User talk:Tamfang/Archive 2010

Shibboleths
I notice that you have contributed to List of shibboleths; i have made a suggestion on the talk page that you might be interested in commenting on. If that article no longer holds your interest, i apologise for intruding, and return you to previously scheduled programming. Cheers, LindsayHi 08:39, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Peerage articles
Would you mind further explaining your comment on User:Tryde's talkpage, please? Thanks, Ironholds (talk) 13:17, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

de Clare
Hi! I answered your question on the de Clare discussion page. Mugginsx (talk) 18:37, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Discussion on re-naming de Clare Article
It seems crazy to me - the whole idea. But whatever your opinion, would you please weigh in on this discussion? Categories for discussion/Log/2010 February 15 The category is entitled Category: House of Clare. Thanks Mugginsx (talk) 21:52, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
Seems I misunderstood the meaning of what they were discussing, however, you seemed to be on top of the discussion. Thanks for your input! Mugginsx (talk) 22:50, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

de Clare
Tamfang, Please make whatever changes you want to this article. I deleted "Editors Comment" and added "King" to Stephen. It was rewritten because many individual paragraphs were unsourced and citations were asked for. I was trying to prevent the information from being deleted on that basis. If you can do better, by all means, do so. The source is the same as it was before - DNB. If you can source the other information, that would be great. Mugginsx (talk) 11:20, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

As to what does "styled title" mean? It is an English term. Americans might say "self-styled". In other words the family GAVE itself the title and there is no surviving direct evidence such as the "letters patent". There is a link to an article if you are confused. It is mentioned in the "Earl of Clare" article. It was put in at the direction of an administrator after a long disagreement over whether or not the early earls of clare were "really earls". Your friend Marmaduke is very familiar with it. It is understood by most familiar with researching English titles in the middle ages, It is part of the DNB article so whether or not you take it out will compromise the source is something to think about. The term is mentioned in many articles about many different titled people in Wikipedia, especially those in the middle ages. Stephen refers, of course, to King Stephen. Mugginsx (talk) 11:38, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

The Lords Report are reports of the House of Lords. See their website if you wish to familize youself with who they are and what they do.

As to your other questions, I do not understand them so I do not know how to give you the answers. The narrative was presented as you read it by historians and scholars. It is a very complicated history and has been reprinted in the updated DNB at Oxford but still reads as complex. If you do not understand it perhaps a basic reading of medieval historical material and its terminology might help. Hope this answered most of your questions. Good Luck! Mugginsx (talk) 17:17, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * answer to your most recent remarks are on de Clare discussion page. Good Luck! Mugginsx (talk) 21:34, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Please co-operate
Please can I have your co-operation in bringing discussion on Talk:de Clare back to an orderly review of what needs to be done to improve the article? Without provocative remarks. Charles Matthews (talk) 18:57, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Ray-traced PNGs
Thanks I got a similar message on Commons. I'm a bit ignorant about image files, so I suppose I'll be more safe than sorry in the future. Thanks again. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:07, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Coxeter-Dynkin diagram graphics
Hi, you appear to be a regular contributor to the Coxeter–Dynkin diagram article. Hoping that you feel able to contribute to the discussion over SVG vs PNG formatting for these diagrams. We are trying to establish a consensus to end a reversion war, and there are literally hundreds of instances to sort out. 83.104.46.71 (talk) 19:09, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Latin fifth declension
Hi Tamfang, about a year ago on the Reference Desk you asked if there was a list of fifth declension nouns in Latin. I thought it was odd that there wasn't, so I remembered your question, and eventually made one myself. If you're still interested it, it's here (for now) (and it's currently an HTML-ified Word document so I apologize for the aesthetics of it). Adam Bishop (talk) 20:10, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for improving some of my captions on the Buffy episode pages, I'm not that great at writing concise sentences for the captions, so thanks again and feel free to improve my future updates as well! Drovethrughosts (talk) 21:49, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Retroactive nomenclature
Tamfang, my edits to Retroactive nomenclature were made only in a well-intentioned attempt to clarify, simplify and cite sources for the explanation of the practice. I would like to begin a discourse on the topic. My thoughts can be found on the talk page for Retroactive nomenclature. Thank you. --Sephaerius (talk) 00:56, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Platonic Solids & polar
I put the extra link in (to dual polyhedron) because that page discusses the use of the word polar, which is otherwise unexplained. Would you consider restoring it, or linking to something better? John Wheater (talk) 06:17, 13 May 2010 (UTC).
 * Thanks for the response on my page, where I continue. John Wheater (talk) 06:51, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't really see it as a non-problem (ouch!), as the term polar does not occur anywhere else in the article. I'll try putting 'see Dual Polyhedron', with no link, and see if that sticks.  Many thanks for your help. John Wheater (talk) 09:51, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Saying "See" without a link is not in the Webly spirit! — I'm not saying you see it as a non-problem, I'm merely saying it is a non-problem. :P —Tamfang (talk) 17:18, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Re:Words as words
I do not think heraldry counts as a technical term, so should not be italicised. As for the other terms used to describe a coat of arms, it is not necessary to italicize such terms but it very well could be, so I left those italicised as you preferred. And, yes, foreign words are to be italicised, so to avoid any confusion with a native word. It prevents any confusion with native words, whetehr such a word exists in the native language or to avoid confusion with sometimes similarly spelled words. [tk]  XANDERLIPTAK  01:08, 17 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Did I italicize heraldry? I don't remember a context when I'd have done so.  As for the other words in question (device and so on), I italicized them only in a sentence about the words. —Tamfang (talk) 01:12, 17 May 2010 (UTC)


