User talk:Dieter Simon/Archive 1

/Archive 1

Dieter --

The article you started on "dangling modifier" is interesting (I like that sort of topic too) but it's a bit hard to understand in places and I didn't agree with your use of "linguist". I think it generally means someone who studies language rather than someone who comments on usage. Hopefully... er, I hope you can agree with that. Jacquerie27 21:29 Apr 29, 2003 (UTC)

Hi Jacquerie

Yes, I do take your point about "linguist", we are actually talking about this in two different places, see the "Discus this page" item of the article itself, sorry. I also appreciate your edits, I could have revised this a bit more. Anyway thanks --Dieter

Opps! Looks like I missed your user name in recent changes. Here is a belated welcome;

Welcome! --mav

Hi, Mav, Thank you for your kind words, Am enjoying it, Diet

Hi Diet- welcomed your artice on coppicing, I was thinking about doing that page myself!!! I'm interested in doing a wiki sub-project on Trees in Britain, as well as lots more info on fruit trees, siviculture & trees in general, so maybe we could collaborate to some degree, or at least co-operate in ensuring that we cross link our articles etc???

Cheers quercus robur

Hi, Quercusrobur, Thanks, by all means, sounds a very good idea. Yes, it is perfectly ok by me to redirect "Coppicing" and "Pollarding" into "Pruning Fruit Trees" as separate parts of the whole entry.

I have already mentioned this in another "Talk", either Coppicing or Pollarding. till later, Diet

Unable to open the article "grammatical particle". The following error message appears: "Could not select database wikidb Commands out of sync; You can't run this command now If this error persists after reloading and clearing your browser cache, please notify the Wikipedia developers on e-mail address: Wikitech-l@nupedia.com which then sent this message:

Your mail to 'Wikitech-l' with the subject Unable to Download "Grammatical Particle" Is being held until the list moderator can review it for approval. The reason it is being held: Post by non-member to a members-only list Either the message will get posted to the list, or you will receive notification of the moderator's decision.

Can anything be done?

We're working on it. Note that if you're continuously getting it on one page only while other pages are find, that's a problem with your browser or your ISP; the error page is stuck in your cache. Clear the cache, try ctrl+reload, etc. --Brion 00:14 Oct 23, 2002 (UTC)

Many thanks, Brion. Have cleared cache, all ok now. --Dieter Simon

Hi, Quercusrobur, how would you feel about doing an article about the (fairly) new policy in woodland management of leaving dead trees standing (or lying where they have fallen) to encourage useful insects used against harmful invaders? Where I walk (in the Sutton and Reigate area} this is definitely being encouraged, and a good idea, too. I know, you don't like being called an expert (as per para above) but am sure you'll know all about this. Hope you don/t mind me asking. --Dieter Simon 20:31 Apr 23, 2003 (UTC)


 * Hi Dieter- apologies for the delay in replying- I was reading an article by Oliver Rackham recently where he was discussing this subject, and the fact that the policy of clearing toppled trees after the 1987 storms caused more ecological devastation than simply leaving them where they fell. In nature, particularly in the original wild wood, there is nobody to clear the fallen trees, and their death is just part of the overall long term cycle, clearing spaces in the woodland community and creating new niches. He also points out that such storms are not that uncommon when looked at aon a long term historical scale... It was afascinating article, if I can find it again i coukld have a go at paraphrasing parts of it, i think it was in an issue of Tree News quercus robur 21:04 May 10, 2003 (UTC)

Many thanks, Quercus, very interesting. I thought it was quite essential in modern woodland management. Must be worth an article in Wiki you could have a go at? Thanks again --Dieter Simon 23:42 May 10, 2003 (UTC) Hi Dieter - Your missing contribution to Avoid weasel terms wasn't deleted, it was just moved (not by me, though it was the right thing to do) to Wikipedia talk:Avoid weasel terms, where the discussion's going on. So don't worry, it's available for discussion (and has already been seconded). Graculus 23:35, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Many thanks, Graculus, yes, I see. The thing that worried me was that some of original remarks remained and looked as though they were not replied to. Uninitiated visitors to these pages - arriving via Google wouldn't see this necessarily, would they? However, your comment is appreciated Dieter Simon

