User:Adam Carr/Talk Archive5

Your comment on the Possible misuses of admin privileges (re:Lir) gave me a very good laugh. I took the liberty of posting it to Yet more bad jokes and other deleted nonsense. &rarr;Raul654 07:18, Feb 1, 2004 (UTC)

I think the Talk page makes it quite clear what has happened. Adam 09:11, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * My browser didn't properly refresh the Talk page, making it appear as if neither of you had posted anything since my last post last night. D'oh! :-/ -- ChrisO 09:25, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)

hi. regarding Monument to the Royal Stuarts they do not look better centred. The reason is the image: It misaligns the inscription and it is not centred on some screens. Would you like a screenshot of my screen to see what I am talking about? Optim 12:10, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Image:Myscreen.jpg <-- This is my screen, click to see it. you see, it is not centred. We should use a table to make it look centred. Optim 12:17, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I have the same problem in Internet Explorer. It's not about the browser. It has to do with the screen resolution and the font size. Optim 12:24, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Sorry for the headings, I used the "Post a comment" feature of the mediawiki software and it adds the headings automatically. When I created the table, on my screen the inscriptions were properly centred and not aligned to the right. I didn't know that on other screens it would go to the right. btw the article and the photo are very nice. what browser do u use? I will experiment on my userpage to see whether I can make it look centred with tables and not right-aligned as you said, and when I will finish I will let you a message with the code so that you can implement it in the article if you want. Optim 12:32, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Hi! Quite interesting question. Lets try to work with examples. Romans had a town in Hispania call Tarracona. The province name was Hispania Tarraconensis. So, applying to down under provinces, i would say Melburnia. Sounds funny! Anyway my Latin is limited, inexistent in fact. You better check with the other Adam, who is having Latin lessons. Let me know the answer, i'm curious. Your picture at the top impressed me. One of my grandfathers was a Wermacht major and died in Stalingrad (sniper, at least was not hunger or cold). I'm glad to know that there are still survivors and smilling :) Muriel 18:16, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * Hi Adam, I wouldn't say I'm a "scholar," but I think it would be Melburnum (neuter) or Melburna (feminine) (not Melburnia or Melburnium, though). It would definitely be New Latin, so I'm not sure of the rules, and I'm pretty much basing this off of the list of cities in my Latin dictinary :) The reason the O drops out is probably because there is no "ou" in Latin, that sound is spelled simply with "u" (in this case, or as "au" for our "out" sound). Sorry I can't be much more help than that. Adam Bishop 23:41, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Hello. As far as "direct descendant" is concerned, the term seems to be endorsed by certain dictionaries. After doing some Google searching, it would seem that "direct descendant" refers to a person who is just a descendant, while "indirect descendant" refers to a person who is a descendant of a brother or sister. Personally, I think that the terms "lineal descendant" and "collateral descendant" would be more appropriate. -- Emsworth 20:06, Feb 2, 2004 (UTC)

(FROM Talk:Adam Carr, presumably placed there by mistake)

Good work on the AIDS article. i added Eve van Grafhorst and Suzi and Troy Lovegrove links to List of HIV-positive individuals but don't have the information at hand to make articles for them -- maybe you can do something there. 211.28.122.253 10:33, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)

"Your opinion on my reworking of AIDS would be welcome. Also I have redirected poppers to nitrite inhalants which seems a more scientific term."

I thought the reworking was great. Actually, in a couple of sections I thought I detected a small anti-gay bias, but judging by your other contributions it seems I was mistaken. At any rate, I've made a couple of small changes here and there, but nothing major. I'd like to see the article expanded a little further actually, with more about original treaments (AZT) and a few of the other sections added to.

<>

Well I'm new. I was pretty blown away by your collection!

<>

I'm actually the reverse: a Vancouver gay man living in Japan!Exploding Boy 12:26, Feb 3, 2004 (UTC)

(END moved text)

-

Good evening Adam.

