User talk:Moonraker12/Archive 1

Italian Game
I have some concerns about some of your edits to Italian Game-related pages such as Hungarian Defense and Evans Gambit. I know they are well-intentioned, but often they don't seem sufficiently precise. Your edit to Hungarian D. said that it is "often chosen in tournament play", but my impression is that it is actually rather rare in tournament play. If I'm mistaken we should probably find a source. (It may be that I'm mistaken because the G.P. itself is pretty rare, so maybe the Hungarian is chosen often by black players who don't want to be suprised by a Kasparov Evans Gambit or the like.) The Evans Gambit edit said "a development of the Giuoco Piano (Italian Game) intende to restore open/tactical play into lines after 3...Bc5 which tended towards the positional" which I also think isn't accurate. Modern G.P. play tends toward positional play, but when Captain Evans introduced the :gambit in 1827 the concept of positional play hardly existed at all. I think the idea behind this may be OK, but the wording needs to be more careful. Quale 15:02, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * You’re right, I’ve not made things clear (Time pressure?)


 * Hungarian: Yes, it is rare; I was meaning “often” only after 3.Bc4, which is itself rare. (having said that, the comment is still only valid if HD is the most common response to 3.Bc4, and I’m not even sure of that, now.)


 * But it is my impression that (first) this is why people play the HD; I don’t know if anyone sets out to play it, and (second) that it is part of the reason why 3.Bc4 is rare; A draw is better than the risk of a loss in tournament, and the HD seems a real deterrent to the sort of players who enjoy open play.


 * Evans : Again, yes; the idea of positional play is anachronistic. But I believe it was seen as a way of opening up a line that had become really stodgy, which is what I was trying to convey; wasn’t it described as “a breath of fresh air into a tired world”, or something like that?


 * GP : I think the confusion over the name is a product of history, and I do think that GP and IG are not entirely synonymous, though nowadays it seems to come to the same thing; but I can't think of an easy way to say that, so it's probably best left.


 * Polerio: I’ve replied here, but again, my mistake; the source of the comment is on the IG page.


 * If you are OK with the ideas behind what I said, I’ll have another swing at it. My overall aim anyway with these edits was to provide unifying links forward and back in these pages; does that seem OK? Moonraker12 08:13, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your efforts on these pages, and your goal to provide reciprocal links between these related pages is a good idea. If your impression of the reason for the introduction of the Evans Gambit is correct, you should look for a reference to support it.  I'm really leery of trying to get inside Captain Evans head and ascribing a motive for his invention unless there's a reliable source to back it up.  Personally, I suspect that the G.P. was not considered stodgy in 1827.  After all, the famous Steinitz–von Bardeleben game was played almost 70 years later.  I have Tim Harding's book on the Evans and it's chock full of historical info, so I can dig it out to see what he writes about it.  It's certainly possible that you're every bit as right about this as you were about Polerio and the Two Knights.  On a smaller matter, I think you should put the Italian Game material under that capitalization rather at "Italian game".  Opening names are typically capitalized in English.  If you browse Category:Chess openings you'll see that Italian game stands out.  If you do that, you can add the page to List of chess topics.  A number of WP:CHESS members use the "Related changes" feature on that page to watch updates to chess articles.  Also, the Italian Game page should mention that the name is often used as a synonym for the G.P.  It isn't clear what the most common usage in English is, but my general impression is that it is more common to consider it the same as the G.P. than as a complex of openings after 3.Bc4 as in the description given on the Italian Game page.  For instance, The Oxford Companion to Chess has Italian Opening and G.P. as synonyms.  Quale 09:38, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments; and I can see your point about trying to second-guess people from the past. You mentioned Tim Harding's book; you don't have access to his 1977 book, with George Botterill, do you? It was in our library, but someone's walked off with it, and I don't know if it's even still in print (I couldn't find it on Waterstone's). I've got notes from it, and some photocopies, but that's all. On the subject of capitalization; yes, I agree; I didn't realize till I'd finished that I'd opened up the wrong re-direct page, and when I tried to move it, it wouldn't move. I could cut-and-paste everything, but I gather that's not such a good idea. Do you know of any legitimate way to move it? Moonraker12 16:16, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * PS I've had another stab at HD and IG, and replied on 2N. Moonraker12 10:14, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * A final note: on Talk:Italian game you wrote that you realize that Italian Game is frequently used as a synonym for the G.P., yet you didn't put that anywhere on the Italian Game page you resurected. Are you going to fix that?  There's evidence suggesting that the synonymous usage may be the most common in English, but it isn't reflected in the article.  Quale 08:16, 21 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes; I thought I already had, in the opening paragraph: I put "The term Italian Game is now used interchangeably with Giuoco Piano, though that term also refers particularly to play after 3…B.c5." which mirrors the comment I found on the GP page. I know that nowadays (though I don't know how widespread it is) they are used synonymously, but I'm also conscious that they are not (or were not) the same thing (3.Bc4 certainly isn't "Quiet"!), and I wanted to reflect that. Moonraker12 09:39, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * On another issue, I notice that the stuff on Italian game (one cap) is now on Italian Game (both caps) which I certainly think is better (I know we discussed this earlier); OTOH the Talk pages and Revision Histories don’t match now; is there any way of fixing that? I've posted this on Walter Chan's page also, as he did the move. Moonraker12 09:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure there's nothing we can do with the revision history, but the talk page could be redirected to and the content on it reposted on the Italian Game talk page. youngvalter 04:09, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Personal?
I have not made this any more personal than I would with anyone I felt was moving outside Wikipedia rules and guidelines. You've made some valid points (Yes, I agree that the term "historically correct" is probably too much of a value judgment and it was right that it was removed), but your attempts to give some kind of special status to the "yoo-ray-nus" pronunciation have not been based on anything like solid research. When I asked, "Have you done a survey?" I did not mean an informal ask-around. I meant a survey, a formal, published, peer-reviewed poll that employed standard practices to rule out bias and was accepted by an academic journal. I am fairly certain (though as a rule I try not to be certain of anything) that Yoo-Ray-nus is the more commonly used pronunciation, but without anything beyond anecdotal evidence I do not think such a claim can be made in an encyclopedia. Seriously, can you honestly say that the linguistic proclivities of your five fellow office workers hold true throughout the 500 million-strong English speaking world? And what is the English-speaking world anyway? The US? Britain? Australia? Canada? What about India and China, which both contain more English speakers than the US? I would need to see some objective evidence before I allowed inclusion. Asking five people does not constitute a survey, and unless you can provide an academically sound source to back up your claims, then yes, they are original research.  Serendi pod ous  15:38, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't say my experiences vis a vis the pronunciation have been in any way different from your own, Moonraker; however, there is no such thing as "self-evident", and certainly not in something that purports to be an academic resource. Nothing can be evident without evidence. All comments must be backed up, or they are original research. I understand your frustration, but my feeling is that such things as colloquial pronunciations are perhaps outside the scope of this encyclopedia.  Serendi pod ous  08:07, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Bristol University Botanic Gardens
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Bristol University Botanic Gardens, and it appears to include a substantial copy of. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 14:10, 31 December 2007 (UTC)


