User talk:Ehrenkater

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Ehrenkater, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! -Phoenixrod (talk) 19:38, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Digniora

Yes it is the comparative of the adjective dignus (dignus, digniora, dignissimum), the comparative meaning more worthy. cf. with good, better, best. If you are suggesting the usage in the Westminster School article it has been often noted and joked about as it is essentially bad latin, which translation to use is up for debate, perhaps noting the error in the latin in the article can sort it out.

The usage by the school could pssibly be to differenciate from Westminster Under School which uses both dignus and digniora.

Hope to be of assistance Tmwerty (talk) 21:06, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cwm Rhondda

Your recent edit to Cwm Rhondda (concerning there being five, rather than three, Welsh verses) looks interesting. Could you provide a source or citation for this? And for any of the other versions? (We could really do with getting a much of the article properly cited.) If you're not comfortable about formatting the citation, I'm happy to try to do it, if you can provide the information (either a website link or (for a book) title/author/publisher/isbn etc.). (Reply within your page here if you wish.) Thanks. Feline Hymnic (talk) 22:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll add a bit more on this. Please feel free to improve the layout etc. Ehrenkater (talk) 12:52, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Looks promising. I've just done a fairly major reworking of the article to attempt to give it some better structure; compare this older version to this newer version. I haven't (I hope) changed anything within your material. I also added several references to independent and reliable sources. Do you have references for the older hymnbooks that you mentioned? If so could you add them to the article or (if you are not confident about formatting them) drop a note of them here on your talk page? Thanks again. Feline Hymnic (talk) 20:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have added various suggestions for improvements on the talk page for "Cwm Rhondda". Unfortunately the hymn book which I mentioned (although I only purchased it as new around 1995) seems to be too old to have an ISBN, proper publisher's imprint or date of publication. Ehrenkater (talk) 21:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.

improvements: I've had a go at some.
book: anything would be better than nothing! Title? Any indication of publisher, church? Feline Hymnic (talk) 22:23, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gwynedd in the High Middle Ages

I love this article, so I hope you don't mind me going through your work every so often picking up typos and so on. Let me know if you're not happy with my (very minor) inputs, and I'll refrain from editing there. I've been thinking about how best to phrase the opening paragraph, given that, in terms of good grammar, "Gwynedd in the High Middle Ages" is not a period, it's a place (in a period). What would you say to :-

Gwynedd is an area in the north of Wales. Gwynedd in the High Middle Ages covers a period of Welsh, British, and European history spanning the 11th, 12th, and 13th centuries (AD 1000–1300). The High Middle Ages were preceded by the Early Middle Ages and followed by the Late Middle Ages.

Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:43, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Ditto and agree with suggestion Ehrenkater (talk) 23:09, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I would be very happy to have your help and input. I had placed the one sentence "Gwynedd is in the north of Wales" at the bottom of the opening paragraph, because the following paragraph gives a more detailed location of Gwynedd and it seemed to match better. However, if you feel strongly that the location is best served as the first line, I do not see it as an issue.

I greatly thank you for catching my many many spelling errors! lol. I wish we had spell checker inside or part of Wikipedia. Additionally, as an American, you will notice certin verbage that is completly American, and I would wish that to be "translated" into British English.

May I ask how you discovered the artical? Initially I had started to rewrite the Kingdom of Gwynedd page, but it did become to verbose, and I realized that this periode needs special attention. I plan on doing simular treatment for Powys and Deheubarth, and for Glamorgan and Gwent. Then pull the most important features of all of them together for an artical "Wales in the High Middle Ages".♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 14:45, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rhondda Valley

Thanks for your updates on the Rhondda Valley. I'm trying my best to represent the area, and I will be adding more in the coming week. I understand that my turn of English is cluncky to say the least so appreciate your updates. Please keep following and improving my work. I need it. Thanks.FruitMonkey (talk) 21:49, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Measurements

