User talk:Amillar/archive

Discussion
Hello, sorry I deleted part of paint, I'm a newbie, starting to get a clue. Boy, I hope this message doesn't screw anything up. : )

someone (216.99.203.xxx) went through and redirected all the Alexander I,II,III, etc. imports to Pope Alexander I, II, III, etcs. I liked your link pages (e.g., Albert I) much better. --MichaelTinkler

Thanks. I may have goofed in some updates myself. Looking at it at now (August 24 2001), the index pages for Alexander I, II, and III are listing all the various Alexanders, so it looks correct now. I know there is some nomenclature reshuffling going on for a number of the Pope pages, and I see some redundant entries for Russian Tsar's also. Hopefully we can clean this up to everyone's satisfaction. -- Alan

Congrats on inputting all those encyclopedia articles! It's heartening to see them all in now; I had put in the first couple dozen of them, and know how much work it can be - especially trying to sort out which ones should be in and which shouldn't. Anyway, just wanted to throw some appreciation and thanks for a job well done. :-) -- BryceHarrington

Thanks, Bryce! And thank you from me to Bryce and everyone else who is doing the much-needed wikification of the articles after the initial posting. -- Alan

Hi, Alan. I worked on John the Baptist. Thanks for importing all this text! &lt;&gt;&lt; User:tbc

thanks for the LXX revisions, Alan! I was doing them when I noticed them (at best!). --MichaelTinkler

Thank you for your work on the pictures, Alan, but are you sure the one of the porcupinefish page should be credited to NASA? What are they doing taking pictures of fish? -- DrBob

Oops! Duh... I guess I was rushing too much. That one is from NOAA. Thanks for catching that. --User:Alan Millar

Thanks for all the historical uploads, Alan. I just linked 11 occurrences of Eusebius to the Eusebius of Caesarea entry! --MichaelTinkler

Alan - a question on the CCEL (or the other sources of the same info). After wikification on things like Tertullian and Origen I got tempted to start having links at the bottom of the entry to works mentioned in the entry. Sound like a good idea? --MichaelTinkler

I like the idea. I like the idea of a clear distinction of a "living" encyclopedia article (meant to be revised and improved) versus an historical document that should be frozen. (I think the idea of wholesale import of Shakespeare, US Constitution, or you name it into Wikipedia is a bad idea because they will eventually get changed, whether by chance or intent.) Linking to such documents, whether at CCEL or elsewhere, is a great idea. These Schaff-Herzog entries are going to need a good deal of wikification, and many of the bilbliographic references are unexplained in the articles. For example, the article may quote a source such as NPNF, but it is only if you look at the Schaff-Herzog volume preface that you'll find its explanation. I'm not sure what to do with all of those. --Alan Millar


 * Almost all the patristic sources are available online. Should we link directly from the references in the articles?  I think that's obtrusive, and that links inside articles should be to wikipedia resources only.  Links at the end, thus, seem better to me. --MichaelTinkler

I definitely agree; they are too intrusive in the text body --User:Alan Millar

Hi amillar. I saw your great contribution at battle of Hastings. I added following headers there:

History -- Military history -- List of battles -- History of England

Similar are on every other battle entry, and i once did much to find all battle pages, and make them into some standard format. szopen

Thanks for your latest efforts at cleaning out those year entries from the most wanted. The unwanted side effect seems to be that for everyone that you fix, another one pops up.:-) Eclecticology