User talk:Dejvid/archive2010

.

Welcome

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia! Hope you like it here, and stick around.

Here are some tips to help you get started:

If you need help, post a question at the Help Desk
Eventually, you might want to read the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines.
Remember Wikipedia:Neutral point of view
Explore, be bold in editing pages, and, most importantly, have fun!

Good luck!

[[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 15:11, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)

Irak

Politically I agree with you, but the statement is speculative and not really encyclopaedic. Adam 12:28, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Wikpedia has an inherent left-wing bias. It's a function of the kind of people likely to be editing an online encyclopaedia - members of the petty inetelligentsia and underemployed graduate class (like me). There's not much you can do about it except have endless revert wars, some of which you can win if you know your facts well enough. Good luck. Adam 12:55, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hi - Please vote to support the move from Iraqi resistance → Iraqi insurgency at Wikipedia:Requested_moves. Thanks! ObsidianOrder 12:40, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Just war

I am no just war expert. I'm sorry I cannot be of more help. NuclearWinner 22:32, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Sopot, Zagreb

It's nice to see somebody (a) making new articles and (b) filling in some very local information about a non-English-speaking country :-) It would be really good if you could provide a photograph, even if Sopot does sound a little dull!

I jumped in mainly to correct a few spellings, but it looks like you picked up on them yourself so actually I had an edit clash. I classified this under "Towns in Croatia" but if you are going to be making more articles like this (Dugave, Travno perhaps?), do you think it would be better to set up Category:Neighbourhoods of Zagreb, Category:Districts of Zagreb (I don't know which would be a better translation of the Croatian) or just plain Category:Zagreb and put it in there instead?

Have fun with Wikipedia... I wonder if you'd like to consider making a few contributions to Wikitravel as well? You sound like you could provide quite a bit of useful information on places to visit in the region! --VivaEmilyDavies 22:50, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I have the feeling that the best thing to do is follow the example of Category:Athens rather than make a category for neighbourhoods. Thanks for your reply! Hopefully Novi Zagreb will be getting an article soon --VivaEmilyDavies 23:17, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hi :)

I recall you said hi to me on some talk page, but at the time I didn't have enough time to actually respond... so here it is :) --Joy [shallot] 09:36, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Links between Iraq and Al-Qaeda

Could you please vote on the proposed move Links between Iraq and Al-Qaeda → Alleged links between pre-invasion Iraq and Al-Qaeda? The vote is here . Thanks. ObsidianOrder 17:13, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Unexplained Reverts

Looking through your contributions, it seems you have made a very large number of unexplained reverts. Please see the Wikipedia policy at Wikipedia:Revert that states, "Always explain your reverts." Obviously anyone else who makes an edit has a good reason in mind for thinking that edit should be there, so if you revert with no explanation, you have simply increased conflict without bringing people any closer to agreeing on a solution. — Cortonin | Talk 15:56, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Greater Serbia

Dejvid, regarding your complaint of a 3RR violation, a glance at the history suggests you may also have violated it. If you continue to revert, you may be blocked from editing for 24 hours. In the meantime, I've protected the page so you can discuss the issues on talk. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:14, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

Hi Dejvid, regarding your query about the ground rules, the rule regarding reverts is that we're not allowed to revert the same article more than three times in any given 24 hours. See Wikipedia:Three revert rule. However, the three-revert rule (called 3RR) is an upper limit; ideally, we shouldn't get to that stage. I'm going to look around for someone knowledgeable in this area; there must be someone out there who can offer an educated opinion to help resolve the dispute. In the meantime, try to cite authoritative sources for any edits you make to the article, and ask Mir Harven to do the same. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:26, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

Thru a misspelling

Hi Dejvid,

In my dictionary, 'thru' is defined as an informal spelling of 'through'.

You might see 'thru' in things like song titles, and even company names (for example http://www.walkthru.org/ ), but it's not really appropriate in an encyclopedia or any formal writing.

It's similar to the use of the words 'lite' and 'light'.

The official OED website (which I have access to through my university), says thru: now used informally as a reformed spelling and abbreviation (chiefly) in N. Amer.

