User talk:Aldux

If I have started a conversation on your talk page, feel free to respond there. If you leave a message for me here, I will respond here.

Archives
Complete archive Individual archives: Jul 05–Mar 06 Mar 06–Apr 06 Apr 06–Jun 06 Jun 06–Jul 06 Jul 06–Aug 06 Aug 06–Oct 06 Oct 06–Nov 06 Nov 06–Jan 07 Jan 07–Mar 07 Mar 07–Jun 07 Jun 07–Dec 07 Jan 08–May 09

Categories for listed grinding mills

Category:Grade I listed grinding mills, Category:Grade II listed grinding mills and Category:Grade II* listed grinding mills should all be renamed by removal of the word "grinding". Windmills had other uses than grinding wheat, the most common being drainage. Herringfleet Mill is Grade II* listed but is not a grinding mill. Mjroots (talk) 05:21, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I see your point. The best solution would probably be to move the three categories to Category:Grade I listed windmills, Category:Grade II* listed windmills and Category:Grade II listed windmills. Just removing "grinding" would be a bad solution in my view since there are a lot of mills - most, actually - that have little in common with windmills.--Aldux (talk) 13:47, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Done. And let me make you my congratulations for your astounding work with windmills! The number of articles and their quality is really impressive.--Aldux (talk) 16:17, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, that's one solution. Presumably there will be similar categories for watermills created in due course (not so many watermill articles on Wikipedia yet). Thanks for your kind words about the articles. The quality of individual articles depends very much on the sources available. Mjroots (talk) 17:43, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

OTRS invitation

The OTRS system is looking for trusted volunteers to help staff our Italian permissions queue. I would like to invite you to look over what OTRS involves and consider signing up at the volunteering page. Thank you. MBisanz ^talk 15:07, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

List of places of worship in Mid Sussex

Hi Aldux; thanks for spotting the errors in the list, all of which I have corrected. I am continuing to build up the list gradually, so please keep an eye out for any more errors or inconsistencies; it's easy for things to slip through. Thanks also for the work you put in recently on categorising and assessing Brighton- and Crawley-related buildings articles! Cheers, Hassocks5489 (tickets please!) 22:30, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind words, it was a pleasure to read your carefully written and sourced articles.:-) Ciao,--Aldux (talk) 23:23, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

FLC

Sorry about my touchiness last night; it came rather on the back of the comments made by the previous reviewer, who only had to look at a map to see how impractical they were. I very much appreciate your support and the comment you made about the existing FL. And I am still of a mind to change the titles (adding "(urban area)" and "(rural area)") - an idea which came from your comments. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 09:48, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Norfolk Mills website

Thanks for your comments, just need to clarify something, see WT:MILLS Mjroots (talk) 07:05, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

King Street

Hi Aldux. I was following up what appeared to be a sensible request to merge the stubs into one meaningful article where the buildings could be discussed in context, and the article built into something decent. I note that you have restored the stubs. I think that each of the buildings could develop into a decent stand alone article - though I don't see the value of a standalone at the moment as there is not yet enough information to justify a split per WP:summary style. My suggestion is that information on each building is developed enough for a building to become a section within the King Street, Bristol, and then, when that information is sufficently large enough to justify a standalone that would be the time to leave a summary in the parent article and split the building out into its own stand alone. This would be a win win situation. What do you think? (I note your comment above on how you use your talkpage - would you consider leaving me a message on my talkpage so I am alerted to your response.) Regards SilkTork *^YES! 13:56, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello ST. The idea of writing an article on King Street isn't in itself a bad one, far from it; an article that takes in consideration the historical development of the street and how its buildings were replaced and the economic and social role of the street through the street. Regarding the stubs, maybe the Grade II listed buildings could be redirected as they have in the listing a minor importance; but I feel that the Grade II* listed building articles, as they can easily be expanded and are part of a plan to provide articles to all Grade I and Grade II* listed buildings in Bristol. While you may find some of those at the moment too stubby, they already provide some basic information: an image of the building, the dates of construction, the style and the material with an infobox. Also, my experience is an article has more chances to be expanded from a stub than if it is merged.--Aldux (talk) 15:24, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi Aldux, Thanks for the heads up on this - I had removed some of these from my watch list as I've been focusing on listed buildings in Somerset recently & my watchlist is just too massive. I would support the argument for separate articles for the buildings, particularly the GII* which are definitely notable. I've added a note on the talk page and on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Bristol asking for help. I will try to do my bit in expanding them when I get some time.— Rod ^talk 16:11, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