 * When you reverted my edit, it changed heraldry in the opening sentence back to italics, so I thought it was your doing as well. If not, my mistake.  I thought whomever did one did the rest, so I just took them all out thinking it was all a bit overboard together.  I have no particular issue with the alternate names being italicised, though from what I have seen on Wikipedia such format is not usually followed.  Once italics or bold text is introduced into an article, some editors tend to see it and take it to an extreme.  And I hate that.  Reading some sentence where the editor randomly tries to direct attention to a favourite fact or whatnot of his.  So I try to be as minimalist as possible is all.   [tk]   XANDERLIPTAK  06:21, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Back-formation of Greek declensions
The edit summary on this edit made me smile. :-)&mdash;Tetracube (talk) 20:42, 2 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Heh, at last someone noticed. —Tamfang (talk) 21:19, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

BtVS
Regarding this: it's not a huge deal either way since, admittedly, it's more or less unencyclopedic trivia. But the issue I was trying to get at is, it would be strange for a person from Shanghai to be a native Cantonese speaker. It wouldn't be impossible, but it's more likely just a continuity error. r ʨ anaɢ (talk) 02:33, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Elte's semiregular polytopes
I did a first pass of Elte's semiregular polytopes. I have a copy of his book, so tried to decode his final table of "(semiregular) polytope of the first kind", which apparently means uniform polytopes with 2 types of k-face elements for all k. Interestingly he lists the p-p duoprisms (calls them prismotopes), and also is the first (known) to name the measure polytope, half measure polytope, and cross polytope. Tom Ruen (talk) 00:51, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * User:Tomruen/Emanuel Lodewijk Elte


 * ...for k>1? ;) —Tamfang (talk) 16:53, 15 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Apparently, although you can classify edges even if they look the same, so that might also be true (oh, 1 edge class per ring in CD diagram, but Elte's polytopes have at most 2 rings). Also not all of the Archimedean solids are semiregular (of the "first kind") by his definition. Tom Ruen (talk) 20:39, 15 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I knew that. I was just testing you. :P —Tamfang (talk) 00:35, 16 June 2010 (UTC)


 * p.s. Do you think a {p}x{p} duoprism has a double symmetry order 2p2, compared to {p}x{q} order pq? Tom Ruen (talk)


 * Yes — but isn't it 4pq and 8pp? Need to check Dinogeorge's pages. —Tamfang (talk) 01:18, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I have marked you as a reviewer
I have added the "reviewers" property to your user account. This property is related to the Pending changes system that is currently being tried. This system loosens page protection by allowing anonymous users to make "pending" changes which don't become "live" until they're "reviewed". However, logged-in users always see the very latest version of each page with no delay. A good explanation of the system is given in this image. The system is only being used for pages that would otherwise be protected from editing.

