User talk:Andreas Philopater/2010

Messages from talkpage, anno 2010 Current messages at: User talk:Andreas Philopater

Talkback

 * Replied.  fetch  comms  ☛ 21:27, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Et alii
I give you here documentation about "et alii" and not "et alios": et alii (et al.) and others Used similarly to et cetera ('and the rest'), to stand for a list of names. Alii is actually masculine, so it can be used for men, or groups of men and women; the feminine, et aliae (or et aliæ), is appropriate when the 'others' are all female. Et alia is neuter plural and thus properly used only for inanimate, genderless objects, but some use it as a gender-neutral alternative.[1] APA style uses et al. if the work cited was written by more than six authors; MLA style uses et al. for more than three authors. (references: List of Latin phrases: E --Bruxellensis (talk) 13:24, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Et alios
Thank you four your kind information, but "et alios" can be used only when the case is accusative. The article of wikipedia specifies: "selecting the appropriate grammatical case". So you can say: "I have see mutch poets, songers, et alios... Because it is accusative. But in a bibliography you heave to use the nominative. With regards.--Bruxellensis (talk) 15:04, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I give you here examples of bibliographical files that you can see in wikipedia english:


 * Ángel Montenegro et alii, Historia de España 2 - colonizaciones y formación de los pueblos prerromanos (1200-218 a.C), Editorial Gredos, Madrid (1989)(ISBN 84-249-1386-8)
 * see Chapront et alii 1988--Bruxellensis (talk) 15:21, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * My point was precisely that the text in question was not a bibliography, which makes your note somewhat beside the question. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 17:23, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * a footnote is not an accusative, in this case you have also to wright the family names in accusative, as Petrum Smith et alios !!!!!! etiam in libris latine exaratis semper casu nominativo usurpatur ad notulas sive indices indicandos quia subauditur "et alii scripserunt una". Mihi videris omnino nescire usum et genium linguae latinae. Inspicias exempli causa libros humanisticos sive collectionem Teubnerianam nusquam casum accusativum invenies. Mihi videris opinionem tuam privatam et peculiarem aliis imponere velle. Quod mihi non videtur admittendum. Vale.--Bruxellensis (talk) 09:46, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You will often see footnote references to "Erasmum", "Lutherum", etc., which indeed entails putting the surname into the accusative, so your "!!!!!!" seems to indicate excitement at something in itself rather unremarkable. Nevertheless, I must apologise - the half-remembered examples I looked up to illustrate my claim all have an explicit (not implicit) "Vid.", and those that do not avoid the question entirely by abbreviating authors' names ("erasm." "luther." etc.). It must be said, however, that in the reference notes in the humanist writings at my disposal I have no more found a clear use of the nominative than of the accusative when it comes to plain reference (rather than an elucidatory sentence). --Andreas Philopater (talk) 13:22, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You have reason, after "vide" you must have an accusative: Vide Erasmum, de Bello Turcis inferendo... etc... but not in a listing in english or in french. Vide alios etc... You have beginning this discussion in changing "alii" in alios.--Bruxellensis (talk) 13:42, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Casimir Zagourski
Thank you for your message. There is indeed some confusion, because Polish Wikipedia was edited today to remove the photo from the Warsaw Uprising. I moved the article to the Polish spelling of Zagourski's name based on the advice of User:Piotrus and the "Google test", the latter admittedly not the most reliable means of judging most common names in English. I apologize for any problems I may have caused. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 17:50, 28 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Greetings!


 * Its a bit confusing here, I wrote the name of Kazimierz Zagórski instead of Casimir Zagourski since it is actually his true name! In the article of "Ostoja coat of arms" I rerouted it to the article of Casimir Zagourski so why change proper name? It look ridiculess with two Zagórski's on the list!


 * I understand that most of publications when gooogling are in english using Zgourski but we cant have two members of same family spelling name in different way, that to confusing. I therefore change it back to his true name on the article of "Ostoja coat of arms". I hope You dont mind. If You dont agree, please communicate with me first before changing so we can finally agree on some solution on this. W cant go and change the names every day like that! :)

Sincerely Camdan (talk) 00:32, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

File source and copyright licensing problem with File:FineArtsJournal.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:FineArtsJournal.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, we also need to know the terms of the license that the copyright holder has published the file under, usually done by adding a licensing tag. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created [ in your upload log]. Unsourced and untagged files may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the file will be deleted 48 hours after 19:03, 9 June 2010 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. IngerAlHaosului (talk) 19:03, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:TheArtist.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:TheArtist.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in [ your upload log].

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:33, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Is it a US publication?, if it's before 1922 then it's PD.. You might need to check with the original source as to original date AND country of publication though. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:41, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Use Non free magazine cover if it exists giving the article you wish to put it in, also provide a suitable fair-use rationale stating against the NFCC how usae of the image qualifies :) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:48, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Old University of Leuven
OK. the additions, footnotes and corrections are now better and better nuanced with respect of the irremovable reality (dura realitas sed realitas!). This difficult question needs nuances, subtility and a very accurate notion of the revolutionary times to evit much anachronisms and projections from the present to the past. Thank you four your interest for this non-simple historical question. But I think it is important to present to the public a dossier with all the (contraditory) facts.--Bruxellensis (talk) 09:57, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

