November/December 2007
The problem with articles on Swedish historical topics in the English Wikipedia goes far beyond these "old norse" topics (just look at Engelbrekt Engelbrektsson...). This is not because these articles reflect Swedish scholarship, but because they mostly ignore it. There are more references here to Herman Lindqvist, a contemporary journalist whose popular history books are generally dismissed as crap by real historians, than to Historisk tidskrift, the leading Swedish history journal which has been around for nearly 130 years and fills up some four or five metres of library shelf-space.
There are some standard reference works which should always be checked. In the "House of Munsö" debate, as in the one on Ragnvald Ulfsson, it is clear that the main participants have not yet made an effort to survey the available secondary sources beyond whatever they happen to have had right in front of them. Olaus 08:21, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Angus, I am sorry. This discussion doesn't really belong on your personal discussion page, and I have to apologize for taking up so much space here. You can move it to some more suitable page if you wish. Olaus 14:04, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Why did you declared end of the vote before it was ended ? I saw no closure of the vote regarding Toruń Tumult ? Also from what I can see there is no consensus and the votes are evenly split.-- Molobo 21:28, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
The evidence presented in those books is just regarding German language, we should use English on English wiki. However I see that for some reason you prefer Germanised version of the Polish city name. I doubt I can convince you otherwise, however the title can't be seen as neutral in that case. This subject has to be discussed further on talk page and the problem shown to potential readers by necessary tags. Best regards-- Molobo 22:14, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
You wrote "I have added the chrome, but this is not necessary, and I will not be making a habit of it." [1].
This is not about "chrome". Please be aware that I just spent 40 minutes reading and resarching this case and writing a well funded reply - all for a case that has been closed without a notice. Adding the template takes only seconds.
If you have a habit of closing surveys without marking them as closed, you will cause many people to needlessly read closed surveys. Maybe they realize that a survey was closed once they reach the bottom - after they, too, wasted some minutes for nothing. Who knows how often that has happened already? You value your time, but so do others. Please therefore, do invest those seconds to save everyone else more time and frustration. Thank you. — Sebastian 23:02, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
What? There was definitely not a consensus about the move! 3:3 means no consensus and even that the move request was not proposed as "Tumult of Thorn"! ≈Tulkolahten≈ ≈talk≈ 11:56, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
The image on en that is Image:X 2004.jpg has been copied to Image:X 2004 (1).jpg. commons:Image:X 2004.jpg on the commons will not get deleted, I just have to get the owner to put the correct permission up. Image:X 2004.jpg is not being used. How do you want to proceed? -- evrik ( talk) 00:06, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Can do ... but it's a little odd to say it cannot be used because it's copyright, but that we should copy it it instead. Ermmm ... not a lawyer, but isn't that what copyright is? Anyhooo, ... can do. -- sony-youth pléigh 15:58, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Angus, hope all is well. Anyways, someone has moved again Abernethy to Abernethy, Perth and Kinross, even after there had been a survey opposing it (though it was hardly overwhelming). I can't move it back because the move location has itself been edited. You prolly have no opinion on the matter, but can you move it back, and if the user in question still wishes to move it then he can still open a RfM. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk) 20:52, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
I am so confused! What do I need to do. You seem to have decided to allow the listing to be posted only to take it down?
Any chance you can email me directly at [redacted], b/c this way of communicating is awfully inefficient. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.158.92.162 ( talk) 15:45, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Why did the alliance for lupus research entry get taken down. it is a non profit charitable organization! what gives? —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
12.158.92.162 (
talk •
contribs)
Can you please explain to me why Alliance for Lupus Research is not up. It was taken down by someone else and I emailed all sorrts of press to them and they said it would be back up. Now you have takn it down and have not told me why!?
I am so confused. You restored it, then retook it down? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.158.92.162 ( talk) 15:24, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
I can't figure out how to start a new thread, but you deleted the Alliance for Lupus Research. Could you please tell me why. It is a non profit organization dedicated to curing lupus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.158.92.162 ( talk) 18:54, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
did you get the links toarticles i submitted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.158.92.162 ( talk) 21:03, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi Angus. just a quick word to ask what you think of the above and a few new stubs I wrote. Drasticly revised the golden age of article, by the way. -- Fergananim ( talk) 19:42, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Angus, thanks for sorting out the ISBN at the Alexander Stewart of Mar page. Didn't notice I had been logged off so I'll try and figure out how to use the unsigned template. Rgds, Bill Reid | Talk 15:17, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
I am not sure if that user knows Polish. Has s/he communicated somehow? I can translate a message into Polish, but what would that message be? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 19:58, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
...for helping me navigate the waters of my surprisingly peaceful
RFA, which closed successfully with 85 supports, 1 oppose, and 0 neutral.
