User talk:John K/Archive 10

WWI template - flags
Thanks for noticing that the flags were wrong, John! I was not the one who added the flags, and I am not sure whether I like to have them in the template. Since many of them are wrong, I think it's better, for now, to remove all the flags. I have done this, but I have put a backup of them on Template talk:World War I.

My regards, Dennis Nilsson. Dna-Dennistalk - contribs 20:24, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

EffK
I see that you archived the discussion of the German Centre Party, saying that it consisted mostly of ranting monologues by EffK. I mostly agree. I also am aware that you had problems with Flamekeeper/EffK before anyone else did. You may be aware that Str1977 and I are in arbitration against him. Could you please visit the Requests for Arbitration subpage to see whether there is any further evidence that needs to be added? Robert McClenon 23:36, 10 December 2005 (UTC)


 * As you can see, my recommendation is that he should be banned for six weeks and then required to obtain a mentor. Thank you for looking.  Robert McClenon 00:53, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Sources for Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations
Hello, some time ago you added a fair bit of content to Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations. As you may be aware, we are currently trying to improve Wikipedia's verifiability and reliability by making sure articles cite the sources used to create them. Do you remember what websites, books, or other sources you used to add content to Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations? Would it be possible for you to mention them in the article? See WP:CITET for some quick templates to use for citing sources. Thanks! --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 02:43, 12 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Thank you for adding the citation and for all your good work on wikipedia!  I appologize that you felt patronized, it was not my intention to insult you. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 03:34, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Britannica articles
I just noticed that you created a couple of articles on Austrian statesmen for whom there were already articles. I merged Johann Bernard von Rechberg with Johann Bernhard von Rechberg und Rothenlöwen, as it was the same text from EB1911, just slightly differently wikified. Another example is Felix zu Schwarzenberg, where another article exists as Felix Schwarzenberg. I think you should take a look yourself at how a merge is best done in that case. u p p l a n d 21:36, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

largo, florida
I've been adding to the Largo, Florida page and I'm concerned with all the external links I've added. Is it possible to have too many? I also wonder if the timeline should have a page of his own.

Thanks,

Mikereichold 01:53, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Hitler ... and another one
Dear John,
 * I'm in the process of overhauling EffK's recent edits to Adolf Hitler. Of course, as he saw it he started to rave. And you won't be surprised that he has called you as a witness to his truth again. Could you please have a look. (I have overhauled up to the 30 January, the rest is still to come).
 * Speaking of EffK. I'd like to ask you once again to consider appropriating the first part of my evidence]. It assembled the thing you wer einvolved into one [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/EffK/Evidence#Evidence_presented_by_Str1977_from_Flamekeeper.27s_confrontation_with_John_Kenney|section. Please have a look whether you agree. The thing is, I have so much evidence, that cannot post it all. If you carry a piece of the load, I can carry more. Please consider it and let me know. Str1977 22:15, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

EffK is forced to Abandon a Corrupted Wikipedia
I refer you to my response of a few moments ago at 15 December [],http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/EffK/Evidence#3_December_2005 EffK 01:35, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Classics
Salve! I see you have participated in many articles on the classics, glad to see a fellow classicist about. -- User:wackyvorlon

Castro and List of dictators
We've picked up two editors who are trying to put some anti-Castro POV stuff into the dictators list. I have a hunch that User:65.2.82.238 and User:Antispammer are the same person, but I could be wrong. Both have very short edit histories that are mostly about Castro; and both started editing the dictators list today. It went through a few rounds, but the latest is mostly toned down. Still slightly off, but less ranting than List_of_dictators&diff=31579809&oldid=31419427, which actually puts me into the description, apparently as a notable pro-Castro pundit (under my WP username, not even my outside name).

