User talk:John K/Archive 7

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search



So are we making this category then?--[[User:HamYoyo|HamYoyo (Talk)]] 20:48, May 31, 2004 (UTC)

JK, don't put any articles directly under category:Writers; it's much too broad!--[[User:HamYoyo|HamYoyo (Talk)]] 08:03, Jun 2, 2004 (UTC)


Just to let you know, your signature, "john k", seems to be creating runaway bolding. One fix would be to have the string be "john]] [[User_talk:John Kenney|'''k'''", so as to have valid nesting. (This breakdown may be related to the new MediaWiki parser.) VV 09:33, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

De Gaulle[edit]

Check my note on the de Gaulle's discussion page about French middle names. Would be better to delete, but will wait for general agreement. Hardouin 10:28, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Anonymous Daniel Pipes fanboy[edit]

I suppose we should try to draw his/her attention to the talk page, by force if necessary :). Otherwise we can just revert as necessary—turning an article into a fawning PR piece does not, I regret to say, count as vandalism. —No-One Jones 07:50, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Or, since he seems to have created the account NihilObstat, I'll try to get his attention via his talk page. That's probably best. —No-One Jones 07:53, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Look here, I quote from a book an historical fact. Please do not revert again. I will replace the selection again. IT IS AN HISTORICAL FACT THAT THE MONARCHIST PARTY CALLED ITSELF THE REACTIONARY PARTY. It is to be remembered. HISTORICAL FACT IS NPOV. WHEELER 14:25, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

"Eventually--although no fixed date can be assigned--the line of cleavage between monarchists and republicans as such ceased to have practical importance; and the harsh party name Reactionary gave way to the milder term Conservative." This is the quote I took the information from The Governments of Europe pg 485. The author capitalized the word reactionary. He calls it "a party". I referenced this selection.WHEELER 17:12, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC) He is also a PHD published by MacMillan Co. The book is 775 pages long. The man must know what he is talking about.WHEELER 17:13, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

From my perspective, I read it as they called themselves Reactionary. He says before this that in l871 the monarchist group had three factions the Legitimist, Bourbon and Bonapartist Factions. After the above quoted paragraph, the author uses only the term conservative.
They were called reactionaries and called themselves Reactionaries?
Do we have another reference? I understand that no parties existed in the early years of the Revolution as such but in l871, l875, weren't there parties in France at this late date?
If no more confirmation, go ahead and change it back to faction then.WHEELER 18:16, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

You or I will change it then.WHEELER 00:18, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Hi John! Assuming you are a sysop (not sure), can you delete Charles, Duke of OrlŽans for me? Its just a redirect and i want to move a page there. Thanks, Muriel G 16:03, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)


You just added a category to Tacitus, right? In my watchlist, it says "N 17:49:37 Gaius Cornelius Tacitus (cur; hist) . . John Kenney (Talk) (Gaius Cornelius Tacitus moved to Tacitus)" but I'm certain that redirect has existed for months - that's how it got onto my watclist in the first place. Stan 05:13, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

OK, that makes sense. The last I remember, Tacitus was the historian, somebody else must have been tinkering and I didn't notice. Time to protect the page! :-) Stan 05:21, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Donald Maclean[edit]

You when move to Donald Duart Maclean, you need to disambig all the other articles which point to Donald Maclean which I have done :-) --Nzpcmad 08:34, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

"writer " category[edit]

Hi, just noticing that you were removing the "writer" category to some articles to which I had just added it several days ago. Not complaining, just curious as to know how one is to keep on top of which categories are in circulation. I find the whole business rather chaotic. -- Viajero 11:53, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)


Hi John! I had a look on the Naming conventions. The foreign titles are not specified. I only saw instructions for english peers. They go like Henry Foot-Tootsie, 11th Baron Purpleberries. I would not like to adopt this, say, for the Duchies in continental europe. I dont like it either with foreign names like Duchesse du Berry oder Herzog von Sachsen. This, in my opinion, makes no sense in an english encyclopaedia and its a potential maintenance problem, because new articles are likely to be created according to english names. I agree with you, when you say that whatever convention, it should be consistent. Why do you prefer to use French titles here?, if i may ask. Cheers, Muriel G 13:54, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Hi. I took the liberty of editing the vulgar apologetics out of the opening paragraph on Adolf Hitler, inserted by Sam Spade. Please look at the history, and see if you can clean up a little. I see an edit war brewing. Danny 17:05, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Regardless, Sam put back his version. Wanna see some real shit? Danny 17:25, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)


Excellent recasting! Takes the bull by the horns! Wetman 01:07, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)


Ok, I will be consistent and will add all Celtic, German and French names to the cities in the British Isles. I started with London (formerly Londinium). Halibutt 04:58, Jun 14, 2004 (UTC)


I'm no expert, but it seems to me that it's not the factual information that is copyrighted, but the way it's presented. I mean, Burke's is all "factual information", but if we scanned in a copy and put it in an article we'd have Burke's lawyers on us pretty quickly. In any case, it's not very polite of us to base an article almost entirely around one source and then not quote that source as a reference at the bottom, especially when someone's obviously gone to a lot of trouble compiling that source, even if it is factual information. Proteus (Talk) 09:39, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Canadian social credit movement[edit]

Thanks for cleaning this article up. It has been bothering me for a while that the federal party info was mixed in with the provincial stuff. At the same time, I'm not entirely sure that the federal party was called the 'Social Credit Party of Canada'. I think that socreds liked to consider themselves more than just a party. I'll check on that some time. Keep up the good work.

After further research, I think I'm mistaken. There seem to be references to 'Party' in various reliable places. I have added some more info about the party in the 1980s and 90s. Kevintoronto 20:30, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

John, i left a message in my talk page for you. There not here not to break the line of conversation. Anyway, i think we should move this discussion to a talk page of a Wikipedia:Naming conventions (French peerage) Cheers, Muriel G 14:56, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC) (I am now here)

On Imperial styles of commoners[edit]

Someone recently moved the Joshua A. Norton article to Norton I of the United States. I moved it to Emperor Norton, which is the way he was commonly known, and would be looked up: I felt that Wikipedia shouldn't be treating him as it does an actual monarch. I was surprised by the amount of support there seems to be for treating this pretend title as if it were real. I was hoping you'd agree<g> but even if not, thought you might be more patient than I feel like being in expressing my opinion at Talk:Emperor Norton. - Nunh-huh 21:46, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for that! I have also a question on Catherine Oxenberg's mother at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (names and titles) that you may be able to help with. -- Nunh-huh 18:53, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)


The page is locked. I can't edit it. AndyL 02:11, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Dave Coulier[edit]

Thanks for your message. Merged my content onto your page, and I'm surprised that I hadn't noticed its existence. Again, thanks for the notice! Rhymeless 08:02, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Request for Mediation[edit]

Herschelkrustofsky (the user, not Krusty the Clown) has requested mediation between himself and you and Adam Carr regarding the article Lyndon LaRouche. Could you please respond, either on Wikipedia:Requests for mediation or on my talk page, to say whether you are prepared to accept mediation. If you accept, could you please say whether you have any preference over who the mediator is. There is a list at Wikipedia:Mediation Committee, although you may choose someone not on the official committee if you prefer.

Thanks, Bcorr, Co-chair of the Mediation Committee. 00:21, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I thought minor housekeeping edits were allowed ie wikifying words. Should I just rollback my edits?AndyL 03:32, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)


(cross-posted to several user talk: pages)

I noticed that you participated in the discussion regarding reorganization of this page. I have written a proposal for a new format and would like any comments, criticisms, or feedback you may have to offer. Thanks, —No-One Jones 14:26, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)


I've attempted to remove some of the propaganda from National Caucus of Labor Committees and add some more critical info. Please see if you have anything to contribute. AndyL 00:33, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

WHEELER and Nazism[edit]

Please see Talk:Nazism and Talk:Nazism/Seperate-National Socialism AndyL 19:10, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Curzon of Kedleston[edit]

Odd as it seems to have a Marquess with an "X of Y" title, he was "Curzon of Kedleston" from the very first creation ("Baron Curzon of Kedleston, of Kedleston in the County of Derby"), and had to keep the "of Kedleston" all the way through his promotions to distinguish him from the Earl Howe, who was (and still is) both Viscount and Baron Curzon ("Viscount/Baron Curzon, of Penn in the County of Buckingham"). It appears that Lord Curzon of Kedleston didn't appreciate this very much, and consistently signed letters "Curzon" instead of "Curzon of Kedleston", much to the irritation of Lord Howe, whose son, Viscount Curzon, was the only person entitled to sign himself "Curzon". Of course the easy option would have been for him to become Marquess of Kedleston, but I suppose he wanted to keep his surname in the title. Proteus (Talk) 09:10, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)


Today around evening, I'll do my best cleaning up the mess User:PolishPoliticians did. I can't do it at work, since I need to refer to sources in order to know when the city was named as was it then. At first sight it seems like at least an hour work, since I'd have to double check every detail he inserted. Przepla 10:54, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Haute Cour of Jerusalem[edit]

Hey, I made this article about the feudal court of Jerusalem, I thought you might be interested. I think I may have simplified things too much...and I'm not sure about the title but it can be moved if necessary. If you have anything to add, that would be great! Adam Bishop 00:39, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)

LaRouche vs WHEELER[edit]

I don't know what gives me a bigger migraine Lyndon LaRouche/draft or WHEELER's Early National Socialism/draft AndyL 06:23, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Let's be thankful there are no supporters of Juan Posadas on wikipedia to quibble with. AndyL 07:06, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

French history[edit]

Yes, you are right, the general state of the series is pretty awful. On the theory of "write what you know" (and, admittedly, pushing a little even there) I've been working on the [[French Revolution]. I've developed several ancillary articles (people associated with, historians of, a glossary), and have been working on the history itself (as a series of articles), also adding some people, institutions, etc. So far I think I've done a fair job from 1789 up to about mid-1792. I'm not much on military history, and would really like to see someone else take on that side of things, or at least to provide leadership in the matter. -- Jmabel 05:42, Jun 29, 2004 (UTC)

Check this out[edit]

Please take a look at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Early National Socialism/draftAndyL 08:33, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

WHEELER and anti-Semitism[edit]

From Talk:Early National Socialism/draft

And by the way since you want to declare a pedigree just because your relatives suffered under the Holocaust.
The Nazis also committeed atrocities on the island of Crete. My uncle, Sirodakis, was a great underground fighter. It was my island that lead a ferocious resistance to the Nazis. It was my co-religionists, Catholic priests that went to the camps as well. And it was Jewish communists that destroyed the Orthodox Church in Russia. Many a Christian died in Jewish concentration camps in Russian before the Nazis ever killed a single Jew. So don't cry buster and don't wave your victimhood in my face.WHEELER 15:43, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

WHEELER complaint[edit]

Please see Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User:WHEELER I need one (or two?) people to certify the complaint. If you can attempt to resolve the dispute or intervene on Talk:Early_National_Socialism/draft and then document that would be helpfulAndyL 03:13, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)


I know I should know this but where do I go to request that National Socialism be protected? WHEELER is trying to change it from a disambig page to an article despite the fact that his attempt to write an article Early National Socialism/draft is on the verge of being deleted. I can't protect it since I've previously been reverting WHEELER on that page. Do I simply ask a fellow admin to protect it or is there a formal request page? Thanks AndyL 19:36, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Energa Gedania Gdansk[edit]

Could you unprotect the Gdansk page, please? There seems to be no dispute at the moment at the Talk:Gdansk page and I would like to add the following entry:

Thank you, EBL 20:15, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)


I just stumbled across your user page. Enjoy your time traveling in Europe. Best wishes, 172 08:43, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

