User talk:Stemonitis/Archive04

'''DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.'''

This archive page covers approximately the dates between May 23 2006 and July 02 2006.

Post replies to the main talk page, copying or summarising the section you are replying to if necessary.

Stone Crabs
I posted this a short while back on the King Crab discussion:


 * Stemonitis, it's obvious, looking at your user page, that you know a thing or two thousand about crabs. But please help me out here and give a citation on this "stone crab" thing. I worked in the king crab industry for four years, both processing and fishing (more than twenty years ago, admitedly), and never heard this term then or since. And when you say " . . . are called stone crabs by some", you really are (unintentionally, I'm sure) employing weasel words. If you had said that in the article itself, I'd have to delete it. But anyway, could you just give some citations that support the stone crabs thing? Unschool 19:50, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I had thought about posting it here too, but your discussion page said "I will reply to messages wherever they are posted." , so I didn't (I've never figured out how to know where a conversation should take place. Sometimes I've double-posted, but that seems to irritate some people). Anyway, in the meantime, I come back and find that someone else has already done something similar to the edit I had proposed, and that you have reverted it. Can you now respond to my post? Unschool 16:54, 20 May 2006 (UTC)


 * To be honest, that was based on a vague memory from my previous work, rather than anything more exact, so I've had to do a bit of checking. A web search for "Stone crab Lithodes -Wikipedia" reveals nearly 10,000 hits. I think that's enough to warrant the name being left in the article. But we should also note that these common names are very ambiguous, and that "stone crab" could refer to Lithodidae, Menippe mercenaria, and possibly many others in different parts of the world, hence the disambiguation page at stone crab. Sorry about not noticing your post before; changes to talk pages don't show up on the recent changes list, and I'm not about to put all crustacean pages on my watchlist. The message at the top here was meant to refer to user talk pages, incidentally, rather than talk pages in general. Probably my fault for not being clear enough. --Stemonitis 06:38, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Reverts
Why are you reverting perfectly good information out of wikipedia? There are no mountains in the ceremonial county of Lancashire thus the category "hills and mountains of Lancashire" is clearly intended to apply to the traditional county. The same applies to the rivers category. Lancsalot 15:04, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * "There are no mountains in the ceremonial county of Lancashire" is a highly subjective statement and depends on your definition of mountain. The category is not "clearly intended to apply to the traditional county" since it unambiguously stated the ceremonial county was intended. It might be acceptable to change to the traditional counties, but it would need to be discussed with regards to the entire hill categorisation scheme in the United Kingdom (or the British Isles) beforehand. Finally, I did not remove any information from Wikipedia, but merely prevented one point of view from gaining undue ascendance. Feel free to propose such a change in the appropriate place (I'm not for the moment sure where that would be), but until then the consensus is for the ceremonial counties, and thus for the Lake District being entirely within Cumbria. Squabbling over county definitions really isn't productive; Coniston Old Man is where it is, regardless of what local government agency it falls under, and that location is the information that Wikipedia should (and does) present. --Stemonitis 07:31, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

British isles????
Please don't use the term "British Isles" on your pages. It is politically arcaic, it is also potically offensive to the people of the Republic of Ireland, not to mention factually incorrect. Try and get with the times and if you do wish to refer to the United Kingdom & Republic of Ireland, then refer to it as the undermentioned in this sentence please. The isles to which you refer are not British, they are British and Irish, this is a legal fact and it became a legal fact because Irish people were legitimately offended by buffoons living in the Dark Ages. Thank you. Bazzajf 16:15, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

P.S. Try looking up British Isles on WP, and the insert on political connotations & controversy, you might learn something and be a little more careful with your use of words in the future.