I'm not really sure what I'm looking for here, but you've worked on the page (and very professionally), and are an admin. So maybe take a look at the last few edits. Not sure what else might be needed. Thanks. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 06:39, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Dark City and Dieselpunk
I'd like to thank you for your perspective on the Dark City talk page. I think that you raised some good points that ought to have been addressed by User:Piecraft, but have not yet been. If you are so inclined, there is a longer discussion taking place at List of punk genres regarding the verifiability of dieselpunk and other literary "x-punk" genres. Your opinion there would be welcome. Thank you. Avogadro94 17:41, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Partitions of Poland
Would you take a look at talk:Partitions of Poland. We are discussing a possible change of the name of the article there and I believe that a view from non-Polish perspective would be helpful. --Lysy (talk) 20:57, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Succession boxes and dates
I've noticed that you've been adding succession dates to a number of English peers. Does this mean that PeerNavbox (which has no intrinsic provision for dates) will eventually be replaced by Succession box, which does? Also, what do you make of User:KuatofKDY's proposal to use complete (day-month-year) and interwikied dates in succession boxes? (See Template talk:Succession box.) Choess 21:11, 16 December 2005 (UTC)


 * John Kenney, I beg to permit me into your conversation since it regards certain aspects of my templates I would be very willing to reform. When I reworked the old templates to conform to a better style, I did so to try to keep everyone in sync.  The issue with dates has always been one divergent between people.  I have never supported complete dates in the actual succession title fields despite the Russian tsars all having them.  However, I did always prefer them to be wikified, although I am not sure why.  Most of the time those dates could be found elsewhere in the entry, but many times they were not or at least never noted clearly.  Now if you are referring to the Template:s-hou that I am only just now beginning to spread around, then now would be a good time to resolve problems with that.  I created that to summarize the person's family origin and birth/death dates, therefore making it necessary to place dates as well.  In all of these cases, wikifying the dates is still not resolved and, in some cases, are beyond resolution unless we schedule a major sweep of all tens of thousands of succession fields in wikipedia.  Almost half the boxes I come across have wiified dates.


 * So let's work this out before I spread chaos in areas that don't need to be chaotic. It's good working with fellow succession box fiends.  'tis life!
 * Whaleyland 04:02, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Unusual Peerage disambiguation
William Herbert, 1st Earl of Pembroke designates the first earl of both the 1468 and 1551 creations (the article is about the latter). How should they be disambiguated? Year of creation in parentheses afterwards, or something else? Choess 17:44, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Hello
I thank you for your help with the BCE/CE dates, but Euripides has now been changed to BCE/CE even though it possesses a long BC/AD history. I do not want to violate the 3rvt rule and would like it if you'd help. Chooserr 18:34, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
 * You'd better do what he says or you could find yourself added to his list of users who revert him (: --Aolanonawanabe 18:38, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the advice, but I think I can take my own counsel. john k 18:46, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Wicca
My rationale is that placing at least one or two date markers in the article will help focus people who might otherwise have a silly moment and think of Wicca as something ancient. It is generally a good idea to keep Wicca well rooted in its 20th century origins. There are a *lot* of ignorant books being sold in popular bookstores that try to assert otherwise. It may seem redundant in the context of the Wicca article to use even a few date markers, but...

I admit that the reasoning is not as solid as, say, for an article referring to Julius Caesar or Herod, but the points remain as given above.

Thoughts?

→  P . Mac Uidhir  (t)  (c)  19:27, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Talk:List_of_Polish_monarchs
Perhaps you'd be interested in the renaming proposal for the Polish monarchs. Some areas, like Stefan Batory are a bit tricky and more voices would be appreciated.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 19:17, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I have added it to Naming_convention several weeks ago, plus wrote about it at the Polish noticeboard, and I added a note on the talk pages of every king I have done the research for. In the last few days when Appleseed and Logologist have joined the discussion, everything has accelerated and some kings are now being moved without talk page note. In retrospective, perhaps I should have left a note on every king's discussion page - feel free to do so to gather more discutants.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 19:30, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I know, although your 'What is going on here' on the above talk page is a bit...well, uncommon :) See my reply there, see the analysis I did for some other names (striked out links at the top of that section), and you will see my logic. Polish first name seems like the best bet - because there is no signle recognized English name in many cases (in fact in some of them Polish seems to be the English preffered name as well, minus diactrics, of course), and mixing Polish with English is inconsistent - thus by using Polish, we get both consistency and in most cases, the most popular usage.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 20:02, 19 December 2005 (UTC)


 *  Thus, we discuss the partitions of Poland, not the Partitions of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. I gather you have not seen the recent storm at Talk:Partitions of Poland yet :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 22:13, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Yikes, indeed not. Thanks for letting me know. john k 22:38, 21 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Related to the naming discussion, I was debating whether to try and bring more attention from the Wikipedia community so as to gather more opinions... Did you ever try posting about it at other places, or requesting arbitration?  Elonka 00:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

[Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (people)]]
Back in September you objected to a proposed new naming convention on people, mostly written by Francis Schonken. In October, Francis upgraded his proposal to a guideline. I'm wondering if you felt your objections had been met and whether you now support the text in question. See my comment at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (people). - Haukur 08:03, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

SCA blocked
John, do you have any idea why I have been blocked by an administrator named Marudubshinki?

