So that it is easier to follow a discussion, I will reply to messages left here on this page. If I have posted on your talk page, I will be watching so you can reply there if you wish.
On 7 May, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Peter Ellis Bean, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.
I saw the Manuel Gamio page come through while monitoring New Pages. It looks like you consistently make significant meaningful contributions and I wanted to give you this barnstar for that. —Gaffταλκ19:19, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, that's much appreciated. I started by translating the Spanish Wikipedia article, but then found quite a bit more information on line. I think he's definitely someone who needs an article here.
Hi Rockero, it's nice to hear from you again. The last I heard you expected to be busy in school and not available for much Wikipedia work. I look forward to your upcoming contributions. I also noticed Chief Moses was on your to-do list (but after I wrote the article — I'm not actually poaching on your list). We seem to have a significant overlap in our interests. --Rbraunwa13:51, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I shuld be busy with school, but sometimes I get on the wiki as a necessary distraction. I started looking into the tribes of the Colville Indian Reservation as part of the research on Yvonne Wanrow and other women who ended up fighting important cases against rapists, etc. It's funny how research becomes a sort of Garden of Forking Paths, isn't it? Well, I noticed that you wikilinked the Sin-kah-yous tribe. What I was thinking of, and haven't gotten around to doing, is creating a separate article for the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation (which is currently just a redirect to Colville Indian Reservation) that lists the tribes that ended up settling the res, with as much information as we can find about each. Then we could redirect all the tribes that became part of the confederation to that article, instead of having tiny articles about each one. I found a lot of good information in the text I used as a reference for the Rickard Gwydir article, and there is also dome good info on the Colville tribes site. What do you think?--Rockero23:41, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Don't worry about our overlapping interests. The goal is a good encyclopedia, not my personal glory! I'm sure I've stepped on plenty of toes in my time here. Peace.
I grew up in Moses Lake, Washington, so I heard about Chief Moses most of my life. However, I learned a lot researching the article.
I think that's an excellent idea on the Confederated Tribes. I can't say I know much about them, even growing up nearby. I couldn't name very many of them. If you want help with the article, let me know and I'll do some research. If you'd rather do it on your own, that's fine too.
Are you an administrator here? If you are interested in being nominated, I would be happy to nominate you. I am actullay very impressed by the amount of work you have contributed. —Gaffταλκ00:32, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Gaff. Thanks for the offer; it's an honor to be asked. However, I don't really have a good idea about what an administrator does, and how much time would be required. I don't want to take a significant amount of time away from writing. Are you an administrator? Can you give me some idea about what would be expected?
I notice you are from Portland. I attended Reed College for two years before transferring to the University of Washington. I have two brothers who live across the river in Vancouver, so I still get to Portland occasionally. A nice city.
Hello Robert: Being an administrator may not be for you, as it could take away from your writing time. Wikipedia:Administrators describes more what is involved. Basically admins have the ability to protect pages from vandalism and block vandal accounts. They are also viewed as trusted mediators when disputes arise between editors. I am not an admin, but would consider asking for the priviledge down the road, as I spend quite a bit of time cleaning up vandalism. Its frustrating to see somebody tearing through multiple articles changing dates or writing gibberish on others work...I have been in Portland for close to four years. Its really a great city. —Gaffταλκ22:26, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think I'll pass Gaff. I read the article on Administrators, and it looks like it would require more time than I would want to devote to it. I really like writing and editing, so I think I'll stick to that. If you are nominated, be sure to let me know, as I would like to support you. --Rbraunwa02:53, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DYK
On 24 May, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Sabine Free State, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
On 25 May, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Manuel Gamio, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
I don't agree with the reversion you made to Alonso de Ribera, and I had the intention of correcting the sorting of all articles I could find which don't include the "de" as part of the surname. The fact that it is commonly used, as in the category you cite, doesn't make it correct. I've put in an inquiry to Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language to see if there is any existing convention or preference. To further support my position, I just checked in the Chilean Telephone Directory and see that all surnames with da, dal, de, de la, del are sorted with the preposition as part of the surname. It might be different in Mexico but, in the end we need to be guided by English rules, not Spanish ones since this is an English publication. I have, at hand, an old edition of a Funk & Wagnalls Encyclopedia in which articles such as De Soto, Hernando and De Vries, Hugo are in the "D's", but in some cases such as De Kalb, Barron there is a cross-reference to an article in another location (Kalb, Johann). There is no cosistency, but the tendency is to include the "de" as the