John could you look through and fix Adolf Hitler - from a brief skim it looks like a Holocaust revisionist has been through it. PMA 11:44, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)



Can you to mediate in conflict with User:Irredenta. The problem is with naming policy in Vilinus article, as well as with historical issues in the following articles: Gabriel Fahrenheit, Johann Reinhold Forster, Georg Forster. Regards.Yeti 10:16, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Hallo, John, you did wrote in Gabriel Fahrenheit, that you consider West Prussia to be a province of Poland in these days. Please, take a look at this webpage: Geschichte der Provinz Westpreu§en. It reads: "Der Zweite Thorner Frieden wurde am 19. Oktober 1466 geschlossen. (...) FŸr das dem Orden verbliebene Gebiet mu§te der Hochmeister dem polnischen Kšnig einen persšnlichen Eid ablegen, wodurch aber kein LehnsverhŠltnis begrŸndet wurde. Das abgetretene Gebiet, "Preu§en Kšniglichen Anteils" oder kurz "Kšnigliches Preu§en" genannt, wurde jedoch nicht inkorporiert, sondern mit der Krone Polen in einer rechtlich nicht klar definierten Union verbunden. (..) Die Sonderstellung des "Kšniglichen Preu§en" gegenŸber der Krone, die Aufrechterhaltung seiner Sonderrechte, eigenen Landtage und Landesregierung (Landesrat) wurden fŸr ein Jahrhundert Gegenstand stŠndiger Auseinandersetzungen." translating: "The Second Treaty of Thorn was closed on 19 October 1466 (...) for the sake of the area that remains under the rule of the Teutonic Order, its Grand Master has to place a personal oath to the Polish king, whereby however no relationship of fiefdom was justified. The retired area, called "Royal Prussia", however was not incorporated, but was connected to the Polish crown in a legally not clearly defined matter (..) the privileged position of "Royal Prussia" opposite the crown, the maintenance of its special rights, own parliament and own government ("Landesrat") became for one century the subject of constant arguments." further: "erkannte Danzig 1454 die Schutzherrschaft des polnischen Kšnigs an. Danzig wurde durch Personalunion mit dem Reiche Polen verbunden, gehšrte diesem aber všlkerrechtlich nicht an. Der Kšnig von Polen erhielt nur geringe Hoheitsrechte. Danzig behielt ein ausgedehntes Territorium auf der Danziger Hšhe und in den Weichselniederungen, behielt SelbstŠndigkeit bei der Regelung innerer Angelegenheiten und in der auswŠrtigen Politik. Sie hat selbstŠndig VertrŠge mit fremden MŠchten abgeschlossen, deren Vertreter in Danzig residierten. AuslŠndischen Truppen, auch polnischen, war der Eintritt in die Stadt untersagt. Danzigs Schiffe fuhren unter eigener Flagge. 1523-26 setzte sich die Reformation durch. Trotz polnischer Eingriffe blieb Danzig evangelisch. Als 1569 der polnische Reichstag zu Lublin das "Kšnigliche Preu§en" dem polnischen Reich inkorporierte, hielten Danzig, Elbing und Thorn an ihrer všlkerrechtlichen UnabhŠngigkeit fest. Diese wurde 1577 von Kšnig Stephan Bathory bestŠtigt, der die Stadt Danzig auch durch eine Belagerung nicht unterwerfen konnte. Danzig behielt alle seine Privilegien, insbesondere auch das Recht zur freien AusŸbung des evangelischen Bekenntnisses." translating: "In 1454, Danzig recognized the protectorate of the Polish king. Danzig was been connected by personal union with the state of Poland, but according to international law did not belong to the Polish state. The king of Poland received only small sovereignty rights. Danzig kept property of an expanded territory on the Danziger Height and in the Weichselniederungen, kept independence with the regulation of internal affairs and in the foreign policy. Danzig independently sign contracts with foreign powers, whose representatives resided in Danzig. The entrance into the city was forbidden to foreign troops, therefore also to Polish troops. Danzig's ships sailed under own flag. 1523-26 the reformation became generally accepted. Despite Polish interferences, Danzig remained being evangelic. When in 1569 the Polish parliament at Lublin incorporated "Royal Prussia" into the Polish state, Danzig, Elbing and Thorn held at its independence by international-law. This was confirmed in 1577 by king Stephan Bathory, who could not subject the city Danzig even by a siege. Danzig kept all its privileges, in particular also the right for the free practice of the Evangelist confession."
There is a second webside: Westpreussen reading "Westpreu§en hatte nun den Kšnig von Polen zum Landesherrn. Rechtsgrundlage fŸr das staatsrechtliche VerhŠltnis war der Vertrag vom 4. 8. 1454. Praktisch war die AbhŠngigkeit sehr unterschiedlich. Der Bischof von Ermland, Paul von Logendorf, war 1464-67 VerbŸndeter des Kšnigs; der Thorner Vertrag hatte die Schirmherrschaft vom Hochmeister auf den Kšnig Ÿbertragen. Wirklich autonom waren die drei gro§en StŠdte Danzig, Elbing und Thorn, weil sie fŸr ihre finanziellen Leistungen im Kriege und beim Kauf der Marienburg den Ergebungsvertrag von 1454 durch weitgehende Privilegien von 1457 ergŠnzen konnten. FŸr sie war die Oberhoheit des Kšnigs nahezu rein formeller Art. Ihnen hat diese UnabhŠngigkeit auch den erwarteten wirtschaftlichen Aufschwung gebracht. Danzig und Elbing, untereinander rivalisierend, traten das Erbe des Ordensstaates im Ostseehandel an, (...). Das restliche Westpreu§en hatte 1454 zwar die gleichen Rechte wie der polnische Adel erhalten, verlor jedoch gleich nach dem Frieden die eigene Landesspitze in der Person des Statthalters. Landtag und Landesrat sowie eingesessene Oberbeamte blieben zunŠchst bestehen." translating: "West Prussia now had the king from Poland as its sovereign. Legal basis for the relationship was the contract of 4. August 1454. Practically, dependence was very different. The bishop of Ermland, Paul von Logendorf, was 1464-67 allying the king; the (Second) Treaty of Thorn had transferred the patronage from the Grand Master to the king. The three large cities Danzig, Elbing and Thorn were really autonomous, because they were able to supplement the resulting of the contract of 1454, because of their financial achievements in the war and with the purchase of the Marienburg castle, resulting in large privileges of 1457. For them, the sovereignty of the king was almost purely of only formal matter. This independence also brought them the expected economic upswing. Danzig and Elbing, among themselves rivaling, began the inheritance of the Teutonic Order in the Baltic Sea trade, (...). The remaining West Preussia had received the same rights as the Polish aristocracy in 1454, however right after the peace it lost its own head-of-country in the person of the governor. Landtag (parliament) and Landesrat (government) as well as the established upper official remained existing, at first." further "Auf dem polnischen Reichstage zu Lublin im Jahre 1569 wurde die Autonomie Westpreu§ens Ÿber die Kšpfe seiner StŠnde hinweg beseitigt und die Personalunion mit der Krone Polens in eine Realunion mit dem Reiche Polen umgewandelt. Nun waren die westpreu§ischen Landtage nur noch vorbereitende AusschŸsse des polnischen Reichstages, von dem die StŠdte Polens ausgeschlossen waren. Danzig, Elbing und Thorn erhielten das Recht der Teilnahme; doch hat Danzig grundsŠtzlich davon keinen Gebrauch gemacht, weil es diese sog. ÈLubliner UnionÇ nicht anerkannt hat. Die beiden anderen StŠdte erschienen selten, da sie stets Ÿberstimmt wurden. Immerhin haben die westpreu§ischen LandstŠnde sich einige Besonderheiten bewahren kšnnen: Steuerbewilligungsrecht, Steuerverfassung, Entscheidung Ÿber Teilnahme an Kriegen und das Landeswappen, den schwarzen Adler mit erhobenem Schwertarm" translating: "At the meeting of Polish parliament at Lublin in the year 1569 the autonomy of West Prussia was eliminated without consulting West Prussia's own parliament and own government itself, and the Personal union with the crown of Poland was converted into a material union with the state of Poland. Now the West Prussian parliament were only a preparing committees of the Polish parliament, from which the cities of Poland were excluded. Danzig, Elbing and Thorn received the right of the participation; but Danzig made in principle no use of it because it did not recognize this so-called "Lubliner union". The two other cities appeared rarely, since they were always outvoted. Nevertheless the West Prussian LandstŠnde could retain themselves some extra characteristics: the Tax Grant right, tax constitution act, decision over participation in wars and the coat of arms of the country, the black eagle with raised sword arm."
I am sorry for my poor performance in translating, but I did not found English websides about this. As you are historian, can you find some sources about Second Treaty of Thorn and the corresponding contract from August 4th, 1454 and the privileges from 1457? As the West Prussian never accepted the unilateral breach of contract from Lublin 1569 and the Polish king was to renew the old rights after the war against Danzig in 1577, I think West Prussia was never a part of Poland nor was West Prussia a Polish province. No one who was born in West Prussia between Second Treaty of Thorn and the Partitions of Poland was born in Poland. West Prussia was an independent Grand duchy, with the Polish king being in Personal Union the formal sovereign, but without West Prussia being a part or a province of Poland. No Polish city was allowed to participate in Polish parliament, but the Prussian cities were granted this right. They do not accepted this right, as they do not accepted to be part of Poland. What do you think about it, John? --Irredenta 13:56, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Irredenta, small points:
  1. First sorry for mistake, It was indeed 1569 not 1525.
  2. As i said, the unification of Royal Prussia with rest of Poland was done against the will of the king and elites of Royal Prussia, but it would be impossible without backing from lesser gentry. The envoys from Royal Prussia were discriminated by elites for participating in Polish parliament. The executionist' movement and how it finally reached its goal of UoL is itself a fascinating story
  3. If Royal Prussia before 1569 was in personal union with Poland, then Polish king in Prussia would use only "Prussian duke' title, not Polish king. There would be document stating that Prussia is tied only with monarch. But I don't know about such documents. I've already wrote it in Forster:talk, which you ignored.
  4. Polish troops and clerks had free entrance into Gdansk. THe status of Danzig was regulated by Polish parliament. Batory in fact defeated the Danzig: it idd not recognise him as king, so he defeated Daznig army in open field (but was unable to took Danzig) but Danzig finally recognise him as king, paid enormous sum in gold as apology and then whenever requested send artillery to Bathory's campaigns
  5. Since in Poland there was total freedom of religion guaranteed by law, the claims that "Daznig had right to be evangelical" as signs of independence are, well, absurd
  6. The Royal Prussian local parliament was not consulted, becaue execusionist movement was of opinion that words of Treaty of Lublin should be treated literally. That's why after years of fight they were able to convince king to final unification of Polish provinces.
  7. As i believe, your opinion is that Royal Prussia EVEN AFTER FORMAL UNIFICATION was not part of Poland (despite that local elites were happily participating in work of Polish parliament, paid taxes to Polish treasury etc) bsaed on your convinctions that incorporation was done illegally. So, anyone born in Posen in 1900 was also born in Poland, not in Prussia, since unification of Grand Duchy of Poznan with the rest of Prussia was also done illegally.
  8. In 1770 Prussian king Frederic consulted POLISH parliament about legality of incorporating Royal Prussia. If Royal Prussia was not Polish province, it would be absurd to do so.
In short, you are trying to convince us, that despite what people in XVIII century believed, despite of facts, Royal Prussia was not province of Poland because you question legality of 1569 act. Szopen 15:04, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Note that i am here for 15 minutes at most, and then i am out of the town for a week. Even geeks have hollidays :) Szopen 15:46, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I have put a fragment of Torun Peace II from 1466 stating clearly that so called Royal Prussia became the PROPERTY of POLISH CROWN (state) and of Polish kings (not only of king Casimir). Translation is not good but you can check it with German version.Yeti 23:46, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Those are quick notes i have made during fast reading few of my books. I am on vacation now, so i will answer in a week or so. I am using John Kenney's talk page because this were discussion was previously made :)

I spot excellent (I hope) book about Royal Prussia "Panoram of Loyalty: materials from conference....". It will cost me 30zlp. That is something like 6-10 euros. While some may find this sum ridiculous, for me it's quite high (remember, that prices, wages etc in Poland are WAY below western european. Just for the note, there was article recently, that Poland may be invaded by unemployed from EU, since they could live here like a kings for they welfare checks - there was interview with one who already did that: 5000zlp is a something like above two times the average salary in Poland.