Sca 14:26, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Revert
John, when you reverted Talk:List of Polish monarchs, we lost part of the conversation. Next time, could you just paste in the stuff that got deleted? Appleseed (Talk) 22:31, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Ditto. I have no idea how your comment got lost.  I would not have removed it.  Could you please revert to the previous version of the talk page and restore your comment?  Thanks (likewise for your spirited defense of your views).  logologist|Talk 22:56, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Talk:Franz Joseph of Austria
Mr. Kenney, I apologise if I offended you and for not having replied to your final comment. I was not attempting to sound anti-Semitic.--Anglius 01:49, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Vergil's Tomb
Hello. I added a photo to your article on Vergil's Tomb. Great article. I made a minor edit in the lead. I hope you don't mind. That tunnel is not the Posillipo Cave. That one is up the Posillipo coast road about a mile and so called because it connects (or connected) Posillipo with the Domiziana road leading north. Jeffmatt 08:25, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

MC
I'm wishing you a Merry Christmas, a Happy Chanukka and a Happy New Year. Str1977 11:54, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Marsden
User:Marsden talked about you here (comments which were reverted by User:SlimVirgin...  I thought I should point out to you this little page I wrote User:Zordrac/Poetlister.  Does this mean that this kind of thing is normal? Zordrac  (talk) Wishy Washy  Darwikinian Eventualist 04:51, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Elisabeth of Bavaria
Please take a look at Talk:Elisabeth_of_Bavaria. --StanZegel  (talk) 23:56, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

S.O.Wikipedia user
hello do you know how long the King Louis family runs? Whopper 22:18, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Parish
Hi John. You might like to see my additional comment on the above Peter Shearan 19:17, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi mate,

You may remember the war on styles that was waged some time ago and the eventual compromise reached which meant that styles (Holiness, Majesty, Royal Highness, etc) are no longer used at the start in royalty articles. A series of templates were created to enable users to warn other users who attempt to reinsert styles into articles that that is no longer WP policy. However a user who is trying to get a whole series of templates deleted has nominated them on the WP:TFD for deletion. I am thoroughly fed up having to defend necessary templates from the minority of deletion police on WP who seem to act as a group: one nominates, then the rest all vote to agree with them. All help to defend the necessary templates in the styles series gratefully received. Thanks. FearÉIREANN \(caint) 19:28, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Styles
Maybe you already know it, but on the question of styles (specifically, Highness, Majesty and their variants), Heraldica has an interesting article on Style Inflation. According to its author, the style of Majesty for the HRE was a way for Charles V to show that his new title of Emperor was superior to kingship over the Spanish Petty Kingdoms.

http://www.heraldica.org/topics/royalty/highness.htm

They also have the styles which English and later British sovereigns used from the 1542 proclamation (establishment of the kingdom of Ireland) up to the British version of the Royal Titles act of 1952.

http://www.heraldica.org/topics/britain/britstyles.htm

Snapdragonfly

He has done it again
Dear John, I hope you had a good start into 2006. I merely want to inform you that he has misused your quote again:. TC, Str1977 18:33, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Query on the Great Pyramid
John. In response to your happy and eager deletions on this subject, i have asked a question of you which may hap you'll be so kind as to oblige me with an answer. I believe it is under the subject (near the bottom of the page) of the "opening section" or something like it. You know, the bit where you deleted a few paragraphs because you don't agree... --Genesis 14:17, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Eusebius of Caesarea
Hi John, I've made a proposal for some new language at Talk:Eusebius of Caesarea. I'd be interested in your thoughts. Thanks &mdash; Paul August ☎ 20:48, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

St Peter as Pope (redux)
I just noticed that an editor has decided to put St Peter back on top of the list of longest reigning popes. Also, the note at John Paul II has been changed to ignore the POV issues of saying that JP2 was the 3rd longest reigning pope. It is correct to say that the JP2 article as well as the list of list of longest reigning popes don't agree with the general List of Popes but it's depressing to see accurate (and relatively evenhanded) treatments of the issue being revised on the basis of a biased and anachronistic source.

