Why did you restored the redirect from Ostia to Ostia Antica? That's wrong. When Italian people say Ostia, they refer to the MODERN town, not the old one! -- Dejudicibus 08:47, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- You said «Most Italians may use Ostia to mean the modern town, but the vast majority of the Ostia links on English Wikipedia mean it as the archaeological site)» but the fact that there is a popular error in Wikipedia is not a good reason to maintain it. We have to search for all links and change them to Ostia Antica, rather. —The preceding
unsigned comment was added by
Dejudicibus (
talk •
contribs) 08:51, 2 February 2007 (UTC).
- Furthermore, what you said it is not necessarily true. For example, in
Bishop of Ostia, the article refers to the moder town. —The preceding
unsigned comment was added by
Dejudicibus (
talk •
contribs) 08:54, 2 February 2007 (UTC).
- Same for Temple of Bellona (Ostia) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dejudicibus ( talk • contribs) 08:56, 2 February 2007 (UTC).
- Furthermore, what you said it is not necessarily true. For example, in
Bishop of Ostia, the article refers to the moder town. —The preceding
unsigned comment was added by
Dejudicibus (
talk •
contribs) 08:54, 2 February 2007 (UTC).
- All true, but instead of complaining, could you aid me in correcting all
Ostia links to [[Ostia Antica (archaeological site)|Ostia]] where relevant, or to [[Bishop of Ostia|Ostia]] where relevant eg in papal articles. There are 250 or so such links so you can see why I have baulked at doing the task alone! :-)
Neddyseagoon -
talk 10:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- You are right, I agree. In fact it was what I was doing... ;-)-- Dejudicibus 14:02, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- I've done all except the user pages etc. Please cast an eye over it. Neddyseagoon - talk 22:07, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
I notice you created and populated the four sub-cats of Category:Castles in Yorkshire. The old, parent category was for castles which were in the historic county of Yorkshire when they were built. Your new categories divide the castles up on their current county locations. Both your system and the old system are equally logical, but they are not exactly congruent: for example, there is no such thing as the historic English county of South Yorkshire; both Conisbrough and Sheffield castles would, at the time of their construction, have been in the West Riding. — mholland 18:01, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- I've now explained this on the category page and its talk page. It was a slightly unwieldy category as it was.
Neddyseagoon -
talk 19:51, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the speedy response. — mholland 23:14, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
-- Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης) 18:51, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Neddy, Thanks for setting up & then moving this - it is a much-needed article. Were you intending to do much writing on it? If so, let me know which bits you fancy. Johnbod 20:13, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
I just wanted to let you know, after a brief discussion on WP:WRSOF, I've nominated Category:Quakerism in the United Kingdom for deletion. A couple of us have been concerned for some time about the number of Quaker-related categories that have been created recently, and we're now starting to restructure. Since you created this category, I agree that's polite to let you know. -- Ahc 04:19, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Proposing to merge List of basic classics topics to Classics
Seeking concensus on proposed merger at Talk:Classics. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 01:49, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for making a sentence clearer: [1]. I envy your command of Latin. Rintrah 12:42, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
- Can you name your sources for Imperial helmet? I noticed you are its creator. Rintrah 13:53, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
- I think it's already in the list of external links - if not, I'll put it there. Neddyseagoon - talk 16:21, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Just want to congratulate you on the article about the 1938 film. Looks very impressive, especially for a new article. Surprised there hasn't been one for this film. Bjones 13:58, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
- Err, there has! There was one covering both the '38 and '79 versions, and all I did was split it, no great feat! :-) Thanks anyway. Neddyseagoon - talk 16:21, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Merged to Talk:St Giles in the Fields
AfD nomination of I'm Spartacus!
An editor has nominated I'm Spartacus!, 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/I'm Spartacus! 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. Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. Jayden54Bot 15:34, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
I have certain queries re Imperial helmet (forgive me if I seem dim):
German experts classify these helmets as "Weisenau" types,
Here, the pronoun is ambiguous: does "these helmets" denote "the Imperial helmets"?
while H. Russell Robinson divided them into Imperial Gallic and Imperial Italic types.
