User talk:Qp10qp/Archive 3

Archive This is an archive of inactive discussions.

Chekhov, Luther ... (anti-nationalism) ... Pets ... i.e. misc

Ah ... I hadn't made the connection, but I now see you, too, on Luther's talk page. Thanks for pointing this out - I also hadn't realized I'd been of any help there. I glanced at your user page ... thus the above reference to nationalism ... I don't care for it myself either ... Now I just need to convince the folks at an AfD that I've been involved with recently ... ;-) ... Keesiewonder 19:15, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My current Afd of interest regards the article on 'Thakur Sher Singh Parmar', not wikilinked to protect you a bit. I don't think they're really thinking I'm a bigot or anything; I guess it's a recent sore spot with me due to a bad experience in an online study group a month or so ago. That has all boiled over and I got an A in the class, so, never fear! :-) I expect the article will likely be deleted ... at least I hope so. Too bad, since I may very well like his work if I could find it ...

My username is one of my dog's many nicknames. He's a Keeshond named Hermann. Some call the breed Kees for short, or Keesie. I've had him since he was a 10 week old pup and he's now 10. I learned how to read on Dr. Seuss books, so seem to have this habit of making up little dittys. One of the things this breed will do (at least the happy specimens) is cock their head to one side when listening to you. Hermann does this dramatically and often ... thus ... since he looks so intent on whatever I'm saying (yes, I'm alpha dog over two of these head-strong dogs), he quickly ended up as 'Keesiewonder.' Of course, my cat quickly coined, through me, 'Keesie-Blunder' ... Silly, I know. But you asked! :-) Keesiewonder 20:02, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for frequenting that Afd (and for your compliments!). It'll be interesting to see what happens. The guy may be for real, and we're just not spelling his name "correctly" to find him in "English" sources. The part that makes it look bad is when the simple information, like a catalog number for a book, does not come forth from the people who care. Most of whom are "new" users with no user page. That makes it really seem like a hoax. If he were for real, it'd be very easy for someone to point me to a newspaper article or journal or book with him in it. Maybe I'll see if I can figure out how to search on India's WP to see if I can find him there. Or, maybe I'll do something better with my time ... ;-) Keesiewonder 22:19, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely!

Re "our" AfD, I don't usually do this much research for an AfD. In this case, I am since for some reason it struck my fancy, and I'm interested in learning more about India. Besides, though it is not really getting through, I'm trying to make a point with those who want the article kept now. (Why haven't I heard back from the U of Pune yet?????) I have asked my work colleague ... it'll be interesting to see what he says. He has family in India, and is someone I am about to work with a bit more closely on a project, so, all around, it is a nice opportunity to get to know him better. Of course, he just might think I'm crazy too! (I'm not ... ) Keesiewonder 17:19, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Head against brick wall - Thanks for your note. You gave me lots to think about. I expect once I get up to speed on the proposal, I'd agree with you nearly 100%. To be continued ... Keesiewonder 00:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

WikiThanks
WikiThanks

WikiThanks per your help with Władysław II Jagiełło article!-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  00:14, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And a WikiThanks from me as well. As to your changes - I'm on wikivacations now and won't change much, but I read most of your changes and they seem perfectly fine. In fact that's how this article should've looked the moment I wrote it. However, as I'm not a native speaker, the article needed someone like you. Thanks for being the man, keep up the good job!
BTW, as to the referencing thingie, my 3+ years in English wiki have taught me that it's the only way to go when a topic is controversial or, as was the case of Jagiello, is not controversial as such, but is discussed ad nauseum by a bunch of nationalists who find the naming more important than the content of the article. Take note that, once I expanded the article, all quarrels stopped immediately. The same happened at Warsaw Uprising (1794), Katyn Massacre, Battle of Warsaw (1920), Invasion of Poland (1939) and perhaps a dozen other articles. So, in other words, proper referencing is a great way to close the mouth of people who have much to say but little knowledge or will to expand the articles. And that's what we're here for, aren't we. //Halibutt 13:12, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wither Martin Luther?