Any comments you care to make at the Talk:List_of_10_longest-reigning_popes would be appreciated (in particular it has been suggested that historical criticism of the list of popes would constitute original research). Further, what would it take to actually revise the list of popes toward something less slanted? I could remove the word "pope" from the first few centuries worth of names (up to say, Pope Siricius) but I'd be rv'ed in a blink. Would a neutrality flag help? Sumergocognito 07:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)


 * You have changed the source of List of 10 longest-reigning popes to "contemporary historical data." Can you please cite these sources? - Ektar 18:39, 10 January 2006 (UTC)


 * You responded: "Oh, please." Is there something you don't understand about the policy of citing sources? - Ektar 18:55, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I thought this might interest you: I was recently reading a book The Church Visible: The Ceremonial Life and Protocol of the Roman Catholic Church By James-Charles Noonan Jr. Among the appendices is a chronology of the popes which has the following footnote: "The source for the dates of each pontificate is the Annuario Pontificio of the Holy See. The dates of the pontificates up to St. Eleutherius are estimated based on historic data and legend." Noonan is as Catholic a source as one could ask for, the last page shows him receiving a skull cap from the Pope. The date of death for St. Peter is listed as 64 and it does not give a date of accession. I would read the footnote to mean that the Annuario itself concedes that the regnal dates for the first two centuries worth of popes cannot be known with historical certainty. Sumergocognito 10:11, 15 January 2006 (UTC)


 * List_of_10_longest-reigning_popes is in mediation now. I didn't know if you had been informed, I have commented, you may wish to as well Sumergocognito 22:36, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Another motion to move Yom Kippur War
I am notifying the people who voted in the previous poll a few weeks ago that another motion to move Yom Kippur War has been made. See Talk:Yom_Kippur_War - Raul654 19:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

John FitzGibbon, 1st Earl of Clare
Hey, John, John FitzGibbon, 1st Earl of Clare is becoming one heck of an ugly cesspool of a page. I was hoping you might be able to sort it out a bit. Thanks! -- Jonel | Speak 19:16, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

TFD: Linkimage
Hi there, you voted to link the image Image:Autofellatio 2.jpg at autofellatio rather than provide it inline. The template used to make the link is now up for deletion, please see Templates_for_deletion... Mikkerpikker 15:29, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Another disambiguation case
While preparing to clean up Robert Ferrers, 3rd Baron Ferrers of Wemme, I noticed that there *is* no Barony of Ferrers of Wemme. After some time spent sorting things out (some of the genealogy on the web appears to be corrupt), it appears that:
 * Robert Ferrers, 3rd Baron Ferrers of Chartley, had two sons, John (who succeeded him) and Robert.
 * Robert, the second son, married Elizabeth Boteler and enjoyed the Barony of Boteler of Wemme jure uxoris.
 * Their only son, Robert, subject of the aforementioned article, enjoyed the Barony jure matris on the death of his father.
 * Elizabeth survived both her husband and son, and the barony became abeyant between her granddaughters on her death.

How, then, shall I pre-emptively disambiguate between the two individuals named "Robert Ferrers," who enjoyed but did not inherit the Barony of Boteler? Choess 04:28, 15 January 2006 (UTC)


 * None of them were peers in their own right, as best I can make out. Maybe just by birth and death date? Choess 20:21, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

West Virginia Candidate for US Collaboration of the Week
Hey John! Because you've worked on articles concerning West Virginia and are nextdoor in Pennsylvania, I thought you may be interested in this...I've added West Virginia's main article to the list of candidates for US Collaboration of the Week. Feel free to voice your opinion and vote! Thanks! --Caponer 19:18, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Return of the son of the bride of the dubious pretender
See Claimants of the Duchy of Braganza, now on AFD, and de Sousa running up and down issuing screeds as usual. Choess 23:16, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Note also that Rosario Poidimani exists again, and probably should be redirected to /dev/null. Mackensen (talk) 06:25, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Naming conventions (people)
I'm curious if you had any further comments on this page, which is now being characterised by its creator as a "naming convention guideline". Alai 04:06, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Gdansk vote redux
Hi, John, I see that you actively comment on naming conventions. If you have time, please take a look at revert warring on Simon Dach. Are you content with such interpretation of the Gdansk vote as expounded by Space Cadet on the talk page? Thanks for your time, Ghirla | talk 14:11, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

