User:Stbalbach/talk archive 1

Brittany - Breizh - Llydaw - An Bhriotain - Breten Vyghan

Sir, Will you listen me just a little, please, My answer has been at the height of your brutal behaviour and without shades for you could have tried to diminish the list a little or leave a message in this direction in the page talk about History of Brittany .But no ! You all removed- as a thoughtless barbarian -even the works in English !!!! And supreme refinement pushed you the wickedness to remove links web that are very useful, notably the one of the House of Brittany History.I hope you are not one these in their young thirties or very near and are quite "crazy effacers".That is a question of disproportionate manner in domains they know, sometimes not always, very little and where they rather should have an attitude more really more modest and more tolerant, more respectful of the others even if it is not their native culture.In any case your defence system is not correct because I repeat it again, you removed even the works in English and two links web very useful.You removed every thing !At last I wish that you don’t send any more crossing destructive missile without having a little reflected and will you ask yourself if the contributor will not be very shocked by your brutal attitude.An English contributor left me for example a kind message d' explanation and of regrets before modifying a part of my texts on another orderly. ..It is another civilization. ..Every body in the world cannot have the chance to be born English.Will you have a little patience and you will see extracted contributions of the quoted sources. Is this so difficult for you to leave a kind message on the page discussion to say that the bibliography is perhaps, or certainly, too long and it would be more better to diminish it. Why are you so much interested in Brittany ? You have perhaps a family link ? My family is living in Brittany since perhaps thousands years. And I have had also of course a lot of ancestors in Britain during the same times before the coming of my old fathers in Armorica from old Britannia; quite a long time like for the (amer)indians in Amerika; that is why I am so sensitive about the History of Brittany; and I am still studying History of my country since more than thirty years and I have so much to learn more. In advance I kindly request to you to excuse me for my faults of English language because I just start again to re-use this language but by employing it much again I have the firm will to make progress more and more if God wants it !I wish you a good day nonetheless!

Dun Breaton & Coel Hen.

Brittany - Breizh - Llydaw - An Bhriotain - Breten Vyghan

To do very short,

Since you seem not to have understood or do not want to understand. you are really very malignant and you make pretence do not understand for not to assume your mistakes to have cut EVERY things. I do not want to continue to waste my time because you play that which does not understand.And more, you take people top,(you talk to me like a teacher!) which they can not appreciate. That is quite clear is we do not participate to the same culture. (when you “seem” or you “play” do not understand my message”bizarre” which was not”bizarre” * not at all perhaps bizarre but very clear)*only the mistakes of very very bad Systran automatic translation;

Do you think that you are really the qualified person to speak about the History of Brittany ? You know History ? You know very well History of Brittany ? You know this country ?

1-Do you understand well : you are wrong because you obliterated every thing EVEN THE BOOKS WRITEN IN ENGLISH ?

2-Do you understand well : you are wrong because YOU HAVE ALSO ERASE ALL THE LINKS AND BETWEEN THEM THE LINK OF THE HOUSE OF HISTORY OF BRITTANY (!) ?

3-Do you understand well YOUR MISTAKES ?

4-If there is not other valid sources WHY DO NOT MENTION SOURCES ARE NOT IN ENGLISH ?. To support the domination of English? The english-speaking persons have only to to read other languages for building a real democratic world, and it is not tomorrow ! allas ! .

This known as I think that it is not positive to start a endless polemic.

.Will you know however that there is a big problem on this quite very poor page of History of Brittany with this increadible immense article on the prehistory which rather relates to Armorique i.e. the country which existed before Brittany and there is better to put all this prehistoric article elsewhere on a special page.

Greetings

Coel Hen. ________________________________________________________________________________________________

Hi! Welcome again. To attribute your earlier edits to your new username, go to Wikipedia:Changing attribution for an edit and follow the instructions. Which reminds me I've been needing to do this forever... :) Good luck and again, holler if you have Qs. jengod 20:59, Jul 22, 2004 (UTC)

I'm sorry about my previous rude approach to Kipper. I have given up editing Wikipedia but have occasional withdrawal symptoms and that must have been a bad moment. Apologies. I have left you what I hope is a rather nicer note on the Kipper talk page saying that I think the article's current state is actually rather good - it has the false story (which is a nice story, and worth telling, as long as it is made clear that it is an interesting local legend and not exactly the truth ) and it has your factual bit on why it can't be right, so I think that's a nice compromise and the article has been, overall, improved by the work it's been through. I'm off again now and will be trying to stay away. Thanks again for your reasoned approach. --138.37.188.109 08:28, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I don't think I removed any real content from Renaissance, I changed some language that was a bit too sweeping. I did cut some discussion of Petrarch, mostly because we cannot spend so much time on any one figure in such a general article. - SimonP 07:04, Aug 12, 2004 (UTC)

Pointsot image

Do you still need to move [[Image:Pointsot2.jpg]] ?

Images can't be moved I'm afraid. The best thing to do it to re-upload it to the correct name. I can then delete the old image once it's no longer needed. Mintguy (T) 18:36, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

First Crusade

Hi! I noticed you were working on the First Crusade article, which has also been one of my projects lately. Are you interested in the other crusade articles too? I think the First and the Fourth are pretty well up to encyclopedia standards but the others could use a lot of work. The one major problem with the First Crusade article is that it duplicates a lot of info from the main crusade article, and sometimes it even duplicates info within itself...so hopefully this can be fixed. If you plan on sticking around for awhile, I hope we can coordinate our efforts! Adam Bishop 21:19, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I got the info about Urban knowing about Alexius' envoys from Riley-Smith, I'm not sure if it's in the 1911 Britannica. "...it would be wrong to suppose that a spontaneous reaction at Piacenza started a chain of thought in Urban's mind that ended with Clermont. In fact his response was probably premeditated." (pg. 13 in The First Crusade and the Idea of Crusading) Whether or not it is relevant is another matter...I thought it helped show that he had been thinking about it beforehand, but I guess it's not important (it could be discussed in the Council of Piacenza article instead!).