 * (messages left about his for User:Coren, and User:Buaes, and at BUBG page on 31 Dec 2007; message left for User:madman on 7 Jan 2008.)Moonraker12 (talk) 16:55, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Archiving wave power
Hello. Is it OK if I do the archiving of wave power. I like to practice on it. Regards, Crowsnest (talk) 11:46, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I just could not wait, and archived Talk:Wave power. Hope you don't mind. Best regards, Crowsnest (talk) 13:04, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I do not think GEWP is intended as a hoax, but knowledge of water waves, wave power and naval hydrodynamics is missing. It seems to me Nukeh is serious (see http://www.youvan.org for a cv), but starting at WP, and having quite some conflicts of interests trying to push GEWP and other ideas. And trying to get information and confirmation on his plans and ideas. Crowsnest (talk) 21:48, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Wave Power
I don't understand your critical comments on my talk page. The Wave Power article was a mess, and over the past few weeks Crowsnest and I have been cleaning it up -independently, and I am not saying he endorses my changes. You've been at this longer than me, and you might consider giving Crowsnest a barnstar. Compare the equations of a month ago with what is up now. I deleted. Crowsnest replaced.

On Wave Power, my edits have deleted 404's, bizarre company links (one to a poetry website), and a general cleanup of what another editor called a link farm. No one has complained, except you. I've also added informative links to NOAA, and I continue to look for things to improve that page.

Alternative Energy is a very important subject. Many company links were deleted that have no useful information on the target webpage, other than an Article. Many of those companies are likely out of business. They can easily come back by providing an informative link that fits WP's rules. But we have to watch this does not resprout the link farm: One month ago, Wave Power was only 1/3rd editor-written text, and it carried 2/3rds to outside (and sometimes useless or 404) hyperlinks.

The problems on my own Talk page started with not knowing that one is suppose to archive rather than delete. That was an honest mistake by a new Wikipedian, me, with no malice. Others have tried to help recover my deletion, but I continue to not see a way to bring back the old stuff and MERGE it with the newer comments. If you know how to do that, please tell me how.

In terms of handles, I change my wattage (100TW, 50MW, etc.) sometimes as sort of an inside joke on my power calculations. However, anyone who passes a cursor over my handle will see that I have always been Username Nukeh. What does changing a handle have to do with socket puppetry? I thought that had to do with taking out more that one username. Please tell me why I am not allowed to change my handle.

If you really want to help, go to Young Earth Creationism and look at the edit war. Maybe I am doing something wrong, but I can't seem to get up a single edit with out being ganged by people controlling the page. 50MWdoug (talk) 16:27, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

No content in Category:Parks and open spaces of the Corporation of London
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Category:Parks and open spaces of the Corporation of London, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Category:Parks and open spaces of the Corporation of London has been empty for at least four days, and its only content has been links to parent categories. (CSD C1). To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Category:Parks and open spaces of the Corporation of London, please affix the template to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that '''this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here''' CSDWarnBot (talk) 21:30, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Swindon Car Share
Please have a look at my Talk Page. Thanks - Adrian Pingstone (talk) 12:37, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Ashura
You are absolutely right! It is no problem. I checked the history of the page way back till december, and saw most of the same, so I thought it had been like that for a while. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Babloyi (talk • contribs) 18:04, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Caïque
Hi, I have explained my thoughts in the related article's talk page, I appreciate your comments thereon. Thank you. --Chapultepec (talk) 15:54, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Mount Nokogiri (Chiba)
Hi. No, you cannot simply upload images from other web sites and put into the article unless the web site explicitly provides a license that is compatible with Creative Commons (CC) or GFDL, which is generally NOT the case. Of course, uploading your own images and licensing them accordingly is a great way to get them into articles. You can try googling for the mountain and checking if there are freely available photos. There could be a photo on flickr.com for instance. Remember though that the licensing terms must be compatible with CC or GFDL. Also, please upload any photos to Wikimedia Commons rather than directly to the English Wikipedia. Thanks. RedWolf (talk) 15:54, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It was my pleasure to help. imars (talk) 17:13, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * And another thing. There is a dab template for the kind of template you had at the top of the page for disambiguation. I'll see if I can dig one up.imars (talk) 17:14, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, you found the wrong image. We'll have to add another Nokogiri article. The picture is of one in either Yamanashi or in Nagano. I have not identified the peak yet. Looks like it uses different Kanji.imars (talk) 17:21, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The Geological Survey Institute] uses 岳 (dake). I would take that one as official, since GSI is an official organ of the Japanese government. Interesting point though since google maps appears to use both right next to each other. imars (talk) 12:06, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I guess that they just could not decide. ;-) imars (talk) 15:45, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

being cheeky
i may be cheeky, i was trying to be polite. i tried to properly handle the situation. i consulted wp:rv for how to revert. wiki suggests using a template. the best template i found was: { { subst:uw-delete2|PageName } }. the template automatically generates the sandbox comment, which i do not know how to delete. i used another template for the censorship warning. yes, i was concerned it was all a bit much. but fortunately, User:Man vyi is quite diplomatic and did not take my reversion and its accouterments the wrong way. i was impressed with his attitude, and told him so on the user talk page, Talk:Channel_Islands. there, i also acknowledged your criticism. however, your "cheeky" comment seems a bit cheeky to me. User:Man vyi is the only person with standing to be bothered by my templates excesses and he choose to constructively deal with my comments. --diremarc (talk) 22:58, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Alderney concentration camps and war crimes
you are right, the acc page is a mere stub in danger of being deleted. what first drew my attention to all these articles was a ref to "camp alderney" on the Neuengamme concentration camp subcamps list page (a reference i could not verify). i was interested and started doing research. i found the lager subcamp pages crude, internally inconsistent and riddled with errors. there were no common links until i added them. i created the acc page for low information searches about the channel islands and nazis to find as a starting point. Lager Borkum mentioned war crimes, which sounded fascinating, but i have not had the time to research the subject or even copyedit it and would like to know more. however, for the next couple of weeks, i am fairly busy. i am working on a couple military articles on line and am traveling. i have no false pride of ownership. anything you want to do along the lines of your suggestions for streamlining and eliminating repetitions and any clarity you can bring to the war crimes concerning the crashed B17 and the execution of the survivors would be useful and very interesting. ciao-- diremarc (talk) 01:28, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Re: Kōyadai Station
Thanks for the feedback