We've got the article down to fighting weight and I've opened a discussion on what we may or may not have missed in the article. If we're all satisified, we can go into the final quality push before an FA nom. Come on by! 8-) --CTSWyneken(talk) 13:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Restoration literature

"It's a fine article, though, and surely shouldn't be knocked for having its shirt buttons foppishly undone. Quite clearly, the buttons are all there" - that's a good point made and a lovely turn of phrase. --Mcginnly | Natter 16:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Error in Image:Poland Lithuania under Jogaila Jagiello.png

Crakow is a mispelling (per Talk:Kraków#Spelling_.2F_misspelling) - it should be changed to Kraków. And while you are at it, see Historical_demographics_of_Poland#Urban_demographics for other large cities of that period that should not be excluded from the map: Poznań, Wrocław, Gdańsk and Trakai should be added, see also this map for some others.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  21:34, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am happy to change "Cracow", though it is a variant spelling, not an error or a misspelling, and was taken from the map in the Times Atlas of World History (1994).
I have several historical maps at my disposal, and I'm afraid I do not believe that the map you link to is accurate. It has Poland too narrow at the top, as if the Carpathians travelled further north. But the worst thing about that map—at least on my computer—is that it is impossible to read. I traced my map from this old German one: Image:Poland under Jagello.jpg.
But rest assured, a second map is coming, which will show Prussia and northern Poland and Lithuania, and all the northern places mentioned in the article, the battles, sieges, shifts in land. The first map I intended really only to give the reader the larger picture (which one can't take for granted: knowing where Samogitia was is essential to a comprehension of the article, for example). I have recently had my view of Wikipedia historical maps enlightened by the guidelines of User:MapMaster and his philosophy that the map-reading experience should be integrated with the text-reading experience in a Wikipedia article; in particular (to quote him):
  • [Integrated maps] will work together with the accompanying article. The purpose of an integrated map is to provide context for placenames and other information in the article.
  • Will be sharply defined and clear when viewed within the article. Too many maps in Wikipedia are shrunken so small or drawn with so much detail that they cannot be read or understood from the article.
  • Will not require a magnifying glass and maxi-zoom to read the details. Like a Wikipedia article, a map can be improved by leaving out information/data.
  • Will be easy to interpret.
For the time being, I will change the spelling of Crakow to Kraków and add Trakai (which I left out to avoid squashing: I can get round that by pushing the word "Samogitia" upwards).
I will be through with the article text in about a week (famous last words!), and then I will get down to the second map, for which I have been collecting sources and which, without using any original research, I suspect will be unique to Wikipedia. qp10qp 10:03, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am looking forward to your new maps, you are doing a great job. User:Halibutt, among other things, has created quite a few maps too, and has some templates of the region you may find useful - see commons:User:Halibutt/maps. Unfortunatly some users are trying their best to make sure Halibutt stays away from our project (just go to WP:RFI and search for 'Halibutt') :( -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  17:05, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Chekhov

No problem. I was rather stressed myself. All the best. Errabee 09:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Family tree help

Hi! I noticed the Jogaila article you've worked on has a great family tree, and I thought something like that would really help the Ivan Alexander of Bulgaria article. Unfortunately, I don't seem to be getting on well with the syntax, so I need some help :( If you've written this part of the article, could you please also make an Ivan Alexander family tree according to this graph. If it's another editor, could you please inform him that I've asked? Thanks :) Todor→Bozhinov 13:04, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh well, I wouldn't like to bother him too. I see you've done some good work, thanks for that :) I can add two refs once it's ready. I knew the number of children could be a problem, but I don't think much can be done about it, it seems the guy really insisted on a large family :) Too bad his sons had those conflicts and rivalries... Todor→Bozhinov 12:35, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fowler's prig