I will have that book in about week or two; I will also be out of contact with internet for about the same time. In the meantime, what i was able to find right now:

First, i have to explain few things. The executionist movement was the political movement of medium and lower nobility from Poland. Their main postulates were "execution of law", especially caring for so called "incompabilitia" (that some offices cannot be joined by one person), "execution" of royal domenas (krolewszczyzny) which were against the earlier 1504 statute sold or given (illegally) to many magnates from senate and "equal laws, equal burdens". When king finally started cooperation with the movement, appeared question of royal domena's in Royal Prussia.

In Crown proper such domena's were taken back from previous owners, or they were turned into given only for a lifetime. But in Royal Prussia they were fundament of power and wealth of many Prussian families (magnates Dzialynski's - recent newcomers from Greater Poland - but they were leaders of oposition against union -, Cem, Kostka's, Konopacki's, Wojanowski's) [SG], [WSZ] (Bibliography below). Another question was the incompabilitia - there was no such law in Prussia, which caused tensions between Prussian elites and lesser nobility and smaller cities. There was also question of "eqal burdens" - since Prussians were initially refusing financing in any way wars against Muscovy for Inflanty etc [SG] [WSZ].

Initially king was against the union; especially having separate treasury in Royal Prussia, beoynd any control from sejm, was very handful for him. Also Polish senate was heavily against unification and was backing separatists from Royal Prussia.

The position of executionist movement was that since Royal Prussia a part of the crown, laws made by Polish Sejm should be respected also in Royal Prussia. Council of Royal Prussia was heavily against it.

BTW, have I have noticed the pattern: the leaders of gentry have names as Dzialynski, Pisinski, Galczewski, while leaders of cities Wahl, Kleber, POleman, Bredtschneider...

It would be interesting to know what was the language used by Prussian Sejm: [WSZ] in few accidents stressed that speeches were made in Latin or Polish...

During Sigismund Augustus reign only once Prussians were participating in Polish Sejms - in 1548 - despite calling from king.

Articles from 1454 incorporation, which were used by Prussian oposition [WSZ] p.40:

article VI "..inhabitants of the mentioned ours Prussian lands in laws, freedoms, letters ... which they got from princes, kings and masters of mentioned lands we will protect and keep..."

article XI "..every important case (omnes causas notabilas) which is of interest to mentioned lands, we will with advise of comon Council of mentioned lands end, consider and decide..."

The lesser nobility was in oposition to Council: it were people from gentry as Jerzy Pisinski, Waclaw Lubodzieski, Jerzy Galczewski, and leaders of smaller cities: Johan Wahl, Jerzy Oswald, Christoph Langefelder. The leaders of Prussian elites were Achacy Cema, Jan Dzialynski, Rafal Konopacki, Michal Dzialynski from gentry and Jerzy Klefeld, Peter Behme, Michel Bredtschneider, Sebolt Wartenberh,Johan KOye from cities. The spiritus movens of oposition was Jan Dzialynski [WSZ].

BTW, what is "causas notabiles id est forenses" )chancellor reaction saying what will Polish Sejm say)? and "causas forenses et negotia judiciorum" (the answer of king in 1562 Sejm)

[WSZ] p 53: the Prussian council was encouraged by Poliush senate to separatism and oposition.

[WSZ] p 77 gentry in Prussian Sejm 15 may 1562 made a protest because their names were put in notarial act, which they couldn't understand, BECAUSE IT WAS IN GERMAN.

[WSZ] p.104 [ASG] p.51 When delegation of Royal Prussia tried to behave as "envoys" n characters of envoyrs of Great Duchy of Lithuania, it was protested and they had to cease to behave like that.

[WSZ] p 119-130 passim When delegates of council presented their instruction, they were almost accused of crimen laessae maiestatis.

[WSZ] p. 129 Polish Crown Council stressed that Crown COuncil is superioritatis to the Prussian Council.

[WSZ] p 148: letter of lesser Prusian nobility from Pomorskie voivodship, read by Galczewski in 1564 Sejm (written and read in Polish) "We left from Teuton's salvery, but now we are in even heavier slavery ... from which not sooner we will left, when the Republic and table of your HIghness will be repaired."

[WSZ] p. 150-151 Mikolaj Sienicki, leader of executionists' movement: Prussia are part of the Crown, Prussians can't explain themselves with lack of agreemtn to earlier Sejms because they were called to those Sejms and if they were not present, it's their fault ("It would be "sequella" ?!? if because of absnece of one or two everybody couldn't decide about something"). To leader of Prussian oposition, Jan Dzialynski: it is suprising, that most active are "those, who ex nobis prodierunt, from nation and blood Polish, recently came to Prussian land".

[WSZ] Although union and execution and unification couldn't be done without backing of internal Prussian opposition of lesser nobility which wanted to receive the same rights as Polish gentry (and started to receive them starting with receiving Polish-like "land law" in 1563, that is judging in own cases IIRC), and smaller cities, it should be noted that they were not enthusiasts of union and they were stressing, that they want to preserve old privileges.

[WSZ] p.176 in 1563 for the first time Prussian elites couldn't control the General Prussian Sejm: they weren't able to put the delegates from lesser nobility, which were against them during Polish Sejm, before trial.

[WSZ] and [ASG} also quote earlier historiography: Lengnich, Simson, Fischer, Zivier etc. They summarise it by saying that those "especially early" German historians were ignoring the Dzialynski, forcing the concept of Personal Union (concept started in 1723 by Lengnich, which was then repeated by another German and even Polish historians) and that Royal Prussia were bastion of Germanness against Poles. As you could see by very names of the actors, nothing like that was taking place. In the opposition against union were both Dzialynski and Konopacki, and Kleber. And oposition to the Prussian COuncil had names of both Pisinski and Wahl.

There was a question whether Danzig was part of Polish kingdom. Well, in 1568 Danzig/Gdansk REFUSED opening gates to Royal comission. in 1569 burgmeister of Danzig was put in Sejm's trial and ARRESTED (though temporarily). In 1570 Danzig had to apologise king (deprekacja). Polish Sejm send new comission to Danzig/Gdansk, which controlled every aspect of city acitivity and prepared new statues (Karnkowiana) [ASG] p.54 . Unfortunately king was tied in wars elsewhere, was in debts in Danzig so he didn't stress the thing as much as the Sejm wanted it and the Karnkowiana were finally replaced in 1585 by new statutes (By Batory). Nevertheless we see here two things: ARRESTING the leader of supposedly "FOREIGN STATE" and putting him in trial and that Polish Sejm was preparing the laws for Danzig/Gdansk. I think that suggest clearly that Danzig. while largely authonomous, was part of Polish kingdom. Danzig also recognised Batory as king in 1577 - although Batory (well, Zborowski) was able to defeat the Danzig army in open field, he lost one skirmish and couldn't take the city itself, so the result was compromise [SG] p.14.

It is interested tha Jan Dlugosz 1415-1480 (Polish chronicler) who was participating in preparing of treaty in Torun/Thorn, does not know anything about personal union with Royal Prussia. He stated clearly [JD]:

p. 431 ".. the God .. REUNITED the - lost completely for long time - large provinces to Polish kingdom",

p. 360, the articles of the Treaty: "... king and POLISH KINGDOM will take into posession lands which should belong to it by natural law, that is lands Chelminska, Michalowska, Pomorksa in old, indisturbed borders...",

p. 361: "..whole Prussia, which for 13 almost years were causing Poles to fight, which cost so much blood and <pot>, were JOINED TO KINGDOM "

p. 362 " And i, who is writing this chronicle, was merrying becayse of end of Prussian war, return of long lost lands and JOINING OF PRUSSIA TO KINGDOM, because i was sad that Polish Kingdom was patitioned by different nations and people. ... I would cnsider myself happy, if by accident - by mercy of God - on my eyes Silesia, Lubusz land and Slupsk land would also would return and join Polish kingdom..."

Jan Dlugosz was tutor of kings children, diplomat and he was not only living in that time, he was more or less active actor - and he saw this not as personal union, but as incorporating Royal Prussia to Poland.

Anyway, you can see from it clearly:

1) It is not true, that Royal Prussia was not consulted about planned union and unification of law

2) Royal Prussia was considered to be part of Polish kingdom, not in personal union (like Great Duchy of Lithuania) but real part of kingdom

Sorry for chaotic character of those notes, but i can't sepnt too much time here, i am already late to my wife :)) If i won't return by August, that means she had killed me for sitting in work during vacations.


[ASG] "Spory krolow ze szlachta w zlotym wieku" (The quarrels of kings with gentry during Golden Age) Anna Sucheni-Grabowska Krakow 1988 ISBN 83-03-02039-0

[JD] "Polska Jana Dlugosza" (Poland of Jan Dlugosz) Warszaw 1984 - translated excerpts from chronicle of Jan Dlugosz. ISBN 83-01-02837-8

[SG] "Krol i Kanclerz" (King and Chancellor) Stanislaw Grzybowski Krakow 1988 ISBN 83-03-02440-X

[WSZ] ""Sejmy Koronne 1562-1564 a ruch egzekucyjny w Prusach Krolewskich" (Crown' Sejms 1562-1564 and executionists' movement in Royal Prussia" Witol Szczuczko Torun 1994 (No ISBN - 260 pieces were edited :))) )

Szopen 11:05, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Vilnius Page Protection[edit]

If this edit war continues, do you think that I should protect the article until a compromise is reached? Although one side seems to accept the compromise, both sides are volitale and I don't think I can count on that much longer if the other side contiues to reject it. I can only revert the page two more times today, after that my hands are tied in regards to the page for the duration of the day. -JCarriker 16:02, Jul 8, 2004 (UTC)


Thanks for making corrections to the article. -- Emsworth 22:40, Jul 8, 2004 (UTC)



I hope you don't find my update/format of the President list too disagreeable or contentious

regards --JohnArmagh 06:43, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I like the basic idea, although I think it looks awkward in places (especially the changing names of the country). john k 11:34, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Life Peers[edit]

It seems that various individuals have complained about articles on life peers not including the names of the baronies in the article titles. Current policy ("Life peers ... are generally mentioned by their personal name not title, because among other reasons a life peerage is often awarded at the end of a career, while the individual holding them may be far more widely known though their personal name, so use George Robertson, not Lord Robertson") is absolutely flawed and was never specifically approved, to my knowledge. But nothing has been done to fix the matter. Therefore, we appear to have certain courses of action:

  • Set up a poll (a not-so-great idea, in my opinion, given widespread misunderstanding about peerage dignities, complexity &c)
  • Just change article titles as necessary (similarly problematic, because people might arbitrarily start moving the articles back)

So, do you have any particular suggestions as to which plan should be adopted? -- Emsworth 22:59, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I say, change the policy (it has already been brought up on talk, and nobody has objected), and then change articles as you see fit. john k 06:18, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)


Hi, Noticed you're working on James Joyce too. I need to do some research and am still hoping to improve Samuel Beckett further, but intend plugging away at Joyce as I can. Any help you'd like to give on the Beckett would be welcome. It would be nice to get these two Irish writers into Featured articles eventually. Bmills 13:42, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing my mistake. Serves me right for working from memory!. The article was a disgrace as it stood but should be relatively easy to improve. The Ellmann bio is well worht a read, BTW. Bmills 14:29, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)


Hi John - could you possibly get in touch by EMail, in case you'd be interested in meeting in the Mannheim/Darmstadt area...? --Palapala 17:31, 2004 Jul 20 (UTC)


Hi John,

You were an initiator of the agreement about naming of Gdansk. As far as I know all Polish users (but PolishPoliticians) accept it, even if in fact it is not used regarding former Polish citeis in present day Lithuania, Ukraine and Belarus. Unfortunatelly, at least two users ignore it at consequently remove Polish names at many pages and replace it with German ones. I do not want any edit wars but I am afraid that it can terminate all dialogue. Do you have an idea how to sort it out?Yeti 23:43, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

John Eaton[edit]

Your comment stated, should a territorial governor be included in Category:Governors of Florida? Maybe a second category, a child of Category:Governors of Florida should be made, like Category:Territorial Governors of Florida|*? Maybe not useful until there's more pages for territorial governors. But good point... --Golbez 07:09, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Personal attacks on the mailing list[edit]

I am sending the following message to multiple users-- sorry to bother everyone I'd strongly appreciate it if fair-minded users responded to the latest string of baseless personal attacks on the mailing list ([1], [2], [3]). Stan Shebs, Fred Bauder, and RickK started attacking me ferociously since it came up on the mailing list that one of the articles I'd written was featured, Russian constitutional crisis of 1993.

