User talk:Deor/Archive4

The hiking trail..
You were right about the trail section. So I rewrote it to condense information from my (now cited) source. And now that it has been brought to my attention, the entire rest of the article is completely unsourced... so I tagged the entire artilce to request proper citations. Good looking out. Thank you.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 19:34, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

ALO
Maybe: [User:X.69]. JohnInDC (talk) 15:32, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * User:Dinamyte. Created January 20.  How would you like to handle this one?  JohnInDC (talk) 18:35, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * (By that I meant, "in what fashion would you like to handle this one?") JohnInDC (talk) 20:45, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Shoshanna Dreyfuss? JohnInDC (talk) 12:14, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * GRB080. JohnInDC (talk) 14:04, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

For your comment, if any: Sockpuppet investigations/AlexLevyOne JohnInDC (talk) 21:36, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Another. Sockpuppet_investigations/AlexLevyOne.  JohnInDC (talk) 01:58, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Are you watching this - Sockpuppet_investigations/AlexLevyOne - so that I don't need to bother you with new sightings? JohnInDC (talk) 01:51, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I wasn't, but I will now. I forgot that under the new system (SPI) all investigations involving the same sockmaster will appear at the same tile and thus be watchable. Deor (talk) 01:56, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It's pretty handy. When someone familiar shows up (provided they're reported under the same name), you can hop in and comment.  He'd been quiet for a while and I was thinking we'd finally discouraged him, but I guess not -  JohnInDC (talk) 01:58, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Question
Hey Deor, why did you delete a reference from Delta Pi Rho? DPRVig (talk) 17:29, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey Deor, I am the author of the original article from where that history was copied. What do I have to do to the original post to make it eligible to be placed on Wikipedia? DPRVig (talk) 17:46, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Non English Wikipedia interwikis
Thanks for spelling out the obvious, that it was the interwikis in the non-English wikipedias that needed corrected. That was a really big duh moment. --KP Botany (talk) 22:17, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem; I couldn't figure out that FAQ page either. When I ran into the same problem, I had to ask what the hell was going on, too (either at the Help page or at AN, as I recall), and someone explained it to me. Deor (talk) 22:22, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * That's always the best source of information on Wikipedia, someone else who has already had to find their way through the same frustrating bureaucratic unreadable unusable mess. --KP Botany (talk) 22:37, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Vitus Barbaro Hoaxer

 * The Vitus Barbaro hoaxer is back, using the 63.xx variable IP. Take a look at the edit history of Vision Industries Edward321 (talk) 06:19, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks like the hoaxer's been rangeblocked for another month .  Edward321 (talk) 00:12, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

USS Saturn
Thanks for your help in getting me through the somewhat arcane instructions provided by Wikipedia. I purchased "Wikipedia: The Missing Manual" by John Broughton, which is helpful. As to the photo of the Saturn, which I scanned and uploaded, is probably a US Navy photo that was provided to Saturn crew members, as private photography of ships during the war was prohibited. One additional unusual photo in my possession, taken aboard the Saturn, is a Christmas card photo of the officers and crew on the foredeck. Can I use this one?Rschunk (talk) 18:07, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

???
Dear colleague Why are you removing my contribution ???Duvvuri.Kapur1 (talk) 04:01, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok!!
Thank you for patience I am new use, you are an expert, so tahnk you for help!Duvvuri.Kapur1 (talk) 04:06, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: Assuming good faith
I know, I've thrown out pretty much all I can in terms of arguments, backed by policies and quotations, etc., but he seems resolute about his conceived viewpoint. Phrases like "shut the hell up", though, are only going to attract receiving venom and eventually a block (as I'm quite sure you know). Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 03:15, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * ...I'm tired. Goodnight... Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 03:44, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Ghostly Talk
Hello, we have added reliable sources to the "External links" section of the Ghostly Talk article. We have also put our full names on the page. I would like to note that we were approached by Northmeister (talk} who stated that Ghostly Talk was notable enough to have an article on Wikipedia. Check the logs.  I also have the original emails from 2006 when he created the article here.  I hope this covers the issue though.  Thank You, it was a chance to add some more info to the article '''Gtscottl (talk 23:11, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Lovecraft
As I stated, the major contributors to that "Lovecraft scholar" page were mostly IPs. The named editors are either not around, created a stub and left, or were cleaning up. If there are any names that you think contributed and should be notified, please mention. I went through the list twice and couldn't find any suitable subjects. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:25, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Ghostly Talk, Sorry About That....
I am a newer user and saw that rule after I bumped it to the top again. Do we meet your guidelines now? I plan to add more content to the page also. :) Gtscottl (talk) 23:35, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank You
Thank you for moving my proposed deletion. I was horrified when I saw my edit had malfunctioned and had no clue how to fix it! I'm going to have to know the rules better! Thank you again. Cutekitten05 (talk) 22:46, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