The New Oxford American English Dictionary 2nd edition (which ships with MacOS X 10.4) also says thru: informal spelling of through.

Cmdrjameson 00:07, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sociological considerations about greenhouse gases

Thank you very much for your feed back, I rewrote the article entirely! I must admit it was also not neutral enough, don't hesitate to formulate some other crtics.

A little question : do you think the following sentence would be NPOV enough ?

"Wikipedia is an excellent answer angainst global warming, because of its information content and because nobody can edit Wikipedia and drive at the same time!"

The last part sounds a bit like a joke, but it reallity it's perfectly correct, suppose a car lover get some sort of addiction to Wikipedia, he is very much likely to drive less!

Sociological_considerations_about_greenhouse_gases http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Laserresal

Sortan

Many of the cases Sortan has edited have been overwhelmingly CE/BCE before his changes. Some have not eg Library of Alexandria. I have to say that it is probably best to leave the decision BC v BCE to people who actually edit the individual pages but in some cases the result of this edit war has changed an overwhelmingly BCE page to BC. If we can't agree on criteria as to how to make pages consistent can we agree to a revert to the situation "ante bellum" so to speak. Dejvid 17:58, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Then, it appears that Soltan's single topic crusade on Wikipedia has been counterproductive. By "ante bellum" do you want me to revert my own edits?--Wiglaf 18:08, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, if you look at the history [1] it was User:Jguk who had previously changed BCE/CE to BC/AD. While it might be best to leave the decision to the people who regularly edit the pages, you're just inviting a visit from User:Jguk to force an article to use BC/AD that way. Sortan 18:05, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Most likely Soltan is a troll in which case he may even intend to be "counterproductive". Jguk has reacted to Soltan by going a beyond a revert to make pages consistetly AD-BC where they were overwhelming (if not consistently so) CE-BCE. So maybe when you revert then revert back to a pre Soltan state rather than to Jguk. On some pages active editors have taken action and there I think outsiders should leave things be. I might add that while I count myself as an outsider on most pages I am the most active editor for History of West Eurasia. BTW I fully understand Jguk's reaction but it isn't the best way to end an edit war.Dejvid 18:29, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

First, I resent repeatedly being called a troll... second if you're going to revert my edits, then please also go through this list [2] to revert all of Jguk's edits. Sortan 18:34, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Way forward

Dejvid, thanks for your comments on my talk page. The strange thing is, we already have an effective compromise - don't change articles that are consistent in their style. It's just a shame not everyone can respect it. As for Sortan, as a troll, his edits should be reverted on sight - unfortunately it creates a lot of hassle when we do have a troll (as poor RickK found on many an occasion). It creates a lot of work for good editors, but if we don't stand up to them, WP would be overrun by them. I'd welcome your support in getting rid of Sortan asap, jguk 18:52, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It does, and thanks to the efforts of a number of editors, Sortan has been reverted in almost all instances - so I think this task is already done. If we see him edit again, we should just revert whatever he's done, jguk 19:11, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

suzerainty

The change "it was often suzerain to neighboring powers" -> "it was often under the suzerainity of neighboring powers" is exactly right, thanks :) --Joy [shallot] 17:27, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hadrian

Hi Dejvid - thanks for the note; on 'thru', yes it is a (primarily US) variant spelling, but not a common one - even in the US, it is used mainly colloquially, not in formal text. Elsewhere in Wikipedia, I've seen 'thru' used on talk pages, but I can't recollect seeing it in any other article. I would regard it in the same way as the wiki style guide recommends against other colloquialisms like "it's" for "it is". Of references, they generally follow what they refer to, not precede it - starting a sentence with a reference looks very odd, which is why I moved the fullstops the other side - MPF 11:08, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient Egyptians naming conventions

Hi Dejvid,

Wikipedia has already

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ancient Romans)

which I rather like, what would you think of something similar like

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ancient Egyptians)

Anyhow, I suppose the thing would need some consideration, if you see

List of Pharaohs

and

Egyptian chronology (which contains a "cleanup" message)

and

Conventional Egyptian chronology

...each of these using more or less its own naming system (and these lists don't even contain non-regnal Egyptians, neither non-pharaoh deities, neither Egyptians in the Roman age...).

