This is an archive of past discussions with User:Prhartcom. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Hi, no, I can't find any evidence that Bellman was himself known by the name of his semifictional character Fredman (who was a watchmaker, not a singer). It may have been a WP:OR-ish confusion; it isn't mentioned in Britten Austin's biography. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:40, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
I'll remove him from the list then, thanks for your knowledge, and yes, the List of pen names article needs someone to add RS. I happened across it and decided to copy edit it, which was a tremendously difficult job itself, but I haven't committed to researching RS for it. Cheers. Prhartcom (talk) 20:46, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
Sounds right to me. Thanks for your efforts, it still amazes me how people slot into such a variety of different roles here, all for no pay! All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:36, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
Revert revert?
You seem to be reverting my changes a fair amount at the moment — the only notifications I've had in the last week have all been you undoing edits I've made. Is there any particular reason? I fail to see how your reversions are leading to a significantly better Wikipedia. — OwenBlacker (Talk)16:36, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Comics terminology is obnoxiously awkward. "Series of comics" normally parses as "series of comic books", rather than "comic strip series" or "series of comic albums". I can definitely see why "comics series" (while correct) would be a target for "corrections", but "series of comics" is not an appropriate "correction". I'd love to see a less awkward solution. Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:19, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
I'm not against changing it, myself, but the change itself was both incorrect and too restrictive in meaning—as awkward as the wording is that we have now, it at least covers all the bases that need to be covered (strips & albums) without being verbose. If you have any other suggestions they'd be worth hearing. Curly Turkey (gobble) 22:53, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
And I was watching you working on it since yesterday. Yes, we Tintinophiles rely on a relatively small library of reference material! I had never noticed that error. Thanks again for catching it, Naraht. Prhartcom (talk) 14:50, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
I may be finished with the Tintin related ones, but there are still a number out there. As of the moment that I'm writing this, still 17 "John Hopkins University Press" and then I start on the ones that are just "John Hopkins University" and then, I'm going to do the straight "John Hopkins" but there are real people with that name, so that one will be tricky.Naraht (talk) 15:02, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Welcome to STiki!
Hello, Prhartcom, and welcome to STiki! Thank you for your recent contributions using our tool. We at STiki hope you like using the tool and decide to continue using it in the future. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
Userboxes - Do not hesitate to wear the STiki label with pride by choosing from a selection of userboxes!
We hope you enjoy maintaining Wikipedia with STiki! If you have any questions, problems, or suggestions don't hesitate to drop a note over at the STiki talk page and we'll be more than happy to help. Again, welcome, and thanks! West.andrew.g (developer) and Ugog Nizdast (talk) 05:36, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Some baklava for you!
I don't want to be on bad terms, please be patient with me and explain things when I ask questions in your review. Best, Matty.00715:57, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
No, although that would be preferable. I asked the two editors I trust most to take a look at it.
"He visited a psychoanalyst to try to decipher his disturbing dreams and find what could be done about them. He travelled to Zürich to consult Swiss professor Franz Ricklin, a student of Carl Jung." are these the same person he visited? I was going to reword this to "He travelled to Zürich to consult Swiss psychoanalyst, professor Franz Ricklin, a student of Carl Jung, to try to decipher his disturbing dreams and find what could be done about them.", but I wasn't sure if maybe he visited a psychoanalyst and a professor.
Good point and a classic example of needing another set of eyes. Yes, professor Ricklin is the one and only person Hergé consulted. Looks like we need to smoosh two sentences together a bit.