User:A Nobody
If you intend filing a user conduct RFC against A Nobody, I would be agreeable to endorsing the basis for the dispute. Please feel free to get in touch. Stifle (talk) 15:46, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


 * There is no basis, and do you really want to get in league with someone who stoops so low as to actually call other editors names as done at and ?  If you want to know part of the reason why I changed names in the first place it is because of both the real world concenrs and the bizarre on-wiki fixation by Deor and certain others.  Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 17:20, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Outrageous
You've got to stop citing "policy-based arguments" or other rational bases for decision-making, as you did in this AfD discussion if you want to fit in with the AfD crowd. Bongo matic  05:10, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Please check the text or links before you remove them
Dear college

Regarding Atlantis article

Another time - please check the links before you remove them. If the articles shall be user friendly there must be the necessary information AND links, so you can follow the things and stories explained in the text. The new discovery in Google Ocean is only really interesting, if you can see the IMAGE for yourself, and that's the link you just have removed.

Please make space for other users than yourself - we all like to have a complete Wikipedia - with all necessary information.

Regards Softron (talk) 11:49, 27 February 2009 (UTC)Hans Christian, Denmark (softron) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Softron (talk • contribs) 11:40, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your help
Thanks for your help on the FIS Nordic World Ski Championships 2009 article. Really appreciate it. Chris (talk) 22:11, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Dante: FYI
For future reference: if you do this, explain why you believe it to be wrong -- I'm not disagreeing with you as they appear to be the object of a secondary clause, but explain it in your edit summary! &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; dissera! 23:09, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Phylum Monsters
Inre your question at the AfD, and to which i also responded to the same question put to me on my talk page: The authors works were part of the curriculm in a couse I took over 30 years ago in college - "Science Fiction as Literature". I feel certain that dilgent and deep search will still find it used even now at colleges and Universities and will myself perform that search as a "no-consensus" leaves the matter unresolved. Please accept that I will make agood faith effort to answer your question and souce it.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 06:06, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Le Fanu article
White cat of Drummgunniol unavailable elsewhere on the internet, M.R. James material in Wordsworth Classics edition with no copyright notice on page detailing publication. 89.100.63.172 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.100.63.172 (talk) 09:49, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Faith in Place rewritten
Hi, this article has been rewritten, if you could please revisit Articles for deletion/Faith in Place to see if your concerns have been addressed. If not I would be happy to address any outstanding issues. Thank you! -- Banj e b oi   11:01, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

User space edits on User:Edgarde/tools
Thank you for reverting this edit. Generally I like to revert my own vandalism, so generally a talk page comment is preferable. That said, I still very much appreciate your intervention.

I'd paste a WP:BARNSTAR here, but Ikip's prophylactic barnstar (apologies to WP:AGF) just after the RFC suggestion has tainted the award for me. I have not been collecting diffs beyond what is up there, but I would appreciate hearing if anyone is moving forward on this RfC. / edg ☺ ☭ 15:46, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keeping sections of pages to mock other editors is unacceptable per User page ("What may I not have on my user page?...Material that can be viewed as attacking other editors, including the recording of perceived flaws" and "If the community lets you know that they would rather you delete some content from your user space, you should consider doing so — such content is only permitted with the consent of the community.") Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 17:19, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

J. R. R. Tolkien FAR
nominated J. R. R. Tolkien for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 00:51, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
Deor, thanks for the guidance. I would have edited the iPod page with a hard break but your guidance has changed my mind. Thanks! Friedlad (talk) 22:18, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Definition of the karesansui garden
Deor, can you please have a look at my comments on the talk page and give me your opinion ? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Japanese_rock_garden Thanks --Petrus Patings (talk) 20:38, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Happy Deor's Day!