 * British Isles is a commonly-used geographical term meaning no offence to anyone (except perhaps those who insist on taking offence where none was intended). There is no better or even equally good term for the geographical entity, since your phrase excludes the Isle of Man, but includes British overseas territories. --Stemonitis 06:38, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * It might be commonly used by the ignorant or ill-informed like yourself but it is certainly not used in Ireland or by right minded people in the UK. I don't insist on taking offence, what a silly thing for you to say, the term is politically offensive or are you too mentally challenged to understand that. All of the residents of the Republic of Ireland not to mention nearly half of those in Northern Ireland would not accept this term. Let me suggest to you an "equally good term" as you put it, why don't you use the "British & Irish Isles", i.e. the legal and factual description of these islands or is the "& Irish" addition a bit too much for a clown like you. Bazzajf 08:39, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * But then it would have to be "British, Irish and Manx isles", and that's just too much of a mouthful compared to the simple and widely understood British Isles. When using the term, I am not advocating any sovereignty over the Irish or anybody else; I merely find it to be a concise and useful term. --Stemonitis 08:43, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Obviously you are not going to reconsider the usage of the term despite its' political sensitivity, I am not accusing you of advocating British sovereignty over Ireland, merely the misappropriation of terminology which causes offence. However, it appears this doesn't bother you in the slightest so you continue using your offensive terminology but be warned that "what goes around comes around" and offence to you will not be applied sparingly should the situation permit in the future. Bazzajf 09:00, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I have made it quite clear that I mean no offence. Furthermore, we are discussing a user page, where personal opinions are allowed. Finally, please avoid personal attacks like "mentally challenged" and "clown". --Stemonitis 09:04, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't doubt your integrity in any perceived personal slight. This is not the issue, I accept you mean no personal offence but the term through its' usage is offensive to many of my ilk. You won't desist from using it and that is you prerogative. You will have to excuse me for the personal attacks, the use of that term irks me greatly as you have come to understand. Bazzajf 09:44, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * In which case, you may want to try to get the articles themselves renamed. The two "British Isles" labels on my user page point to List of mountains of the British Isles by relative height and List of mountains and hills of the British Isles by height, respectively. I doubt, however, that you'll be very successful, in the absence of a better, similarly concise term. I'm still not entirely sure that I understand your problem with the term itself. The discussion at British Isles suggests that it's mostly to do with perceived sovereignty of the British over the whole of the archipelago, but you seem to deny that (above). If it's simply that the phrase does not mention Ireland or the Irish, then I think it may be seen as a case of being over-sensitive. The Welsh do not complain about the name "Irish Sea" even though it also laps against Welsh (and English and Scottish and Manx) shores. --Stemonitis 10:06, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * You miss the point, I never denied that the term didn't suggest British sovereignty over Ireland, I denied that was what you were advocating through your comments, I merely accused you of misappropriation of terminology and did not accuse you of any political motivation behind this. As regards the Irish Sea, we don't live in the sea so it's not as offensive. I mean if it was called the British Sea, I couldn't see myself having much of a problem with it. However I do live on the island of Ireland, the majority of which is not British so without wishing to labour the point, the misappropriation of the term, however innocent still irks as you are aware.


 * Ah, good. I think I understand now. But nonetheless, in the absence of any other less offensive term of similar brevity and clarity, I think it'll just have to stay as it is, with my apologies to those who are offended by the terminology. --Stemonitis 10:57, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

The less offensive term of equal clarity and brevity is "British & Irish Isles". Believe when I say that the Manx natives have no trouble with this description as they are linked to the U.K. as a protected and supported territory, Republic of Ireland on the other hand is a sovereign nation with no link to the U.K.

Did you read the article on wiki about the basis for usage of the term? Completely flawed logic as it refers to ancient texts etc and precedent for calling them the British isles. Place names reflect current realities, thus we have Istanbul and not Constantinople. A better example would be the Aegean coast of Turkey and its islands. this whole area was once referred to as the Greek coast and all the islands were Greek islands. since the political landscape has changed and the Turkish state has jurisdiction, the only islands which are now "Greek islands" are those within the jurisdiction of Greece. if you were to rebut by saying that British refers to something more than a political term, but rather than an ethnic or geographical one, then the same argument (or even a better one can be made of Greek). the Greek world once referred to an area far greater than modern or ancient Greece (e.g. southern Italy, Sicily, turkey, Armenia etc) and many of the people residing in those parts of turkey which were formerly designated "Greek" are ethnically and linguistically Greek but live in the state of turkey, and therefore the islands and coast are Turkish. Thus, you could not refer to the island of Ireland as British.Bazzajf 12:17, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * This is not the place for a lengthy discussion of the pros and cons of the term "British Isles", and I'm already bored of it. We have different opinions and that's clearly not going to change. I suggest you just leave it. --Stemonitis 12:41, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Well then, let me suggest that you do a simple change in your userpage and maintain it, then I will leave it otherwise prepare to get very bored. You have been warned. Bazzajf 14:07, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

