User talk:Historymike/Archives/2008/2

Peter I the Great
With all due respect 'Historymike', I think if you'll investigate more closely, you will find that I was in fact removing someone else's vandalism from Peter I the Great. Someone had replaced the information given in that spot with an expletive, and I changed it to be blank, as I did not know the original correct information. Don't take this wikipedia editing stuff too seriously, dude. Back off making accusations of vandalism if you don't know all the facts.

Stuart Neal, Chandler AZ


 * Heh. Here are the differences in the text between your versions. I hardly think that the inclusion of "pu**y eater" constitutes a good faith effort at improving Wikipedia, but perhaps another user at the IP address of 72.201.17.106 made the expletive.  Have a nice day, anyways!  Historymike (talk) 17:24, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Try this one Here and I await your public apology in this space. Like I said, make sure you have all the facts before accusing.

Stuart —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.201.17.106 (talk) 03:55, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I will concede that you might have accidentally reverted to an earlier version that included the profanity. I also note that you did, in any case, remove the profanity in question.  In my zeal to identify the anonymous vandals who have been targeting the page in question, you may have been unfairly lumped together with true vandals.  If you have been offended by the placement of a level two tag on your IP talk page, then you have my apologies.  I am replacing the vandalism tag with a more appropriate tag.  Historymike (talk) 13:30, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't offended by the placing of a tag on a page I don't care about. I was offended by being accused of vandalism. You could have been a man and simply stated "I was wrong. I'm sorry." But no, you had to include a condescending "How to use Wikipedia" link with your 'apology' (trust me, I'm in IT, I know condescending RTFM statements when I see them). Whether you're an example of the history community or the Wikipedian community, I'm not interested. Fare thee well, sir. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.201.17.106 (talk) 05:47, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * 1. There was no "condescension" in my choosing a "Welcome to Wikipedia" template.  You are reading intentions in my selection that simply did not exist.  Prior to your posts on this talk page, a total of 7 edits were made from the IP address in question, and I made the assumption that you were unfamiliar with Wikipedia.  If you are an experienced editor, then please accept my apologies for the unintended slight. As far as "RTFM," I have been editing on Wikipedia for years, and I "read the manual" almost every time I visit the site for arcane coding or formatting information.  That's a personal choice, and I suppose my style is not for everyone.
 * 2. There is no need to cast aspersions on my manhood over a Wiki-misunderstanding.  I have made an effort to meet you halfway, and I accepted the possibility that I jumped to the wrong conclusion about how the profanity appeared on the Peter I of Russia article.  Let me be more clear, though: "I was wrong.  I am sorry."
 * 3. I have much better things to do than to get into an Internet argument with someone who seems to be looking for reasons to be mad.  I have tried to make accommodations, I have apologized, and yet you still want to drag this out.  From this point forward, any continuation of this argument will be one-sided on your part.  Good luck to you, friend .  Historymike (talk) 12:53, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Louis XIV of France
Something does not seem right with the last two sentences in second paragraph of the article on Louis XIV of France, which read as follows: "His reign thus spanned seventy-two years and three months, the longest of any European monarch[2] and the second-longest documented reign of any monarch since antiquity. Only Sobhuza II of Swaziland had a longer precisely documented reign (1899-1982)."

It seems to me that part of these sentences do not belong in the text but should be made into a footnote because, while they do compare length of long reign of several sovereigns, they go way beyond the subject being discussed, which is Louis XIV. I think the sentence should read: "His reign thus spanned seventy-two years and three months, the longest of any European monarch."

The rest of the sentence & last one should be a footnote.

Same msg left on discussion page of article. Frania W. (talk) 02:28, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Dedication of France to the Virgin Mary & the birth of Louis XIV
Left another comment on Louis XIV talk page, this concerning the consecration of France to the Virgin Mary by Louis XIII. Would like your thoughts on it. Frania W. (talk) 05:55, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Merci! Frania W. (talk) 17:21, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Je vous en prie! Historymike (talk) 18:21, 11 February 2008 (UTC)