I moved your request for mediation in the archive as I think as long as you people talk together, it is best that you talk to each other directly, rather than through intermediaries :-) I apology for not being able to help you on the article itself, but it is my understanding that few are likely to be as knowledgeable on the topic than the 3 of you anyway. I do not know when you will reach an agreement so that the article may be unprotected, but I feel you are in the right track. I hope you 3 keep working together in a positive manner. Should you need help in case of an eruption, do not hesitate to ask help again. Regards. User:Anthere

Take the Sysop Protection Pledge Poll?168... 00:44, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)

If people aren't "likely to notice" that we used their text without permission, that does not make it ok. What if I steal a pencil from your desk, since you're not "likely to notice" that it's missing? Pakaran. 05:00, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Re my nearly complete reversion of your Instant runoff voting change - I last put my case at Talk:Proportional_Representation_using_the_Single_Transferable_Vote. That's a problem with discussing terminology on Wikipedia - by definition it isn't clear where to discuss it! Pm67nz 05:53, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I didn't want my mistake immortalised so i reverted the article and deleted the talk page. PMA 13:38, Feb 9, 2004 (UTC)

Could you please explain why my edit is "pulling your chain". I don't see why it's something to get upset about. // Liftarn

Any WP User with any experience at all would know that such an edit would be immediately reverted. I conclude that you were being deliberately provocative. Adam 11:00, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * Then I must be inexperienced because I quite frankly don't see what's so controversial with adding two links and some missing information. Please explain. // Liftarn

Ok, I see your point. However the article needs to be improved to also cover the anti-racist anti-zionism. Sorry for the rather harsh words, but since you deleted the links I suspected you wasn't really interested in talking. // Liftarn

WikiProject United Nations: A new WikiProject to do with the UN has just been started, and, given as you've editted UN-related pages before, I thought you might be interested. James F. (talk) 04:23, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

If Kaliningrad Germans are called Prussians, it is onl ythe wow of Russian nationalists. They come from Kazakhstan, deported there from Engels Volga republic. As far as I am concerned originally from Hessen. However, 200 years Disno 10:33, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I would like to formally invite you to join others at Wikipedia:Wikiproject_Arab-Israeli_conflict to work with us toward resolving issues that have arisen and resulted in edit wars here at Wikipedia. Also, I would like to formally request that you agree, along with the rest of us, to refrain from editting each of the articles that are listed as currently under protection or subject to edit wars on that page till the issues regarding that particular article have been resolved and we have removed that article from the currently under protection or subject to edit wars list. OneVoice 13:30, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

If you hate the boxes why not suggest to the Wiki Powers That Be that they be removed from the UK PMs etc as well? PMA 02:36, Feb 14, 2004 (UTC)

On the U.S. Congress names, I'm just creating redirects from their "official" names to their more well-known names. There are a lot of names with red links on 108th United States Congress that already have articles, so I'm just linking the two. The only one I moved to a new name was Timothy V. Johnson because that's what his website uses in the header, and it avoids parentheses. --Minesweeper 06:56, Feb 14, 2004 (UTC)

Adam i noticed your addition to the Whitlam article - do you know what has caused him to become wheelchair bound? PMA 16:22, Feb 14, 2004 (UTC)

Adam, you've lost quite a few names in your last pruning of NKVD. Please find a place for them in KGB or revert. Mikkalai 11:13, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)

WP:AIC
"I am happy to join a discussion group, but I certainly don't agree that the "greater influence of Western and US power" has got anything to do with this topic and if that is the ideological starting point then I won't be participating. I am not willing to agree to refrain from editing any article."
 * Well, neither OneVoice nor I should be prejudicing any project scope with opinion statements. I asked OneVoice to not use the invitation that he did, because it was utterly silly.
 * As for the part I wrote about US influence - the general notion that "one context is completely unrelated to the other" is a... point-of-view &mdash;Im certainly not going to dissuade your participation by arguing it with you here. I included that as a reminder of the larger scope, not as a prerequisite to participation. In fact, anyone who edits those articles is a "participant." The project idea was simply to centralize discussion/consensus at the AICO, and to map the related articles. For writing a neutral invite sticker, see WP:AICB. Respectfully, -&#25140;&#30505sv 19:16, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)

- Dr Carr, I have not made the listing of the article in question as a featured article. Rather, it was already featured, after having been voted upon by the users at Featured article candidates. If you would like to have more articles featured, please do nominate them there. -- Emsworth 02:01, Feb 16, 2004 (UTC)

Strangely, immodesty is encouraged, as there is a specific section for self-nominations. However, these would need to be seconded. I have myself made an immodest self-nomination, for my re-write of Peerage. -- Emsworth 02:04, Feb 16, 2004 (UTC)