You were kind enough to copy Fowler's prig definition for me a while back User talk:Shtove#Fowler's prig. I pasted it into Prig, which may be set for deletion or transfer to Wiktionary. Any ideas on how to keep it here? I'd like to think WP has time for this definition, especially when the current editors of Fowler's don't.--Shtove 22:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jogaila FAC

There is a reason I have not nominated it myself and instead wanted to deal with the name issue first... :) If we can just settle on a name that everybody considers somewhat accepable, the FAC would be a smooth ride.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  04:59, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Meyendorff

This historian is familiar with obscure Russian and Byzantine records most historians have not looked at. He says Jogaila had the Orthodox name Jacob. I'm not inclined to assuming he's making it up ... he, as you have seen, takes it for granted. I'd be interested to hear if you find out more about it. Regards, Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 15:26, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'll leave your replies as they are now, because your objections have been addressed to an extent and the Meyendorff view is available in the notes (I've still to change the map). I'm not at all interested in winning arguments, just making a better article.
My (OR) belief is that if there was such a thing as a half-Christian, such were Jogaila, Vytautas, and even Algirdas and Gediminas. How could Jogaila not have been brought up as a Christian, when his mother was one? (And she'd be much more likely to call him by a Christian than a pagan name, in private, I'm sure.) On the other hand, I believe it served these grand dukes to use paganism as a bargaining tool: look what they gained from the promise of baptism and rebaptism (Vytautas in particular) over the years. So I never thought Meyendorff was wrong: in fact, I pounced on that quote as a great addition.
Many thanks for your stimulating input. You are the first person to address the substance of the article. qp10qp 16:31, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You make some good points. No probs. Good luck with the FA. Regards, Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 18:15, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Error in Image:Polish and Lithuanian Conflict with Prussia. 1377-1435..png

Yes, I enjoy pointing them out :> Seriously, great job with the map but it should be Dobrzyń not Dobryzń (mispelling). The issue of Nowogródek was raised by others, I believe - Nowagródek is rather strange. My suggestion: either use Polish Nowogródek or Russian Novogrudok. PS. On the subject of mapmaking: User:Zondor/Labelled Map Documentation-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  19:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Belarussian per Belarussian_language#1200s-1400s. I'd go as far as to suggest we should consider replacing modern Lithuanian-English with Belarusian for Jogaila map but I'd probably be stoned to death by several users, so I will not suggest this, just mention :) -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  21:58, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

[I've moved the BS from here to my userpage basement. qp10qp 23:54, 10 February 2007 (UTC)][reply]

You don't have to reach FA to deserve a barnstar. Thanks for your note, I will take a look at the talk page. Appleseed (Talk)

A well-deserved award :) What's next on your 'to do' list? If you have nothing else planned, on my userpage you can see a list of several old FAs that are in dire need of bringing up to the current standards, and would greatly benefit from your skills :) -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  02:33, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, none of my current projects deal with that early period (although I just created a stub on the Prussian uprisings, did you stumble upon any further info on that interesting series of events?). And if we look about two centuries later, there is another one of my pet projets (somewhat forgotten lately): Moldavian Magnate Wars. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  01:56, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

hey

hey,

I can,t understand your comments: My current Afd of interest regards the article on 'Thakur Sher Singh Parmar', not wikilinked to protect you a bit. I don't think they're really thinking I'm a bigot or anything; I guess it's a recent sore spot with me due to a bad experience in an online study group a month or so ago. That has all boiled over and I got an A in the class, so, never fear! :-) I expect the article will likely be deleted ... at least I hope so. Too bad, since I may very well like his work if I could find it ...

What do you mean by and in what context -

I don't think they're really thinking I'm a bigot or anything; I guess it's a recent sore spot with me due to a bad experience in an online study group a month or so ago.

