User talk:Thrane

If I have left you a message: please answer on your talk page, then place {{Talkback|your username}} on my talk.
If you leave me a message: I will answer on my talk page, then place {{Talkback|Thrane}} on your talk.
Please click here to leave me a new message.

Your request for rollback

After reviewing your request for rollback, I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
Rollback can be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
Rollback may be removed at any time.

If you no longer want rollback, then contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some information on how to use rollback, you can view this page. I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, just leave me a message if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Happy editing! Tiptoety ^talk 00:00, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Svilaj

No problem, just keep this consensus in mind while newpage patrolling, it will save you time and effort. —Admiral Norton ^(talk) 15:20, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not vandalism

The change from Spain to Iberia is simply out of a desire to stop the [[Category:Operas by setting]] page from becoming unwieldy. Operas by country may be added later. Orthorhombic (talk) 16:00, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I simply failed to see any reason, as you did not leave an edit summary and even blanked a page beforehand. I won't interfere with the renaming itself, if you guys at the Opera Project are agreed about the change. --Thrane (talk) 16:07, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The reason is very straightforward. Many operas are set in a wide range of locations. Take Aroldo for instance. If we were to place two different setting markers at the foot of the page, the category options would be too cluttered. Larger geographical, non-time specific toponyms like the Levant, Low Countries, British Isles etc. avoid the Category becoming unworkable with numerous country names from different periods in history.Orthorhombic (talk) 16:14, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yeah, no worries. As stated above, I will not interfere with the renaming itself, as I don't have anything to do with the Opera project. My point simply was that you hadn't put anything in the edit summary, which made your edit look suspicious, and that you blanked a page, which is normal behavior for people who are trying to make unconstructive edits. It's not that I disagree with your reasoning, and I do recognize that you had a perfectly valid reason for your change in wording. Thrane (talk) 16:21, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I take your point about edit summaries. Cheers for the input.Orthorhombic (talk) 16:23, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Danish

A separate point: I've just read your thoughts on Danish. I wouldn't be too down on the prospects for the Danish language version of wikipedia. You're right that there is a big danger that Wikipedia becomes too Anglophone-centric. But there is also a danger that many minority languages end up being dominated by English and this worries me. --Orthorhombic (talk) 16:27, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're probably right. Now, of course I don't know your own country of origin or whether you have any proficiency in Danish, but the way I see it is, that of course the ideal situation would be a quality Wikipedia in every language. The real problem is getting people to work on it. I became somewhat disillusioned with the Danish Wikipedia when I witnessed some discussions that nearly amounted to outright personal attacks, because it seemed that the "leading group" on the project was very closed to newcomers. So, my skepticism isn't just based on my worries about the amount of potential editors, but also on my apprehension regarding the administration of small Wikipedias. Thrane (talk) 16:38, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

i didnt post a bad link. i'm simply trying to revert this horribly inaccurate statement that people from columbus are called columbusites. that is the most ridiculous thing i've ever heard as a native for over 20 yrs. apparently you are valuing some pointless article written in the 90s over accuracy of wikipedia. i'm not sure why its so important in the description of our great city to state that natives are called 'columbusites'. to me, it seems completely irrelevant and cheeseballish.