|
User talk:Andrew Dalby/Archive 2009 to 2010Les plaisirs du goût, Maison Française d'Oxford, 13 mars 2009Cher Andrew, Puisque vous résidez en France et étant moi-même français, je me permet de vous écrire en français. Alors voilà: je suis chercheur au CNRS, en philosophie ancienne, et actuellement en poste à la Maison Française d'Oxford où j'organise une journée intitulée "Les plaisirs du goût/The Pleasures of Taste" le vendredi 13 mars 2009 et j'aimerais beaucoup que vous puissiez y participer. Je sais m'y prendre bien tard, mais je joue de malchance avec les conférenciers prévus… La journée devrait comporter 5 à 6 conférences de 30' à 40' et se conclura par la projection du film "le festin de Babette". Il y aura un exposé sur les Épicuriens et les Cyrénaïques (Jean-François Balaudé, Université de Nanterre), un autre sur la notion de modération chez Aristote (par moi-même) et aussi un autre sur les plaisirs de la table dans le cinéma français. Je recherche actuellement quelqu'un qui pourrait présenter quelque chose sur cette question au XVIIIè (peut-être un collègue d'Oriel). Si donc vous étiez libre et intéressé, sentez-vous absolument libre de votre sujet! Bien cordialement, Jean-Louis Labarrière Maison Française d'Oxford 81.110.177.236 (talk) 16:42, 28 January 2009 (UTC)labarrierejl@free.fr Wikipedia Signpost, February 8, 2009
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.--ragesoss (talk) 15:35, 9 February 2009 (UTC) Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 21:20, 9 February 2009 (UTC) Wikipedia Signpost — February 16, 2009From the editor — A new leaf
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist.
If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 05:56, 16 February 2009 (UTC) Wikipedia Signpost — February 23, 2009This week, the Wikipedia Signpost published volume 5, issue 8, which includes these articles:
The kinks are still being worked out in a new design for these Signpost deliveries, and we apologize for the plain format for this week. Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 00:56, 24 February 2009 (UTC) Wikipedia Signpost — 2 March 2009This week, the Wikipedia Signpost published volume 5, issue 9, which includes these articles:
Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 19:52, 2 March 2009 (UTC) Wikipedia Signpost — 9 March 2009This week, the Wikipedia Signpost published volume 5, issue 10, which includes these articles:
Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 22:39, 9 March 2009 (UTC) Wikipedia Signpost — 16 March 2009 — 16 March 2009
Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 21:58, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
User:Andrew Dalby has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, Peace, A record of your Day will always be kept here. |
For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:14, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Hello
I see you write about Wikipedia and are also a historian. Interesting mix. I wondered what your historiographical sensibilities thought of WP:POLE? --Dweller (talk) 11:13, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
The Wikipedia Signpost: 10 May 2010
- From the editor: Reviewers and reporters wanted
- Commons deletions: Porn madness
- Wikipedia books launched: Wikipedia books launched worldwide
- News and notes: Public Policy and Books for All
- In the news: Commons pornography purge, and more
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Birds
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
The Wikipedia Signpost: 17 May 2010
- News and notes: Backstage at the British Museum
- In the news: In the news
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Essays
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
The Wikipedia Signpost: 24 May 2010
- News and notes: New puzzle globe, feature for admins, Israel's "Wikipedia Bill", unsourced bios declining
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Saints
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
The Wikipedia Signpost: 31 May 2010
- Photography: Making money with free photos
- News and notes: Wikimedians at Maker Faire, brief news
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Zoo
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Dear Andrew, would you be so kind as to give us support!
