User talk:John K

/Archive 1 /Archive 2 /Archive 3 /Archive 4 /Archive 5 /Archive 6 /Archive 7 /Archive 8 /Archive 9 /Archive 10 /Archive 11 /Archive 12

Editing talk pages

Sorry to disturb you, but... I noticed User:PhJ has deleted large chunks of discussion from the talk pages of Trentino-South Tyrol, South Tyrol, Bolzano and Merano. Can he do so unilaterally? Regards, Tridentinus 13:06, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I was about to ask the very same thing... Taalo 16:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I would say this is bad form, but the whole dispute has tired me out, and I don't really feel like intervening. john k 16:37, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I would of told my pal Tridentinus to ask another Admin. Actually, at this point he can delete the entire talk page and replace it with a German discussion if he wants -- it is getting very boring. How is the dissertation writing going by the way? The last six months are usually pretty killer. :\ Taalo 16:40, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Eh, you were the first official I recognised starting from bottom up. I can surely ask someone else, but... who? Good luck with your dissertation! Tridentinus 18:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I fwded to Wknight94. He is slightly less annoyed by the T-AA/ST debates. :} Taalo 18:37, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

motion to close mediation

hello there,

there was a mediation offer quite a while ago concerning the issue of Trentino-South Tyrol. I am happy to announce that the issue has been discussed, voted upon and settled. However the mediation offer still needs to be officially closed. Please take a minute to visit the page Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-10-20 Trentino-South Tyrol and put your signature at the bottom if you agree with the decision, thank you. sincerely Gryffindor 20:30, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

• A very important note. This mediation offer concerned the greater overall naming convention to use in this region, not just the name of the region itself. We came up with a very good compromise for the regional name itself. I for one am still looking forward for Lar to help us out. Taalo 21:32, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Help Resolving a conflict

I have read the pages about this on wikipedia and I have came to you because you seem to be a person who knows how wikipedia is supposed to work and are most likely 100% neutral on this matter. I am involved in a rather intense edit war with two other editors of the article Miriam Rivera. In the last days the user User:Jokestress has quite reasonably asked for the article to be backed up with more reliable sources. Well I found them and that seems to have placated her. She has acted in 100% reasonable way in all of this. The problem arises in that she has asked in the spirt of resolving the conflict we were having other people who are not 100% neutral it seems to comment on the matter. These being the user User:Longhair and the userUser:Alison in particular who have not bothered to justify anything that they have done. Longhiar being an admin seems to feel no need to discuss anything and I feel is abusing her powers. Is there anything you can do? --Hfarmer 03:28, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Revived discussion concerning fair use in portals

I am contacting everyone who participated in the discussion that became inactive in December. Due to the length of the previous discussion, I have proposed a new amendment and you like you to weigh in so that we may actually have a consensus on this matter as it doesn't seem there exists one either way. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria

French princes

Hello John;

I have started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (names and titles)#French princes revisited. Would you care to comment? Thanks. Charles 10:36, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Question

Hi John;

Since you're an admin, I thought you might know: Has reverting moves been restricted? I find myself unable to undo moves where I would normally be able to do that before. If not, have I accidentally had my privileges revoked? Thanks. Charles 19:50, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

The Novels WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XI - April 2007

The April 2007 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

Delivered by Grafikbot 11:19, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

WWI causes

I of course welcome your involvement - but please no profanities on the talk page, sbandrews (t) 13:47, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I find it brings in an unhelpful tone - like you are ridiculing me, I only seek to find a consensus as to what should and should not be present on the page, with the aim of finding the truth. The fact of the matter is that one editer has systematically removed all reference to the railroad and all reference to oil from all articles releating to WWI. Further when this has been questioned on the talk pages editors haave shouted (capitals :)) and ridiculed until objection is quashed. I will provide references, please take a look at my editing record and show me where I have failed to provide references. sbandrews (t) 14:04, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

now you have accused me of original research, and I haven't even written a single word - I am just discussing on the talk page - please withdraw the accusation and strike through your earlier unfriendly comments, sbandrews (t) 17:06, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Proposal for a page's Extreme Makeover: Template:S-start/doc

You can find it here. I've also posted a message in the talk page of WikiProject Succession blah blah but it doesn't look like people visit that place often.

I'll be waiting feedback. Waltham 17:49, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Bold Sections

It says quite specifically that it "is usually identical to the page title, although it may appear in a slightly different form from that used as the title, and it may include variations." In this case, the country the person was King/Queen of is as much a part of their name in historiography as their ordinal. The variations, in this case, would be the toss up between X III, King of Y and X III of Y. Because the bolded section refers to, effectively, the legal, or historical, name of the person involved. Michael Sanders 00:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

"In a slightly different form" would imply that the information is all still there, but written differently (e.g. Jeanne d'Arc as opposed to Joan of Arc); whereas, if the country the person was ruler of is omitted, then it is not a 'slightly different form', it is a deliberately and notably different and ambiguous form. Michael Sanders 00:06, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

But it isn't part of the bold section. The manual of style is quite specific that the name should be bolded. Michael Sanders 00:16, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Consider, for example, Henry IV of France. He wasn't simply Henry IV - he was Henry III of Navarre. To write simply Henry IV in the bold confuses the issue. Michael Sanders 00:37, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Your objection appeared to be that it was redundant to say X of France, was King of France. My changes removed that redundancy, and kept in step with the manual. Michael Sanders 00:58, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Disruptive behaviour?

As you have been involved in this little dispute, I would ask that you look at User:Michaelsanders' recent edits. I think his behaviour has been out of line, but I do not know the proper way of dealing with this. Srnec 16:11, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Queens

Hallo John, what do think of this situation? Cheers, Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 08:13, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. Maybe you can elaborate on Talk:King of the Romans. Could you also give your opinion on my solution of placing "Roman"(linked)-"German King"(linked) in the succession boxes? Cheers, Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 09:46, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Lord Reading

He was certainly born that, but apparently he changed his surname at some point (I can't quite work out when), and his descendants certainly seem to use the surname "Rufus Isaacs". Cracroft's lists him as "Rufus Daniel [Isaacs later Rufus Isaacs], 1st Baron Reading later 1st Viscount Reading later 1st Earl of Reading later 1st Marquess of Reading, GCB GCSI GCIE GCVO PC". Proteus (Talk) 23:09, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Certainly. As long as we don't remove the changed surname entirely I'm quite happy for it to be formatted however you feel best. Proteus (Talk) 23:33, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

House of Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen

Do you feel that most of the recent edits to this page are sound? Charles 00:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: U.S. Diplomatic representatives

See my reply on my talk page. ●DanMS • Talk 00:43, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:CRYSTAL

To those who claim that these "states" may be recognized in the future :) To you WP:CRYSTAL --ΑΡΙΣΤΟΚΛΗΣ ^{(πείτε μου)} 21:01, 2 May 2007 (UTC)