Imperial Gallic is the type worn by Gauls, not Romans?
Perhaps the section could be retitled Classification of the Imperial helmet or Classification of Imperial helmet types? This might clear confusion as the reader approaches this section. Rintrah 09:23, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
I have nominated Category:Wikipedians by year of joining Wikipedia and its subcategories for deletion. You can contribute to the discussion at Wikipedia:User categories for discussion. Thanks, VegaDark 01:33, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi. You seem to be a prolific and established editor, so I was surprised to see that you created St Lawrence Jewry with sentences directly copied from http://www.london-city-churches.org.uk/Churches/St%20Lawrence%20Jewry.htm. Please avoid doing that. Budding Journalist 07:04, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
- I try not to, and on the rare instances I do I tag it {{
copyedit}}. This must've slipped through the net. Sorry.
Neddyseagoon -
talk 13:37, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
- Please, please do not copy and paste directly from other websites! You lifted
Bishop of the Falkland Islands from
http://www.falklands.info/history/histarticle18.html in violation of copyright. Marking an article for {{
copyedit}} does not help; it is not the job of copyeditors to rewrite articles so that it no longer violates copyright. An unknowing editor might copyedit a few phrases here and there, but this will not resolve the copyright violation. An article should be written in your own words. "on the rare instances I do I tag it {{
copyedit}}" <-- No! You should never copy and paste from other websites.
Budding
Journalist 03:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
- You also did it with Corydon (book) by copying from http://www.amazon.com/Corydon-Andre-Gide/dp/0252070062. You really must cease doing this. Budding Journalist 05:19, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
- Please, please do not copy and paste directly from other websites! You lifted
Bishop of the Falkland Islands from
http://www.falklands.info/history/histarticle18.html in violation of copyright. Marking an article for {{
copyedit}} does not help; it is not the job of copyeditors to rewrite articles so that it no longer violates copyright. An unknowing editor might copyedit a few phrases here and there, but this will not resolve the copyright violation. An article should be written in your own words. "on the rare instances I do I tag it {{
copyedit}}" <-- No! You should never copy and paste from other websites.
Budding
Journalist 03:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Grateful for views from other Wikipedians on whether this merge actually makes the articles more useful. I certainly think the result is less readable. I would suggest that the two organisations that have used the Binney Street building should have separate articles because the people are completely separate - would anyone merge SNCF and Musee d'Orsay simply because they have both used the Gare d'Orsay building? Copied from talk page on King's Weigh House Sjoh0050 15:16, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi!! Im looking for online wikipedians who can help me on an html codes. If you have time please reply me on my talk page Thanks!! -- Glacious 16:01, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Ciao! I've posted some notes about bad working of your otherwise fine Template:Infobox Castle. Let me know if you've time to correct it... I think it mainly need the possibility to have the introduction text without the "Castel of...". Bye and good work. -- Attilios 18:24, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Don't make moves contrary to both policy and discussion on talk pages. You'll just be reverted. Proteus (Talk) 00:21, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
- Was it contrary? I thought the consensus was going with me. Neddyseagoon - talk 15:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I would just like to say great work on your article of Christ the King!! Everyday I walk past the church on my way to UCL and have always been interested in it, especially since it looks like they forgot to build a spire! It was interesting to read about it and see a good article about it come into creation, again well done and have a barnstar!
|
The Original Barnstar | |
| Well done for your work on the Church of Christ the King Article LordHarris 23:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC) |
Hi, thanks for adding the interesting acanthus ornament link! CApitol3 15:40, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi - I saw your name at Wikipedia:WikiProject Saints with a mention about British saints. I wondered if you would like to have an opinion about Talk:Calendar of saints (Church of England)#Proposed rename of article to in accordance with the 1958 Lambeth Conference resolution? Thanks -- Golden Wattle talk 23:04, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Why did you restored the redirect from Ostia to Ostia Antica? That's wrong. When Italian people say Ostia, they refer to the MODERN town, not the old one! -- Dejudicibus 08:47, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- You said «Most Italians may use Ostia to mean the modern town, but the vast majority of the Ostia links on English Wikipedia mean it as the archaeological site)» but the fact that there is a popular error in Wikipedia is not a good reason to maintain it. We have to search for all links and change them to Ostia Antica, rather. —The preceding
unsigned comment was added by
Dejudicibus (
talk •
contribs) 08:51, 2 February 2007 (UTC).
