User talk:Sir Floyd/Archives/2010/February

Re: Hello
"Hi Dragonot! I was wondering if I could ask you a question concerning my families surname? "


 * Hi Sir Floyd, I haven't expertise about surname, but please ask me your question. I beg your pardon in advance, if I'll not able to answer you ... ;-) --Dragonòt (talk) 21:31, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Dragonot! I'll use email, if that's ok. It's too personal. My fathers side of the family surname is a mystery and maybe you could change that (you never know). Thanks for coming by. Sir Floyd (talk) 22:43, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Sir Floyd. I sent you an email. --Dragonòt (talk) 13:37, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Sir Floyd (talk) 14:49, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations
Excellent work in the Francesco Maria Appendini article, thanks! --200.112.25.7 (talk) 15:52, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Sir Floyd (talk) 00:11, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, indeed, good work. Off2riorob (talk) 03:27, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks Off2riorob!. ZZZZsssss for Off2riorob, I reckon. Sir Floyd (talk) 03:30, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Epidaurum & Epidaurus (Dalmatia)
The Epidaurum & Epidaurus (Dalmatia) proposal for merger. Sir Floyd (talk) 12:49, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Work notes: Sir Floyd (talk) 22:51, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Epidaurus (Dalmatia)
 * Epidaurum
 * Cavtat

Dear Sir Floyd, and the name Ragusavechia, was an offcial name of the Cavtat town, in old times?--200.112.19.165 (talk) 17:57, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Sir Floyd! I'd be mildly against the merge - categories would not work on a single page, since one can't say that e.g. Epidaurum was both a Greek and a Roman town. (Although there is a workaround for that.) Also: which name to pick? But don't take this as a firm opinion, the two articles are quite small so merging would not do much harm anyway. GregorB (talk) 19:18, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * links


 * Universal geography, or, A description of all the parts of the world 1829


 * A history of all nations, from the earliest periods to the present day 1859


 * EPIDAURUS ( Ptol. iL 16. § 4, Petri. Tab.; Epidaurum, Plin. iii. 22, Geog. Rav.: Ragusa-Vecchia; Illyric, Zaptal), a maritime city of lllyricum, of which no notice occurs till the civil war between Pompeius and Caesar, when having declared in favour of the latter, it was besieged by M. Octavius. The opportune arrival of Vatinius relieved it. (Hirt. S. Alex. 44, 45.) Under the Romans it became a colony (Plin. I. c); and, as in the cities of the same name in Peloponnesus, Asclepius was the principal deity of the Illyrian town. Constantianus, acting for Justinian in the Gothic War, occupied Epidaurus with his fleet. (Procop. B. 0. i. 7; Le Beau, Bos Empire, vol. viii. p. 335.) It was afterwards destroyed, but there is home uncertainty as to the date of that event: it appears that the fugitives established themselves at Rausium, which in time was altered into Ragusa. (Const. Porph. de A dm. Imp. 29.) Ragusa-Vecchia no longer contains any remains of Epidaurus, and all memorials of its site are confined to inscriptions, fragments of walls, coins, and other things found by excavation. (Wilkinson, Dalmatia and Montenegro, vol i. p. 373; Neigebaur, Die Sudslaven, p. 82; Schafarik, Slav. Alt. vol. ii. p. 272; Engel, Gesch. von Ragusa, p. 44.)--200.112.19.165
 * Thanks 200.112.19.165! Sir Floyd (talk) 22:42, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Kalkusa
Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and the page that you created has been or soon will be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Simon-in-sagamihara (talk) 09:17, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Removing Speedy at User Sir Floyd:Kalkusa
Please do not remove speedy deletion tags from articles you created. If you do not believe the article deserves to be deleted, then please do the following:
 * Place  on the page. Please do not remove any existing speedy deletion tag(s).
 * Make your case on the article's .