Thanks for your work on Haslemere, but please note that the Wikipedia convention is to use SI units (metric) followed by imperial in brackets.--Charles (talk) 20:14, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thank you for correcting my mistake on the Edith of Mercia article. I always thought ferch was verch. I shall not make the same mistake in future. Thanks again.--jeanne (talk) 19:07, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

File copyright problem with File:Snow NorthDowns Feb02 2009.jpg

File Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading File:Snow NorthDowns Feb02 2009.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Million_Moments (talk) 16:50, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because you own the copyright to the picture, this means you need to state under which liscence you are chosing to release it. So you can either release it comepletly with something like {{PD-self}} or you can release it under a free license such as GNU Free Documentation License or Creative Commons but it must have a liscence of some kind. Please see Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for more information. Million_Moments (talk)

The work of deleting IP vandalism on chem element pages

Since you're involved, I wonder if you'd like to comment on this discussion on semi-protection for element articles: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Elements Thanks! S B H arris 23:34, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hard and soft C

You wrote "Created page with 'This just duplicates the contents of the other article, hard and soft C, so can be redirected." While we might all like the statement to be true, it isn't: for example, it doesn't mention "supercalifragilisticexpialidocious". In any case, redundancy is not necessarily bad. There are many lists in Wikipedia "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Lists_of_English_words", and this page fits the category.

Or are you going to delete them all?

Please don't remove content!

Jonathanrcoxhead (talk) 23:00, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dumnonii edits June 2009

Ehrenkater- Thanks for your edits, you've picked up some good points. I've been working on this article for a while now, and you get to a point where you begin to overlook wording and mistakes because you're so used to the article!

The only edit I am not happy about is using the word West Cornwall instead of Southwestern peninsula. Cornwall did not really exist as Cornwall until much later. I know what you mean, but isn't there a better way to word it? Let me know what you think on my talk page! Meur ras! :) Brythonek (talk) 20:43, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Philately

I noticed you are making some philatelic contributions and hopefully you are knowledgeable enough to continue improving the philatelic articles which is something we really need because there are so few active philatelists around. The WikiProject Philately is a project devoted entirely to philately and you may not be aware of its existence, so you can join us by adding your name and interests to the member list. It would be really great if we were able to continue improving Postage stamps and postal history of Great Britain‎ and maybe even bring it up to Good Article, or even Featured Article. Currently we only have one philatelic Featured Article, Postage stamps of Ireland (incidentally, not to blow my own trumpet, I wrote most of), but with work, good reference and expansion the GB article could also become an FA. Hopefully you have the knowledge, resources and ability to achieve this. If you need any advise please drop me a line. Good luck. ww2censor (talk) 16:07, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Northamptonshire

Hi Ehrenkater! A Top Priority article you have been involved with has many issues and urgently needs improving. If you can help with these issues please see Talk:Northamptonshire, address the different points if you can, and leave any comments there. (This is a generic message. if it has been placed on your talk page inadvertantly, please ignore it.) --Kudpung --Kudpung (talk) 23:08, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello!

Hello! You made the article "Kiraly hida". I think this is better that you move Kiraly hida to Királyhida.

I knew this was Burgenland, and historically ruled by Hungarian nobility? (Eszterhazy? Harrach?)

Servus, schenen Tog! --Uponeeds (talk) 12:48, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Documents in the Case

It's an oddity, though, isn't it? I don't know another work of hers that depends totally on an epistolatory form, though she does use the technique to good effect elsewhere, particularly in Busman's Honeymoon. (Apparently she had been reading The Moonstone and wanted to experiment with the technique of multiple first-person narratives.) I reread it regularly and admire it, but I don't love it in the way I love the Lord Peter works (or even the Montague Egg ones, come to that). I am collecting bits and bobs on her collaborator on this novel "Robert Eustace" (Eustace Barton MD), who also collaborated with crime fiction pioneer Mrs L T Meade and wrote crime fiction on his own account. He appears to have suggested the main plot device - the muscarine-poisoned mushrooms - and also the rather metaphysical theme of Life vs the artificial construct that imitates it but cannot copy it exactly, and all that follows therefrom. I am desperately curious to know whether his influence on the novel was confined to the Big Idea, or whether it actually extended to the contribution of any content at all. I suspect not, but it would be wonderful to know. Ka renjc 21:53, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Workington

Thanks for your help on on the town's entry. Very much appreciated.