EffK Arbitration
The ArbCom has begun voting on EffK. The current vote is 4-0 to ban him for one year from Wikipedia, and indefinitely from articles related to the Catholic Church. That is even stronger than what I had recommended, but I agree that he made no positive contributions and was very disruptive. Robert McClenon 12:43, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

French user page
Hi John,

Your french is not so bad (better than my english). As you asked for, I've done (make ?) corrections on your french user page TCY

Nabonid
I just made an addition to the entry on Nabonidus. I have found no contrary statments in google. Let me know if you have sources otherwise. Agathoclea 17:52, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

don't know if you noticed - someone removed the Category Chaldeans from Nabondidus and the other entries of the 11th Babylonian dynasty claiming that Chaldeans are just the modern people. Sounds like some ethnic POV to me, any ideas what can be done? Agathoclea 22:45, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

World War II alliances
Dear John, your knowledge as a historian and your skills as a native speaker of English are needed, over at the Hitler article, as there is disagreement about the best wording (accuracy and flow) for the two camps of World War II. Thanks, Str1977

Rulers' names
Dear John, I have seen that you have edited Rulers of Hesse in the past, so I am asking you about your opinions:
 * Should rulers' names be given in their English or in their German form?
 * What should be done about articles that have been created with the non-preferred spelling/form in their title?

Thanks for your consideration. Str1977 19:16, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, John, for the quick reply. But I cannot use my best judgement as I'm no native speaker and of course know all these names in German. Sometimes it doesn't make much of a difference as with Philip(p), and sometimes I am clearly on the German side (Ludwig) but what about Friedrich or Wilhelm? Let alone Moritz? The only thing I certainly will change is the strange spelling "Cassel". Str1977 19:30, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks again, John. I guess I will go with the english versions then, even that means spelling it Louis. But I am all for consistency (not only re Hesse but re all rulers - it sounds strange if you have a Friedrich who is the son-in-law of a Frederick). However, I will wait and see what the second editor I asked will have to say. Str1977 19:39, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, John, for moving Louis II, though I don't know why you could do it while I couldn't. If you haven't done so already, please check out my explanations on Talk:Rulers of Hesse. Str1977 20:09, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Now, what to do about Ernst Ludwig? Str1977 21:35, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Sure, now, should I go ahead and anglicize him or should I retain the German name and only streamline the titulatur (talking about the Grand Duke - the Landgrave has no article, maybe never will have one, and can easily be changed)? Str1977 22:36, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Austrian nobility
hi John, how are you long time no hear :-) I have a question regarding the family names of Austrian nobility. User:Cfvh keeps on insisting that every family name, such as "vom und zum Stein" or "von Hindenburg" or "Kinsky von Wichnitz und Tettau" is translatable into English. I believe it is "Count Kinsky" or maybe erroneously "Count of Kinsky", but maybe I could be wrong. I have enormous reservations about the feasibility and especially correctness of such a move though to translate everything thru. You can see the discussion on this topic on the user's and my talk page. You can also see the user's changes on the history function of the article. I proposed to move that discussion to the article's talk page itself in order to avoid confusion. Maybe you could share some insights with me. I really think it is not possible to translate every family name into English, except for "Prince of" (Fürst) or "Archduke of", meaning like a ruler or lord of a territory, domain, or honourary title (Duke of Reichstadt). Looking forward, thanks... Gryffindor 13:10, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi John, thanks for your help. That's what I was thinking the whole time as well, it's just weird. I've placed my new comments on the talk page of Austrian nobility. with kind regards Gryffindor  15:44, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Talk pages
Post on my page under a new heading if you would live to say something to me. Thanks. Charles 20:42, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I have posted a fairly general response on Talk:Austrian nobility. Charles 20:59, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Katie Holmes
Greetings! You have edited the Katie Holmes page in the past. I've completely reworked the article and have posted it on WP:PR in the hopes of advancing it to WP:FAC. I would be grateful for your comments at Peer review/Katie Holmes/archive1. PedanticallySpeaking 18:55, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