Yeah that is all part of Phase 2 of my (increasingly elaborate) plan... after I have created stubs for all the stations in Japan I was going to expand them by translating the Japanese pages (as you can see ja:荒野台駅 has a bit more information. Although I wanted to complete all the stubs first, there are several thousand so yeah, taking longer than I planned! But yeah, give it time and I'll get back to it, hopefully someone else will pick up the info... as you can see here I have created a few train station articles and some have been expanded. Dex1337 (talk) 01:36, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Indonesian language stubs
They are speedy candidates through and through and dont need translating!!!! SatuSuro 06:54, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of Category:US towns named after planets
I removed the comment you posted at this CFD as it was untimely; once the CFD is closed, it is considered archived and no longer open for discussion. I'm sorry that no one notified you about the category. Ideally, this should be done, but it isn't considered necessary as no one owns even categories that they created. The best way to keep watch over this would be to add categories you consider important to your watchlist; a notice was posted on the category itself that it was being considered for deletion, eight days before it was actually deleted.

As for the category itself, the unanimous discussion speaks for itself as to why the category was deleted. Deletion review is available to challenge CFDs, but I personally don't see grounds in this case. Postdlf (talk) 03:34, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Alderney concentration camps etc.
nice work on ACC, war crimes and related entries.-- diremarc (talk) 03:44, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Moonraker12 (talk) 00:57, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Re: Con Brio
Wow, I can't believe everyone (myself included) overlooked that. Thanks for noticing that. I've created a disambiguation page at Con Brio and redirected Con brio to it. Powers T 14:43, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

2009 Samoa earthquake
I was so intent on putting in the template that I didn't notice I had the numbers wrong! Thanks for fixing it. Rees11 (talk) 15:18, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Just one problem. You turned it into a quote, but it's not a quote in the source. So you're quoting the source (LA Times) and making it look like you're quoting Mike Reynolds. A fine distinction but an important one I think. Rees11 (talk) 15:38, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
I dream of horses @  14:55, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Move
Done. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 16:33, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Turkish–Portuguese War (1509)‎
Hi, could we manage to come to a conclusion regarding this article ? Regards--Kimdime (talk) 08:04, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I did indeed read your arguments since I replied to them with others arguments :)
 * I just wanted to make sure that you wouldn't oppose the redirect as I want the decision to be taken following the guidelines of wikipedia (i.e. after discussion)
 * I will advise the user you mentioned, since he has been editing after receiving your notification, I assume he doesn't care.--Kimdime (talk) 11:03, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Ton
I don't really know any more than is in the ref I gave you but I don't think 35 cubic feet of water weighs the same as 2240 lb. The imperial gallon is defined in terms of the weight of distilled water. 35 cubic feet of distilled water is less than 2240 lb. 35 cubic feet of sea-water, however, is very close, depending on the exact figure you use for density (which varies from place to place). So in short, I think it must be invalid to imply the two units are the same, although they are clearly related.  Sp in ni ng  Spark  16:21, 26 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I was just trying to make sense of the two definitions you found; it seemed they were talking about the same thing from different ends. If it needs a cite I would use them, if that’s OK with you.
 * I checked it by taking the volume of an Imp. Gallon (here), multiplying by 224 (gallons in a ton, from “water ton”, (here); but if “a pint of water weighs a pound and a quarter” then it comes out correct) and dividing by 1728, to get between 35 and 36 cu.ft.
 * Do you think I'm barking up the wrong tree? Moonraker12 (talk) 13:17, 27 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, I make it 35.96 cu ft, which is very nearly 36 cu ft, not 35. Close, but no banana.  I think the difference is that displacement is the mass of water displaced in tons, which is always the same but not so easy to actually measure.  The volume of water displaced is an easier parameter for shipping to deal with, but is variable because the density of seawater varies with salinity and temperature from place to place and time to time.  Therefore the displacement ton (DT) is standardised to 35 cu ft so that it is not affected by what the water happens to be doing at the time.  If you divide your result by the average density of seawater one gets 35.96/1.025=35.08, a much better fit. The two are closely linked, but cannot be said to be precisely the same thing.  Sp in ni  ng  Spark  15:37, 27 July 2010 (UTC)


 * OK, I think I've got this. I agree they are not exactly equal (because of the density variation) but I do want the link explained, otherwise (unless you happen to know off the top of your head that 224 gallons is about 35 (or 36!) cu ft) it's just a jumble of numbers and definitions.
 * Here it is again. Moonraker12 (talk) 10:18, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes I think that's right now. I do have a bit of an issue with the article's usage of "long ton" but that is a different story.  The definition in the article is the US usage of "long ton".  The definition I was taught in school was long ton = 2400 lb (a now entirely obsolete measure) plain simple ton = 2240 lb and US ton = 2000 lb.  My memory of ancient times is confirmed by
 * McDonald, A M, Chambers Twentieth Century Dictionary, p.1419, Edinburgh: W and R Chambers, 1977 ISBN 0550102264.
 *  Sp in ni ng  Spark  17:31, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Can’t really help you there; I don’t remember the term in that way. Is this the same as the longweight ton, mentioned in the article? I do have a memory of seeing a hundredweight defined as 120 lb (which would fit), but I can’t think where. Moonraker12 (talk) 10:19, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

New style and old style dates
I don't think you note the Battle of Reading (1688) is necessary, but as it does no harm I'll leave it be. The reason for this is that we have a perfectly good set of rules in Manual of Style (dates and numbers). The implication of your change is that we would need to footnote every article that used Julian dates and when drawing up the MOS section that was not considered desirable (take the battle of Agincourt for example its known to have been fought on 25 October 1415 (Julian date) but there is no need to put in a footnote explaining that it is the Julian calendar being used as the reliable secondary sources do not do so or disagree on the dating method.

In practical terms the only time it is necessary to note the dates is in article like the Glorious Revolution that use both, and in some article for some English Julian dates before May 25 when primary sources used in the article place the year as the previous one, or if the secondary sources use different dating methods, (See for example the First Battle of Middlewich). -- PBS (talk) 00:29, 8 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I think I made my points above and your counter arguments have not made me change my mind, so I think we will have to agree to disagree. BTW as one of the authors of that section of the guideline, I think your reading of it was not quite what was meant by the authors ;-) -- PBS (talk) 21:17, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Let us take an example: the article on the Battle of Worcester that took place on 3 September 1651. In my opinion there is absolutely no need to to add any mention of dates NS/OS to that article. Now there is a subsidiary article called escape of Charles II which at the moment does not mention NS/OS, although there is a sentence that says "On 16 October the King and Lord Wilmot landed in France at Fécamp, near Le Havre."  now clearly that is a sentence that needs qualifying, because it is not clear which date is being used.

