User talk:SchreiberBike/Archive 2

Buchach
Why do you cancelled changes about Buchach? Do you live in Buchach or know Buchach's history well?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.124.106.37 (talk) 09:27, 2 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Hello. I don't have any connection to Buchach, I just like to improve articles in Wikipedia. I do my best to help articles to follow the Wikipedia manual of style, the standard for the way articles should be written throughout English Wikipedia. I noticed the Buchach article because it had used Roman numerals to refer to centuries, so I formatted the centuries in the style of WP:CENTURY. While I was there, I noticed that many of the years were linked and knew that according to the style described at MOS:UNLINKYEARS, they should not be; so I unlinked them. I also made some small grammar changes where I noticed problems.


 * I'd love to work with you to improve other articles in Wikipedia. I am not an expert editor, but as a native speaker of English, I have a good feel for the English language. If there are other articles you would like to see improved, we could work on them together. Thank you for your note. SchreiberBike (talk) 17:09, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Combat helmet
Hello SchreiberBike Would you please share your reasons for changing BC/AD to BCE/CE in this article? I agree that the time notations needed to conform, but the majority were BC. I see that you reference WP:CENTURY as your touchstone. WP:CENTURY appears to list BC/AD as primary and BCE/CE as secondary. Are you, perhaps, using some other guide for these changes? Gulbenk (talk) 03:23, 4 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi Gulbenk, I'm trying to follow WP:ERA. In the article before I made my edit, I counted five uses of BC/AD and eight uses of BCE/CE, so I didn't perceive an established style in the article. The topic didn't seem to lead toward choice of usage. Knowing that the usage should be consistent through the article, I changed the ones which were in the minority to the style of the majority. Another way to determine which style should be used would be to go through the history to see which had been used first, but I didn't take the time to do that.


 * I noticed the page because it said that a helmet was from the "14 century" and I've been going through trying to correct misuses of centuries generally following WP:CENTURY. I don't read that part of the Manual of Style as favoring one use over the other. Thanks for your note, SchreiberBike (talk) 03:55, 4 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks SchreiberBike, for directing me to WP:ERA. Although I had been aware of the use of BCE/CE in a scholarly and religious context, I had not seen it in articles like Combat helmet. I now know the protocol. Your count and edit were correct. I counted only the BC references in the text, and completely overlooked the use of BCE in the boxed section at the bottom of the article.


 * As to the MOS not favoring one use over the other...I'll have to disagree. WP:CENTURY uses the phrase "BC (or BCE)" and "AD (or CE)" which is like saying "Josh (or Helen)". That does not give Hellen equal standing with Josh the way "Josh and Helen" does. Were you thinking of the wording at WP:ERA, which is a bit different? While acknowledging the use of BCE/CE in scholarly/religious works, it otherwise seems quite neutral on the subject.


 * Good luck with that Centuries project. Without a bot, it might take a century to complete. Gulbenk (talk) 04:49, 4 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Like most things created by humans, the MOS is inconsistent. I can see how WP:CENTURY can be read as favoring BC/AD and WP:ERA is scrupulously neutral, but WP:ABBR says "Prefer BCE[/CE] for non-biblical topics". I personally have a preference, but I try not to let that influence my editing. Thanks for the luck. SchreiberBike (talk) 07:59, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Medieval terminology
I have noticed your tidying-up of dates etc. Thanks for your good work!

There are several words which are used with specific meaning in art and architectural terminology, and designate a particular style or period. These include "Decorated","Geometric", "Flowing", Flamboyant", "Reticulated", "Perpendicular" and "International", which all apply to styles of Gothic architecture, as in "Flowing Decorated Gothic". Sometimes, if it is clear that the Medieval period is being referred to, a window might be described simply as Geometric, Decorated or Perpendicular without the adjective being followed by the word "Gothic". eg. "a large Perpendicular window at the end of the nave." Here the term does not simply apply to the fact that the window is vertical rather than round or square; it also informs the reader of the basic outline of the window and the nature of the tracery that it contains. The word Perpendicular ought to be linked within the article.

Likewise, the words "Proto", "Pre", "Early", "Mid", "Middle", "High" and "Late" are linked to particular styles. "Early Christian", "High Renaissance" etc mean specific eras.