If there are "pending" (unreviewed) edits for a page, they will be apparent in a page's history screen; you do not have to go looking for them. There is, however, a list of all articles with changes awaiting review at Special:OldReviewedPages. Because there are so few pages in the trial so far, the latter list is almost always empty. The list of all pages in the pending review system is at Special:StablePages.

To use the system, you can simply edit the page as you normally would, but you should also mark the latest revision as "reviewed" if you have looked at it to ensure it isn't problematic. Edits should generally be accepted if you wouldn't undo them in normal editing: they don't have obvious vandalism, personal attacks, etc. If an edit is problematic, you can fix it by editing or undoing it, just like normal. You are permitted to mark your own changes as reviewed.

The "reviewers" property does not obligate you to do any additional work, and if you like you can simply ignore it. The expectation is that many users will have this property, so that they can review pending revisions in the course of normal editing. However, if you explicitly want to decline the "reviewer" property, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 12:33, 18 June 2010 (UTC) &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 13:21, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 18:14, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Cook's Arms
Hi, thanks for pointing out the star issue in the Cook coat of arms. (Wow did that issue ever become circus!) As for the stars, I see what you mean about the mullet/estoile issue. The original blazon that I was working from was included in the COA info box when I first uploaded the image to the page. The text is:

"Azure, between two Polar Stars Or, a Sphere on the plane of the Meridian, North Pole elevated, Circles of Latitude for every ten degrees and of Longitude for fifteen, shewing the Pacific Ocean between sixty and two hundred and forty West, bounded on one side by America, on the other by Asia and New Holland; in memory of his having explored and made Discoveries in that Ocean so very far beyond all former Navigators: His Track thereon marked with red Lines."

Given the use of the term "star" I'm not sure what would be more correct, a mullet or an estoile. I'd like to hear the opinion of someone who is (by default) more versed in heraldry than me. I'll gladly make a change if you think its a good idea. When would be the right time to do that? As you might have seen, its in the middle of a debate about its value and might be deleted at some point soon anyway. Thanks for your thoughts. A1 Aardvark (talk) 01:52, 16 June 2010 (UTC)


 * When I change the stars (if that is the right thing to do) I'll see what I can do about removing the arrowheads. We should keep in mind however, that the image that is being cited is only an artist's interpretation of the blazon text.  If the text is silent (on the type of star, for example), it is my understanding that the artist is free to represent the text as he or she wishes, so long as it remains faithful to that text.  We are beholden to the blazon, not the original artist's impression.  There is no more authoritative source for a coat of arms than the blazon.  If I am wrong on this, please let me know.  I am happy to try to get a few more heraldically-inclined people involved, but am not sure where I should post such an invitation.  Cheers, A1 Aardvark (talk) 02:54, 16 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, polar star presumably meant *something* specific to whoever drafted the grant .... —Tamfang (talk) 03:00, 16 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi Tamfang, per our previous conversation, it turns out it's easier to remove the arrowheads than I thought. I've done so and tidied up the route a bit (making sure it doesn't cross any land).  I really don't know what to make of the Antarctica argument being raised now.  That would be much harder to tinker with. Thanks for all your comments so far.  They've been very helpful.  A1 Aardvark (talk) 12:49, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that Tamfang. I thought that was the case... that the depiction could be copyrighted, but not the description. I'm relieved! Its a shame about the svg arms coming off Cook's page, but I guess its good that heraldry got discussed in general. Cheers. A1 Aardvark (talk) 02:07, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Elementary Particle Explorer (E8 rotation viewer)
Cool toy! (Found linked from ) Tom Ruen (talk)
 * http://deferentialgeometry.org/epe/

Discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Visual_arts#Nationality_in_infoboxes
You are invited to join the discussion at. Mootros (talk) 00:14, 3 July 2010 (UTC) (Using )

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 19:04, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Formulae edit
When you edited the formulae I made on some Johnson solid pages, you made "regular" link to regular polyhedron. Shouldn't it be linked to regular polygon, as the Johnson solids themselves are not regular, but the polygons they are made of are. Kittenono (talk) 16:58, 25 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Darn it, I thought I wrote 'polygon' ... —Tamfang (talk) 17:00, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm changing the ones that are wrong (only a few were like that). Kittenono (talk) 17:13, 25 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Heh, they appear to be your own doing. Nobody's perfect! —Tamfang (talk) 17:16, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Trivial Dates ?
Hi Nice work on the table for Palio di Siena. I belive the "tivial" dates column as you may have described should be restored as you mentioned in your edit for Palio di Siena

" incorporated dates into other table; what could be more trivial than the number of years and days since?)"

The dates since last victory should be shown as the Conrade that has and holds the longest loosing streak is referred to as the "nonna" or grandmother. Im sure this information will be added in this article at a future date —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chiefmanzzz (talk • contribs) 11:42, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

SHOUTING ?
Courtesy works both ways - sorry but I am trying to get a lot that is wrong with the heraldry part of Wikipedia right - niceties like caps and lower case slow the whole thing down. Caps may imply shouting in an online forum etc but not usually in encyclopedias.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mich Taylor (talk • contribs) 19:41, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

The whole point as I take it is for Wikipedia to be fairly reliable and fairly authoritative - and for it to be that it needs external references and examples - "Please post only encyclopedic information that can be verified by external sources. Please maintain a neutral, unbiased point of view". Very few of the heraldry articles can as yet be verified through external printed sources, so reliable online sites like English and Welsh Civic Heraldry, the Canadian Public Register, South Africa's Bureau of Heraldry, the Heraldry Society (of England), the Heraldry Society of Scotland are a prime in-article requisite (especially as too many of the print references are themselves terribly unreliable a lot of the time - even Parker and Elvin, which are getting fairly antique, but there is very little modern stuff that's very much better ). I am trying to rectify that under the aegis of the Heraldry Society of Scotland by producing n illustrated dictionary of heraldry - mref Romilly Squire, former chair and present committee member, one time painter at the Lyon Court (4/30, Elbe St Edinburgh EH6 7HW); the Lyon Clerk would probably also vouch for me as she has been a source of information and advice. I am tryuing in my spare time from the dictionary to try and improve the net's source of information on heraldry so that people can have something fairly reliable - instead, sometimes, a load of nonsense.

www.national.archsrch.gov.za
Dear Tamfang

You said some links were temporary, sorry! - where? http://www.national.archsrch.gov.za/sm300cv/smws/sm300dl - unless too many folk accessing site - always gets me there

Mich Taylor (talk) 16:25, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

South African Archives
The message comes up, I huess, when too many people trying access.

The menu takes the enquirer to the search engine for the database of heraldic representations - which sadly are purely verbal, but quite useful

Mich Taylor (talk) 17:30, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I do think having a searchg engine to get to all the online blazons for the Bureau of Heraldry is actually quite useful.

When you get to the search engine you use it like a lot of other search engines - put in the name or the charge or whatever and other qualifying things and press the search button.

Mich Taylor (talk) 18:06, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Nearly all the links I put in lead to pictures - usually on the websites of the Canadian Heraldic Authority, Civil Heraldry of England and Wales, Heraldry Society (England)etc. Links to the Heraldry Society of Scotland site take folk to a page with thumbnails to be clicked on. The SA links are there as a reference = to reassure folk that the stuff is genuine.

If I want someone to see something I link to a pic and am now learning to upload and put pics in pages.