There are thousands of articles on the English Civil War alone. Most of them do not need any form of footnoting on the date because they are internally consistent, and consistent with the dates used in reliable secondary sources. Occasionally there is a need to put in a footnote if the date is before March the 25 if the sources used in the article mix up the year. In articles like the Battle of Worcester I would probably remove footnotes that qualified such dates unless such qualification was also used in reliable sources. This is an editorial judgement, there is no right or wrong about it, but just as you are making a judgement about when it is appropriate (dates before 1582) I am making a similar judgement about British articles that unlike the Glorious Revolution use only one set of dates and are internally consistent. -- PBS (talk) 10:28, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * You ask "Aldbourne Chase, or Aylesbury, or Adwalton Moor, which don’t have the PBS seal of approval? Do you know which calendar the original editor used? Whether they followed MOS as accurately as you? I don’t know that either." The answer is in the MOS Calendar section.
 * "The dating method used should follow that used by reliable secondary sources. If the reliable secondary sources disagree, choose the most common used by reliable secondary sources and note the usage in a footnote."
 * (reply: This is a circular argument: how do we know the editor followed MOS? It says so in MOS)
 * For articles about the Tudor and Stuart's periods reliable sources written for the general public use the Julian calendar with the start of the year adjusted to January 1. Articles by historians for historians will often use dual dating for the start of the year if an event falls before 25 March. So as there is usually no disagreement over the date in secondary sources we do not need to footnote most articles.
 * Luckily for military historians the campaign season means that conveniently most campaigns take place where the anomaly in the start of year does not complicate matters (I'm not sure how you picked your battles but all of them are later in the year so we do not have to worry about start of year problems).
 * (reply.: I got them from ECW battles (which has 62 entries, not “thousands”. I picked them from he “A”s not already checked by you)
 * The reason I mentioned the First Battle of Middlewich above is because it was unusual for two reasons. It was fought on 13 March 1643 (before March 25) and when the article was written the (old) secondary sources used as references had used the dates in the primary sources without adjusting the start of year. It is laid out on the talk page. It was because of articles like this that we introduced the Calendar section.
 * One last point I mentioned above the battle of Agincourt, Juliet Barker in her Agincourt: The King, the Campaign, the Battle has a few paragraphs on how difficult it is to date things of this period accurately. First the year is given from the start of a kings reign rather than (in the year of our Lord). Secondly the day is given in two ways one is by saints days (or as an offset from a saints day for example "two days after the feast of St. Andrew"), and the other by the Ides, so working out the dates in primary sources during middle ages is complicated. For example one English document may be dated from the start year of Henry V reign and the day as an offset from an ide, while a French document for the same day will use their King coronation year and then use a local saint's day to date an event that happened on the same day.
 * (reply: A bit of a red herring; I’ve said several times I wasn’t thinking of pre-1582 articles)
 * When one throws into that pot that the coronation year depends on the start of the year that may vary between countries and they may have named the day of the coronation after a saint (making it hard to work out the precise day) then the whole middle ages dating thing is very complicated! It makes dating the Glorious Revolution look like a walk in the park :-) -- PBS (talk) 22:47, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Replies (to clarify) are added, above. Moonraker12 (talk) 09:25, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Ryan, etc.
I've replied on the Ryan page, but I'll reply here too. I'm not sure I entirely understand your objections. Dickson was notionally held by Labor following a redistribution. The "held by" column refers to the party that held the seat before the election (the candidates pages are fundamentally a pre-election thing). Ryan was definitely won by the LNP. Frickeg (talk) 14:21, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see. I'm more than happy to try to explain if you tell me exactly what you don't understand. I'm told we have a complicated system. :) Frickeg (talk) 14:38, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * That's right. Dutton was the previous member, and he's been re-elected easily. But prior to the election, there was a redistribution of boundaries (to accommodate the new seat of Wright), and by calculating the results from individual polling booths the electoral commission can determine a "notional" majority for a party. So going off 2007 results, Dickson on its new boundaries was a marginal Labor seat (with a margin under 1%). Dutton, of course, was able to pick up enough of a swing to counter that and win election. Frickeg (talk) 14:51, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The LNP is the merger of the Coalition parties (Liberal and National) that took place in Queensland. The members previously sat as Liberal or National members, but following the election became LNP. Frickeg (talk) 22:09, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Marche
Do you know how to restore Ancona as capital of the region in the infobox - it has got messed up. I have tried to make it re-appear but can't get it right. Someone in December added something to demographics and it hasn't looked right since then. Sorry to bother you, very minor point, but it just looks wrong all the { – } where the capital should be. 92.8.204.187 (talk) 12:10, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

RE: Iceland
just got to my talk page after weeks an saw your message. well its dubious if they "owe" the money, which is the political issue that te hole referendum was about, its certainly nto a given that they owe it. well ahve to see waht the ICJ or whatever court says.
 * pretty disruptive for the leaders of iceland to shoot down the ovocie of their own people. they ought to have a ano-ly zone and bombngs;)

My comment on page protection
Sorry, I should have made it clear that in no way was that aimed at you. Why would anyone need to protect a page just because you are editing it? I was thinking of editors not noticing the talk page discussion, but I think I over-reacted because of my annoyance at some vandalism I'd been dealing with. Dougweller (talk) 14:41, 24 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Fair enough; I was probably over-reacting too. I thought as the debate had dragged on for so long I was being suspected of intending to start edit-scuffling over it. No harm done. Moonraker12 (talk) 11:47, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

meaningless headings
moonraker your headings in the playing cards article barely relate to the paragraphs in question. You can't just slap an irrelevant label on bits of an article for the sake of it. Owen214 (talk) 02:54, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you that perhaps more explanation is needed concerning the styles, but the headings just didn't fit, especially the International heading. I've updated the article to pay more emphasis to the style, I hope you like it. Owen214 (talk) 10:26, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Avignon Papacy
Moonraker, the reference I removed was placed there by me. After checking it, I could not find where it mentions the Avignon Papacy. Page 271 speaks mainly about Eastern Europe. Have you checked it? Morris, Colin, The papal monarchy: the Western church from 1050 to 1250 , (Oxford University Press, 2001), 271. Thanks. --Kansas Bear (talk) 14:11, 7 September 2011 (UTC)