Hi, I've nominated you for Administrator privileges. If you accept, please say so on Requests for adminship. --snoyes 00:23, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)

You're now an administrator -- Tim Starling 00:32, Dec 6, 2003 (UTC)

Hi, you said on Anjouli's talk page "Is that me, Angela, who is often at Vfd?". I meant that message to be to Anjouli; it wasn't related to your previous comment, so no, it wasn't you I meant was at VfD. :) Angela. 23:56, Jan 14, 2004 (UTC)

I do not know if you are watching Brianism Talk, but it is fair that you should see this: An Open Letter from Rex Mundi, co-founder of Brianism. In view of this, I have changed my vote to Delete. Link has apparently been "e-mailed to participants in the discussion", but not posted on WP by the writer - which is why I am doing it. I also do not see how the writer would have all the e-mail addresses involved. Kind regards, Anjouli 13:56, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Re Air-raid shelter. There was an existing Anderson Shelter article. I have redirected and incorporated but you should check before starting a new article. Google search with "site:wikipedia.org" for example. Good article. TwoOneTwo 21:58, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)

On London deep-level shelters - why did you make a "see also" link instead of putting it inline in the article, in the obvious place? And why do you feel so strongly about this that you promptly revert it? - David Gerard 23:57, Feb 16, 2004 (UTC)

Answered this in David Gerard's User: Talk page. Dieter Simon

Page history page in Help:Talk: page cur) (last) . . M 16:23, 28 Feb 2004 . . Dieter Simon (Reverted edits by Dieter Simon to last version by 195.242.16.69) (cur) (last)  . . 23:40, 27 Feb 2004 . . Dieter Simon (Can a developer check if the article "air-raid shelter" is corrupted?) (cur) (last)  . . 23:09, 22 Feb 2004 . . 195.242.16.69 (List Of Record Labels)

Hi, why did you rollback edits by Vicki Rosenzweig to that user's own user page? silsor 23:36, Mar 16, 2004 (UTC)

Have replied to Silsor's query on her own user page, have also queried whether there is a page corruption on Vicki Rosenzweig's user page. According to page history I have reverted a para and reverted it back, when in fact I only looked at it. Dieter Simon 00:49, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Dieter, you may have accidentally clicked the 'rollback' link. The diff view now includes a rollback link in the upper-left corner, which it didn't used to, and the feedback when you click it is less than obvious. --Brion 03:34, 2004 Mar 17 (UTC)


 * Yes, it must be something like that. The only thing is, Brion, I reverted back to Postdlf 's entries, would that not require a conscious effort on my part to do that, would I not have to choose Postdlf? There is no way I remember doing that, I really must have lost it that time. It's really important to watch that. Many thanks, Brion, that's a bit of an eye-opener. --Dieter Simon

Margrabova
Please be advised, that Margrabova was the first city located in the Oletzko County and is not identical with Oletzko. Only what happenned, is that the capital of the County was moved to the Margrabova, after renaming it to Treuburg.Cautious 07:11, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC) See http://www.literad.de/regional/treuburg.html Cautious 07:15, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

You are partly right. There were 2 cities: Marggrabova and Oleztko, not so far from each other. Marggrabova was renamed Treuburg in 1928. I don't know, when both cities were united. Cautious 07:02, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

