Talk:Ascaric
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Talk: Ascaric
[edit]Notes from Users
[edit]Good catch, putting circa after the date. This article might be rated start class, or even stub class, but youre a good editor!Wollslleybuttock (talk) 00:14, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Old High German Asc
[edit]No, too early for Old High German. Probably the same, though, as IE has the same thing also.Dave (talk) 04:34, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Condensation
[edit]I can see your point of view there but I am expanding this article so I have to put the structure back. If it was going to stay the same of course I would leave it; naturally, one would not want to over-outline a very short article. As it is it is too short and is not very accurate. Thanks.Dave (talk) 11:49, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
- I got take a bit of a break now, buddy, but don't revert me, wait until I get more done, then you exercise more appropriate judgement if you still feel a need.Dave (talk) 14:54, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
- I will give you time, but right now you've just re-told the same story. Srnec (talk) 04:09, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
- Not so. I'm expanding it. There is a lot of detail in there not there previously and some errors have been corrected. The "story" fundamentally is the same because it is the same historical event. It is a matter of telling it fully without the errs. Frankly I don't understand your confrontation on this. It makes me uncomfortable. I'm trying to work on this and you were changing it even as I type so I could not even save what I had done. People don't usually do that unless there is a confrontation. My material is sourced and it is not the same as what went before. However, I see you have not changed the detail. Let's see how it plays out. I will be changing the etymology and I will be changing the part on sources. Here again the "story" may be basically the same but the detail a bit different. The article has to be developed and one usually develops it on WP. I welcome you comments but frankly reversions or changes without reasons are not WP policy. If there continues to be a disagreement on formatting we can work that out. I'm amenable to any attractive format. Let's say this - when I'm ready to put in additional detail I will change it, until then, not. I got to work on the article now as my WP time is limited.Dave (talk) 10:24, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
- I edited it 45 minutes after your most recent edit and you didn't edit again for 6 hours. I haven't edited since that last edit, yet you have edited it many times. You need to calm down and not call me "buddy". Srnec (talk) 16:52, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
- I was refering to your initial condensation, which you did as I was trying to supply the details. I see you've been leaving me alone. Great. I was not sure in what direction you were headed with this as you were claiming I was offering the same thing, which I wasn't. No reason to escalate, however. I'm calm. I wasn't sure what state you were in. Since we are both calm, let's go on. I'm treating the article as fitting into Ripuarian Franks, which fits into Franks. I was working on Charlemagne and will be again, except I see the early Franks needed the work more. I don't mind not calling you "buddy" if you prefer. Let's leave it there. I got more on this article and then there are more early Franks. I do apologize for not working faster. I think this will be done in a reasonable time frame however. If you have a reason for wanting to speed up, let me know, will you?Dave (talk) 15:26, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
- I edited it 45 minutes after your most recent edit and you didn't edit again for 6 hours. I haven't edited since that last edit, yet you have edited it many times. You need to calm down and not call me "buddy". Srnec (talk) 16:52, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
- Not so. I'm expanding it. There is a lot of detail in there not there previously and some errors have been corrected. The "story" fundamentally is the same because it is the same historical event. It is a matter of telling it fully without the errs. Frankly I don't understand your confrontation on this. It makes me uncomfortable. I'm trying to work on this and you were changing it even as I type so I could not even save what I had done. People don't usually do that unless there is a confrontation. My material is sourced and it is not the same as what went before. However, I see you have not changed the detail. Let's see how it plays out. I will be changing the etymology and I will be changing the part on sources. Here again the "story" may be basically the same but the detail a bit different. The article has to be developed and one usually develops it on WP. I welcome you comments but frankly reversions or changes without reasons are not WP policy. If there continues to be a disagreement on formatting we can work that out. I'm amenable to any attractive format. Let's say this - when I'm ready to put in additional detail I will change it, until then, not. I got to work on the article now as my WP time is limited.Dave (talk) 10:24, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
- I will give you time, but right now you've just re-told the same story. Srnec (talk) 04:09, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Name detail
[edit]srnec thinks this is too much detail for this individual. He might be right. It does try to cover the name in general. Moreover, there is more to go. So, it seems that what we need is an article on the name or the name elements in general. I'll take a look around. If I can't find a suitable article, I will create one. Right now I am thinking of Ric (name element) and Asca (name element). If you got any suggestions, srnec, give us a clue. This needs some thought here but I'm inclined to do it sooner than later.Dave (talk) 14:28, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
More. Actually there is a lot scattered around, some in Wiktionary. What I am inclined to do at this moment is restore my sandbox, move what I have to it and then condense the material in this article to a single small section. That way we can get on with the article, as there is a little more material on that historical incident. Then I can create new articles or expand others at my leisure. It seems as though there should be one on ric or rig. All there is, is disambig and Wiktionary. I think it may go beyond Wiktionary. I don't know. I'll think about it. I see we are de facto collaborating on this. Your role seems to be giving input on my input. That's all right; it is one form of collaboration. If you want to contribute anything in addition yourself, feel free, srnec. My bark is worse than my bite.
More. OK I created a user sandbox page. I believe any of you have access if you want to make suggestions or notes. The material is not lost. Now I am getting on to the condensation.Dave (talk) 15:25, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
- It's been a long time. No one else has picked this up. There are quite a few few rough spots in the currently existing material. I will try to resume here. A single section on etymology still seems best. However, if srnec felt it was too detailed perhaps it should go at the end not the beginning. No one else has had a thing to say, directly. I had one indirect reference to "collaboration" in a modern political context (quite different from 12 years ago) by an inimical editor, but that does not count. I will be working in the sandbox as well as taking on rough spots here. You just can't do everything on WP.Botteville (talk) 10:29, 7 June 2024 (UTC)