User talk:RedMC

Dropping "the"

Can you be specific about what it is in Wikipedia:Manual of Style that you claim requires the dropping of the definite article in "The Palimpsests history"? Michael Hardy 21:02, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you unwilling to answer this question? Do you just want an edit war?

I see that you also changed The positive-discriminant case to Positive-discriminant case. To me that edit makes sense. But it's as if you think the situation in Archimedes Palimpsest is like that, so that the same rule could apply. Obviously (to one who knows English) the two situations are not similar in the relevant respect. Michael Hardy 21:28, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did not see this post, as you added two posts at the same time. The link you need is Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings)#Wording. I'll save you some effort (you seem not used to check MOS), and reproduce the relevant text here:

"'The', 'a' and 'an' should be omitted from the beginning of heading titles. Thus 'Mammals', not 'The mammals'."

Next time, assume good faith.--RedMC 21:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It makes perfect sense to say "Mammals" rather than "The mammals", but it is absurd to say "Palimpsest's modern history" rather than "The Palimpsest's modern history, when you're talking about one particular palimpsest and capitalizing the initial P because it's an abbreviated proper name. Michael Hardy 22:25, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was sure you are the type who finds always a reason to be right. This is your opinion. However, not it is "Modern history", so end of the story, ok?--RedMC 22:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Archimedes' use of infinitesimals

Why do you insist on putting "infinitesimal" in the singular in the first sentence, saying "Archimedes use of infinitesimal is...." rather than "Archimedes use of infinitesimals is....". Also, in your second sentence, you act as if the person you're referring to has not previously been mentioned in the article. Michael Hardy 21:06, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you simply correct grammar errors without sporting this annoying teacher-like behaviour?--RedMC 01:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Flag of Poland

Please refer to flag of Poland. This subject is being hotly debated, but your unilateral edits in this article are against the consensus in the aforementioned article, and on pl.wiki. --lcamtuf 11:58, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see consensus on this matter on Talk:Flag of Poland. And agreements reached on pl.wiki are not authoritative here.--RedMC 12:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your note. Replying: One thing you should certainly not do anymore is engage in a rewert war in Poland, Flag of Poland and template:Poland-stub, now that you are aware of meritorious opposition on this issue. You should also read the text of Flag of Poland and follow the links to Wikimedia Commons for the flags used. There, you will find English-language descriptions of changes made in the flags, and in the case of the widest-used depiction of a Polish national flag on the Wikimedia projects, commons:Image:Flag of Poland.svg, a thorough discussion of what's going on, and exactly how the situation is being resolved, as well as on what basis the changes were made, and links to sources compelling these changes. You should also engage in consensus building on the talk pages on English wikipedia, as you have done to a point -- on Talk:Flag of Poland, and if you like, Portal talk:Poland/Poland-related Wikipedia notice board. And, you should cool it. The issue is being addressed, and has been for a while now, ever since it was discovered that the widely used rendition of the Polish Coat of Arms is incorrect, which required generation of a new image, markedly different in drawing and colors from the old one, and the study of the situation of the flag, which by law is to share the national colors with the Coat of Arms. As hideous as you think the grayish (I prefer to think of it as silverish) white of the new rendition of the flag looks on a blazing monitor, think how much more hideous is having several shades of red involved in proximate display of the Polish flag and the Polish Coat of Arms -- which are to be representing the same Polish National Colors! Best wishes, --Mareklug ^talk 16:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You forget to tell me why we should accept without criticism a decision made on pl.wiki. Infact, you correctly tell me to build consensus, but you have yet to show me where is consensus, here on en.wiki I mean, to change the colour.

The major problem is not the change in colour, but the fact we can't decide for ourselves, but accept some other's decision.--RedMC 16:41, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dropping "BCE/CE" date designations

I see no reason to include both the "BC/AD" and "BCE/CE" designations on articles (of which I've only found one so far: Jesus). It looks clumsy and unencyclopedic. "BC/AD" has been around for centuries to designate dates and "BCE/CE" is young, is little used outside of certain circles and is extremely controversial (unlike the fabricated "controversy" about "BC/AD"). Jinxmchue 21:55, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So what?--RedMC 01:35, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

So buttons. Since I've come to Wiki, I've been bashed over the head over and over about how Wiki should be "encyclopedic." Well, how do you determine what is "encyclopedic" or not? You look at other examples of "encyclopedic" content. I did and I didn't see anyone else either using "CE/AD" or just "CE." Check Encyclopedia Brittanica online if you don't believe me. The clumsiness of "CE/AD" is painfully obvious, as is the controversy in using "BCE/CE." Jinxmchue 15:52, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why should I care? Why are you writing here?--RedMC 04:53, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

"BCE/CE" is now the academic standard in the English language, and is not really that controversial. "BC/AD" is archaic. Freshacconci 15:16, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, actually, it's neither standard nor archaic. Those are arguments of those who don't like what BC/AD represents. "BCE/CE" is used in limited academic circles and almost nowhere else. Jinxmchue 15:52, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

re: your note on my talk page. I have no problem with unilaterally changing the dating designations being against the rules (and you might want to leave a note about that on BenBurch's talk page, too). What I have a problem with is when the "BCE/CE" designations (or the afore mentioned clumsy "CE/AD" designation) is used on one specific article and no others. As I have pointed out elsewhere, "BCE/CE" is used nowhere else on Wiki that I can find. Just on the article about Jesus. Can you answer why that is? Jinxmchue 15:55, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Really? I will answer once more, then I do not want to hear about you, if you think you are allowed to waste my time, and not event spend some of your time researching: (1) there are plenty of articles that use BCE/CE style; (2) whatever you think, BCE/CE is perfectly legal here on Wikipedia; (3) in any case, do not change things against consensus. End of the communication.--RedMC 04:53, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

User notice: temporary 3RR block

Regarding reversions[1] made on December 10 2006 to Adolf Eichmann

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

The duration of the block is 8 hours. William M. Connolley 11:02, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unspecified source for Image:Correct_Flag_of_Poland.svg

Thanks for uploading Image:Correct_Flag_of_Poland.svg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 02:28, 25 January 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 02:28, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]