Re: The Weight of Wallace's Sword
Hmm. That was an honest misreading of a diff screen on my part (I thought the change was to 6 rather than from 60), and I apologize for it. However, I don't know why you felt it necessary to question my comprehension—especially five days after the fact. We all make mistakes, eh? -- Hadal 04:36, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Many Thanks
Thanks for supporting my RFA. It couldn't have happened without your effort. FeloniousMonk 17:02, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
Inquiry?
Hi Adraeus. I just wondered whether your offer for me to join Inquiry was still open? You said on my talk page that you were thinking of taking it off-site, but I haven't heard anything since. Let me know if I can still help you :) Aaarrrggh 12:59, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
- I'm working 12-hour days. A lot of my projects are on hiatus. In the meantime, perhaps you could form some ideas for Inquiry? I'd be happy to register a domain and setup a virtual office/intranet to help those interested in developing such a project. Adraeus 05:38, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
I'm letting you know that I've just nominated myself for bureaucratship for the second time. If you didn't care to know about this, I apologize for the inconvenience. Andre ( talk) 02:40, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
Kindly take a look at Talk:John, Duke of Burgundy, where a poll is ongoing. Arrigo 10:54, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
Given that there was only one John, and that ordinals do not have to be used if there is only one of them, eg John of England, please consider casting a second simultanious vote for any other option you think correct. Philip Baird Shearer 18:13, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Hi, Adraeus. Thank you so much for your support on my bureaucratship nomination. Unfortunately, it didn't pass, but I intend to run again soon. If you'd like to be informed next time around, please let me know on my talk page. Thanks again! Andre ( talk) 05:18, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
- Yeah, I know. You may want to take a look at the discussion on User talk:UninvitedCompany and Wikipedia:Bureaucrat consensus poll. It should make matters clear. Andre ( talk) 00:52, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (names and titles)#Ordinals of medieval personages 217.140.193.123 04:11, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
Image:Allan_C_Wilson.png links to a permission on your page that is no longer there. This needs to be visible. It is probably better to include it on the image page, and send a copy to permissions@wikimedia.org. Justinc 17:25, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
-
[1]
Adraeus 23:14, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
- hmm, thanks for the link. Thats a bit weak as a permission - wikipedia doesnt publish official biographies. That doesnt seem to be a GFDL permission for the text, and it still leaves the image with a very unclear license. As the "official" biography
[2] is sourced from other sources I would suggest rewriting it from scratch based on those, or asking for a verifiable GFDL permission.
Justinc 00:14, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
- I have permission via e-mail from the Allan Wilson Centre to publish that biography specifically to Wikipedia. I still have that e-mail. Any disputes about the validity will clearly come to me first before any action is taken regarding any threatened or inferred deletion. You seem to be ignoring the fact that the official biography may reference other biographies but it is, in fact, unique (with exception for a few statements here and there) and thus the copyright is held by the Allan Wilson Centre, the organization that Allan Wilson's family supports. The permission to republish the official biography to the
Allan Wilson article was granted on 12 September, 2004, at 7:51 PM by
Tim White You can contact him for an extended discussion of any issues you have with the existence of the biography.
Adraeus 13:55, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
- No I think you misunderstand. I am not trying to delete anything. I just want to know what the terms are. Is there any reason why you cant just post the email as sent so the permission can be verified and we can see the terms. I just came across the picture, but then looked at the text, and just want to know what sort of use they accept.
Justinc 01:10, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
- The only term was that a link to the center is displayed on Allan Wilson. Adraeus 04:09, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
- No I think you misunderstand. I am not trying to delete anything. I just want to know what the terms are. Is there any reason why you cant just post the email as sent so the permission can be verified and we can see the terms. I just came across the picture, but then looked at the text, and just want to know what sort of use they accept.