Hello, I hope you are doing fine and that everything you are intending to study or create will be successful. I am a member of an association "Amical de la Viquipèdia" which is trying to get some recognition as a Catalan Chapter but this hasn't been approved up to this moment. We would appreciate your support, visible if you stick this on your first page: Wikimedia CAT. Thanks again, wishing you a great summer, take care! Claudi BalaguerCapsot (talk) 12:00, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
The Wikipedia Signpost: 7 June 2010
- From the team: Changes to the Signpost
- News and notes: "Pending changes" trial, Chief hires, British Museum prizes, Interwiki debate, and more
- Free Travel-Shirts: "Free Travel-Shirts" signed by Jimmy Wales and others purchasable
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Comedy
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
About French Wikipedia Modèle:Utilisateur grc-2
J'ai cru comprendre que je pouvais vous écrire en français et j'abuse donc de la situation. N'hésitez pas à me répondre en anglais si vous le préférez.
Je viens de faire une proposition de modification du libellé du Modèle:Utilisateur grc-2 et serais très heureux d'avoir votre avis à ce sujet.
Cordialement,
--Jean-Loup HAZAËL-MASSIEUX —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.240.106.4 (talk) 16:07, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
You are now a Reviewer
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).
Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.
When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.
If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 18:23, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
The Wikipedia Signpost: 14 June 2010
- News and notes: Pending changes goes live, first state-funded Wikipedia project concludes, brief news
- In the news: Hoaxes in France and at university, Wikipedia used in Indian court, Is Wikipedia a cult?, and more
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
Rosetta Stone
There's a message for you over at: Wikipedia:GLAM/BM/One_on_one_collaborations#Rosetta_Stone. Witty Lama 20:27, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
The Wikipedia Signpost: 21 June 2010
- Sister projects: Picture of the Year results declared on Wikimedia Commons
- News and notes: Collaboration with the British Museum and in Serbia, Interaction with researchers, and more
- WikiProject report: WikiProject U2
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Wikipedia Signpost: 28 June 2010
- Objectionable material: Board resolution on offensive content
- In the news: Wikipedia controlled by pedophiles, left-wing trolls, Islamofascists and Communist commandos?
- Public Policy Initiative: Introducing the Public Policy Initiative
- WikiProject report: Talking with WikiProject Ships
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
Rosetta Stone article
Hello there:
I see that you have begun working on the English version of the Rosetta Stone article. I like what you have with the Latin version of the article, especially with the section on the attempts at translating portions of it over the years.
Since languages are clearly your specialty, I will work on the ancient historical background of the object rather than duplicate your presumably forthcoming work in that area.
Cheers! Captmondo (talk) 23:35, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
- That's great. I aim to work at it steadily now, and I'm very happy that you are dealing with the historical background. Andrew Dalby 09:02, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
- I have a copy of an article you *might* be interested in: The Predecessors of Champollion by Don Cameron Allen from the Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society written in 1960. In it he looks at the attempts to decipher Egyptian hieroglyphs in the Western word, including the crackpot ideas of Athanasius Kircher in this field, and the attempt by several 17th Century scholars to link hieroglyphs to Chinese. It might serve as a good background to the later, more successful efforts by de Sacy, Young, Champollion et al, and it also makes for an amusing read. ;-) Let me know if you would like me to email you a copy for reference. Cheers! Captmondo (talk) 14:20, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
- It's OK, thanks, I have a copy myself via JSTOR. It's a very good source, though, I think, more use for Decipherment of Egyptian hieroglyphs than for Rosetta Stone ... But I will certainly cite it. Andrew Dalby 14:59, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
- Fair enough! Captmondo (talk) 16:00, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
- It's OK, thanks, I have a copy myself via JSTOR. It's a very good source, though, I think, more use for Decipherment of Egyptian hieroglyphs than for Rosetta Stone ... But I will certainly cite it. Andrew Dalby 14:59, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
- I have a copy of an article you *might* be interested in: The Predecessors of Champollion by Don Cameron Allen from the Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society written in 1960. In it he looks at the attempts to decipher Egyptian hieroglyphs in the Western word, including the crackpot ideas of Athanasius Kircher in this field, and the attempt by several 17th Century scholars to link hieroglyphs to Chinese. It might serve as a good background to the later, more successful efforts by de Sacy, Young, Champollion et al, and it also makes for an amusing read. ;-) Let me know if you would like me to email you a copy for reference. Cheers! Captmondo (talk) 14:20, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Test of Roman road template
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Source: Antonine Itinerary | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
){kind=link}
The Wikipedia Signpost: 5 July 2010
- Wikimania preview: Gearing up for Wikimania in Gdańsk
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Children's Literature
- Features and admins: This week's highlights
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
Re:Congratulations!