So probably not the easiest topic you chose with many opinions going around... But don't let that stop you! There are surely wikipedians wanting to assist, see for instance Wikipedia:WikiProject Ancient Egypt...

Don't know whether this helps, maybe just taking your courage together and start the Ancient Egyptians NC would be a step that hurts nobody. --Francis Schonken 07:31, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Amphictyonic Council

In Amphictyonic Council, you put the title of the page itself into the merge message. With what page should it have been mergend?--J heisenberg 14:29, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki process

Thank you; I may yet ask to support such a PoV. Wikipedia:WikiProject inconsistency? Septentrionalis 23:16, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ultramarine

Ultramarine, in his arbitration proceedings, is claiming that you consider me to be a rigid Marxist. See Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Ultramarine/Evidence#18_September_2005. (Two of the footnotes link to your last edits in Talk:Slavery in antiquity.)The relevance of all this to the questions actually at issue is somewhat distant; but would you mind commenting on the evidence page?

Giving evidence will not involve you in the arbitration. If I read the instructions correctly, you should not comment directly on Ultramarine's remarks, but make a separate main section for your own testimony.

Thanks. Septentrionalis 04:48, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Poliorcetes

You're right, but I put "seiger of cities" for the alliteration, and because I think Rhodes was his major failure - and therefore notable. Septentrionalis 23:23, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dominion of Melchizedek

Greetings Mr. Barnsdale: Noticed that you have reverted this article before. Have a look at "just the facts" heading on Dominion of Melchizedek talk page and please let me know if this is the right approach and your thoughts, if you want to help to find a consensus for this subject. KAJ 19:54, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Note this is a Johnski sockpuppet. Davidpdx 07:36, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I have noticed the signs of sock pupetry. And while I was briefly taken in my his concern for consensus I have seen thru that too. Calling him a vandel, however, does seem to me incorrect and worse it may lead to the casual observer thinking it is he that is the reasonable one. Which is not to say that, if I had for a longer period been debating with someone who thinks an obvious hoax should be given serious consideration, I might not now be using the v-word.Dejvid 09:06, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point, however there is no other means in which to describe his behavior. Most importantly, I am glad your aware of the situation. Thanks for your continued help. Davidpdx 09:11, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dejvid, thanks for adding your name to the arbitration list. I think you also might have added some evidence, which is also appreciated. I'll let everyone know when we start the arbitration process. Davidpdx 06:37, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Srpskohrvatski jezik

Hi David,

I'm node_ue from the Serbocroatian Wikipedia.

I changed the "glavnadobrodosli" template to say "stokavski" instead of "srpskohrvatski". The reason for this was that on Wikipedia-l, people have discussed the problem that most Bosnians and Croatians find the name "srpskohrvatski" offensive, so I thought it would be better to use a less objectionable term.

I thought it would be best to use "jugopazdnoslovenski" or "stokavski", as both seem accurate descriptors of the language. So, I changed it to "stokavski", but I was reverted a few hours later.

I'm eager to hear your thoughts on the matter -- should we keep "srpskohrvatski" despite the fact that it may offend some, or should we change it to something else despite the fact that it may be less accurate, more confusing, and/or still offensive to some? --Node 22:26, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Arbitration

You have been requested to appear as a plantiff an arbitration case. Comments have been added on your behalf. If you wish to add comments please contact me. Here is a link to the case [3] Davidpdx

David, your statement on terms of the arbitration was placed in the wrong area. It should be above Johnski's statement. Can you please fix it? Thanks.. Davidpdx 03:32, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration accepted

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Johnski has been accepted. Please place evidence at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Johnski/Evidence. Proposals and comments may be made at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Johnski/Workshop. Fred Bauder 04:11, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

WP quote in DOM article

David, I was looking at the Washington Post quote in the DOM article. It does seem like the quote is a little sloppy. I'm not sure who put it in there, but I wanted to get your take on what we could do. What do you think about just putting the words, "you get the feeling" back into the quote, or even just removing the quote completely. Please let me know what you think ASAP. Davidpdx 00:50, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It seems okay to me. The version I've read was from the DOM site but it did look as they did no more that adding inline comments. That they considered it a ruse is pretty explicit. What do you see as the problem.Dejvid 06:44, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, that's just one of the things he's complaining about quite a bit. It seems small and I thought perhaps we could try to compromise on that one thing to prevent any more reverts for the time being. I'm trying to get everyone to leave the article alone while arbitration is decided. Maybe it's a stupid idea. I know that one person has already expressed displeasure at the idea, which makes me wonder if the group consensus will be the same reaction.

