User talk:Peridon/Archives/2010/December

Prince Gharios of Ghassan
Dear Sir, Unfortunately you're making mistakes regarding Dynastic Law. There's no legal difference between a monarch who ruled yesterday or 3,000 years ago:

Professor Dr W. Baroni Santos, Doctor D'etat (post-doctorate/ habilitation) from the University of Reims in France in his book "Treaty of Heraldry and Nobility Law" Volume II page 52.:

"Neither the elapsed time, even for centuries, or non-use of the acts of sovereignty exercised by the Prince Pretender, Head of Name and Arms of his house, may be derogated, prescribed or canceled. He/She Retains these rights until the end of times ' ad perpetuam rei tenendam ' which are inserted in the person of Prince Pretender. "

According with the former president of the Italian Supreme Court of Cassation Professor Doctor Renato de Francesco in 1959.

"... It's simply ridiculous, from a legal point of view, the distinction intended to be done about Dynasties that have reigned until recently of those who ruled in the distant past. It's not understandable how you can launch at the foot numerous pages of history, only to give luster to this or that family, who, aided by good luck, has managed to remain on the throne, after the year 1815. A Dynasty or reigned or not reigned. If reigned, even in very remote time, deserves the historical and legal treatment as a Dynasty and all its effects."

Also, the Prince's ancestors ruled until 1747 not only the 7th Century. See Sheiks Chemor Gharios JPDante —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jpdante (talk • contribs) 01:45, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

The First Insurmountable Step:

Remember
Lets talk About the truth.Always truth wins —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bmazreen (talk • contribs) 05:13, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

SPI
Taking your suggestion about socking seriously (at Articles for deletion/Prince Gharios of Ghassan), I have created Sockpuppet investigations/Jpdante; I included all of the new accounts involved in the discussion. I left out the four of us who are autoconfirmed, because it's not likely that any of us (an admin, an editor with over 28000 edits, an editor with over 12000 edits, and and editor with over 4500 edits) are involved in this sockfest.  Horologium  (talk) 13:01, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Your prod
I agree with your assessment of Malteste fine art photography, but I prefer not to delete pages when the primary editor has not been informed, with some exceptions. Someone else may feel differently.-- SPhilbrick  T  16:02, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Li Chaw Wet
You had tagged this page for speedy deletion, but I've started an AfD discussion at Articles for deletion/Li Chaw Wet. Please join in if you are so inclined. ... disco spinster   talk  00:42, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Deletion review/Log/2010 December 3
Because you participated in Articles for deletion/Valeri Lilov (2nd nomination), you may be interested in Deletion review/Log/2010 December 3. Cunard (talk) 09:59, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, you made me smile!
 Hello Peridon/Archives/2010, This lousy t-shirt has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message. This lousy t-shirt (talk) 19:35, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/"The Board" in Hollywood FL
I've seen your comment in the deletion discussion above. I'm sorry to have to be so blunt, but please do try not to bite the newcomers. I understand that User:Johnny20101 may have upset you by removing your comment, but for all we know, it could have been an edit conflict, and so I must ask you not to call his action "vandalism". :| TelCo NaSp  Ve :|  05:54, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

You said you were curious
In the page Articles for deletion/The True Meaning of the Lord of Heaven, you said, "I would be interested to know how Uncensored Kiwi found it - I came in through patrolling New Accounts and didn't notice the date until you pointed it out."

I don't recall precisely how I arrived at that page. Since I registered my Wikipaedia account, I have been clicking all over Wikipaedia as I explored the hidden corners of this place. I suspect that I came to it via Category:AfD debates (Society topics), where, incidentally, Articles for deletion/The True Meaning of the Lord of Heaven is still listed, despite the nomination being over 2 months old and closed.  Uncensored Kiwi  Kiss 05:43, 15 December 2010 (UTC)



 Ϣere Spiel  Chequers is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Xmas, Eid, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding to your friends' talk pages.