Can you point me to where it says "Initials in people's names, or companies named after them, should be written with periods after them, with a space between the initials and the name, but not between initials"? On Naming conventions (common names), it says, "Names with initials should have spaces after each period as in normal English text, for example, H. G. Wells." Most of the pages in Wikipedia follow this second convention, which is in accordance with the Chicago Manual of Style. --Minesweeper 04:41, Feb 16, 2004 (UTC)

Brilliant job with Alan Bullock! Thank you so much for adding to it: it's a much improved article with your information and image. Jwrosenzweig 07:08, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I've nominated Parthenon to be a featured article. -- Emsworth 13:18, Feb 16, 2004 (UTC)

Please vote on this matter (mentioned by coincidence above): Village pump. Initials without spaces are a modest but welcome typographical refinement. -- Viajero 09:35, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I am going to seek formal dispute resolution over our difference of opinion on the use of Reichsluftfahrtministerium or RLM in article titles. As a prelude to that, I have removed my share of ad hominem from the discussion and I wanted to give you the opportunity to do the same. If you're happy to let your comments stand as they are, could you please leave a message on my talk page to that effect? Secondly, if there is still material of mine there that you find offensive then let me know that as well and I'll be only too happy to remove it. Cheers --Rlandmann 23:30, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

OK. Just thought that I'd let you know that I found this comment highly offensive (and untrue):


 * "Rlandmann's arrogant and patronising tone provides the real explanation for what is going on here. He has an area of specialist interest, and is contemptuous of anyone who doesn't have his level of knowledge about it."

Thanks for getting back to me. --Rlandmann 23:40, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

What I found to be ad hominem was the suggestion that the only reason I could hold a different opinion from you was because of some sort of contemptuous attitude to the readership - but maybe I misunderstood the remark? Please let me know what you found "arrogant and patronising" in my remarks.

I'll also confess that I'm still puzzled (and frustrated) as to why you never would address the specifics of the reasoning behind my position. I took the time and trouble to spell out why I think the way that I do, researched the statistics, and invited your response. To me, to simply ignore that and instead choose to mount what I experienced as a personal attack seems the very height of arrogance, and it was this that provoked my original angry response. --Rlandmann 00:03, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

OK - I can see why you found that over the top. I'll strike it out. For the record what the remark actually betrays is a frustration I sometimes have with what seems to be people's laziness with words new to their vocabulary (whether originating in their native language or not). Good catch - I'll watch that more closely here. I only wish you could have said that in the first place, and perhaps avoided the escalation. --Rlandmann 00:36, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Just one more comment - rereading the comment that you (rightly) found offensive, I noticed that it was in response to you dismissing my original claims about the usage of Reichsluftfahrtministerium and RLM in English as "rubbish". Not defending my inappropriate response in any way, but suggesting that there might have been a less inflammatory way of expressing your difference of opinion. --Rlandmann 01:07, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

OK - but note that I never said that it was as widely used, just that it was widely used in publications and websites dealing with this era of German aviation. I'm sure you've seen the statistics provided from Google that I believe support this contention. It seems that the only real argument we have is "how general is general", and by implication, when is something "general" enough to make it usable in an article title.

Even "Luftwaffe", while comprehensible to audiences of war movies in English, is probably completely opaque to quite a number of readers who would immediately understand what "German Air Force" means. "Kuomintang" means nothing to an English speaker who has never taken an interest in modern Asian history or politics, but that same person would probably get a lot more out of "Chinese National People's Party" which gives them at least the fact that the article has something to do with (a) China, and probably (b) a political party.

Of course many, if not most, article titles are meaningless without some kind of background knowledge. Until I followed the link, I could only guess that Naibe Reynoso was a person, but could not rule out place, building, organisation, or other possibilities. I couldn't even begin to guess what a Quaternion was until reading the article... I guessed it was a chemical term.

Just some suggestions why an over-zealous application of the "English only" general policy makes no sense (not saying that your argument for its application here is necessarily over-zealous or not, just to avoid any further misunderstanding). --Rlandmann 02:14, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

It seems that our positions are further apart then than I had thought.