 * It would be hard...what would you have planned for it?  bibliomaniac 1  5  20:12, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * No Vandalism Day would be a perfect target for party crashers. Not to mention the idea is a little BEANSy too.  bibliomaniac 1  5  21:17, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Ubi sunt
Thank you for your kind help and offer, Deor. I would actually appreciate the first six lines as they are written down in English Lyrics of the XIIIth Century (p 85, I suppose). I'm still not sure how and where to add it, probably somewhere between Tolkien and Shakespeare. Is Norton's spelling an adapted transliteration for modern readers? And why does the first line have both "uuere" and "weren" in Carleton Brown's version? ---Sluzzelin talk  00:22, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * With regard to your last question, I assume that's how it's written in the MS: medieval writers weren't very consistent when multiple ways of representing a sound were available—note also the variation between u and v. And yes, the Norton text is probably regularized and modernized a bit with regard to the spelling (using th for þ, and so forth). Anyway, here's the first stanza (and it is on page 85):


 * Uuere beþ þey biforen vs weren,
 * Houndes ladden and hauekes beren
 * And hadden feld and wode?
 * Þe riche leuedies in hoere bour,
 * Þat wereden gold in hoere tressour
 * Wiþ hoere briʒtte rode;


 * — Deor (talk) 00:55, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you again, Deor! I'll ask for your help a third time, once I've made the attempt. ---Sluzzelin talk  23:48, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Attempt made. What remains now is the question of translating it to Modern English. I don't know how, unless I find a translation with expired copyright. If I translate it myself it is original research, I guess. I'll leave it untranslated for now. ---Sluzzelin talk  16:02, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Americas page

 * Hey Deor; I saw your opposition to the proposed changes with the Americas page. I made some adjustments to the proposal. Can you take a look. I'm still trying to reach a consensus on this thing. Much appreciated. Night w (talk) 04:27, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Hey Deor! User:Geoff Plourde has agreed to take up the case that I filed a while ago. Mediation taking place here. Your input would be hugely appreciated. (I know you probably have other things to worry about, and I'm sorry to keep bringing up old news, but I still don't agree with how things stand on that page). Thanks! Night w (talk) 04:42, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Italian History
You reverted my edits claiming that nothing is talked about within the book I sourced, and I don't know how you can say that. It is clearly talked about in the discussion of the Republic of Venice within the subject matter for the House of Savoy, of which the house later adopted the title Prince of Venice.Cavourman (talk) 02:38, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The information that I added is correct, I have notes written down for reaserch that I'm doing on a paper on Northern Italian history, I may have mixed up my notations, and I'll check into that, but the info is correct, let me make sure that I am sourcing it by the right source and that no mix up happened- thanks for the heads up.Cavourman (talk) 03:39, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, that source was for information in my notes pertaining to different points right above the points I added. The proper notation should be Spretti, Vittorio; Encyclopedie" Storico-Nobiliare, Milano 1932. I can correct the notations with the appropriate page numbers.Cavourman (talk) 03:49, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * User "Deor", I have recieved a notice from you to go to a certain Wikipedia policy page. I explained myself there clearly, user "Cavourman"CavourBoston (talk) 18:16, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Nice catch!
Good work filing the SSP on Cavourman. I was debating doing the same thing myself, but I am glad that you did. Let me know if you need any help dealing with this serial socking in the future. --Leivick (talk) 01:47, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed, nice catch on this serial hoaxer. Edward321 (talk) 22:17, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I have a related question. I have found an online copy of a newspaper article that shows someone with a different name petitioned to have their name legally changed to "Count Vitus Sebastian Barbaro, Patrician of Venice" in 2004.  While this is clear proof that Vitus Barbaro is a hoax, it does list the man's real name, so I'm unsure about whether it should be listed as evidence for the next time the hoax crops up. Edward321 (talk) 18:12, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * As long as there are no reliable sources about Vitus, any mention of him in WP articles will be removed. I don't see any point in outing a person who may or may not be behind the hoaxery/sockpuppetry. Deor (talk) 18:17, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the response, I appreciate it. Edward321 (talk) 23:54, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you!
... For also I much prefer a line of writing to a shiny template, so thank you indeed! And your username reminds me how much I love that stuff; I brought my copy of The Wanderer with me when I went hiking in the mountains this weekend. All the best, Antandrus (talk) 03:13, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome
No sweat. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 08:33, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much
Yes, I use IPs 152.16.16.75, 152.16.59.190 and 152.16.188.107. I recognize and claim all previous edits from those IPs. Although all three are technically shared computers, I am the only person to edit Wikipedia from those IPs. Its a shame, really, that my coworkers don't share my enthusiasm. Thank you very much for your kind words. In fact, I do have an account that I rarely log into any more - User:SWAdair. I voluntarily requested de-adminship when it became apparent that I would not be editing as frequently as I once did. I've since gotten into the habit of editing without logging in. 152.16.16.75 (talk) 23:57, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Suspicious edits
There's a new editor adding the same info to articles that the last crop of Barbaro hoaxer socks did. Edward321 (talk) 00:50, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, I'll keep my eye on it. He seems to have stopped for now (or just abandoned the account to create a new one). Deor (talk) 15:40, 25 April 2009 (UTC)