Administrators will look at your reasoning before deciding what to do with the article. Thank you. - SDPatrolBot (talk) 09:27, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Re: Historic Dalmatian Vessels
Thanks for the copy editing (right, it is "small"). Btw, I'd like to know the name of the sailing boat used in Zadar in the 13th c. (I've checked the Falkuša, and it looks good). Krenakarore (talk) 15:11, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Yes I have, but I'll have to re-familiarise myself with it. I think that in the past the Dalmatian communities had quite a variety of vessels. I've been researching a lot about Republic of Venice and the Austro-Hungarian Navy and it's very interesting. My grandfather was part of the Komiza fishing industry and my great-grandfather served on the SMS Viribus Unitis (Austro-Hungarian Navy). Regards Sir Floyd (talk) 09:18, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Falkusa
Hi Sir Floyd. Thanks for the reminder. I see you've been experimenting with images on the draft article with some success - is there anything in particular you'd like a hand with? As for the question of finding suitably licensed images, I managed to turn up this one on Commons - it's not the highest of qualities but would probably be OK for an illustration, maybe with some cropping. Otherwise there's the possibility of contacting the owner of one of the google images you found and asking them for permission to use it, for which Requesting copyright permission might be of some use. What do you think? Olaf Davis (talk) 16:11, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Oops, I just realised that the page was still in article space and not user space - compare the old title User Sir Floyd: Falkusa with the one I just moved it to, User:Sir Floyd/Falkusa. Surprised neither of us noticed that before! Olaf Davis (talk) 16:14, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi! It's getting late here. So I'll be Zzzzzzsss real soon. I think the article needs colour (small image or two). Also could you please check what I have done and maybe  start the copyedited. :) I'll be in-touch. Cheers! Sir Floyd (talk) 16:24, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Ok, I've looked over the article: it looks pretty good on the whole, well done! I made some minor copyedits - feel free to revert any you disagree with. I've also commented out the categories so the draft doesn't show up in them, but you can uncomment them once it's been moved back to article space.
 * At several points the article talks about the boat in the past tense, and at some in the present tense: it would be nice to say when the boat was mainly used, if that's known and available in any sources. Evidently it stopped around the 1930s or so - do you know when they were first made and when they stopped being used substantially for fishing?
 * I see you've put the piece by Jaksa Kivela as an external link rather than a reference, presumably because it's a commercial site and not a reliable source? But you've also cited it in the text so effectively it is being used as a reference... it might be better to decide whether it's a suitable ref. or not and stick to that, rather than the current half-way house :)
 * Why don't you think the photo I found is suitable? Is it the boat it depicts, the quality, or something else? Olaf Davis (talk) 18:31, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm having second thoughts (I'm a photographer by trade) about the "this one on Commons". Lets give it a go Sir Floyd (talk) 02:22, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

It's ok! Good call Olaf Davis. There are references for Falkusa going back to the the Republic of Venice days (& earlier): The question is can we use them? Ps Good work on the article. Regards Sir Floyd (talk) 06:35, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 1573 (regatta) - croatia.org by By Prof Darko Zubrinic
 * Falkusa is an Croatian boat of 9m of length, with the mast of equal size, in use from 11th or 12th century. Croatian History.net by Darko Zubrinic, Zagreb (1995)


 * Hello again! Did not have time for Blue Cave this evening, so I'm just dropping a note regarding Falkusa article: did you consider nominating it for WP:DYK, so that it would appear on the main page? The article has to: 1) be of substantial length, 2) be otherwise "tidy" (referencing, formatting, etc.), and 3) contain an interesting fact. I see potential for all three and I'm certainly willing to help. GregorB (talk) 22:34, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm ok with DYK & I would love your help. Sir Floyd (talk) 08:46, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the two sources: they both look like pretty nice sources of information but, unfortunately, I'm not sure they'd qualify as reliable since they appear to be privately published and not by any university or 'reputable' press... if you wanted a second opinion you could try asking at Reliable sources/Noticeboard. I did a quick search for '1593 regatta komiza' on Google and found this mention of Maritime heritage that looks like it might be talking about the regatta. You cited that book before - do you have a copy that you can check in? If not I can try to get hold of the copy in my University's library system. Olaf Davis (talk) 12:26, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, if we can cite that then "first recorded sporting event in Croatia" would make a good fact to list at DYK! Olaf Davis (talk) 12:27, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Excellent idea, but it's not going to be easy. The Croatian tourist web sites rule Google World and also Komiza back then was part of the Republic of Venice. It's good to have GregorB on the article, he is the right person for the job. I wonder what he is doing now? Sir Floyd (talk) 12:45, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Here I am - been a bit busy these two days... The source for regatta might be this (Slobodna Dalmacija article, therefore a RS, albeit in Croatian). It doesn't say that it's a first recorded sporting event in Croatia, but it does say that is "the oldest fishermen's regatta in Europe" (riječ je o najstarijoj ribarskoj regati u Europi). Use of sources in Croatian will be necessary in order to fully flesh out the article. (Sir Floyd is able to read them too.) BTW: I suggest we copy this talk page section to User_talk:Sir_Floyd/Falkusa and continue from there. GregorB (talk) 16:19, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed! Sir Floyd (talk) 22:55, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