I send your's congratulations to ca:usuari:MarisaLR, The article's editor. Good Luck !, I hope you will conquer the prize too.--Mafoso (talk) 09:18, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
- Well done ... Congratulations too --Mafoso (talk) 14:48, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
- Congratulations --MarisaLR (talk) 17:15, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
- Well done ... Congratulations too --Mafoso (talk) 14:48, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Good job and see Template talk:Cnote2
Good job on the Rosetta Stone, and I've answered your question on Template talk:Cnote2. 67.190.48.91 (talk) 07:44, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Peer review for the Rosetta Stone article
Just received a thorough review, which you can see at Wikipedia:Peer_review/Rosetta_Stone/archive1. I suggest we divy up the work. Common practice in this area is to place your indented comments under each point when done making a fix, so the reviewer can verify that the change has been made, which they then cross off the list. Captmondo (talk) 19:44, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
- OK, but would it be better to wait briefly in case other opinions and suggestions appear? I'm not familiar with the system.
- The toolserver links are handy: didn't know about those.
- The BC/BCE thing has had other hands involved besides ours, so no wonder there's inconsistency. Is your preference for BCE and CE? If so we'll go with it. I don't mind much.
- As to the references/bibliography, we are already half way to the system used (with variations) on Royal Gold Cup and Chalukya Dynasty (recent FAs), and I would be happy to take it all the way. Since Wikipedia is so utterly inconsistent in this, I was just waiting for an opinion really. Andrew Dalby 20:47, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
- No, just dive right in. Other opinions may or may not be forthcoming, and these suggestions are from an experienced reviewer. Also, be free to challenge on specific points if they are not clear or would like further guidance (I've never run across the idea of not starting a section with the article "The" before; as a copyeditor I would normally allow it myself, but there may be a guideline on WP I am not currently aware of). I do take his point about the lead section title—"The Stone"—as being awkward though.
- My preference is for BCE, which is more the trend in historical journals these days. Honestly though, as long as it is consistent, it doesn't matter which form is used.
- Given where the object is located, I suggest we keep with to British spelling whenever possible (I'd forgotten about "artefact" vs "artifact", that was a good catch on his part).
- By all means tackle the bibliography format.
- I don't know if you have checked the history of the article recently or not, but there has been several good minor copyedit passes done to it already, not only by the main reviewer but by some associates from the Ancient Egypt portal that I alerted over the weekend. So far the consensus from them has been very positive.
- I don't have time this evening to tackle much, though I have fixed a problem somebody pointed out about the stele image not appearing when viewed in Internet Explorer. I re-saved the file in a Microsoft application and re-uploaded to Wikimedia Commons and that fixed the issue.
- Will set aside some time tomorrow to tackle some of other issues. Cheers! Captmondo (talk) 02:18, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
- With regards to the lead image used being a bit on the dark side I have to agree. I also agree that we are bound to use freely available images from Wikimedia Commons, so our available selection can be found here: [1]. Unfortunately it is hard to get a good shot of the RS because of a) the crowds that gather around it, and b) the glare of light shining off the glass case that surrounds it. (I should know, since I tried when I was there two years ago, and had no joy). Of the images that are there, I think there are two good candidates: [2] and [3]. Both have problems though: the first has a somewhat cheesy diffuse drop-shadow added to its outline plus some slight reflection from the glass to the right of the image, and the second has some serious flash glare on the right-hand side. Let me know which one you prefer and I'll see if I can Photoshop it tonight. Captmondo (talk) 12:40, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
![[2]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Rosetta_lou.jpg){kind=link}
![[3]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Pierre_de_Rosette.jpg){kind=link}
The Wikipedia Signpost: 12 July 2010
- UK COI edits: British politicians accused of WP cover-ups
- News and notes: Board changes, Wikimania, Public Policy Initiative
- Discussion report: Article ownership, WikiProjects vs. Manual of Style, Unverifiable village
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Apple Inc.
