User talk:Top.Squark

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

Welcome!

Hello, Top.Squark, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

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, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  --HappyCamper 13:12, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

First Crusade[edit]

Hi Top.Squark, I've dug a little further for your question about the crown of gold/crown of thorns problem, on Talk:First Crusade. Adam Bishop 17:21, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Nepomuk[edit]

I appreciated the attention, with which you read the text. That error comes from a website used as a source and has been around for years, with nobody noticing it. As I partially rewrote the text, as requested, I would like to ask you an independent opinion on a different issue. I discovered that most of the text in the section "a controversial figure" is taken word by word from the protestant encyclopedia (see external links). I have reduced the problem by eliminating or modifying several statements, but I am not yet happy with it. Would you fel that a major rerwriting is still needed? Some information is also a duplicate of the content of previous sections. Would you feel that other readers may notice it and be disturbed? Thanks Pinea (talk) 22:12, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Tags[edit]

You're scattering contradiction tags too much. Ref'ing the house of Elzevir is good; adding "vague" tags to quotes really doesn't help; ask on the talk pages if you don't understand William M. Connolley (talk) 20:43, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. The article should be understandable without asking questions on the talk page. If it isn't, it is not written well: it is vague. Top.Squark (talk) 16:24, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm tossing in with top squark on this one. The goal of WP is not to get articles that appear to have no problems. What on earth good is that? This is not a hobby for power strugglers. Also, top squark, your previous entry on copying from web sites is right on the mark. If the article copied is still copyrighted, I do not believe you can even modify it. If it is not, basic ethics is to attribute everything you quote. I'm not on that article right now but I would have made a bigger issue of it. In such cases I paraphrase with a liberal sprinkling of attributed quotes or else I remove the copied material and start over. By the way, top squark, since you seem to me to be moving in absolutely the right direction, and ought to be on here fully, do you think you could give us something other than a red link for a user page? You just click on your user page and type. You don't have to say anything at all about yourself, but red links usually spell inexperienced or removed or quit. In the controversial months to come, hang in there. Editors will attack you for many reasons, which you may never know, and some administrators, for whatever reasons, will bully, blow, bluster and threaten (until they too get corrected), but you have to stick by the right as you see it. You might want to read up on overall WP policies in the Help section. WP is against power struggles, against unattributed copying and for the use of tags to bring errors to people's attention. It is for the use of citations to support whatever is said. You can remove anything questionable that is unattributed at any time, tagged or not. If you get flak about it, put it back loaded with the appropriate tags, and if unanswered, take it out later. Ciao.Dave (talk) 12:52, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Your contradiction tag at Gustav II Adolf[edit]

I think I have found an answer to this, please have a look. Skäpperöd (talk) 22:22, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Matthias Corvinus[edit]

Hi, I see you tagged Matthias Corvinus as contradictory, but the only mention of a contradiction on the talk page is to do with the age he became a widower. That's been fixed, so I've removed the tag. However, if there's another contradiction in the article, feel free to put it back, with a note on the talk page. Cheers Worm 11:58, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, Thx Top.Squark (talk) 12:18, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

David Hume[edit]

Hi again, I see you tagged David Hume as contradictory last September, but I can't actually see where the contradiction lies. The article has been copyedited recently, so I've removed the tag. Would you mind double checking if I've missed something obvious, and leaving a note on the talk page if I have? WormTT 13:34, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Apparently the section I wrote in the talk page explaining the contradiction was autoarchived. I restored it since the contradiction is still mostly there Top.Squark (talk) 20:33, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

United States Bill of Rights has been selected as the United States Wikipedians' Collaboration of the Month for June 2011[edit]

As one of the editors who has made improvements to the United States Bill of Rights article recently this notice has been left to inform you that it has been selected as the United States Wikipedians' Collaboration of the Month for June 2011. The goal this month is to get this article to Good Article standards or better by July 4th, 2011. You can also vote for next months article of the Month or submit a candidate for article of the month here. --Kumioko (talk) 02:27, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Father John Kenyon and O'Connell[edit]

Thanks for your help with Kenyon piece on O'Connell page. Sadly another editor thought fit to delete the entire piece. I consider it censorship, as he seemed to initially have no knowledge of the topic. He then apparantly read Kenyon's biography, but refused to reinstate the piece. I feel it gives an important historical perspective and is in contrast to what I consider to be a one sided appraisal of one of Ireland's greatest leaders. Have a look. Thanks for everything. Meenagh (talk) 20:23, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Republic of San Marco[edit]

Hi, I think your edit to the above was incorrect - Yes, the Holy Roman Empire didn't exist at that time, but the reference was to "historic" (i.e. past) domination by France and also the Holy Roman Empire. Look forward to hearing from you. Denisarona (talk) 07:19, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

OK, but what does it mean that the Kingdom of Sardinia led an attempt to unite northern Italy against domination which didn't exist anymore? It doesn't make sense, at least I fail to understand the meaning Top.Squark (talk) 09:26, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
At the time, the domination was Austrian (Northern Italy as far west as Piedmont was under Austrian rule) - previously the French had held sway and even further back the Holy Roman Empire had occupied the territory. Regards, Denisarona (talk) 15:02, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
OK, but in the sentence "the republic later joined the Kingdom of Sardinia, in an attempt, led by the latter, to unite northern Italy against foreign domination" only Austria is relevant Top.Squark (talk) 15:16, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Yes, relevant to that particular time - the other mention of France and the Holy Roman Empire was just to provide extra information and to provide a historical context of long term domination by outside forces. Denisarona (talk) 15:29, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
But is this historical context correct? The idea that the Holy Roman Empire is a "foreign force controlling Italian soil" is a product of 19th century nationalism which isn't necessarily an objective historical description. The presence of the Holy Roman Empire in the Italian peninsula dates back more or less to the time the Holy Roman Empire appears, namely after Charlemagne's conquest of Lombardy in the 8th century. However the identification of the Holy Roman Empire as "foreign" and the Lombard kingdom as "Italian" doesn't really make sense except as a romantic nationalist interpretation, since in the 8th century there was no real Italian identity Top.Squark (talk) 18:31, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Contradiction-template on First Stadtholderless Period[edit]

You put a contradiction-with-other-wiki-articles template on First Stadtholderless Period in July 2010. I came upon it today and it occurred to me that the template actually ought to be on the articles you refer to on the talk page seeTalk:First Stadtholderless Period as none of those articles supports their claim that the Dutch "acknowledged" or "recognised" the Navigation Act of 1651 in the Treaty of Westminster (1654) with a citation. That would be difficult, as I show in my comment to your comments on said Talk-page, as it turns out the Dutch did no such thing. Which assertion I support with a reference on the talk-page. I have therefore removed your template from the article and put "citation needed" tags in the other articles (which would have been a better strategy anyway if you contest the Stadtholderless article). As it is already a long time ago since you put the template on, I thought you'd like a heads-up. I suggest you put possible comments in the discussion section you opened on the talk-page of the article.--Ereunetes (talk) 02:10, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Just an update: I have rewritten the Treaty of Westminster (1654) article, and edited the First Anglo-Dutch War and Navigation Acts articles. All are now in agreement with the First Stadtholderless Period article.--Ereunetes (talk) 00:14, 29 March 2013 (UTC)