Now that I think about it, I'm not sure where exactly I got "Deus lo volt" from...not any of the sources I have at hand, apparently. I thought "lo" was the Old French form of "le", but the Old French article actually says otherwise. Are any of the Clermont sources even in Old French? Well, I won't argue that one.

The stuff about material vs. religious benefit just seemed to be repeating info found all over the rest of the article. The point about some crusaders having to go to fulfill obligations to their lords is interesting though...I guess I assumed it would go without saying, but that probably wouldn't be as obvious to a casual reader. "Many families had crusading traditions" can't be right though...it's only the First Crusade, they couldn't have had traditions yet.

It is my understanding that despite being attacked in Hungary and elsewhere in the Balkans, Peter's army was still pretty large when they got to Constantinople, and it wasn't until they were in Asia that their numbers really decreased. I'll check again though, maybe the Alexiad has more about that.

Thanks! Adam Bishop 07:05, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Edit attribution

Hi Stbalbach. The edit to Heriot from 69.138.197.185 has been reattributed to you. Regards — Kate Turner | Talk 04:48, 2004 Sep 4 (UTC)

Revolt of 1173-1174

Would you check my edit at Caen concerning the Christmas festivities of 1182 and correct it? Thank you. Wetman 00:15, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Good. thanks. But is the Lion in Winter connection apropos? Wetman 06:26, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Feudalism

I'm impressed by the way you whipped this and related entries into shape, out of rather unpromising material, Thank you. Wetman 09:42, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'm less impressed than Wetman, but only because I think the article was not bad to begin with, and that Waltpohl made some very good additions. By the by ... be careful about being cocky with your edits. You may be using notes from a Harvard History professor, but the original version of the article, and some of the early revisions, were written by a Medieval History professor and a professor of Medieval Art History. We're both Ph.D.s, both members of the Medieval Academy, and not really slouches when it comes to knowing our stuff. That said, in the recent argument with Zain on the appropriate inclusion of present-day feudalism -- something that doesn't actually exist in any way shape or form as concerns the article and its subject, you're right on. I'll leave a note on the talk page at the F-word weighing in. JHK 00:37, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I just did a major rewrite of feudalism -- too many disparate headings and far too choppy, but the software ate it. Please be advised that I will be working on it to beat it into shape. You might also want to work on the last two sections, since they really don't fit with the beginning of the article. JHK

Actually, I worked on it for over an hour, and got an error when I tried to save. So my last was more intent than reality.JHK 03:42, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Julia Carson

Hello. I surfed the internet and found this photo Image:Julia_carson.jpg You deleted it from Julia Carson. So I decided to explore that site, where I found it and I figured, that it's official photo from 2002 elections. So, can I use it? Or use rather Image:Carson_julia.jpg ? That photo is 100% from government site. Please, gimme advice. Thanks. Darwinek 16:31, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

So, the first one is from: http://www.clw.org/images/election02/carson.jpg

And the second one is from: http://143.231.217.136/extranet/images/db/342%5C1%5Ccarson_j.jpg

(second one is linked to http://democrats.house.gov)

Please, write back, so I can decide, which one choose.

Darwinek 16:47, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

May I ask you a quesion? Are every photos on ".gov" sites free? I mean, can I use them in Wikipedia ?

Darwinek 9:52, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Siege of Jerusalem

Hey, I just wanted to let you know that I expanded the stub at Siege of Jerusalem (1099), so you might want to look it over. We should make one for the Siege of Antioch as well. Adam Bishop 00:02, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, I've seen it as both "crusaders" and "Crusaders" as well, I'm not sure which to use. I think I have used both on Wikipedia. Lately I tend to write it in lowercase, it seems less intrusive that way. Adam Bishop 16:46, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Siege of Antioch

Hi again, I wrote an article for the Siege of Antioch, which you might want to look over. I have some thoughts about the First Crusade article, I'll put them on the talk page, if you'd like to comment. Adam Bishop 02:05, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Admin

Hey, I found you to be an extremely neutral and courteous, thoughtful wikipedian, and was wondering if you'd mind if I nominated you for adminship? Sam [Spade] 22:56, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Conservatism

Please see my question to you at Talk:Conservatism. -- Jmabel | Talk 22:41, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)

inquisition

Hi. I know you did a lot of work on this article. Did you know that the first paragraph is identical to one on this site: http://www.catholicbridge.com/inquisition.htm

The Medieval Inquisition started around 1184 in response to the appearance of popular heretical movements throughout Europe, in particular Catharism and Waldensians in southern France and northern Italy.

We need to be careful about plagiarism. I am not accusing you of plagiarism, I just notice a similarity and bring it to your attention because you know more about the subject and the history of the article than i do. Slrubenstein

Dunno. I wrote that sentence from scratch based on information from a diffrent (more reputable) source, I've never seen that article before, nor would have used somthing like that as a historical document source. And the quotes in question are slightly diffrent. Either it is a co-incidence, or the author of the article used Wikipedia as a source (which I find highly likely reading the rest of the article). According to the Wayback Machine at archive.org, there are no copies of that article which points to it being new article. Stbalbach 01:43, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Flavio Biondo

Hi, that picture isn't actually in Latin, it's in Italian (or medieval Italian I suppose). I think it says "The history of Biondo, from the fall of the Roman Empire up to his own time (consisting of about 1000 years). Edited in the compendium of Pope Pius, and translated by Lucio Fanno into good vulgar language." Then the bottom says "In Venice, 1443" and I don't know what the "Co'l" abbreviation is, but "privilege of the highest pontiff Paul III, and of the illustrous Venetian Senate for ten years." I don't speak Italian though so you should probably ask a native speaker! Adam Bishop 21:39, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Dark Ages

There is a particular sentence that seems be structured poorly due to several changes. I'm not fully sure of the intent of the sentence since it seems strangely constructed. I'm asking you, an author who has made regularly edits on the article, to review my comments about it here: Talk:Dark Ages. -- AllyUnion (talk) 23:06, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Article Licensing

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 2000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
Multi-Licensing Guide
Free the Rambot Articles Project

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

OR

Option 2

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)

Urbanus Magnus

I've seen it referred to informally as Liber Urbani. I assume Urbanus Magnus is the name within the text. I hope I got the category and other stuff right, this isn't my field, I just spotted it in Recent Changes and thought it looked interesting. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 12:02, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hey there.