Kushwah 14:31, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These comments aren't mine but User:Keesiewonder's, as you can see at the top of this page. I think she means that she opposes unreliably sourced articles, having objected to her classmates' indiscriminate use of Wikipedia articles to source their assignments. I'm sure she'd be willing to answer your question herself. qp10qp 15:18, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYI; hope you're well. --Keesiewonder talk 18:09, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Yes you will :)

Hello. Yes FAC was closed before all aspects were finally discussed, but the main problems you solved already very nicely and professionally, I am also delighted that you will handle unsolved points. I will monitor them and deliver my opinion. Congratulation with FA, M.K. 08:57, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

My grateful thanks for your assistance with Jack Sheppard, which is now a featured article. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:56, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ha!

[Moved BS into cellar with the knock-off vintage port] qp10qp 15:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For furthering proper terminology. (I never send these unless there has been at least five glasses drunk!) Brendandh 20:22, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ha ha! Many thanks, sir.qp10qp 15:29, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PR

If you have a few minutes could you have a look at Wikipedia:Peer review/The Log from the Sea of Cortez/archive1. Your suggestions have been very helpful in the past, and since it isn't getting any attention I thought I'd bother you. Cheers, Yomanganitalk 19:16, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

George Calvert

I wanted to thank you for working on the article. I'd love to hear, though, what your other concerns are so I can begin working on them. Mocko13 21:25, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a little ashamed to admit that I was bothered at first, but that was vanity making me stupid. The goal, after all, is to produce the best possible article, and your criticisms were well-founded. And anyway, I'm an amateur historian at best, especially when it comes to British history, and it's spectacular to have a trained eye focused on the historiography of the article. I've made some changes to the lead based on what you suggested, though I think I'm too close to the writing to know whether it really is helpful to a reader with little prior knowledge.

The Chekhov article looks great, by the way. Mocko13 23:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think it needs more work before FA? I'm sort of new to the process and am not sure, given the work done since the original nomination, whether it should be withdrawn. And your original oppose still stands. - Mocko13 17:43, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Iguanodon

Hi Qp, Just saw your note on the FAC page. Feel free to edit it as you see fit (not that you need my consent, obviously, but I didn't want my comments on the FAC page to sound like you weren't welcome to have a go at it). Thanks for the comments, and any clarity you can add to the article for the general reader will be appreciated. Best wishes, Firsfron of Ronchester 04:48, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's been a couple of weeks now, and I want to apologize if you felt like the dino people were ganging up on you. At heart, we all want the article to be the best that it can be. I'm particularly sorry for one comment where I said "no one really wants to see a number of parenthetical statements" and began what reads like a lecture, which was not my intention. I needed a different lead-in to that sentence, that said something to the effect of "I don't think Qp10qp really wants to see lots of parenthetical statements," because what I was really trying to do was blunt some of our other comments where we were presenting absurdly extreme variations. Instead, I came off like I was putting you down. We dino people can get to be overwhelming, as there's usually two or three of us on hand at any time ready to chime in. I'm sorry if we were becoming too much. After all, we're nerds too, just in a different field. J. Spencer 19:40, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All right. I just wanted to make sure that we hadn't gone overboard, now that there's been some distance. Keep up the good work! J. Spencer 20:33, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Narrative History

Qp10qp: I posted this in response to your discussion re Dalrymple. Could you back me up on this one since Lao seems to have taken sole possession of WD's entry, and judging by his previous posts is a somewhat aggressive editor. Maybe you could contribute your own views to the entry as at the moment it seems to consist of Lao's views only:

"I agree with Qp10qp that the term "popular historian" used by Lao Wai is unhelpful and unfair in this case since it is usually used about writers who rely on secondary sources while my copy of The Last Mughal has nearly one hundred pages of scholarly apparatus, has won a major history prize (the Duff Cooper) and has been widely praised for discovering a whole range of new primary sources in Urdu and Persian. How about we compromise with "narrative historian" a term which has been used about historians both in and out of academe such as Simon Schama, John Demos and Anthony Beevor? Lao is clearly a clever guy, but it seems to me that he has some sort of vendetta going here, as his contributions about Dalrymple have all been notably negative. I am new here, but I thought the idea was to attempt a voice of neutrality rather working off personal dislikes? --Aziz32 03:10, 26 February 2007 (UTC)aziz