Honestly then - why don't I see you moving Kuomintang or Luftwaffe (genuine quesion)? I guess I'm just curious as to where you see the line being drawn over what you'll "be bold" and just rename and what you'll leave alone. --Rlandmann 03:44, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

OK - but googling RLM aircraft returns 6,340 hits, RLM Germany 5,390 hits, and RLM world war 3,680. Do you still think that this acronym is still too obscure to use in an article title? --Rlandmann 04:47, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Just clarifying - do you honestly think that "most people" who come across "RLM" will automatically assume it to be "REM" mis-spelt (as opposed to just thinking that it's an acronym they're unfamiliar with? I wonder whether you're being facetious. If not, could you please tell me what you base this belief on? --Rlandmann 06:30, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

No problem - it's just that there seems to have such a high level of misunderstanding between us that I want to assume as little as possible now. I'll gladly admit only one of the four names ( &#1500;&#1497;&#1499;&#1493;&#1491; ) you mentioned means anything to me. However, I don't see the situations as analogous.


 * Obed'enniy Gosudarstvennoi Politicheskii Upravlennie returns 6 hits on Google (not counting wikipedia and derivatives)
 * &#1500;&#1497;&#1499;&#1493;&#1491; doesn't seem to appear on any English websites.
 * Rénmín Jiefàng Jun returns no hits either.
 * Tsusho-sangyo-sho returns 37 hits total.

This is, then, the other extreme. We apparently agree that with over 100,000 hits in English, Luftwaffe is fine as a title. We also agree that names like the four you quoted that don't even produce 40 hits are not appropriate names.

If you don't like Kuomintang (40,000 hits in English) then I'm not surprised that with "only" 6,000 hits RLM doesn't pass muster with you either!

If there were a single, standard, generally accepted way of rendering Reichsluftministerium in English, the way that Heyl Ha'Avir (which, incidentally gets 290 hits in English, plus 6 as Cheyl Ha'Avir...) is always (or next to always) rendered as "Israeli Air Force" then perhaps I'd even agree with you. But since there's not, I guess I'm surprised that you continue such strong opposition to using a name or acronym that's demonstrably so often found in English. Have you taken a look at any of the 27 links I posted on the German Air Ministry designation system talk page?

Put another way, the standard way of referring to the German Air Force in English is by its native name of "Luftwaffe". In my experience (I know yours differs), the standard way of referring to the German Air Ministry (1933-1945) is also by its native name or acronym. Of course Reichsluftfahrtministerium and RLM are not found as frequently in English as Luftwaffe, since the RLM isn't/hasn't been talked about as much in English as the Luftwaffe. It doesn't help when people so often attribute decisions and actions of the RLM to the Luftwaffe as if the two bodies were one-and-the-same, but I digress. --Rlandmann 07:38, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I'm curious as to the actual mechanism by which you believe an esoteric title works to conceal an article. I would have thought that the vast majority of people coming to the wikipedia entry on the RLM would either:


 * have encountered it while reading about aviation history, in which case Reichsluftfahrtministerium or RLM is exactly the word they are searching for,

or


 * followed a link from Göring, Luftwaffe, or some other Nazi-era topic, in which case the name of the article neither helps nor hinders their journey. If anything, I would think that in this case, the name Reichsluftfahrtministerium would be preferable, since it heads up the article with something new for the reader to learn.

Since any article on the Reichsluftfahrtministerium in English wikipedia is going to immediately start with a definition of the term, I don't believe that using the native name as the title is going to prejudice search engine hits either. --Rlandmann 08:32, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

...and another thing - I've just read your remarks on Morven's talk page. My initial remarks to you were nothing but civil. The whole situation only started to degenerate when you simply wrote off part of my reply as "rubbish" without even addressing or querying it. I would like you to either remove that comment from that page, or, since I know that you don't like doing that, to add a retraction below it, owning up to however much of the fault you think you can shoulder (even if it is just to say, as you have on my talk page, that you could have been more diplomatic). Thanks. --Rlandmann 10:43, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Adam, please see my comments at Talk:Tibetan people inviting you to take a look at WikiProject Ethnic Groups. You raised some reasonable concerns that relate more to that WikiProject than to this particular page, and I wanted to point you to a more relevant venue to air them. -- Jmabel 19:48, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Once again in the interests of forestalling any possible misunderstanding, I'll let you know that Greyengine5 has moved the articles in question to titles based on the RLM acronym - while I am, of course, pleased, I wanted you to know that I had nothing to do with it. --Rlandmann 23:00, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Got your note - while I understand your position of not wanting to debate further, I'd still be interested in hearing your views as to how an esoteric article title works to hide the information contained in that article.

Also - would you agree that a lot of terminology and nomenclature in general usage originates in specialist usage and gradually filters out from there?

