User talk:Laszlo Panaflex

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

Pit photo[edit]

Hi, I saw you were looking for pictures of The Pit. I don't live in Albuquerque any more, but I did manage to dig up this photo I took in 2003 which is perhaps of interest because it shows the exterior prior to remodeling. Just a heads up in case you would like to use it in the article. Camerafiend (talk) 00:13, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for this. Yes, I will use it on both the Lobo basketball and Pit pages. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 17:34, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Crusades[edit]

This IP, 68.14.160.191,[1] has removed references and referenced information from the Crusades article and has chose to engage in discussion on the talk page. Would you be interested in participating? --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:53, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Manuel I and however.[edit]

Hi,

I'm not sure that your replacement of "however" in sentences within the Manuel I Komnenos article improves matters grammatically. I would say that placing "however" bracketed by commas in the middle of a sentence which is qualifying a previous sentence is confusing or possibly incorrect. Comma bracketed "however"s are used when the latter part of a sentence qualifies the preceding part of the same sentence. Using "However," at the start of a sentence is usually thought of as grammatically viable, I have used it in scientific papers and a PhD thesis, but possibly stylistically debatable - possibly it is an American/British difference of opinion. If you really object to "However," at the start of a sentence then the best thing to do is to incorporate the preceding sentence into the one with the "however", thus replacing the full stop (period) with a semi-colon followed by a "however,". Alternatively the construct "Usually the barking of the dog would have alerted the people in the house. The dog was dead however, so was unable to warn the householders of the burglary." Losing the comma before the "however" makes the qualification refer to the preceding sentence. This may be thought of as a rather archaic grammatical construct, however. Urselius (talk) 08:51, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Another editor recently reverted an edit I made placing however at the beginning of a sentence, pointing out that many style manuals prefer the placement within the sentence rather than at the beginning. I'm aware that many style manuals do indeed prefer that placement, as did my writing professors in law school, so I guess you can't please everyone. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 13:55, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Urselius, please forgive me if I was a bit curt in my initial response; I'm a bit under the weather this week. I have a busy day ahead, but I will revisit this edit when I have the opportunity and attempt to incorporate your concerns. Thanks, Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 15:13, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Your recent revert in the section about Weapons and warfare of the Vikings[edit]

Hello. I am here to explain why you are wrong and the reasons behind the text that you changed. I could have reverted your edit, but edit-wars are no good. We will discuss this specific issue here instead.

Fore the hurried reader, it might seem a small thing, that I care about the differences between these text-strings:

"The warfare and violence of the Vikings, were often motivated or fuelled by their religious beliefs (ie. Norse religion), with a strong focus on the gods of Thor and Odin who were gods of war and death."

"The warfare and violence of the Vikings were often motivated by beliefs of Norse religion, focused on Thor and Odin, the gods of war and death."

But there is a an important difference, three actually. 1. In my text (the first excerpt) I put their motivation towards violence and warfare into a larger perspective, and also their religion. In your text you seem to blame the specific religion of Norse religion, which is unnecessary offending and clearly wrong. Many other cultures have being fuelled and motivated towards violence by other religions.

2. The Norse Religion, does not focus on the gods of Thor and Odin per se. It was something that was specific to the Vikings and something they intentionally did to become more warlike. Other cultures and other times have seen a more peaceful side of Norse Religion.

3. The 'fuelling' word is rather important. A large part of their raids, might in fact have been motivated be the necessity to claim more resources in order to survive. And to wind themselves up for going viking, they fuelled the warfare with their religion and specific ceremonies. It is not a redundant word.

I could restore my original text, but we could also compromise on this text:

"The warfare and violence of the Vikings were often motivated and fuelled by their beliefs in Norse religion, focusing on Thor and Odin, the gods of war and death."

You are most welcome to correct grammatical errors of course, although I cannot see any in this line. If you want to have a say on the subject, please comment here. I will gladly discuss constructively.