I know that I have made mistakes on Wikipedia; but those mistakes were not motivated by anything other than a passion to make Wikipedia into a serious, professional, quality encyclopedia, not a dumping ground for ungrammatical POV rubbish and fiction. This is making it harder and harder for me to be as efficacious as a user as I want to be. (The distorted impression of my work that these attacks engender are at the root of quite a large number of conflicts on Wikipedia.) That's why I feel that they should finally be thoroughly discredited. 172 05:48, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. The article was copyedited significantly in the past week or so, so whatever problems there were in the wording are probably gone. Even when I first wrote the article, it probably was more balanced than most accounts out there online, which often gloss over the 10/93 crisis, as if it were a replay of the 8/91 hard-line communist coup attempt. In this sense, the perspective of the article probably stands out from the norm.

Anyway, back to the subject of that loathsome mailing list, I think Stan knows very well that he's being unfair. Someone of Stan's intellect must certainly know how damning things he's insinuating are among a largely U.S. readership. I think he just gets a kick out of enraging me and provoking people like Fred and Rick to start accusing me of "socialism," "Stalinism," and "anti-Americanism" outright. (He's been doing this for the past year and a half-- and I'm sure that this is quite entertaining when one isn't on the defensive end of all this) Sorry to bother you with this nonsense from the mailing list, 172 10:52, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Re: Tables[edit]

"Shouldn't these be in chronological order?" Maybe, but I put them in order of importance, president first, then anything else after that. Maybe chronological is better, but I'd think that it could crowd out the more important posts. What do you think? --Golbez 03:14, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I was just coming over to say that I think we should put them in order of precedence too. I feel like if a guy was POTUS or Governor of Oklahoma or whatever, that's way more important (and should be at the top) than him being part of the Oklahoma State Assembly delegation of 1892 or Secretary of Commerce and Labor, etc. jengod 22:11, Jul 26, 2004 (UTC)
But what if someone was, say, Secretary of State and Chief Justice (e.g. John Marshall)? Both positions are pretty which comes first
Chief Justice is more important. It's the head of an entire branch of government--Secretary of State is 3rd down on a branch of government. What about Speaker of the House and Secretary of the Treasury (see Howell Cobb). I say Speaker is tops b/c again, he's essentially head of the legislative branch. Also, I'd say for our purposes federal positions should top state positions, mirroring the federalism structure of the U.S. That's the only place I would argue with the United States order of precedence setup. jengod 22:14, Jul 26, 2004 (UTC)

Well, governors rank fairly low, outside of their own states. I'd agree, at any rate, that categories and so forth should be in order of precedence. But I really think this becomes problematic with other offices. Succession tables are used to show chronological progression. Having them out of chronological order is annoying. For instance, there was one case where someone served first as Secretary of War, and then as Secretary of the Treasury (John Canfield Spencer, maybe). And the succession tables had Secretary of the Treasury first! That's just ridiculous. At any rate, the most important offices (like President, and, prospectively, VP, Speaker, and Chief Justice) ought to have their own boxes elsewhere on the page than the succession tables. But this is a personal preference, perhaps. I would say that all succession tables ought to have years of service on them, at the very least, so that the confusing out of order usage doesn't become actively misleading. But see Winston Churchill for an instance where nobody has seemed to object to a bunch of lesser offices being higher in the succession table than PM - and this is how we've been doing it for virtually all articles on British politicians. john k 22:28, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

In re the Secy of Treasury before Secy of War: That's quite simple, Treasury ranks higher in the American government. We rank cabinet positions by the time they were created. The first three, in order, were State, Treasury and War (later Defense). I was putting them in in order of, if everyone else in the government died, who would be next in line? Which is why I would, personally, rank Chief Justice lower than cabinet members, but I won't argue about that one, since the counterargument, that it's the head of a branch of government, is equally adequate. Ugh, United States presidential line of succession tells me they're futzing with it, slipping the Secy of Homeland Security in after the Atty General. Just screw with the order, whydoncha. :P --Golbez 00:08, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Oh, I agree that that would be logical - but I think it's still counterintuitive. Is the Secretary of Commerce so much more important than the Secretary of Labor that someone who served in both positions, but the latter first, should have the commerce position listed first? Chronological seems more sensible, and ultimately tells you more. Especially if we're going to have both succession tables and categories, it makes sense to order them in different ways. The succession tables organize themselves naturally (IMO) in a chronological way, while it makes good sense to put categories in by an order of precedence. Particularly important positions (I'd say Pres., VP, Chief Justice, and Speaker, as heads of the four parts of the government) could be highlighted in a sidebox...or we could just do that for president... john k 00:48, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

RE: at least cabinet posts can go in chronological order? on William Marcy--I really don't think so. I think the order of precedence is ideal. I totally agree about years of service though. As for more sensible, I would find it very strange to see United States Secretary of Commerce and Labor before United States Secretary of the Treasury on George B. Cortelyou's page. And I think most Americans would feel the same way. I think if we have the dates of service listed below the title that will sort out clearly who was in which job when, i.e. that Thomas Jefferson or Martin Van Buren was United States Secretary of State before he was Vice President of the United States before he was President of the United States. IMHO, what the Brits do with regard to noble titles is different than job descriptions in an (ideally/allegedly) meritocratic democratic government. jengod 01:11, Jul 27, 2004 (UTC)

I'm not talking about noble titles. I'm talking about job descriptions. See Winston Churchill, who had no noble titles. I agree that this can become confusing - but for someone with as many jobs as Churchill had, I think any other way of doing it would only be far more confusing. Remember, the table is at the bottom of the page. It is not (and should not be) the principal reference for the jobs a person had. Very important jobs should have their own boxes. Obviously, jobs should be discussed in the text. I like the way the boxes work with British politicians, because they help to get a quick sense of the chronology of the person's career, without much fuss. To do the same thing with American politicians under your preferred manner, you have to look through and figure out which things come first. But obviously you don't see the purpose of the succession tables in the same light that I do, so we're not going to get anywhere. Should we put it up to a poll to get a better sense of what others think, perhaps? john k 01:34, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The British leaders have a lot more entries in their table; either the folks editing those pages consider more positions noteworthy, or Churchill just really got around. (Or, those editors have just gotten around to tabling more jobs; most cabinet secretaries aren't tabled, I don't think, and lots of vice presidents weren't until I did it). Not sure which. I mostly look at the table as a horizontal method. Lists and categories are vertical; they go from the top (President) down to each spoke. The tables go horizontally, taking you between spokes, from Washington to Adams to Jefferson, etc. But it is also useful as a quick time reference (For those few tables with year ranges in them).
Churchill certainly did get around, but the parentheses is right - several of us have been going through the Britishers and putting in as many positions as seemed significant. You're right that currently the American politicians have fewer tables, but that's because nobody's been going through systematically. At any rate, I like using the tables both as taking you horizontally between spokes, but also as taking you chronologically within an individual politician's career, so you can see the different offices held, and in what order, and get a basic sense of the course of the person's career. john k 11:44, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Perhaps a poll is needed, I don't know. Most American presidents only have two or three jobs, tops - President, usually Vice President, and usually Governor or Senator or Secretary. (Most are also Representatives, but those aren't usually tabled, and I disagree that they should, since it doesn't allow as easily for horizontal movement, which I consider a, perhaps the, primary use). It seems different in Britain. Perhaps when someone has as many jobs as Churchill had, it should be chronological - but when someone only has two jobs, a la Bill Clinton ... well, two for now. He was also Attorney General of Arkansas, so perhaps someone will eventually add that, too. Depends on how deep you want to go with these.
Usually Vice President? But, yeah, many presidents won't have that many. Chester A. Arthur, for instance, can only have VP and President - he never held any other notable office (I don't consider Customs Collector of the Port of New York to be significant enough to warrant a table). On the other hand, having people with five or six different posts is not terribly uncommon.
But I hope you see my point. We're working with different scales here. Winston had 12 jobs (though, honestly, I instinctively look to the top for the "most important" one, confused til I get to #10), and in the British government, it seems, you have to work a lot harder to go through the ranks. In America, any yokel can be elected Representative, and any Representative or Senator can become a VP or maybe even a President, and any state elected yokel can become Governor, and any Governor can become President - and sometimes, you can skip some of these steps altogether. Most recent presidents have been governors, and most of those governors, I presume, were plucked from state legislature, and before they were in the state legislature, most were just regular guys. Usually richer, but not always. But Winston had to work through nearly a dozen major jobs before he got Prime Minister.
Not too many representatives have become VPs (the last to go directly was John Nance Garner, who was already Speaker of the House), and the last to go directly to Pres was James Garfield. I don't think too many recent presidents were state legislators - for Bush and Reagan, governor was their first elected position; Clinton had been state Attorney General. Carter did serve in the state leg, apparently. But, yeah, this is largely true in the 20th century. Much less true in the 19th, especially the early 19th, when people like Martin Van Buren or James Buchanan had served in numerous different roles before becoming President. Or think William Howard Taft, who became Chief Justice after his presidency. Also note that this is not a standard solely for the presidency - it should be applied evenly to all American politicians, most of whom do not become president. john k 11:44, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
In short, I guess what I'm saying is: When it's just a few jobs, with a clear lineage of importance, go by importance. When it's like Winston, maybe then go chronologically. Again, perhaps a poll should be made, but these are just my thoughts. But it's highly unlikely that there will be a crossover in the two systems; it's not likely that a president, where most pages have 1-3 jobs listed, will suddenly have 12 jobs listed. Vice versa? That someone in the Prime Minister line will only have 2 or 3 jobs? Much more possible. In that case, I'm not entirely sure. Perhaps a wikiproject dedicated to such an activity should be christened. --Golbez 04:52, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Here's an alternate suggestion. How about having president first, in its own separate table, for all presidents? Other jobs should go chronologically in a single table. (IMO, VPs, Governors, Senators, Speakers of the House, Supreme Court Justices and Chief Justices, and Cabinet Secretaries are of similar enough level of importance as to not warrant us using an artificial order of precedence). john k 11:44, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I dunno, I like having all the tables together (unless splitting between job and peerage). And I would place VP higher than those because it, like President, is elected by the whole country. All the others are only elected by, at most, 1/50th of it, or simply appointed. Maybe have the most important jobs at the top, then a blank table line, thin but noticable, and then other jobs below it? Of course, that would seem a waste if we only have one job below those two... hm. I guess I should look at some existing pages and see how that would work. --Golbez 14:37, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The Speaker of the House is (like the president) elected by representatives chosen by people in all fifty states. My point was just that president is clearly much more important than the others. Whatever the theoretical importance of the vice presidency, Can one really argue that Daniel D. Tompkins was a more important figure in the Monroe administration than John Quincy Adams, for instance? Obviously, in other cases we can say that - for instance, Al Gore is probably more notable than Warren Christopher. But the importance of these various positions has varied over the two centuries of the U.S. Constitution. I'd rather not devise complicated rules when it's unnecessary. But having president first, and separated from the others by a double line, or something, would be fine with me. john k 15:44, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Or, we could somehow emphasize the President box more. It's already bold, so maybe bold the years, or perhaps color it slightly differently? Heck, maybe have a subtle color coding for all of the offices. Not wildly different, but pale and subdued, but noticable enough to have some visual connection other than the text, so I can be browsing along Secy of State (in yellow, maybe) and get to a table with 8 jobs, I can quickly scan to the yellow one and keep clicking.
Or, just do that for President. It seems trivial, but in a career with 10 jobs or so, being President (or PM, I'd imagine) really is going to be the pinnacle of such a career, and should stand out if chronological order is going to be used. So there's another option to consider. --Golbez 16:46, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Why does Neutrality get to have the final say about John Kerry?[edit]

I await your answer...