Andy V Byers —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andy V Byers (talk • contribs) 19:32, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

EBU

You have a point. I didn't write the bit that you quoted, and if you want to delete the word "accurate" I'd have no objection. I actually think that what the EBU is proposing to do is a bad idea. JH (talk page) 17:20, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Contract bridge

Hi Ehrenkater! Thank you very much for improving the text quality on the Contract bridge article. Your knowledge on the English language and grammar really makes Wiki a worthwhile encyclopedia. Once again, thank you.
Krenakarore (talk) 19:03, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welsh pronunciation of Manawydan and Rhongomyniad

Thanks for your comments regarding my question! You're of course right about it not being that significant where the semi-vowel 'w' is placed. It is going to be grouped with the following vowel anyway when it is transcribed into Korean, since Korean syllables never end with [w] (one could transcribe it as the vowel 'u', but that would be unwieldy between two vowels). What matters is that I got the following vowel sound of 'y' correct, since the transcription will be different whether the 'y' is clear or obscure. I still haven't received a definitive answer on Rhongomyniad, but I'll keep looking. --Iceager (talk) 06:24, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spring Holiday

Thank you for your recent edits to that page. I am very interested in this topic as well as the Christmas Controversy article, but you made an excellent point that is changing my mind a bit about Easter. Since Easter is not surrounded by other holidays (in the calendar) it seems odd that someone would call Easter the Spring Holiday as a way to be inclusive. That just seems like a way to rename a holiday that has been claimed by Christians. In other words, it would be hard to argue that the term Spring Holiday is anything but hostile toward Christianity. Christmas seems to be a different thing because when you say “Happy Holidays” you might be talking about any number of major holidays celebrated around the same time of the year. What I’m getting at is it seems to me that the term Spring Holiday seems more hostile toward Easter than the term “Holidays” is to Christmas. Your edits have caused me to think that I probably have no logical interest in the Spring Holiday article any longer. I’d love to get your feedback/edits on a few lingering issues in the Christmas Controversy page if you have the time/interest. Elielilamasabachthani (talk) 15:28, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sterling in the South Atlantic and the Antarctic

Ehrenkater, It's just to say thanks for your follow up edits. It was very fast on my heels, but they were good edits. I intend to beef that article up a bit, but I don't have access to the necessary documents at this point in time. David Tombe (talk) 05:49, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of "Sterling in the South Atlantic and the Antarctic"

Ehrenkater, you may be interested in having a look at this, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Sterling Currency in the South Atlantic and the Antarctic. David Tombe (talk) 06:08, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Simon paap

A tag has been placed on Simon paap requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. AppuruPan (talk) 23:56, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Atomic orbital article

Hello. I noticed today that last August 28 you added the following sentence to the article Atomic orbital. "The fifth orbital, now called g, was formerly called t, standing for thick." A few hours later DMacks requested a citation for this statement, which is not found in modern textbooks. Since no citation has been provided even six months later, I deleted the statement today as unsourced. However if you do have a source you can put it back in (with the source), since it is an interesting fact if it can be proved. Dirac66 (talk) 02:04, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summary

Hi Ehrenkater! Thanks for your excellent copy edit of Malvern Hills. However, this was quite a major task and was not a minor edit. When editing an article on Wikipedia you probably noticed there is a small field labeled "Edit summary" under the main edit-box. It looks like this:

The text written in the field will appear on the Recent changes page, in the page revision history, on the diff page, and in the watchlists of users who are watching that article. See m:Help:Edit summary for full information on this feature. Filling in the edit summary field greatly helps your fellow contributors in understanding what you changed, so please always fill in the edit summary field. Thank you. Kudpung (talk) 21:53, 6 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Quite. Pinkbeast (talk) 18:13, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Life expectancy ‎

Please do not add or change content without citing verifiable and reliable sources, as you did to Life expectancy . Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. --Ronz (talk) 18:25, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vatnajökull

I moved your comment on the pronunciation of Vatnajökull to the talk page. It would be helpful if you had any refs or links to soundfiles. — kwami (talk) 19:33, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Saint Paulin Church <---- thank you!

		The Rosetta Barnstar
		Thank you so much for the great work translating at Talk:Saint Paulin Church. It reads much better now than I thought it could, and you did in a couple of hours what I couldn't have achieved in ten. I'm pleased to have had your help and improvements! Maedin\^talk 21:02, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your edits

Hey! Just wanted to say thanks for your useful edits here. Qwerta369 (talk) 12:44, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also I want to say Thank you! for your cooperation related to Steinway D-274 . -- AxelKingg (talk) 09:04, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If interested - here we go again.. ;-) THX in advance. -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by AxelKingg (talk • contribs) 14:53, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Homofuerst

Say buddy, could you possibly comment on the discussion here? Thanks. Textorus (talk) 22:54, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Other native German speakers have confirmed that homofuerst is a derogatory word, which someone seems determined to insert in the article: it's been deleted and restored 4 times already. Textorus (talk) 19:47, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

C.F. Theodore Steinway

Hi, I see that you, AxelKingg and Textorus have been working on the article C.F. Theodore Steinway: Talk:C.F. Theodore Steinway. I see, that none of you have added the new stuff to the article. I hope one of you will do it. It would make the article better. --Peoplefromarizona (talk) 13:13, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The new material is not my initiative, I just volunteered some help with the translation, so it's not for me to add it in to the article. Ehrenkater 13:45, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but AxelKingg asks for help at the bottom of the talk/discussion page: "Also the modified wordings of Ehrenkater look very OK for me. Please Textorus & Ehrenkater feel free to choose, according to your understanding of "good sounding english" - I cannot decide this, I regret, I only could find no errors in both versions."[1] --Peoplefromarizona (talk) 15:11, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

I'd advise you to drop the rhetoric. "Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia." So which word do you think backs up your allegation against Lightmouse? --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 14:55, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aesop Article

the only update I made was the link becasue it showed duola twice so I changed it to show the name of the page it was being directed to. The rest of the intridcution is not my edit. Im not sure why the whole paragraph was deleted because of that.--very strange edit decision, particulary since references come from a peer reviewed journal and there is no indication of an academic source that justifies the removal, it may benefit to read source to see what is generally agreed about him before making such edits in the future since pupular opinions change over time. sometimes revisiting topics is beneficial since new work exists. 67.246.114.239 (talk) 18:02, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of rivers of England

Thanks for jumping in so quickly and correcting the Thames tributaries which I've made special mention of in the talk page to the article. cheers Geopersona (talk) 18:03, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wynebald de Ballon

I note you have affixed a "Refimprove" tag to the above article. I would be most willing to improve it if only you would indicate on its talk page (or in your absent edit summary) what the problem is with the article in your opinion. 21 footnotes and 3 sources are already given. As there was no obvious reason for the tag and no suggestion of areas for improvement, I have removed the tag. Reapply it if you wish, but please at the same time give some indication of areas for improvement. Thanks.(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 14:40, 24 December 2010 (UTC))[reply]

I did not add a "Refimprove" tag to the article. The tag was added by user Michaelmas1957 on 7 November --Ehrenkater (talk) 15:04, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

North Downs Line

Hi, what is your source for this? There are two separate assertions here, and I have trouble with both.