House of Gundulic/Gondola
Dear Sir Floyd, please check the page House of Gundulic, some user revert the bilingual source Gundulic/Gondola. thanks.--200.112.26.149 (talk) 21:45, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Inform
I inform you: read user talk:Jimbo Wales. May we to edit an article from User:Sir Floyd/Titoism and Totalitarianism? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.206.126.34 (talk) 14:10, 11 February 2010 (UTC)



Re Thank You
Hey Sir Floyd, yes it is possible to get full protection (Protection policy) but I am not sure how likely it would be that an admin would fully protect it. - dwc lr (talk)
 * Thanks DWC LR! Sir Floyd (talk) 09:40, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Re: Blue Cave (Biševo)
Hello, Sir Floyd! Very nice article on the Blue Cave, my fingers already itch for more copyediting, perhaps even some expansion, but it will have to wait until evening at least. :-( Cheers, GregorB (talk) 08:28, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I like the photo. Sir Floyd (talk) 10:16, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Need to have a word with Timbuctu user ! The art. looks better, but the hd pic is still too big. Anyway to make it smaller. Tried but... Feel free to make any changes you see fit. Noticed you've been working here too (some conf. edit happened). Krenakarore (talk) 16:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC)



I'll get back to you latter, to busy. Sir Floyd (talk) 23:42, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Zrnovo
Hi. I didn't think any discussion is needed when i moved Zrnovo to Žrnovo. It's a simple matter of the corect spelling with diacritics, (It's clearly Korčula, not Korcula and Žrnovo, not Zrnovo), as the Croatian version of the article clearly shows. Timbouctou (talk) 08:38, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the kind reply. Concerning the title of the Zrnovo page, it is my opinion that it should remain as such. This is not the Croatian Wikipedia but rather the English Wikipedia. Hey but I'm easy. If you and other editors feel that it should be changed, then I will go along with the of opinion. Sir Floyd (talk) 08:50, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Your argument lacks common sense. There are literally thousands of articles on the English Wikipedia which use the original spelling title of their subjet matter, including hundreds about Croatian cities, towns, municipalities and such. Unless there is a historic name for the place in English which would warrant a different spelling (such as Munich instead of München, Cologne instead of Köln or Belgrade instead of Beograd), the original is always used. Besides, according to the WP:NCGN, if you wanted to keep the Zrnovo title you would have to prove that it is the widely accepted English name for the place. Can you prove this? As for the predictable argument that English users are unlikely to use the letter Ž - isn't that what redirects are for? Timbouctou (talk) 09:32, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Ž is not part of the the English language and please get a least a small consensus before you change a title of a page, it's also good manners (anyhow why are you rude)? Sir Floyd (talk) 09:44, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I've moved Racisce to Račišće, Korcula is already moved to its proper title over redirect, and I have no idea what you meant by Cara as it is a disambiguation page. Cheers. Timbouctou (talk) 10:11, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * That's great work! :) Sir Floyd (talk) 10:51, 12 February 2010 (UTC)



Re: Thank you
No problem, I am following this problem for long time. I understand the Croatian position, but in some articles they seem to don't take in consideration the other point of view and in general to "cancel" any reference with the history. It's also an anachronistic position because the Croatia is rediscovering the links with their area to find a new European dimension. --Ilario (talk) 13:43, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Did you know ?
When Sir Floyd was little he was driven around in a Ford Zephyr Mark II.



