Jump to content

User talk:John K

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Stefanp (talk | contribs) at 00:19, 11 December 2006. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

/Archive 1 /Archive 2 /Archive 3 /Archive 4 /Archive 5 /Archive 6 /Archive 7 /Archive 8 /Archive 9 /Archive 10 /Archive 11

Message from 71.10.226.95

Moved from the UserPage:

I am trying to find out how to reach you in order to learn how to correct some factual matters concerning "Anna Anderson," and my recently deceased wife Marina Botkin Schweitzer.

I am R. Richard Schweitzer (lawyer)who arranged the mtDNA testing done by Peter Gill. I am now 82, and would like to leave as many things factually correct as I can

my Email is s24rrs@aol.com I apologize if this is not the proper way to contact you.

Edward D. White

Hello, John--- I've added a comment/query to the discussion page for Supreme Court Justice Edward D. White which, since you appear to have written the original article, might be of interest. I'd be interested in your thoughts, in any case. --Michael K. Smith 21:05, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Novels WikiProject

Hi, and welcome to the Novels WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to fiction books often referred to as "Novels".

A few features that you might find helpful:

There are a variety of interesting things to do within the project; you're free to participate however much—or little—you like:

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask one of the members, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 08:37, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Radicali, Libertarians, etc..

The problem, I think, is that all of these ideologies have evolved, and continue to evolve, over time and there are sometimes substantial differences within them. American libertarians, for example, do not all recognize themselves in the platform of the US Libertarian Party. All US libertarians seem to share a strong commitment to economic liberalism, often to the point of anarcho-capitalism. There is usually a commitment to social liberalism. Possibly, the biggest difference between American "libertarians" have to do with pacifism versus spreading democracy, international alliances versus isolationism, and so on. The Italian radicals are fairly strongly committed to economic liberalism (or liberismo, as it is called over here). Perhaps not to the same extent as American libertarians, but more so, I think, than the Lib Dems in Britain. There is an extremely strong emphasis on social liberalism and human rights: the rights of prisoners to decent treatment and short sentences; the rights of immigrants to easy access to citizenship and so forth. Italian Radicals, however, have mostly supported the war in Iraq, the war on terror in general, and characterize themselves as strongly pro-US, pro-Israel, and pro-EU at the same time. I think this is the majority view, although there are a few "pure" pacifists.

In any case, it is the closest thing in Italy to libertarianism in the US sense. There may be some differences, but they are very subtle and seem to be more historical than actual. It's a strange party that moves from right to left or viceversa whenever it is unsatisfied with the course of the current government. On the other hand, this is true of most of the hundreds of thousands of maverick parties in Italy!! During the recent parliamentary elections, they first offered to to be listed as both center-left AND center-right, but were rebuffed by both coalitions. They went into negotiations with Berlusconi and were not content with the result, so they joined the center-left. Now, they are angry about the new taxes in the Prodi government's budget proposal for 2007, so they are threatening to withdraw again and move back to the right!!--Francesco Franco 09:15, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A question

If you had to nominate five recent books that define current Holocaust scholarship and that I really must read, what wouild they be? Adam 09:45, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Commonweath Realms

Hi John. Are you still pursuing this issue? I posted some research that appears to support the view that the way to deal with it is just to note that the UK is sometimes treated separately from the other Realms, but I don't want to just make that edit if its going to reactivate a revert war. --Chris Bennett 16:34, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since I haven't seen any input from you on this for several days now, I'm assuming you are willing to go along with this solution and have updated the page acordingly. Apologies if you are still concerned about it and have simply been busy with other matters. --Chris Bennett 17:28, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Elisabeth of Bavaria

I noticed that you removed "The Princess Bride" as an aka for Elisabeth of Bavaria, with a "Whuh?" comment. I'm not disputing, I'm just asking, is this aka erroneous in her case? ENeville 19:32, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Novels WikiProject Newsletter - Issue V - October 2006

The October 2006 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot -- 20:27, 6 October 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Award