Thanks very much Curly Turkey; keep up the good work as you can. I fully recognise your busy schedule and greatly appreciate your skillz. I hope the studies are going well; mine are. Please know that you can call on me if you ever need a spare Wikipedian for anything. Prhartcom (talk) 23:02, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Completing the book would exorcise the "white demons" that possessed him.: Meaning it did exorcise his demons, or he believed it would? Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 20:47, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
change the airline logo in the published edition: by "publishd edition", do you mean the book, or what is changed before it was even serialized? Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 20:56, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
When Tintin in Tibet was published in the People's Republic of China, state authorities renamed it Tintin in China's Tibet. Hergé and his publishers protested and the authorities reverted the title to its original name.: Do you know in what years these things happened? Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 20:58, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
Tintin in Tibet was well received by prominent literary critics and writers on the art of the comic-book: does "prominent" refer to both "literary critics" and "writers"? Were the literary critics "literary critics on the art of the comic-book"? This sentence needs to be rewritten, but I have to make sure first I understand what it was trying to say. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 21:01, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your gentle note about the Switchboard operator article, but I believe you may have the wrong person. That is, I only added content to the page (including fixing one mistake I made in adding content) and edited one cite to move a word break, but did not delete anything as far as I can recall. Also, I did put edit summaries (is there a way to link directly to a page's history?), though they may not have been according-to-Hoyle descriptive enough. Since, as you noticed, I'm new to Wikipedia editing, I may be misunderstanding you, so I'd love to keep talking so I can understand where you're coming from and what I might be missing.
Triplingual (talk) 15:58, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
Edit war? I reverted once. And brougth the discussion to his talkpage, highlighted the protection level. Two remarks were made towards myself, I templated the IP. Your comment is as bad as the IPs remarks, you really should not comment about the person, espically poorly as you have. Really your comment is missed guide and false at best and baiting at worst. Murry1975 (talk) 13:25, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Hi Murry1975, true, sorry, I see that you are one of two editors reverting the IP; at first I thought you were both; my mistake. Not sure why you are so upset though; you got your way. In these comments above you are not assuming good faith to me at all; please be more careful. I don't think I have ever once edited that article before today; I was just weighing in. Cheers. Prhartcom (talk) 13:35, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Tintin in Tibet
Hi Prhartcom, I saw that you were planning to take the article up to FA status, would you mind me tagging along and helping where I can? It would allow me to help get my first FA... Thanks, Matty.00716:07, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
I won't be working with you again, Matty.007, as showing good faith and the superb ability to get DYNs created is not enough: the competent ability to research, write, and edit are a requirement I have for collaborators. As I'm sure you would agree, you did not produce very much of those three types of effort. The amount of work you know was done by me in comparison to the amount done by you should speak for itself; I dare not repeat that on another project. Put it down as my apparent need to work with editors who are more suited to my style. No hard feeling, and cheers. Prhartcom (talk) 18:10, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
Some friendly advice
Having investigated other Tintin articles, I appreciate your revert to reinstate ", the comics" in the opening sentence to the article Flight 714 is to make it conform with the WP "series" devoted to the Tintin books. Just to say, that an explanation in your edit summary, rather than a straight revert (as would be appropriate to an act of vandalism), would not have gone amiss, and would be good practice to avoid possible ill-will from other editors who may be less inclined to investigate possible reasons for themselves. All best, Alfietucker (talk) 19:09, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
You are right, Alfietucker; the alarm bell went off in my head to do exactly that, but for some reason I ignored it, and for that I apologise. I promise to leave an explanation next time. I appreciate that you did determine the reason for the correct wording on your own. Cheers. Prhartcom (talk) 19:16, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