I would particularly like to thank Acalamari and Alison, my nominators, and everyone who watched the page and ran the tally.
Your support means a lot to me, Angus; you've done so much for the project, and I am honoured to have your !vote of confidence. Oh, and if you hate RfA thankspam, please forgive me. I promise I won't block you in retaliation for deleting it ;-)
If there is anything I can do to be of service in the future, please feel free to contact me.
And forgive me if I need a Wikibreak now and then (like now. I'm exhausted!). You wouldn’t want to see me climbing the Reichstag, now would you?
Off to flail around with my new mop! (what?!)
What makes you think there's any broad consensus? This is obviously a matter on probably hundreds of people should be heard from, not just three or four who commented. Michael Hardy ( talk) 04:04, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Nobody suggested that you had to have edited math articles to do those things. But before you edit an article on how to do open heart surgery by altering some normative statement about how to do it, you ought to know something about it.
In the mean time, you've avoided my question. There was no consensus in the discusison on the talk page. Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics was notified of that discussion, and it looks as if it didn't seem necessary to comment since the discussion wasn't going anywhere. They were not notified of that other discussion where you say a "broad consensus" was reached, and in that other discussion, the issue is mentioned tangentially and tersely twice, with nothing resembling a consensus, and no evidence that anyone who could say they understood the matter participated. Michael Hardy ( talk) 14:40, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
If you were to find someone editing an article on how to do open heart surgery who knew nothing about it and was adding nonsense, he could say "I'm sorry, I wasn't aware that I had to know something about open heart surgery to edit Wikipedia articles." The "broad consensus" looked to me like several people disagreeing with each other---maybe three or four of five of them. Michael Hardy ( talk) 02:49, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Tx for the steps you undertook.
However, instead of being able to follow up the suggestions you left at my user page, a new problem presented itself, see [2] (3rd bullet, newly added paragraphs to that bullet, containing a suggestion to try to sort this out with you) - or go directly to Talk:Lists of mathematics topics#No consensus at all was reached on this move. This is bogus. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 10:29, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi. I noticed that you closed the discussion at Talk:Jallianwala Bagh massacre as "no consensus" to move. I disagree with your reading of the discussion, and I'd like to move the page as requested to Amritsar massacre. As far as I can tell, this is the common name of the event, and there are no existing articles with which the name could be ambiguous. Any ambiguity could be handled with a {{ dablink}}, at any rate.
I don't want to move the page without consulting first with you, since you were the closing admin. What do you think? - GTBacchus( talk) 01:25, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand what you mean about consensus being judged differently in XfDs than it is at RM. I'm not aware of supporting such a position. - GTBacchus( talk) 09:28, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Undindenting, here is a quite modern edition of the Britannica that does not call it the "Amritsar Massacre" that I saw when I was browsing Google books the other day. Interesting, no? I wasn't entirely convinced by the Dyer book either as the author was interviewed in The Hindu and referred to it as the "Jallianwala Bagh massacre" there. I didn't and I don't see this is at all clear cut. Nothing has been brought up since that makes me feel any more convinced by either name. If somebody, like you for example, wants to move it back to Amritsar Massacre on the grounds that it should never have been moved in the first place, that's fine, but I didn't find that convincing after there had already been a requested move since then. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:03, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! I do seem to be in remission these days, so I'm making the most of it. Hope to add about a dozen stubs and short articles before Christmas. If you know of anyone else interested in our subjects, let them know about my stuff, as I appreciate any and all feedback. Have a great Christmas and a happy 2008! Fergananiim —Preceding comment was added at 14:52, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Ha! You've unleashed the cur! You're right, I've got some unfinished business with Kali; will add some info in a wee while but thanks for the heads-up. - Bill Reid | Talk 09:57, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi Angusmclellan. Please consider adding your admin username to the growing list at Classification of admins. Best! -- Jreferee t/ c 23:01, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
November/December 2007
The problem with articles on Swedish historical topics in the English Wikipedia goes far beyond these "old norse" topics (just look at Engelbrekt Engelbrektsson...). This is not because these articles reflect Swedish scholarship, but because they mostly ignore it. There are more references here to Herman Lindqvist, a contemporary journalist whose popular history books are generally dismissed as crap by real historians, than to Historisk tidskrift, the leading Swedish history journal which has been around for nearly 130 years and fills up some four or five metres of library shelf-space.