 * (reply is here). Moonraker12 (talk) 13:32, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Invitation to join WikiProject Wiltshire
Hi, I've been oticing your edits and interest to anything Wiltshire based, so I wondered if you would be interested in joining the WikiProject. Of course, it isn't compulsary. Thanks, Jaguar (talk) 18:39, 18 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your reply. WP Wilts was only set up just over a year ago; if there is anything I (or we as a project) can do anything to help, please ask. Thanks, Jaguar (talk) 19:01, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Cyrrhus

 * (Reply is there. Moonraker12 (talk) 13:15, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Per your question — Talk:Cyrrhus, Syria is where the discussion is located; it's going to be moved to Talk:Cyrrhus. The latter page already existed, so the page where the discussion took place wasn't moved when the article was.  Nyttend (talk) 13:13, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Per your complaint; I did the move; I hold my hand up for that. It was taggesd as non-controversial housekeeping. I have no interest in Cyrrhus and will happily reverse the move if you would be so kind as to explain why? I do not see a prior comment in my talk. --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 21:51, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

OK;as I say, I have absolutely no axe to grind here. What would you like done? --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 22:09, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You got no response from me because I just got back to my house and my computer for the first time in thirteen hours. I was completely uninvolved in the article move; all that I did was moving the talk page.  Surely you will agree that a talk page should always have the same name as the article.  Nyttend (talk) 02:30, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, your opinions are at variance with the vast majority of Wikipedians, who believe that article talk pages should always be the same as their articles; I am only enforcing a broad consensus. If you wish to see this consensus changed, I'd suggest opening a thread at WP:VP/P to propose that talk pages not always be moved with their articles.  Nyttend (talk) 01:28, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Moving talk pages for their articles is uncontroversial. I am not and will not be involved in anything else with this page.  Nyttend (talk) 02:06, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Reply to your comments at ANI
As I've already said, it's not uncommon a better candidate will emerge in a move discussion and this will be the end result of the move request even if it wasn't part of the original proposal. Occasionally, the move proposal will be relisted with the new option. But this isn't necessary, if a clear consensus exists for a move to another option. (Although I encourage people to use RM as much as possible and generally dislike unilateral moves, it's worth remembering it isn't required to use RM to make a move.)

And so if we look at this case, you closed the discussion despite being involved. The page may have been moved back to Cyrrhus, Syria but that was a moot point since the question of whether it should be at Cyrrhus was still open. Remember determing consensus is not about simply counting !votes. 2 people had already suggested Cyrrhus was the correct title, with good policy based reasoning, before you made the close. There shouldn't be a need for them to say 'hang on', since as said, they had already given good policy based reasons for why Cyrrhus was the correct location, something which any closing party should ideally have taken in to account when making a close. The only person who had specifically opposed Cyrrhus was you, for a IMO poor rationale. As I said, I'm not an admin nor do I close moves, but if an uninvolved user or admin had come to close the discussion, IMO from reading that discussion their best policy based actions would either have been 1) Close the discussion as a move to Cyrrhus (not keep it at Cyrrhus, Syria or close as no consensus) 2) Relist for more discussion.

You of course had both these options available to you when you made the close, but instead you chose to close the discussion in favour of keeping the article at Cyrrhus, Syria which was your preferred title! In fact you didn't even mention the option of Cyrrhus in your closure. Even if you didn't think consensus exists for Cyrrhus and didn't feel it would have been better to relist, a better closure would have been to close it as keep at Cyrrhus, Syria but acknowledge there are valid arguments that Cyrrhus was the better title, but that there isn't a clear consensus for that.

If an uninvolved admin or user had made the call same call you did, I still wouldn't consider it a great call based on the discussion, but I wouldn't go as far to say as it was inappropriate. But when an involved user, i.e. you, makes the call to close the discussion in favour of their preferred option, I do say this was not appropriate. There's a reason why we discourage involved users from closing a discussion. If they close in favour of their preference, it can easily lead to a perception they made a decision based on their preference, rather then doing their best to read the discussion and determine what, if any, consensus exists, and if no consensus exists, whether it's appropriate to relist or just close as no consensus. In other words, if I was involved in that discussion, I would rightfully feel somewhat aggrieved by your actions if I became aware of them.

Was it a terrible thing to do? No, but since you went to ANI to complain about another user's actions simply because you feel it was wrong, even though you agree it's a minor thing and more of a 'out of proper process' concern, I think it's worth pointing out your behaviour here wasn't great either and can similarly be called 'out of proper process'.

If it's correct Kauffner tagged the article as an uncontroversial move as you claim, I do agree this wasn't great either. They should have either undone your close and asked you to wait for a neutral party to make the close or undone your close and relisted the move with the new proposal. (I don't think relisting requires a neutral party in this case since there were good reasons for a relist and a relist doesn't kill the discussion, ultimately a neutral party probably an admin is going to make a decision based on the consensus that exists in the discussion.) The reason I'm not commenting much on this is because it's too minor to matter. I wouldn't have commented on your behaviour except you went to ANI to complain about it, so I felt it fair to point out you've been far from perfect in the same affair. (Pot calling the kettle black, boomerang etc.)

P.S. In case it's not clear, re-list means you modify the move proposal so it's readded by the bot to WP:RM and discussion continues for another 7 days (usually) or alternatively remove the template and re-add it to the top of the original proposal, as when opening a move. You don't close or archive the existing discussion.

P.P.S. To put it a different way, what I'm saying is it's best for you not to complain about other people's minor imperfect behaviour in some dispute to a place like WP:ANI if you yourself have shown similar minor imperfect behaviour in the same dispute.