What fun. :) I know it's common for Brits to use the phrase "America" and "American" when they actually mean the United States... and they are not using the term generically but rather to refer specifically and exclusively to the United States. I wonder if that practice is also common in Ireland, and I further wonder if Bazzajf conscientiously refrains from this practice himself as well as correcting his fellow Irishmen when they use this term? Many Peruvians, Ecuadorans, Bolivians, Paraguyans, Mexicans, Canadians, Argentinians, Cubans, etc. find it offensive. Oh good lord, I said Irishmen, mislabelling half of the population! Jafafa Hots 13:52, 4 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately Jafafa Hots appears to be ignorant of the facts and engages in petty-minded cynicism, feel free to do so as it is the preserve of the fool who cannot deal in rational debate. There are political connotations to using the term British Isles when describing the Republic of Ireland, we find it offensive, the law provides for it to be called the British & Irish Isles in light of the establishment of our free State in 1921 and independence in 1948. So such political connotations exist in calling people of the U.S.A. "Americans", the term exists because every other country in the Americas have their own identifiable description and you outlined some of those, this left the U.S.A. citizens to be dubbed "Americans" and it is not politically offensive nor is it legally incorrect. You go on to say by labelling us "irishmen", you "mislabel" (No such word, swot up on your English!!) half of us. The 4 million population of the Republic of Ireland overwhelmingly consider themselves Irish and of the 1.5 million in Northern Ireland, 700,000 consider themselves Irish leaving roughly 800,000 to consider themselves British. Now the last time I indulged in Mathematics, 800,000 did not strike me as half of 5million so come back to me when you have a little better grasp of the situation and stop making ignorant and idiotic comments on an issue that you have little or no real understanding of. Go back to important stuff like contributing to articles on college ice hockey, that's where I would suggest you belong my good man. Go make a difference. Bazzajf 10:28, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Bazz, for providing fine entertainment. :) As for rational debate, I can deal with it, and I look forward to the opportunity should such rational debate make an appearance here. :) Stemonitis is correct, I was referring to the half of your population who are female. Meanwhile, on the subject of ignorance, I will point out that you are incorrect when you state that considering the term "American" to exclusively mean United States citizen is not politically offensive. It is in fact highly offensive to many people in Mexico, as well as other Latin-American countries. It is one of the most commonly heard complaints in anti-US rhetoric coming from those countries. In fact, there are probably more people who consider it offensive than there are people in Ireland. On the question of legality, I can think of no way that a label of "American" could carry any legal weight except in matters of citizenship - in in that case, I and other "Americans" are legally "United States citizens." "American" has no legal status (except perhaps in respect to the Organization of American States - which includes those other countries I have mentioned?) No shame in your ignorance, though - I'm sure most Latin Americans have no idea that Irish people don't like the label "British Isles," either. I do like your sentiment "go make a difference." I might suggest that with an internet with billions of pages, countless thousands referring to Ireland as part of the "British Isles," not to mention rabid racism, anti-semitism and what have you, that your attentions would be better spent somewhere other than the personal page of some guy on Wikipedia that perhaps 5 people have seen. Me, I'm just here for the fun of it. :) Oh an incidentally, mislabelled IS a word. Take a look in the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language. Perhaps it isn't in the Oxford English Dictionary, I don't know - but you aren't letting those Brits define what's acceptable language, are you? :) Have fun. Jafafa Hots 11:41, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I think he meant the half who are women, not (Irish-)men. --Stemonitis 10:31, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


 * If that is the case, he appears to be sillier than I envisaged and fails to grasp the political connotations of the reference in question and chooses to indulge in ignorant and frivolous comments. Bazzajf 11:45, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I was referring to the term "American" in terms of citizenship, what do you think the whole context was, (I do worry about the education system over there sometimes). If a Latino or Mexican reside in America legally and are legal citizens, then they are "Americans". Obviously when I refered to "Americans" you can understand it to be legal citizens of the USA. If Mexicans or Latinos have a problem with this, they shouldn't be applying for U.S.A. passports and citizenship, they are aware of the ramifications of their actions in applying for citizenship so who do you think you are presuming on their behalf. Is naturalisation too complex a notion for you to grasp. This is why in Northern Ireland, groups are entitled to British or Irish citizenship on the basis of their desired identity.

Congratulations on your no doubt defining ability to contradict yourself. In your first contribution you state that to be called "American" is a loose term since it incorporates all "the Americas", you go on to say in your second contribution that American is offensive to many because it encompassed the U.S.A. only. Honestly I have no need to debate with you when you accomplish such a fine job of out-debating yourself. You really have provided me with such a jolly giggle, I visualise you in the guise of a dog chasing its' own tail. Thanks ever so much for your long-windedness.