I'll wait to hear back from some others, but by your statement I'm taking it your ok with that. Which would you prefer, leaving it out or just putting in the rest of the statement. Please let me know. Davidpdx 08:36, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration Talk Page

I have created a special arbitration talk page. This is to discuss what evidence we want as a group and to present and make recommendations before putting them on the arbitration page. Please feel free to make suggestions here:[4] Davidpdx 07:36, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have begun to post evidence. Hopefully some of you can help me a bit with this. It's turning out to be a lot of work. Davidpdx 10:39, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Last Call

Ok guys, this is a last call for evidence. No one has posted evidence besides myself. At the end of this week, I'm going to let the Arbitration Committee know that we are done.

When recommendations are made, I will need you guys to check in and sign on that you agree with them. Otherwise this will be all for not. I intend on asking for a six month ban for Johnski from Wikipedia as well as 1 year probation from editing DOM related articles. Davidpdx 01:37, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration Proposed Decision

Just to make everyone aware, arbitrators have begun to write the proposed decision in the arbitration case. You can view the decision here:[5].

So far no punative measures have been offered to solve the problems regarding the behavior of those involved. I strongly urge people to post comments asking for a stronger proposed decision from the Arbitration Committee. Otherwise, this will be all for nothing. We need to lobby them to get a ban on users as well as having them banned from editing certain articles for a period of time. There needs to be a clear message to those involved to stop reverting the article. Your comments can be left here: [6].

I know this is a busy season for everyone, but this will only take a few minutes. We need to deal with this now. If not, this problem will continue to disrupt Wikipedia. Davidpdx 00:24, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Johnski Arbitration Case

Just a quick update on the arbitration case, two new arbitrators voted and there now might be enough votes to close the case finally. We need to keep an eye on this and make sure whatever solution that passes is fully implemented.

I'm pushing for a little bit tougher outcome, but realistically it's probably not going to happen. If you have time, please make some comments at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Johnski/Proposed decision. Hopefully, semi-protection will be enough. Davidpdx 12:06, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RFAR closed

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Johnski

This request for arbitration is closed. Dominion of Melchizedek and associated articles, shall be semi-protected. If necessary, Johnski (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log), or any other editor believed by an administrator to be a sockpuppet or meatpuppet of Johnski, may be blocked indefinitely by any administrator. The article may be unprotected (and reprotected) at the discretion of any admin who deems it safe to do so.

For the Arbitration Committee, --Ryan Delaney ^talk 04:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

templates substituted by a bot as per Wikipedia:Template substitution Pegasusbot 08:06, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Contraction and Convergence

Hello Dejvid,

I write concerning the above page. On March 7, User:72.224.95.121 tagged the page as a copyright infringement of the text here (pdf). You removed the copyright tag on March 20 with the edit summary (revert - if there is problem fix it).

Please note that the {{copyvio}} tag may not be removed in this fashion, nor may a tagged page be edited once the template has been placed. As the tag itself states:

Note that simply modifying copyrighted text is not sufficient to avoid copyright violation — it is best to write the article from scratch.

Editors who would like to write a new article on the topic should do so on a subpage, a link to which is generated by the template.

To come to the matter at hand, the article in its present form is a clear copyright infringement. Comparing the current version to the tagged original I find that the text is essentially a direct copy of material found on pages 2 and 3 of the pdf document linked above; I count only 2 or 3 new sentences/rephrasings, one word substitution (formula for calculus) and some spelling changes (the British to the American). Even the supercripted reference numbers are those of the original, as are the entire list of external links—unsurprisingly, as the thing was initially lifted in its entirety from that document. It cannot remain on Wikipedia, and I have little choice but to delete it.