I wish you would go ahead with some sort of edit of Dalrymple's page Qp10qp. You seem to have read more of his stuff than anyone else on this site, so even a modest reassessment by you would be useful, even if you don't take a full week to do it and examine every word he has written... AZIZ

Copyedit request

If you know a place I can request copyeditor (for improvement of English language), please let me. I am looking for sb to improve the quality of Soviet invasion of Poland (1939) (nominated for GA and peer review comments suggest copyediting for English good prose is needed).-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  17:12, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By all means, I love such detailed review :) I will do my best to address all concerns, for now, I am adding a note about Allies reaction to the invasion. Some things may wait a week or longer, I have some real life stuff to take care first, unfortunatly :> -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  01:53, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article is now a GA, thanks for the help! In some spare time, could you look over History of Poland (1945-1989) - some users commented that this FA (now on FARC) needs a copyedit.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  18:03, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:BLP courtesy deletion

Hi, is this proposal something you'd be interested in helping to write? Your insights at WP:ATT were very helpful. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:02, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please help me understand Wikipedia:Attribution

Re your comment at: Wikipedia talk:Attribution/Archive 8#Woo, I just quoted W:ATT for the first time!

I would appreciate it if you would explain to me how you used the new policy and what exactly you liked about it that the previous policy didn't do. If you can help me understand that, it might help resolve the ongoing conflicts at Wikipedia talk:Attribution#Role of truth and Wikipedia talk:Attribution#Is this really policy?. Thanks in advance. --Coppertwig 23:32, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your reply. It seems to me that what helped you was the wording "attributable to a reliable published source" rather than "verifiability". That makes a lot of sense. Thanks for taking the time to reply, and I think this does help a bit, but it doesn't help as much as I was hoping, because my problem is with the part that says "not whether it is true". I'll be looking for wording that helps equally as much as that wording for the situation you describe, but which avoids the problems I mention in the "role of truth" section. For example, I suggested making it "not merely whether it is true". I think that would help even slightly more in the situation you describe than "not whether it is true".
The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is whether material is attributable to a reliable published source.
The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is whether material is attributable to a reliable published source, not merely whether it is true.
Would these have been equally helpful? --Coppertwig 00:26, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey

Just want to say thank you for your supportive comments; it's so kind of you, and it's really, really appreciated. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Belarus FAC

Go ahead and tell me what needs to be done, so I can get this monkey off my back and make Belarus an FA. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 22:51, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I can be honest, your welcome to help start on this now, since I pretty much know FA has been lost. Since Belarus, sadly, is yet another one man job done by me, there is a lot of things I really stink at. Grammar is a problem I have the most. I am in still in the process of expanding the history section, so once it has been expanded enough, then I will try and tinker around with the wording of the section. Thanks again. (As for you being another Tony, he did a lot to keep me in check on featured articles, but you are being pretty calm and civil, which is all I ask for in editors.) User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 02:17, 24 March 2007 (UTC) (copied from my talk page)[reply]

Problem with reference formatting

I see that in your formatting of refs in Soviet invasions, you elimianted links to Google Print page views. Could you restore them? I know that virtually all books I cited had those links, now there are just unlinked page numbers.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  16:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They usuall work for me. If you want, paste me the ones that don't for you and I'll verify them.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  17:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Giving the ref to the book in a normal way plus page number is all that's needed. The user who wants to verify can find the link in google books on their own (from the book info) and, go to the respective page of the book if google allows this for a particular user. I never list google books links because the urls are unreliable. ---Irpen 18:36, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I largely agree. But it's polite to conform to the citation style of the page, and so it's no problem for me to restore them. qp10qp 21:16, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunatly Google Books is not that friendly in regard of searching for a specific page - it accepts quotes, keywords, but for some reason, not pages. To make it even worse, I have seen that depending on keywords entered, you will get two (or more?) different sets of 'pages visibie/invisible' in a book, and at least in the old days scrolling down didn't work well since there was also a limit of pages visible per user... On that note, I am off to a library to look at few books that are not on GPrint yet :) -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  20:43, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ATT poll