In all these cases the descriptive term is capitalised in English. It is particularly problematic that editors frequently change "Early Christian" to "early Christian" without realising that Early Christian designates both a time-frame and a style. Hope this is helpful! Amandajm (talk) 22:25, 5 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Amandajm, Thanks for your note. I worry about making just the kind of errors you describe above; and I remember decapitalizing Perpendicular not long ago. Without being expert in all areas, I'm aware that I must make mistakes like that occasionally. Going through so many articles and seeing so many egregious errors, I tend to fix things when they look wrong. If you find that you are often having to repair mistakes like I made above, you might consider putting something like " Perpendicular " or even "P erpendicular" in the text that would be visible in the edit window. I think that would keep editors from making the kinds of mistakes that I did. Keep up your good work and enjoy the new year. SchreiberBike (talk) 23:01, 5 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I just ran across the template . That would take care of it even better than my suggestion; I should have known Wikipedia had a tool just for this purpose. SchreiberBike (talk) 02:28, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the contribution
Appreciate your recent contribution of Ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka to improve the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.134.138.125 (talk) 15:43, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Gibbet of Montfaucon


Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on Gibbet of Montfaucon requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, a rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. – Dream out loud (talk) 06:21, 30 January 2013 (UTC)


 * See reason for creating a soft redirect at Talk:Gibbet of Montfaucon. SchreiberBike (talk) 07:05, 30 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Where English Wikipedia would benefit from having an article, it`s a pretty common practice to delete redirects to encourage article creation. If you`re planning to write the article anyways, the difference is pretty minor (and it`s sometimes taken to not be clear whether redlinking actually encourages article creation).  But the outcome in a situation like this is not guaranteed, so it`s advisable in the future to just wait to write the article, rather than softlink to fr: and possible end up in some dispute, eh. Wily D  07:30, 30 January 2013 (UTC)


 * As you say, the difference is pretty minor. I won't further contest the speedy delete. It just seemed like a good idea at the time. SchreiberBike (talk) 07:43, 30 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, I declined, and one isn't supposed to re-add a declined tag, even if the reason for the request is valid (apart from copyright infringement). But mostly just not to antagonise you, since you writing an article (even a stub) is the best possible outcome.  But yes, don't worry about it too much, eh? Wily D  07:57, 30 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I don't antagonize easily. SchreiberBike (talk) 08:01, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

February 2013 disambig contest.
Greetings! I'm giving a prize of up to a hundred dollars to the winner of the February 2013 disambiguation contest, and lesser prizes to the rest of the top four. Of course, the conditions of the contest will make it quite a challenge to win the full amount, but I hope to stimulate competitiveness with a little extra incentive. Cheers! bd2412 T 21:03, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Gibbet of Montfaucon listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Gibbet of Montfaucon. Since you had some involvement with the Gibbet of Montfaucon redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). TexasAndroid (talk) 22:35, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment on MOSNUM talk.
Hi SchreiberBike.

Thanks for your comment on MOSNUM talk. I'll wait a little longer for other comments before taking action on my proposal. Michael Glass (talk) 10:12, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Legate
Good work picking up on the need to disambig Legate. I was able to fix a couple right away and will have a look through your contribs to see if I can help with any of the others. Nice work! Stalwart 111  04:32, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Without any background in the Catholic Church of that time, I didn't want to assume they were papal legates unless it said they were a legate to a place from a pope. I'm glad you had the knowledge to clean up the tags I left. SchreiberBike (talk) 04:38, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * No worries at all! Yeah, that's a good rule of thumb and there are probably cases where it says pontifical legate or something like that (I see you got at least one like that). All good - tagging them for fixing is just as valuable in cases where you are uncertain. And I'm happy to move in after you and fix the ones I can. Cheers, Stalwart 111  05:02, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Yahya Arodaki
hello there in yahya arodaki article orphan father means that he's father dead while he was under 10 .GhiathArodaki (talk) 09:21, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification. I didn't know what that meant and couldn't find an explanation on line. I've edited the article to make the meaning clear. When I copy edited the article earlier, I was able to clarify some of the article, but there were other sections I didn't understand. Would you like to work together to fix the remaining sections? SchreiberBike (talk) 17:18, 18 February 2013 (UTC)