I can express myself wherever I see fit, I have expressed my opinions in large, small and in this case tiny forums yet I would never have had the entertainment of you lodging your computer text based foot in your mouth had I not stumbled across this userpage. Oh, and I don't take my spellings from American dictionaries, English is after all the language of the English so funnily enough,I refer rather logically to English dictionaries for English spellings, why how rational of me, reffering to an American dictionary for an English spelling is I would suggest analagous to referring to Osama Bin Laden on motivations for World Peace. Now please, I may have to intervene if you continue debating with yourself if only to exemplify a delusion of sanity on your behalf. Now, you go talk about ice hockey like a good boy Bazzajf 12:28, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


 * This debate (if indeed it can be called that) is starting to seem very out of place. Has it got anything to do with me any more? If not, my talk page is probably not the best place for it. I just wanted to make the observation that the OED's first reference for "mislabel" is from 1835, with other examples right up to the present day ("A supplier had mislabelled the packet" from 1998 being the latest). It does not, however, advocate the use of its'. If there are no more constructive comments, can I suggest that the slanging match cease, please. --Stemonitis 14:43, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


 * "Its'" is an adjective and is the possessive form of it, it's something you should of learned in primary school, its' non-appearance in the dictionary is eye-opening and merits further investigation should your assertion be correct. I stand to be corrected on the "mislabel" word. It makes no appearance in my UK Britannica PC dictionary, I take it I am mistaken for relying on this resource in this circumstance. Bazzajf 16:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


 * That's its, without an apostrophe. --Stemonitis 07:21, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


 * And should have, not should of. I for one was taught to avoid that common schoolboy error at primary school. Entertaining reading, by the way. Matthew 23:44, 1 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry - surfing Wikipedia, saw that howler, and my inner grammarian could not be contained. ;-) Matthew 23:57, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
For helping out with my user page. :) Vashti 13:58, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * No problem. I was trying to put a note about it on the 3RR page as well, but kept coming up against edit conflicts. Eventually you managed to get in before me. I (or we, the community) should be thanking you for taking decisive action; I was hoping that someone would. --Stemonitis 14:01, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * You may want to edit just the section (click on the edit link at the side of the heading) and add a note about his repeated edits of your user page as well. Vashti 14:08, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, I see that as a separate issue, with nothing to do with the musicality or otherwise of Wales. Yes, it could be considered part of a larger Irish-centred POV effort, but I'm prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt, even after his risible "You have been warned" threat. --Stemonitis 14:12, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * But then again, if he's going to be so obstinate… --Stemonitis 14:44, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * :) Vashti 14:47, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Just FWIW, I recommend stopping by at WP:PROT and asking for your user page to be protected, if you haven't already. Vashti 14:59, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Use of Tables
I would welcome some advice on making tables consistent across an article. In List of lakes in Wales the table columns all take on different widths depending on content whereas in your tables of Mountains they seem much more constant. Any advice on bringing them in line would be very welcome. Velela 14:48, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I think that was just luck! I'm not sure if I've understood you correctly, but I've standardised the column widths. Is that the wort of thing you wanted? I don't know how well it will scale to different display sizes, but it seems alright on the computer I'm using. --Stemonitis 14:58, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Da iawn ! Diolch yn fawr.  Velela 15:09, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

List of Marilyns in England
List of Marilyns in England has 180 entries but I thought there were 1,500 Marilyns in England. Is the list a subset or complete? RJFJR 12:13, 10 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I think the list is complete; there are a few changes every time a new edition of the OS maps comes out, but 180 is about right. I think you must be confusing that with the number for the whole of the British Isles, which is 1554, according to Marilyn (hill). --Stemonitis 12:26, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts to put moth stubs in place
I was reserving this task till Lepindexing and stub-establishing of Indian Lycaenids was over. Thanks for joining us in our endeavours. With so much work done I'm taking the liberty of adding your name to WikiProject Lepidoptera. Your discerning eye and keen knowledge of Wiki-conventions will be of great importance to the project. I hope you will continue associating with this effort. Regards, AshLin 16:35, 10 June 2006 (UTC)