Justinc 01:10, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
- I have permission via e-mail from the Allan Wilson Centre to publish that biography specifically to Wikipedia. I still have that e-mail. Any disputes about the validity will clearly come to me first before any action is taken regarding any threatened or inferred deletion. You seem to be ignoring the fact that the official biography may reference other biographies but it is, in fact, unique (with exception for a few statements here and there) and thus the copyright is held by the Allan Wilson Centre, the organization that Allan Wilson's family supports. The permission to republish the official biography to the
Allan Wilson article was granted on 12 September, 2004, at 7:51 PM by
Tim White You can contact him for an extended discussion of any issues you have with the existence of the biography.
Adraeus 13:55, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
- hmm, thanks for the link. Thats a bit weak as a permission - wikipedia doesnt publish official biographies. That doesnt seem to be a GFDL permission for the text, and it still leaves the image with a very unclear license. As the "official" biography
[2] is sourced from other sources I would suggest rewriting it from scratch based on those, or asking for a verifiable GFDL permission.
Justinc 00:14, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
The article you created, Betrayal has been nominated for deletion. Jkelly 03:18, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
Hi, I've beend doing some tidying up of some of the English monarchs and have noticed you have set yourself a task of converting a bunch of early kings to the above infobox. I've been thinking along those lines as well. The kings William I of England to Henry VI of England use the Infobox Monarch template. I'm not sure if we could standardise on a single template, since different info is available for the earlier kings. This is just to let you know I'm thinking about the issue and may be able to refine your template, so you might not want to rush into the edit yet. Martin.Budden 23:29, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
- I haven't been using either template considering there's two and probably more. Until there's a standard template, I won't bother. Keep me informed. Adraeus 00:56, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
- OK I have a plan: I don't think it's possible to do a standard template, since there is a lot more information available for the later monarchs than the earlier monarchs. So what I propose is a set of templates (probably three) which all have the same parameter names. This means that if more info becomes available for a monarch, when you edit you can just change the template name and add the new parameter(s). Since there are 18 links to Template Infobox Monarch and only three to Template Infobox Biography Royalty I propose to use the former's parameter names, ie "date of birth" rather than "birth date" etc. I'll start with a basic template for the early monarchs (probably Ethelred I). This template will retain the style of the early tables for continuity, but when these are converted I'll change the style to reflect the later infoboxes. 206.165.101.124 20:34, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Here's what I've done, there are now four compatible templates:
Template:Monarch Basic Used for early English monarchs, so they can be templated in their curent style. Once all templated may change to Infobox Monarch Basic, if desired
Template:Monarch Basic no image as above, but when no image is available
Template:Infobox Monarch Basic Infobox style of Monarch Basic
Template:Infobox Monarch As Infobox Monarch Basic, but with more paremeters (currently most commonly used), not quite compatible with Infobox Monarch Basic, but I have a plan to make it so without breaking anything.
I've converted some of the early English and Wessex Kings to Monarch Basic. Once they are all converted it should be possible to just change the template to Infobox Monarch Basic and they will all take on the new style, if so desired. I've convered Harold Godwinson to Infobox Monarch Basic, and may do one or two more tonight.
My plan is to convert Alfred the Great - Edgar of England to Monarch Basic and to later Kings to Infobox Monarch Basic and then eventually swap them all to the Infobox style. Martin.Budden 00:40, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
- The "no image" templates are unneeded since the lack of imagery isn't rendered anyway. I also would like it if the equals signs had spaces on the left and right, but that's simply a style/clarity issue. The CSS style for the regular "Monarch Basic" templates are also extremely ugly, but again, that's an easy issue to resolve. You might want to look at Template:Infobox Company to see how the nice, clean look is done. Adraeus 10:54, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
You've missed the point about the regular (ie non-infobox) templates. They were deliberately designed to look like the non-templated tables used by the early kings, so that they could be added without immediately changing the style of these articles. However they have the same parameter lisk as the Infobox Monarch Template. This means now that the articles have been converted to template, you can just edit them, type "Infobox" in front of "Monarch Basic" and the article will take the new prettier style. The fact that the old ones are ugly doesn't matter, since we're going to get rid of them. Try it on Edgar of England,if you like, and see. The "rank" parameter stops being displayed when you do this, but the rank doesn't really follow a NPOV anyway, since it's not agreed who was the first King of England (there are at least three candidates).