beginning of the surname unless the person is well known without it. In Chile, Pedro de Valdivia -- I think -- is more likely to be associated with de Valdivia, rather than Valdivia. --JAXHERE | Talk15:53, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jaxhere. Thanks for your message. There is a policy on this somewhere, but I'll have to hunt for it. It says basically that for individuals who are already known in English by a particular variant of their name (de Soto is a good example), the English Wikipedia article should follow that usage. For individuals who are not well-known among English speakers, the article should follow the subject's own usage. This latter proviso would cover most of the historial cases of "de" in Spanish names, I think. There was a debate about this at the Vasco da Gama article awhile back, and there they applied the second part of the rule rather than the first. That one surprised me, but I didn't follow all the details of the debate. I am also surprised about the Chilean phone book information. I haven't looked at Mexican phone books, but I have never (literally) seen a Spanish name containing "de" alphabetized under that particle in encyclopedias or historical works. Also, my unscientific impression about the current state at Wikipedia is that it overwhelmingly follows the rules I paraphrased above. --Rbraunwa16:17, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. This is not the policy I was looking for, but it's also relevant: "Where known, use terminology that subjects use for themselves (self-identification). This can mean using the term an individual uses for himself or herself, or using the term a group most widely uses for itself. This includes referring to transgender individuals according to the names and pronouns they use to identify themselves." (Wikipedia:MOS#Identity). I'm still looking for the other policy.
Rbraunwa, I've looked over the links you've provided and several others which seem to relate to the topic but most of these are dealing with the naming of articles, not the sorting of them in a category or list. If we were to follow the accepted practice of naming articles about people, the article about Alonso de Ribera would be in the "A's", not the "D's" or "R's". My concern here is the position of the name in a list, such as the Governors of Chile that you referred to. In a relatively short list, such as the one you mentioned, the order doesn't make a lot of difference, but we have to be aware of the fact that some of these names might be included in very long lists where the sequence becomes important. In the absence of a clear policy, I'd be inclined to follow the example used by the phone books in the US. --JAXHERE | Talk17:46, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jaxhere,
There is a problem with using the names and alphabetization of immigrants as a model for the names and alphabetization of historical figures. (The two things are closely related, since a person is alphabetized under his/her last name. The name has to be determined before the alphabetization can be done. Our disagreement is really about the names.) If we applied the U.S. phonebook rule to Polish names, the following names of historical figures are incorrect in Wikipedia because Polish immigrants to the U.S. have overwhelmingly dropped the diacritics: Bolesław Bierut, Ignacy Daszyński, Jarosław Kaczyński, Jędrzej Moraczewski. The same thing applies to Spanish names in Wikipedia (accents and eñes are retained for historical figures), even though some descendants of immigrants to the U.S. have dropped them (Lee Trevino for instance).
Another problem with the phonebook example is this. The link is to a U.S. national listing of telephone numbers. Searching for names beginning with "de " returns "more than 300" entries. That still leaves open the possibility that the overwhelming majority of names of this type are alphabetized under the other system. It would be impossible to check that.
A better model is other English-language encyclopedias. I have tried to assemble some links here that show how Britannica alphabetizes names, and also how various on-line encyclopedias do it. Most of these links are to index pages, because for most of these encyclopedias the article itself gives no clue to the alphabetization (as is also the case in Wikipedia).
Britannica print, Britannica CD and Britannica Online:
The same rules seem generally to apply to Portuguese, French and Italian names, although that is outside my area of expertise.
Add to this the current usage in English Wikipedia, where a large majority of these articles are alphabetized under the substantive name, not under the particle. In short, alphabetizing names under the particle "de" (at least from Spanish) is simply not standard English usage. The situation is not that different from "John Doe, Count of X" (or "conde de X"), which would clearly be alphabetized under "X" (or perhaps "Doe"), never under "of" or "de".
Rbraunwa, from the inquiry which I mentioned above at the reference desk, finally came the Wikipedia guideline which resolves this discussion:
People with multiple-word last names: sorting is done on the entire last name as usually used in English, in normal order and not (for example) according to the Dutch system that puts some words like "van", "vanden", "van der", etc... after the rest of the last name. Example: [[Category:A.C. Milan players|Van Basten, Marco]] (don't forget to capitalize the first letter of the last name in this case)
Exceptions:
Note that some people are typically called this way in English, for example: Beethoven, [[Category:Classical era composers|Beethoven, Ludwig van]]; similarly: Montesquieu, [[Category:Enlightenment philosophers|Montesquieu, Charles de Secondat, Baron de]]
This is from: Wikipedia:Categorization of people#Ordering names in a category and I think the lengthy discussion you mentioned but counldn't remember where you'd seen it is on the talk page for this subject. So, will you go along with the sorting order of Alonso de Ribera as De Ribera, Alonso, or would you like to try to get a new consensus on the existing guideline?