I hereby award this French Barnstar of National Merit to john k for his interest (and patience) in the promotion of fact in all things Paris. THEPROMENADER 23:04, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, sir, for your kind and constant contribution to what should have been a simple affair. I sincerely hope to see more of your objective input and support in all articles of a similar nature. Thank you very much and bonne continuation.
THEPROMENADER 23:04, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

mediation

can you respond to lar's offer of mediation at talk:Trentino-South Tyrol? i personally like to have someone come in and objectively figure this out. the national/language bias is getting old.. we need a real solution finally. take care. Taalo 18:33, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

did you give Lar your opinion yet? maybe i missed it -- but in case you didnt, please do. just hoping everyone gives Lar his/her support/oppose (whatever) - opinion, so at least the fellow knows what to do next. later. Taalo 00:39, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
LOL, i accidentally read your message below thinking it was a response to mine. I was like: o_O
anyway. later. Taalo 00:41, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Travel?

Hey John, is it true you'll be visiting Philadelphia soon? --Serge 22:57, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Was this a tricky way of getting me to vote on the move request without being accused of vote shopping? I'd be just as happy to receive direct suggestions on that front, as opposed to possibly creepy intimations that you are interested in my personal movements. I'm interested in the issue, and would like to be informed of any votes about it that you become aware of. john k 00:03, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it was mostly an attempt at humor, as well as a hint... --Serge 03:26, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, that the answer to my fake question might actually be yes did not occur to me! What are the odds? Anyway, looks like patience is paying off again... --Serge 17:36, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Attribution

John, if you have any time, I'd appreciate your input at Wikipedia:Attribution. It's a proposal I've written with a view to getting rid of NOR and V by combining them into one policy. I recall you trying to explain to people on the talk page of NOR that original research was not simply unsourced material, but material for which no source appeared to exist. It's in order to make use of that distinction that I'm using the word "attribution" as the title of the policy. I'm arguing that all material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable source (i.e. must not be OR), but of course need not actually be attributed to one, because a lot of material needs no citation. I think the page is easier to understand that the current versions of NOR and V. Your views would be most welcome. SlimVirgin (talk) 09:18, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Bloody Sunday"

Hello John! Pardon the interruption, but would you mind taking a look at Talk:Bydgoszcz Bloody Sunday#Article name if you have time? There is currently a discussion about what the best name for the incident is. I've trusted your naming judgement in the past and am wondering if you have access to greater search materials than the Google resources I already listed. Thanks for your time, Olessi 20:21, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Armenia

Please visit the Talk: Armenia and Talk: Armenians pages http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Armenia&action=edit&section=3 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Armenians&action=edit&section=36 please voice your view on the current discussion, there is a small minority that are promoting and point of view that Armenia is geographically in Europe and Armenians are a European people. It is best to serve the factual truth and your support is desperately needed.


Would like a favour ...

Would you have time to compare the current Óengus I of the Picts page with my new version, cutting out some of the excessive referencing and aiming for a simpler narrative, here ? Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:22, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Goldhagen

Hi,

You have said that you’ll be back to the States (where you have your personal library) in November.

I wonder if the next month you could take care of the article and rewrite those POV passages in a NPOV fashion?

We may discuss then our possible differences in the talk page.

Cesar Tort 21:33, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More Travel?

This time I hear you're headed to L.A. ;) --Serge 18:18, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Novels WikiProject

Would you be able to add our userbox {{User WikiProject Novels}} which automatically assigns you to the participants category. Or at least at the category direct thanks. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 13:31, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not trying to be persuasive, I'm just curious. I can understand why some users dislike Userboxes, but what is the problem with assigning categories. I see that as a basic "wiki" feature for linking articles, templates, users etc with something in common; in this case a WikiProject. Just interested in your reasoning. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 08:36, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vice-Chancellor of Germany

Dear John, you might be interested at recent changes regarding this article. Str1977 (smile back) 19:42, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Khamenei

