User talk:Maitch

Corythosaurus

You added the "Living" section to Corythosaurus (also: please italicise) in which you mention some detailed speculative information,... like you have just watched a documentary on NGC or something (mentioning the vague "western mountains"). Fiction should not be provided as fact like that... Please substantiate the section or I will delete it.Phlebas 19:45, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

The facts are from the book "The Ultimate Dinosaur Book" by "David Lambert". I'm sorry if its poorly written. Besides being a bit vague in the beginning, the rest is not speculative. --Maitch 19:59, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Mickael Rasmussen/Michael Rasmussen

Being Danish you may be able to sort out this problem. You created the article Michael Rasmussen, and about the same person is the article Mickael Rasmussen. I'm not sure which one has the most correct spelling of his name, do you think you could look into it? --Commander Keane 10:52, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I was wondering myself why the Tour de France says "Mickael Rasmussen". The only reason I can think of is that the "h" is silent in French and it is to help the pronunciation. His real name is "Michael Rasmussen". You can also see it at the UCI Pro Tour website that this is the correct spelling. Another point is that in Denmark we have very strict rules for which first name you are able to get. I've checked the list on the Danish Wikipedia and Mickael is not an option. Only Michael or Mikael are allowed. --Maitch 14:25, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

The info on strictness of Danish names is interesting, is there an en.wiki equivalent to the Danish names list you referred to? If not, could you give me the link to the Danish names list please --Commander Keane 12:41, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't think there is an English equivalent, but the list for boy names is da:Drengenavne and the list for girl names is da:Pigenavne. You can however apply for a different new name or an alternative spelling, but if these names gets approved, it would be added to the list. The list on the Danish Wikipedia might be a few years old. The newest list for boy names is here and the list for girls is here. --Maitch 12:36, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

How do you pronounce "Michael" in Danish? --Commander Keane 07:36, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

I’m sorry, but I’m not very good at doing pronunciation translations, but I will give it a go anyway. The word Michael sounds in Danish almost the same as in English. The biggest difference is the i sound that in Danish sounds more like an English e (like in “me”). The a is a bit different, but not to much. The overall tone is more flat, which Danish generally is. --Maitch 12:14, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Scandinavia

How do you do, Maitch. Nice to meet you too. You seem a bit rash on that Scandinavian article. I'm new to the article so I don't really care what you call the place. But, we need a resolution to the problem, unless you think Wikipedia is a place of endless conflicts over unsolvable problems. I'm only trying to help out here.

I did not say Denmark was not a part of Scandinavia. And, I did not omit Denmark. I just put it further down in the intro. Furthermore, the Scandinavia you are talking about is an emotional one. It seems to be part of the sentiment of Scandinavism. But those of us who dwell elsewhere, how are we to define the place geographically? Don't you think there are multiple meanings of the word? The Finns get pretty hot over it too and my guess is you wouldn't even think they were Scandinavian!

I'd like to work this out with you. The introduction you restored is mainly wrong. For one thing, the original Scandinavia never included any current Danish territory at all, unless you think Pliny meant Zeeland. Halland was in it, but that is now Sweden. For another, no matter how you define it, you can't avoid getting some Uralics in the territory. And finally, there is not only that one definition of Scandinavia.

I am willing however to concede your main wish, which is to emphasize up front that Denmark is in Scandinavia. So, I'm going to put mine back with alterations. I am open to its being modified if you still think it needs it. Or, alternatively, rewrite that or the previous yourself. We're not the only people here. I suspect that if you continue to insist that the one that to which you reverted stay, that tag will be on until the Wikipedia administrators get tired of looking at it and take further action to stop the conflict. Then you'll be an even angrier young man. So what do you say, maitch? Friends?Dave 17:11, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not mad or anything. The problem was just that your version was even worse than the one before. Scandinavia does not equal the Scandinavian peninsula and including Russia is laughable. The Baltic region has more to do with Scandinavia than Russia. Scandianavia is first of all a cultural union. If you read through the discussion you would know that. Even the Finnish Wikipedia defines Scandinavia as Denmark, Norway, and Sweden. With that being said I am not a supporter of the version I reverted to. I myself do define Scandinavia as Denmark, Norway, and Sweden, but I do want it to say that some include Finland as well. --Maitch 17:28, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh. There is a confusion of what is being defined, then. According to you there are two different definita. One is geographic and the other is linguistic, political and cultural (as well as emotional). I understand your wanting to distance yourself from Russia, but geographically that doesn't take you very far away. You see, in the states here we look at things geographically. We appreciate having the wonderful countries of Denmark, Norway and Sweden as allies and many US citizens are descended from people who came here from there. I for one sympathize with Danish free speech. There is nothing like freedom. On the other hand we don't have the nationalistic feelings that you do. Why should we? It's not our native land. So, we look at things geographically.