The next step is to make the Infobox Monarch template compatible with the Infobox Monarch Basic template by replacing date1 & date2 with reign (date1 & date2 is not flexible enough, it doesn't deal with multiple or interupted reigns eg Sweyn I of Denmark). Then monarchs using Infobox Monarch Basic can be changed to Infobox Monarch if more information becomes available. Martin.Budden 14:02, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
- cross posted from User talk:Who
Do not remove the <!-- Categorization --> and <!-- Localization --> comments from articles. I will consider these removals vandalism. Adraeus 22:16, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
- I first ask you to review WP:Civil. I am not a random user, and to state removing commented out text is vandalism is a bit rash, much less to be told and not asked why it was done. Also, these edit summaries rv. mindless bot deletions are almost as rude. To begin with, I, not my bot removed those tags as part of cleanup, which you just reverted mindlessly as you put it. No text should exist with the category or interwiki links, and it is common practice to remove these types of links:
- <!--interwiki links-->
- <!--interwiki-->
- <!--categories-->
- <!--interlanguage links-->
- <!--other languages-->
As they are not useful. I ask that if you wish me to change my editing habits, that you ask why I did something and request that I no longer do it, but please do not demand and revert for no apparent reason. Thanks. ∞ Who ?¿? 22:39, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
- I run a similar bot which fixes category and interwiki links. User:Pearle#Algorithm includes a directive to remove this kind of HTML comment, for historical reasons. When I first started running the bot, it automatically added these comments, on the theory that some pages had them, they seemed useful, and they needed to be standardized. People complained that they were unneccessary, and asked that they be removed. They seemed to think that new editors could figure out what these links were for without the embedded comments. It doesn't make sense to have some articles with the comments and some articles without. Our bots operate with the permission of the community, so if you feel the need to change the requirements for the way they tidy interwiki and category link style, you'll need to take that up in a community forum. -- Beland 14:21, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
Re: The Weight of Wallace's Sword
Hmm. That was an honest misreading of a diff screen on my part (I thought the change was to 6 rather than from 60), and I apologize for it. However, I don't know why you felt it necessary to question my comprehension—especially five days after the fact. We all make mistakes, eh? -- Hadal 04:36, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Many Thanks
Thanks for supporting my RFA. It couldn't have happened without your effort. FeloniousMonk 17:02, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
Inquiry?
Hi Adraeus. I just wondered whether your offer for me to join Inquiry was still open? You said on my talk page that you were thinking of taking it off-site, but I haven't heard anything since. Let me know if I can still help you :) Aaarrrggh 12:59, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
- I'm working 12-hour days. A lot of my projects are on hiatus. In the meantime, perhaps you could form some ideas for Inquiry? I'd be happy to register a domain and setup a virtual office/intranet to help those interested in developing such a project. Adraeus 05:38, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
I'm letting you know that I've just nominated myself for bureaucratship for the second time. If you didn't care to know about this, I apologize for the inconvenience. Andre ( talk) 02:40, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
Kindly take a look at Talk:John, Duke of Burgundy, where a poll is ongoing. Arrigo 10:54, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
Given that there was only one John, and that ordinals do not have to be used if there is only one of them, eg John of England, please consider casting a second simultanious vote for any other option you think correct. Philip Baird Shearer 18:13, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Hi, Adraeus. Thank you so much for your support on my bureaucratship nomination. Unfortunately, it didn't pass, but I intend to run again soon. If you'd like to be informed next time around, please let me know on my talk page. Thanks again! Andre ( talk) 05:18, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
- Yeah, I know. You may want to take a look at the discussion on User talk:UninvitedCompany and Wikipedia:Bureaucrat consensus poll. It should make matters clear. Andre ( talk) 00:52, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (names and titles)#Ordinals of medieval personages 217.140.193.123 04:11, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
Image:Allan_C_Wilson.png links to a permission on your page that is no longer there. This needs to be visible. It is probably better to include it on the image page, and send a copy to permissions@wikimedia.org. Justinc 17:25, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
-
[1]
Adraeus 23:14, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
- hmm, thanks for the link. Thats a bit weak as a permission - wikipedia doesnt publish official biographies. That doesnt seem to be a GFDL permission for the text, and it still leaves the image with a very unclear license. As the "official" biography
[2] is sourced from other sources I would suggest rewriting it from scratch based on those, or asking for a verifiable GFDL permission.