 * To be honest, I hadn't realised quite how many there were; it looks like about half the insect stubs are leps! Luckily, I've got a weeks holiday starting tomorrow to get over it. --Stemonitis 16:37, 10 June 2006 (UTC)


 * In case you feel like carrying on where I've finished, I've gone through all the articles from Z to P (working backwards: don't ask me why), sorting out the ants, butterflies, and moths. From what I've seen, beetle-stub would be a useful addition, too, and possible some other orders (I'd like bug-stub for Hemiptera, but Americans may be confused by the more specific use of "bug"). --Stemonitis 16:41, 10 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Here is something to help you out. I've listed out sixty moth stubs or so on at -
 * WikiProject Lepidoptera/Moth Stubs. These have the old insect stub and need to be changed to moth stubs. I began listing from the first moth family in [Category:Moths], and went sequentially down the list till I reached sixty stubs. I had done this for the stub proposal which required me to list out sixty such stubs before they accept a stub proposal. See Moth stub proposal.


 * In case you feel like dropping out midway just leave some kind of message on the WikiProject Lepidoptera talk saying what you have done and from where you have taken it and where you have left it. Someone will take on from there sooner or later. But I would strongly recommend dropping the work the moment you feel its a drudge. There is so much pending work in Wikipedia I find I have to take it in bite-sized chunks with lots of variety, without allowing myself to get sick and tired of the whole thing.


 * I do it this way - at this moment, I'm cooling off in my garden in the early night after a good dinner after a hot 50 degree summer day, hoping to spot a Solifugid while listening to CSNY and putting up my stubs. Talk of nirvana! Regards, AshLin 17:08, 10 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, after a few days' pause, I got round to doing the others (O-A), so now all moth, butterfly and ant stubs should be sorted out of Category:Insect stubs. --Stemonitis 12:56, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Shrimp image
WHy did you revert this image? Your explanation was cut-off on the edit summary. I added this image as it's more in line with the traditional perception of what a shrimp looks like and also is more close-up than the current one, revelaign much more details about the face. I really think shrimp_big is the far superior image. --larsinio ( poke )( prod ) 17:14, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I tried to finish the edit summary with a second edit, but to recap.: that picture is to my eye quite definitely a picture of a squat lobster, not a shrimp. I freely admit that it is technically a much better picture, but it shows the wrong animal. It would also be nice it was identified more precisely (ideally a species name), but that's not important now. --Stemonitis 08:04, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

STEMONITIS IS A BIGOT
Let me suggest that this user's userpage and contributions be ignored, if not ignored, then taken very ambiguously as this User Stemonitis continues to demonstrate political bias and bigotry. He insists and continues to insist on calling the legally factual "British & Irish Isles" by a politically motivated and bigoted pseudonym - the "British Isles". This is tantamount to an anti-Irish bias on his behalf, he refuses to make the simple change on his userpage. We ignore political bigots on WP. Bazzajf 10:07, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Let me kindly suggest that YOU, Bazzajf, need to get a life. 152.163.100.201 14:34, 17 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Let me kindly suggest you get a username you muppet. Bazzajf 15:44, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Why? 152.163.100.201 15:54, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Beetles of the British Isles
Hi. Just to let you know I've no problems with your formatting work on the beetle list. I'm not doing this myself, in part because I'm generating the list from a source that uses mixed case, and I want to concentrate on getting the list complete rather than spending time on formatting. I have a few more large families to add, as you'll see from the progress stats, so feel free to do the same to those when they appear if you wish. Some of the families will be added as child pages (see Staphs & Longhorns done so far). I may move many of the other families to child pages too in time. Any improvement suggestions for the list most welcome. Cheers SP-KP 14:40, 17 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I think splitting off some of the larger (super-?)families is probably a good idea; the page is already beyond the recommended article size. I also have some doubts about some of the common names; instances where "… depressum" and "… confusum" are calqued as "depressed …" and "confused …" always strike me as entirely artificial. It is not to be expected that very many beetle species have common names, but it's a lot of work to try and find out which ones are really used. --Stemonitis 14:47, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I'll treat the task of bringing this back within recommended size by splitting off larger families as my priority task once I've added the remaining families (and I'll make sure that the largest of the outstanding families are added to child pages from the start). I'll use "split if >100 species" as my rule of thumb, and see where that gets us. As for English names, they're again just taken direct from the source - I'm not applying any selection criteria. Cheers SP-KP 14:56, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Make that >50 - looks like I've already taken this approach for 100+ with the exception of Cryptophagidae & Dytiscidae SP-KP 14:58, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Cardamine hirsuta
Your notes on the edit ("Oh look, there's a siliqua article...") gave me a nice giggle. Thanks! SB Johnny 15:31, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Marine life
''I see you've resurrected Category:Marine life; I thought we'd seen the last of it. I'm still unsure about how useful such a vast category would be, given that all but one phyla have marine members, and many (most?) are exclusively marine. I also have problems with all crustaceans and molluscs being classed as marine life, since they each include many freshwater and terrestrial species. I think a better approach would be to make a really good article about marine life indicating the sorts of creatures that are important in different parts of the oceans, rather than trying to do it with categories. --Stemonitis 14:43, 19 June 2006 (UTC)'' [pasted from User talk:GrahamBould]