Unfair treatment of the article on PhotoHand
I noticed you deleted the page that I created describing PhotoHand. I would like to bring out to your attention that the text of that page contained no adjectives or any word combination that could be considered evaluative. The text was carefully crafted after the pages of SnapFish and Picnic that seem to have the right to exist in Wikipedia. In the light of this fact, I would like to receive your suggestion on how to alter this post so that it passes your editorial judgment. I do understand that Wikipedia is a private organization with volunteer editors without any legal or regulatory oversight and control but still I would expect less arbitrary decision and fair treatment from an organization that is striving to maintain a good reputation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexw33 (talk • contribs) 16:42, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Altered speedy deletion rationale: Photohand
Hello Peridon. I am just letting you know that I deleted Photohand, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, under a different criterion from the one you provided, which doesn't fit the page in question. Thank you.  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 01:41, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Quaintrelle
Happy to do a little research for a change. Eventually I'm hoping to become a net-contributor rather than a deletionist, but I spend too much time sifting through the garbage and haven't really found a project that interests me yet. But I digress.

If you Google the text from the first paragraph of Quaintrelle, you'll find that text (verbatim) in a lot of places. I can't pinpoint any one place where it might have originated from, but this is the strange part. One of a very few references out there (if you want to call it that) that is so bold as to make a definition uses this particular wikipedia article as its source. Seems the chicken came before the egg. A troubling number of obscure online dictionaries also list this word, with Wiktionary as the sole source.

I also checked the University of Michigan Middle English Dictionary just for laughs. The prefix "quaint" did mean "well dressed, fashionable or elegant" as early as 1100 AD. Seems to me that the etymology is plausible, but the substance is flaky.

Also, correct me if i'm wrong: the "NEW ENGLISH DICTIONARY ON HISTORICAL PRINCIPALS" is the Oxford dictionary, yes? No listing on the online version. If there were a way to access previous editions (from back in 'the day') maybe we could get a better snapshot. The Wiktionary article lists Oxford as the sole source.

I'll dump this on the discussion page for the article as well.

Thoughts? Slayer (talk) 20:26, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. Bonehead move on my part.

Pilgrimage? Did I miss something? Slayer (talk) 20:36, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Ahh yes, THAT pilgrimage. Honestly, the old-timey english made me go crosseyed. I did, however, find what could be thatmanuscript, and that quote IS there. What is the context? What does it mean? Not a clue. Not even a hunch. Slayer (talk) 20:46, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Yurlyageni
Mighty fine detective work. How better to legitimize your cashier's check scheme than to make it Wikipedia official? I'm learning that if it doesn't appear encyclopedic, its NOT. Yet there's always someone willing to argue in favor.

Also disappointed to see the speedy removed. AGAIN. AfD is such a process. Maybe someday when I write a bogus article, I'll be grateful that said-process exists. Slayer (talk) 18:52, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Quaintrelle
Happy to do a little research for a change. Eventually I'm hoping to become a net-contributor rather than a deletionist, but I spend too much time sifting through the garbage and haven't really found a project that interests me yet. But I digress.

If you Google the text from the first paragraph of Quaintrelle, you'll find that text (verbatim) in a lot of places. I can't pinpoint any one place where it might have originated from, but this is the strange part. One of a very few references out there (if you want to call it that) that is so bold as to make a definition uses this particular wikipedia article as its source. Seems the chicken came before the egg. A troubling number of obscure online dictionaries also list this word, with Wiktionary as the sole source.

I also checked the University of Michigan Middle English Dictionary just for laughs. The prefix "quaint" did mean "well dressed, fashionable or elegant" as early as 1100 AD. Seems to me that the etymology is plausible, but the substance is flaky.

Also, correct me if i'm wrong: the "NEW ENGLISH DICTIONARY ON HISTORICAL PRINCIPALS" is the Oxford dictionary, yes? No listing on the online version. If there were a way to access previous editions (from back in 'the day') maybe we could get a better snapshot. The Wiktionary article lists Oxford as the sole source.