Justinc 00:14, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
- I have permission via e-mail from the Allan Wilson Centre to publish that biography specifically to Wikipedia. I still have that e-mail. Any disputes about the validity will clearly come to me first before any action is taken regarding any threatened or inferred deletion. You seem to be ignoring the fact that the official biography may reference other biographies but it is, in fact, unique (with exception for a few statements here and there) and thus the copyright is held by the Allan Wilson Centre, the organization that Allan Wilson's family supports. The permission to republish the official biography to the
Allan Wilson article was granted on 12 September, 2004, at 7:51 PM by
Tim White You can contact him for an extended discussion of any issues you have with the existence of the biography.
Adraeus 13:55, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
- No I think you misunderstand. I am not trying to delete anything. I just want to know what the terms are. Is there any reason why you cant just post the email as sent so the permission can be verified and we can see the terms. I just came across the picture, but then looked at the text, and just want to know what sort of use they accept.
Justinc 01:10, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
- The only term was that a link to the center is displayed on Allan Wilson. Adraeus 04:09, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
- No I think you misunderstand. I am not trying to delete anything. I just want to know what the terms are. Is there any reason why you cant just post the email as sent so the permission can be verified and we can see the terms. I just came across the picture, but then looked at the text, and just want to know what sort of use they accept.
Justinc 01:10, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
- I have permission via e-mail from the Allan Wilson Centre to publish that biography specifically to Wikipedia. I still have that e-mail. Any disputes about the validity will clearly come to me first before any action is taken regarding any threatened or inferred deletion. You seem to be ignoring the fact that the official biography may reference other biographies but it is, in fact, unique (with exception for a few statements here and there) and thus the copyright is held by the Allan Wilson Centre, the organization that Allan Wilson's family supports. The permission to republish the official biography to the
Allan Wilson article was granted on 12 September, 2004, at 7:51 PM by
Tim White You can contact him for an extended discussion of any issues you have with the existence of the biography.
Adraeus 13:55, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
- hmm, thanks for the link. Thats a bit weak as a permission - wikipedia doesnt publish official biographies. That doesnt seem to be a GFDL permission for the text, and it still leaves the image with a very unclear license. As the "official" biography
[2] is sourced from other sources I would suggest rewriting it from scratch based on those, or asking for a verifiable GFDL permission.
Justinc 00:14, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
The article you created, Betrayal has been nominated for deletion. Jkelly 03:18, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
Hi, I've beend doing some tidying up of some of the English monarchs and have noticed you have set yourself a task of converting a bunch of early kings to the above infobox. I've been thinking along those lines as well. The kings William I of England to Henry VI of England use the Infobox Monarch template. I'm not sure if we could standardise on a single template, since different info is available for the earlier kings. This is just to let you know I'm thinking about the issue and may be able to refine your template, so you might not want to rush into the edit yet. Martin.Budden 23:29, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
- I haven't been using either template considering there's two and probably more. Until there's a standard template, I won't bother. Keep me informed. Adraeus 00:56, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
- OK I have a plan: I don't think it's possible to do a standard template, since there is a lot more information available for the later monarchs than the earlier monarchs. So what I propose is a set of templates (probably three) which all have the same parameter names. This means that if more info becomes available for a monarch, when you edit you can just change the template name and add the new parameter(s). Since there are 18 links to Template Infobox Monarch and only three to Template Infobox Biography Royalty I propose to use the former's parameter names, ie "date of birth" rather than "birth date" etc. I'll start with a basic template for the early monarchs (probably Ethelred I). This template will retain the style of the early tables for continuity, but when these are converted I'll change the style to reflect the later infoboxes. 206.165.101.124 20:34, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Here's what I've done, there are now four compatible templates:
Template:Monarch Basic Used for early English monarchs, so they can be templated in their curent style. Once all templated may change to Infobox Monarch Basic, if desired
Template:Monarch Basic no image as above, but when no image is available
Template:Infobox Monarch Basic Infobox style of Monarch Basic
Template:Infobox Monarch As Infobox Monarch Basic, but with more paremeters (currently most commonly used), not quite compatible with Infobox Monarch Basic, but I have a plan to make it so without breaking anything.