There are some standard reference works which should always be checked. In the "House of Munsö" debate, as in the one on Ragnvald Ulfsson, it is clear that the main participants have not yet made an effort to survey the available secondary sources beyond whatever they happen to have had right in front of them. Olaus 08:21, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Angus, I am sorry. This discussion doesn't really belong on your personal discussion page, and I have to apologize for taking up so much space here. You can move it to some more suitable page if you wish. Olaus 14:04, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Why did you declared end of the vote before it was ended ? I saw no closure of the vote regarding Toruń Tumult ? Also from what I can see there is no consensus and the votes are evenly split.-- Molobo 21:28, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
The evidence presented in those books is just regarding German language, we should use English on English wiki. However I see that for some reason you prefer Germanised version of the Polish city name. I doubt I can convince you otherwise, however the title can't be seen as neutral in that case. This subject has to be discussed further on talk page and the problem shown to potential readers by necessary tags. Best regards-- Molobo 22:14, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
You wrote "I have added the chrome, but this is not necessary, and I will not be making a habit of it." [1].
This is not about "chrome". Please be aware that I just spent 40 minutes reading and resarching this case and writing a well funded reply - all for a case that has been closed without a notice. Adding the template takes only seconds.
If you have a habit of closing surveys without marking them as closed, you will cause many people to needlessly read closed surveys. Maybe they realize that a survey was closed once they reach the bottom - after they, too, wasted some minutes for nothing. Who knows how often that has happened already? You value your time, but so do others. Please therefore, do invest those seconds to save everyone else more time and frustration. Thank you. — Sebastian 23:02, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
What? There was definitely not a consensus about the move! 3:3 means no consensus and even that the move request was not proposed as "Tumult of Thorn"! ≈Tulkolahten≈ ≈talk≈ 11:56, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
The image on en that is Image:X 2004.jpg has been copied to Image:X 2004 (1).jpg. commons:Image:X 2004.jpg on the commons will not get deleted, I just have to get the owner to put the correct permission up. Image:X 2004.jpg is not being used. How do you want to proceed? -- evrik ( talk) 00:06, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Can do ... but it's a little odd to say it cannot be used because it's copyright, but that we should copy it it instead. Ermmm ... not a lawyer, but isn't that what copyright is? Anyhooo, ... can do. -- sony-youth pléigh 15:58, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Angus, hope all is well. Anyways, someone has moved again Abernethy to Abernethy, Perth and Kinross, even after there had been a survey opposing it (though it was hardly overwhelming). I can't move it back because the move location has itself been edited. You prolly have no opinion on the matter, but can you move it back, and if the user in question still wishes to move it then he can still open a RfM. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk) 20:52, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
I am so confused! What do I need to do. You seem to have decided to allow the listing to be posted only to take it down?
Any chance you can email me directly at [redacted], b/c this way of communicating is awfully inefficient. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.158.92.162 ( talk) 15:45, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Why did the alliance for lupus research entry get taken down. it is a non profit charitable organization! what gives? —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
12.158.92.162 (
talk •
contribs)
Can you please explain to me why Alliance for Lupus Research is not up. It was taken down by someone else and I emailed all sorrts of press to them and they said it would be back up. Now you have takn it down and have not told me why!?
I am so confused. You restored it, then retook it down? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.158.92.162 ( talk) 15:24, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
I can't figure out how to start a new thread, but you deleted the Alliance for Lupus Research. Could you please tell me why. It is a non profit organization dedicated to curing lupus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.158.92.162 ( talk) 18:54, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
did you get the links toarticles i submitted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.158.92.162 ( talk) 21:03, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi Angus. just a quick word to ask what you think of the above and a few new stubs I wrote. Drasticly revised the golden age of article, by the way. -- Fergananim ( talk) 19:42, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Angus, thanks for sorting out the ISBN at the Alexander Stewart of Mar page. Didn't notice I had been logged off so I'll try and figure out how to use the unsigned template. Rgds, Bill Reid | Talk 15:17, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
I am not sure if that user knows Polish. Has s/he communicated somehow? I can translate a message into Polish, but what would that message be? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 19:58, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
...for helping me navigate the waters of my surprisingly peaceful
RFA, which closed successfully with 85 supports, 1 oppose, and 0 neutral.