As I know, there was (and is) only one city. It beared the names Marggrabowa, Treuburg and Olecko over the times. Oletzko was a hunting lodge as well as a castle adjacent to the city, separated only by a tiny river. The name of the castle laterly was extended to the surrounding area, the district and, to complete the confusion, even to Marggrabowa's railway and postal station! It is possible that the City of Marggrabowa and Oletzko-the-castle originally have been administratively separated. But the castle wasn't a city itself. 217.93.94.107 23:53, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Weasel Words
Very nice expansion of the article. A concept so widely used in modern culture should definitely have a big article in Wikipedia. :) -- Cecropia 01:15, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Don't be silly, Dieter, making articles better is what Wikipedia is all about, and you made what I wrote much better. Cheers! -- Cecropia 16:54, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Hazel mccallion vs. Hazel McCallion
You could have easily turned the former into a redirect to the latter yourself without listing them on Duplicate articles. -- Dissident (Talk) 01:18, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

Chelation Therapy
''One thing, is not everything "chemically" toxic? Do we need the word chemically?''

It's listed as toxic in the saty sheets I use in labs I'm not sure of the correct terminology.Geni

Feel free to remove itGeni 23:22, 25 May 2004 (UTC)

Something to read
Please consider reading this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Snowspinner/Avala_Evidence

and then voting here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship#User:Snowspinner_.2854.2F6.2F2.29_Ends_17:06.2C_31_July_2004 -- orthogonal 18:10, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Compounds
Well, the compound noun, etc. page contains both general information on compounds in a few Germanic and Romance languages, and a lot of stuff that is relevant only in English, e.g. the hyphenation issue. The article seems to take left-hand modifiers for granted, although it contains quite a few examples of right-hand modifiers in the Romance languages, e.g. sky-scraper versus gratte-ciel. It hardly pays any attention to case markers in compounds, which are ubiquitous in German, for instance.

I think the article should be split into a general linguistic article on compounds which should be based on a much wider selection of languages, including at the very least Sanskrit (bahuvrihi, etc.), Mandarin (lots of compounds), Latin and Greek, an agglutinative language like Turkish and an incorporating language like Guaraní, and several articles dealing with compounds in individual languages, most obviously English. Burschik 09:38, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Okay, if you want to keep the article the way it is, I think it should be made clear that it refers only to the English language, although most of the information should apply to other Germanic languages as well. With regard to examples from other languages, I think examples from Latin and Greek would be most useful, since English contains quite a few of these. Regards Burschik 09:03, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Have left a note on your talk page, Burschik. Do take over whatever you need for your article, I agree it is best to create a separate article on Romance, etc. compound words. Perhaps if you make reference to your article in relation to the original English version, that would help. Dieter Simon 20:46, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I did not have a burning desire to write articles about compounding, and it was evident that people had already put some work into the subject. Thus, I thought it better to offer a few suggestions rather than start rewriting stuff without warning. Maybe that was contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia? Regards, Burschik 11:31, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Another substub vote
I just wanted to let people know that there's another vote on substubs going on in Template talk:Substub. I know that this is a second vote, however, apparently it was originally intended to be only a vote about whether to keep the template message, but somehow evolved into a vote on the existence of substubs themselves. I know that you already voted in favor of substubs, so I wanted to get your support on this poll too. Thanks for your support! [[User:Mike Storm|Mike &infin; Storm]] 23:33, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Jettying
Hi Dieter,

I've just renamed the article on Jettied floors in medieval houses to the short title of Jettying, but it is not perfect - see discussion to add any thoughts. I was going to write this article a couple months ago, but got distracted onto other topics. Anyhow its a good start I took a photo for it yesterday although I'm sure it would be possible to find finer examples. -- Solipsist 18:29, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

London Wikimeet Dec 3rd
Hi Dieter, Do you live in London? If so you may be interested in this Meetup/London Theresa Knott  (Tart, knees hot) 09:54, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Article Licensing
Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 1000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:
 * Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
 * Multi-Licensing Guide
 * Free the Rambot Articles Project

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the " " template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:


 * Option 1
 * I agree to multi-license all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

OR
 * Option 2
 * I agree to multi-license all my contributions to any U.S. state, county, or city article as described below:

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace " " with "  ". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)