@BelziBhaal:: Please don't WP:EDITWAR and please assume WP:GOODFAITH. Not doing so can lead to your Wikipedia access being blocked. Content issues such as this are usually best worked out on the article's Talk page, not like this. Let me know if I can help answer a specific question. Cheers. Prhartcom (talk) 20:16, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for correcting my error in reverting the edit and reverting my further error in warning the user for the edit of Pepper's ghost. I have looked at the edit and I can neither remember nor see now what reason I had for reverting the edit. The changes now appear to me to have been constructive copy edits. If I make a mistake I usually can see why I made it. This time I have puzzled myself. Perhaps some forgotten interruption distracted me but if so, I was careless. Thank you again for fixing this mistake. Donner60 (talk) 08:54, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Re:Tintin in Tibet
I'd certainly be happy to take a look, and will do soon, but I'm fairly busy at the moment. Don't feel you have to wait for me, as I'll just leave my comments on the FAC if you nominate it first! J Milburn (talk) 16:44, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
I think you've been a bit hasty here—there are still unresolved issues, most egregiously the claim that "Hergé and his publishers protested" the title of the Chinese translation, which is impossible as it came it a decade and a half after Hergé's death. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 21:20, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
I apologise to you Curly Turkey; I should have asked you if I was leaving any issues with this article unresolved, as your observations were helpful. I went back to re-read this particular point and I see that I didn't even respond to your observation. I am making this first priority now. More later. Prhartcom (talk) 00:10, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Forgive me if it wasn't you I had this discussion with a while back - I think/hope it was. Anyway, Jstor access is now being provided to some Wikipedians gratis. There are certainly a few Tintin/Hergé bits and bobs there which might be of interest to you. Anyway, the link to follow is here. I hope it's of some use. All best, —Brigade Piron (talk) 21:41, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Brigade Piron, thank-you so much for telling me about this. Unfortunately, I am intimidated by the sign-up process, would like the honor to fall upon more deserving Wikipedians, note that it is only for one year, and feel I have more than enough sources in my own library (on the subject I usually write on). Ar you going to try it? If so, perhaps you can be the one between the two of us, to provide the Tintin bits and bobs! Cheers, my friend. Prhartcom (talk) 19:09, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Freedom from Want (painting)/archive1
I appreciate the help --and "plays" is certainly a good thought-- but would suggest discussion before further subdivision of "Non-fiction". If the page has two competing standards simultaneously it's going to be unreadable. --erachimatalk19:57, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Hi erachima! I'm glad to hear from you; Okay, you have a good suggestion; I am posting to the project talk page now. Thanks for (I hope) your positive thoughts! I put those section name/category titles out there while categorizing/cleaning up the "Works" section and I figured I would hear from someone. :-) Give me another hour to further edit this pesky section and then I will remove the "In use". At that point, feel free to change anything I have done, of course. Cheers! Prhartcom (talk) 20:31, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Uh, yeah... there's a reason when I was sorting them I just went through a letter or two at a time. I already deleted three of the heading additions, so brace for edit conflicts. --erachimatalk20:34, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
erachima, I put up the "In use" tag. I was hoping other editors could give me just a little time with the article without interference, then of course you can take over? Prhartcom (talk) 20:40, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
I saw no such tag. And that's why I'm telling you NOW, in hopes you wouldn't make an hours-long edit that has to be reverted. --erachimatalk21:02, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
erachima, you won't have to revert, you can just change my edits (after I am done, of course). The tag is right there, at the top of all our good article titles. I think you will like what I am doing; give it a chance; I'm not even finished yet. While doing this drudgery sorting through "Works" I have collected several examples of each new section; each example, for one who takes the time to actually look at each article, actually says it is a biography or a children's fairly tale or whatever. Okay, I have to get back to work with this "Works" re-categorization; I'll be done very soon, I will then remove the tag, and then check to see if you might like it! We can talk more then. Cheers. Prhartcom (talk) 21:15, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Featured article candidacy
Hi Prhartcom,
Thank you for inviting me to contribute to the discussion of the featured article candidacy for Tintin in Tibet. I apologize for taking several days to respond to your request. I hope to find time to review the article soon. It looks like you have done some great work on this article. It is good to see the quality of the Tintin articles improving.
Neelix (talk) 02:49, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Hi Prhartcom,
Congratulations on the successful FAC! I look forward to seeing the article go up on the main page.