From the energy with which you contributed to the page, I surmise that you must feel it quite important for Wikipedia to have an article on "Contraction and Convergence". If there is anything that I can do to assist you in writing an original contribution, please let me know. I will of course be unable to restore the page, or the page history, these actions being forbidden by our copyright conventions. But as the text was essentially identical to the GCI pdf which is easily viewable, I hope that this will pose no problems. Very kind regards —Encephalon 19:59, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why POV?

Hi there, I'm wondering about your recent edit to modern Celts. What makes you think that the word "reclaimed" is POV? And whose POV? I mean, I guess I'm wondering because I wrote that sentence originally, and I have no patience for noble savagery. Cheers, Quartier Latin1968 23:37, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Because to use reclaimed assumes that it was faithfully reacreating something that had before existed." Ah, I see, here's the misunderstanding. I was using the word 'reclaim' in the way that gay people have reclaimed words like 'queer', or feminists have reclaimed 'girl' or 'cunt'. It's not a question of recreating anything, just revalorizing it (and taking possesssion of it). But I agree, it's not worth getting into a revert war over! Best, Quartier Latin1968

16:34, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Enya: Phonemic or phonetic?

I believe your recent edit to Enya is incorrect. The assertion is that the Irish language pronunciation of "Eithne Ní Bhraonáin" and the English language pronunciation of "Enya Brennan" sound similar to the ear, which smacks of wikt:phonetics to me. For it to be wikt:phonemic, the claim would have to be that either the Irish language or English language pronunciation of "Eithne Ní Bhraonáin" and "Enya Brennan" are the same in that specific language. As I understand it, phonemics is basically about context, while phonetics is basically about sound. RossPatterson 16:48, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point as well, but just for the record the Irish spelling isn't in the English alphabet. There are no diacritical marks in English. The fact that English and Irish can both be rendered in the glyphs of the ISO-8859-1 "Latin 1" character set is deliberate, but it's a computer artifact, not a linguistic intention. But to be honest, I think we're both splitting hairs, so I'll leave the result at whatever it turns out to be. RossPatterson 17:56, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Thru is not a typo

Hi there,

I disagree with that. In the majority of cases I see it (eg 'sections 32 thru 35', 'Monday thru Friday', 'Data flows thru the pipeline'), it is not correction. The only cases I can find that are valid are in song titles, and American phrases such as drive-thru, cut-thru and thru-hike.

That said, I'll remove it from my spell list for the moment, as I've plenty of other corrections to make. Cheers, CmdrObot 19:04, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

oo

Zvdravo, are you from maribor, im from maribor

Just war

I've added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Just war, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree, discuss the issues raised at Talk:Just war. If you remove the {{dated prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached.

Since you worked on this article, just letting you know... Armon 00:35, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

no problem -hope your shoulder gets better soon. Armon 12:43, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I replaced the merge tags on Just war and Just War. I don't know if you plan to do more work on these and anticpated deprecation of these tags, or perhaps had another reason, but I think it's important that those who run across these articles individually in the meantime be aware of the mutual existence. ENeville 17:02, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sparta

Please take a look at the Sparta page. User Miskin insists on calling it a World Power or a Superpower, neither of which I believe is appropriate. NN 13:21, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again Dejvid, Would you please take a look at Sparta. The current introduction says Sparta was a superpower that "overpowered" both Athens and Persia. I think this is wrong because the link says that a superpower is able to "project power on a worldwide scale;", which I think does not apply to Sparta. I have tried moving the text to farther down the article by users Miskin and Domitius insist on keeping it in the introduction. Regards, NN 20:20, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BC/BCE pages

Hello!