Nil Einne (talk) 17:49, 17 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you for moving this from the ANI at least, but you’ll forgive me if I don’t see this in the same way as you.
 * First, you seem fixated on the fact that I “closed the RM”, which I certainly did not do in any sense you mean.
 * Second, I didn’t see the other guy's action as “a minor imperfect behaviour”; I saw it as gaming the system, which is why I took it so seriously.
 * And third, I took it to ANI because I really wasn’t sure where else to go with it; my posts to those involved at the time were ignored, and the discussion I opened on the talk page was deleted. If it had been a content edit, I could have reverted it (Bold, Revert, Discuss) and opened a discussion; as it was, it was only reversable by an admin. So…
 * But to start at the top, I don’t agree that RM’s commonly end with a different result than they start with. The one’s I’ve seen are mostly “yes or no” issues, and if the issue is complicated enough to need a compromise position, it’s generally better to re-list, so everyone is clear what’s being agreed. And this wasn’t anything like that scenario; there were six people involved ( seven, if you count Nedim) and four different options being floated. The question being raised there wasn’t a better title for the article, but the correct one. A simple yes or no. Also, where do you get "a growing consensus" for the Cyrrhus option? The only person to suggest Cyrrhus as a title was Kauffner.
 * AFAICS the situation resolved itself when the page was moved back, so there seemed nothing more to discuss; which is why I suggested closing the discussion up and why,when no-one (including K) said "No, we still have other options to pursue.." I wrote it up and archived it. As indicated by the RM template.
 * And what I took a dim view of is the other guy waiting til that was done, then using the CSD process to get the pages moved (his preferred option, and one that wasn't shared by anyone else in the discussion that took place.) It takes a certain economy with the truth to describe such a move as "uncontroversial" and a certain brazenness to blank any attempts to discuss the issue.
 * And I'm not clear why I’m arguing with you about it, either: My beef was with Kauffner; what exactly is your place in this? You said you weren’t an admin, yet you chipped in on the ANI; and now we’re re-hashing it, again and again.
 * You obviously don’t have to agree with the way I see it, and I don’t have to agree with you. It doesn’t stop us moving on. Moonraker12 (talk) 21:45, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * (I have copied your comments here as I prefer to keep them together.) Firstly you did close the RM. There was an open RM where the consensus was leaning to renaming the article, and you closed it in favour of your option despite the fact 2 (not 1) people had suggested a better title more compliant with policy. There can be no doubt that happened, I suggest you check the edit history.
 * Perhaps my earlier comment above about 'not uncommon' was poorly phrased, I did not mean it happens a lot, simply it does happen on occasion and there's generally nothing controversial about it. Again let me remind you wikipedia operates by consensus not by voting, therefore it's not always necessary for something to be a simple yes or no. It's possible consensus will be achieved for a proposal which wasn't the original proposal even without a simple yes or no on that specific proposal. If plenty of people have not given their opinions on a specific option, this has to be considered but in this case the numbers were so small it was largely a moot point. In such case, relisting may or may not be wise. If it isn't, that decision should be made by an uninvolved user. If an involved user is involved, they definitely shouldn't be making a decision in favour of their preferred option.
 * BTW in case you are still confused, the correct title for the article per policy is almost definitely Cyrrhus. Not Cyrrhus, Syria. The fact that Cyrrhus, Turkey is not only wrong per policy, but wrong in geographical terms obviously means Cyrrhus, Syria is preferred but it does not make it the correct title, it was always a title not preferred by policy.
 * Also, you seem to be missing the point that what you did could easily be seen as gaming the system, but if you WP:AGF it seems difficult to make that accusation based on one specific case. You claim that that 'other guy waiting til that was done, then using the CSD process to get the pages moved'. Exactly what evidence do you have for this allegation? You had mentioned 'can we consider the matter closed?', but this did not make it clear this meant you planned to unilaterally close the discussion. Personally if I had noticed the comment, I would have made a comment no we can't. But I wouldn't consider this that important since your comment seemed irrelevant as you had ignored the two people proposing a better, policy supported option. And the only rationale provided agaisnt that option was as I've said a rather poor one. So your comment likely would have been considered irrelevant by any uninvolved closing party. And I definitely would not consider failing to reply to your comment as giving you cause to unilaterally close the RM less then 24 hours later, in favour of your preferred option. In other words, if had intended to unilaterally close the RM, you should have made this clear which even if you didn't realise this at the time, you did not do.
 * It's easily possible when Kauffner re-visited the discussion, they made the change they did to give emphasis to the fact that there was a better option to you. Either way, I see no reason to think they realised you planned to unilaterally close the RM in favour of your preferred option. I think its resonable they expected any uninvolved closing party would have either relisted as a move Cyrrhus or simply closed in favour of a move to Cyrrhus so didn't see any reason to mention to you that there was a better option. As I've said, my reading of the discussion definitely suggests this was what an uninvolved closing party would have done. As I've also said, after you unilaterally closed the RM, I do not think they should have responded in the way they did. But let's not forget it was you who first 'blank any attempts to discuss the issue'. As for whether such a move could be described as controversial, I personally do not think so. But since no one had raised any good policy based arguments against such a move in the discussion which you had unilaterally closed, and the only person who had objected to it was you who had unilaterally closed the RM, I can see how some may feel the move was uncontroversial. And since ultimately the outcome was correct, I don't consider it a big deal either way, remember we do not punish people on wikipedia. If I'd seen it independently, I may have suggested to Kauffner they should have done so.
 * I never said anything about a 'growing consensus' so I'm not sure where you got that idea. Two people proposed the title, Kauffner and Station1 with both giving a good policy based argument for it. If you closed the discussion without realising this, it's even more concerning but I digress. And as I said, only one person specifically opposed the title i.e. you and for no reason supported by policy. Other then you 3, the comments of those who expressed a clear preference all came before the option and reasoning for Cyrrhus was mentioned and there's no evidence it was considered.
 * BTW, if you are still confused the primary purpose of ANI is to ask for administrative actions. Reversing may have required administrative help (although I'm not sure, it depends on whether the redirect had been edited). But there was no good reason to reverse it since even if the Kauffner should not have dealt with it in the way they did, the move was still correct and almost definitely would have been the eventual outcome if an uninvolved party had been allowed to close the move. At ANI, opinions of a situation are sometimes offered but there is no requirement or expectation that these opinions comes from administrators.
 * The reason why I am discussing this with you is because I do consider it is helpful for people to understand how they can be great editors on wikipedia. Since you raised the issue at ANI, complaining about another user without appearing to consider the way you had behaved wasn't ideal, I felt it wise to point out to you what you had done as also far from ideal. As you apparently still think there is nothing wrong with unilaterally closing the RM in favour of your preferred option, I do consider this rather concerning hence why I am still discussing it.
 * Nil Einne (talk) 05:28, 25 November 2011 (UTC)


 * (Reply is here. Moonraker12 (talk) 12:21, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi, this message is to let you know about disambiguation links you've recently created. A link to a disambiguation page is almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. For more information, see the FAQ or drop a line at the DPL WikiProject.