Nice edits on Underground Railroad (especially the one about the cultural importance -- that will do until I can write a whole section). Um, Stephen, that's right (like many I see you as canonized, heh). We should probably get a MeFi contingent together somewheres around here. --Dhartung | Talk 08:05, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Middle Ages project

Hi, yeah I have the /General page on my watchlist too. That is cool about First Crusade, I didn't realize it was so high on Google. I hope the lead paragraph is alright now, but I guess we can still work on it if we need to. Adam Bishop 16:26, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

No, it definitely wasn't a manual move, I never do that. I assume it's just a glitch in the system that'll work itself out; I've seen it do plenty of weird things like that before. Everyking 14:31, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Revolt of the Earls

Thanks for your note. I think the 1075 revolt is by far the best known - I'd never heard of the 1160, 1400 or 1619-ish revolt until I googled for the phrase. As such, I believe the article is best placed under the generic title, while the other revolts could be under disambig pages Revolt of the Earls (1400) etc. The other option would be to make Revolt of the Earls a disambiguation page itself, with the current article at Revolt of the Earls (1075) as 1075 is not part of the title of the event. Warofdreams 10:38, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

British Library, Add. MS 5111. 7th century Gospel Book fragment

Hi, you recently commented on the VfD for British Library, Add. MS 5111. 7th century Gospel Book fragment, which, as you may recall, was listed for having an "ugly" name. That listing has prompted me to write a proposal for a naming convention for articles about manuscripts without names. The proposal can be found here. Any comments you would like to make would be appreciated. Thank you. Dsmdgold 11:17, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)

usus est optimum magister

Oh, hey, incidentally? Something written on Wikipedia can be...removed...if you'd rather it wasn't there. (from Bishonen) You CAN remove a comment, sure. But people remember what happened. You can't just say, "Sorry" without taking the consequences of your actions. "Sorry" doesn't make things right. It's your actions in the next situation that proves you've learned the lesson of your consequences. That's not Wikipedism, that's a rule of life. Negativity can spread like anthrax. It's okay to harbor a grudge, but not forever. There's a time limit with that, as well. You've got to let it go, or it just feeds on itself and then...there is no possiblity of communication. There is a lot to learn here. Mostly from the people who contribute. Ummm. I can't say that about [EDITOR] article, but there you go.

Pax, please??? --allie 15:32, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Re: thank you

You're welcome! Which was that, all those dumb "abelard" links? --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 03:22, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Round Tower

Hi Stbalbach, any particular reason that you removed my reference to a book about irish round towers.

ISBN 18605591140 Irish Round Towers by Roger Stalley

Kglavin 18:28, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

piers

Nice image you added to the piers plowman page, but what is a drolleries? It would be better to get an image from a piers MS--many are online. Dan Knauss 19:05, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

re. your last comments. Thanks for the compliments, and any assistance on the piers page with images and text would be great. There's plenty more that should be done with it, especially on the content of the poem itself. The picture you posted looks familiar; the Yearbook for Langland Studies uses a similar image--but I think it's from a piers ms. Dan Knauss 02:09, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Black Death and Alcohol

Noticed your change on the alchemy section. Although the original sentence was not mine, I have to question the idea of a temperate peasantry! Are you saying that liquor was entirely unavailable - or just hard/distilled liquor? Do you have a source? Certainly grain, honey and fruit based alcoholic beverages have been around since prehistoric times. And brandy can be made without a distillation process. Please enlighten me. WBardwin 07:51, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I researched and wrote the article Liquor, which provides additional history and sources. Liquor is defined as anything that can't be obtained from fermentation, yeast dies off at around %10. Distillation arrived in Europe in the mid 12th century and Brandy (although not called it at the time) first appears in Germany, so your right -- I forgot it was the "national drinks" made from grains that did not appear until the 15th century. But liquor was not consumed in any quantity prior to the black death based on the best writen evidence we have. There is a lot of national romanticism, as well as corporate interests and legends, so im going by academic historians as my sources, which base it on first mentions in the writen record. I changed it from "volume" to "consumption" because they imply differnt things, volume implies we know the volume consumed (we dont), consumption implies popularity and usage, which we have a better handle on. Stbalbach 18:46, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, very interesting. Noticed the edit on the Black Death page. I think it is clearer now. WBardwin 19:47, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Second Crusade

Hi, are you interested in expanding the Second Crusade article, like we did with the First? I think I'm going to start working on that soon. Adam Bishop 16:02, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'd be happy to help out. I will need to buy a book because I don't know a thing (other than what you've wrote so far). It doesnt look as complex and epic as the First. I'll pick up a book on my next Amazon order, probably Runciman because he's fun to read, unless you had another suggestion; I know he's not as scholarly as some others, but I think for Wikipedia it should be ok. Stbalbach 23:41, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Oh, well, you don't have to go out of you way to buy a whole book on it...I'm just using library books, myself :) I don't think there are any books specifically about the Second Crusade, only summaries in more general histories, and specialist works on a related theme ("The Second Crusade and the Cistercians" for example.) Adam Bishop 00:08, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yeah I don't do the library too often since its a drive, although I probably should, it's just easier to UPS from Amazon a used book, then sell them again, or keep the good ones. I've allready read the first Runciman volume so this will give me an excuse to get the second. There's also the web and I have the Dictionary of the Middle Ages, anyway go ahead and start and Ill fill in once I get up to speed, it's on my watchlist. Stbalbach 02:33, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Re: Cite Sources page and quotation marks