RCC or CC

You took part in Talk:Catholic Church/Archive 3#REQUESTED MOVE to Catholic Church there is a new requested move see Talk:Catholic Church#Requested Move --PBS (talk) 08:40, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Nominations open for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 12 September!
Many thanks,  Roger Davies ^talk 04:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Military history coordinator elections: voting has started!

Voting in the Military history WikiProject coordinator election has now started. The aim is to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of sixteen candidates. Please vote here by 23:59 (UTC) on 26 September!
For the coordinators,  Roger Davies ^talk 22:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

N'Djamena

If there is anything you could possibly add to the history of this city during Libyan intervention and/or surrounding periods, that would be appreciated. Thanks. - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 22:07, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Jarry. I'e got a few books on the period in question, so it won't be a problem fidig something to add; be sure I'll do it in the following days. Cheers, Aldux (talk) 01:34, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Getica (disambiguation) protection

Would you have any problems if I removed the semi-protection from Getica (disambiguation)? I'm not sure why but it has gone from a redirect to a disambiguation page some red links now. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:59, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Sure, by all means do.--Aldux (talk) 17:09, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Done, and thanks for informing me. Ciao, Aldux (talk) 17:40, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello Aldux! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 2 of the articles that you created are tagged as Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to insure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. if you were to bring these articles up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 695 article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the list:

1. Dimitris Psychogios - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
2. Ahmed Moussa - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 20:26, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Nominations for the March 2010 Military history Project Coordinator elections now open!

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 8 March 2010! More information on coordinatorship may be found on the coordinator academy course and in the responsibilities section on the coordinator page.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 20:56, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Coordinator elections have opened!

Voting for the Military history WikiProject coordinator elections has opened; all users are encouraged to participate in the elections. Voting will conclude 23:59 (UTC) on 28 March 2010.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:20, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

GA Review of Alboin

I shall be undertaking the review of this article against the Good Article criteria, per its nomination for Good Article status. If you have any questions or queries, please don't hesitate to contact me. ✽ Juniper§ Liege ^(TALK) 07:40, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your help, Junipers; I've started working on the issues you raised.--Aldux (talk) 15:35, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

A suggestion re Alboin's FAC

If I may just make a suggestion, your invitation to reviewers to reconsider their positions comes across as just a little aggressive. I realise that it's probably a cultural thing, but I just thought I'd mention it, as some editors can be very thin-skinned. Looking at the bigger picture, Brianboulton was right, this wasn't really ready for FAC, but looking on the bright side you can handle the facts and I can handle the prose, so no worries mate. :-) Malleus Fatuorum 18:51, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

To be honest that didn't even pass near my mind, thanks for telling me. I'll be careful to avoid seeming rude, I know that the reviewers are just doing their best. Aldux (talk) 19:18, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Another question: are you intending to use either British or American English spelling in this article? I notice for instance that you've got both "skeptical" and "neighbouring". Malleus Fatuorum 14:43, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Also, I'm not quite sure what the "it" is referring to here: "Goffart notes other similar doubtful stories in the Historia and calls it 'telling a suitably ironic tale of the doings of depraved humanity'". Is the "it" referring to the Historia, or to the doubtful stories? Malleus Fatuorum 14:59, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

British English would probably be better as I've used it more often in writing the article. Passing to Goffart, the scholar is referring to the Gregory's story of Alboin's death. "It" then means Gregory's "ironic tale" about Alboin's death, and not all the Historia. Hope this helps. Ciao, Aldux (talk) 18:06, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, I've fixed that. Having looked through much of the article now it's clear that the quality of writing in the lead was by no means representative of the writing elsewhere in the article, some of which is pretty good. Malleus Fatuorum 18:23, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

There's a similar thing here that seems a little unclear to me: "The tale is treated with scepticism by Walter Goffart, who observes that it conflicts with the Origo Gentis Langobardorum, where she was captured only after the death of his father." What's being implied about the chronology here? Is "his" referring back to Goffart, as seems to be implied? Malleus Fatuorum 22:10, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Ugh, his/her seems to be one of the mistakes that slips more often from my editing. :-( To begin it should have been "after the death of her father", and that's one; as for the second yes, it's an issue with the order of the events: for Theophylact Rosamund was taken before the war, while for the Origo (and Goffart, and really most scholars) Rosamund was taken after the war.