Be ashamed of yourself! The poll is a collection of opinions, asked for free-form. My opinion certainly, and that of others, is more complex than Love ATT, Hate ATT, Neutral that you would impose on the !votes, and I went to some trouble to express exactly what I wanted to say. I guess I will now have to move it to "broad oppose" to have it counted at all, although I support most of ATT as language. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:11, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am a little sensitive. Some editors have been attempting to force through poll wordings (you can see who from the archives; not very many of them) and are still attempting to count the poll in their favour. I like most of ATT, and much of it more than the pages it would like to replace; but it is this which has driven me to oppose as far as I have. One of the options mentioned in the pre-poll was exactly this format (Y/N/&c) and it was objected to as biased, likely to roll over opinions more complex than Yay! Boo! or Yawn!. so I resist any effort to have it do so.
You're not nobody. You are a respected and responsible editor, whose opinion is normally reasonable. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:47, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
PM, we're all on the same side here, in that we all want what's good for the project; we differ only (and slightly) in how we think that's achieved. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:53, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I must say that the one thing I wasn't trying to do in that comment (which I've struck, as I'm not quite sure if I said what I meant) was to insist on my preferred outcome. I was actually trying to suggest that we shouldn't imagine away the neutrals. Anyway, this is not my scene: I'm a polls-are-evil fiend, and so I'll keep out of the poll conversations from now on and go back to discussing Poles. qp10qp

Invasion

Well, you don't have to explain that to me... From my previous experiences with Russian editors it seems, that sourcing the articles (often without even a single word changed) usually makes them disappear from the talk pages. They often have lots of general remarks on the articles, but very seldom do they cite specific issues and sources. This was certainly the case with the article on the Warsaw Uprising (1794), where there were lots of arguments at the talk page (often really heated and emotional), but none of them remained after I expanded the article and sourced it (and eventually pushed it through FAC). Especially after it turned out that the single reference cited at the talk page was simple some lunatic's invention (a guy tried to present the Poles in as bad light as possible, but it turned out that not a single statement in his book could be supported by evidence; in particular one of the editors raised an argument about Poles supposedly slaughtering unarmed Russian soldiers in an orthodox church, even though it turned out that the Russians were armed, there was no Orthodox church in Warsaw back then and that the entire story was but an invention). Same goes for a plethora of other Polish-Russian-related articles that are now FA, including the ones on the Warsaw Uprising, Katyn massacre and perhaps a dozen of others. I call the tactics escape forwards and it seems it works great. //Halibutt 15:25, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Second.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  01:47, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Let's hope that User:Irpen will open a RfC and demand apologies for this unmotivated slur. --Ghirla -трёп- 17:06, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Qp10qp, sorry for continuing this thread at your talk but I feel compelled to respond to the message addressed to me. Ghirla, unlike Piotrus, I do not have a propensity to go 'round various boards (admin or otherwise), RfC pages, ArbCom or otherwise with the sole purpose to have my content opponents sanctioned and "win" the content disputes that way. Moreover, I am personally responsible for the demise of two of such boards now thankfully shut-down after Piotrus' and his friend's abuse (WP:RFI and WP:PAIN). As long as Piotrus keeps his baseless accusations to the talk space, rather than attempts to use WP:CIV and WP:NPA as a weapon in the content disputes through seeking blocks of others, I simply ignore his offenses and concentrate on the articles instead. As for Halibutt, I know him for being short-tempered, I don't know that he is a fan of Piotrus' trick. He is just very opinionated, and I see no reason to pay any attention to such outbursts. I said it all I have to say on this matter here and there is no need to say anything further on this matter. --Irpen 18:10, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject League of Copyeditors