I previously had started articles last year, referring as a model for my References list to the Wikipedia:Cite sources page style as it then looked without quotation marks added to article names that were shown as links. This year I later discovered someone (apparently you, from the History file) had put quotation marks around the article titles in links in the Cite Sources model page so I went and did it that way in the References section of articles I was working on like Kristin Hersh. Today I suddenly realized the quotation marks you displayed put the period outside them. That is not the punctuation method used in any American style I have ever seen, whether for citation style or not, unless you know of one. I'm sure that's fine in England of course, where I think they put punctuation outside the quote marks. But I am wishing to be consistent in my punctuation, which has always included periods inside quotation marks in any other context previously. Do you know of a reason the period following a magazine/journal article name in a citation should be outside the quotation marks? If not, then can I go put them inside the quote marks in the Cite Your Sources model page? I don't want to make a change like that without checking. I am thinking of changing my References list in a music article right now to reflect my understanding of proper punctuation. Emerman 15:30, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've seen it done both ways, inside and out, and dont know what is the "correct" way, or if there is even one. Perhaps post to on discussion page of Cite sources, request for comment. Stbalbach 15:46, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Globus cruciger

I would be incredibly happy if you could create an article for Globus cruciger. That's always one of the tough choices for Vfd, and sometimes we can never find the perfect place to redirect. We make it into a redirect because it can and should be revived at a later date, but it was only done away with because it was merely dicdef at the time. It's actually a low bar to meet, all we have to do is make it more than a dictionary definition; pictures and historical context, even a small stub, will accomplish that easily. Unfortunately, I don't know anything about the topic, but I've added Globus cruciger to my watchlist, and if you revive it I'll help in any way I can. The key is that it needs historic context, relate it to actual events/people/etc., tobe more than dicdef. I'm happy you care :) --Dmcdevit 03:57, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hey, I was already editting it when I got your message :) Looks great! --Dmcdevit 05:28, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC) (PS, picture would be even better.)

Breton

sorry, my edit may have been premature. but note that Breton is a disambiguation page. I would have preferred "Breton ancestry". In any case, since Brittany is not mentioned in the article, I thought the statement may be mistaken, and wasn't able to verify it. Why do we think he had Breton ancestry, then? dab (ᛏ) 16:18, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Origen: don't worry about it

I moved it to the lead because: I had never heard of the guy. A friend mentioned him, and all he really said about him was the self-castration bit. He also said that was the reason Origen didn't become a saint. So I looked him up, and had a hard time confirming the castration part in a bunch of theological jargon I don't understand. So I moved what I, as a total non-Catholic uneducated person, thought was the most interesting/bizarre thing about him to the lead. But if you don't think it belongs there, that's cool. I still think the article needs some dumbing down, though (like most of the math and linguistics articles on this site). moink 03:40, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Second Crusade again

Hey, I just posted my expanded version of the Second Crusade article. I guess there is still a lot to do with it - maybe some related articles for the major events, if they can be explained any further. But really I just got sick of working on it, so there it is :) Adam Bishop 00:12, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Dark Ages

Please check additions and changes to Dark Ages. I notice you repeatedly on article talk page "this isn't the history of the period, it's the history of the concept." OK, but a bit of a history was needed. Reading it it sounded like the label "dark ages" is completely uncalled for, which it ain't...too much apolegitics and POV. I posted a comment without response, so went ahead and added "Causes of Darkness" and edited intro. Don't know if you wrote it incidentally, just a lot of talk comments from you. Take care, Marskell 23:19, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Hero of Belarus FAC

I like to thank you for comming to the FAC page and raising any concerns that you had. I am now going to address those:

You wrote: "There is almost no information about the heroes or why they got the reward." I have been looking up Presidental Decrees, and I can find few about the title and why it would be award to someone. With the first hero, Vladimir Karvat, the decree is very short. Plus, finding long, good bio for Wikipedia on many of these heroes will be very hard, since not a lot of information about Belarus is online, even in Russian. One hero, Aleksandr Dubko, was a canddiate for President, but not sure for what years. Dubko was also the leader of the Agraian Party of Belarus, but died before he received his hero title. Pavel luk'yanovich Mariyev is alive and is currently a member of the Republic Council. I found a small bio on him and I can see what I can do about him. I did a search on Vitalius Kremko, I came up with nothing. I hope I can look harder on information about him. I did find an Obit for Mikhail Karchmit, so I can try to pull some information there. However, if the bios get too big, I might have to create a sub-page of the article just for bios. I do want to include the heroes in the article, since there is only five of them. That will leave people to wonder who these five guys are. I do agree we need to bulk up their bios. Thanks again. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 15:15, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I found more information all heroes, I was wondering if this is ok to you. Thanks. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 16:55, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Great Plague of Vienna

Hey Stbalbach, I just created this article, and I was hoping you could help me out with it in any way you can, especially because of your great knowledge of the Black Death. I can't really find any more info on it from just the books I have with me, or the Internet. Also, it could probably use some word choice help (it's late, I'm tired). I guess Great Plague of Milan will have to come next, now that Ithink about it... :) By the way, I've been meaning to ask you, does your user name mean anything (because most are obvious, but for yours, for some reason, I keep wondering if there was a Saint Balbach...) Anyway, thanks for any help. --Dmcdevit 08:21, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Did you know?

Did you know has been updated and a fact from the article Ars moriendi, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you have another interesting fact to submit, then please suggest it at the section's talk page.

Don't worry, be happy

No hard feelings, but I think you can see why I put the NPOV tag up in the first place. The reverts were seriously getting out of hand, and Ephestion obviously felt strongly enough about his views not only to write new articles about the subject, but to go so far as to pratically vandalize the Roman Empire page with his bold type edits. When I edit I try my best to restrain my POV, and at the very least acknowledge the other person's, but it was getting rediculous. In all honesty, my main motivation for putting the tag up was attracting some attention to the edit war that was going on, and getting some discussion going on the talk page, which had been solely me arguing against Ephestion for several days. I think I succeeded in that regard, although I still think the NPOV tag should be up there to generate more discussion. The addition of the article on the request for comment page might attract attention, but I honestly would prefer all the people who regularly view and edit the article to contribute to the dicussion, something they might not otherwise do without a visual signal to show them that something is awry. Ideally, I'd like this to speed up the transformation of the Empire article into a gateway article, something that has been talked about for sometime without much action, and something which I find far too daunting to attempt on my own. --Masamax 11:48, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I plan on starting the reorganization myself sometime this week on my personal PC, then I can in one fell swoop change it all, hopefully to the joy of roman nerds everywhere? :) --Masamax 06:23, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Parliamentary system

Since you appear to be a rather savvy user, I'd like some input. This is the first article I have really reorganized heavily (although I did write almost the entirety of Western Roman Empire. I was trying my best to conform to wikipedia standards (although I plan on getting references and citations done sometime in the next few days to really get it up to snuff). Thanks in advance! --Masamax 08:42, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Redating sphinx

Hi Stbalbach,

I see that you have restored the text that I was asked to remove from my earlier posting in Redating the Sphinx.