On a completely different note, I really like how you "rounded", like suggested by Brian, the lead's conclusion: the mention of his link with epic poetry and his status as an hero-king sound just perfect for the conclusion. Ciao, Aldux (talk) 22:32, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm quite good at this. ;-) Malleus Fatuorum 23:01, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

My final question: "His fame was to survive him for many centuries in epic poetry, with Saxons and Bavarians celebrating his prowess in battle, his heroism, the qualities associated with his weapons." That last bit, "the qualities asociated with his weapons" really puzzles me. What does that mean? His proficiency in battle? Anyway, I've been through the whole article now and I'm optimistic that you won't get any more prose scares like yesterday's. Nothing's perfect though, so I'll keep an eye on the FAC and help if something does crop up; if I miss something, then feel free to give me a nudge. Good luck! Malleus Fatuorum 23:01, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Think of the context.. ;-) What are we speaking about: a legendary hero song by poets, and what does a hero have always? Flashy magical weapons. More seriously it's a hint to the Germanic concept that a hero's prowess is in some way transferred to his weapons; a typical example is the story told by Paul the Deacon of how a Duke of Verona violated Alboin's tomb so to put his hands on his weapons, in the persuasion that by taking his arms he would be obtaining also an amount of Alboin prowess in battle. Aldux (talk) 23:20, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Then I think that we need to be a little poetic, rather than the rather prosaic "qualities associated with his weapons". What about something like "the magical properties attributed to his weapons"? Malleus Fatuorum 23:35, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Sure, only maybe "legendary" would be possibly better than "magical": the magic isn't so much explicitly stated, as hinted, possibly a residual of shamanic influences. What do you think?Aldux (talk) 00:04, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd be bold and go for magical, but it's your call. For me, legendary doesn't suggest that ownership of the weapons would convey any special powers to the new owner. Malleus Fatuorum 00:18, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, it's better avoid being misunderstood. Ciao, Aldux (talk) 00:21, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Mithradates

Hi,
These jokers have been called Mithridates with an 'i' for decades. Where is this 'a' business coming from?
It's hypercorrection from Mithras?
Cheers, Varlaam (talk) 17:29, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the use of the "a" comes from "Mithradata", and it is often found in coins, but classical sources, both Greek and Latin, have always preferred "Mithridates" and this has been decisive in establishing the most common use through the centuries.Aldux (talk) 20:33, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

And some zealots wish to politely dissuade you from this line of thinking? Varlaam (talk) 01:52, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

In all honesty Varlaam, I'm having some difficulty understanding what you mean. Could you explain me more diffusely what you're saying? Thanks, Aldux (talk) 13:43, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh, sorry.

Your log comment has a world-weary quality, as though you've been dealing with this problem repeatedly.

What is motivating the 'a' camp? Why is anyone insisting on changing the spelling here? Where's this coming from?

Varlaam (talk) 17:56, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. Generally speaking, some Iranian editors tend to prefer the "a" because it's more "Iranian", while the "i" is more Classical. It must be made clear that none of these is really wrong, and you can find scholarly works that use "Mithradates", but as yet "Mithridates" is still by far more common in English; and most important, if somebody wants to change the name to an article he should use WP:RM, not make unilateral changes to the article's subject while keeping the title the same, a thing I've noted has happened more than once. Touching another matter, I'd advise you to avoid such words as "zealots", as they are rarely helpful in solving an issue; it's always a good policy to try to be the most polite possible with the other part. Aldux (talk) 21:01, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I read Farsi, phonetically. I have Iranian "restoran"s near me.

Persian tradition is not relevant to English language usage, other than those borrowings like the vowels in "Moslem". Iranians have no special claim over Anatolia either. No more nor less than Greco-Romans.

