User talk:Rbraunwa

So that it is easier to follow a discussion, I will reply to messages left here on this page. If I have posted on your talk page, I will be watching so you can reply there if you wish.

Eliza Acton

Hi, I didn't remove the link, I just moved it to the external links section. Cheers Arniep 18:51, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Isaac II

Hi, I don't really think it's necessary to give a reference for a date like that. Maybe if there was some particular controversy about his dates...and in any case, we'd just be referencing another encyclopedia. How do we know they are right? Where did they get the date from? Adam Bishop 02:10, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

request dates

Do you have the birth/death dates for August Willich? thanks. --DelftUser 18:28, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi, He was born November 19, 1810 in Braunsberg, Prussia and died January 22, 1878 in Cincinnati, Ohio. Here's a link: [1]. If you are working on Civil War generals, this is a good site. --Rbraunwa 18:52, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia survey

Hi. I'm doing a survey of Wikipedia editors as part of a class research project. It's quick, anonymous, and the data will be made available to the Wikipedia community later this month. Would you like to take part? More info here. Thanks! Nonplus 00:25, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

your message

hi Rbraunwa,

thank you for your message. It's amazing how much work you have done already, so I congratulate you on that. Yes I was actually going to come forward to you and ask you what the situation with all the titles is. Wikipedia has a policy where nobles are listed with their titles. Maybe if you are not familiar with it yet, I can recommend you this link Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles), under the point "Other non-royal names". with kind regards.. Gryffindor 18:07, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your message. Well maybe we can work together on this topic. If you say that they are normally listed under their family names, and not their titles, then I believe you because you are obviously the expert since you wrote these articles. With the listing itself I have no issue and trust your expertise. And the last thing I want to do is to interfere into your good work. But when someone has multiple titles, it can get very confusing which one should the article carry, so maybe you could help there a little in pointing out which one should be used? Your help and effort is greatly appreciated... Gryffindor 00:01, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Great Work !

Hello ! I was looking throught your work on Viceroys of Peru and New Spain, and I thought I'd drop a quick note to say "Hurrah !", "Well done !" and "Thanks very much !". I've thought on reading up on this field before now, but I never came across a book that seemed very useful, and I don't really read Spanish. It looks like I can stop looking for that book now. Thanks again and best wishes. Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:27, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

S y G

Thank you for starting the article. It has been on my to-do list since I joined Wikipedia. It is much appreciated!--Rockero 17:54, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I came across him during my research on Our Lady of Guadalupe. In fact, I had no idea he was so accomplished, but I'm not surprised, because anyone who's anyone in Mexico has at least commented on the "miraculous apparition". When I get around to it, I'll add his take on the V de G to his "works" section, or some such. I've noticed your tweaks on the List of Viceroys, too. That seems like a small nightmare, what with the multiplicity of honorifics and surnames. At any rate, your efforts are appreciated, and as we say in French, bon courage!--Rockero 21:08, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Article titles

Hi, me again. I've been mucking around Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles), Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies), and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (titles) to try to figure out what exactly the convention for biographies of marquis, etc. is. Needless to say, I haven't had much luck. What I have found is that there is a grest deal of inconsistency (some article titles include royalty-type titles, some don't; some articles translate titles such as "Duque" and "Marqués" to "Duke" and "Marquis", while others dont; etc.) It seems you have been including titles as part of article names, and leaving them in Spanish. At least you're being consistent 8). But I would think that we should prefer English for titles when they are available, being that this is the English wikipedia. Maybe we can come up with a standard, at least for Spanish nobility/sub-nobility, and propose it as a convention? I just hate to see so much inconsistency. I'd appreciate hearing your thoughts on the matter.--Rockero 19:03, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Will do. Thanks.--Rockero 21:41, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Huitzilíhuitl comments

Mr B, I moved your comments concerning Huitzilíhuitl to the Huitzilíhuitl talk page. You raise some good questions, and I thought that they would be better recorded there. Thanks, Madman 13:15, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Me again. You did some great work on Acamapichtli. Per your request, I did some copyediting. In particular, I tried to standardize the Mexica/Aztec/Tenocha terminology, per the recent comments from a reviewer of the Aztec article. I also tried to tone down some of the unverifiable rhetoric that so many earlier historians used ("Fearing death, Acamapichtli . . ."). In any case, thanks a lot. This was excellent and much needed work from sources not available to your average researcher (e.g. me). Madman 15:08, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

JGI

Was wondering if there is anything you might be able to add to Joaquín García Icazbalceta?--Rockero 21:37, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Rockero, an excellent article as always. I can't add anything (at least at the moment) because I am travelling for a few months and away from my encyclopedias. I did add an interesting exteral link, though, although I haven't had a chance to go over it in detail. --Rbraunwa 22:48, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

V de G

The question is a difficult one to answer. Legend places the apparition in 1531, a scant decade after the conquest, and characterizes Juan Diego as a 50-something convert. This combination of circumstances is highly unlikely. I think the question is, "how and when did the cult of Tonantzin become the cult of la Virgen?" Archaeology dates the (Christian) chapel to 1550, so some devotion must have existed by that time. But virtually every writer on the subject traces the popularity of the cult to the 1648 publication of Miguel Sánchez's Imagen de la Virgen. In 1666, depositions relying on oral testimonies of elderly devotees were taken to affirm the longstanding nature of the apparition tradition as part of the process to obtain official recognition from Rome.

I have been trying to add this information into the article, but progress is very slow. I usually only touch it at the end of a long night of wiki-ing, and I haven't been staying up as late recently. Some of it is contained in the subarticles about writers about la V. But you are correct in that it should all be in her main article.

In the meantime, I have begun a Timeline of Guadalupan events, but my knowledge of html is severely lacking, which has thus far resulted in a very messy timeline. In it, I hope to chronicle all the major works, statements, Catholic actions, etc. pertaining to la Virgen. Hopefully it will add some clarity to a very long and muddlded story.--Rockero 16:28, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Baiting

Hello, if you are interested in reading some more information, I could scan the relevant pages quoted in the reference section and email them as an attachment to you. The Wiki articles are just a brief encyclopedic summation the books are much more in-depth chalk full of interesting information. The first time I read these books the stories floored me. As there is not much info on the Internet I decided to share this obscure history through Wikipedia. I find it offensive when people attempt to deprive information to the general public due to sour grapes. I was the sock sniffer that found User:Hipocrites sockpuppet account User:Hpuppet and turned him in. Check the page history to see my name. Hence his attacks on the articles in question he knows I helped to write. Cordially SirIsaacBrock 00:02, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Sir Isaac, I would like to see that. Thanks. I only accidentally got involved with these articles, but they are interesting. And I almost never want to see valid information removed.

Rbraunwa 04:11, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

The books are quite large and full of information, is there a particular subject to narrow it down? SirIsaacBrock 11:17, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

+Tags

It seems User:Hipocrite is using frivolous tags on the article to attack it now. I do not want to go 3RR so if you would be interested in reverting the article page in future I would be obliged. Cordially SirIsaacBrock 13:13, 14 July 2006 (UTC)