Hi, this is the Polytech guy who was making some edits on the Beyond: Two Souls page earlier; not the vandalism ones someone else made tonight but the ones a few days ago about grammar, word choice, and a few gameplay-related things in some areas. I just wanted to say that I'm sorry for being a little rude with my edits, and I read your contributions and explanations that you put on the Talk page; in retrospect I might have taken some things seriously, and I regret how I acted at times. I trust you with your edits, see the points that you're making, and I'll try to avoid being pushy with reverts in the future; I respect and I'll stop working against your revisions if I ever make any more article changes. Anyway, I just wanted to say sorry for being annoying like that, and thank you for explaining it to me in a calm manner. I will also consider getting a Wikipedia account in the future based on your advice; thanks dude! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:468:C80:411F:50CF:F22B:8F36:D51A (talk) 02:46, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your thanks on my latest edit on The Landlady. I thought you might like this source for your Cœurs Vaillants article - might be some good stuff here:
There is plenty of evidence that Goldcorp is poisoning people. Neutrality means that where the evidence is from a reputable source, it MUST be presented. Goldcorp´s mining activities include wealth extraction, poisoning and environmental degradation. You can´t edit those FACTS out of existence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.117.211.55 (talk) 23:47, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Hello; I'm glad you reached out to me. I read the URL you included in your edit to Goldcorp and I can see you are frustrated at not being able to paint this company as a villain; however, you cannot edit a neutral encyclopedia article and make such accusations. The proper way to go about it is to properly present the facts alongside other material in the article. For example, the URL discusses a recent event; you could create a new section in the article and summarize the main points of the event in the new section in a neutral way, and perhaps add other URLs you find in your research. Please try to remain calm and neutral yourself; if you have a grudge against the company you are in no state of mind to write in a neutral tone. Let me know if I can help you. Prhartcom (talk) 23:57, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Then rewrite the introduction to include the VERY PERTINENT information that this company has poisoned people. Hiding the criminal allegations of a company poisoing children in a subsection called "Environmental Concerns"
is NOT neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.117.211.55 (talk) 00:04, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I do agree with you, it is pertinent; the article you showed us is a reliable source and you are correct to want to have this in the article! However, you are going about it the wrong way. Remain calm. Get a proper account here at Wikipedia. Put the information in the article, perhaps in a new section as I suggested, but learn to write in a neutral way. Readers can make their own determination on this company after you present the facts for them; don't tell them how to think. It will follow the rules and will be much more powerful. Do you see what I mean? I will be happy to help you if I can. Prhartcom (talk) 00:11, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Reply to your message
Dear Prhartcom, Hi! First of all sorry for my late reply. I had not checked my talk page lately. I just added the service awards I felt appropriate. Sorry if I am mistaken. I will edit my user page immediately and after a close inspection, will add only relevent badges.
With regard to your earlier message on List of Oz books, I had edited the structuring of the page the day I saw your message. The canon of Oz books is quite complicated and is wonderful to explore. Authors who followed Baum have added their own elements and have taken away a few of Baum's elements. Other stories take place in an alternate Oz. There are also books in between the two catagories, ie., books that take place in an alternate Oz but borrow the main thematic elements from Baum. However, a few more real experts (I don't feel that I am one) have edited the article and I now feel that it is much less cluttered. Just try to go through since I feel the structuring of subsections in the article is a whole lot clearer now.
Once again sorry for not taking enough care during the addition of service awards to my user page. For any more queries feel free to message me and I'll take utmost care to reply quickly.
—Hridith Sudev Nambiar(talk)08:20, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
John, thank-you; this is a considerable improvement in tone. Thanks for the complement about the article. I am quite proud of its writing. The article has truly been blessed with many excellent improvements by many respected editors (some of whom I'm sure you know; go check it out) which has only made it better. But I must tell you, none have been so unbelievably arrogant as you. Really, you need to keep a better eye on that. Keep in mind that there may actually be editors out there who are better at copy editing than you and I could even be one of them. I suppose you are letting it slip because I reverted you several times (because you made only one change per edit) and I know that can sting. Sorry about that, truly. I see that other editors whom I respect hold you in high regard, so I am prepared to also do the same. P.S. Thanks for letting me know about the British spelling of encyclopedia! (Proves I don't know everything!) Prhartcom (talk) 23:04, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
DYK query
Are three sets of DYK selected for each day? And if yes, then is it like this that set one will be featured on the main page from "so and so" time to "so and so" time and then set two and set three during another time period? Tamravidhir (talk!) 15:13, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi Tamravidhir! I was just at WP:DYK to try to answer these for you. On that page there is a DYK Participants section and I recognize one of the DYN administrators listed there (Ucucha). I remember that after we bring an article to GA, we have only seven days to get it nominated to appear on the main page! That is also listed on that page in the DYK Rules section. I think they list as many as they have room for. So after you bring Bade Achhe Lagte Hain to GA, follow the rules listed there and I have no doubt I will see your DYK fact on the main page someday! Prhartcom (talk) 04:48, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
An award for you!