 * Have made my choice: cc-by-sa (v.1.0 and v.2.0). Dieter Simon 00:11, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

RFC pages on VfD
Should RFC pages be placed on VfD to be deleted? I'm considering removing Requests for comment/Slrubenstein, Requests for comment/Jwrosenzweig and Requests for comment/John Kenney from WP:VFD. Each of them was listed by CheeseDreams. Your comments on whether I should do this would be appreciated. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:35, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Sorry, Ta bu shi da yu, I am replying to your request on this page, as you state on your talk page you are not answering anyone there, and I am sorry too, that I have to vote against removing and for keeping the three items. I think it is a matter of archiving cases such as these, despite the ruling on Rfc to have them removed within 48 hours. That ruling should be amended, as I think it important that a record should be kept, even if for no other reason than to show how things can go too far. Dieter Simon 21:52, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thanks
Just saw the message on my user page. Mate, I appreciate the encouragement :) your comments mean a lot to me! - Ta bu shi da yu 20:17, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

CheeseDreams and Historicity of Jesus
(I've posted this to WP:AN): Can I please get advise on how to deal with the extensive changes that CheeseDreams is making on this article? She's running roughshod over everyone on an extremely controversial article. It's already been stuffed up due to this user's edits and had to be protected by RickK (in it's highly POV and badly structured form: at one point there were essentially TWO articles on the one page). Now CheeseDreams is making a massive change without using the talk page, and it adding sections that don't even have any content in it! I've reverted back and have requested that she bring her changes to the talk page. I would appreciate advise on how to procede with this, I don't particularly want to engage in an edit war with her. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:47, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I Shall Be Back
Sorry, I have had to take some time out for one reason or another. Regretfully age is creeping up on me and I have had to sort a few things. However, I shall be back, I have yet a few more plans as far as Wikipedia is concerned. Looking forward to that time. Dieter Simon 00:26, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Grape Street
Was it renamed after the Great Fire of London? Where did you read that. I read that it was around until Victorian times. Jooler 23:33, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I think that's a different Gropecunt lane. EC2 near Cheapside not WC2 where Grape Street is now. See http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.asp?compid=9293 Jooler 23:40, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

East Dicker
Fair enough &mdash; but the anon placed it as "Upper Dicker, Easte England", as I recall, which is why I saw it as dubious. Mel Etitis ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 23:47, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Removal of
On List of interesting or unusual place names, I do not understand the reasoning behind the removal of this name "Upper Dicker", as there is clearly a place named this.. . I did not enter them, but see reverts for other names anons have added, that were of existant places. There was no discussion on some of these on the talk page, and seems like a very unfair and/or bias rv practice. I would completely understand if the place did not exist, but as far as any of them being offensive, its not like the anon named the location, and its just a name. As far as the name not seemingy to be funny, there are plenty of places that are just closely related to other words and/or meanings, which are included; a few examples of such: (Assawoman, Virginia; Belchertown, Massachusetts; Brest, France; Cattewater, Devon, England) In each of those examples, the names are just close spellings and are just inferred as humorous. To disclude "Upper Dicker" just because you personally do not find it funny, is not a valid reason, and more on the point of discouraging other anons from participating. If at the very least, I think any rv for these reasons should be placed on the talk page of the article, other editors should not have to track down personal reasons on individual talk pages. I do not mean to be offensive or demeaning. Thanks.
 * cc:User talk:Mel Etitis
 * <> Who ? &iquest; ? 01:07, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * There is no bias against newbies, by the way, I only feel that a name should catch the eye for an obvious reason in order to be in a list of "unusual" or "interesting" names. Dieter Simon 22:03, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Hi, sorry, didnt mean to imply there was a potential bias against newbies/anons, more of a discouragement of adding if there isnt a clear reason given on the edit summary or talk page. As for an obvious reason, I guess I can agree on that, I just thought "dicker" was an obvious word play on "penis" and/or "dick". I had read your reasons on the user talk pages, just thought it should have been listed on the article talk page for clarification purposes, as some users may not know to check the user talk pages.  Thanks for the reply.   <> Who ? &iquest; ?  22:15, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Category:UK Wikipedians
Hi, just to let you know that the list of UK participants at the UK notice board was getting rather long, so I have replaced it with the above category which I have added to your user page. -- Francs2000 | Talk 30 June 2005 19:16 (UTC)
 * Many thanks, for letting me know Franks. Sorry I have only just seen this. Things have been a bit hectic. Dieter Simon 23:51, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Tudor style
Hi as you have contributed to the above page perhaps you would like to comment on the idea proposed here. Regards Giano | talk 12:21, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Tudorbethan: Take a look and see what you think. I would be grateful if you would edit and change what you think needs changing. I'm not very good at merging. Regards Giano | talk 13:36, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Hearing impairment
Hi Dieter,