I also got a new name Odysses intead of 83.235.203.253

I don't dissaprove of this since I put it in the first place, just wanted to ask you if you think there is no problem with Copyright?

--Odysses 19:56, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Crusade literature

Oh yeah, that makes more sense, thanks. There is a discussion on Category talk:Crusades about how to reorganize things into various subcategories, if you have any ideas. Adam Bishop 20:44, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

migrations period

Frankly I don't care what name is chosen, as long as it's actually chosen. We've been moving back and forth between human migration and volkerwanderung over the last year or so which was quite counterproductive. I'll fix all the double redirects whichever name is better, it's a trivial problem with a trivial solution. --Joy [shallot] 28 June 2005 16:58 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for reverting Template:Main. I'm still somewhat new but after the template was changed I saw a lot of instances of pages on Wiki where the link was now labelled as a subarticle even though the so-called "Subarticle" was in no way a subarticle. I didn't mean to cause any trouble on this issue. --Alabamaboy 3 July 2005 19:02 (UTC)

Panel painting

Nice work. -- Solipsist 3 July 2005 21:05 (UTC)

templates main / seemain

I have placed {{main}} and {{seemain}} for discussion on WP:TFD to combat MarSch's efforts, though I agree that this distinction should be kept. Dragons flight July 3, 2005 21:11 (UTC)

Re:Newbie - I dont think you really qualify for that special status now, youve been through a few. Stbalbach 5 July 2005 04:31 (UTC)

You've stated that the subject of Subarticles was resolved 4yrs ago. I've been on for 3months, so yeah, ImaNewbie. Hell, I don't even know what CSS is. Much less how to fix it for TOC formating. And I'm guessing that I'm in the vast majority of Wikipedia users on that. That's why the treatment of newer users in the discussion over templates and subarticles deeply troubles me. Aren't we supposed to try to understand and respect each other? And if someone is doing it "wrong", shouldn't we gently educate them by offering alternatives? I don't see enough of this going in the articles, and to see experienced Users doing the same is disheartening, to say the least.--ghost 5 July 2005 04:59 (UTC)

Re:Removed Comments - I would like to thank you for the courtesy of informing me of the removal. Yes, they are POV. They are POV because, "Like WP:VfD, this forum is more about discussion than about voting, so please tell us why you vote in a certain way so that you may convince others." I ask that you restore them. I have as much right to convince others as anyone else, in the proper forum. The TfD page is that forum. Thanks again for informing me.--ghost 6 July 2005 10:50 (UTC)

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Carolingian art, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently-created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

- Mgm|^(talk) July 4, 2005 08:16 (UTC)

hierarchy

Hi Stbalbach, it seems the hierarchy thing is your main concern. How do the {main} templates not create a hierarchy? It is even more insiduous, since it allows cycles. It is like going from sets to hypersets. --MarSch 6 July 2005 11:55 (UTC)

It's not just my concern, thats the way Wikipedia was intentionally designed, using templates to get around that design is problematic for a lot of reasons. {main} doesnt create heirarchy. Conceptually Wikipedia mirrors a point to point network, any node a peer of any other node. All articles stand on their own as self contained units. The notion is anyone can use Wikipedia in any media format for any reason with each article self contained. Viewing articles on a computer with access to linking is optional when its been printed out. See the style guidelines and how to write a good article. "Main" is used rhetorically it doesnt actually mean there is a main article, its just a way of communicating there is an article with more detail in as few words and unobtrusive as possible that people understand. But, in the context of the article where "Main" is used, enough information is provided in summary format for the reader to understand and not need to go to the more detailed article. Stbalbach 6 July 2005 13:46 (UTC)

- I agree that all articles must stand alone and that Wikipedia is a point to point network. What I want is to highlight some of those connections. And I want that connection to have a direction. Going from the general to the specific. Surely there is nothing wrong so far?

- I glimpsed this notion from the previous time {main} and {seemain} were tfd'd. It is exactly what is needed, I think, for beating some structure in the articles about mathematics. For example we have articles on groups, but also on group theory. If we don't specify what information should go where then we end up with a lot of duplication and no coherent structure. There are worse examples than this one. Another problem is that we strive for both accessible articles, but also for completeness. Currently we are working on manifold and several specific manifolds (which are more technical) are being split off. These more specialized articles are meant to share the more intuitive explanation which is going to be in manifold. Thus from for example [topological manifold] we should point back to manifold and also from a handful more articles. Please take a look at the rewrite effort and tell me what you think. --MarSch 6 July 2005 15:19 (UTC)

What I want is to highlight some of those connections. And I want that connection to have a direction.

Yeah but thats a problem. You'll end up with article fragments linked together by a string of templates that may or may not hold together over time. Plus as has been pointed out, not everyone agrees on what the heirarchy should be and it leads to conflict and confusion depending on an editors POV. Templates are not the right tool for this. If you want to highlite the connections, there are a number of options:

Write a good lead section.
Use bold text on links that are part of the article title and part of the main article you want to highlite.
Use categories. They were actually designed exactly for this, the meta organization of articles, and work very well once you start using them.

The group article is a disambiguation page, it's not really a real article. For topolological manifold, in the lead section just simply write Topological Manifold - people are smart, really, you dont need a template saying "look at mainfold", its redundant.