I'll dump this on the discussion page for the article as well.

Thoughts? Slayer (talk) 20:26, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. Bonehead move on my part.

Pilgrimage? Did I miss something? Slayer (talk) 20:36, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Ahh yes, THAT pilgrimage. Honestly, the old-timey english made me go crosseyed. I did, however, find what could be thatmanuscript, and that quote IS there. What is the context? What does it mean? Not a clue. Not even a hunch. Slayer (talk) 20:46, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Yurlyageni
Mighty fine detective work. How better to legitimize your cashier's check scheme than to make it Wikipedia official? I'm learning that if it doesn't appear encyclopedic, its NOT. Yet there's always someone willing to argue in favor.

Also disappointed to see the speedy removed. AGAIN. AfD is such a process. Maybe someday when I write a bogus article, I'll be grateful that said-process exists. Slayer (talk) 18:52, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Your comment to Nora1100
Peridon,

When talking to new users, you should probably explain project acronyms that you use. For more on this, see the essay titled "WTF? OMG! TMD TLA. ARG!".

-- Bk314159 (Talk to me and find out what I've done) 15:26, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Your comment to Nora1100
Peridon,

When talking to new users, you should probably explain project acronyms that you use. For more on this, see the essay titled "WTF? OMG! TMD TLA. ARG!".

-- Bk314159 (Talk to me and find out what I've done) 15:26, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Excellent Whatever
Had a great one, hope you did too. Any new and exciting projects in the works? PRODing garbage is ok, but gets old after a while. Lemme know. Slayer (talk) 17:52, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: David Weise
Hello Peridon. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of David Weise, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: 2nd in world championship is an assertion of importance. Thank you.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers 14:46, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Excellent Whatever
Had a great one, hope you did too. Any new and exciting projects in the works? PRODing garbage is ok, but gets old after a while. Lemme know. Slayer (talk) 17:52, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

==Could add botanist to Charles Darwin's credentials as well in The Origin entry. The few lines were taken directly from the front and back matter of Irving's The Origin. I object to the source given. It is wrong and my correction was called vandalism. My faith in Wiki weakens. Stormy Rhodes (talk) 06:57, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

==The point I was trying to make (apparently without success) is that the original entry included information from the source itself (front and back matter) but cited a different source. Yes, calling Darwin an anthropologist was not correct, but that was a minor albeit important detail. That the original entry cited another source is what bothers me. If you take it from the book, say it's from the book; that poster didn't do that. And that's my objection, in addition to my correction being called vandalism and reversed. No, I won't completely discredit Wikipedia, especially on an Irving Stone novel. However, I have read several articles in my field, and I know the information is just plain wrong. When time permits and inspiration abounds, I'll learn how to edit properly, get to discussion pages, etc. Right now I have to go get dog food for my chihuahuas.Stormy Rhodes (talk) 19:49, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Hey, Periwinkle!
I'm a little bored at the moment. If you want me to whip you up a few userboxes from your list I'd be happy to; they're easy enough, from what I can tell. Can't guarantee how many I can do for you, at the moment, if any. I'm cooking soup and waiting for my mother to be done with her appointment so I can go pick her up and take her home; she's disabled. Still, I think it would be a friendly gesture, since you have so little free time. Plus, I lose my apartment tomorrow; I'll be packing all day. Grand High Poobah of Western Bastardia (talk) 21:31, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Here's one:

User:Peridon/Userboxes

And another. The original text seemed verbose to me, so I shortened it. Hope it meets your approval.

Grand High Poobah of Western Bastardia (talk) 22:03, 30 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Hey, no problem. If you have a second, you should check out the modification I made to Jimbo's page, specifically the portrait. I made him President for a day! Grand High Poobah of Western Bastardia (talk) 22:09, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * And, on an unrelated note, I love Korpklaani, too. They're the first Finnish metal band I had heard that I liked. Grand High Poobah of Western Bastardia (talk) 22:14, 30 December 2010 (UTC)