More legal fictions from the Peerage
I'm trying to figure out whether Richard le Despenser (d. 1414), son of Thomas le Despenser, 1st Earl of Gloucester, was nominally entitled to the Barony of Burghersh, which is sometimes attributed to him. Thomas' mother Elizabeth Burghersh was suo jure Baroness until her death in 1409. However, Thomas was attainted in 1400, forfeiting the Barony of le Despencer, which he held at his death. Since he was attainted, as I reckon, the Barony of Burghersh went into abeyance in 1409 between Elizabeth's two daughters...until 1461, when the attainder was reversed and it fell into a different abeyance, among the coheirs of Isabel le Despenser, with the Barony of le Despencer. Am I interpreting this correctly? Choess 00:38, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

U.S. presidential election, 1948
Hi there:

Chronicler3 asked what the source for Tucker P. Smith's state was. He is currently listed as being from New York, and Chronicler3 thinks that he was from Michigan. I looked up in the history who had added Smith's state, and it turned out to be you, on 01:09, 10 December 2003 (UTC). So I was hoping (though, given that it's been more than two years, not expecting) that you could tell me what you might have used as your source.

Thanks for any help you can give.

— DLJessup (talk) 02:58, 14 February 2006 (UTC)


 * (responding to post on Talk:U.S. presidential election, 1948 and edit on U.S. presidential election, 1948):
 * Excellent!  Thank you very much!


 * — DLJessup (talk) 03:40, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Hitler under attack
Dear John, let's put aside the intro disputes at Adolf Hitler for a while, as graver issues have arisen. Hitler is under serious POV attack. Help is appreciated. Str1977 16:37, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Both Karamanlis Articles are under attack, please help
Dear John, I am a fan, please help me on this one. Here is the problem:

User: Theathenae is vandalizing the articles by putting both Karamanlis in the category of Macedonian Politicians of Slavic origin, even though Karamanlis is Greek-Macedonian. This has to stop, otherwise the articles will become a hotbed of editing and counter editing. Please help. I apologize for not telling you who I am, but I hope we can communicate again in the future.

Thanks

German nobility
I've taken a stab at a proposal here:. I suspect it's riddled with problems but it's a place to start. Mackensen (talk) 18:37, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Request for advice
John, you seem to be pretty knowledgeable about European history... Do you have any advice on where I could find further sources to expand the information at Ladislaus Hengelmuller, about the Austro-Hungarian diplomat and writer? Thanks. --Elonka 23:21, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Wallace Stevens
Because you have edited the article, you are invited to participate in an Editors Poll on the Wallace Stevens discussion page. --Halcatalyst 18:25, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

1852 Election
The data is now (vaguely) formatted and sitting here:User:Mackensen/MPs elected in the UK general election, 1852. I used a bunch of regular expression find/replaces to render the data; there shouldn't be too many problems, although with the multi-MP constituencies we'll need some empty cells or something. Mackensen (talk) 00:54, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I should have the volume of Hansard covering the 1852 budget (Nov-Dec) on hand before the week is out–that should help identify the country party, if nothing else. Mackensen (talk) 03:33, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

One would hope. Mackensen (talk) 11:55, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Request for edit summary
Hi. I am a bot, and I am writing to you with a request. I would like to ask you, if possible, to use edit summaries a bit more often when you contribute. The reason an edit summary is important is because it allows your fellow contributors to understand what you changed; you can think of it as the "Subject:" line in an email. For your information, your current edit summary usage is 33% for major edits and 91% for minor edits. (Based on the last 150 major and 150 minor edits in the article namespace.)

This is just a suggestion, and I hope that I did not appear impolite. You do not need to reply to this message, but if you would like to give me feedback, you can do so at the feedback page. Thank you, and happy edits, Mathbot 05:02, 27 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I will say I find nagging-by-robot to be kind of irritating. That said, I found my numbers quite  interesting - 91% of my minor edits had summaries, but only 33% of my major edits...I guess that if I think to click "minor" I tend to also think to write a summary.  At any rate, this does make me keep in mind that I ought to use summaries more, so I suppose it's useful, if irritating. john k 05:05, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your feedback. (By the way, this is a flesh and bone person writing, not a bot :) Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 16:13, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Article Titles
I have the following response to your comment regarding Article Titles.