The Utmost!
I am awestruck! I love this article. If to mention then this article has become one my favourites on Wikipedia. You deserve this award! You have earned it! I hereby give you this award, for writing a featured article of an utmost quality. Tamravidhir (talk!) 17:19, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
This is the nicest thing that has happened to me all month! You are so sweet, Tamravidhir! I love getting a Barnstar, especially from someone I like! And I remember you now, I saw you on Yunshui's talk page! Wikipedia community is full of all kinds of people, mean people, stuffy people, boring people, but you are the nice kind, the kind that cheers everyone up! I want to keep you in my pocket from now on. :-) See you around, Tamravidhir. Prhartcom (talk) 02:49, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
How can I get to know when a set of DYK will appear on the main page! You know what it's my first DYK which will be appearing on the main page! Please tell me quick! Please please please! Wanna know fast! It's already at prep 4...Tamravidhir (talk!) 09:39, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
And sorry I just suddenly started that discussion without even thanking you (no courtesy Tamravidhir! why!?) but thank you so much! Thank you so so much! Even you are extremely nice. Thank you so much for helping me in Bade Achhe Lagte Hain (BALH), and you don't need to worry I am working on the lead...and will also resolve the rest of the issues. Thank you so much! (He he!) ^_^ Tamravidhir (talk!) 10:27, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes, it wasn't easy to get permission from the publisher and I don't know many WP:FA quality articles that do end up on the Main Page about books, that have the book cover as free-use licensed. So that is unique. — Cirt (talk) 02:56, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
A token of love and appreciation!
Raahat-e-Zahan
You are the first editor with whom I've interacted not just for matters concerning Wikipedia. Rather we have been more engaged in what can be called a cultural exchange. It really relaxes me and I feel relieved. You give me sukoon. You give me peace. It makes me fill relieved and relaxes me. You are a darling Prhartcom! I respect you a lot Prhartcom! You are one of a kind! Thank you so much Prhartcom! I would keep this going! Not just discussing about matters relating to Wikipedia but also the cultural exchange. And guess what? Others will start calling me a Wikipedia Princess! :P :D But Prince would be correct for me! I hope they have a title like that. Or else I would be the first! :P :D Aha! By the way "Raahat-e-Zahan" is a Hindi-Urdu phrase which means, "a relaxed mind". Thank you so much Prhartcom! Thank you so much! Love yaa! ^_^ Tamravidhir (talk!) 16:53, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your note, here. Just a minor point, though: if you want to let someone know about your posting, the correct prefix is [[User:]], rather than [[User talk:]]. Or (my preference), you can use {{replyto|user_name}}. -- John Broughton(♫♫)04:51, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
David Hume review
Thank you for taking an interest in this. I am nearing my wit's end. If you look at the Talk page, you will see that the reviewer is going to fail the article on three points.
S/He thinks there should be more on Hume's finances, even though I added a line about his lack of money some time ago. I've added a few more words since.
S/He thinks that the words about Hume's personal religious views should be put somewhere other than where it is. S/He keeps saying that it doesn't belong in 'Career' but before his religious writings. I keep pointing out that the words are not in 'Career' but in 'Biography'. I and other editors think that his personal views should be separated from his official writing on religion. The reviewer disagrees.
A big disagreement is about the number of quotations in the article. The reviewer seems to dislike quotations and wants to reduce them to a minimum. S/He even counted the number of quotations per paragraph to point out that there are too many. S/He is going to fail the article because the quotations make it not clear and concise. There is a request for a second opinion on this.
Myrvin, I'm so sorry you have had such frustrations. I, too, have had similar frustrations during the GA and FA process, so I can relate. This article must become GA, it is David Hume after all, and if you don't bring it to GA someone else must, so it may as well be you. I also worry that you might stop bringing future articles to GA, and we can't have that. And I worry that I myself will not meet your expectations as a potential reviewer.