Couldn't agree more. Why didn't you kill it off when you had it on the ground begging for mercy? I've been in touch with user:Gdr about this, you can check the talk. I had reservations too, so am happy if you want to remove the categories in Marine life, & then delete it. I'd do it myself but don't think I have the authority - do you? Do I? Cheers GrahamBould 16:28, 19 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Deletion requires an admin, and no, I'm not one. We can at least empty it out again and then it should get through a deletion request OK as an empty category that no-one wants. It's cheating a bit because it's not empty yet, but I think in this case no-one'll mind too much. --Stemonitis 16:36, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Foreign chars
Nice work on trying to fix the category sorting when articles include such chars. Just note that they don't get sorted as the base letter, rather ä=ae ö=oe and ü=ue. HTH Agathoclea 15:51, 22 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I considered it best to sort German-language place names in the German fashion, in which "ä" sorts as "a", "ö" as "o", and "ü" as "u" ("ß" as "ss", of course). This is the practise followed by all German language dictionaries, gazetteers, and so on. It's also easier for those readers who don't understand "funny foreign squiggles", who would interpret it as an accented vowel anyway (not a separate letter), and expect it to sort like one. --Stemonitis 06:32, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I have the list of German towns in front of me as it was published by the German postal service due to the renumbering of postcodes. Just as an example:

25572 Kudensee 66901 Kübelberg -    Küchen ... 14798 Kützkof 76773 Kuhard
 * Passport information gets similarly transliterated for the machine-readable part. Agathoclea 07:57, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Still, that doesn't seem to be a very widespread use. I've checked the Austrian mappping agency's CD edition, which has a gazetter, and there, ä sorts as a: Perhaps the post office has a special reason for doing it the other way. It's a bit late now anyway, since I've already finished that little project, and I certainly don't want to go through them all again. They are sorted now according to a widely-used and easily understandable system. There may be other systems, but to implement one of them would be a lot of work now, and I don't think it would be any improvement. --Stemonitis 08:08, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Kading
 * Kafell
 * Käfer
 * Kaffell
 * Kager