Your explanation suggests the solution. We need to distinguish carefully between the Scandinavian peninsula and Scandinavia. That is probably what the main problem has been here. There is a little ambiguation in your mind as to what to do with the Finns. They seem to want in on Scandinavia. So, I agree, you should include that possibility in your definition. As for the Russians, you can include them on the Scandinavian peninsula but not in the four countries mentioned. I doubt if they are eager to be part of your Scandinavia anyway. While I am at it I would like to point out, we don't have the opposition to the Russians that prevailed during the cold war. Many US citizens have relatives that came from Russia. So, let's make sure the Russians don't get to be laughable. I don't know who put the tag on the article but I doubt if it is coming off as long as nationalistic sentiments prevail. Wikipedia is international.

Well, I had a shot at it. It only seems fair to let you have the next one. The objective is to get something so accurate and inoffensive as to be able to get the tag off. So, anything that does not include all the possibilities is not going to fly and anything that belittles or excludes also is not going to fly (probably). Objective, open-minded language and concepts, that is the thing to achieve. I look forward to your version. Meanwhile, I have to get back to etymology and get my tone right.Dave 18:05, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

The distinction between Scandinavia and the Scandinavian peninsula is important and hard to explain to outsiders. I would have waited to the discussion was over, but I can give it a try now. In my mind the most fair solution is to mention the two possibilities DNS and DNSF. There is another problem with the definition of the Nordic countries that people can't agree on either. For me Iceland is a Nordic coutry and not a Scandinavian one. --Maitch 18:24, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure the discussion ever will be over. I like the idea of successive approximation. I think you did a noble job. I took it on myself to polish up your English to the extent that it doesn't sound foreign. Its fine with me if you drop the larger definition of Scandinavia. It might not fly with everyone though, based on the map. Where would you say Murmansk is? Not in Scandinavia? If it is not, why would Vardo be in, which is further east than the whole Karelskaya border? Similarly, there is nothing but a line on a map (and a bunch of border guards) to distinguish east Finland from West Karelskaya. And Lappland, which sprawls over the whole north, is that in or out? But if it is out, so is the north of Sweden and Norway. Tsk tsk. But what you have is solid and I will not question it. On the rest of the article. It seems a shame not to have an accepted article on such an important topic.Dave 22:12, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, I did the best I could. It's not really that easy to write and I'm sure that there will be further discussion. I also hope that someone will improve the article. There is also still the issue with the greater Scandinavia definition, but I'm not sure what the consensus is. In Denmark, Norway, and Sweden we use the term Nordic countries, but I'm not sure the rest of the would makes that distinction. In my definition of Scandinavia I'm only thinking in countries and not so much the geography. It's a bit loose definition, but then again has the borders of Denmark, Finland, Ñorway and Sweden historically changed a few times. --Maitch 23:04, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Hello fellas, I felt like budding into your discussion since I have left a comment at Talk:Scandinavia. Dave/Botteville, I would like to see some convincing evidence to your claim that the Finns or the Icelanders "want" to be part of Scandinavia. All my sources and impressions and personal experiences will tell me otherwise. In fact, there are people in Finland and Iceland who would actually like to emphasize their non-Scandinavian location and identity and to distance themselves from the Scandinavians (proper), while others could care less what names the outside world calls them by. Another unsourced claim fo yours (Dave's) is that an American is more likely to define a certain region geographically, as contrasted by "emotionally". Clearly, any region or subregion will depend on geographical criteria for its definition, and I'm not convinced that English speakers in the US define their regions differently than people elsewhere or in other languages. Again, the extended meaning seems to be primarily an exonym, used by non-Europeans who picture Scandinavia as an exotic mythical place of polar bears, social equality and yellow-haired people with horned helmets − not entirely unlike how the medieval central Europeans pictured Thule. ;) // Big Adamsky • BA's talk page 22:42, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!

Posted by (^'-')^ Covington 07:47, 24 April 2006 (UTC), on behalf of the the AID Maintenance Team

Your edit to See My Vest

Your recent edit to See My Vest was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // Tawkerbot2 17:34, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I guess your bot can't handle redirecting an article. --Maitch 17:41, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

It was spelling, you misspelt redirect and thats what triggered it, no worries, I see you've fixed it :o -- Tawker 17:45, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

P10

Hi, Maitch. You left a sensible comment the first time the List of Perfect 10 models was at AfD due to the hasty conclusion by some that "Perfect 10 models" was a POV. Now it's worse. Basically, the excuse is that an un-named model told someone that she didn't want to be listed, and instead of addressing her inclusion individually, the guy who tried to delete it before re-nominated the entire list again. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Perfect 10 models (second nomination) --Alsayid 18:27, 17 May 2006 (UTC)