You seem to be missing my point here. The BCE year articles are redirects to the BC year articles and you shouldn't link to redirect pages if you can avaoid it. Rather, you should link directly to the page on which the article is. Secondly, if it were the other way around, that the BCE year articles were the ones where the articles are and the BC pages were redirects to them, I would change the links from BC to BCE. Would the form [[100 BC|100 BCE]] be agreeable? /Ludde23 ^{Talk Contrib} 13:20, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FreeLords

A "{{prod}}" template has been added to the article FreeLords, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but yours may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Marasmusine 12:01, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strange request

Hello. I see that you are an administrator on sh Wikipedia. I stumbled across .sh today, and noticed the Site Notice is fairly out of date, still showing the fundraising drive bar at the top. .sh appears to be the only wiki still having this. See ~~http://sh.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki:Sitenotice~~ http://sh.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki:Anonnotice. It takes an admin to edit the MediaWiki interface, so rather than asking for special permission, I figured I'd ask you (as you speak English and are one of the only active admins on that wiki). I hope you don't mind. Thanks. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:47, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, right after I left you this message, I stumbled across OC Ripper's page. http://sh.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:OC_Ripper#The_Site_Notice. Thanks. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 09:21, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

mysql

You misspelled "program", since the sentence didn't really seem to add anything to the introduction it was easier to just undo it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Timl2k4 (talk • contribs) 14:59, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of History of West Eurasia

An article that you have been involved in editing, History of West Eurasia, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/History of West Eurasia. Thank you.

BC or BCE

Hi! In Greeks in Egypt you insist on BCE in the dates. Why, since all the date-articles are written with "BC"? - Sthenel 23:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The compromize has been to favor the status quo. This is because every time there has been a discussion opinion and for that mater arguments have been equal for both forms.Dejvid 09:39, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The fact is that the links in the articles should be refreshed according to the changes, however you do the opposite, you block this procedure for no reason by keeping links in the article to redirect pages. All the articles use the "BC" instead of "BCE" and everyone is free to replace it even in the articles that you are interested in. PS: The articles, that we have included in our watchlist and we are contributors to, don't belong to us so we don't have the right to practice our favorite style in them especially when it doesn't keep step with the general rules. - Sthenel 11:28, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The best solution is to update the article according to wikipedia's policy and other updates. - Sthenel 05:25, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect links were implemented because each time the title of an article changed, all the links to it throughout wikipedia would be dead. - Sthenel 09:04, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Policy states that the dating nomenclature used originally in the article should not be changed unless for substantive reason. Your personal preference is not a substantive reason. You changed all the dates to BCE/CE in September, what is your issue?? 173.77.236.54 (talk) 05:40, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the policy does not mention the original form - it is merely conservative for all cases.Dejvid (talk) 11:08, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

History of western Eurasia

Another editor has added the "{{prod}}" template to the article History of western Eurasia, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 20:14, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of History of western Eurasia

An editor has nominated History of western Eurasia, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/History of western Eurasia and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 21:44, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indira Varma

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, one or more of the external links you added to the page Indira Varma do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed. Wikipedia is not a collection of links; nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. --Yamla (talk) 21:50, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MoS length and complexity

Dejvid—Thank you for your interest in this matter. I believe that our styleguides are so substantial and involved at least partly because of the nature of English, which is—as Clive James put it—"big and baggy". The fact that so many anglophones all over the world can agree on so much about how their language should be optimised is extraordinary. All English-language style guides worth their salt are large.

I'm a professional editor, but found my knowledge of some of the technical features of the language improved after reading the MoS (and its important side-kicks, especially MOSNUM). More germaine than taking aim at the size and elaboration of these two style guides is the unwieldy structure and duplication in the 52 subpages of the MoS. Are you interested in joining the drive to rationalise them at WP:WikiProject Manual of Style? Tony (talk) 14:39, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for asking me. The fact you asked and the way you have asked is appreciated. However, I disagree that the problem is that it is badly structured. Duplication has some value in cases where a user wants to check usage because they fear they might otherwise write something which is incorrect English.

Essentially the need is to reduce not to rationalize.

But thanks for asking. Dejvid (talk) 23:03, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal

Please see WT:Only_make_links_that_are_relevant_to_the_context#Break 1 for the current discussion. I'm letting everyone know who has a comment on the relevant talk pages. Obviously, we're not going to push anything through without a full discussion of every issue, including whether to merge at all. My sense is that there's wide agreement on all the big points, but the devil is in the details.