- Features and admins: The best of the week
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Laszlo Garai case
I would ask a favour: let me understand whether the English Wikipedia is or is not interested in getting information also from non-English (e.g. Hungarian) sources. I mean, of course, reliable, trustworthy sources (such as, e.g., the Hungarian Academy of Sciences. If your answer to my question will be negative, I shall by no means insist on writing for the English Wikipedia further articles about Hungarian scholars. The matter is that I have two rather time-consuming pastimes: I am the research-manager of a large EU university department and I am writing a rather sizeable book on the scientific work of the outstanding Hungarian psychologist Laszlo Garai. As a matter of fact, this work of mine gave me the idea of presenting some elements of my findings in the English Wikipedia.
But in case you happen to think that these Wikipedia texts of mine has been of any use for your readers I would ask another favour: Please, investigate about the real motive for a serial deletion-destruction JzG has committed with all my texts wherever he found it in the Wikipedia- End if you find (as I concluded to) that s/he has nothing but some mean motivation for it, goive me, please, some safe, secure protection against it. And immediately delete, please, humiliating nonsense, JzG inserted to the starting point of the Garai Laszlo texte. Of course, I keep accepting all intelligible criticisme to my Wikipedia-texts.
Thanks! Szalagloria (talk) 08:47, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia is based on reliable sources. Wikipedia articles (like scientific papers) need to have precise citations of reliable sources such that other editors can verify them. This is especially important with biographies of living persons such as Garai Laszlo; the sources need to be independent of him and his department. If you are writing a book on this topic, you will already know how to give precise bibliographic citations, and this is what you need to do here. Once you have properly footnoted the information about Garai, and as long as your footnotes demonstrate, from independent sources, that his work is notable, there will be no need for the template at the top of the page. Thank you for your comments. My problem has been (and still is) as follows. As you may see, my article about LG has precise citations but whether the sources are "reliable sources such that other editors can verify them", I maysay so, but only in principles: for that verifiability editors in question ought to understand Hungarian. It's no use three volumes of Laszlo Garai having been published by the Academic Press, two monographs by the editing house of two bigest Hungarian University Press and so on for five other volumes, they are published in Hungarian. Itz is why I have been driven to despair when I wrote the above cry for help. Szalagloria (talk) 06:08, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- You need to focus on giving true, precise citations. For example: you cite a book which you call "Personality dynamics and social existence" and you say that the publisher is "Academic Press". This seems to me completely wrong. The book's title is, I think, "Személyiségdinamika és társadalmi lét". You need to give that title (and then, if you like, an English translation afterwards). Also, the publisher is "Akadémiai Kiadó". This is a famous academic publisher in Budapest. You should not try to translate the name: it is not the same as "Academic Press", which is a British and US publisher. Also, you have not given the date of publication. What all this means is that you are not giving correct citations, and other editors find it difficult to verify your statements. Andrew Dalby 12:23, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- It is excellent! So you do understand Hungarian: otherwise you would not have been able to reproduce correctly Hungarian diacritical marks. And if it is so you would be the very third party editor, who could eastablish whether it is or isn't by any chance a mistake to declare the WP-article about the topic as being inappropriate for inclusion and destroy it repeatedly. If it is true, that
- 1., LG in 1969 in the volume you mentionned("Személyiségdinamika és társadalmi lét") presented his hypothesis of Specifically human basic need and the Akadémiai Kiadó immediately published it;