Perhaps this project may be of interest to you? In other issues, I am looking for copyeditors for History of Poland (1945-1989) and Polonization. The first is on FARC and 'bad prose' is the last remaining issue; the second is simply bad prose and many remark on it often. On a sidenote, based on my HoP45-89 and few other articles, I have to say updating old FAs to modern standards (with inline refs and such) is like writing them all over again :) And thanks again for all the help with SIoP39, I reread the article today and in quite a few parts it read like a new article (and a better one, too :) ).-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  01:47, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For deportations, see also this.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  02:34, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anton Chekhov

File:Party.gif
Congratulations! SlimVirgin (talk) 02:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fantastic article on the front page today! Thanks. — Rebelguys2 talk 01:46, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely brilliant. Thank you for writing it. :-) SlimVirgin (talk) 02:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded. I'm particularly impressed you have been bringing James I of England up to scratch while the Chekov article has been on the main page. Carcharoth 02:19, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Footnotes

Sorry, I didn’t realise there was any interplay of notes. For me it was just organising and consolidating duplicates. The Chicago recommendation, BTW, was made for print; in the Web it pays to consolidate. Feel free to revert.

Leandro GFC Dutra 21:10, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Djegan

I read your comments on Djegan's retirement. I couldn't agree more, there's nothing more satisfying then tending to your little allotment in the mad world of Wikipedia. Kijog 18:23, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

It's strangely stressful being on the front page. No one told me the first time I had one. It was an obscure article that no one ever edited, and suddenly one day people started changing things, and wanting British English instead of American, and I couldn't figure out why there was this sudden interest and such apparent contempt. :-D

Thank you for saying that about Rudolf Vrba! It's so gratifying to hear it. We did put a lot of work into it and ended up feeling quite proud that we'd actually created a useful online resource. It was a nice feeling. It's the kind of thing that makes being involved in Wikipedia worthwhile.

Unlike ATT etc. :-( I have just about given up on it. Now it's been suggested that we form a working party to interpret the poll results, and so of course that's being fought over too, and some people are saying we'd need a second poll to agree on the working party's suggestions ... I also took all the pages off my watchlist for awhile, and may do so again. It's not worth this amount of hassle, and it's definitely not worth me waking up one morning to find my hair's turned grey overnight, which I feel I'm on the verge of. :-) SlimVirgin (talk) 12:06, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Original Stories from Real Life

Although we may disagree on issues, we are both clearly dedicated to creating quality wikipedia pages and I do value your insight on that process. In the spirit of consensus, I was wondering if you would be willing to peer review my page on Mary Wollstonecraft's children's book, Original Stories from Real Life. I would greatly appreciate it. Awadewit 21:22, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for your copyedits. They were very helpful. I have only revised a few for accuracy. Awadewit 17:57, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

James VI of Scotland

Regarding this edit: It was not poor English at all. The agenda that the previous language attempted to bolster is that James VI was by some measure a homosexual. In point of fact, it is only recent historians who misattribute fairly typical court behavior to homosexual energies. Earlier "historians" are typically poets or adversarial aristocrats, often French (Catholic opponents of James' rule), who wrote slanderous accounts in order to stir dissatisfaction. These conditions are entirely overlooked by the editor who contributed the content we are now editing to the article (as well as the greatest portion of the "Personal Relationships" article). 67.101.243.74 15:46, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was bad English because the "if" clause must be followed by "were"; and the word order made the clause clumsy. For the rest, I think we agree. I edited that note to incorporate three referenced views: one, that historians differ and the matter is murky; two, that James regarded sodomy as a crime; three, that he had physical relationships with his favourites. Hopefully that covers it. My own opinion is that if we are going to be modern about this, what exact form his relationships took with his favourites matters little. qp10qp 16:05, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Haha, you're right. I misread my own initial contribution. Thank you for the correction. I am pleased you view it in much the same way as I do. It truly does matter little. It is the preoccupation of some others with making the case for notable figures' homosexuality, I think, that has recently over-emphasized such issues' relevance. 67.101.243.74 22:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