No, Jaxhere, I'm afraid I still don't agree. The guideline applies to "the entire last name as usually used in English". That's the rule that gives "De Soto" instead of "Soto", and I have no problem with that. But there is no form of "Alonso de Ribera" "as usually used in English". Hardly any English speakers would know who he was. It's simply not the case that "de Rivera" is his last name as usually used in English. And standard English usage is overwhelmingly in favor of "Rivera", as the examples above show. It's not possible to argue either that "de Rivera" is usual in English for this individual, nor that it is the usual rule that applies to all individuals with this type of name.
There is another analogy as well. At one time, there were English names that correspond almost exactly to this form, for example, Anselm of Canterbury, Adelard of Bath, William of Ware. These individuals are alphabetized in one of two ways — under the personal name (like the first two examples), or under the place name (like the third example), but never under "of [place name]". Persumably that was the case at the time, and it is certainly the case now, in Wikipedia and other reference works. Many non-English speakers whose names were translated into English (William of Ockham, for example), are handled the same way. He is never alphabetized under "of Ockham". [My mistake: William of Ockham was English. He wrote in Latin, but I don't know the Latin variant of his name. A non-English example would be Rainald of Dassel.]
The situation may be different in Dutch, I can't say. But from Spanish and probably from other Romance languages, English usage is very clear.
Thanks Jaxhere, I'll move my arguments over there. I would have posted there before, but I didn't know about the ongoing discussion. --Rbraunwa14:50, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
the challenge was
I thanks you very much the style revision, my challenge was in spanish version, an "administrator" considered two pages one of them for the expedition, really Ruiz is enough in this case. We want a page extra for the botanist Pavon. Also Ruiz et Pavón authority is well known.
--Penarc23:35, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Penarc. I'm glad I could help out. Thanks for adding the information. I wrote a lot of the English article on Hipólito Ruiz López, or more correctly I loosely translated the Spanish Wikipedia article. I meant to write on on Pavón as well, but couldn't find much information on line. I am not a botanist, but rather a historian. However, User:KP Botany, who wrote the original stub, is a botanist. You might want to contact him. I applaud your writing in another language. I read Spanish pretty well, but I would never be able to write an article for the Spanish Wikipedia. --Rbraunwa02:36, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
thank you rbraunwa
gracias by your wikification from my article on antonio imbert barreras.
Glad to help. I did a little more after your message, and removed the "wikify" tag.
On 20 June, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Paul Zweifel, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Image copyright problem with Image:Huitzilíhuitl.gif
Image Copyright problem
Thank you for uploading Image:Huitzilíhuitl.gif. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.
Thanks, Robert. I'm happy to meet you, for a couple reasons: 1) you're a splendid content contributor, in another area where we need coverage; 2) you also understand the problem some of us have been having. Here is another thread where this is being discussed, and this is where a couple of us poked a stick in the anthill. I'm rather pessimistic that it will help. What we may need to do is organize our own "Cleanup drive of the assessment drive" with experts in each area to fix the "ratings". What Wikipedia seems to be missing, and I might be saying this because I'm a manager in a corporate environment, is an overall mechanism for quality control. Not just for content, but for assessments of content. The "assessment drive" should be a QC mechanism, but it's not: it's a bunch of kids having a contest to see who can do the most the fastest.
Thank you for leaving me a note--half of the trouble here is thinking that one is alone, as Geogre pointed out on his talk page. Happy editing! Antandrus (talk)14:10, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Robert. I imagine that we are lacking exact birth years for many people, especially as you go further back in time. I think we should probably keep a birthyear category even it is a best guess. At the moment I have replaced the one you replaced with a by decade Category:1640s births but I shall look around and see if there is some convention regarding this. Regards Gustav von Humpelschmumpel23:10, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Gustav. Thanks for your note. I think it is important to use the decade rather than the year when the year is not known. Using a specific year in those circumstances is simply not correct, based on the knowledge we have. It implies a precision that isn't there (and in most cases never will be there). And different sources sometimes give different estimated years. Since yearly categories (like "1745 births") have direct links to the decades ("1740s births"), if you don't find what you're looking for on the first try it is actually easier to check the more general category than it is to check the one or two years on each side of the specific year. That will happen if you're working from a source that gives a different estimate for the year than we have in the article. And besides, these are precisely the circumstances for which the decade categories were created. Suppose you know the year is not known exactly; you're likely to go directly to the decade category.