We all have learning curves - I am a long way down on my wiki contribution one. Please don't assume that everybody who doesn't get things 'right' is being perverse and needs telling off! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mich Taylor (talk • contribs) 18:56, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

The dichotomy is a false one - something that some folk who want to help manage to see.

'How We Do Things Here' - but it's meant to be freely editable, which implies that there may be a whole load of different ways of doing things, not just one particular one. The key criterion as far as I get it is to provide reliable and trustworthy information and I will continue to do that, but I have not joined a club with set rules and an enforceable etiquette (I once nearly got thrown out of an uncle's gold club for wearing jeans - 'How we do things here' was what they almost said) - I am trying to contribute to a freely editable encyclopedia, not being on a vanity trip but trying to help provide much better heraldic information than Wikipedia contains at present. The key job is good information, not following other people's tastes.

Mich Taylor (talk) 19:41, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

bolding
Dear Tamfang

Thanks for observations I must admit I tend to go for substance over style. When things are technically wrong I try to correct them and give external references if possible.

Bolding is as far as I am concerned nothing but style. Writing for Wikipedia is not like writing for a learned journal which has quite specific style requirements, and a pluralistic approach I would have thought was vital to a freely editable encyclopedia

Mich Taylor (talk) 16:38, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

variations of ordinaries
I assume you mean 'In heraldry, in addition to the variations of the line that can be applied to both ordinaries and the field, there are some variations of ordinaries that can only be applied to them.' (7 April 2010 version)

The problem was that the next three lines were examples of variations of the line (line ornamentations) that can be be used on any straigght edge of any charge - and are not applicable only to ordinaries (and their diminutives). I went through the whole piece trying to sort it out into something coherent, adding headings. I am now working through the whole thing, putting words and pictures together - as you may have gathered. This page is a work in progress. It's funny how you pic on one little misleading original sentence and don't comment on the other changes.

Mich Taylor (talk) 07:11, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Pile
Sadly you missed the point about the examples given in the gallery (and by the normal way of things that use of 'see' is perfectly normal) - the examples to see in each box match the sort f exam[ple given in the box - they are not just odd examples but reasonably carefully chosen to increase the readers appreciation of that particular case

Mich Taylor (talk) 22:21, 5 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mich Taylor (talk • contribs) \

Dear Tamfang

I am pretty sure that you think I am an obstructive, contemptuous and wilful person.

But the proof of the pudding is in the eating - are the articles, as a result of my editing, fuller, better illustrated, more technically correct, more introductive of and linked to reasonably reliable, trustworthy and even authoritative sources of information. Does the reader get a better deal? Is the reader led on to other things?

If not then I must pack up and go home.

If so, then am I not a useful resource - even if you don't care for it?

Wikipedia is free and Wikipedia is imperfect.

I am not trying to make it bend to my will and thus unfree - I only contribute on heraldry and then only because the standard is so low.

I am trying to help produce a Wikipedia that is richer and fuller for the reader. That is the bottom line in the Wikipedia enterprise - the reader.

I' ll give you a little example of my approach -

In ' Variations of ordinaries' is the sentence "The chevron éclaté has each end with roughly-made points or spikes on it".

Now, it rings a vague bell. But searching my two databases of Anglophone blazons (including almost all Scots ones from the 17th century) produces nothing. A content search of all the files on my computer (including several Francophone glossaries) produces nothing. I check Parker - "Eclaté, (fr.): broken, applied by French heralds to a lance". I check Elvin - no entry. I go to Google France. Searching with 'éclaté blason OR armoiries' produces just two dictionariues with entries - one about lances and batons, another about chevrons and other ordinaries. As for images not a single one. So I search with 'chevron éclaté': not a single picture; words - back to the two dictionaries. So try 'chevron brisé' (which is used even in Scots heraldry). Loads or word entries, and, perhaps much more telling, a good number of pics. So try 'chevron rompu'. Same result. (Francophone chevrons rompus are different from Anglophone ones).