This made me laugh. :-) And I see you might be heading towards James I and Catholics anyway, despite saying life was too short to write that! Carcharoth 16:16, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly not!. I actually look like more like this... Carcharoth 11:43, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

re:Template substitution

I notice that you sometimes substitute the test template. Am I doing something wrong? If I put "subst:" in front of "test" will that make the difference? Since I doubt most of these messages are read, I don't want to spend too much time on them by typing out messages and links, etc. Could you advise me on what the best message would be for me to post for newby vandalism? Cheers (I hope I am not being too ambitious by trying to have a conversation with a bot, here; I am already laughed at for saying "thank you" to cash dispensers). qp10qp 16:31, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As tempted as I was to respond with the bot, I will take this question. Check out WP:UW for a pretty comprehensive list of warnings. I like {{test1}} as a first warning, but it is deprecated. You are supposed to add warnings with the subst: prefix, but a lot of users miss it (myself included many times). If you do miss it, my bot will most certainly get it for you. Cheers, alphachimp 16:36, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strange-looking barnstar

(Transferred to userpage)

Peer review

You are such a helpful reviewer that I cannot but ask for your assistance again. I have posted Sarah Trimmer over at peer review (another in my series on eighteenth-century British education). If you have time with in the next few weeks to look at it, I would greatly appreciate it. Thanks. Awadewit 05:50, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response

Thanks for the feedback on The Vision of the Twelve Goddesses. I'm pleased to hear that you found it worthwhile. Ugajin 05:50, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First the father, then the wife, and now the son...

What do you think of this? Do your books tell you anything about this? Carcharoth 13:46, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. I hadn't realised it was at FAR. I meant the specific comment about "here is the head of a traitor", but fair enough, specialised field and all that. The Siege of Rochelle article was interesting. Thanks for pointing that one out. Carcharoth 14:17, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Warsaw Uprising

Me and Halibutt are rewriting this article - in case you want to take a look or wonder what we were doing recently :) -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  04:02, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bibliography debate

Since you contributed significantly to the Anton Chekhov page and perhaps its bibliography, I thought that you might be interested in this debate over lists of works by authors. There has been an ongoing push at AfD recently to delete or merge authors' lists of works. Awadewit Talk 06:27, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ISBN/OCLC etc

Hi! Thanks for your note on my talk page. At a glance, it appears like the current solution is to simply go with an OCLC. I may take a look again in the morning. I've been having trouble at work. If I am to take another position it most likely means relocating several hundred miles from where I now live. I just moved and like the property I have, but, quite frankly, am overwhelmed and discouraged. Life is just too hard for me sometimes. Keesiewonder talk 01:11, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FCW maps

I am experimenting some colours in the maps, Finnish_Civil_War#Brothers_in_arms do you like the new blue better? If not, what would be better? I can't do the two smaller maps now, will do that tomorrow. Just to askong because after I spent a lot time with the colours it's hard to decide which is better. --Pudeo (Talk) 21:26, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Plymouth Colony

If you have some free time, Plymouth Colony could use a good peer review. The main editor and I have been around the bend a few times now and I've read the article several times now and copyedited it twice, I think, so someone else should step in. Awadewit Talk 05:41, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've printed it out and will give it a read this evening in the garden. qp10qp 15:13, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Much appreciated. Awadewit Talk 15:56, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Award

I really should have given you this long ago!

{Moved Awadewit barnstar to userpage.) qp10qp 18:37, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]