User talk:Laszlo Panaflex
|This is Laszlo Panaflex's talk page, where you can send messages and comments to Laszlo Panaflex.|
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)
This IP, 22.214.171.124, 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.
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
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."
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:
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.
- 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)