 * OK. No problem !GhiathArodaki (talk) 06:12, 21 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Nevermind it's deletedGhiathArodaki (talk) 05:30, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Flag of Sardinia
Thank you so much for your help I bag your pardon for my english. If you think that an idea can be better expressed in other english words or phrases, please, your intervention will be highly appreciated. Unfortunately, I'm not mother language. --Mauro Podda 07:02, 27 March 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roburq (talk • contribs)
 * I'm glad to help. I see you've done a lot of work on articles related to Sardinia. When I get done with the project I'm working on now, I'll take a fresh look at Flag of Sardinia and do some more copy editing. Keep up the good work. SchreiberBike (talk) 21:27, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

East is east (and all the rest)
With regards to the use of East and West in architectural articles.... When the building is a cathedral, then the terms east and west are more than simply geographic orietation. The term East End doesn't just mean the end that happens to face east. It refers specifically to the end where the chancel is, and might be called the East End even in a building like St Mary's Cathedral, Sydney which runs north south. Likewise, West Front, North Transept and South Transept.

The difficulty arises in sentences like the one that mentions three windows at York Minster and describes them as the East, West and North Transept windows. This means something very different from the east, west and north transept windows. The window in the western end of the building is generally just one extremely large windows and is almost always known as the West Window, i.e. it is designated as such as a work of art/architecture, for both its architectural form and the glass it may contain. The windows rarely have any specific name other than West Window and East Window, though occasionally they do. The North Transept windows at York are called the "Five Sisters". There are rose windows at Lincoln called the "Bishop's Eye" and the "Dean's Eye".

In the interests of clarity, it's best to leave the capitalisation, where it occurs. On the other hand, a sentence like "the windows on the north side of the choir are by Clutterbuck" would not have "north" capitalised.

Amandajm (talk) 15:06, 3 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Amandajm, thanks for your note. If that's a standard usage relating to churches, I'll be aware of it and follow it. It does bother me though that it doesn't fit with the WP:MOS. For instance we don't capitalize other specific parts of a church, as they are not proper nouns. My suspicion is that the capitalization style you describe might be the norm in specialist publications, but is confusing in a general encyclopedia. What do you think?


 * Also, as works of art, I would think a stained glass window would be in italics as Five Sisters per WP:ITALICS. SchreiberBike (talk) 15:39, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Saxon - Iranian Languages
Hi and thank you for your msssge. no it is not a hoax, It is true and the sources are true too. My Subject had many parts which is your problem? If you can not find sources it does not mean it is false or hoax --

the tribes' names In Avesta
Notice: many sources are in another language (and it was about another language) and i try to give you a link for them:

Avesta: the Farvardin Yashts of the young Avesta

http://www.heritageinstitute.com/zoroastrianism/languages/

http://fa.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D9%81%D8%B1%D9%88%D8%B1%D8%AF%DB%8C%D9%86%E2%80%8C%DB%8C%D8%B4%D8%AA

The Avesta contains the names of various tribal groups who lived in proximity to each other. According to Prof. Gherardo Gnoli:’’Iranian tribes that also keep on recurring in the Yasht, Airyas, Tuiryas, Sairimas, Sainus and Dahis’’.[12] In the hymns of the Avesta, the adjective Tūrya is attached to various enemies of Zoroastrism like Fraŋrasyan (Shahnameh: Afrāsīāb). The word occurs only once in the Gathas, but 20 times in the later parts of the Avesta.

a b G. Gnoli, Zoroaster's time and homeland, Naples 1980 M. Boyce, History of Zoroastrianism. 3V. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1991. (Handbuch Der Orientalistik/B. Spuler)

Sagxni/Sagxoni or Sagsi or Saka.
Saka is available in Wikipedia

for Sagxi/Sagxoni/Sagsi (سگزی) you can read :

http://www.enel.ucalgary.ca/People/far/hobbies/iran/Shahnameh/shahnameh_ch16.html

you can read the story of Esfandiyār & Rostam or you can see this persian source: http://ganjoor.net/index.php?s=%D8%B3%DA%AF%D8%B2%DB%8C&author=4

the table
The Interpretation of Avesta,by Prof. Freydun Joneydi, 1965 not available online or The Perso-European Languages, Prof. Noxostin, Paris, 1906 but:

http://www.loghatnaameh.org/dehkhodaworddetail-f05d06f718054d64ad2ad78b58a0eeac-fa.html

you can use this link : http://fa.glosbe.com/fa/ae/

Please add that
enjoy of(you can translate it with google):