Finally, I was thinking last night that what's really being highlighted here is a difference in authorial/editorial position with regard to possibly different assumptions as to potential readership, originating from different experiences with two different bodies of specialist literature and the assumptions that flow from that. Although things got heated at various stages, I'm coming away very glad for having had this conversation with you. Cheers --Rlandmann 00:48, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Forgive my ignorance of convention. The compromise proposal for the Conquest article is fine with me. Everyking 02:43, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

--- I just found out that there's no aricle on Sidney Hook at the moment. Without a doubt, you'd be the ideal author. 172 17:14, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Hi, just wondering what the problem is with the sentence


 * (and by gay communities simply as "the plague," a name that persists among
 * some older gay people).

from the article on AIDS, because this is the second time you've removed it.

Thanks Exploding Boy 04:50, Feb 20, 2004 (UTC)


 * On my page you wrote "I don't believe it's true." Allowing the benefit of the doubt (this being writing, and therefore perhaps more open to misinterpretation), would you care to explain?  I can assure you that I've personally known older gay people who use this term, and I've also seen it in writing. Exploding Boy 05:30, Feb 20, 2004 (UTC)~

Oh, well then. Since you've never heard it and think it's "silly," we'd best leave it out of the article. Thanks for clearing that up. Exploding Boy 05:49, Feb 20, 2004 (UTC)

Sorry for butting in, but I can tell that I'm sure to have seen plenty of references to "the plague" in writings by US queers. But from this certainity to dig out any examples is a certain distance... I don't advocate anything. Scrapping the part of the sentence is perfect with me. I would only affirm Adam that the term is clearly recognized by me. But I would never use it myself.--Ruhrjung 09:38, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * Well I'm the one who wrote that sentence originally; I replaced it once already when Adam deleted it (and obviously I was being facetious above). I think the term illustrates rather well how gay people, men especially, felt about AIDS when it first hit.  People were literally dropping dead.  There were men who lost every friend and lover they'd had.  It really was like a plague for people and it seemed there was no escaping it.  It's also significant that some older people still call it that now; they have memories of what it was like that the younger generation of gay men simply doesn't have.  I think the sentence should stay, but I'm not getting involved in another conflict and I'm certainly not getting into an edit war. Exploding Boy 14:51, Feb 20, 2004 (UTC)

I don't know how old Exploding Boy is, but as one who lived through that period, and who was very active in the gay community response to AIDS at that time, and who read the Anerican, British and Australian gay press regularly at that time, I can say quite firmly that although the expression "gay plague" was frequently used by homophobes and (occasionally) in the tabloid press, I never heard a gay man refer to AIDS as "the plague." I think this is a case of retrospective myth construction. Adam 01:06, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * And I've already made it clear that I have, and I still know people who use the term. As I've already said, however, I'm not getting involved in another conflict or an edit war.  You might want to brush up on your Wikiquette a little though.  Just because you don't know about something doesn't mean it doesn't exist, and responding to a polite in the manner you have -- dismissively and, frankly, rather rudely -- does little to smooth this process.  Exploding Boy 01:24, Feb 21, 2004 (UTC)

Governors
Dr Carr, I have received your message. I have just completed providing ordinals for Governors of NSW. -- Emsworth 23:38, Feb 22, 2004 (UTC)

You are correct on Lord Beauchamp (I remembered that the 1st Earl was also William Lygon, so I put that in without realising the years.) Victoria is complete. -- Emsworth 23:45, Feb 22, 2004 (UTC)

You said: ''4. We are told that Portugal comes from Porto cale, the cale being from kali in Greek. There were no Greek colonies on the Atlantic coast so this is highly dubious.''

I rephrase: There were no MAJOR Colonies, only explorations and small settlements, it was a phoenician zone of influence. They called the land: Ophiussa (land of Serpents) they came to Portugal after a battle or an exploration in Northern Africa. Some greek mythology is related to Portugal, Lisbon was called Ulisseia (the city of Ulisses), but can be after the Roman colonization, that introduzed several Roman goods, even specific Portuguese-related Goods, like Luso and Lisa. Before the invasion of the Romans the city was simply called Cale, till the middle ages was named Portuscale, the name split into two as Portus (today: Porto)- northern part of the river Douro and as Cale (today: Gaia)-southern part of the same river. There is no relation to the name Galicia or to the celts.