Aussie Gear (Holden)


Sir Floyd (talk) 15:09, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Interesting book about the Republic of Ragusa
Dear Sir Floyd, here is a link about a book The Ragusan republic: victim of Napoleon and its own conservatism by Harriet Towers Bjelovuci —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.112.18.217 (talk) 16:10, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Pagania
Hello, Sir Floyd!

I just put back these souces:


 * Constantine VII Porphyrogenitos, ca. 950, [, De Administrando Imperio], The early history of the Slavonic settlements in Dalmatia, Croatia, & Serbia (1920),
 * Constantine VII Porphyrogenitos, ca. 950, [, De Administrando Imperio], http://openlibrary.org/b/OL13507258M/early_history_of_the_Slavonic_settlements_in_Dalmatia_Croatia_Serbia

to this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pagania

article

Why did you deleted them, anyway?

All The Best

Ivanplusequalsivan (talk) 14:44, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Ivanplusequalsivan (great name)! These issues were discussed and agreed upon (Slav vs. Serb), check consensus. Porphyrogenitos as a source for Southern Dalmatia is inaccurate. You'll have to get another consensus happening on the talk page. Could you please not edited the Pagania article concerning these issues. The article it self is very weak in terms of references. Regards Sir Floyd (talk) 00:13, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Sir Floyd!! Thank you for your response. I read the page you suggested and there is no science spirit there, just futile Croatia/Serbia trolling. I didn' see any agreement there. I must insist on Porfirogenitus reference, because it is the only indipendant source on the topic from that time. Simple as that. Accurate or innacurate - that's pretty much everything history has on the topic. And it is very important because it was written by the Byzantine Emperor who was "in charge" for the theritory in that period. Even if you think it is inaccurate, you should post the evidences for YOUR opinion before you remove relevant references and sources that are already on the page. I agree that the page is poorly written, but links to the Porphirogenitus work are not the problem here. So let' us get concensus, but for that - you'll need sources that backup your thesis that Porphirogenitus is innacurate, The only other source that deals with the topic is but it is of much lesser importance for the history of the period we are interested in because it was written in the XIII or XIV century when Nerentines were no more. I suggest that we write that according to Porphirogenitus - Nerentines were Serbs, and according to Priest of Duklja - they were Croats, stressing the fact that first source is more firm that he second. I alsso suggest that we use only internationally recognized sources, because theere are lot of pseudohistory books written both in Croatia and in Serbia in the last 20 years. I hope that you don't mind for me putting this conversation of ours also on the discussion page of the article. Thank you again for your response. All The Best Ivanplusequalsivan (talk) 09:16, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * So, let us continue our argument on the discussion page, ok? Ivanplusequalsivan (talk) 09:25, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Already done. Sir Floyd (talk) 09:28, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Now, that's not nice. Consensus is defined in English as, firstly, general agreement and, secondly, group solidarity of belief or sentiment. It has its origin in a Latin word meaning literally to feel together. That has nothing to do with scientific sources. So, please do not erase sources. I did my part for the research on the topic by finding exact Porphirogenitus words on Pagania. If you want to contribute, please find sources that state something else. else, I will start to suspect that you are not interested in truth but in sentiment. Best Regards Ivanplusequalsivan (talk) 09:44, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

It's the Wiki way. Sir Floyd (talk) 09:45, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, Sir Floyd, I guessed you removed the complete talk, that's why I overeacted. Now I see you just put it down on the page. I appologize. But our missunderstanding stays. Please provide relevant SOURCES instead of calling other editors to testify with heir OPINION. Because sources are the Wikipedia way, not the consensus. I will never get tired of this, so if you are equally stubborn, we are likely to know each other well and become good friends eventually. See you on the discussion page. All The best Ivanplusequalsivan (talk) 09:54, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I didn't want to be rude. I just want as many sources as it is possible on the page. Ne zameri ako sam te uvredio i dobra ti srića! Ivanplusequalsivan (talk) 10:32, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Way to go, Sir Floyd! I love you when you provide new sources. Remember that I told you that we'll become good friends! Cheers, mate! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ivanplusequalsivan (talk • contribs) 11:47, 26 February 2010 (UTC)