I just completed reading the current review, though I will finish reading the article itself later today. I see now that these are the main sticking points. I doubt I will have much of an issue with the first two points, so allow me to ask you about the last one. Recently, a reviewer was reviewing an article I had submitted, and this person gave me the following note: "It is a standard expectation for academic writing to space direct quotations with at least a full sentence bereft of direct quotations; at least half of the sentences in a given paragraph should not include direct quotations at all." Do you agree with this? Prhartcom (talk) 14:50, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Gosh! I've not seen that before. It's not something I ever imposed on my students, nor had imposed upon my academic writing. Does it come from somewhere do you know? I wonder if there is a rift in the WP community here. Some WP-ers like direct quotations and others do not. Anyway, you will see that the reviewer sometimes does not simply object to the percentage of quotation marks, but intends to fail the article on the basis that the quotations make the article's language not clear and concise. To me, a direct quotation should be used when it would be dangerous or less clear to paraphrase it. I can see that an article more or less made up of direct quotations would be non-GA, or huge chunks of them, but I don't see this in David Hume. The reviewer counts that 2/3 of the paragraphs contain direct quotations, I suppose I could count up and see if it fits this other criterion. Myrvin (talk) 15:11, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Okay. In my case, I was sorry to get that note because I felt that the author I was quoting had said it so eloquently, better than I could, and told the reviewer so. My co-nominator replied to the reviewer, "This is an issue on which I find myself supportive of Prhartcom's position; I do not think that the quotation here is excessive, and I am unsure if it is prohibited or even discouraged under Wikipedia policy. Nevertheless, I will make an attempt to cut it down further" and proceeded to do so. In the end, everything was fine: The best quotes by the author were kept while the reviewer was satisfied with the new paraphrasing, everyone gave up something while getting something else, everyone's ego remained intact, and most important of all the article was improved in the process. I don't yet know if this example will apply to this review, but if it does, let us both be willing to work with each other for the benefit of the article. Absolutely there is a rift in the WP community; I have browsed around and seen some GA reviews sail through with light suggestions, while others face heavy criticism and a grueling process. Oh well. Everyone's doing their best, and everyone must not only stand firm but must also bend and sway. As long as WP:COMPETENCE isn't the issue here, I will be happy to have a go at this. I will speak with the current reviewer and then add notes to the current review page soon. Or, if the current reviewer prefers to fail the review first as you said, that would be fine too; if so, please watch for this and then start a new GA4 nomination. Cheers, Myrvin. Prhartcom (talk) 15:44, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
He's kind of a special case: educated as a geologist, worked as an astronaut, served as Senator, and is currently an adjunct professor of engineering physics. So maybe put him in with the scientists too? Or just leave him in the general group? --Pete Tillman (talk) 23:21, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Ah yes, Ms. Curry; I will go ahead and add her to the category right away, if you don't disagree; she is on the List article. Well, by all means, let's put Mr. Schmitt in both that category and in the List article, then. Would you do the honors, Pete? Prhartcom (talk) 00:01, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Hi, it seems obvious to me that Serten II = Serten; however, that's a matter for his usertalk. I have started threads at talk for both usernames. And (apologies) I deleted your inquiry about this bit of editor conduct at an article talk page. I'll be watching both user names (and yours) for awhile, so reply in any of the user pages and I should see it. But let's keep article talk on article talk, and user talk on user talk as much as possible. Thanks NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:26, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for understanding; Just FYI and for the record, I have ignored the debate about the cats and have no opinion either way on that subject.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:55, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Either have the cake or eat it. If you want the article being of no use for the cat, it won't be used for the cat. Prhartcom, you stop those sockpuppetry allegations for once and all, understood? Serten II (talk) 22:59, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
I have my two millennial children, thanks! Bad children get coal, good children get solar panels, which are much more efficient! Happy New Year, Curly Turkey!
This is an archive of past discussions with User:Prhartcom. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