The city NEVER (EVER) was called Port of Gaya, its impossible. Gaia is a modern name (after the 13th century when Portuguese was officialized as language of Portugal, and Latin was banned because noone really used it for centuries). Gaia is from the word Cale... that in portuguese turns to gale and gaia. Like acqua turned to água. Portugal to the greeks was also known as the land after the Heracles strait. But like everything from that time, certain is not a common thing, but that version that you say is "unlikly" was what my History teatchers told. And what i've also read.

Pedro 00:01, Feb 24, 2004 (UTC)

good work on John Cain, do you plan similar work on Joan Kirner? PMA 03:34, Feb 24, 2004 (UTC)

Ha! I don't like the headings either. I thought it was just me. Sometimes I edit them out, sometimes I get tired of it and just try to ignore them.

But to business. I didn't know that the Cains and the Beazleys were a can of worms. Possibly that happened while I was away for two months late last year. (Dare I ask which side of the can you were sitting on? Guess I can trawl through the history if I feel curious enough.) No matter. I've fixed most of the links (meanwhile, making a small bet with myself&#8212;that 9 out of 10 of the 9 out of 10 'pedia editors I mentioned would probably have the initials "AC"), and got rid of all the double redirects. Redirects are not a problem (as a community we are far too fussy about redirects: redirects are perfectly acceptable in any article), but I'll have another look and see if there are any more that seem to warrant spending time on.

As for the move itself though, I don't think that there is any room for people to dispute it. The Wikipedia naming conventions are perfectly clear, and in this case (for once), their application is equally clear. The most common common name rule rulez. Or something.

Best -- Tannin

- Your election archive is an excellent service. I'm including it under the ICPSR site (the University of Michigan's national election survey) among the list of resources on my user page. Thanks for sharing your work with us all! 172 18:28, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Oxyrhynchus.jpg
Hey Adam - I'd like to put Oxyrhynchus as the featured article with [[media:Ac.oxyrhynchus.jpg]] (which you uploaded) as the picture. First, though, I'd like the copyright description on the picture page. Coudl you do this for me? &rarr;Raul654 02:30, Feb 25, 2004 (UTC)

I just read Abraham and thought "probably Adam would like to add the contemporary historical opinions on the subject", as the present article lacks it. Just in case. Pfortuny 11:51, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * Nice addition, thanks! I am a complete ignorant on the subject, so apologies if the question is out of place: I gather from your paragraph that there are no archeological hints or suggestions concerning his existence as what we understand today as an individual? Pfortuny 22:00, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

battery
According to the article in question, LBJ "grabbed the much smaller Canadian by the collar and slammed him against the wall." In my book, that is battery. That is why I changed it. Just so you know why. Kingturtle 02:37, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Australia
I am wondering if u can write an article about the homosexuality in Australia, just like Homosexuality in China and Homosexuality in Japan? :O --Yacht (Talk)Q 14:20, Feb 27, 2004 (UTC)

Lukashenko vs. Lukashenka Hi Adam -- User:Cantus just moved Alexander Lukashenka to Alexander Lukashenka. When I did a Google search of the -a version, I got 1610 hits (versus 14,700 for -o). However, one of your pages, "Adam Carr's Electoral Archive" was right near the top. Since you're a respected editor, I was wondering what you think about the move. Also, I'd invite you to weigh in at the new discussion of related matters at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(places).

Thanks, BCorr ¤ &#1041;&#1088;&#1072;&#1081;&#1077;&#1085; 05:15, Feb 28, 2004 (UTC)

Formatting of Korean
A number of Korean-related articles (I would say most) are formatted that way. Please go to Naming conventions (Korean) and go yak at those people. I do not take responsibility. Please also pay attention to what you link to. Visit Korean and you will get what I mean.

The romanized version should not be bolded since it is not the title of the article.--Jiang 11:47, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * I'm not familiar with Korean and would also like to know what romanization system is used there. --Jiang

Holidays
Thanks for pointing it out. I've changed that one. I was just following the format of the first one listed at WikiProject Countries/Status. Are there any others you feel should be public holidays instead of holidays? Angela. 13:23, Feb 29, 2004 (UTC)

I did think of that but public holiday redirects to holiday anyway, so I thought doing it this way would avoid the redirect. Also, "holidays" is not the same as "holiday". I would call going somewhere "a holiday", not "holidays". Angela. 13:33, Feb 29, 2004 (UTC)


 * I've given up moving them for a while. If you decide which is best, let me know and I will fix them, but I'm having a break from Wikipedia today. Angela. 22:11, Feb 29, 2004 (UTC)