First, and most difficult to believe, is that "the company was a joint venture with the GWR" - the line was built to 4 ft 8+1⁄2 in (1,435 mm) gauge, whereas the GWR at that time was entirely to 84 gauge - a difference of 50%. GWR trains would simply not have been able to run over the line. If the railway had been joint with the GWR, why did it need to go to the expense of building its own station at Reading? Surely it would have been able to share the GWR's station - providing mixed-gauge tracks at some of the platforms would have been far cheaper.
Second, "it was never intended as an independent railway company" - why did it then go to the bother of creating a company (Reading, Guildford and Reigate Railway) and selling shares to private investors?

Please add your reference sources to the North Downs Line article. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:06, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments, and I have amended the section of the article to take account of them, including adding a reference source. The answers to your second question appear to be (a) that Parliament was unwilling to grant authorisation to the SER to build the line itself, although a bill was deposited to that effect in respect of the Redhill to Dorking section, and (b) that the "independent" shareholdings were used to buy out the shareholders of two competing companies, namely the Reading and Reigate Atmospheric Company and the Reading and Reigate Company. --Ehrenkater (talk) 14:22, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've got one additional 'quibble' with the same set of edits. You've slightly altered the last sentence in the lede to read: "The line runs roughly parallel to, and below, the North Downs escarpment between Ash and Redhill." My problem comes with the term below, which could be taken to mean at a lower level than as in common usage. In a more academic geological usage though, the phrase below the escarpment is more specific and (in this case) would mean that the line was immediately to the south of the steepest slope of the Downs; for the NDL this is only strictly true between Gomshall and Reigate. (West of Gomshall until Shalford the line runs predominantly through the lower slopes of the Greensand Ridge and west of Guildford to Ash, the line is north of the Hog's Back and therefore in a geological sense actually above (ie on younger rock than) the escarpment. I'm probably being overly picky here, but my main issue is the clash(?) between a reasonably technical word like escarpment and below being used in its everyday sense. I can however see that it's worth mentioning that the line doesn't run on the top of the downs. Would you be happy if I I substituted the sentence in question for something like:

"Despite its name the line does not run along the top of the North Downs, but loosely shadows the main chalk ridge between Ash and Redhill at a lower level. Between Gomshall and Reigate the line lies at the foot of the main escarpment in the Vale of Holmesdale, but further west between Ash and Guildford the line runs to the north of the Hogs Back and tunnels under both the Downs and Greensand Ridge immediately to the south of Guildford."

Thanks again for your edit and I hope you don't think I'm being too pedantic! Mertbiol (talk) 11:11, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with most of the above, however:

(a) I think the reference to the Greensand Ridge can be deleted as the railway line runs entirely to the north of the Greensand Ridge.

(b) it is true that there is a short tunnel immediately to the south of Guildford station, but it is more important that the part of the railway which was built by/shared with the Direct Portsmouth (or LSWR) takes advantage of the gap in the North Downs carved by the river Wey.

(c) Hog's Back has an apostrophe.

I shall alter the page accordingly. ---Ehrenkater (talk) 11:59, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks. To be very pedantic, there are actually two tunnels to the south of Guildford. The northern one is longest and is unimaginatively titled "Guildford Chalk Tunnel". The southern one is considerably shorter and is properly called the "St Catherine's Hill Tunnel" but sometimes called the "Guildford Sand Tunnel". (The sand here refers to the Upper Greensand.) If you look at a map, you'll see that between Shalford and Chilworth the line is actually south of St Martha's hill, which is part of the Greensand Ridge. Apologies about missing the apostrophe in Hog's Back (although I've seen it spelt without a number of times in 'official' documents, but I agree that your version is correct). Mertbiol (talk) 14:12, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Groß-Umstadt

Hello,

I see that you have made some substational changes to the Groß-Umstadt article. These changes are great, but I see that there are no references associated with these. Can you please add some references with this too? Tommycw1 (talk) 11:41, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