- 2., the reputed interdisciplinary review of Hung. Ac. Sc. "Magyar Tudomány" published a rather voluminous paper of the same author re-visiting his hypothesis 40 years later. --Szalagloria (talk) 22:43, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your critical remark about the mode I identified the Hungarian sources I referred to. I ignored the rule you indicate now and took the rule operative in my French acadenic world instead. In the nearest future I shall correct in this Garai-biography fault of mine. But at the same time I shall stop all further activity since I have taken into account that Hungarian sources for scientific discoveries are not considered interesting for the readers of English WP (should it be otherwise the abstracts I specially redacted from the Hungarian texts of LG would not be repeatedly deleted). Still I would have a respectfull petition: delete the starting framed remark about the established or not established notability of LG: this remark is humiliating not me but a respected (everywhere outside the English community of WP editors) scholar (see e.g.http://en.academic.ru/dic.nsf/enwiki/4974859). Szalagloria (talk) 22:43, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
- I don't think I can help you, because I don't know the subject area of psychology, and I didn't study the reasons why the template was placed there. But you are mistaken in believing that a notability template is humiliating: it is placed on an encyclopedia page, and the page cannot be humiliated. It is not a message to the subject -- he is not involved here at all. It is a plea to all editors (not just you) that the page needs accurate citations from independent sources, showing that the subject or his work is notable.
- Wikipedians have many mother tongues -- there are many other Hungarian contributors, and there are thousands of biographies of Hungarians. You have had problems not because Laszlo Garai is Hungarian, but because you, personally, are very closely involved in his work. If you want to work on an encyclopedia, it's better to write about topics in which you are not emotionally involved. Andrew Dalby 09:14, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
I am very-very thankful to you for your unquestionable, manifest benevolence. However I am presenting now the earnest request to delete comptely and definitely my "Laszlo Garai" article. You definitely convinced me not that, as you put it, you could not "help me", but that nobody can from the English community of WP editors. You can't help me, you argue, "because I don't know the subject area of psychology" and it is a difficulty indeed. On the other hand, you console me, that "there are many other Hungarian contributors" and it is true. But we would need 1., Hungarian contributors 2., knowing the subject area of psychology, and 3., on top of everything, who could write English texts. Am I wrong?
Well, here am I, one who might satisfy this triple condition. Thus I specially redacted from the Hungarian texts of LG containing his scientific discoveries English abstracts for the non-Hungarian-speaking readers, including redactors who nothing but from these (mainly Hungarian academic!) sources could judge whether he is or isn't sufficiantly notable. Well, these souces has been completely destroyed and then the article got prefaced by the (I have to insiste on this point) humiliating template: "Please help to establish notability by adding reliable, secondary sources about the topic. If notability cannot be established, the article is likely to be merged, redirected, or deleted."
Isn't it funny?
- Well, as you may have noticed, I have put a lot of work into this page. It was never your page -- material submitted to Wikipedia is free for others to use and improve -- and, having worked on it, I disagree with you that it should be deleted. I think he is notable by Wikipedia definition. I'm sorry if you won't help me to find a secondary source on his work. I'll just have to try to find one myself. Andrew Dalby 09:31, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Now, let us take as an exemple the case of "Specifically human basic need". Prof. Garai presented it in 1960's. From 1962 to 1968 he published 6 papers in two journals of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, in 1968 he defended his kandidate's thesis that was published by the Akadémiai Kiadó [Academic Press]. Meanwhile the hypotheses was published by a French, a Spanish and two Russian scientific journals. The European Journal of Social Psychology published its longest ever book review on the book in question (F. Eros: "'Personality Dynamics and Social Existence', by L. Garai". 1974/3. 369-379.) For these and more details see Need for freedom, Specifically Human Basic Need (SHBN)
On one hand.
On the other: it got deleted. Wikipedia is based on reliable sources, isn't it?
Well then: I am asking humbly, delete "Laszlo Garai" as well. By no means I allow present my text mutilated. I would do the deletion by myself but my texte used to be linked to so many other textes and I don't know, how to eradicate all of them.