 * There's also an 'Alessandro Barbaro' mentioned on Palazzo Dario, the apparent verifications are similar to those provided by the sock puppets 195.229.236.212 (talk) 06:36, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Women in Shakespeare (2nd nomination)
Care to have another look at the discussion and the article? Feel free to contribute--puns and phallic references are optional. Drmies (talk) 19:43, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

AfD
Since you are interested in Pomona College you might want to check out this AfD of a professor's bio: Articles for deletion/Frederick Sontag. Borock (talk) 20:37, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

FYI
Deletion of Bilateral relation pages despite ongoing merging effort Ed Fitzgerald t / c 08:40, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Sacred Gin
I am not editing other editor's comments. But I am fighting back against editors that mess with positive comments on this page. I have been accused of sockpuppetry when it can be checked and found not to be the case. I have been banned unreasonably, as have the other people accused. I am only trying to fight back against what I see as partisan commentary and behaviour. I would never have struck through other editor's negative comments if they hadn't struck through other people's positive comments. The only time I have used more than one account is as admitted to, and only because I was unfairly banned on account of untrue allegations of sockpuppetry. I have asked for a sysop to verify this, and no doubt it will be in due course. In the mean time dispensing summary bans is unfair, and puts new users off Wikipedia. best wishes InhWiki2

Thanks for the info on appealing blocks - that is what I will do. best wishes Inhwiki2 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Inhwiki2 (talk • contribs) 14:38, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

St Nicholas Priory
Great spot!! Blue Square Thing (talk) 06:36, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

The Full Armor of God Broadcast
Congradulations! You have succeeded in getting the article deleted. Thank you.Ivanhoe610fa (talk) 00:48, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

BC/BCE
It's just that I have never seen a use for BCE and CE; they are modern fabrications without any real basis. Applechair (talk) 05:33, 4 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Applechair (talk • contribs) 05:23, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Davenport Public Library
I did not write any of this article, but what happens next? Is the whole page deleted, and then have to be rewritten?  C T J F 8 3 Talk 17:10, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * If my removal of the text is allowed to stand, the text will nevertheless remain in the article's history unless the copyright holder requests that it be permanently deleted. Anyone can use the Web page from which it was pasted as a source for writing a non-infringing account of the library's history; the words of the source can't just be copied wholesale into the article, though. Deor (talk) 19:16, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, so I should just go to their website, and summarize what they have?  C T J F 8 3 Talk 19:39, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, but wait until a decision is made on the report at Copyright problems/2009 June 6 and the copyvio box is removed from the article. Deor (talk) 19:43, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Estonia–Luxembourg relations
Hello, I've recently tried to restore this page to a version which can be improved upon (a non-protected, non-disambiguation page) and I wondered if I could get your opinion about whether it is currently up to the quality which we expect of every Wikipedia article. I would appreciate your comments on the article at User:Cdogsimmons/Estonia–Luxembourg relations on the talk page there, and further improvements that would get it closer to inclusion status are always welcome. Thanks.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 23:08, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I've been trying to stay out of the bilateral-relations mess, and I don't really have an opinion on this one. Deor (talk) 23:23, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Philomena, Duchess of Vendôme
Hi. I'm letting you know about this suggestion since you participated in the AfD. Best, Olaf Davis (talk) 17:19, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