 * Diwali (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * was linked to Gujarati, Purnima


 * Deva Devali (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * was linked to Purnima


 * Diwali in Gujarat (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * was linked to Gujarati

Any suggestions for improving this automated tool are welcome. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 23:52, 16 November 2011 (UTC)


 * (Done, end of November. Moonraker12 (talk) 15:19, 9 December 2011 (UTC))

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. In Paksha, you recently added links to the disambiguation pages Kartika, Shukla and Prathama (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:38, 17 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Done. Moonraker12 (talk) 12:56, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

"My great work"
A resoinse to your resonse:
 * Well I may have had this account for two years ( I dont remember when I created it) but you will notice I really only started contributing in the last couple of months of last year
 * I have no interest in editing in pt.wiki. Just because I am Portuguese and contribute to Portuguese historical articles here on en.wiki, does that mean I should help on pt.wiki? no.
 * I write articles I am interested in, whether they have a Portuguese equivilant or not is not my concern, I write to inform the english speaking world, not the Portuguese
 * Do all these points mean I have an agenda to you? If so, then I am sorry, but that is absurd.
 * Thank you,
 * Cristiano Tomás (talk) 23:07, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment
Hello. I will raise my points at the talk pages soon. Until then I won't make further changes, however, I ask you to withdraw your request for edit/move protection of these two articles, as I said I won't make further changes before discussion has been had. Thank you. Adel (talk) 22:33, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

If you demonstrate good faith and remove your request for edit/move protection, we can discuss the matter at the talk page. I reserve the right to create a new article (not a fork) with a broader scope which documents the British atrocities against the Iraqi people during their occupation of that country. If I do so it will be referenced. Adel (talk) 22:47, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

(reply was here). Moonraker12 (talk) 20:45, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

March 2012
Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors. Thank you. Adel (talk) 20:33, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

(comment was here, reply is here). Moonraker12 (talk) 20:47, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 16
Hi. When you recently edited Flag of Maryland, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Paly (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 18:21, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Big Four (banking)
Hello, I have added a reference for the section on India in this article.

regards, abhi.culguy —Preceding undated comment added 17:31, 17 April 2012 (UTC).

Cardinal Langley Roman Catholic High School
I'd like to think that a reasonable person wouldn't let their decision be coloured by the behaviour of another person but, all too frequently, that can be the case. I have no axe to grind in respect of the comment regarding Cardinal Langley school and, to be honest, I don't see what real relevance that particular story had to the school back in 2000 (when it apparently happened) and am surprised no-one asked for it to be removed before now.
 * (Hear Hear! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.45.222.192 (talk • contribs) 13:12, 24 May 2012‎ : fixed by Moonraker12 (talk) 16:38, 29 May 2012 (UTC) )

Of course, any decision regarding the page needs to be taken in isolation from dealing with the unwarranted vandalism by 84.45.222.192 (talk) who I think has now breached the three-revert rule. [sigh] Why don't people just discuss these things like adults?‎ —GrahamSmith (talk) 19:04, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Good to have you back. No, I didn't see an edit conflict message when undoing 84.45.222.192's last change. BTW, I've also corrected/updated the external links and added a note regarding a recent Ofsted inspection. &mdash;&#32;GrahamSmith (talk) 17:31, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 28
Hi. When you recently edited Public transport in Istanbul, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Light Rapid Transit (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:45, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Generalissimo
Good faith ... | I have been placing notes on talk pages in hopes that they are available to the relevant users. I scroll a talk page to the bottom and read the latest section titles and find a heading towards the bottom where my note will not seem intrusive. I now add a note respecting Generalissimo:Talk]]. Under that title I added the name of a German prince who was a generalissimus in a Russian army. Sincerely RCNesland RCNesland (talk) 11:02, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 19
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Duke of Normandy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Titular duke (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:38, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Template:Google RS may be of interest ;-)
LittleBen (talk) 14:11, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Bicholim AfD
Understood. I just wanted to make the world wide infamy part of record. No worries. Cheers! With 4+ million articles (some of which have almost no watchers or involved editors) and some of which are on really obscure subjects that only a very few experts might know about and with almost no links, these things are bound to happen. I am surprised about that it had been given a GA, however. User:ShelfSkewed did a great piece of gnomish detective work. 7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 15:47, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 27
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Chancellor, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Imperial China (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:50, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Town in Bosnia
FYI. I'm not intending to respond to aggressive and rude posts. You need to show more respect for other editors. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:14, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Moonraker, this, this, and this may be relevant related reading. LittleBen (talk) 06:05, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Great! I feel like Ronald McDonald outside the sacred cow farm! Moonraker12 (talk) 10:08, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Hey there Moonraker. I walked away from the Talk:Medjugorje because I took huff at "malarkey" and "peddling," but it was more the earlier describing e.g. Rick Steves' guidebook typography as "some bastardized form of English." I may not be the best person to suggest it, but given that is the way Lonely Planet is heading (their Italian editions already have) you may want to revisit that in a few years. Anyway I looked at Talk:Medjugorje again today came here to thank you for agreeing to disagree with Scolaire's Ireland-MOS based point and respecting admin Favonian's closing guidance. That at least leaves the article with a consistent MOS with the rest of en.wp's East Europe geo articles. So thanks for that. I'm sorry if I am too thin-skinned in regard to robust posts, I understand that you do consider this malarkey and peddling, and it has to be admitted that the former Yugoslavia is not the most linguistically clear-cut area of Europe. So in sum, have a nice day and enjoy editing. Bygones be bygones. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:40, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Hey no problem. I was being deliberately picky because I was annoyed at JD doing an undiscussed move after his Lech W RMs failed. As for hoisting I'd agree, but in this case, well, we had a series of RfCs: Hockey, Tennis, BLP (which one I posted), Vietnamese - they all came out with from overwhelming (Hockey, Tennis, BLP) to majority (Vietnamese) support for using "the best such sources" as the reference point. There's no foisting going on. But I do admit the đ/dj issue is problematic - in many ways it is akin to Strauß/ss which substitutes two English letters for one outside the 26 letter set. But I regard the issue as closed now. Which is why I changed opposition to support to let it off the backlog In ictu oculi (talk) 13:28, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, actually the proposal I put before BLP excepted ß, and royalty. ß is really only used for very obscure Germans where there's no English source. As far as guidelines, well there's only one guideline which encourages editors to do crazy stuff - and that was edited by User:Dolovis before he got himself blocked. If that guideline was adjusted to agree with WP:RS then the tension between the article corpus and the guideline would be resolved. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:13, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Re: Anglicization
What I mean by anglicization is exactly what its article describes, basically :) Belgrade is an anglicized spelling of Beograd. It's actually pronounced Belgrade, not Beh-oh-grah-d. Munich is pronounced Munich, not M(umlauted-u)n-hen. And so forth. Medjugorje, on the other hand, is not an anglicization in its nature - you may be led to believe that the đ is replaced with a more English "dj" to lose a diacritic and to indicate that it's pronounced as a j in "jet", but at the same time the "d" in there is extra - a "j" would have sufficed to accomplish that. And the j in the last syllable isn't replaced with a more English "y" to indicate that it's pronounced as a y in "year". Medjugorje isn't an older version of the local name, at least not in any meaningful way, inherent to the toponym itself; any dj in Serbo-Croatian is a poor man's transcription that came to exist because of changes in ortography; the pronunciation of the word didn't change. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 15:31, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 9
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * Canopus (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added links pointing to Ki and Rangi