I draw the conclusion that a chevron éclaté is one of those things heraldic that simply don't exist in practical heraldry - Francophone or Anglophone.

But I still haven't edited out that sentence. But I will very shortly. Or perhaps 'llI leave it in - with a warning not to be misled by what dictionaries and encyclopedias tell us.

What would you rather have for the reader's sake (and that really is the bottom line)? Someone who has produced editings that are fuller, better illustrated, more technically correct, more introductive of and linked to reasonably reliable, trustworthy and even authoritative sources of information (than Wikipedia is). (And someone who is linked into the very heart of a national heraldic authority that dates back hundreds of years). Or someone so brassed off with negativity that they leave it all alone - and leave the reader to the mercy of those who get it wrong much too often, because they don't actually do any checking - even easily online.

I don't claim "My version should stand because I'm right." I very rarely think I am right - hence the stuff on éclaté. Ijust try very hard to get things better than they were before - for the reader's sake.

(Please note that the pile article uses words, at the very beginning of the article, and a picture, at the very beginning, to show what a pile is. I don't think there's any question that " the picture doesn't adequately explain what a pile is, how is another picture going to help?". And it's going to help maybe because it takes people to thoroughly trustworthy external sites - something very necessary given the state of Wikipedia's heraldic unreliability and untrustworthiness. When Wikipedia's heraldry gets to the stage of some other parts of Wikipedia then it won't be necessary to use 'external links in body' - to reassure the reader! Unlike the results of an editing of yours that left more than one totally incorrect pictures of piles, added an incorrect statement about piles meeting in a point and one about the width that piles should be drawn to avoid confusion. Some quick checks to reliable sites online before writing etc would have avoided those errors.)

Mich Taylor (talk) 09:02, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

forms of names
I have only ever once knowingly in Wikipedia had anything to do with attributing arms to a family - 'a pile in bend sinister issuing from base - Azure, a pile issuing from the base in bend sinister Or, Kagg family, Sweden' which I left untouched because perhaps in Sweden as in for example Poland arms may belong to a family with several people having the same coat etc. I also made one reference 'to coats of Tidd family, Canada' with a link to the Canadian PR because there are several different coats of Tidd folk on the same Public Register page. Otherwise I hope I am clean of that particular error. It seems unlikely that I would not be, being, as you know, immersed in a Scots heraldic environment!

Mich Taylor (talk) 20:13, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

cadency
Stoddart - I had a very brief conversation with Lyon Clerk ages ago and I seem to remember her saying that Stodart isn't the way they actually do things. The real thing is a mystery to me and things are much more subtle, I have vaguely gathered. Sorry not to be much help - but the Lyon Court are very friendly folk and a note to Lyon Clerk might get a useful response. Or perhaps a quicker, but much less reliable, way of doing things is through the Heraldry Society of Scotland's Forum - http://www.heraldry-scotland.co.uk/forum.html -where there is a section 'Non Forum Members 'Discussion Area' and there is a section devoted to 'Cadency & Marshalling'. I did a quick search of the forum but found nothing useful. It's ages since I was on the Forum so I have no idea about how useful and responsive it is these days. I am afraid cadency is not really my thing.

Mich Taylor (talk) 21:25, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Canadian Fess
Please don't delete it again., We do know what it looks like, even if a link was broken - courtesy Wikipedia Burnaby, British Columbia, and courtesy Royal Candian Heraldry Society

Mich Taylor (talk) 20:59, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Good catch
Good catch here. Thanks. Wilhelm Meis (Quatsch!) 09:52, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Solleu again
Hello Tamfang!

Hello again, some time ago you assisted me on the Roman Naming Conventions page in translating a few things, I have another question if you have the time.