The text you reverted was not of the "bad man in charge of a bad regime" variety, but went into details about Khamenei's constitutional role and referred to accusations of dictatorship within the Iranian government. Are you against listing Khamenei, even if elected officials in Iranian politics have said he's running a dictatorship? Gazpacho 01:02, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's funny; Gazpacho and I collided on your talk page. I don't have a strong opinion myself, not being a subject matter expert; but suppose Khamenei doesn't belong in this list. Should there be a list in which he does belong (along with Brezhnev et al.), and should it be readily accessible from this article, perhaps even interleaved with it? Not for process's sake, but to improve the accuracy, completeness, and usefulness of the information presented? The distinction between Khomeini's and Khamenei's regimes (for instance) seems more likely to survive if the criteria we are using are articulated and documented in one article. Cheers, Michael K. Edwards 01:20, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that the only justification for the existence of List of dictators is that it is a teaching opportunity. Many readers will be rather naive about the gradations of autocratic regimes. The entries for non-dictators need not be exhaustive to add value; placing Walter Ulbricht in contrast with both Stalin and Honecker (with reference to the Eighth Party Congress) teaches about the phenomenenon of Soviet satellites, and placing Muhammadu Buhari in contrast with Ibrahim Babangida teaches about styles of military rule. Michael K. Edwards 02:23, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: George of Denmark

Sorry that I forced the moves before. I think we need a clear, concise convention on how to deal with all consorts rather than stating that one rule only applies to queens consort. I'll leave it be but I would very much like to see (and will participate in) amendments to the relevant conventions. Charles 01:55, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The argument that Queen Mary ceased to be only a princess is irrelevant. If that is the supporting argument, then she shouldn't even be at Modena. But of course, she is. I don't think there should be any difference between male and female consorts... After all, no title is used for the female consorts. If the importance is that a female becomes queen, stick that in there. If the importance is her maiden name, why not the same for males? Rather than omitting males entirely, I feel a relevant convention needs to be formulated so you don't have difficult people (like me) taking apparently unintended interpretations of a very general rule. Charles 02:04, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The current convention is only bad because it doesn't include or mention males at all. I don't think the problem is what to name females, it is what to name the males if all else fails (common name, a higher title, etc). I think it's a safety net. And hey, you wouldn't have to worry about people like me moving such things again! Charles 02:10, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is then as simple as stating in the consort section that male consorts generally fall under the rules for "other royals" unless he was granted the title of king-consort or something like that. Charles 02:16, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I'm still more in favour of such a prince's own title, even if it means affixing prince to the front of the name. I mean, the title "Prince of ..." is really nothing special when compared to a title such as Prince Consort, King Consort, Duke of whatever or something like that. So to sum it up, I would have such a prince at his birth name and title unless he were granted a distinct title. I don't know how to say that in a more brief manner. Charles 02:25, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The only such person I can think of to qualify for that description is Claus. Is there anyone else? Charles 02:32, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, until Henrik dies, he is Henrik, Prince Consort of Denmark. I think these two men are the only signifigant examples of non-royal, non-titled men who married queens. I think they constitute an exception to most rules rather than falling under them. Charles 02:37, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Elephant AfD

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elephant (wikipedia article) There is madness. And then there is merry madness! Thanks! ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Lethiere 05:56, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your Barnstar Was EATEN BY A BEAR! Dina 11:49, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for my first laugh of the morning -- and it's not even 8AM! Dina 11:49, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I have a different view of Wikipedia from most of the other AfD "voters". This article pleases me not because it's funny (although it is, very) but because it informs readers at several levels. It's a vignette of real events and real processes; the fact that they're Wikipedia events and processes is secondary. I don't think it matters what namespace it winds up in, but I think it ought to stay linked at the elephant disambiguation page -- perhaps right after "elephant in the living room". Cheers, Michael K. Edwards 20:09, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For taking self-reference to new levels...

The Oddball Barnstar (Wikipedia barnstar award)
For your unprecedented skills at self-reference, I hereby award you the Oddball Barnstar (Wikipedia barnstar award). Now go write an article about it! -- tjstrf (Wikipedia user) Now on editor review! 22:58, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey.

Man, you are seriously f**king awesome!

File:Hand with thumbs up.jpg
You may have two awards for this already, but you deserve it.

oTHErONE (Contribs) 11:18, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's rules by principles and there's rules by reason - the "delete the Elephant" discussion was an amusing showcase for both : ) THEPROMENADER 12:31, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

US Naming Conventions Proposal

Thanks for the proposal at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (settlements). I'm sure you'll get nothing but grief but it beats incessant RMs. —  AjaxSmack  02:26, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Democratic-Republican

Your insights on the matter of the naming of the Democratic-Republican Party would be helpful now, as the denial of an early Jeffersonian Republican party is spreading to Madison's article and others. Skyemoor 12:15, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dom Rosario Poidimani,again