- I can't delete it: I am only an editor, just like you, and editors cannot delete Wikipedia pages. However, now that you have told me about Eros's long review of Garai's book, I can include a reference to the review. That is all that was needed: a reference to some independent person's published opinion on Garai's work. Now that we have this, the template can be removed.
- After I have inserted the reference and removed the template, look again at the page. I hope you will think that I have improved it, not mutilated it. Andrew Dalby 14:43, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
- Ah, well, I was too optimistic: the template was put back again. It's true: more was needed. Andrew Dalby 20:22, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
- Just throwing in my $0.02: take a look at Notability (academics) for the specific guidelines that need to be addressed.
- From my cursory glance at the article, it seems to me like he fits most of the criteria. In the end, if you are systematic in applying the specific notability rules as they apply to academics, you should be fine. Captmondo (talk) 21:51, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
- Ah, well, I was too optimistic: the template was put back again. It's true: more was needed. Andrew Dalby 20:22, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
When I thank you once more for what you have tried with this article I have to ask yo: Was I wrong when maintained that the only thing to be taken into consideration is what is written in English? Please, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Help_desk#The_case_of_.22Specifically_human_basic_need.22. Szalagloria (talk) 07:15, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
- I think it really is not a language problem. It is that you need to find writings by other people about Garai's work. Andrew Dalby 09:14, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
The Wikipedia Signpost: 19 July 2010
- News and notes: Politician defends editing own article, Google translation, Row about a small Wikipedia
- WikiProject report: Up close with WikiProject Animals
- Features and admins: The best of the week
- Arbitration report: ArbCom to appoint CU/OS positions after dumping election results
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
Ready for taking the Rosetta Stone article to FA nomination?
Okay, I think we are at the point where we can safely take this to an FA nom. without it being immediately shot down. There will still be work to do undoubtedly. Let me know when you are ready and I can start the process for taking this article to the FA nomination process if you like. Cheers! Captmondo (talk) 13:33, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Re: File:RosettaStoneAsPartOfOriginalStele.jpg Info Wanted
Just saw the comment for this on the Rosetta Stone FA page. Just to let you know that I have seen it, but am currently in the wilds of Northern Ontario for the weekend, and so am very distant from my library at the moment. ;-) Will likely get to it on Sunday evening my time.
For the record, I think the English FA nom for the article is going very smoothly, especially as so far there has only been comments and no objections.
Cheers! Captmondo (talk) 13:29, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
- No problem: have a good weekend! I'm glad you noted the question. I guess we could add (in caption or text) a link or reference to the BM's reconstructed image, which, I imagine, we still can't use on the page. Andrew Dalby 14:53, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
The Wikipedia Signpost: 26 July 2010
- News and notes: New interwiki project improves biographies, and other news
- In the news: Wikipedia leads in customer satisfaction, Google Translate and India, Citizendium transition, Jimbo's media accolade
- WikiProject report: These Are the Voyages of WikiProject Star Trek
- Features and admins: The best of the week
- Discussion report: Controversial e-mail proposal, Invalid AfD
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
Re: some mistake, Captmondo?
No, we seemingly have a revisionist Macedonian who is making his amendments to the RS article, along with his sockpuppet. Not to worry, everyone seems to be keeping on eye on the RS article (and him). Captmondo (talk) 14:34, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, thanks. But I do not fit that description and you reverted me and not him. Thank you Andrew for correcting this obvious mistake and don't mind my temporary intrusion on your talkpage. BTW it is always a great pleasure talking to you :) Take care. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 16:05, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
The Wikipedia Signpost: 2 August 2010
- News and notes: Canadian political edits, Swedish royal wedding, Italian "right of reply" bill, Chapter reports
- In the news: Gardner and Sanger on why people edit Wikipedia, Fancy and frugal reading devices, Medical article assessed
- WikiProject report: Always Expanding: WikiProject Images and Media
- Features and admins: The best of the week
- Arbitration report: Tricky and Lengthy Dispute Resolution
Just saying hi
Greetings Andrew! You may remember me from the Macedonia arbitration case. I ran across your name in the most peculiar way, seeing you had created the French Latin page for Emmanuel Benakis - I did the English one a while ago. Well, I just finished Ioannis Papafis, another benefactor of Greece. As in all things Wikipedian no-one writes in your talk page just to say hi :) -... well not really... I since I happen to have Dr.K's page in my watch list ;-)- ... I'd just like to ask you to check out those two pages, a bit of copyedit if you may. You see I'm not exactly confident about my grammar.