P.S. I also support "E.U. enlargement in a westerly direction" :) - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 18:52, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Population control

Hi there. You have worked on the population control article about a year ago, however you had trouble finding sources... if you are still interested in working on the article you can find sources at [7]. Best --SasiSasi (talk) 19:28, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hasdrubal I of Carthage

Hey - so I've left your edit (for now) that Hasdrubal was the King of Carthage instead of being King of the Carthaginian Empire.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but (as the Carthaginian Empire article states) the Empire lasted from 575 BCE until 146 BCE. Since Hasdrubal ruled during this time period, how was he not the monarch of the Empire? Bsimmons666 (talk) ^Friend? 15:39, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a plan to me. Bsimmons666 (talk) ^Friend? 16:37, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re:History of Sparta

Hi, Dejvid, I'll beign by saying what a great job you've done so far with the article. It is looking great. The main issue that needs to be addressed is that several paragraphs don't have any citations. If the number of citations is improved then I have no problems what so ever reassessing the article. Keep up the good work! Kyriakos (talk) 22:47, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Appius Claudius Caecus

I may be missing something but ... Appius Claudius Caecus is already in "Category:Roman Republican consuls" so isn't adding 4th-century BC rulers both redundant and risking swamping that cat with consuls?Dejvid (talk) 10:14, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I (and whoever miscategorized Appius Claudius Caecus in "Ancient Roman dictators") misread his article that he (and not his father) was dictator in 337 BCE. --Carlaude ^(talk) 05:03, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re:History_of_Sparta

I'll take a look at it and get back to you ASAP. Kyriakos (talk) 21:45, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great job with the article so far. To become B-Class, it just needs the last and frist section to be cited. I'll try help you with that. On top of that, you will need a seperate list of sources that you have used and a bigger lead will be needed. All this will be needed if you plan to nominate the article for GAC in the future, which I hope you do. Kyriakos (talk) 22:27, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

3RR and ENGVAR/ ISE

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing.

Also let me please explain to you WP:ENGVAR. No specific style of English is correct on wikipedia, all styles are allowed to be used. However whatever style is used, the page must be consistent (must be used throughout the article and not mix two styles). ISE spelling is preferred in standard British English, whereas IZE is OED (a type of British English) and American English. There is currently an archived consensus on the article "International recognition of Kosovo" to use British English with ISE spellings, therefore we must use the ISE spelling throughout the article. We are not meant to mix two styles IZE and ISE, so due to the article consensus we are to use ISE spellings as this is what was agreed. Also currently throughout the article, ISE spellings are used. When you edited the article you used IZE spelling, I changed it to ISE because of the consensus but also because it looks messy with two different types of spellings used. Once a consensus is established, were are not to change the style used unless there are strong national ties to the topic, which there isn't in our case. So on this particular article ISE spellings are used, on different articles different spellings are used for different reasons. I hope this makes sense. Regards Ijanderson (talk) 22:31, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

4 reverts in 24 hours on one article violates the 3RR, I was just warning you not to violate the rule. The ISE:IZE has a ratio of 3:2 in the UK, to many people IZE is seen as an Americanism. Also ISE is popular in commonwealth countries such as Australia, New Zealand and India, but not in Canada as the US has more influence on them and consequently IZE is more popular there. Almost all mainstream British media uses ISE, so does the Govt, NHS, EU ect. IZE is more common in Oxbridge, Journals and the MOD/ NATO. But both ISE and IZE are acceptable in British English. Please see WP:IZE for more. If you search the archives you will be able to locate past discussions on language usage. Also remember to stick to the existing style which is used. There are some exemptions, such as quotes, book/ film names, the name of Organisations such as NATO uses IZE, so when writing its full name we have to spell it as "North Atlantic Treaty Organization", not ISE as that is not how NATO is officially spelled. Ijanderson (talk) 01:35, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also if I recall, one of the reasons why it was decided to use British English ISE version was because the Kosovo-Serbia dispute is seen as a European affair, so the European style of English was decided to be the variant for the article and so the Style of English used by the European Union and Council of Europe was to be used and that is the ISE version. Also Malta and Ireland do not use IZE at all and since the British Govt uses ISE, and this is a political/ Governmental dispute, ISE seemed more appropriate. Ijanderson (talk) 02:01, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]