See here after your affirmations Justiceiro 11:30, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Credibility

I certainly agree she is not a credible politician; marijuna is at best a minority issue and to campaign on it as a central platform doesn't show that one has a credible political platform or outlook, SqueakBox 19:41, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copyediting

Ciao! I've just completed a bunch of articles about Italian Military History. You can find them at Italian_military_history_task_force. They need some copyediting, I can imagine, as I'm not English motherlanguage. But I hope not so much work, so hope you (or our collaborators in the project) some time to fix them. Bye and thanks in advance. --Attilios 01:15, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Liberal Unionists

Hi John, I see that we now have two categories for Liberal Unionist politicianss.

They ought to be merged; see Category talk:UK Liberal Unionist Party politicians, where I have suggested that Category:UK Liberal Unionist politicians should stay. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:49, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Frederick II

You've seemed pretty clueful on Frederick II, HRE. Any thoughts on Talk:Frederick II, Holy Roman Emperor#Children? - Jmabel | Talk 04:04, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New Cork vote

There is a new move request and survey regarding Cork. This time it is proposed to move Cork to Cork (city) in order to move Cork (disambiguation) to Cork. You are being informed since you voted in the last Cork survey. See Talk:Cork. --Serge 07:39, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indian Mutiny in intro. What's the deal guys?

Heh - I'll give your edit about 5 mins (or whenever Jvalant wakes up). My personal stance on this is that it would be better if someone from India took responsibility for adding it back in, if only to inhibit (prevent? nah...) jvalant from declaring it racist vandalism and removing it... Tomandlu 12:27, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cork -> Cork (city)

Neutral? It was your argument that convinced me to go through the effort of starting this survey. How did you put it? Ah yes... "I don't think there is a primary topic in this case." You were right. There is no primary topic in this case, and that's why Cork should be the disambiguation page. --Serge 15:30, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Philly meetup

Hi! There will be a Wikipedia Meetup in Philadelphia on 4 November. If you're interested in coming, RSVP by editing Wikipedia:Meetup/Philadelphia 2 to reflect the likelihood of your being able to attend. If you have any questions, feel free to ask my talk page. Hopefully, we'll all see you (and each other) on the 4th! --evrik 16:10, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments on the meetup page

You're an admin; you're definitely not too cool to go to a meet-up. In fact, you're in charge of the snacks. :P - CobaltBlueTony 17:24, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

think I need to work harder on carefully cultivating an attitude of blasé indifference.
Then stop replying to peons like me. ;-) Unless you're going to talk down to me. That always makes us peons feel like part of the community. (*snort*) - CobaltBlueTony 17:58, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'll say, then, that your eloquent talent at wit defers some of your uncoolness, as I had an actual LOL moment. I have major uncool points (just ask my wife!) so you might want to distance yourself from me lest you get cooties uncoolness from me. - CobaltBlueTony 18:11, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Charles & Romanian Throne

Hi John, its Iapethus. I removed that non substantaited stuff about the soi disant offer to POW of throne of Romania. But am i guilty of vandalisme? Should i just edit the sentences rather than eliminating them? The editor who is adamant that the offer was made continues to put it on King Michael's and prince radu pages also. There should be consistency all around, is that not the best? Please advise me thankyou very muchIapethus 18:57, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your answer, i will keep trying to edit with honesty.I know everyone can make mistakes, but some things are really not very clean, or true.Iapethus 21:42, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Novels WikiProject Newsletter: Issue VI - November 2006

The November 2006 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 21:36, 1 November 2006 (UTC) [reply]

WikiProject Former countries

I would like to invite you back to WikiProject Former countries. You were previously a member of its former incarnation WP Historical States. The objective of this project is still to improve the content and accessibility of articles on former countries. The main way that we want to improve article accessibility is the introduction of a country infobox that makes it possible to navigate to preceding and succeeding entities - here are a few examples. As you can probably guess from our discussion elsewhere, my current focus is on Prussia. This restart is still in its early days but it would be great to have you back. - 52 Pickup 14:46, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use

The Queen, huh? Amazing.

Yes, I understand what you were saying.

  • I had earlier brought forward an excellent publicity photo of Smoosh as an example: their management said they were glad to see it used; it was deleted.
  • Dan Savage has written in his column how much he liked the particular photo of him that Wikipedia chose. It has now been deleted.