References copied from German article, as requested --Ehrenkater (talk) 13:21, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Marek Sobieski

Hello. I'm asking about this edition [2]. If I put "graduated" instead of "finished", it would be OK? Kmicic (talk) 14:27, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How about "graduated from"? ----Ehrenkater (talk) 14:31, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Marek Sobieski was a graduate (alumnus) of Nowodworski College and Kraków Academy, so I think that "graduated from" sounds better then "finished". Thank you. Kmicic (talk) 14:38, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Half-life

I hope you understand why your edit got swept up in a revert of a series of vandal edits. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 16:15, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ely, Cambridgeshire

Thank you for your edits to Ely, Cambridgeshire. Much appreciated. I have however partially reverted two of your edits both of which changed the existing spelling of medieval to mediaeval. My reasoning is that the OED (2011) confirms that the modern spelling (Brit. & US) is medieval. For example C S LEWIS 1964 "Yet all the while she [sc. Nature] is, for the medievals, only a personification". Yes. I am aware that there is a Pamela Blakeman quotation within the article with the old, now rare, spelling --Senra (Talk) 18:53, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits: 1 2 are not minor edits as you have classified them. Please revise your understanding of minor edit, especially for articles currently under review and ensure you are abiding by those guidelines in future. This will considerably assist other editors such as myself --Senra (Talk) 19:05, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please revert all of your edits in this diff as none of them are consistent with the sources. I do value your contributions and some of them have been brilliant, but changing the meaning of prose in this manner is not useful when an article is under review. As you have made further excellent edits after this one, I shall be forced to revert all of your good edits if you do not self revert those in here. Thank you --Senra (Talk) 19:12, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've reviewed the edit you refer to, and most or all of the changes in it are merely changes in phraseology for the sake of clarity and do not alter the meaning - and thus cannot give rise to inconsistencies with the sources. If there is any particular item that you feel strongly about, please feel free to revert it, as you did for the spelling of "mediaeval". Ehrenkater (talk) 19:20, 14 December 2011 (UTC) (edit conflict)[reply]

Moved to Talk:Ely, Cambridgeshire

Please discuss those edits there. Thanks, Chzz ► 19:24, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ehrenkater - I hope you understand; I've only 'undone' and moved this chat for the sake of peaceful accord; [[WP:TIND|no deadline here, so we can happily discuss it, now, at our leisure, on the article page. Hope that's all OK with you :-) Best, Chzz ► 19:30, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	Thank you so much for helping to raise Ely, Cambridgeshire to GA status -- Senra (Talk) 01:06, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Promethium

Hey, checked over your edits in placing tags there. About solubility. The book I sourced mentions a solubility of 1×10⁻³³. (Good catch, though, didn't even get your original point). In other cases, I don't get your point. To make it easier, please further use {{clarifyme|reason=your reason|date=February 2012}}, which will look just like ^{[clarification needed]} (although the date may be completed by a bot). I'm waiting for your points (we're all up for a normal civil discussion, right?) Thanks--R8R Gtrs (talk) 09:57, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

appreciated

Hey, thanks for making some corrections to the Latin and translations at Palais Saint-Georges. In particular, well done on this little improvement! I had to giggle when I realised the unintentional double entendre. Julia\^talk 10:09, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The key to success came to be known as the Zürich model ...

Hi. You added Template:Clarifyme to the following text in Zurich trams:

The key to success came to be known as the Zürich model ...

In my edits to this article, I've several times pondered what to do about this text. I've read the article Zürich model, but it really doesn't explain what the Zürich model is, or indeed what the key to Zurich's success was. Unfortunately the text is quite old, and a search of the history shows it is by an editor who hasn't edited for four years (although I suspect from the username that he is the owner of a rather good website on Zurich trams, and something of an expert on the subject).