به یِک مَرد سَگزی که آمد به جنگ

چرا شد چنین بر شما کار تنگ

Greekogreeko (talk) 06:50, 23 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you Greekogreeko for your quick and detailed response. I have reverted my deletion of the content at Saxons. Tomorrow I will review what you wrote above. I questioned the content because in American English, it is a common insult to call a person a "son of a bitch" (female dog) and because I could not find reference to the sources you used. Thanks again, SchreiberBike (talk) 06:54, 23 April 2013 (UTC)


 * ow yes,I explain why many Linguists think Saxon means The Son of Dog :

I've written please remind about 8000 years ago Aryans use the name of Animals for themselves; names like Vishtasp (Stallion), Tahmasp (Big Horse) & ETC. in this time yes but it's a common insult but ~8000 years ago?????

1) Linguistics or Etymology the word look at the table. according to Avestan language it means it. 2)  Aryan (= Noble) opposite Saxon  i can not explain more but it is about that common insult! :( 3) Archaeology watch these pics, there is a Saxon/Sagxoni man with a hand as Dog/Wolf

Greekogreeko (talk) 07:56, 23 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Sorry to barge in here like that. This is just a quick caveat that this would not fly amongst linguists. All it does fly in is the face of WP:OR and WP:SYN. Etyma like saxones are pretty transparent morphologically (e.g. as far as the -on- stem is concerned), if not semantically, and cannot just be divvied up and identified with two homophonic syllables from another language -- especially if that language has undergone a couple of millennia of sound shifts unrelated to those of the Germanic languages. Trigaranus (talk) 08:53, 23 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I think this should be discussed on the Talk:Saxons page. I've responded there. Thank you. SchreiberBike (talk) 18:01, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello - please be careful (Copied from User talk:Bosnian Control)
Hello Bosnian Control. I see no one has welcomed you to Wikipedia yet. I welcome you. I hear good things about the Teahouse as a "friendly place to help new editors become accustomed to Wikipedia culture, ask questions, and develop community relationships."

I have reverted a number of your edits to the article Bosnia and Herzegovina where you have changed small things without any explanation or source. I see that you have done that in a number of articles. If you have new knowledge from reliable sources to update those numbers, updating them would be a valuable service to Wikipedia. It is important to post references to those reliable sources so that other people can confirm that they are correct. If you don't provide those references, you can expect to have your edits reverted.

Please don't make changes unless you have a good reason. Thank you. (You can respond here on this page.) SchreiberBike (talk) 23:12, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Why do I edit things about Bosnian And Herzegovina

 * {| style="background-color: #fdffe7; border: 1px solid #fceb92;"

I've been working on editing Bosnian wikipedia articles and I'm not getting any luck. Since when I change it, you re-edit them and set em' back to their normal information. Please, I'am from Bosnia. And I've been in contact with ARBiH. Their troops number has increased, their number of vehicler has increased and PLEASE, check all articles about their ground forces, air and defence force articles. Almost all of Bosnian army and Bosnian Economy are changing and I think it's time to let the world know that. Some bosnian articles have been edited by some i don't know, user from it's region and I think he didn't have time to edit all of it. So, please. Don't bother me. I am only doing whats right. Bosnian Control (talk) 10:04, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
 * rowspan="2" style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" | Trophy.png
 * style="font-size: x-large; padding: 3px 3px 0 3px; height: 1.5em;" | Why do I edit things about Bosnian And Herzegovina
 * style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | I'f you're reading this, read carrefuly.
 * style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | I'f you're reading this, read carrefuly.
 * }
 * Thanks for your response. I'm glad you care about what you are doing. When I saw your edits, there was no way to tell if you were editing to be helpful or if you were being disruptive. Your edits had no edit summaries to explain why you were making changes and some changes such as the population edit of "4,587,678" to "4,887,678" were typical of vandalism. There was no update of the year of the census and the possibility that the population had changed by exactly 300,000 (only the second digit of the population was changed) is too small to be likely. Similarly the GDP per capita change of "$4,461" to "$6,461" in an exact increment of $2,000 indicated that you did not get the data from a reliable source.