Because credibility is a primary objective in the creation of any reference work, and because the Wikipedia strives to become a leading (if not the ) leading reference work in its genre, formality and an adherence to conventions widely used in the genre are critically important to credibility. Therefore, although the Wikipedia search engine does not lend itself to the style of capitalization recommended for titles in authoritative manuals of style (e.g., The Chicago Manual of Style, The Guardian Manual of Style, The Little Brown Reader, and The Harbrace College Handbook), I would like to recommend in the editing guidelines and polices that the "work around" described in the last bulleted item in the second paragraph of the "Case sensitivity and searching" section of Naming conventions (capitalization) be implemented with the use of "redirects" linking to a page that uses the correct capitalization for all encyclopedia articles. This entails a little more work, but should be adhered to and I would like to recommend this as a guideline or policy for the future. Lottamiata 20:25, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Pretender Patrol
Rides again. He's on a one-month block at the moment for legal threats, but the self-styled Earl of Stirling has been edit-warring rather energetically there. Choess 06:12, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

re: yugoslavia
I replied to you at Talk:Kingdom_of_Yugoslavia. --HolyRomanEmperor 14:11, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Peerage
John, Peerage is being proposed for a move again. You might want to weigh in. Mackensen (talk) 16:26, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Constantine II of Greece
Sorry to bother you on your talk page but I would like to point your attention to the article on Constantine II of Greece. Far from remaining on the dispute over the relevance of his ancestry, Adam Carr has procceded to remove biographical information from the page.

In particular he has reduced all events relating to the Apostasia of 1965, the political crisis of 1965-1967 and events leading to the dictatorship to a single paragraph. Those are the events that make Constantine relevant to Greek history and the main reason he is remembered by the public.

He has also removed both material and links relevant to the dictatorship of 1967 - 1974 under the explanation of "unecessary political details from 1960s". Along with the paragraph on how recent and current Greek press covers references to Constantine. Unter the pretence of NPOV. I thought we were supposed to present the POV of others and the NPOV involves only our personal views.

I have reverted him this far but has proceeded to reverted the article back to his version. Any chance of you providing a third opinion? User:Dimadick

Schloss vs. Palace vs. Chateau vs. Manor
Please comment on the talk page for Chateau Schönhausen regarding which word best to use for small country ''Schlösser". Thanks.  --Mmounties ( Talk )   12:47, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Prince Rupert of the Rhine
hi John, how are you? You helped out on this article once above, there is a discussion on the correct name of the article, maybe you care to drop by and give some expert input? I also have a question about the status of the states in the German Empire and the Holy Roman Empire, if they were truly sovereign as let's France? Maybe you care to drop a note either at Talk:Hesse-Darmstadt? thanks alot.. Gryffindor 17:58, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

RFC
Please comment on my rfc Requests for comment/Jersey Devil--Jersey Devil 21:58, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

The Empress Frederick
Hey there, John; could you please quickly lend your opinion here: Empress Frederick vs. German Empress Frederick? Many thanks. Charles 01:34, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Peerage move
Hi, I don't know if you're still following the peerage move debate, but just to let you know that the debate was closed by User:Nightstallion who single-handedly decided that there was no consensus and the article should not be moved. I have already sent a message to Nightstallion and expressed my disagreement. Please check on his talk page. As it stands now, not only is the peerage article still devoted only to British peerage, but there's not even a link on top of the article linking to peerages in other countries. I think it is a shame for an encylopedia that intends to have a world audience, not just a UK audience. Please express your opinion on the matter if interested. Thanks. Hardouin 15:51, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

The Citadel
Hey saw your change and went back to the school. I think it was right the first time based on what the VP of PR gave to us here is the article link: http://www.citadel.edu/pao/newsreleases/sy05-06/US_News_2006.html

Thanks for the heads up. Thoughts? V/R User: Drive23

WP:RM
Please take a look at Talk:Elector of Brandenburg. Thanks! &mdash; Nightst a  llion  (?) Seen this already? 08:09, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

question
hi John, how are you? quick question, I could use some of your input on this topic here Talk:Marie Josepha, maybe you could care to drop by? As usual greatly appreciated, thanks.... Gryffindor 13:31, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for voting John. The article got moved, however to the version "Marie Josepha of Austria" when in fact the name that was up for vote was "Maria Josepha of Austria". Do you think I should just move it anyways, since apparently it was actually wrongly moved? let me know, cheers.. Gryffindor  14:26, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Anne Marie of Greece
Hi John, if you haven't already done so, could you please contribute a vote at Talk:Anne-Marie of Greece? Thanks. Charles 18:57, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Trumpetpower!
Thanks for your note. Do you have any suggestions? I do find TP to be something of a bully, who often tries to tell other editors that they have no right edit because of their ignorance. Of course he displays impressive ignorance himself. His comments on the Jesus as Mythical Creation deletion page are very odd, as I made it clear earlier on the Jesus-Myth talk page that I am not a Christian. I can only assume that he believes all oppositon to the myth theory must derive from Christian dogma and the desire to suppress "heresy".