It is amazing how some of these people only know how to follow literal rules with suffocating strictness. There is no understanding at all of the importance of judgment and knowledge. - Jmabel | Talk 17:08, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lawsuits speak louder than "judgment", here. Anyone can say its okay unitl someone decides to sure because of it. It's better ofr Wikipedia, a non-profit, to follow the letter of the law for its own safety than to take tribal knowledge at its insistance. - CobaltBlueTony 17:33, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We are not following the letter of the law. We have created our own arcane and bizarre system to replace the parameters of US fair use law, which would clearly permit the use of all the images under consideration. If you read what the troglodytes at Wikipedia talk:Fair use have to say, they will admit that the policies have nothing to do with legal considerations, but rather with the goal of a "free-content encyclopedia," which apparently now trumps all other content goals. At any rate, the legal issue really doesn't come into play. I would be all for a policy which actually said that we abide by the (rather vague) letter of fair use law. What we have now is a policy which is ridiculously more restrictive than fair use law. john k 18:18, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. I just got an email from Dan Savage that he is bummed that we dropped his picture. Our excessive caution is actually annoying the very people it is, in theory, be intended to placate. - Jmabel | Talk 23:41, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Replied further on my talk page. - Jmabel | Talk 00:44, 4 November 2006 (UTC) And again. - Jmabel | Talk 23:59, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

English and British Queen Mothers

This is the most ridiculous edit war I've ever seen on Wikipedia. The article has now been semi-protected, so it can't be edited by anon IPs, and Morwen has also contributed, so things should be OK now, but I'll continue to watch the article.--Poetlister 17:31, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Monarchs

John, the reason I replied like that was not because I thought you were an idiot (there are some users I think are idiots, but you have never been one of them), but because I can't see the point in adding a comment to every comment by another user who doesn't agree. Had I made some factually incorrect statement when I placed my vote, then there might be a reason to do that, but I didn't and there wasn't. This is not "12 Angry Men" and I am not going to change my mind just because other people add comments under my vote. I hope you can see why I found that objectionable. OK? Deb 14:39, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, John, I understand now. Deb 15:20, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

India Talk page and Sati

Hi John,

I writing to you because I noticed that you had contributed to the India talk page and also that you are a historian. I seem to have got caught in some edit wars with a user: Hkelkar, who, in my opinion, is trying to push his POV on the abolition of the practice of Sati, by the British in India in 1829. All the history books I have looked at say that it was primarily William Bentinck, the then Governor-General, (inspired by the utilitarians and Christian evangelists) who pushed it through, albeit with great support from Raja Ram Mohan Roy an Indian reformer. Hkelkar keeps changing it to: the British did it because of the efforts of Roy and other Indians, implying that they wouldn't have done it otherwise. Anyway, if you have a few minutes, please take a look at the last two sections of the talk page. Fowler&fowler 18:47, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, John. That was sensible advice. Fowler&fowler 20:26, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Josiah Rowe

John, I'm impressed by the arguments against predisambiguation being made by Josiah Rowe over at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television). Thought you might be interested. In particular, see: Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television)#Reasons for exceptions. --Serge 21:23, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Peace of Westphalia Article

Hello!

I have just posted a major edit of the Peace of Westphalia article. Wikiproject Germany rates this as a High-Importance Article. I posted this on their talk page, and saw that you were considering an HRE wikiproject, so figured you may be interested in this edit.

I would really appreciate it if you could check out my explanations on the talk page, and would also be grateful if you would recommend/make any changes you think necessary.

Thanks!

Chrisfow 18:27, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Line of succession to the Russian Throne

Hi John;

How are you? I was wondering how much you know about the Line of succession to the Russian Throne... The article was basically a botch job of messy titles and names and loaded sentence structure. I've done a quick little fix up on it, but I do not know enough about the theoretical line of succession to verify its accuracy. If you know, would you be able to add anyone who is missing and correct the names if they are wrong? I tried to truncate the give names to what the individuals actually use but I am unfamiliar for the most part. Charles 00:21, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandra

John, I don't think you meant that last move of the talk page, did you? Deb 12:56, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was already too late by the time I made the comment. I was actually trying to amend the talk page to say that I had move-protected it when I got an edit conflict. Ah well, I'm glad we're finally getting somewhere with that particular page. Deb 16:52, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Canino Line