RhinoMind (talk) 23:51, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Your compromise text is acceptable to me. As for the grammar in your initial sentence, the comma after Vikings is improper, and the parenthetical "i.e." is inelegant at best: Better to blend the reference to Norse religion directly into the text. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 00:12, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
Hello. good, then we settle for that last line then. Btw. while we are at it, do you know of a site or a source that explains the rules of how to use commas correctly in the English language? I'll instantly admit, that my understanding is inadequate, but I dont know how to learn it properly. In Denmark the use of commas has been "given free", due to many years of grammatical-"wars" so to speak. Ok, that was a bonus-question. RhinoMind (talk) 01:04, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
It is a difficult question, and I've recently been involved in a "grammar war" of my own. A number of style manuals are mentioned in that discussion: Strunk & White and Fowler's are two primary guides, but I don't believe they are available on-line; this Oxford manual is on-line, but it is a bit cursory. While the conclusion of the dispute I link to was that British and American punctuation is quite similar, I'm aware that Germanic languages and Russian have very different norms. Wish I could be more help, Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 01:28, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

You've got mail![edit]

Mail-message-new.svg
Hello, Laszlo Panaflex. Please check your email – you've got mail!
Message added 09:55, 8 August 2014 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{YGM}} template.

Nikkimaria (talk) 09:55, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Uniquark9[edit]

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Uniquark9. opened up SOI investigation. Thanks. Avono (talk) 11:50, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Lol. Just stop accusing me using socket. Don't be childish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uniquark9 (talkcontribs) 00:49, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Happy New Year Laszlo Panaflex![edit]

Reverting undiscussed moves[edit]

Re: Your recent comments at Talk:Siege of Constantinople (Rus' Siege of Constantinople) (860). If you wish to revert a recent undiscussed move (as was the case for this article), you do not need to go through the full RM process even if the move requires an admin (per WP:RMUM). You can propose the move in the Requesting technical moves section of the RM page. —  AjaxSmack  16:17, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for staying on top of this, Laszlo Panaflex. I've found that there have been so many seriously contentious moves, refactoring, and blanking of content on articles on anything surrounding Eastern European Slavs since the recent events in Ukraine that it's impossible to stay on top of the mess being made. There's been a tidal wave of new POV warriors, IP hoppers, and SPAs who've been unable to get a look-in on the current affairs articles who are using the opportunity to create havoc with established, consensus-based articles that I can't stay on top of the editing chaos. Sigh. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:28, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
It does get frustrating. I've been dealing with a wave of Mongolian editors/puppets that more or less put me off WP for a while. Most of them have been blocked over the past few days, thankfully. I should not have even gotten involved in this current KR dust up at all. Just that every time I see a newly created red-linked editor EW'ing without explanation I'm compelled to respond. Sigh, also (!) Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 00:57, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
2 steps forward, six steps back. I wish I didn't care... but, until dementia wipes my woes away, I am compelled to persevere despite common sense. Don't let the hordes get you down. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:24, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Wow. Just learned that over 50 sock accounts leading back to one disruptive user were just blocked. Horde, indeed. No wonder I'm feeling so worn out. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 03:55, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
There have been a huge number reported that haven't even made it to CU due to the sheer volume. The Ukrainian crisis + Russophobes +Russophiles +Western Asian POVers +anti-US +anti-anti-anti have swollen into a veritable tidal wave. As Daggett would say, "This is nuts!" --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:10, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Mongols[edit]

Can you take a look at this dispute? Oirats&action=history Talk:Oirats#Edit_warring.Rajmaan (talk) 00:16, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

TWL HighBeam check-in[edit]

Hello Wikipedia Library Users,

You are receiving this message because the Wikipedia Library has record of you receiving a one-year subscription to HighBeam. This is a brief update to remind you about that access:

  • Make sure that you can still log in to your HighBeam account; if you are having trouble feel free to contact me for more information. When your access expires you can reapply at WP:HighBeam.
  • Remember, if you find this source useful for your Wikipedia work, make sure to include citations with links on Wikipedia: links to partner resources are one of the few ways we can demonstrate usage and demand for accounts to our partners. The greater the linkage, the greater the likelihood a useful partnership will be renewed. For more information about citing this source, see Wikipedia:HighBeam/Citations
  • Write unusual articles using this partner's sources? Did access to this source create new opportunities for you in the Wikipedia community? If you have a unique story to share about your contributions, let us know and we can set up an opportunity for you to write a blog post about your work with one of our partner's resources.