Rex071404 04:02, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)


We have reached a decision on Cantus's arbitration case. Please review Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Cantus#Final_Decision for details. Martin 18:37, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Naming wars[edit]

Since you were either directly or indirectly once involved into edits revolving around "proper" naming of cities like Gdansk/Danzig etc i thought you may be interested in my proposition in User:Szopen/NamingWar. I would want to create a way aimed at stopping the revert wars in future - through creating something like a msg (in see also list or header) explaining that's there is compromise and why, and by linking to the article explaining changes of the statuses of the Royal Prussia province (I would prefer it ot have it as separate article, not scatter it in plethora other articles). I would be happy to hear from you. Szopen 09:14, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

sanity check[edit]

I wonder if you'd like to voice your opinion on the talk page of List of Czech monarchs, formerly known as List of Dukes and Kings of Bohemia? I don't think I'm insane on the subject, but a sanity check would nonetheless be useful. - Nunh-huh 23:37, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)


Since you participated in the discussion on this subject, could you express your opinion on what to do with the substub template at Template talk:Substub? Thanks. --Michael Snow 21:22, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The input sane users like yourself will likely be helpful on People's Republic of Poland. The situation there is probably going to get pretty ugly. [4] Thanks. 172 04:08, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Kenneth Alan[edit]

Kenneth Alan's case is now in arbitration. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Kenneth Alan. You may wish to add comment to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Kenneth Alan/Evidence Mintguy (T) 14:24, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)


Dear John, as long promised, I have written a completely new Holocaust article. I am showing the draft to you, RK, Jayjg and Danny, since you are all both knowledgeable and (usually) sensible. I will not attempt to replace the present illiterate mess with my new version until I get comments and some degree of support from all of you. If and when you all approve of it, I also want a commitment from all of you to protect it when I install it. Hope this finds you well, Adam 12:39, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

John Joyce[edit]

I'm glad someone has written him up. It's irritating that Richard Ellmann remains a redlink. One interesting tidbit is that Flann O'Brien (Brian O'Nolan) got into Trinity College by conducting an interview with John Joyce. Well, Ellman told me that it was a pure forgery. No one ever much interviewed John Joyce, and certainly not O'Nolan. Geogre 00:17, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Request for arbitration[edit]

Hi, i've started a Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration on User:Gene Poole, I hope you might be interested. GeneralPatton 03:32, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Re: Constellations naming[edit]

John Kenney wrote:

Why are you moving constellation pages from Name (constellation) to Name constellation? When this was done at Hercules (constellation), I asked about it, somebody else agreed with me that the move was illconsidered, and I moved it back. It seems to me that "constellation" is a disambiguator, and should thus be in parentheses, rather than a part of the name.

For the same reason that news reporter and military personnel refer to the M16 as "M16 rifle" instead of "M16". Joseph | Talk 01:06, Sep 6, 2004 (UTC)

Do astronomers refer to the "Hercules constellation"? Can you provide references to that? john k 01:08, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'm not an astronomer, but when I refer to the Hercules constellation I don't say "Hercules quotes constellation quotes", I simply refer to it as "Hercules constellation".. as a string. From my experience, it really depends on the context. Say, for example, an astronomer talking to an astronomer will simply refer to it as "Hercules", but if he is giving a conference, he will probably refer to it as the "Hercules constellation". Same example as with the M16 rifle (to tell you the truth, I can't even refer to it as M16 anymore hehe, my mind automatically says "M16 rifle"). Joseph | Talk 03:59, Sep 6, 2004 (UTC)

No, of course you don't refer to it as "Hercules (constellation)". But it is essentially known as "Hercules." (Or, perhaps, "the constellation Hercules" - at least, such a formulation seems less awkward than "the Hercules constellation," which sounds strikingly unlikely to me) The constellation clarifies that we are referring to the constellation Hercules, and not the mythical figure Hercules, or the fictional character portrayed by Kevin Sorbo Hercules, or whatever. This is standard wikipedia disambiguation, and I think there should be a good reason not to use it. john k 04:04, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Szczecin -- forgotten entry in Wikipedia:Protected page[edit]

Thanks for protecting Szczecin (I was the requestee), but you forgot to add Szczecin to Wikipedia:Protected page list. Przepla 10:40, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Whoops - I often forget such things (I also hadn't seen that it was requested, I just looked at the history and saw an edit war). Anyway, hopefully we can work this out soon. john k 12:05, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Categorizing Executive Department Secretaries[edit]

What do you think about a parent Category:U.S. Executive Department Secretaries and then listing that under Category:U.S. politicians? I think they should be somehow grouped together so that the long list of them doesn't outweigh other categories within the politician grouping. I'm also wondering whether Category:Directors of the FBI and Category:Directors of Central Intelligence should be classified as politicians. Likely, but it seems a little borderline—judges even more so. Federal judges, no, because by definition it's supposed to be the non-political branch of government, but state court judges who are elected to office? Maybe. Any thoughts? Postdlf 14:23, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Welcome to the New World Order![edit]

Thanks for your input on Cheney's article with respect to Mary Cheney's lesbianism. Like you, I find it incredibly frustrating trying to deal with all the doublespeak these guys are spinning out. Some of the arguments they throw out are quite unbelievable. It's beyond words. --Nysus 02:07, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

More about Rex[edit]

I don't know whether you still have much interest in the Rex071404 arbitration. The committee is now considering the following as one of its proposed findings of fact: "The compaining witnesses in this matter, because of their numerical majority, felt that Rex071404 did not represent a point of view which had a magnitude of importance equal to theirs, despite its societal significance." I got pretty cheesed off at this. The short of it is that we're being unjustly criticized, without even being told that there was a complaint against us. The long of it is here, here and here. It's produced a pretty typical exchange between Rex on one side and Gamaliel and me on the other. I mention all this only because the ArbCom is considering a proposed finding that, IMO, reflects badly on you, so I thought you ought to know about it in case you want to get involved. If you have more will power than I do and can resist the temptation to keep wasting time on this stuff, more power to you! JamesMLane 09:04, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Bush military service or lack thereof[edit]

I've looked in on the George W. Bush military service controversy article occasionally but haven't really devoted much attention to it. I think all the typography stuff should be spun off into Killian memos but some people seem very attached to it and would probably fight fiercely against what they'd consider a demotion. JamesMLane 02:25, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

John Kerry[edit]

Why in the world did you revert that edit of mine? I'd appriciate if you'd explain the next time. GeneralPatton 06:40, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  • Ok, lets remove the Hitler’s bunker bit, lets just have that he went around the Soviet occupied part of the city. GeneralPatton 07:26, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

U.S. left-wing parties[edit]

Re: your recent remark on VfD, there's a list of left-wing U.S. parties at already at Left-wing_politics#United_States. If you can think of parties that should be added, go for it! -- Jmabel 03:13, Sep 16, 2004 (UTC)

Ruler Tables[edit]

I realise that there will be differing feelings on the format of the tables.

However there is such a difference at the moment with which tables contain which information in which format - and I think that a uniform format is a more professional approach.

With regard to the British colonial administrators, I have included them in the list of Colonial Heads of Egypt as their tenure appears in that list as consecutive rather than concurrent which was the case in the Rulers list.

I do disagree with leaving out rulers who only ruled for a "couple of days" - where do you draw the line? three days - a week - a month - or does one include a hypothetical person in office for one day who starts a major war during that time and leave out, for instance (and taking the British Heads of State as an example), Queen Victoria, who actually herself achieved nothing as far as British history is concerned except managing to stay on the throne for some 63 years?

In my opinion, if they held office they should be included - even if it was for ten minutes one Saturday afternoon (a bit extreme I know - but records are based and broken on such events).

It was also important that the Ottoman governors are included as they were the de facto rulers of the region - and to omit them would be omitting where the country we now know as modern Egypt had its origins.

I also feel that it would not be helpful to omit a person called Muhammed Ali merely because he was not as famous as another Muhammed Ali and that we don't currently have (ane may never have - but who knows?) any information about him.

I feel that any proper such listing should be devoid of such subjective concerns - I would rather people ask "why have you included such-and-such rather than why haven't you included such-and-such

Nevertheless, that said, I am concerned that the format arrived at is appropriate, and I am striving to increase the clarity without compromising on the important detail. --JohnArmagh 19:42, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Blimey that was quick - I was still replying to your comments on that page. I see what you are saying - but I don't think you can forget the people who actually held sway in a country merely because the perceived founder of the modern state no longer appears first. Very often the founder of a nation is inspired to become such because of what had happened (or who had been in charge) up to that point, and that they did not become such out-of-the-blue. It brings some perspective into what can often appear as an absolute - without cause-and-effect. I think that it is important to demonstrate this.

It would be a dangerous precedent to divide up the suzerainty as you suggest as you would then in some circumstances have fractured lists where there is actually a consecutive nature. --JohnArmagh 20:11, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply - a word like modern can be used in a subjective manner, but that may be misconstrued - especially as time goes on. The Wikipedia is above all intended as a compendium or source of information for readers in the future (whether that future is five minutes or a thousand years hence). In this context the word gains ambiguity. Unlikely I know, but supposing Egypt returns, for instance, to a state under the successors of the Mamluks: does it then cease to be 'modern Egypt', and requiring another separate list?

I think that if the region is a recognisable entity throughout with heads (whatever the nature or remit of that headship) having a distinct remit for that region, and the lists are more-or-less consecutive (give or take recognised breaks) then a single list should be used.

I really did not like splitting the Colonial Heads of African countries from the Heads of State list, but I feared a servere reaction if I combined them.

In this instance though the independence of Egypt was a more evolutionary affair - Muḩammad ‘Alī Pasha was important in the formation of 'modern' Egypt, but the country was still de jure under the Ottomans for the next century. And although he was so instrumental, he was not the first of a consecutive list of Wālīs.