--Stbalbach 6 July 2005 17:04 (UTC)

I meant Group (mathematics). Thanks for your reply. It is a way to do it, although a bit subtle. Perhaps I will start a discussion on this at the appropriate policy page, so that we have a standard way for doing this, when I have some more time. --MarSch 7 July 2005 11:11 (UTC)

Medieval Greece

You're right, it shouldn't redirect like that, but we do have an article about that already - Roman and Byzantine Greece. Thanks. Adam Bishop 9 July 2005 16:02 (UTC)

verses

Hiya,

you recently voted to delete John 20:16

Uncle G has made a wider proposal covering a much larger group of verses.

would you be prepared to make a similar vote at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Individual Bible verses, which covers the full list of verses in Uncle G's suggestion?

~~~~ 9 July 2005 16:37 (UTC)

DYK

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Plan of Saint Gall, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently-created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Hundred Years' War

Monsieur, Vous, comme une specialist de l'histoire du Moyen Age, compronez bien le francais, je crois. Parce que mon anglais ne pas bonne, j'ose espérer que mon message sera bien compris chez Vous.

Sur l'origine de la Guerre de Cent Ans je voux bien dire que la lois salique n'est pas l'origine de la Guerre. Plusieurs historien bien renommés l'ont attestés. Voila l'un parmi eux: Jean Favier écrit dans son livre La Guerre de Cent Ans (Marabout 1985) p. 37: "... personne n'a eu l'idée saugrenue d'invoquer la vieille loi des Francs saliens... Le premier qui s'en souvint et l'appliqua à la couronne de France fut, aux lendemain de la défaite de Poitiers, un chroniqueur en mal d'originalité."

Donc je veux bien dire que il faut corriser la texte et écrir les raisons convenables de l'origine de la Guerre. Wikipedie merite ca. Merci Alexius Manfelt 19:06, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

The bible

Firstly let me say that I am sorry to have to bother you.

Secondly, I wish to let you know that a recent VFD that you took part in has closed. The result was that 32 people voted to keep all individual bible verses as seperate articles, and 34 voted that they shouldn't (2 abstensions, and 3 votes for both). This is considered by standard policy not to be a consensus decision (although the closing admin stated that it was a consensus to keep them).

Thirdly, the subject has now been put to a survey, so that it may remain open until there is a clear consensus for what appears to be a difficult issue to resolve. You may wish to take part in this survey, and record a similar vote to the one you made at the VFD there. The survey is available at Wikipedia:Bible verses.

~~~~ 18:10, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

DYK

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Kabloona, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently-created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

249,466 Aug 1 2005

Wayne McLaren

Thanks for the images you uploaded for Wayne McLaren - it really does help the article. violet/riga (t) 10:05, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

... Generation

I see your point about the terms coming from an American stand point, but the articles make no mention that these terms are predominantly US based as they also discuss global issues. Either the articles have to state that the term is US only or the examples must be inclusional (widespread) and that clearly involves giving global examples with no special preference to the US. I'm happy to discuss the issue but I think that more than the two of us should be involved. I don't know which page to use so have started here. — KayEss | talk 19:08, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

homerism on homer (disambiguation)

Dear Stbalbach. The homer (disambiguation) page should only provide links to things referred to by the name "homer" and not to all possible terms and names that contain the word "homer". So "Homer Simpson" can be included since he is sometimes referred to as "homer" (even though I doubt that anybody would search for Homer Simpson using only his first name ...). But I don't believe that anybody looking for the article on Homerism would do that by searching for "Homer". Please note that disambiguation pages are just for fast navigation, not for learning or discovering things. (this is not just my humble opinion, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)). So unless there is some evidence that people refer to "Homerism" by the word "Homer", it should be removed again from the disambiguation page. Kind regards, --Lenthe 13:35, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Hundred Years War

Why are you so insistent to have the too precise 320 yrs in the text? The beginning of problems can be 1316, 1328, or the wording may refer to year 1301 (=beginning of 14th C)... The 320 is not very correct in most of those cases. Thus much better to use THREE CENTURIES.

Ok 3 centuries.

The wording "next" when speaking about the monarch who dies and is succeeded, seems not a highly clever solution. Thus, again, question why?

Its better not to be clever. Clear and simple is the rule per style guidelines, so there is no misunderstanding nothing hidden.

Then, finally, as the importance of the pregnancy was the possibility of birth of a male child, why to spoil and hide whole idea by saying "daughter" particularly when the gender was of course not known at the time of death. Arrigo 22:49, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Same as above. I understand what your saying. If it was a book or somthing I would agree. But I see how over time things get moved and re-written and loose the meaning. More direct the better, otherwise it doesnt make sense. Stbalbach 23:02, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Treasure Island

Sure, its ok to link to short or stub articles, but what's the point when it is just a duplication of information already in the article, and doesn't seem to have potential for expansion? I'd be inclined to make Admiral Benbow just redirect to Treasure Island. -- Jmabel | Talk 03:28, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

Please take a look at what this is coming to in that article. I have rarely seen a more over-linked article. I don't want to fight you, but do you really think this is appropriate? -- Jmabel | Talk 21:48, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, Ive been out of town and agree with what your saying, Ill get to in a day or so as I catch up with my watchlist. Stbalbach 02:21, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Catholic encyclopedia

To reply to your comment about using macros. As part of the Catholic encyclopedia project, I am checking against the content of the wiki and the article before I add the tag. I have looked over several hundred entries in wikipedia that are also covered by the Catholic encyclopedia and have added less than 10 tags when the material was clearly from the encyclopedia or 1911 britannica.