I agree with yout suggestion about the content of the Jesus-Myth page. I said as much earlier in the debate. It should cover the history of the myth theory and the arguments of its proponents, not list questionable aspects of the Gospels. Paul B 12:02, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Bourbon genealogy
John, I wrote this some years ago out of curiosity, and I found it recently and wondered if you might like to turn it into an article, since you seem knowledgable of these subjects without being a royalist crank. I think it is clearer than the rather incomprehensible Bourbon family tree. Cheers, Adam 14:34, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Stuart genealogy
You might also find a use for this. Adam 14:47, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Survey
I am conducting a survey on Wikipedia and would like to invite you to participate in the study. I've posted a message on wikien-l, but here is the link again in case you are not subscribed to that list-serv. Thanks a lot for your time! --Mermes 01:34, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Reichstag table
A table of Diets of the Holy Roman Empire was cut-and-pasted from the German wikipedia. I modified most of the links to work on the English wikipedia and translated most of the content. You probably know more about the Diets than I do, I was hoping you could take a look Sumergocognito 19:45, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

University of Wisconsin
Weren't you involved in originally moving the University of Wisconsin-Madison page to the University of Wisconsin? Now it's back, and I was wondering if you were involved in that revert? Madmaxmarchhare 07:09, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Succession Box WikiProject
I have created a new WikiProject for succession boxes located at WikiProject Succession Box Standardization. Now we can discuss what needs to be fixed in a forum and make it into a larger project among Wikipedians. Not that I want too much infighting, but we all have had some disagreements and never know where to discuss them, so now we have a place. Come and join. Don't forget to sign the participant list if you want in. –Whaleyland 22:12, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Jesus article
Please review my proposed revision of paragraph 2. I included the phrase, "at the minimum" to show that while scholars agree on these details, they do not all agree with the minimalist model. Grigory Deepdelver of BrockenboringTalk TCF 22:56, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Caroline, Princess of Hanover
Hi John,

Could you throw in a vote at the talk page for Caroline? I added some references in the discussion. Charles 22:06, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi John Kenney
Thanks for calling me a loon. Actually, I got a real good laugh out of it, and we can all use that every once in a while. Thewolfstar 07:56, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Austrian Emperors Francis Joseph and Charles
Hi there John,

I've posted the articles for these two emperors up for move. Would you care to lend some insight and possibly a vote? Thanks. Charles 20:11, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Democratic-Republican Party
What's so absurd about being consistent about naming any item -- an animal, a disease, a political party? College and high-school textbooks call it the "Democratic-Republican Party," noting its original name as well. The name was used in the early 1800s; historians use the name to distinguish the Demo-Repubs from the modernday Republican Party, as the article notes. Please read all the discussion on the Democratic-Republican Talk page. This subject was debated at length two months ago and it was decided that the Wikipedia should follow the convention of American historians and call the article the "Democratic-Republican Party." Griot 13:46, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm baffled by the statement on my Discuss page: "At the very least, use of either term in article text should be acceptable, and in such cases we should defer to the original writer, who, in the case of most of the Democratic Party (United States) article under discussion, is me." First, we have to consistent in our use of terminology. We could settle on "Republican Party" as the name of Jefferson's party, but that would confuse many people for obvious reasons. Members of his party were known as "Democratic-Republicans"; historians have for eighty years referred to the party by that name. Why do you propose to buck against eighty years of tradition and confuse people along the way? Second, why am I supposed to defer to you again? Griot 22:09, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Look, I don't care to go around and around this subject if you don't listen to me. 1)We're not discussing synonyms. 2) You keep telling me you've demonstrated that using the two terms interchangably is not confusing, when it is confusing. 3) You say we don't have to be consistent in our terminology. We most certainly do have to be consistent. In writing and scholarship, that is essential. I don't think we can agree on any of this, so please don't bother writing on my Talk page. Thanks in advance. Griot 00:34, 21 April 2006 (UTC)