APOLLO
I put the roman names of the gods beside their greek counterparts and u undid it. The page represents greek and roman apollo. Why did u undo it. give me 1 good reason —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dublin1994 (talk • contribs) 13:17, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll give you four good reasons: (1) Your changes were indiscriminate—changing "Aphrodite" to "Aphrodite/Venus" in a discussion of the Iliad, for example, makes no sense, since "Aphrodite" is the name of the goddess who appears in that work; and there is no such thing as a "Homeric Hymn to Hermes/Mercury". (2) The Roman analogue of Leto was named Latona, not Letona. (3) It's simply not necessary to give both names every time a god or goddess is mentioned; I'd suggest that you look at some of our other articles on classical mythology to see how such things are handled. (4) The equivalences between Greek deities and their Roman counterparts aren't as unproblematic as you make out. The Romans, for exampple, gave Mercury some of the attributes and history of Hermes; but there were significant differences in their cultus and functions, so that presenting them as identical, without qualification and in every context, is not correct. It all depends on what myths one is talking about and whether those myths are part of Roman as well as Greek mythology. Deor (talk) 13:43, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Edits
I disagree with wikipedia system of letting you see my contributations because it can be viewed as pedofilia.

I am right in the apollo page and u are being stubborn. If u have a problem with certain names than change those certain names but not all of them

In the Europe page it is bias towards europes big nations

In Eire the term is first and formost about the state and many people around the world would recognise the word and think of the Irish state

S —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dublin1994 (talk • contribs) 15:18, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

More Hávamál help
Hi Deor; Thanks for your help with my question earlier in June about the Runatal. I stumbled across the English translations for the Havamal a while ago (like ) and fell in love. I have a followup question, if you'd be so kind! I found the website you directed me to in your second answer shortly after posting the question. Thanks for the specific advice on where to look. However, the Latin alphabet doesn't seem to correlate with the translations that I've found electronically, for example. I'm trying to figure out which parts of the Codex Regius cover the paragraphs 138-165, because I want to do some calligraphic / paintwork of it. Can you help me out at all with trying to figure out how it all fits together? Any dictionaries or online resources you might know of would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, Pip philip dot hunn at gmail dot com (or post here, I suppose!) 124.168.226.7 (talk) 02:02, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, you have to know something about medieval bookhands and abbreviations (and Old Norse) to correlate the manuscript text with a modern edition, and I'm not aware of any easy way of acquiring the knowledge. It's hard to even write about the matter here, since I don't have characters available to mimic the letter forms in the manuscript; but I'll have a try.


 * Stanza 138 (the beginning of Rúnatal) starts in line 27 of folio 6v, as I indicated on the ref desk: That line begins with a large initial V and reads "Veit ec at ec hecc vindga meiði a nętr alar nio.geiri un" (the rest of the word "undaður" appears as "daþ’" at the beginning of the next line)—you can see how the editor has normalized the spelling, word division, etc., to correspond to what one would find in a modern dictionary or grammar of Old Norse, since medieval scribes spelled by ear, having no standardized guides to go by. In that particular edition, moreover, the editor has frequently added words that he or she deemed necessary for the sense (for a different edition that sticks a bit more closely to the manuscript, see this).


 * In addition, parts of the text are highly abbreviated, particularly in passages involving repetition. Stanza 144, for example, begins with the third word from the end of line 3 on folio 7r and starts "Veiztu hve rista [line break] [abbreviation of skal that looks something like an old-fashioned long s + ł] veiztu hve raþa sł", and thereafter the words "veistu hve" are abbreviated as "v. h." And in the enumeration of spells in stanzas 147–163 (stanza 147 begins after the first word in line 10 on folio 7r, with "Þ’ kan ec ii."), roman numerals are used for the ordinal numbers (i.e., the "ii" for "annat" there, "Þ’ k. ec.iii." for "Það kann ek þriðja" at the beginning of the next line, and so forth).


 * I don't know that I've been much help. I'd like to think that if one just stares at the manuscript and the modern text for long enough, one ought to be able to see what corresponds to what; but I realize that it actually takes more familiarity with medieval paleography than that. By the way, the end of Hávamál (stanza 164) can be found at line 8 on folio 7v, with the last three words of the stanza—"heilir þ’rs hlyddo"—being run onto the far right of the next line. Deor (talk) 17:09, 21 June 2009 (UTC)