 * I have asked at Wikipedia talk:German-speaking Wikipedians' notice board and it seems so far that they agree with you :-) Agathoclea 09:24, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Edit wars
You write: "We all agree that edit wars are a bad thing." Speak for yourself. Edit wars are frequently necessary, usually beneficial, and always fun. Adam 06:38, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I shall speak for myself: edit wars are never necessary, usually unproductive and always childish. This is the standpoint taken by most good Wikipedia editors, which is perhaps why you have been blocked for edit-warring several times. There really is no excuse. --Stemonitis 10:28, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Jelly fungus
What happened to the capitalization of common names, which the zoologists and botanists here make such a big deal about? And why put the proper noun "Jew's" in lower case? Badagnani 09:57, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Opinion is divided within the biologists on Wikipedia about capitalisation. In some fields, there are standards (ornithology for capitalisation: Green Woodpecker, arthropods for sentence case: Australian land hermit crab). I'm merely making it consistent within the fungal kingdom, where all articles are at sentence case. And jew is not a proper noun, unless it refers to a person or place called "Jew". Judas, however, is. --Stemonitis 10:01, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the response (which took me some time to find, as it's on your own page). I'm afraid you're incorrect about proper nouns; the Wikipedia entry is misleading and only partially correct. Languages and cultural groups are certainly proper nouns, just as Judas is. As regards common name capitalization, you're now saying that you're going completely against what the other botany and zoology people have insisted is proper usage (as, for example, the argument they always give that if you wrote White Jelly Fungus instead of white jelly fungus, the latter of which could refer to any jelly fungus which was white, causing confusion, etc.?) Badagnani 10:15, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm going against what some biologists have said here, but it's something that I never believed, and which has never been codified as policy (outside of certain restricted fields, such as ornithology). It seems to be common practice to capitalise common names for mammals and flowering plants, but among fungi (and elsewhere) sentence case prevails, and should continue to do so, since there is no consensus for change. As to the confusion point, this arises from sloppy writing only; in careful writing, the confusion can always be avoided. I notice that in an RSPB magazine that was given to me, they do not use capital letters, and have never had any reports of problems, and that's within ornithology, where the tendency for capital letters is at its strongest. So you see, there is no overall consensus for the whole tree of life (or "Tree of Life", perhaps); there is only consistency within groups, and the fungi, as I say, are currently written with sentence case. --Stemonitis 10:22, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I think I agree with you on this. I had to figure out what "sentence case" meant first (I guess it means "don't capitalize each word of the common name other than the first"). You said "mammals and flowering plants" but birds should probably be added to this list. It's a bit confusing, especially to new editors who often jump right in and start removing the capitalizations. Badagnani 10:34, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Bird names are covered by policy at WP:BIRD, just like arthropods are at WP:ARTH. The others seem not to be covered by policy, which is why I treated them separately. There have been several attempts to get a site wide policy, but opinion is split almost exactly 50%-50%. Incidentally, I think I've changed my mind about "Jew". Sentence case means that proper nouns like "Australia" in "Australian land hermit crab" still get capitalised, but others don't, including the first word, unless it's at the beginning of a sentence. --Stemonitis 10:50, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

worms
Have all the wormy goodness you want. I created the category to move the worm articles out of category:Animals. Doesn't mean I did it the right way. So yeah, bring it in line in any manner you see fit. Thanks for the heads-up!--Mike Selinker 12:45, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Strasse
There is no policy on this matter, and I will title articles as I please. Don't waste my time. Adam 12:52, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't know how I'm wasting your time. You don't have to do anything. If I make corrections, you needn't feel obliged to reverse them. However, as shown above, you have a combative attitude to editing. Also, cut and paste moves are frowned upon. The correct procedure would have been to instigate a move request. --Stemonitis 13:19, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

If you make frivolous moves for no good reason, and with no policy to support you, I will reverse them. Since I am not an admin, I can only move them by cut/paste. I know this is contrary to policy, but so is deliberately wasting other people's time by provocative and frivolous moving of articles. In this case nothing is lost since a newly created article has no edit history. You created this situation by your childish, arrogant behaviour so don't blame me. Adam 13:47, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I have done a quick web search, and Voss-strasse (with the lower case 's' after the hyphen) is the least used of all spellings that have so far been discussed. That is therefore untenable as a title. Voßstraße, on the other hand, has the benefit of being the correct spelling under the German spelling reform of 1996, and being the spelling depicted on the picture used in the article. The only thing stopping it from being used is your refusal to allow it. If it were the result of a requested move, then I would accept it, but it is only one person's opinion. Please follow the procedures established for such events, and do not make any further cut and paste moves. --Stemonitis 13:55, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

What they do in Germany is irrelevant. This is the English Wikipedia, and I am implacably opposed to the use of non-English letterforms here - a position which I am entitled to take within Wikipedia policy, and on which I have considerable support (see the voting at Wilhelmstrasse). The choices therefore are Vossstrasse, Voss-Strasse and Voss-strasse. The first has the "sss" which is not used in English, the second implies that Strasse is a separate word, which in this case it isn't, so the third is correct. Kindly do not lecture me on proper behaviour. Adam 14:01, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

This whole stupid business has been caused by your childishness so spare me your pious cant. Adam 13:46, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Wotzel
Sorry for being dense! Thanks for doing this work. --Fang Aili talk 15:06, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Nikolai Panin
I was wondering if you could help me with transfering information from de to en. I'm working on Nikolai Panin, and there is a corresponding article in German. But alas, my German is terrible. I gather that there is a lot of information there that is not in the English version. Could you check it out, or post it on a relevant help request page? Thanks! --Fang Aili talk 20:16, 30 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I have translated all the missing information, but I haven't tried to integrate it into the text. There may be some repetitions, and the article could probably be re-ordered somewhat. --Stemonitis 10:15, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Rock on! Thank you! --Fang Aili talk 14:47, 1 July 2006 (UTC)