Vasco da Gama

An article that you've edited before (Vasco da Gama) is nominated for Article Improvement Drive. If you want go there and vote. Thanks. Gameiro 02:58, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Template:Uncyclopedia

Someone removed the tfd tag from this, I'm guessing in error, I thought I should check with you however (as you put it on originaly) rather than just reverting it. --ElvisThePrince 22:46, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

DYK

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Stavelot Triptych, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Stavelot Triptych

Hi: thanks for your comment. Unfortunately, I don't know anything about public domain and copyright issues regarding pictures. I imagine that since the Morgan owns the piece, and has published books about it; they technically own the copyright. Sorry to be so unhelpful. User:FeanorStar7

Battle of Poitiers (1356) external link

I recently listed an external article I found on the Talk page of the article on Battle of Poitiers (1356) and am looking for input as to whether or not it would make a good external link. I noticed that you recently edited the page and so I hoped you would be able to comment. Would you? 204.126.127.253 14:36, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Nika!

As the original author of the sentence, I have reverted your revision of "Victory!" to "Conquer!" on two stylistic grounds: (i) nobody in English is known ever to have shouted "Conquer!" in a competitive situation, and (ii) "Nika" is almost certainly the noun rather than the 2nd singular imperative of the verb (if it were a verb form it would be "Nikomen" or "Nikate"). Mark O'Sullivan 06:57, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

I based it on a number of academic sources which translate it as Conquer which I believe is historiographically more accurate. I suspect Victory is a modern translation, because as you say, nobody in English is known ever to have shouted "Conquer!" at a sporting event. Stbalbach 14:57, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Adam1213

I accidently reverted once some vandalism but fixed it. I did not vandalise. If anything you did by saying that when you were wrong

A scan through this user edits shows a deliberate attempt to hide malicious activity through the use of "reverting vandalism" in edit notes. A check of the edit history show the following:

Sometimes they are legit vandalisms reverted.
Sometimes they are legit edits being reverted example. example
Most grevious, he'll add new vandalism while reverting old vandalism in the same edit. example.

--Stbalbach 05:27, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

--Adam1213 11:06, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

1911 Mufaddaliyat

I read on a talk page that you rather unwisely admitted to owning a copy of the 1991 Encyclopædia. Could you give the article at Talk:Mufaddaliyat a once over checking the names particularly paragraph seven. I know you complained about these large text dumps from the 1911 but this is a highly significant work od early arabic literature about which information in is scarce. It is cheaper to beg for a copy edit then pay £240 for the last known English translation, mentioned at the end of the article. Thanks MeltBanana 21:56, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for that, trying to pick apart different transliterations of arabic names is not easy. I certainly agree that wholesale copying of 100 year-old text is often a bad idea, leading to all sorts of strange and outdated ideas being invited in. What does depress me slightly is some editors' unwillingness to allow anything but their own late 20th century idiom into the text. As this article was written by Sir Charles James Lyall, the main authority of the time, it may be difficult to get better unless there is major new scholarship somewhere. The article in EB on the companion piece of literature the Mu'allaqat (don't worry sources not needed) is extremely verbose and completely loses the plot for long periods. Err bit like this thanks sorry. MeltBanana 23:32, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

<noinclude>

Hi, Stephen. <noinclude> tags are used to allow text in a template that is not then transcluded into articles when the template is called. In this case, I've added an interwiki to the Spanish version of the template (to allow editors to easily find equivalent templates in other wikis where usage may differ); unless <noinclude> tags were used, the interwiki would be added together with the template text to every article where {{main}} is employed.

There is a corresponding <includeonly> tag to allow for text in a template that does not apply to the template itself, but only to articles using it. It's mainly used for categorizing articles without categorizing the associated template.

I can't recall off the top of my head where did I first find these in use, but I seem to remember an advisory in meta: about them. I could try to find it foy you if you wish.

Best, Taragui 07:31, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't think it implies any significant overhead; most of the server load is caused by the lookup and formatting code, which isn't significantly altered in any way. In any case, it was devised exactly for this purpose; I'd find it highly unlikely that the developers didn't take scalability issues into account when writing the code. We can always drop Brion or someone else a note over there, though. Best, Taragui 07:35, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

wikipedians

Hello, i saw you were listed on the Wikipedia:List of drug-free Wikipedians, but as one of the funny ones, and i invite you to read this and add your name or something else if you want. You may also want to put your name here: category:wikipedians by fields of interest under drugs/drug addiction. cheers! --Ballchef 13:08, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

I'd sign up but, I really am a Drug free Wikipedian (not even coffee.. occasionally chocolate if that counts as a drug). Stbalbach 17:16, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Can I get your vote?

I have been nominated for an adminship and I was wondering if I could get your vote. If you feel inclined, please go to Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Alabamaboy and cast your "yes" or "not in a million years." Many thanks.--Alabamaboy 02:26, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

PinkMonkey

These sites "contain" banner ads like a mangy dog "contains" fleas. The content looks lifted wholesale from elsewhere, and is surrounded by innumerable banner ads. If it looks, walks, and talks like a duck, it's a duck. There are higher-quality links we could be adding to articles, and the shotgun approach he used to add these makes me ill-disposed to cut him any slack. Nandesuka 00:38, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Subst

No, it's a longstanding feature :) and it also saves server load, see WP:AUM for details. Spread the word! There are several dozens of templates that are better off subst'ed (and several dozens that aren't, of course). I'd advise against TFD'ing {{main}} though, even if people would generally subst it, it's still useful. I'd advise to find a bot somewhere (WP:BR) to automatically subst it, to make sure articles don't change all the time. Yours, R adiant _>|< 01:37, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

World History

As you suggested, I removed the additions I made to World History. You are right. They were not very encyclopedic and didn't fit in with an article on historiography. RCSB 06:05, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Do you like the changes? I have to quit now.--Daanschr 16:56, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Quackpotwatch

I've added a wiki article for this and edited Quackwatch to refer to it, hoping you can further rectify these developements. I e-mailed you but in case you got this before that, I'd put it here, also for general records.

Pinocchio a novella ?