I've rewritten the text to remove the key to success bit, but retained the link to Zürich model. If only I could work out how to improve that.

I hope that resolves your issue. Oh and by the way, thanks for spotting and fixing some of the grammatical errors I introduced in my recent rewrites. Too much haste, etc. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 17:14, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Windermere

Are you sure about your changes to Windermere? You changed it from "The lake has a very high percentage of its drainage area under cultivation (29.4%), and a relatively low percentage of lake bed above 9 metres (30 ft) in depth which is rocky (28%)." to "A high percentage (29.4%) of the lake's drainage area under cultivation. The lake bed is rocky and only 28% of it is more than 9 metres (30 ft) deep." I'm not convinced that only 28% is deeper than 9m, and I think that what it may have been trying to say was that of that part of the lake bed which is deeper than 9m, only 28% is rocky. The statement was unsourced, but the depth can be checked on an OS map and it looks as if a fairly large proportion is deeper than the 10m contour. Terminology such as the old wording of "above n metres in depth" is something which I try to avoid as it can be interpreted ambiguously; I prefer to use "deeeper than", as you have done. - David Biddulph (talk) 12:02, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Arctic

Hi Ehrenkater, thanks for the info re: Iceland and its being included in the arctic. I have just recently been working on the article, Arctic policy of Canada, and am pleased you have added some insight. Perhaps you can help further. Iceland is part of the Arctic Council I think. How does the Arctic Council define the "arctic"? I am also intrigued with the populations of the Scandinavian countries. Do these populations include subarctic populations? How about Canada? Is the 120,000 inclusive of subarctic populations? Thanks again for your input on the article. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 16:18, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of languages in the Eurovision Song Contest

In this edit summary comment of your, you may wish to refer to previous WikiProject Eurovision discussions via numerous article pages, in which dialects are not being mentioned in the columns, only the term 'language' Deferring away from a previous built consensus may be deemed disruptive if continued. If you would like to discuss the matter further, then please feel free to open a new discussion via the project talk page. Wesley☀Mouse 15:33, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A further note to this is that the project used [3] a reliable source that is used to verify languages for Eurovision articles. Wesley☀Mouse 15:38, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Isabeau of Bavaria

Thanks for the copyedits there. I'm in the building stages and it's still very rough, so it was nice to see your edits. Truthkeeper (talk) 00:19, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Endangered languages

Hi, thanks for your attention to the article on endangered languages. However, do you think you could wait a little with working on the article. I've lost several edits already to edit conflicts. I'll be done shortly. Thanks.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:19, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, I lost the edits because I was stupidly editing in several windows at the time and therefore didn't notice your intermediate edits. I'll take a break in a little while and come back to the article tomorrow. Thanks for responding. best regards.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:29, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of Welsh people

Good to see you making some edits to List of Welsh people - plenty more work to be done there, thats for sure. One of those changes was to entries' order; from the English alphabet to the Welsh alphabet. The purpose of arranging lists in alphabetical order is that entries may be found by the reader. The vast majority of users (almost everyone, I would guess) would expect to find items on the English Wikipedia to be ordered in the English alphabet. Consequently, ordering entries using another language's alphabet would be likely to cause frustration and/or confusion. The Organisation section in WP:LEAD allows for different ordering criteria to be used, but it needs to be agreed (please use the talk page to gain consensus first) and it needs to be explicit to a casual user i.e. noted in the introduction. Please revert edits made in the alphabetical ordering system and please don't make any further such edits until consensus has been reached for those changes on the talkpage. Thanks, Daicaregos (talk) 07:27, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Language

Thanks for the copyedits to Language - they really were an improvement. I am going to take a break now, so if you like I'd be very happy if you go over other parts of the article as well. Best.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:31, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One minor comment: My recent expansion is part of a larger effort to improve the article and make it conform to MOS standards so that it can progress towards GA or FA status. For this reason it will make my avoid stand alone sentences but rather write in full paragraphs, and finally include references to reliable sources for all claims. Thanks again! ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:02, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voivode of Transylvania

Thank you! Borsoka (talk) 17:27, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Metrication in the United Kingdom

Hi Ehrenkater,

I have added a picture to the article to answer your questions regarding the "sale of loose goods or goods from bulk". Woudl you be happy if I removed your example about the cheese in the lede paragraph. Maybe we could change the wording of the picture caption. Martinvl (talk) 17:32, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A bowl of strawberries for you!