Thanks for cleaning up hearing impairment.

It's not just "Pre-lingual deafness" that needs attention, (as an aside i just noticed it's the first article on the topic in google.. probably because everyone else calls it "Prelingual"), there's a lot of articles surrounding it too, such as deaf culture, deaf history (currently a redirect to Deaf) and almost all the people listed on List of deaf people under Important historical figures in Deaf history and culture -- who would largely have been preligually deaf. It's a pretty touchy area for many people and I don't really want to touch it. :) but thanks again for your work --Pengo 00:41, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Tudorbethan
You made the great start, so there's no need for thanks, but if there is mine are to Wetman as he understands this particular style far better then I, and has taken out a huge error of mine (the faceted towers etc.) - its easy to forget the irony that Tudorbethan comes after Jacobethan. I'm still a little uncomfortable with Tudorbethan, Tudor-revival, neo-Tudor all being as one, but the difference (if there is one) is so minute, I'm unsure of it, although I can spot it a mile off when I see the buildings in the flesh - I shall have to give it some thought. Perhaps we all ought to formulate some ideas and make it a featured article some day, the Queen Anne will sure make some interesting comments from those who know their chronology but not their architecture! Regards Giano | talk 21:58, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Hi someone has moved it wrongly to Tudor architecture, I don't suppose you know how to move it back again, it won't when I try, someone will start editing in real Tudor architecture if it's not moved back soon! Giano | talk 06:49, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
 * No problem - Bishonen knew how to put it back, apparently one has to delete and then re-create!!! user: Neutrality seems to be moving a lot of architectural pages to new homes, I'm not sure that Regency style should be at Regency architecture, but some-one else can worry about that. Regards Giano | talk 13:03, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Puzzling comment on Talk:Bishōnen
Do you mean to post on User talk:Bishonen? If that is the case, please remove the comment from Talk:Bishōnen. Thanks. &mdash; Ambush Commander (Talk) 00:42, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * Never mind, Dieter, I saw it, I've removed it. I'm quite used to getting messages on Talk:Bishōnen. Thanks for your thanks! :-) Bishonen | talk 23:55, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Tudorbethan yet again!
You may be interested to note that User: Neutrality has yet again moved Tudorbethan this time to Tudorbethan architecture. As this was described in the edit summary as a "minor" move you may wish to update your watch list accordingly! Giano | talk 10:23, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Rambler
Look this