 * Atutahi (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Rangi

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:35, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Redirect
By all means, if we can make a Hebrew Gospel DAB which has justifiable dab to 3 articles and pass WP:TWODABS then sure. However that won't solve the giant paste of deleted fringe "Hebrew original" material from the SPA. This stuff belongs on blogs - which is where it was before pasted into wikipedia back in 2008 or earlier. I'm pretty sure the blog author and wikipedia paster are the same as well. We need to present reliable mainstream information without WP:SYNTHESIS in this kind of article, which of course I don't need to tell you, but some others can't seem to grasp it. Thanks In ictu oculi (talk) 03:12, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Note
I note that the nominator of this AfD may not have informed you that he has nominated this article, which you created, for deletion. I think he should have done so per Wiki rules and for the sake of transparency! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deva_Devali --Zananiri (talk) 15:16, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for your message. If one wants an AfD article kept, one has to begin by saying 'Keep' in bold as the vote is not counted if one just says Oppose etc. I am not sure what your decision was there, though, as it is your article, I think it is obvious. Your call. --Zananiri (talk) 10:39, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with all that you say and about your article's significance re Jain festivals, and only one person is questioning it. One swallow does not make a summer. If you have a look at some of the other comments, they confirm what you say. I really do think you should have been notified by the nom about the article being taken to AfD.--Zananiri (talk) 11:20, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Garcilaso
Dear Moonraker, I appreciate the discussion we had in the article. I do not consider it "bickering" since both of us were focusing on content, providing explanations, and using reliable sources. We never insulted each other as editors, and that's what is important. You seem to know a lot about the subject, and (if you're interested) would like to work with you on it in the near future. Best regards.-- MarshalN20 | T al k 18:33, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Order of the Bull's Blood


The article Order of the Bull's Blood has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * No claim of notability. Local school tradition. No Sources.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:41, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Order of the Bull's Blood for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Order of the Bull's Blood is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Order of the Bull's Blood & until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:35, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Synchronicity
Yeah, amazing! It's just a pity that you are such a Wikipedia idiot, isn't it? Amandajm (talk) 14:04, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Spycatcher (disambiguation) for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Spycatcher (disambiguation) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Spycatcher (disambiguation) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Codename Lisa (talk) 19:29, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 17
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * Bulleid Firth Brown (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Southern Railway


 * Firth Brown Steels (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Southern Railways

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:18, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

dabs om folly tower
I have some gizmo plugged in (can't remember which one) which highlights dabs & enables you to solve them by pop ups - NB Accession is still a dab - didn't know what to do with that one. West Midlands could be county, region or conurbation - Edgbaston says it is in Birmingham.&mdash; Rod talk 18:57, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I've cobbled together a remedy or two; though I suppose (for the purists among us) Edgbaston is really still in Warwickshire...Moonraker12 (talk) 19:00, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 15
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Folly tower, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages West Midlands and Accession (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:03, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Done. Moonraker12 (talk) 18:41, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Re: Medjugorje
Hi,

Good summary! The commission has come to a close, so hopefully a judgment on Medjugorje comes soon. If you want to know about the Church's theology of revelation, check out this playlist: Revelation You can also learn tons more from reading stuff by Kevin Symonds (currently on the site Catholic Lane, last I checked), who as far as I can tell knows a lot about revelations.

I edited and eventually deleted a lot of the article 'The Catholic Church's Response, etc.' for the following reasons:
 * a ton of propaganda: both for and against Medjugorje, with click-bait links, biased information, misconceptions, etc. The same goes for the Our Lady of Fatima and Miracle of the Sun articles (ex: Fatima.org)
 * too many of the Medjugorje messages include doctrinal errors to make a sufficient list of them all, especially for Wikipedia. But bigger errors include the apparition saying prayer is unnecessary.
 * it would take too long for me to explain various theological points, such as the difference between devotion and healthy devotion. I'm not a theologian, so I can't explain completed subjects in simple terms.
 * when the Church definitively rules on Medjugorje, all other opinions will be moot - whether they are for or against Medjugorje. Not that people can't better explain and elaborate on the Church's position.

I'm fine with the edits you've made, my knowledge is very limited - my resources more so. Hopefully better editors come along to spruce up the Medjugorje articles. Have a happy and blessed weekend!

Oct13 (talk) 20:00, 20 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks! And thanks for the links; some light bedside viewing, there!
 * Your reasons for editing the "Catholic Church Response..." I am fine with (though thank you for the explanation); I just felt making such a drastic change without prior notice was a bit too bold. I usually try and put a note on the talk page beforehand in those sort of cases, if only to gain the high ground over any complaints. It's also useful for readers coming back to a page in the future and wondering what on earth has been going on.
 * My apologies also if my comments seemed abrupt; looking back on them they might well come over that way. My main concern is to have things done decently and in order.
 * Regards, Moonraker12 (talk) 15:40, 23 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the WP:Bold link, I do have an issue with being bold but will do my best to more humble. No worries about the abrupt comments, feel free to talk freely. And I agree, order and decency are good virtues. Oct13 (talk) 17:43, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

New Messages
Hi,

Wikipedia says I have new messages on your talk page but I can't find them Oct13 (talk) 22:10, 13 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Sorry, no idea; my last comment (above) was in January. Moonraker12 (talk) 13:14, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Merge discussion for Sha Tin Heights Tunnel
An article that you have been involved in editing, Sha Tin Heights Tunnel, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Jc86035 (talk • contributions) 10:26, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 14
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Brobdingnag, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lilliput (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:07, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Palais des Tuileries and italics
I searched English books in Google Books and found several examples of Palais des Tuileries in English sentences, e.g.,, , , ,. In none of them was the name italicized. I have not yet come across an example where it is italicized. So why should we italicize it? --Robert.Allen (talk) 02:51, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the explanation. Yes, it does make the article The Louvre more consistent, but maybe the article is wrong to do it. Using italics in English for these French names must be awfully rare. I have quite a few books in English on Paris, and I haven't found any examples where the French names are italicized. The only place I have seen it so far is the Wikipedia. But then, I have also not come across any examples of "Tuileries Palace" followed by "Palais des Tuileries" in parenthesis either. --Robert.Allen (talk) 21:58, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

(Archived)
Talk page content from October 2007 to September 2014 archived today. Moonraker12 (talk) 14:08, 22 September 2016 (UTC)