John, once again the difference in our approaches manifests itself. I don't know for sure that members of the Canino branch never put forth a claim as Napoleonic pretenders, or that there were never those that advocated such a claim on their behalf. Granted that one cannot prove a negative, I would still feel obliged to do more searching than I currently have time for to exclude this possibility, before I would be willing to state unequivocally that this never occurred. I did insert the statement that the members of the line themselves did not put forth this claim, after spending about half an hour online and going through my own relevant books, but I hesitated to do even that, and am still considering that I may have over-stated the case. The original author of this article states that "Since Charles death {in 1857} no Bonaparte heirs have officially claimed the throne", and the "Good Faith" presumption requires me to assume that he had some grounds for implying that Lucien and/or Charles asserted a claim or that a claim was asserted on their behalf. So I figured that if I were wrong, he would come forth and correct me since the article is quite new and he seems to be monitoring it (While editing, I came to the suspicion that Edward J. Picardy, Xxy, and 195.93.21.10 are all the same editor, based on the dates and tenor of their edits). In any event, I didn't want to eliminate some other editor's efforts without better cause than my disagreement with his POV. Rather, I preferred to insert sourced information into the article that makes it clear to the reader how unlikely it is that the "pretendership" of the "Prince Canino Line" has any legal basis. And I removed some information which contradicted sourced facts. As to the fundamental assertion that this line has or asserts a claim, I challenged its factual basis, allowing the original editor time to put forth his facts or his argument. But the point is that the reader was not left in doubt as to the lack of apparent grounds for the claim. I would prefer that the Hilda Toledano/Poidimani claim be debunked in similar fashion: with facts that render the claim untenable, rather than with exclusions and assertions reminiscent of Wiki authors who unilaterally decide what titles and pretenders are valid or invalid, and edit Wiki accordingly on the assumption that it is too difficult for others to undo the damage (witness what happened to you recently in another article that was moved unilaterally, and all of your absolutely clear, correct and persuasive arguments would not budge him -- because he is certain that he is right, regardless of others' dissent). As I see it, the problem is akin to the Sally Hemings issue: everyone for centuries assumed that the claim that she was Thomas Jefferson's mistress as well as slave was a canard, based on lack of first-hand evidence and Jefferson's reputation for probity. But increasingly historians, based on the recent DNA evidence, consider it more likely than not that she was his mistress, and father of at least some of her children. The fault of the historians that dismissed the story was not lack of evidence for their opinion, but excessive confidence that the circumstantial evidence on which they were relying was conclusive rather than probable. As case in point, you have altered the article by insertion of "and he and his heirs were added into the succession" to my edit "On 24 September 1806, the emperor's youngest brother, Jérôme Napoléon (1784-1860), was made a French prince, along with the future issue of his second marriage to Duchess Catherine of Wurttemberg". In fact, as far as I can ascertain, Jérôme Napoléon was made King of Westphalia and residual heir to some of his brothers' ersatz kingdoms, but was never given any succession rights to France under Napoleon I -- not even during the Hundred Days. This was difficult to believe because it seems counter-intuitive, but I searched around a bit, and I tend to trust Francois Velde's research in this area. Jérôme obtained residual rights under the Second Empire's constitution, and was designated heir presumptive by Napoleon III only in 1852. I still oppose eliminating pretenders from Wiki based on my POV of the validity of their claims. Lethiere 20:01, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your arguments are persuasive, and I am now convinced that the Canino article should be handled as you propose. I am still concerned, however, and you did not address the problem of editors of less integrity and greater obstinacy than yourself who try to do the same thing on much less valid grounds. This is a point I just responded to you on in the Pretender article. Until we can figure out how to protect Wiki both from clueless vandals and from clever vandals, our rules will be too porous to do much but discourage the law-abiding, I fear. Lethiere 22:24, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FUC