masked snuff film killers
In regards to your comments on Plautus Satire's talk page about snuff films, I don't find it a bald claim at all. I for one have clear memories of media coverage of Nick Berg's beheading as well as other beheadings and killings, all done by masked men. I'm not sure what the issue is here regarding masks in snuff films. Why is there such an intense push to remove a picture of an identity mask and remove mention of murder videos? Is this too touchy a subject to be put into an encyclopedia? It obviously does exist.
 * Then you should be able to substantiate this with either "External links" or "References" and cite them, shouldn't you? Please do so. Dieter Simon 01:39, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Hippopotomonstrosesquippedaliophobia
Why did you revert my edits to -phobia? The link was initially added by a newbie that I picked up on Special:Newpages, and I don't add things unless I research them first. It does appear that hippopotomonstrosesquippedaliophobia is a real phobia: see the Wiktionary entry. Note that I didn't add a link to it, seeing as I don't believe individual phobias should have articles, which is why I'm a bit confused that you reverted it? -- Francs2000 01:16, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Hi, Francs, please see the previous contributions on this subject. As you can see, at one stage I stood up for 'hippopotomonstrosesquippedaliophobia'. Frankly I could see Mikkalai's point of view. But I did mention that at least one website, that of the BBC Radio 1 website, was a valuable citeable reference, however didn't think it worthwile to get into an argument over it. Leave it to you, if you want to put it back in.Dieter Simon 00:46, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Hippopotomonstrosesquippedaliophobia

This may have gone astray, see previous and talk:-phobia. Dieter Simon 01:13, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Timber framing
Hi Dieter

You have done a lot of good work on the timber framing. But, I am concerned about your merger of Timber framing with Half-timbered construction, in my view these are related but separate.

The introduction to the Timber framing now reads:

'Timber framing is the modern term for the traditional half-timbered construction in which timber provides a visible skeletal frame that supports the whole building. The terms are in fact interchangeable.'

I don't think that is accurate as it is entirely possible to build a timber frame building with a completely enclosed frame and it would still be a timber frame. I don't think the same can be said for a half-timbered building. I don't feel the terms are directly interchangeable.

Pasd 21:02, 3 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Hi Pasd, I think it is a matter of whether you use the traditional but now rapidly becoming obsolete terminology of "half-timbered", as opposed to the established "timber-framing", meaning any load-bearing frame, no matter whether it has waddle-and-daub infill panels, or whether it is wholly clad in wood. It is the load-bearing aspect which should define it.


 * I know, we don't cite other encyclopaedias or dictionaries in the actual articles, but in queries such as this I feel I ought to quote the 'Oxford Dictionary Of Architecture' which says of half-timbering: "Obsolete term for timber-framed building..." As a second instance, however, it does call half-timbering "a building with the lower storey of stone or brick and the upper storeys, or part of them, such as gables, timber-framed, and visible as such." As a third instance it gives "a building constructed of brick, block, etc. with timber applied to it in parts suggesting timber-framing, but in fact false."


 * I don't think we are really talking about nos 2/3, especially the third example is that often applied to 'Tudorbethan' type Revival housing where a kind of false half-timbering  is attached to the outside of a brick or other solid-material structure. The third-edition 'Penguin Dictionary of Architecture' which goes back to 1984, too, says that Timber-framing, '... is called colloquially half-timbering...', but that is under the main article 'Timber-framing'.  These examples are only by way of trying to illustrate in short citeable instances how modern architects refer to the 'half-timbering'/timber-framing' concept. I have also placed this reply on your user talk page. Dieter Simon 00:47, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Hello
Category:Wikipedians born in the 1930s is up for deletion. I believe on the "by age" metawiki it says you are from the 1930s so I thought I'd mention this to you to get a sense of what, if anything, your view on it would be.--T. Anthony 06:34, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for your response regarding the rollback poll. I was just a little confused. Thanks. -- LV (Dark Mark)  00:49, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Deletion review
You might be interested in a/m undeletion. -- User:Docu

Closed-class_word
I've added a comment on the talk page. Please tell me of you thoughts on my talk page. User:ZyXoas 01:30, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Closed class comments
Hey! If I could edit the article I would have, but if you read the other comments on my talk page you'll realise that I'm typing this on a mobile phone and I can't really edit articles. I said what I said on the article's talk page because you were wondering why it was on WP:CSBOT. I was simply demonstrating how much BIAS an article can have although the author is not aware of it. Thanks for your response User:ZyXoas 08:51, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

An apology...
Hello Dieter-

You'll have to excuse this rather late reply: I don't know why I didn't reply in the fist place. Better late than never, I suppose. I'm sorry for so harshly overwriting your edit - I should have created a discussion fist, I guess. And I also quoted the wrong site - I put, but the page above it, , gives both nouns. (My fault, again.)