Take care and have a nice summertime! Shadowmorph ^"^ 11:27, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Response from Botteville
Oh Hello, Andrew. I remember you from earlier in my WP careen. I won't say say career, because no one gets paid for this. Some other editors were getting abusive and somehow your name got associated with it. I'm not even going to bother to look it up, as I always did regret that. I'm gratified to hear from such a famous (of sorts) author. I've used your language book, I believe, as a source - I can't remember if as a formal reference. I was on Greek studies for while but one simply cannot do everything here. I've been concentrating on the Italic and of course my native state. At some point I do plan to get back to the Greek. I find that after time goes by deadlocks often get broken. The issue I think was whether the possibility of Homer actually existing should even be mentioned. I didn't see any reason not to mention it, still don't. I'm not revisiting right now. But, when I do, with my current experience, I will not be accepting any baloney or abuse as an excuse for not following WP policy. The Homer theory is far from dead. One problem with scholars on WP is that they want to contribute scholarship here, which they are not supposed to do. We're only reporting on authoritative points of view. You know, Andrew, I agree with you, working on WP does give you immediate article-writing experience. One just has to be careful to make the fine distinction. These are not articles as such they are only papers. I found the linguistics papers in pretty tough shape so if you are sticking with WP and not going entirely off into scholar-land that is an area that could use some expertise and experience. I will get back to the articles you mention, only not right now. When I do the fur may be going to fly. But, I've learned one can't be distracted by these issues often over inconsequential points from what one is trying to accomplish. I only have so much time. Unlike you I have to keep the wolf from the door and these wolves seem to be of ravenous ice-age type. But thank you for the thought, in the message anyway. Whether I will have to agree with you or take you on I do not know, won't know until I start to get back there. Best wishes.Dave (talk) 12:29, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
The Wikipedia Signpost: 9 August 2010
- News and notes: FBI requests takedown of seal, Public Policy advisors and ambassadors, Cary Bass leaving, new Research Committee
- In the news: Wikinews interviews Umberto Eco, and more
- Sister projects: Strategic Planning update
- WikiProject report: Chocks away for WikiProject Aviation
- Features and admins: The best of the week
- Arbitration report: Tricky and Lengthy Dispute Resolution
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
Entering the "home stretch" for the RS article
Hello there:
I believe we are now entering the final phases of the FA review process for the RS article. Pending any further comments that might hold it up, from what I have seen previously I believe that the process will likely be closed within another week or so.
Have been keeping a close eye on things, and refrained from commenting on Thanatosimii's query, as it is not my area of expertise. (He and I both worked on bringing the Ahmose I article up to FA status a few years ago, so I have worked with him before). I am glad (and impressed) with the depth of Iustinus's reply to Thanatosimii's query (I know that Ptolemaic-era hieroglyphics often differ significantly from those of previous eras, after all the number of hieroglyphs exploded in this time), but Iustinus was able to bring a depth of knowledge in his reply beyond what I could have been able to do, so kudos to him for that.
I know it has been a bit of a slog, but hold on a little while longer and I believe we will get the RS article to FA status soonish.
Cheers! Captmondo (talk) 13:32, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
- Congratulations on the Rosetta Stone article going to FA status! It's been great collaborating with you on it.