British Library renames
I wish you had raised the question beore embarking on these renames! The majority of these names are created by User:Leszek Jańczuk, who is frankly no model to follow in this respect, & has ignored requests to give his articles better titles. I don't think an actual style has ever been agreed for MS, but most illuminated manuscripts without a specific name follow the pattern: type of book/author/work then library and number, sometimes in, sometimes not. I think this is preferable for a number of reasons - clarity & utility to the general reader, conformity with the naming conventions that do exist for other works of art and the general conventions for the use of parentheses in article titles, & so on. Parentheses are normally used for disambiguation rather than just adding information. To move from Gospel Book (British Library Add. MS. 40618) to British Library, Add. 40618 (Gospel Book) is a step in the wrong direction, imo, as is going from British Library, Stowe 2 (Psalter) to Stowe 2 (Psalter). We should always have "British Library" in the title if we are using a catalogue format - "Stowe" is not enough. I suggest you raise the matter at Category talk:British Library collections, or better yet, Category talk:Manuscripts, before doing any more changes. It would be good to agree a standard naming convention. Johnbod (talk) 14:51, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Alumni
Could you take a look at Category:Leuven alumni before 1968? The category could do with further refining. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 16:52, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * O.K. I have made two new categories: Category:Alumni of the State university of Louvain and Category:Alumni of the old university of Louvain--Bruxellensis (talk) 10:18, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * That's great. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 16:12, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * and also the new category: Category:Alumni of the Catholic University of Louvain before 1968 in place of: Category:Leuven alumni before 1968. Cheers.--Bruxellensis (talk) 13:53, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * To evit again a confusion I have also mofified the article Catholic University of Leuven, because all what is councerning the Old University have nothing to do in this article and have at unical purpose to give the lectors the illusion that the Catholic University was founded in 1425 and not 1834. An historian dont have the right to favour this falsification of history. Also I will all the names of the alumni of the Old University and of the State Universiti put out of this article also as the allusion to this old University. What hare you thinking about? --Bruxellensis (talk) 12:12, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I have made the modifications but Oreo had against reinsered the imaginary history. What to do?--Bruxellensis (talk) 13:40, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * As I think I've said before, I don't think it's a big deal as long as the article mentions somewhere that there has been a historical/legal breach in continuity. The newer university certainly sees itself, and is generally seen, as an attempt to revive a pre-Revolutionary confessionally Catholic centre of learning. As I understand it, they even use the same building as University Hall. Do you happen to know how that came about? It might shed some light on the issue. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 18:36, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Not only the Catholic University but also the liberal State University ware in the same building, because the town of Louvain has attribuit this buildings (requisitioned for the State and property of the State and Town of Louvain) to the Universities. But the judgement of the Court of cassation says clearely that it is never juridical never material links with the Old abolished university. It is false to say that in Belgium this University is considered as the continuation of the Old University independant of the local church, and not any historian pretends that. This vision is not acceptable and it is very curious to sea that only not belgian wikipedia defend this vision. You have to read the Nederlands and French versions. --Bruxellensis (talk) 10:41, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * With revolutions, confiscations, and refoundations, I think you have to leave a certain leeway with regards to the discontinuity of institutions (otherwise there are very few European universities that are really as old as they claim). The essential point here seems to me to balance the strict legal difference with the fact that this was a confessionally Catholic university (whether papal or episcopal) established by the same city in the same building with the clear intention of reviving or restoring the prior institution. The French wikipedia page seems to have you yourself as almost sole contributor, so can hardly be said to provide independent verification of your views. The Dutch wikipedia appears to speak of a "double" continuity in spite of legal discontinuity. The third Belgian language, German, says: "Sie sehen sich heute, über alle geschichtlich bedingten Diskontinuitäten hinweg, in einer ungebrochenen Tradition seit 1425, so dass bis zur Trennung von 1968 die Geschichte der verschiedenen aufeinander folgenden universitären Institutionen in Löwen trotz aller Unterschiede in Form und Ausrichtung als Einheit zu betrachten wäre, die von den beiden heutigen Universitäten als ihre je eigene Vergangenheit betrachtet wird." The edit histories of the relevant pages and talkpages in all three languages show that you have been active on all these wikis to emphasize a legal-positivist interpretation of the historical (dis)continuity of this one institution, and in no case can it be said that this has been uncontroversial. It's hard not to think that the emphasis you give to this one point comes very close to contravening the policy on undue weight and the guideline on content forking. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 14:38, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You have to read the first articles in the three linguages about the Catholic University, Iam sure that you self will say that it was not acceptable: nothing about the State University, nothing about the Catholic University of Mechlin, nothing about the real history and statutes of the old University, also a confusion between the three different libraries of Louvain and about the archives of the old university etc... I give only facts so that the public can have its own opinion. You make a mistake if you think that I give only a legal-positivist opinion, I give only historical facts. It was necessary to write different articles about the three universities because in the first an-historical article about the Catholic University it was given the illusion that it was not any rupture of continuity. Now the public nows the real facts, and I am sure that before my modifications you havest never hear about the State University of Louvain (of great historical importance in the cration of Blgium) and the Catholic University of Mechlin. I have created articles in three linguages because the histoty of Louvain is very interresting. I have also created articles in other wikies about other subjects; thats the universality. I DONT GIVE MY POINT DE VUE I GIVE ONLY THE HISTORICAL FACTS. DOCERE VOLUMUS NON NOCERE.--Bruxellensis (talk) 13:32, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * N. B. you write: "otherwise there are very few European universities that are realy as old as they claim". It shoud be interrestinfg to give the names of this other universities, the great part of abolished universities are not created again (as Douai).--Bruxellensis (talk) 13:43, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Thomas More Works
The change to Thomas More's entry with a link to his complete works didn't work (it left a broken link). I'm not sure what you intended there, I couldn't find an appropriate entry to point it to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tarlneustaedter (talk • contribs) 01:28, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:REDLINK. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 01:31, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for starting the Artemy Troitsky article!
 Hello Andreas Philopater, Morefun has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Morefun (talk) 14:32, 13 November 2010 (UTC)