John, how do we go about fixing the ridiculously draconian Fair Use Criteria? Many of the admins seem to be ignoring reality. -- ChadScott 22:39, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As long as there is actually a rule that it's somehow invalid to have an unfree picture of a famous person "to show what that person looks like", we're never going to get anywhere.
I've been scratching my head about that rule, too... it seems to be very arbitrary and designed just to make life extremely difficult rather than serving an actual purpose. It's just retarded, for lack of a better word.
Anyway, thanks for your response... this issue just made my blood boil when they tagged a cockpit picture as a violation of fair use since it could technically be replaced by a free image... as if it would be just no problem for me or someone else to just wander to the local airport, march up to some random aircraft, and snap a picture of a cockpit. *sigh* -- ChadScott 07:51, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Check out Wikipedia_talk:Fair_use#A_change_to_FUC_.231... -- ChadScott 16:25, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Fair use

I'm intrested in your opinion and will ask on your talk page since our discussion was started in the wrong section. It's hard to see your point about other users without examples. If you refering to Badagnani example about the wines and multiple other images tagged by Robth based on the "a free image could not be created to replace it" criteria, then I would have to disagree with your last comment at Wikipedia talk:Fair use. It's not that the guideline is all of sudden being misinterpreted by some users, it appears it's just being more strictly enforced. So I guess the best we can get is try to propose a change in that part of the criteria. Personally, I dont see much room for interpretation in "a free image could not be created to replace it".

By the way, I interpreted that the way you started your last comment you are suggesting I'm trying to shut down your guys concerns, I must say that this is not at all the case. I'm just commenting on how the situation is viewed through my eyes. - Tutmosis 03:06, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can't help but say I feel the same way [1]. You have it all wrong, all this time in our discussion, I wasn't saying your wrong and those deletionists are right. I feel the same way, just because a free image can be made it doesn't mean it will. All my comments were directed at trying to get constructive ideas on how to fix this out of you guys, instead of just insulting other people and saying they are out on deletion "campaign". We won't get anywhere with that. - Tutmosis 14:54, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Line of succession to the Portuguese throne, presently

Have you checked the article Line of succession to the Portuguese throne ? It should presumably moved to "Miguelist line of succession to the Portuguese throne", or how? Can we allow that inherently problematic present name to any article? Marrtel 19:39, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Septentrionalis made a move that NPOVed much of the problem. The offending article is no longer under "line of succession"... Marrtel 23:20, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User_talk:Tfoxworth#Russian_Imperial_articles

John;

As an administrator, would you know how to deal with the subject in the link? Check out his/her contributions. Is a warning in order or can any action be taken? Charles 21:11, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The user has been banned for the 3RR, but you still might be interested in his "argument" on his page. Apparently, he is presenting all points of view... Charles 22:47, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Waterloo

I think you are absolutely right. But there is also a disadvantage to stopping: pride. If I stop, you promise to recover this for me how exactly?UberCryxic 22:22, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care who he or she is. The only things that matter are the arguments presented. That person's arguments are faulty, so I will keep arguing until he or she either quits or realizes an error with what he or she is stating.UberCryxic 21:26, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tariq's proposal

How about a poll on the text of the proposal only, on the grounds that it has support by people who oppose the AP list; leaving the 27 cities for later implementation? Septentrionalis 16:42, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Wait a week, see if they get bored with it.
  • Put in a full poll, with links from the pump and Requested Surveys.
  • The only other possibility I can see is banning Serge from the page as disruptive, and I'm not sure that's necessary - In fact, I'm not sure it's fair. Septentrionalis 18:30, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use, again

Thanks for calling myself to the ongoing discussion; I've added a comment of my own. - Jmabel | Talk 19:49, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


DR, again

Would like your opinion at Talk:List of Presidents of the United States on this subject. Ongoing discussion are in the Color Legend and The Democratic Party is improperly labelled "Democrat" subsections. Skyemoor 23:22, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP Munich

Hello,

You are invited to join WikiProject Munich!



There are a lot of things to do in this project. From creating new articles to finetuning articles into featured article status.


How can you help?

  • You can join a Task Force.
  • You can help comform Munich-related articles to Wikipedia Policy.
  • You can get free Munich-related images under GNU Free Documentation License.
  • You can create and edit of Munich-related articles.
  • You can do translations from German Wikipedia to English Wikipedia on Munich-related articles.
  • You can help do assessments of Munich-related articles.
  • You can help expand articles currently in the Stub-class and Start-class.
  • You can help reference articles.
  • Since original research is against Wikipedia policy, you can research topics to expand. This means you don't need to know anything about Munich.
  • You can help expand stubs and start-class articles and help finetune other articles into Featured article status.