- So the usual next stage in this process is nominating it to appear on the main page. Do you have any preference as to the date it should appear (preference is given to anniversaries). Cheers! Captmondo (talk) 14:53, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Rosetta Stone FAC
Great work on the article! I had some comments on the FAC I hope you can help with. Jayjg (talk) 03:36, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
The Signpost: 16 August 2010
- WikiProject report: A Pit Stop with WikiProject NASCAR
- Features and admins: The best of the week
- Arbitration report: ArbCom releases names of CU/OS applicants after delay
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
Rosetta Barnstar
|
The Rosetta Barnstar | |
| For the FA-class work done on the Rosetta Stone article in both the Latin and English Wikipedia, I can't think of a more appropriate award. Captmondo (talk) 15:04, 18 August 2010 (UTC) |
The Signpost: 23 August 2010
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Cryptozoology
- Features and admins: The best of the week
- Arbitration report: Proposed decision of climate change case posted
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
Rosetta Stone review
Hey mate! It's been a while since I've seen any activity at Talk:Rosetta Stone on the prose review. Are you interested in continuing? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 14:08, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
The Signpost: 30 August 2010
- In the news: Agatha Christie spoiled, Wales on Wikileaks, University students improve Wikipedia, and more
- WikiProject report: Studying WikiProject Universities
- Features and admins: Featured article milestone: 3,000
- Arbitration report: What does the Race and intelligence case tell us?
The Signpost: 6 September 2010
- Book review: Cognitive Surplus, by Clay Shirky
- WikiProject report: Putting articles in their place: the Uncategorized Task Force
- Features and admins: Bumper crop of admins; Obama featured portal marks our 150th
- Arbitration report: Interim desysopping, CU/OS appointments, and more
- Technology report: Development transparency, resource loading, GSoC: extension management
Translating a very short shell description from Latin?
Hi Andrew Dalby. Can I ask you if you know anyone who can perhaps do us at WikiProject Gastropods a favor by translating a Latin phrase written by an 18th century biologist (they did not always use very correct Latin, plus it's in note form)? It's a short description of the shell of the Dog conch pictures here, as written by Carolus Linnaeus. In fact it's his original description of the shell of that species from his book Systema Naturae published in 1758. It reads as follows:
S. testae labro rotundato brevi retuso, spiraque laevi.
I think "S." is an abbreviation for the genus name "Strombus".
Many thanks, Invertzoo (talk) 01:06, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
The Signpost: 13 September 2010
- News and notes: Page-edit stats, French National Library partnership, Mass page blanking, Jimbo on Pending changes
- Public Policy Initiative: Experiments with article assessment
- Sister projects: Biography bloopers – update on the Death Anomalies collaboration
- WikiProject report: Getting the picture – an interview with the Graphic lab
- Features and admins: "Magnificent" warthog not so cute, says featured picture judge
- Arbitration report: Tricky and Lengthy Dispute Resolution
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
Rosettana again
Vobis gratulor!! --Iustinus (talk) 00:42, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
The Signpost: 20 September 2010
- From the editor: New ways to read and share the Signpost
- News and notes: Dutch National Archives donation, French photo raid, brief notes
- In the news: Rush Limbaugh falls for Wikipedia hoax, Public Policy Initiative, Nature cites Wikipedia
- WikiProject report: All Aboard WikiProject Trains
- Features and admins: The best of the week
- Dispatches: Tools, part 2: Internal links and page histories
- Arbitration report: Discretionary sanctions clarification and more
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Signpost: 27 September 2010
- News and notes: French million, controversial content, Citizendium charter, Pending changes, and more
- WikiProject report: Designing WikiProject Architecture
- Features and admins: The best of the week
- Arbitration report: EEML amendment requests & more
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Signpost: 4 October 2010
- WikiProject report: Hot topics with WikiProject Volcanoes
- Features and admins: Milestone: 2,500th featured picture
- Arbitration report: Tricky and Lengthy Dispute Resolution
- Technology report: Code reviewers, October Engineering update, brief news