I think your comment on real names is absolutely correct: whilst registration, a friend and I were trying to think of a good name - I didn't even consider putting my real name; It's a shame - I know. Perhaps I can change it?

Again, my apologies for this late reply - and I understand your situation which lead to your misunderstanding - in fact, I only put the -n because I saw it in my copy of Hammer. So I suppose it was a sort of fluke. Cheers The Missing Piece 20:27, 1 May 2006 (UTC)


 * It is appreciated. Thank you. Dieter Simon 00:46, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Backronyms
Thanks for your input on the Backronyms page. The list is completely out-of-hand both there and on List of backronyms. Like you say, if we must have lists, then they should be sourced. As it is, the lists include whatever bad jokes Wikipedia editors can dream up rather than widely used backronyms (which are, I think, fairly few).Phiwum 06:31, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Pike
Chevy20Man is annoyed with me because you reverted his edit to Pike. Please explain to him that you rv'd his edit, not me, and cite the policy in question. I previously rv'd his addition of Vernon Pike because it was unsourced, but I let it stay when he provided a source. Respectfully, Republitarian 17:51, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Avoid weasel words
This message is to let you know that I took out your addition to the weasel words article. To my understanding that article is a consensus guideline; while you certainly can copyedit and make small rephrasings, adding an entire section that waters down the sense of the guideline without establishing consensus seems to be a little ambitious. I've preserved your prose on the talk page and I certainly welcome you to seek a consensus to put it back in if you wish. Regards, PhilipR 04:23, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Have replied in PhilipR's User talk page to the effect that I agree. Dieter Simon 01:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

hello dieter, why you deleted the ecu-peru war????

mathias

Have moved down Mathias's comment to the bottom of my talk page and replied Matthias on his own talk page. Dieter Simon 02:16, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Question on Zimmermann article
Hi Dieter- Interesting article--I never knew a thing about this. At the end of the section on Edith Cavell's execution, there is a sentence whose meaning I'm not clear on. What are you saying was punishable, "cowardice before the enemy," or shooting someone for that cowardice? Thanks. -Eric (talk) 03:52, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Eric, "cowardice before the enemy" was the crime so-called, I am afraid, and soldiers were shot by most armies involved during World War I. So it was not the act of shooting the poor beggars that was the crime, but the fact that they might incite or commit mutiny, stand accused of cowardice before the enemy, self-inflicted wounds, disobedience, desertion, throwing away their arms and ammunition, etc. The trouble with all these things is, it is easy for us with hindsight to condemn the authorities for committing these shootings, but at the time often weaknesses on the part of soldiers were somewhat unfathomable and nobody knew just how far this would or could spread in an army, after all it was a relatively new dimension in a war.


 * An overview of this is http://www.shotatdawn.org.uk, it gives the numbers of soldiers shot by all countries involved in World War I. As far as the British Government is concerned, it agreed only as recently as 7.November 2006, that soldiers executed for 'military offences' should be given a a posthumous conditional pardon. The United States military courts executed ten soldiers but for reasons such as murder or rape. The greater number of the populations at the time probably saw it in a different light than we do now. Dieter Simon 02:17, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi Dieter- Thanks for getting back to me and for the info. So, in that last sentence, can we cut out the words "shooting soldiers for" from that last sentence? -Eric (talk) 04:50, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, agreed, have changed the wording of the last part of the section. If you think you might have a better idea, why not enter it. At least, you were right, we have to make sure to show as to what the "offence(s)" referred. Dieter 00:46, 21 January 2007
 * I think it reads well like that. Good topic! -Eric (talk) 05:30, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Article in need of cleanup - please assist if you can
{{talkarchive]]