I would particularly like to thank Acalamari and Alison, my nominators, and everyone who watched the page and ran the tally.
Your support means a lot to me, Angus; you've done so much for the project, and I am honoured to have your !vote of confidence. Oh, and if you hate RfA thankspam, please forgive me. I promise I won't block you in retaliation for deleting it ;-)
If there is anything I can do to be of service in the future, please feel free to contact me.
And forgive me if I need a Wikibreak now and then (like now. I'm exhausted!). You wouldn’t want to see me climbing the Reichstag, now would you?
Off to flail around with my new mop! (what?!)
What makes you think there's any broad consensus? This is obviously a matter on probably hundreds of people should be heard from, not just three or four who commented. Michael Hardy ( talk) 04:04, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Nobody suggested that you had to have edited math articles to do those things. But before you edit an article on how to do open heart surgery by altering some normative statement about how to do it, you ought to know something about it.
In the mean time, you've avoided my question. There was no consensus in the discusison on the talk page. Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics was notified of that discussion, and it looks as if it didn't seem necessary to comment since the discussion wasn't going anywhere. They were not notified of that other discussion where you say a "broad consensus" was reached, and in that other discussion, the issue is mentioned tangentially and tersely twice, with nothing resembling a consensus, and no evidence that anyone who could say they understood the matter participated. Michael Hardy ( talk) 14:40, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
If you were to find someone editing an article on how to do open heart surgery who knew nothing about it and was adding nonsense, he could say "I'm sorry, I wasn't aware that I had to know something about open heart surgery to edit Wikipedia articles." The "broad consensus" looked to me like several people disagreeing with each other---maybe three or four of five of them. Michael Hardy ( talk) 02:49, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Tx for the steps you undertook.
However, instead of being able to follow up the suggestions you left at my user page, a new problem presented itself, see [2] (3rd bullet, newly added paragraphs to that bullet, containing a suggestion to try to sort this out with you) - or go directly to Talk:Lists of mathematics topics#No consensus at all was reached on this move. This is bogus. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 10:29, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi. I noticed that you closed the discussion at Talk:Jallianwala Bagh massacre as "no consensus" to move. I disagree with your reading of the discussion, and I'd like to move the page as requested to Amritsar massacre. As far as I can tell, this is the common name of the event, and there are no existing articles with which the name could be ambiguous. Any ambiguity could be handled with a {{ dablink}}, at any rate.
I don't want to move the page without consulting first with you, since you were the closing admin. What do you think? - GTBacchus( talk) 01:25, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand what you mean about consensus being judged differently in XfDs than it is at RM. I'm not aware of supporting such a position. - GTBacchus( talk) 09:28, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Undindenting, here is a quite modern edition of the Britannica that does not call it the "Amritsar Massacre" that I saw when I was browsing Google books the other day. Interesting, no? I wasn't entirely convinced by the Dyer book either as the author was interviewed in The Hindu and referred to it as the "Jallianwala Bagh massacre" there. I didn't and I don't see this is at all clear cut. Nothing has been brought up since that makes me feel any more convinced by either name. If somebody, like you for example, wants to move it back to Amritsar Massacre on the grounds that it should never have been moved in the first place, that's fine, but I didn't find that convincing after there had already been a requested move since then. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:03, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! I do seem to be in remission these days, so I'm making the most of it. Hope to add about a dozen stubs and short articles before Christmas. If you know of anyone else interested in our subjects, let them know about my stuff, as I appreciate any and all feedback. Have a great Christmas and a happy 2008! Fergananiim —Preceding comment was added at 14:52, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Ha! You've unleashed the cur! You're right, I've got some unfinished business with Kali; will add some info in a wee while but thanks for the heads-up. - Bill Reid | Talk 09:57, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi Angusmclellan. Please consider adding your admin username to the growing list at Classification of admins. Best! -- Jreferee t/ c 23:01, 28 November 2007 (UTC)