Thank you for helping to combat deletionism! Sminthopsis84 (talk) 17:43, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A Barnstar for you

		The Copyeditor's Barnstar
		For your editorial work on Feudalism. Sometimes removing a few words makes a huge improvement in readability and clarity. Thank you for your effors. DocTree (ʞlɐʇ · cont) Join WER 20:40, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Astronomical Unit

Why removing the specification that the AU is a precise metric distance? It's essentially unique in astronomical measures in being a specific metric distance rather than an indirect approximation, and it's worth (in my ever so humble opinion) highlighting. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 22:51, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. Never mind, just realized what happened - two uses of the same word in the same sentence. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 22:53, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ehrenkater, please could you improve the content of Palmes family article? (Hancock blogger (talk) 22:54, 6 October 2012 (UTC)).[reply]

A beer for you!

Thanks for your edits on Blackburnshire. Now I can spend more time on the facts side which was what I wanted to work on. Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:59, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New message from Gareth Griffith-Jones

Cynwyl Elfed last month; A40 road (London) this month.

Good evening Mr Ehrenkater,

We meet again. Cynwyl Elfed in September and now the A40 in London.

Your first posting today (covering the West End) is on a section that I "inherited" and had intended working on later. Your revisions are most welcome.

My maternal grandfather was born and raised in Cynwyl Elfed.

Sincerely,

-- Gareth Griffith-Jones/GG-J's Talk 19:06, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

help please!

Ehrenkater, please could you improve the content of Palmes family article? (Hancock blogger (talk) 22:21, 9 October 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Have tidied this up a bit as requested.- Ehrenkater (talk) 14:51, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bornholm

Hello Ehrenkater. Thanks for your help with this article and your rapid reactions to my latest edits. I am trying to put some order into the older Bornholm articles in my coverage of the island. In particular, still quite a bit to do on Rønne and especially Nexø. You are welcome to help! -- Ipigott (talk) 16:56, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was a bit baffled by your removal of "idyllic" from the Bornholm box caption and your explanation "you can't say idyllic". I don't really mind about your removing the word but I would like to know why you think it was out of place. --Ipigott (talk) 13:58, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:PEACOCK#Puffery - Ehrenkater (talk) 16:00, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now I understand your reasoning but I don't really think it was a peacock word in this context. Simply using "Bornholm's coastline" would have been misleading as a caption as it was intended to present an idea of the picturesque nature of some of the smaller settlements on the west and north coasts. "Idyllic" (Danish idyllisk) is a term frequently used in the literature to convey this impression. Anyway, I see you did not remove "picturesque", so let's leave it at that. I had replaced "a typical village..." as the photo did not represent a village and in any case a photo of Allinge, Gudhjem or Svaneke would have been more representative of "a typical village". --Ipigott (talk) 10:54, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks for working on the Velká pardubická article, much appreciated. Jonclay (talk) 10:00, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Emley

You were quite right, and what's more the editor has introduced factual inaccuracy.J3Mrs (talk) 12:43, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 9

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Metrication of British transport, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Meridian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 18:23, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you have missed the point with rcspinter whatever his name is. We are not squabbling, he is writing information which is incorrect and will not accept correction. He is in Liverpool or wherever and has no connection with Faresaver Buses and will not accept that he is wrong. This is why no-one will take Wikipedia seriously, because it is so inaccurate. relying on out of date information gleaned from the web, when those that know the truth are ignored.