section won't repeat that myth of According to the first documented uses of a Christmas tree in Estonia twice without reference to the Hanseatic, German merchants in the town and their ties with the fellas. Otherwise we'd be better off without all that.--FlammingoHey 03:36, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Barnstars 'R' U[edit]

Original Barnstar.png The Hidden Page Barnstar
I award you one for finding Trekphiler's page for people who always think that "new message" bar is real. Aren't you glad you answered the phone? (Greetings, Earthling, I come in peace. ;p) TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 21:51, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


Wife Article[edit]

Hey, I haven't done much improvements on Wikipedia, but I do read articles for fun everyday. I noticed that you pretty much made the wife and husband articles, and I agree that they shouldn't go straight to marriage, by the way. I was looking at the adultery section and I have an issue with the last line: "In contemporary Western culture, however, the breaking of matrimonial vows is not seen in such a bad light."

Aside from that fact it is somewhat slang-like, it don't believe its quite true and feel we could find some sources showing that adultery is a big deal in marriage in Western culture. However, I am afraid to just jump in and change it, but I feel ninety percent of the discussion board is from 2007. What would you suggest as a expert user yourself? ~ wespanol — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wespanol1 (talkcontribs) 18:56, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

There have been a couple of changes that should be undone, and I too would rephrase that line. So please go ahead (but please use this version!-thanks --FlammingoHey 13:48, 5 July 2011 (UTC)