Finally, we would greatly appreciate if you filled out this short survey. The survey helps us not only better serve you with facilitating this particular partnership, but also helps us discover what other partnerships and services the Wikipedia Library can offer.

Thank you. Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 16:46, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Newspapers.com check-in[edit]

Hello Laszlo Panaflex,

You are receiving this message because you have a one-year subscription to Newspapers.com through the Wikipedia Library. This is a brief update, to remind you about that access:

  • Please make sure that you can still log in to your Newspapers.com account. If you are having trouble let me know.
  • Remember, if you find this source useful for your Wikipedia work, to include citations with links on Wikipedia. Links to partner resources are one of the few ways we can demonstrate usage and demand for accounts to our partners. The greater the linkage, the greater the likelihood a useful partnership will be renewed. Also, keep in mind that part of Newspapers.com is open access via the clipping function. Clippings allow you to identify particular articles, extract them from the original full sheet newspaper, and share them through unique URLs. Wikipedia users who click on a clipping link in your citation list will be able to access that particular article, and the full page of the paper if they come from the clipping, without needing to subscribe to Newspapers.com. For more information about how to use clippings, see http://www.newspapers.com/basics/#h-clips .
  • Do you write unusual articles using this partner's sources? Did access to this source create new opportunities for you in the Wikipedia community? If you have a unique story to share about your contributions, let me know and we can set up an opportunity for you to write a blog post about your work with one of our partner's resources.

Finally, we would greatly appreciate it if you filled out this short survey. Your input will help us to facilitate this particular partnership, and to discover what other partnerships and services the Wikipedia Library can offer.

Thank you,

Wikipedia Library Newspapers.com account coordinator HazelAB (talk) 23:34, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

TWL Questia check-in[edit]

Hello!

You are receiving this message because The Wikipedia Library has record of you receiving a one-year subscription to Questia. This is a brief update to remind you about that access:

  • Make sure that you can still log in to your Questia account; if you are having trouble feel free to get in touch.
  • When your account expires you can reapply for access at WP:Questia.
  • Remember, if you find this source useful for your Wikipedia work, make sure to include citations with links on Wikipedia: links to partner resources are one of the few ways we can demonstrate usage and demand for accounts to our partners. The greater the linkage, the greater the likelihood a useful partnership will be renewed.
  • Write unusual articles using this partner's sources? Did access to this source create new opportunities for you in the Wikipedia community? If you have a unique story to share about your contributions, email us and we can set up an opportunity for you to write a blog post about your work with one of our partner's resources.

Finally, we would greatly appreciate if you filled out this short survey. The survey helps us not only better serve you with facilitating this particular partnership, but also helps us discover what other partnerships and services The Wikipedia Library can offer.

Thanks!
Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:11, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Bravo![edit]

Thanks for alphabetizing the flags on the Kievan Rus' page. I'm so sick of the Ukrainian/Russian edit wars on that page. You've given a rational solution to at least one of these conflicts, so editors like Irina Harpy and I can righteously undo future revisions. Paulmlieberman (talk) 17:52, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

TWL Questia check-in[edit]

Hello!

You are receiving this message because The Wikipedia Library has record of you receiving a one-year subscription to Questia. This is a brief update to remind you about that access:

  • Make sure that you can still log in to your Questia account; if you are having trouble feel free to get in touch.
  • When your account expires you can reapply for access at WP:Questia.
  • Remember, if you find this source useful for your Wikipedia work, make sure to include citations with links on Wikipedia: links to partner resources are one of the few ways we can demonstrate usage and demand for accounts to our partners. The greater the linkage, the greater the likelihood a useful partnership will be renewed.
  • Write unusual articles using this partner's sources? Did access to this source create new opportunities for you in the Wikipedia community? If you have a unique story to share about your contributions, email us and we can set up an opportunity for you to write a blog post about your work with one of our partner's resources.

Finally, we would greatly appreciate if you filled out this short survey. The survey helps us not only better serve you with facilitating this particular partnership, but also helps us discover what other partnerships and services The Wikipedia Library can offer.

Thanks! Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk), on behalf of National Names 2000 10:44, 12 May 2015 (UTC)