- Furthermore, what you said it is not necessarily true. For example, in
Bishop of Ostia, the article refers to the moder town. —The preceding
unsigned comment was added by
Dejudicibus (
talk •
contribs) 08:54, 2 February 2007 (UTC).
- Same for Temple of Bellona (Ostia) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dejudicibus ( talk • contribs) 08:56, 2 February 2007 (UTC).
- Furthermore, what you said it is not necessarily true. For example, in
Bishop of Ostia, the article refers to the moder town. —The preceding
unsigned comment was added by
Dejudicibus (
talk •
contribs) 08:54, 2 February 2007 (UTC).
- All true, but instead of complaining, could you aid me in correcting all
Ostia links to [[Ostia Antica (archaeological site)|Ostia]] where relevant, or to [[Bishop of Ostia|Ostia]] where relevant eg in papal articles. There are 250 or so such links so you can see why I have baulked at doing the task alone! :-)
Neddyseagoon -
talk 10:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- You are right, I agree. In fact it was what I was doing... ;-)-- Dejudicibus 14:02, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- I've done all except the user pages etc. Please cast an eye over it. Neddyseagoon - talk 22:07, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
I notice you created and populated the four sub-cats of Category:Castles in Yorkshire. The old, parent category was for castles which were in the historic county of Yorkshire when they were built. Your new categories divide the castles up on their current county locations. Both your system and the old system are equally logical, but they are not exactly congruent: for example, there is no such thing as the historic English county of South Yorkshire; both Conisbrough and Sheffield castles would, at the time of their construction, have been in the West Riding. — mholland 18:01, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- I've now explained this on the category page and its talk page. It was a slightly unwieldy category as it was.
Neddyseagoon -
talk 19:51, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the speedy response. — mholland 23:14, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
-- Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης) 18:51, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Neddy, Thanks for setting up & then moving this - it is a much-needed article. Were you intending to do much writing on it? If so, let me know which bits you fancy. Johnbod 20:13, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
I just wanted to let you know, after a brief discussion on WP:WRSOF, I've nominated Category:Quakerism in the United Kingdom for deletion. A couple of us have been concerned for some time about the number of Quaker-related categories that have been created recently, and we're now starting to restructure. Since you created this category, I agree that's polite to let you know. -- Ahc 04:19, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Proposing to merge List of basic classics topics to Classics
Seeking concensus on proposed merger at Talk:Classics. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 01:49, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for making a sentence clearer: [1]. I envy your command of Latin. Rintrah 12:42, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
- Can you name your sources for Imperial helmet? I noticed you are its creator. Rintrah 13:53, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
- I think it's already in the list of external links - if not, I'll put it there. Neddyseagoon - talk 16:21, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Just want to congratulate you on the article about the 1938 film. Looks very impressive, especially for a new article. Surprised there hasn't been one for this film. Bjones 13:58, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
- Err, there has! There was one covering both the '38 and '79 versions, and all I did was split it, no great feat! :-) Thanks anyway. Neddyseagoon - talk 16:21, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Merged to Talk:St Giles in the Fields
AfD nomination of I'm Spartacus!
An editor has nominated I'm Spartacus!, 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/I'm Spartacus! 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. Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. Jayden54Bot 15:34, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
I have certain queries re Imperial helmet (forgive me if I seem dim):
German experts classify these helmets as "Weisenau" types,
Here, the pronoun is ambiguous: does "these helmets" denote "the Imperial helmets"?
while H. Russell Robinson divided them into Imperial Gallic and Imperial Italic types.