The text of Pinocchio in italian is 40,000 words long. A so long text can't be a novella. It's too long.--Annod 23:13, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Your probably right I may have mis-interpreted the source, rather it draws from the Tuscan novella tradition (having just finished Decameron I can say there are striking stylistic similarities). How about we just call it a "childrens story" because its not really a fairy-tale either. Stbalbach 23:25, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

From Usenet : I am interested if you are willing to take the time. What do theorists consider constitutes a novella? Francis A. Miniter/ Do you know, I was bored enough to check this out, and it contains 25,583 words / It is not therefore a novella. Novella theory is a bit more complicated than word counts. In fact, it's so complicated that it's hard to tell what might qualify, but the most durable definition contains an "unheard-of event" at the center of an episodic narrative. Hi Silke / I am interested if you are willing to take the time. What do theorists consider constitutes a novella ? / Well, my name is Silky, but I am willing to hazard an answer. From my own studies, it seems that the term novella (an Italian word for which the plural is "novelle") was first used to characterize certain stories by Italian and French writers. Two authors in that category which leap to mind are Marguerite de Valois and Boccaccio. I suspect you will find that most theorists agree the term was originally applied with reference to such writings as THE DECAMERON by Boccaccio and the HEPTAMERON by de Valois. Novelle of that sort had a great influence on later writers, and of course the term "novel"developed from the the literary works mentioned above and from others. In other words, novelle were here before novels were, and, as I have suggested above, had a very great influence on the novel form as we know it today. What may muddy the waters just a bit, though, is the fact that "novella" itself is also a German term (borrowed of course form the original Italian) was was favored as a descriptive word for a type of German short novel of Nineteenth century vintage. When most theorists use the term today, at least to describe modern works, they are using it with reference to the German term, not the original Italian one. Hope this helps. Francis A. Miniter --Annod 00:13, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

ASL

Thanks for your comments on my article on ASL :-)Michael Dorosh 05:48, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

subst:X command

In Template_talk:Main#Template_Main_vs._Subst:Main you use the phrase "There are a dozen or more subst commands". I thought "subst:" was an option for any template incantation, and "subst:template_name" is not itself a command. (SEWilco 16:57, 3 November 2005 (UTC))

Your right, I wrote that with a misunderstanding of what the subst command was. Stbalbach 17:06, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

That's what the phrasing suggested. Thought it best to educate here in relative privacy, whether it was me educating you or you correcting my having misunderstood something. :-) (SEWilco 19:13, 3 November 2005 (UTC))

Team Handball

On the Team handball history page, your last edit summary was (rv to last by JoanneB .. be careful of user "Ambar" who claims to be reverting vandalism) Can you please explain this? --Ambar 06:19, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

My mistake on the Feudalism page. Reverted to the wrong edit version. It was in good faith. Thanks - --Ambar 14:47, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

St. Monica

I've noticed that in a couple of instances recently, you have changed that description of Monica from Christian to Catholic. While I don't necessarily disagree with you, an argument could be made that Christian is a better choice. This is a period before the Eastern and Western Churches had split, and the use of the word Catholic carries a lot of connotations that shouldn't be pushed this far back. Monica could equally be desribed as Orthodox, although not in the modern sense. Comments Dsmdgold 17:01, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Christian can mean a lot of things. Catholic is more precise and meaningful to the story of Augustines life, since he too converted to Catholicism, and not one of the other Christian sects which were prevelant. Monica and Augustine were not a Donatist or Arianist, this is significant. As a history article, it is assumed the reader is reading it in the past tense, and not applying a 21st POV. Stbalbach 17:16, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

I see your point, although I would have used the term Orthodox to make the same point. However, I think it may be a bit much to expect casual readers to drop all of the freight that the terms Catholic and Orthodox have picked up through the centuries. Dsmdgold 01:33, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

I guess the problem is Catholic meant somthing slightly different then, than it does today. But there's no better description than Catholic, that's what she called herself. Since many people may be confused by this, we could clarify it with a footnote, saying she called herself a Catholic in the sense of the time, as a follower of the Nicene Creed, but not in the modern sense of Roman Catholic vs Eastern Orthodox. --Stbalbach 04:13, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Added a footnote. Stbalbach 16:31, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Looks good. Dsmdgold 16:48, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

medieval

Why is etymological and spelling data "needed" in an article peripherally related to the word? What else then is Wiktionary for? 24.221.121.232 04:22, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

It's not really a proper etymology, so calling it an etymology, then placeing it up against a dictionary in a "one or the other" black and white fashion is not really accurate; dictionary etymologies are more complete in some sense, and less narrative in another. We need it because there is considerable confusion about how to properly spell medieval, it's an issue notable enough to be included in an encyclopedia article. There is nothing that prevents encyclopedias from discussing word origin when its significant. Professional print encyclopedias include etymology-like information when and where its needed. Wiktionary is a great project and is certainly needed also. Thank you for making the entry BTW its helpful. --Stbalbach 04:38, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

DYK

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Amos Urban Shirk, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Bibliomania

I do think the art was written by someone who has never seen the holbrook jackson book, or heard of phillips or others - probably the american psych association table of disorders and thats it! would you be interested in helping with an alternate entry?vcxlor 01:33, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Drug-free

Hi there Stbalbach, Im Moe Epsilon. I saw your name to the list of drug-free Wikipedians. I created a template and category for it at Template:Drug-free. You can add it to your babel if you want. Hope you use it! — Moe ε 23:29, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

DYK

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Invasion literature, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Richard Parker

No worries. Thanks for the help in expanding and fixing up the section! Always gratifying to see work and expansion so quickly after an edit. I thought it was a more interesting than usual naming story too. Apparently Martell really does his homework. Peregrine981 08:53, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Postmodernism

Whar did you dislike about my addition? --VKokielov 00:51, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

medieval

Okay. I'm changing my mind. Medieval_(term) is fine. I just had a look at the "What Links Here" for "Medieval". Must be a thousand links. Memetic nightmare.

I do not like the fact that medieval is being misused, but sheer mechanics demand that it continue to be misused until a bot can be created to fix it.

I'll change it back to the redirect, for now.

216.237.179.238 18:06, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Historical revisionism

Just to thank you for your help, it seems everything's solved. Free speech mustn't be mistaken with hate speech, lest Wikipedia become a forum for theses voices instead of being a tool of enlightenement. Kaliz 23:21, 13 December 2005 (UTC)