At the end of the day, a list of incumbents does not per se care how important a person was - merely where they came in the list. --JohnArmagh 05:53, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Cabinet tables[edit]

As we agreed at Talk:Robert Walpole, we should have cabinet tables at the monarchs' pages until 1783 (or whenever Southern and Northern became Foreign and Home). However, I'm having a bit of trouble dividing up the cabinet lists. Obviously, it'd be very cluttered and physically impossible to put them in one chart. We could divide them up by Prime Minister (Walpole gets a chart, Lord Wilmington gets a chart, etc.), but that'd defeat the purpose of putting them on the monarchs' pages in the first place, which was to allow us to show that, for example, the Duke of Newcastle served under three separate prime ministers (I think). Another option would be to divide them up by office, but we've already got lists at Secretary of State for the Southern Department, etc. Do you have any better ideas, or do you particularly prefer one of these two methods? ugen64 01:19, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)

Right, I agree. My US history book actually mentions the Earl of Bute, quote: "He [George III] selected as his chief minister the Earl of Bute, a Scot whose chief qualification for office appeared to be his friendship with the young king." :-P ugen64 19:11, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)


You write "Good lord, do trotskyists do anything besides split up into new factions?" Sure. They put out newspapers defining their minute differences!

My own view is that the Trotskyist proclivity for fissioning does not come from some strange relation to an amoeba, but comes from the phenomenon of attempting to herd cats: conformists don't become Trotskyists (when conformists end up on the Marxist left, Trotsky is almost as much of an anathema to them as Rosa Luxemburg or -- dare eht name be spoken? -- Emma Goldmann). Nonetheless, since pretty much all Trotskyist groups subscribe to democratic centralism, once the majority decide the line, you can only stay in the group by subscribing to the line. Stalinists would rather condemn their mother as the antichrist than leave the Party. Trotskyists would rather go next door and start a new one with a different line and call their old party left- or right-deviationist, depending, I suppose, on where their party HQ is located or who writes with which hand. And, it seems, most of them never get over it, not even if they become neoconservatives.

BTW, I like many Trotskyists perfectly well and will happily work with them on almost anything except drafting a political statement. I've organized actions with people from the Freedom Socialist Party (a feminist offshoot of SWP) and (if I remember right) a stray ISO-er now and then, and found them fine people to work with on actually getting something done, as long as theory was basically not on the table. -- Jmabel 09:42, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)

Frederick II, Holy Roman Emperor[edit]

I'm assuming when you refer to "Britannica" in your recent addition at Frederick II, Holy Roman Emperor, you are referencing the 1911 Britannica? And that much of what you've added comes from there? All to the good, but if that is correct we should certainly add the {{1911}} notice to the article. -- Jmabel 23:54, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)


Why is John McCain not a liberal> -- Gangulf 20:51, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)


I will come back on the Girondists soon. You might be right to trace the persons back to parties. But it seems to be a rather US affair, in other countries it is more clear and there would be more agreement on who is liberal or not. --Gangulf 05:53, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

On McCain and Carter: I listed them in the category not because thew were liberals in the US sense of the word, but because they can be compared with liberals in the more international sense of the word. This category is up for deletion, so - though I disagree with deletion - it will cease anyway. I created a page linked to my user page with links on liberalism as I understand it. Thanks for your comments. -- Gangulf 06:14, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Having a category that puts people in a category because they may be compared to liberals in an international sense of the word is just inherently POV, though, isn't it? In the context of the US, the term "liberal" has a specific meaning. You can't talk about US politicians as "liberal" in a sense entirely divorced from the common usage of that term in the United States (which has, of course, changed over the years)... john k 06:41, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I do not agree. I had the understanding that Wikipedia is not an US encyclopedia, but an English language international encyclopedia. If one visits the category, there is explained why a person is listed as a liberal, so why is it POV. But I am aware of the discussions which can follow by the pure categorizations. It makes than more sense to make a list of liberal leaders with an explanation. -- Gangulf 07:10, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Yes, it's an international encyclopedia. I would further state that "You can't talk about French politicians as 'liberal' in a sense entirely divorced from the common usage of that term in France," or that "You can't talk about German liberals in a sense entirely divorced from the common usage of that term in Germany." The point is - liberal is a weird term, and it's particularly odd in the US, a country which has not had official "liberal" parties. Making a list which includes John McCain and Thomas Jefferson as liberals is essentially useless. john k 15:57, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)


I appreciate the vote of confidence John, thanks for the nomination. Mackensen 02:40, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Category:Lord Marshals of England[edit]

Hey, John, Category:Lord Marshals of England should be at Category:Lords Marshal of England. RickK 06:45, Sep 24, 2004 (UTC)

perhaps further discussion is in order. - you're probably right. Want to do it on the Category Talk page? RickK 06:49, Sep 24, 2004 (UTC)

Deleting information[edit]

In such a short article as Wolfram and Hart, it is not very good to just delete a whole section. Leave it there until an editor comes by that knows the topic and can expand it. Flat out deletion of accurate information is poor etiquette. -- Netoholic @ 04:55, 2004 Sep 25 (UTC)

"In remainder"[edit]

Thanks for the clarification. I knew I was getting in over my head with anything to do with the English peerage. Because I'm not the only one in that boat, though, I don't think any of our articles should use the phrase "in remainder" without an explanation or a link to someplace where it's explained. (It's a moot point as to the article that sparked my inquiry, because of Nigel Nicolson's death.) JamesMLane 06:41, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

solicitation of opinion[edit]

On Talk:Princess Olga of Greece and Denmark an objection is being raised to referring to Princess Olga of Greece and Denmark as such, on the basis of "neutrality". This seems quite silly to me (I believe the name is correct under current naming conventions), but your input would be welcome there....i.e., is it me, or the other guy, who is being obtuse? - Nunh-huh 20:39, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

a Wikipedia community enforcing policies[edit]

I've nothing of worth to contribute to that discussion an a policy on names on Polish or European places, and I don't want again to get involved in a conflict where people have prejudices against my views before they even read what I write, but I can't help to notice what I consider an optimistic amount of hopefulness when you write: On the other hand, I think Tuomas is wrong to say that a "wikipedia community" will not step in to enforce a policy if one is devised.

I can't deny that it would be nice if I could believe you, but at least two experiences I share with Tuomas points in the other direction, the most recent of which is the one already mentioned on the talk page — In that example, where you had half a dozen Wikipedians trying to enforce policies, it was enough with one administrator who protects "the wrong version" that then will persist regardless of any fancy policy. So, even if a wikipedia community steps in, that's futile and furthermore it may as often as not result in a rebuffing of the arbiters, which will not make them more likely to repeat the excercise.

I mean: the number in this recent experience of 6–7 Wikipedians trying to convince a single energetic Wikipedian who don't agree with Wikipedia policies is, in my humble opinion, more than you can expect for articles on "lesser known places" in the white areas of the map of Europe. So the scenario is more than valid for this topic. I'm sorry to conclude that I've no "solution" except for, as Tuoams proposed, "being pragmatic."
--Ruhrjung 21:32, 2004 Sep 29 (UTC)

Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact[edit]

When I am writing to you, may I at the same time maybe direct your attention to the three or four most recent edits (of the initial paragraph) on the article on the Hitler-Stalin Pact? I see no reason to get into details, but I've been relatively active in the editing of that article, and might by now have got a false feeling of rights to the interpretation and disposition of the article.
--Ruhrjung 21:32, 2004 Sep 29 (UTC)

Masters of the Horse[edit]

As you seem to have good sources, and a great deal of knowledge about these subjects... I need a list of Masters of the Horse. I've begun one at User:Ugen64/Master of the Horse, but a lack of decent sources is keeping me from making it anything close to comprehensive. If it's no trouble to you, could you perhaps find one? I've done a few Google searches, but nothing so far. I've incorporated info from several Wikipedia articles, along with, but... help. ugen64 22:04, Sep 29, 2004 (UTC)

Cities in New Jersey[edit]

I removed Category:Cities in New Jersey from Hoboken, New Jersey and Newark, New Jersey because it is redundant. See Wikipedia:Categorization#When to use categories, which states: "An article should not be in both a category and its subcategory, e.g. Microsoft Office is in Category:Microsoft software, so should not also be in Category:Software." Darkcore 05:33, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Since I didn't create those categories, I can't claim to understand why they exist, but I've removed them from the Cities in New Jersey category anyway. Darkcore 06:25, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

state leaders[edit]

For the list of state leaders pages, what are we doing for peers? Is it the same convention as for navigational boxes (change Baron --> Lord, omit the personal name) or the more conventional convention (change everyone except Dukes to Lord)? ugen64 01:38, Oct 15, 2004 (UTC)

It seems they're using the full article title, so I guess I'll follow that convention. ugen64 01:50, Oct 15, 2004 (UTC)

Earls of Northumberland[edit]

As I understand it, the Anglo-Saxon feudal earls are something apart from the peerage of england. I was looking at Earl of Northumberland, and we list twelve creations, including a whole bunch from around the time of William the Conqueror. Now, Rayment's usually reliable pages don't list an Earl of Northumberland creation until 1377. There are similar issues with Earl of Huntingdon, Earl of Northampton, probably a few others. Do we have policy on this sort of thing? Mackensen 23:28, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Noel Buxton[edit]

Both Ramsay MacDonald and Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food note that one Noel Buxton served as Minister for Agriculture during MacDonald's period of government. I did a simple search for "Noel Buxton", however, and noticed that one "Noel Edward Noel-Buxton" had been created Baron Noel-Buxton in 1930, and had lived at the correct time. Is this an odd coincidence, or an oversight by the source (I assume you wrote the ministers article using Haydn's Dignities)? You seem to be the right person to ask, but if you don't know, I have Mackensen and Gregg on my AIM buddy list... Thanks, ugen64 02:43, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)

What's with this British obsession with names? British royals have like ten names, you have the Richard Temple-Nugent-Brydges-Chandos-Grenville, 3rd Duke of Buckingham and Chandos who had five last names (and two middle names)... then you have people who change their names after becoming a peer, you have peerages that change their names (Viscount Alanbrooke)... odd. ugen64 02:51, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)


Please remember to list pages that you protect on Wikipedia:Protected page (see the protection policy). Thanks. Angela. 00:29, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)

Don't worry, lots of people have been forgetting lately which is why I thought reminders might help. I was referring to Szczecin which you protected on September 7. I expect it only stayed protected so long because it wasn't listed anywhere. I've unprotected it now. Angela. 06:24, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)

Francis I, Holy Roman Emperor[edit]

Saw your message to Wetman... no need to get upset, it's all too easy to get lost in this maze of Francises, all looking alike :-) Really, mistaking Francis II (HRE) who later proclaimed himself emperor Francis I of Austria, with Francis I (HRE) can happen easily. I have now provided an image of the real Francis I.

Incidentally, since you seem to be knowledgeable in the area, would you care to take a look at my message to Wetman? Maybe you can help... Lupo 06:58, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)


I tried to sort out the Habsburgs up to the 15th century, especially all those different dukes in Austria. I worked from several sources on the web, mostly [5] and the Encyclopedia of Austria (search for the German names). Maybe you could cross-check my work to make sure I didn't introduce any blatant errors? Thanks. (BTW, I added a subheading for "King of Germany" for purely chronological reasons: it was weird to have the ancestors and descendants of Rudolph I, but leaving himself out.) Lupo 10:03, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)


Could you have a look at my question to you in Talk:Liberalism in countries? -- Jmabel | Talk 19:17, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)

U.S. presidential election result tables[edit]

Hi John - Can you please participate in the Talk:U.S. presidential election#Results format (again) discussion before changing any more tables? Thanks -- RobLa 19:38, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

B. Gratz Brown[edit]

Hey John, thanks for correcting the stupid mistake I made at B. Gratz Brown! :-) --Lst27 21:33, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)


I don't know if the guy is PolishPoliticians or not, but from the fact that he had to learn the wiki formatting upon his arrival to wikipedia some weeks ago I seriously doubt it. Also, you'd have to give me some examples of disputed behaviour. So far it looks to me as if Emax was just one of us who oppose the version of history proposed by User:Gzornenplatz. That's the guy who arrives to a plethora of Polish cities-related articles and starts revert wars over their German name. We tried to reach some terms with him, alas to no effect. (check Talk:Pila, Talk:Gdansk, Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities/German names, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cities/Names issues) as well as other evidence of disputed behaviour at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Gzornenplatz). He did not participate in our good 'ol' "Talk:Gdansk" compromise and apparently does not want to obey it.