There is certainly no shortage of POV in WP. "Zealot" describes people we have to deal with every day around here. Like when you click "Edit", and get that warning inside, "Do not edit this page. Any changes will be automatically deleted."

Not so? Varlaam (talk) 23:44, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not saying they're right and you're wrong; simply, that I've discovered through time that politeness is always the best policy to persuade others. Certainly no people has any special claim on any article, and as for the name of the article, the only relevant issue is the most common usage in the English language, since this is an English wikipedia; if it was the Italian wikipedia, we would use Mitridate instead as a title. Aldux (talk) 00:44, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Thurisind

I'll try and find time to take a look at Thurisind; thanks for the note. I don't know much about that period outside the Anglo-Saxons but I do have an idea of what you might run into at FA so I might be able to be helpful. I am a bit busy in real life but should get some time within a week -- feel free to nudge me again in a week or so if I seem to have forgotten. Mike Christie (talk) 00:15, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

The Milhist election has started!

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has started. You are cordially invited to help pick fourteen new coordinators from a pool of twenty candidates. This time round, the term has increased from six to twelve months so it is doubly important that you have your say! Please cast your vote here no later than 23:59 (UTC) on Tuesday, 28 September 2010.

With many thanks in advance for your participation from the coordinator team,  Roger Davies ^talk 21:16, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Byzantines

Hi, I see you were behind the conversion of Byzantines into a disambiguation page. Per WP:FIXDABLINKS, could you help with the link cleanup? Thanks, --JaGa^talk 10:21, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Sure, I was planning to do it but I found myself occupied with other things. Just give me some time. Ciao, Aldux (talk) 12:33, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Great! Thanks. --JaGa^talk 12:46, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Thurisind

I will look but am preoccupied. You have a good reviewer in Yannis, one of the best. If engaged he will push the page forward quite a bit for you. Ceoil (talk) 17:01, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

edit summaries

Hi .. please try to leave edit summaries for your edits, it helps saving time to avoid checking what your edit is about. Also, your last edit in article Copt was a minor edit, please check the minor edit box as you make such edits. Thanks, Maysara (talk) 23:31, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Byzantine articles

Hello! I can certainly relate to your feeling of being alone, as I too have a soft spot for Late Antiquity and there are too few editors involved there. Now, as to your question, the main reason I don't go for FA is that most of my work focuses on peripheral figures who often get overlooked. Hence the material on them is usually not enough to get to FA. Also, after having tried a few FACs, I am not sure whether it is really worth the effort, especially since WPMILHIST A-class can serve equally well in military-related issues. Unless it is an article which I feel is important and complete and able to compete with anything else "out there" in quality (e.g. the Byzantine navy), I am not really prepared to take the trouble. In addition, I tend to switch focus between the various periods of Byzantine history every few weeks (and in these areas I am virtually the only regular contributor), so it will have to be an important subject to get me "hooked" long enough to see it through FA. So I've been trying to clear up the existing mess of inaccuracies in smaller articles in the meantime (that mythical Battle of Nisibis (530) was around for years until it got deleted) and adding to the dramatis personae.

That being said, I too would love to see Justinian get his little featured article star, along with Belisarius, the Gothic War (I've always been meaning to get it in shape, but never get around to it...), Procopius and John Troglita (a personal favourite). As you said, each of them would be a task of truly gigantic proportions, certainly too much for any one editor. If you want to collaborate on any article, I'd be able to get access to a ton of sources, the only problem on my part would be time. Any particular articles in mind? Constantine ✍ 16:26, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

If you can expand on Peter the Patrician, I'd be grateful. I am not really good with literary stuff, and that is really what is missing to get him to FA. BTW, check your email... Constantine ✍ 18:06, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

GA reassessment of War in Darfur

I have conducted a reassessment of the above article after an editor placed a reassessment tag on the article talk page. You are being notified as you have made a number of contributions to the article. I have found a number of concerns which you can see at Talk:War in Darfur/GA1. I have delisted the article as it is not in a good state. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:56, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Venetian Albania

Ci aiuteresti un po in un'articolo che purtroppo e' andato alla deriva (infatti era meglio secondo me tre anni fa), Venetian Albania? Servirebbero delle fonti in Italiano. --Sulmues ^(talk) 19:18, 12 October 2010 (UTC)