Imperial Gallic is the type worn by Gauls, not Romans?
Perhaps the section could be retitled Classification of the Imperial helmet or Classification of Imperial helmet types? This might clear confusion as the reader approaches this section. Rintrah 09:23, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
I have nominated Category:Wikipedians by year of joining Wikipedia and its subcategories for deletion. You can contribute to the discussion at Wikipedia:User categories for discussion. Thanks, VegaDark 01:33, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi. You seem to be a prolific and established editor, so I was surprised to see that you created St Lawrence Jewry with sentences directly copied from http://www.london-city-churches.org.uk/Churches/St%20Lawrence%20Jewry.htm. Please avoid doing that. Budding Journalist 07:04, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
- I try not to, and on the rare instances I do I tag it {{
copyedit}}. This must've slipped through the net. Sorry.
Neddyseagoon -
talk 13:37, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
- Please, please do not copy and paste directly from other websites! You lifted
Bishop of the Falkland Islands from
http://www.falklands.info/history/histarticle18.html in violation of copyright. Marking an article for {{
copyedit}} does not help; it is not the job of copyeditors to rewrite articles so that it no longer violates copyright. An unknowing editor might copyedit a few phrases here and there, but this will not resolve the copyright violation. An article should be written in your own words. "on the rare instances I do I tag it {{
copyedit}}" <-- No! You should never copy and paste from other websites.
Budding
Journalist 03:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
- You also did it with Corydon (book) by copying from http://www.amazon.com/Corydon-Andre-Gide/dp/0252070062. You really must cease doing this. Budding Journalist 05:19, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
- Please, please do not copy and paste directly from other websites! You lifted
Bishop of the Falkland Islands from
http://www.falklands.info/history/histarticle18.html in violation of copyright. Marking an article for {{
copyedit}} does not help; it is not the job of copyeditors to rewrite articles so that it no longer violates copyright. An unknowing editor might copyedit a few phrases here and there, but this will not resolve the copyright violation. An article should be written in your own words. "on the rare instances I do I tag it {{
copyedit}}" <-- No! You should never copy and paste from other websites.
Budding
Journalist 03:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Grateful for views from other Wikipedians on whether this merge actually makes the articles more useful. I certainly think the result is less readable. I would suggest that the two organisations that have used the Binney Street building should have separate articles because the people are completely separate - would anyone merge SNCF and Musee d'Orsay simply because they have both used the Gare d'Orsay building? Copied from talk page on King's Weigh House Sjoh0050 15:16, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi!! Im looking for online wikipedians who can help me on an html codes. If you have time please reply me on my talk page Thanks!! -- Glacious 16:01, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Ciao! I've posted some notes about bad working of your otherwise fine Template:Infobox Castle. Let me know if you've time to correct it... I think it mainly need the possibility to have the introduction text without the "Castel of...". Bye and good work. -- Attilios 18:24, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Don't make moves contrary to both policy and discussion on talk pages. You'll just be reverted. Proteus (Talk) 00:21, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
- Was it contrary? I thought the consensus was going with me. Neddyseagoon - talk 15:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I would just like to say great work on your article of Christ the King!! Everyday I walk past the church on my way to UCL and have always been interested in it, especially since it looks like they forgot to build a spire! It was interesting to read about it and see a good article about it come into creation, again well done and have a barnstar!
|
|
The Original Barnstar | |
| Well done for your work on the Church of Christ the King Article LordHarris 23:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC) |
Hi, thanks for adding the interesting acanthus ornament link! CApitol3 15:40, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi - I saw your name at Wikipedia:WikiProject Saints with a mention about British saints. I wondered if you would like to have an opinion about Talk:Calendar of saints (Church of England)#Proposed rename of article to in accordance with the 1958 Lambeth Conference resolution? Thanks -- Golden Wattle talk 23:04, 21 February 2007 (UTC)