Also, please post some links of disputed behaviour of Emax, so far all his contributions I saw were pretty valuable, including supplying hundreds of great pics. [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 05:51, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)

Now I see, thanks for the details. The guy adds zillions of pages to correct categories, not only to Polish Politicians. Seems like a tireless bot-like user to me, a kind of wikipedian I was some time ago. His behaviour at Gdansk is indeed frustrating, to say the least, I'll talk to him about that. However, that's exactly what I feared when we polished-up the Talk:Gdansk compromise: every now and then someone drops in and changes the established version which is not natural by all means. That's why Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cities/Names issues is so crucial here. It needs to be established ASAP since things are going really bad lately: even you yourself engaged in a revert war ;)
User:Hajduk indeed seems familiar, and so is User:Gzornenplatz. As to the latter- just compare the arguments on the Talk:Pila and other pages I mentioned with the arguments of our good old friend Wik.
Finally, what Emax wrote below your comment on my talk page could be roughly translated as "The man has some paranoia". From the context it's clear that he was refering to your remarks on him being someone else, so if I were you I'd treat it with tongue in cheek since I believe that there was no offense intended. At least in Polish it didn't sound as offensive. [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 07:04, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)
I couldn't agree more with your analisis of present situation with Gdansk and other articles. I don't like your version of the header, but it indeed is better than "former German name Danzig". I don't know how "Kashubian Gduńsk" could be misleading though. Anyway, I posted an explanation of our discussion at Emax's talk page and I'm pretty confident that he will join the discussion at Talk:Gdansk. [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 07:46, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)

No problem, what I wrote could be translated as follows (sorry for the harsh translation, but I don't have much time to polish it up).
You probably saw the recent discussion I had with John about you. I don't know if you are indeed our good old friend PP or not, and to be sincere I don't give a shit. After seing the edit history of Gdansk article however, I must say I understand his fears. Apart from the header (with which you are absolutely right since that is the version we agreed upon a long time ago), most of your edits indeed resemble versions of User:PolishPoliticians and his puppets. As to the periods in history in which the city should be referred to as Danzig or Gdańsk - I don't remember well, but I think we hadn't decided that strictly. Anyway, this matter should be discussed at the talk page. John is one of the more sensible wikipedians here and you can always come to terms with him.
As to the header - his version is different than that we agreed upon on the talk page, but I believe it's acceptable. At least until we work out the rules at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cities/Names issues. I think that his version with formerly known by the German name Danzig is still bether than the idiotisms proposed by Gzornenplatz. Anyway, take part in the discussion or leave the page in peace, it's not worth your effort and nerves, things might change completely after introduction of Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities/Names issues anyway. [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 08:14, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)

Collaboration of the week[edit]

Could you consider voting for Partisans (Yugoslvia) as a collaboration project?AndyL 21:28, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Ministry in 1757[edit]

Might I ask you for some information relating to the "Caretaker Ministry" that was formed in 1757, when George II dismissed Pitt the Elder? Pitt seems to have returned soon afterwards, but I am unable to find out who was the head of the Ministry from June to July 1757. Could you shed some light? -- Emsworth 17:19, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thanks very much. I planned to use the information for the page List of British ministries. -- Emsworth 20:05, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

My apologies for not having informed you, but it was not I who started this project, and I was unaware that you had not been told. The format now used, however, does have several advantages. Firstly, it shows which individuals served in the Cabinet and for how long; this seems to me more important than the composition of the ministry at some given time. Secondly, the format shows all in a tabular format, which appears to be more easy to read. -- Emsworth 20:27, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Yours is a good proposal; all I would suggest are some minor html tweaks. I would also propose that Ugen64's opinion be sought. (He had begun the project.) -- Emsworth 20:48, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

First Crusade[edit]

Hi John, there has been a lot of work done lately on the First Crusade article and I think it may be approaching the quality of a featured article, so I'm trying to find other people who are interested in the subject to comment on it. I raised some points on the talk page, if you have anything to say about it. Thanks! Adam Bishop 06:20, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Duke of Wellington[edit]

See talk Duke of Wellington (disambiguation)

User page protection[edit]

I am sending this message to a group of seasoned users whose opinions I respect. My aim is not to draw you into a dispute, but to canvass opinion on a contentious area of policy. If you have a few minutes to spare, please see the debate currently under way at Wikipedia talk:Protection policy, with particular reference to user page protection. For some reason, I seem to have fallen foul of a group of sysops who have made it their business to stamp out the practice of protecting one’s own user page. A sensible (in my opinion) proposal has been made to amend the policy, and I would be grateful if you would add your view, assuming you have one. Cheers. Deb 13:25, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Can you help?[edit]

Hello John, I'd just like to inform you that User:Sj has nominated Old Swiss Confederacy as a featured article candidate. Personally, I had planned to let it go through peer review first, especially because I am essentially the only author, but now that it is on FAC, I'd very much like more comments on it. Could you maybe review it and tell me your criticism on FAC? Or maybe even help improving it, if you see things you feel should be improved? Thank you, Lupo 14:12, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Category:Towns in Maryland[edit]

Ah, thanks very much for noticing. I've stopped Pearle from adding anything else to this category. The problem is that apparently the US Census (and thus Rambot) don't make the distinction, and so the auto-generated Wikipedia articles call both small incorporated and unincorporated communities "towns". I will be able to fix the problem for Maryland "towns" relatively easily, though it may take me a few days. I left a note on Category talk:Towns in Maryland in the meantime. Also see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cities for previous hand-wringing about the general problem. Thanks again, Beland 07:25, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Ah, excellent. We should be able to go back to the original Census data to repair articles from the other states, too, then. -- Beland 20:32, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Serial comma[edit]

You may wish to make your opinion known in a very close poll about reversing the rules on serial comma in the Wikipedia Style Manual at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Proposal 2 (A). Jallan 21:20, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Cultural and Historical Background of Jesus[edit]

I am engaged in an argument with CheeseDream on this talk page. I have just accused him off a personal attack and I suspect racism. I am not sure whether this is a banable offense. I am concerned too that I am making too much of something. I'd appreciate it if you could look at the relevant material and give me your take -- tell me if you think I am misreading the situation or responding to it inappropriately. Please look at this article's talk page and look at the section on "Saducees vs. Pharisees" and "CheeseDream Verges on racism" to get the salient facts. Thanks, Slrubenstein

Thanks for the note on my page. I appreciate it. I bet you do not want to get involved in this -- I am NOT asking you to get involved in any dispute between me and CheeseDream. But the page in question is meant to be historical and to represent the view of historians. Since you are one of the few trained historians here, perhaps you would look at the page and the issues under dispute and see if as an historian you have any suggestions,



How nice to see you, your majesty! Though I am not Romanian, I've always liked your gymnastics. :) --Golbez 09:11, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)

request for help[edit]

John, I'd really appreciate it if you would review and comment the discussion on Cultural and Historical Context of Jesus. Even if this field is not something you are expert in, I value your sensibilities as an historian, It is a very long discussion, I'd be glad if you would just review and comment on the section on "new messiah" and the subsequent sections/discussions, Thanks, Slrubenstein 17:17, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)


Wonder if you'd consider voting for Indian reservation as Wikipedia:Collaboration of the week? Without three more votes it will be eliminated only days away from winning.AndyL 23:22, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Forum for Encyclopedic Standards[edit]

I have drafted a proposal for a new voluntary association on Wikipedia (joining groups like the Wikipedia:The Business and Economics Forum and the Wikipedia:Harmonious editing club) to promote discussion of a sort of system of expert review on Wiki. Please take a look and add your ideas. 172 02:47, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

cultural and historical context of Jesus[edit]

The page Cultural and historical background of Jesus is now unprotected. I added a good deal of information; CheeseDreams just reverted it. Please compare my version to the previous one (FT2) and comment. Thanks Slrubenstein


I really appreciate your comment on my page. I think there are things you can do, if you feel strongly enough. Frankly, I am tired of fighting -- also, I believe I have done my best to be reasonable and simply have no credibility. I think many people will see me as highly partisan and self-interested and dismiss what I say in those terms. If you feel strongly, one thing you can do is initiate a discussion on the list-serve. Since I am partisan, I won't participate. Another thing you could do is request arbitration as a disinterested figure. Let me point out the I have already request mediation -- so far nothing is happening -- and FT2 has no official status, he is just another contributor. I do not know what to do myself. Frankly, it is enough to make me want to leave wikipedia. I have done considerable research on this topic -- specifically for wikipedia -- and bent over backwards to be NPOV, accurate, etc. In the talk page of the article I consistently asked others what their sources are, what their objections to my material are, and only got two responses: silence, and "because you wrote it." What is the point? I left messages for you and a number of other people whom I respect and believe to have scholarly integrity, and everyone I contacted has been supportive, individually. But to no avail. Short of going to the arbitration committee en masse, or Jimbo Wales himself, I see no options as I have exhausted myself on the talk page. and at this point everything I do is rejected as partisan -- or misunderstood (for a long tim FT2 insisted that CHeeseDreams and I were actually very close and agreed on much, which is just a fantasy). I don't know what to do ... Slrubenstein

Thanks again. If you are willing, perhaps you can make a more general statement on that talk page, or on the new page for "encyclopedi standards" because I think this is what is at issue. You are credentialed, experienced, and can present your views not just as your personal opinion but as one who has written on historical topiocs and is intimately familiar with historical and historiographic research. I myself am at the end of my rome (especially when FT2 arrogantly presents himself as some neutral mediator) Slrubenstein

Which reminds me...[edit]

I owe you a fairly lavish apology. Although by the classical definition of an ad hominem I did not engage in such, I did in fact impute your lack of understanding of the term Wiki without having it proved. This was a fairly unforgivable breach of ettiquette, which I find deeply embarrassing, personally, and for which I do apologize. I do hope you will accept this apology, but would fully understand if you should choose not to.

- Amgine 07:02, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Actually, regarding the two versions you've mentioned, I think both are not good. Both cover topics which have repeatedly been voted as not part of the article's scope. And both are so bent over backward to be indisputable that neither is readable for the average lay user. Try reading aloud any of the sections, and you'll see what I mean. (I also have reason to believe Slrubenstein's article, or at least his previous arguments, are particularly extreme from a historical viewpoint, and thus POV. But that at least could be resolvable, in theory.)

However, that said, I believe Slrubensteins approach to working on this article has been consistently to prevent progress being made. On any version. Conversely, FT2 has gone out of his way to make editing of his version by others a priority. Thus, for a collaborative article which reflects the best knowledge of the community it seems clear to me that FT2's will progress, whil Slrubenstein's will mire in disputation.

I'd rather have a developing article, however initially flawed, than one which is static and exclusively involved in revert wars. For example, I've been adding citations and references to FT2's version.