There are quite a few of these approximate dates (around 10% in the decades I've looked at). I am not aware of a convention on this, although there may be one I suppose. It didn't seem very controversial to me. Perhaps you could share your arguments for the other method, both as to factualness and usefulness.
On 15 July, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Joseph Le Caron, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
For your contributions to biographies of minor historical figures on Wikipedia, your new article additions, your research, your editing, and your ability to work with others--everything Wikipedia needs in its editors. KP Botany20:01, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, KP! That's very flattering, and very generous of you. I hope I can live up to it. There seem to be an unlimited number of interesting minor historical figures. I'm having a lot of fun researching them. As to working with others — that's not always easy, but I try. Recognition like this cancels out a lot of frustration.
Thanks, Robert, it's nice to see you around, too. Please do post any Spanish colonial figures on my talk page, not just scientists, as I'm actually studying Spanish now, to do some translations from some Chilean works. I used to monitor your contributions to try to catch some of the bios, but my time at Wikipedia is limited. KP Botany20:19, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Zhao Yingcheng
On 21 July, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Zhao Yingcheng, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
On 23 July, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Guillermo Prieto, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
On July 24, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Marcin Czechowic, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Hi! I noticed that you added a number of links to "Lyons" from the above page. There are lots of cities, places and people called "Lyons". To which did you mean to refer? This page is a disambiguation page, and should not normally be linked to. Please change your edit to link straight to the appropriate page. For more information, please refer to WP:DPL. Thanks. Dontdoit01:10, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I recently reverted an edit on the Moses Lake page. I was not intending to revert your edit, but an IP that has been repeatedly banned and blocked from Wikipedia. His(or her) section on the ML page was very NPOV. A section on the shooting should be added at some point, but from a neutral standpoint and more encyclopedic tone. Also, nice to meet you, we two seem to be the primary contributors to the Moses Lake article. Sethwoodworth23:05, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, Sethwoodworth. My last edit to the article was copy-editing the shooting paragraph. I agree the shooting could be handled better.
Do you live in Moses Lake? I grew up there, and attended kindergarten through 12th grade in ML schools. I graduated from high school in 1966 and have lived in various places since.
Yes! :) I got my AA here a few years ago, and now am finishing my BA online. When was the last time you visited the area? It's changed quite a bit in the last several years. I probably know several of the people that you graduated with. Tom Connelly? Lew Mason? I think they are a few years older than you. Did you know the Woodworths or the Horns? The Rosenows? Quite a bit of extended family of mine in the area.
Things are going pretty well here. Industry is expanding, there is a hint of art and culture (still being nursed). The internet is starting to make it's way into the area, albeit slowly. People are even starting to learn what Wikipedia is ;). Sethwoodworth23:26, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the late reply, but I've been sick. I lived in Cascade Valley. Rick Rosenow was a close neighbor and Clifford Horn, before he drowned right after high school, was a more distant neighbor. His mother Jody and my mother Dorothy were close frieds. --Rbraunwa23:35, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
on CROIZAT
Dear Sir
en el articulo de Leon Croizat, he realizado alteraciones mayores
agrecedere lo vea, si el tenor ya es adecuado para una biografía de interes para biologos, la version anterior era un plagio como lo señale en el "posteo" (subida de archivo) correspondiente (seguro que usted estáal tanto del resumen Morrone, hay un link en la version actual).
Regards
--Penarc18:49, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't edit this page, but I'm glad you caught the plagiarisn. It would be a good idea to have a native English speaker correct the article. It is difficult to understand. --Rbraunwa20:34, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
R.I.P.
I have just received news of the passing of Robert Braunwart. Thank you for your wonderful edits and articles, you will be greatly missed here on Wikipedia. Your memory will live on in your articles, you will not be forgotten. May you rest in peace, amen. Gryffindor08:55, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you need someone to talk to, I'm here. Just post on my talk page. I lost my mother a few years ago and it's still difficult. Her doctors were incompetent, and so are mine. I hope to revive the system and make it better. I'm sorry for your loss. - Cyborg Ninja05:11, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