A WikiProject of this nature is very broad. Munich has a rich history in sports, culture, politics along with many more topics. Feel free to help out in your area of interest.

If you want to check the project out you can click the link above. If you want to join the project, you can sign up here.


If you have any questions feel free to contact myself or any other member of the project.

Kingjeff 15:30, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Any comments ...

... here [2]? Slrubenstein | Talk 13:14, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Hi! I've seen only now the corrections you made to Expedition of the Thousand. Thanks for good work, as you've seen my written English is mediocre. However, my attempt is to provide a base for a good article which other goodwill motherlanguage people can bring to a decent status. Can I count on you for similar works, if you've time? In the field, I've in mind to expand First and Third Italian Independence wars article. Bye and good work. --Attilios 00:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Archiving

Hi John. Could you perhaps take a look at Talk:Expulsion of Germans after World War II with an eye to archiving it? Thanks. Sca 21:47, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, there's an anon. user at User talk:131.104.218.46 who's been battling in broken English with Jadger and now is threatening an edit war over Expulsion of Germans after World War II. This anon. seems very disruptive. Sca 15:14, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

correction, the page is Recovered territories. thanks Sca

--Jadger 18:54, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceability guidelines

Per your comment at Wikipedia talk:Images of living people I think you'll find my proposed replaceability guidelines worth a look. Daniel Case 06:29, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

please comment

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cultural_and_historical_background_of_Jesus#redistribution_of_information —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Slrubenstein (talk • contribs) 16:03, 3 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]


Charles of Württemberg

Hello John,

as I happen to be from Württemberg, I decided to improve the entries on its ruling dynasty. Problem is my experience in the English Wiki concernig this subject is almost nill. So I messed up the move of Charles I of Württemberg. It ended on Charles I, King of Württemberg. Problem is I noticed that kings are named differently. It really belongs in Charles of Württemberg (no I, according to standard literature). I cant move it anymore. Could you?--Tresckow 00:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)http://en.wikipedia.org/skins-1.5/common/images/button_sig.png Your signature with timestamp[reply]

the bographical lexicon "Das Haus Württemberg" lists him without ordinal. This official exhibition has :him with the ordinal: [[3]]

Ive never seen him with an ordinal, so i guess thats the more common naming. u r right about the inconsistency with Frederick. I wonder myself. I used the english Charles because all royalty names in the English wiki are anglicized. Personally Id be more happy with Karl. I would be happy with charles or Karl. Id be more happy without ordinal, as it is more common. See German Wiki.--Tresckow 02:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


In my personal opinion names shouldnt be anglizised. Its kind of arrogant and distorts facts. English or Spanish names are never germanized in Germany.--Tresckow 02:47, 7 December 2006 (UTC)--Tresckow 02:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


You got me there. I guess it was customary in the 19th and early 20th century to do so. No globalization yet. As times changed and Württemberg isnt really decided yet, I would say the German names make more sense. I think nowadays historians rather use the native names. Besides its not hard to figure out Karl=Charles. It would be more consistent also. How translate Eberhard or Ulrich? We could disamb, of course Charles --> Karl What do you think?--Tresckow 03:04, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Its true for the kings. Dukes are inconsistent. I would do the renaming and cleaning up of the interwiki. It kind of hurts the eye. Can you keep me up to date with the development?--Tresckow 03:04, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can live with 1 and 2. However I am doubtful of the outcome of this. At least it would clear the things. Could you insert the requested template on Karl´s discussion site?. The template jungles is kind of a mystery to me.--Tresckow 03:11, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Novels WikiProject Newsletter: Issue VII - December 2006

The December 2006 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 23:38, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wannsee

[[4]] Your comments welcome. Adam 23:28, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, those pages are my sandboxes. Thanks for your comments, no doubt you are right and I will make the changes you suggest. I am waiting until I find Jackel's article on Wannsee before I instal this in place of the present article. Next projected rewrite: Hitler Youth. Adam 00:26, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, Weizacker - I think I was confusing him with Canaris. Adam 00:31, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Warning 3RR

You are about to break the 3RR on Michael I of Romania. Stefanp 00:19, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:John_K&oldid=93476867"