I've converted some of the early English and Wessex Kings to Monarch Basic. Once they are all converted it should be possible to just change the template to Infobox Monarch Basic and they will all take on the new style, if so desired. I've convered Harold Godwinson to Infobox Monarch Basic, and may do one or two more tonight.
My plan is to convert Alfred the Great - Edgar of England to Monarch Basic and to later Kings to Infobox Monarch Basic and then eventually swap them all to the Infobox style. Martin.Budden 00:40, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
- The "no image" templates are unneeded since the lack of imagery isn't rendered anyway. I also would like it if the equals signs had spaces on the left and right, but that's simply a style/clarity issue. The CSS style for the regular "Monarch Basic" templates are also extremely ugly, but again, that's an easy issue to resolve. You might want to look at Template:Infobox Company to see how the nice, clean look is done. Adraeus 10:54, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
You've missed the point about the regular (ie non-infobox) templates. They were deliberately designed to look like the non-templated tables used by the early kings, so that they could be added without immediately changing the style of these articles. However they have the same parameter lisk as the Infobox Monarch Template. This means now that the articles have been converted to template, you can just edit them, type "Infobox" in front of "Monarch Basic" and the article will take the new prettier style. The fact that the old ones are ugly doesn't matter, since we're going to get rid of them. Try it on Edgar of England,if you like, and see. The "rank" parameter stops being displayed when you do this, but the rank doesn't really follow a NPOV anyway, since it's not agreed who was the first King of England (there are at least three candidates).
The next step is to make the Infobox Monarch template compatible with the Infobox Monarch Basic template by replacing date1 & date2 with reign (date1 & date2 is not flexible enough, it doesn't deal with multiple or interupted reigns eg Sweyn I of Denmark). Then monarchs using Infobox Monarch Basic can be changed to Infobox Monarch if more information becomes available. Martin.Budden 14:02, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
- cross posted from User talk:Who
Do not remove the <!-- Categorization --> and <!-- Localization --> comments from articles. I will consider these removals vandalism. Adraeus 22:16, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
- I first ask you to review WP:Civil. I am not a random user, and to state removing commented out text is vandalism is a bit rash, much less to be told and not asked why it was done. Also, these edit summaries rv. mindless bot deletions are almost as rude. To begin with, I, not my bot removed those tags as part of cleanup, which you just reverted mindlessly as you put it. No text should exist with the category or interwiki links, and it is common practice to remove these types of links:
- <!--interwiki links-->
- <!--interwiki-->
- <!--categories-->
- <!--interlanguage links-->
- <!--other languages-->
As they are not useful. I ask that if you wish me to change my editing habits, that you ask why I did something and request that I no longer do it, but please do not demand and revert for no apparent reason. Thanks. ∞ Who ?¿? 22:39, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
- I run a similar bot which fixes category and interwiki links. User:Pearle#Algorithm includes a directive to remove this kind of HTML comment, for historical reasons. When I first started running the bot, it automatically added these comments, on the theory that some pages had them, they seemed useful, and they needed to be standardized. People complained that they were unneccessary, and asked that they be removed. They seemed to think that new editors could figure out what these links were for without the embedded comments. It doesn't make sense to have some articles with the comments and some articles without. Our bots operate with the permission of the community, so if you feel the need to change the requirements for the way they tidy interwiki and category link style, you'll need to take that up in a community forum. -- Beland 14:21, 11 October 2005 (UTC)