Actually, if you look back at Slrubensteins statements (I've been doing a *lot* of this tonite) you'll find he refuses constructive criticism consistently, and does not allow others to edit his essays even when he accepts a suggestion. He also engages in rhetorical tricks when a consensus vote goes against him to bring the exact same topic back into dispute. I will gladly provide you citations of this if you would like.
He also, when he cannot support his opinion to other contributors, engages in "packing" the discussion, bringing in people who have not contributed to the article and do not do so, such as yourself, who then do as he wishes them to do but which he has not the boldness to do himself. For example, you have not contributed a single word, so far as I am aware, to any version of this article, nor a citation, nor made a single reference, but you have reverted it three times. This is not proscribed, but it is certainly unethical and strongly suggests he cannot sway the contributors with facts or logic and must, if he wishes to push his POV, unbalance the playing field.
Back to Slrubenstein's essay. If you feel this is a well written article for a general consumption audience... I'm sorry, I don't know how to complete that thought. Slrubenstein appears to be making an effort to sound both scholarly and accessible, and comes across to me as neither. And I have had a fair amount of experience in the writing business, both scholarly and popular (and even ad copy!) The primary problem is the lack of a structure to address exclusively the cultural and historical background of Jesus, and the secondary problem is trying to support every sentence with a (or multiple) citation. I understand the defensiveness of the latter; I've written methodology pieces. But it has narrowed his article to irrelevance, not to mention forcing it to be POV since he has a very limited collection of sources.
But it's past my bedtime, and I'll be at court tomorrow, so I wish you well. See you tomorrow at 00:00!

New Jersey Townships/CDPs[edit]

Hi. Please stop moving all of New Jersey's dual CDP/Townships to their township names. For example, River Vale, New Jersey to River Vale Township, New Jersey. Most of these places are not referred to with their township name. The place is known as "River Vale" and "Township" denotes its form of government. Its formal name is "Township of River Vale", but no one uses that either. Certain places, such as Washington Township, Bergen County, New Jersey are referred to with "Township" in their name only to distinguish them from Washington State and Washington, D.C. (for example). Moving all these articles wholesale is not good, IMO. I believe the reason the Census Bureau came up with the dual CDP/Township status is because some townships use the "Township" in their names while others don't. This way the data can be found either with or without the "Township" as the "CDP" is ususally dropped. If this change has been discussed elsewhere, sorry to butt in. Please direct me as to where to comment. Thanks. --ChrisRuvolo 01:19, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I would also like to add that I did respond to you (John Kenney) on my user page to your comment. There has been a good amount of discussion on the "town -> CDP" conversion taking place on my talk page as well as other places. -- Ram-Man 00:56, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)

Cultural and historical background of Jesus Compromise[edit]

John Kenney;

Slrubenstein has said he will not further discuss compromise unless others are involved. Would you care to read or comment on Talk:Cultural and historical background of Jesus#Compromise discussion? - Amgine 20:18, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This is just a quick question: Are you sure you don't see a substantive difference between "Jesus in a cultural and historical background" and "Cultural and historical background of Jesus"? - Amgine 20:31, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

One tool I use for picking article titles when writing research is "If this were a photo, what would it look like?" I think, if you look at the above titles as photos you will see a more than moderate difference. But that's just my opinion. - Amgine 00:09, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

1973 world oil shock[edit]

That is indeed a bit odd. Thanks for the link [6] 172 19:29, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Request for Arbitration[edit]

I have just noted, by chance, that CheeseDreams has brought a case against you, me and others for Arbitration. Given that I only found out by chance rather than notification, I thought I would let you know in case you would like to comment on WP:RFAR. jguk 22:55, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

your version[edit]

Can you point me at a version of [Cultural and Historic background of Jesus] that is close to what you think is a correct version? And what parts of that version you think don't belong? Pedant 00:24, 2004 Dec 1 (UTC) thanks for the quick response, I'm polling everyone recently active on the articlePedant 00:41, 2004 Dec 1 (UTC)


I agree. Do you want to request the arbitration? If you want to cut/paste anything I wrote on the request for mediation [7] where I tried to sum up the basic issue as best I could, go ahead. Slrubenstein

Putting your "ass" (shouldn't that be "arse"?) on the line (your words)[edit]

In regard to the above (your words on the matter on Slrubenstein's talk page) Would you care to take a look at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/John Kenney ? CheeseDreams 02:21, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)


John, I've been following (as best I can) this mess over at Cultural and historical background of Jesus (if that's where it is difficult to pin). I've stayed out completely and would be happy to protect it–certainly such protection is warranted. Best, Mackensen (talk) 04:35, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

cuddly wuddly[edit]

The reason Cheesepuff is suddenly using all the cutesy talk on the talk page is parly my responsibility. She started it by using "darling" all the time which I got a little tired of, so I started addressing her as bubelah (which is not only reciprocating her term of endearment, but making a little joke which, if you do not get, I will be happy to explain to you through e-mail. Anyway, she either took this act of reciprocity as an escalation or decided to escalate herself, thus ... Slrubenstein

Patricia Cornwell and Sickert[edit]

Hi. Would you mind taking a look at the talk:Patricia Cornwell page, thank you. IVoteTurkey 12:47, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Category:Kings of Persia[edit]

Let no one say I'm lazy, least of all myself. As per your suggestion, I've filed a request at WP:CFD for the replacement of Category:Kings of Persia with Category:Shahs of Persia. -- Itai 22:47, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

another plea for help[edit]

Could you look at [8] and the talk page (just the last six inches or so) and comment? I think Sirling Newberry has violated the three revert rule -- can you act (you are a sysop, right)? Unless you really object to my revised first paragraph, I mean. But I genuinely think my revised 1st paragraph is accurate and NPOV and better than what SN keeps reverting to; your thoughts welcome. Slrubenstein

RFC pages on VfD[edit]

Should RFC pages be placed on VfD to be deleted? I'm considering removing Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Slrubenstein, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jwrosenzweig and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/John Kenney from WP:VFD. Each of them was listed by CheeseDreams. Your comments on whether I should do this would be appreciated. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:51, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Lists of state leaders[edit]

Hi John, I noticed you have worked on some Holy Roman Empire-related articles, so I was wondering if you had any comments about who could be considered a "state leader" within the Empire. In the List of state leaders by year project, I made a list of everyone I could find in 1124 (just an arbitrary place to stop), at Talk:List of state leaders in 1124, but I'm not sure who can be considered to rule an independent state, and who has something more like a peerage title. If you have any special expertise here, it would be greatly appreciated! Adam Bishop 00:31, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

John, as a note (this is related to Adam's project), I'm slowly compiling List of Peers in XXXX (find full list so far at Category:Peers by year). Mackensen (talk) 00:41, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Earl De La Warr Courtesy Title[edit]

Your input at Talk:Earl De La Warr is requested. Timrollpickering 11:18, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Lady Tara[edit]

00:16, 13 Dec 2004 John Kenney blocked Lady Tara (talk) (contributions) with an expiry time of 24 hours (called CheeseDreams a "queer faggot")

When looking at the blocking of Lady Tara, it looks like she made a personal attack on CheeseDreams, was warned, and then with no further action on her part was blocked. I may be wrong in this view of events, but I'd like to know if this was following protocol or not? -KalevTait 01:25, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Greetings, John. I'd like to call your attention to the fact that your action is a violation of the Blocking policy. I'd suggest you to consult it. -- Naive cynic 08:28, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

From Time Immemorial[edit]

Can you explain why you think my edits on From Time Immemorial make me a joker? It is true that I rely heavily on Chomsky's account but it is cited and has not to my knowledge been disputed. Instead of simply reverting my work, can you be clear what the problems are? AaronSw 15:12, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

To be honest, I didn't read through your whole version. I basically stopped at the "apparently by Joan Peters, although Chomsky says it was written by Mossad" business. That was enough for me - a serious person wouldn't put nonsense like that in there. Looking at it now, I'm more ambivalent about your other changes. As you can tell from my previous talk page comments, I'm far more in agreement with your views of the book than I am with the other fellow's. But you've written an entirely new article over a version which had been hashed out over quite some time. If you want to work on the article, why don't you work from the consensus version of Nov. 18, instead of basically starting anew? john k 16:45, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I don't like the apparently written by Joan Peters bit either, but I don't see any way to take it out without being POV. I didn't start anew; I added to the consensus one but I guess the changes ended up being pretty substantial. AaronSw 17:30, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Masters of the Horse[edit]

Hm, I didn't notice your list until just now... I've written List of Masters of the Horse (because Master of the Horse looks rather odd right now anyway). The first, oh, 20 of them are really patchy - there were alot of conflicts, and I kinda had to guess at which source was right. Never appreciated how difficult it is to list officeholders until now... -_- ugen64 03:38, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

WikiProject New York City[edit]

Hello, I've started WikiProject New York City, and from your edits it seems you might be interested. See its talk page for the beginning of a discussion on the standardization of neighborhood names, and bringing New York City up to featured status.--Pharos 13:20, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Soviet Union[edit]

I need some help on Soviet Union. I think that I'm stuck dealing with the most unreasonable, vitriolic, POV user I've ever encountered. Please take a look if you can. Thanks. 172 07:42, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yes we need help, 172 is citing Rev Moon's UPI as a legitimate source. Urgent help required. Libertas

Origins of the American Civil War[edit]

The neo-Confederates are back. Please take a look if you're interested. 172 09:01, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you, but I really need some help on this article before it turns into a history of U.S. tariff policy. 172 22:15, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your input... I have a bad feeling that this dispute is going to be as long and drawn out as the fascism = socialism flare up involving WHEELER and Sam Spade last year. 172

The Rolling Stones[edit]

Nice work on The Stones article! redcountess 20:14, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)

Norton and nonsense[edit]

Hi, John. If you don't mind a bit of conflict, I wonder if you'd care to weigh in on Joshua A. Norton. I seem to be alone in thinking that calling yourself "Emperor of the United States" doesn't make you Emperor of the United States. If you'd rather not, I certainly understand! - Nunh-huh 20:10, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Cabinets and such[edit]

John, I've made some changes to Third Derby Ministry, and I wonder if you might have a look. I agree about making changes clear; I went to great effort on Thatcher's cabinet and saw it diluted. I think the present format might be slightly superior, as it presents the cabinet in toto and then discusses the changes below. Mackensen (talk) 01:27, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I don't mind that way of doing it - although what you have there seems to be repetitive and self-contradictory, giving two different sets of replacements for the resigning ministers. I would add that, since Opera Hat has kindly been creating articles that list the entire government in the same way that the new ministry pages have been listing the cabinet, it might make more sense to stick more closely to the old format for the lists that are just of the cabinet. But I don't know. Maybe the whole thing is made redundant by the operahat lists. john k 01:37, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The trouble with pornstars[edit]

John, in an edit summary you wrote "shockingly, wikipedia's articles on adult performers are terrible - I suspect this is a difficult problem to fix". Hmm, I certainly agree with you wholeheartedly on your first point; the great majority are indeed smutty sophomoric trash that would make Beavis and Butthead blush. But I don't think this need always be the case; these people lead undeniably interesting lives (tragic ones, sometimes), and covering stuff like this properly should be one of wikipedia's strengths (and will always be fusty old Britannica's achillies heel). I've improved Belladonna (erotic actress) to a half-decent degree, and I think Tera Patrick isn't bad either. One day we'll have Jenna Jamieson as a featured article, or my name isn't Middenface 03:00, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)


Hi, John. I've made a proposal for dealing with the issue of using styles on the talk page about Naming Conventions (names and titles). I'd welcome your imput. FearƒIREANN 17:22, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)


Hello John, I'm hoping that you are shortly going to allow the page title change back to its geographical one; please look it over again and decide what you think. I suggest it would be very good if when Jmabel returns, he finds final resolution had already been agreed to.--Daeron 03:12, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

P.S. It will be a couple of hours before I can check for updates, so there's no need for any rush.--Daeron 03:14, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)


See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Lyndon LaRouche Part Deux. I had no advance warning that Snowspinner was going to do this, so I've quickly put together a request, otherwise the arbitrators might have temporarily blocked all the editors currently involved. I've tried to show why that should not happen. SlimVirgin 05:22, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)