 * I'm sure you agree that it is important for the facts in Wikipedia to be correct. The best way to know if they are correct is to be able to go back to reliable sources like newspaper articles or government statistical reports. If an editor makes changes without being able to show that the new information came from a reliable source there is no way to know if the editor is trying to update the encyclopaedia or if they are spreading false facts. The existing Bosnia and Herzegovina article has 112 reference notes referring to sources like the Agency of Statistics of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the CIA – The World Factbook, the International Monetary Fund, and many books and articles. If you also add links to sources like those when you make your edits, you can be sure that your edits will be taken more seriously.


 * Please keep making Wikipedia better. Please use edit summaries to describe why you are making edits. Please reference your changes with reliable sources. Feel free to respond and I'd be happy to help you make articles about Bosnia better. SchreiberBike (talk) 18:55, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Century fixing
Please be careful, in Anno Mundi you also switched all BCE/CE to BC/AD, which is not in accordance with WP:CENTURY. Thanks. -- Avi (talk) 02:57, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually it is: "Use either the BC–AD or the BCE–CE notation consistently within the same article. Exception: do not change direct quotations.". Johnbod (talk) 17:41, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your note Avi. As I said in my edit summary I fixed some references to centuries "and some copy editing including changing era style to the majority usage". I counted that there were about twice as many BC/AD usages as BCE/CE, so I changed the style in the minority to the majority. The subject seems to lend itself to the BCE/CE usage, so I was surprised that BC/AD was in the majority. Is there a reason for using both era styles in the article? SchreiberBike (talk) 03:59, 6 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Probably b/c in the CHristian section, it does make sense to use BC/AD. -- Avi (talk) 04:14, 6 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I've gone back and reinstated the changes I made to centuries to make spelled out vs. numerical usage consistent. I've also added a hidden note to the top of the article that "This article uses BC/AD notation in the sections relating to Christianity and BCE/CE notation in the remainder." That makes some sense, but it was not set up that way when I came to the article. I am careful and I don't change era styles without good reason. SchreiberBike (talk) 16:56, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
 * "Add hidden note that "This article uses BC/AD notation in the sections relating to Christianity and BCE/CE notation in the remainder" - That's no good - the one thing WP:ERA does mandate it that the whole article should use one style. Your first edit was perfectly correct, which the old talk supports. If Avi wants to to change it he should get a new new consensus at talk, which may not be difficult. I don't care which style the article uses, but I object to his bad-faith and mendacious references to policy and previous consensus, and choice of edit-warring rather than discussion on the talk page. Johnbod (talk) 17:38, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The original consensus (at least back in 2007, IIRC) was BCE/CE; I am not sure when the BC/AD was added. -- Avi (talk) 19:35, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
 * in 2005 actually Johnbod (talk) 20:10, 6 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I've started a discussion at Talk:Anno Mundi. Let's come to a consensus there. SchreiberBike (talk) 22:19, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Schreiber. Perhaps we should drop talk page notices at WT:X, WT:JEW, and WT:WikiProject Time? -- Avi (talk) 23:00, 6 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Done. SchreiberBike (talk) 23:25, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Much obliged, sir. -- Avi (talk) 23:30, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Discussion notice
You participated in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (people) so I thought you might want to comment at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (people).--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:04, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

California kids
Why relink Johnson? To show there isn't a page for him, but ought to be... (I presume his career is extensive enough. If it's not...)  TREK philer  any time you're ready, Uhura 03:06, 19 May 2013 (UTC)


 * If you think this guy is notable, (from IMDb I see lots of bit roles and being a brother of Russell Johnson) perhaps it could be replaced with a red link for Ken Johnson (actor). That would show that there's no page for him. SchreiberBike (talk) 04:02, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks for the barnstar. That was a ticklish situation. I hope I didn't turn the editor off from contributing, but I could tell those edits weren't right. SchreiberBike (talk) 18:39, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

thanks for restyling
thanks for restyling the Missa Gaudeamus page!

une musque de Biscaye (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:00, 27 May 2013 (UTC)


 * You've put a lot of work into that page and it's looking good. Thanks for the recognition. SchreiberBike talk 22:05, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

C.
Thanks, I wasn't aware of this. Best thing is you refer to these two guidelines in the edit summary from now on, so that your changes are not reverted. Best Gun Powder Ma (talk) 21:15, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you!
Thank you for the barn star! I appreciate it. I try not to bite the newcomers (I prefer bacon myself). Happy editing to you!Safehaven86 (talk) 21:38, 19 June 2013 (UTC)