If the people of the Soluensis were to have a chieftain leader, what would his title translate into exactly? For instance, wasn't Julius Ceaser the chief of the Julii? What exactly was his title to that headship of the tribe Julii? Or am I wrong in my understanding? If you remember, we were trying to fit the name Solleu into a Roman Naming Convention pattern. Solleu was the name of the river of Theed on the Star Wars planet of Naboo. Lucas used the god Nabu as the origin of the name of the planet. We (my guild members) are filling in some back stories for the Duchy of Solleu (our guild) and part of that was that a tribal people known as the Soluensis migrated to that river basin and gave their name to it. Eventually the name Solu became Solleu. Thats the storyline so far, what we would like to know is a. what the title of a chief of the Solensis might be, and b. what their last name might be too.... if their last name was .... 'of the Soluensis', so it speak. Does any of this make sense? ♦Drachenfyre♦ · Talk 06:01, 25 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't know if the Roman gentes even had chiefs. —Tamfang (talk) 09:17, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

"a thing is a term"
I'd just like to say "right on" about stemming the tide of that kind of wording on wikipedia. It's a pet peeve of mine too, when people say "Free will is a concept..." or "Rights are an idea..." or "Discrimination is a term which...". There are concepts and ideas of these things, and terms which refer to these things, but those things are not themselves merely concepts, ideas, terms, etc. People seem to phrase things like that in attempt to sound neutral, but it just isn't right; if someone asked you "What is discrimination?" your answer wouldn't begin "a term which...".

Anyway, keep up the good fight :-) --Pfhorrest (talk) 06:01, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Royal Supporters of England
Hi Tamfang, with reference your text-list-format of the Royal Standards of England, I need to write a brief section on these standard badges as 'supporters.' I have created a new (sandbox) Royal Supporters of England, in which I have listed all of the supporters (Edward III to now), for which I have found 14 images, for a (full-text-image-format) box. I intend to refer to this full listing, and create a few samples - with hopefully all of the (king/house/date/supporter) references, in a (shallow-text-list-format) box. Would you mind having a go at compressing this challenging text-image-list into an acceptable form (2x boxes)? I've got some nice early references which I will write sections on &c. Any advice or help appreciated. Thanks for your considerations. Regards Steve. Stephen2nd (talk) 20:20, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi again and thanks very much for the formatting. Unfortunately, the text in the Who? and the What? columns is very limited. Also, there are at least 10 images missing, (not a difinitive list), and the Elizabeth I arms show a red dragon, which should be gold. I agree that these images should be this large, as you cannot make out the supporters in smaller images. But this makes the limited text look unbalanced in the overall image of the Article. Due to the lack of ('complete set') available images, I think it may be best to experiment with this, until the overall format looks acceptable. Possibly set out in a (gallery) format, or just (thumb) referenced with the 'King and supporters' in the thumbnail box. (Five sets of two x one left & one right). Or, a block or sections of text, with two right - beneath these - two left &c. I'll jump back into my sandbox and have a shuffle about, and see what I can come up with. Or, I can upload it as it is? What do you think? Ta and thanks again. Steve. Stephen2nd (talk) 19:03, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Input please
Your input is greatly needed at Talk:Theodore Roosevelt. Please scroll to the bottom. → ROUX   ₪  09:05, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The specific question, which I would appreciate your views on, is here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:15, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

SCA
Does that mean you have a coat of arms or adopted a coat of arms for your family? Or do you not have quite that much personal interest, and it mostly scholarly? [tk]  XANDERLIPTAK  23:22, 4 October 2010 (UTC)


 * My SCA arms: Vert, two bendlets wavy between two suns Or. (I dropped out long ago.) —Tamfang (talk) 23:46, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm curious: is participation in SCA (of which I have cursory awareness due to some interconnections with Tolkien fandom) the way many people these days get interested in heraldry? Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:37, 4 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I imagine so. Genealogy must be another.  Neither in my case, tho; I found Simple Heraldry by Iain Moncreiffe and Don Pottinger in a library at age 14, a couple of years before I'd heard of the SCA.  It appeals to me as a design discipline.  —Tamfang (talk) 23:46, 4 October 2010 (UTC)


 * It's interesting how things we do at that age tend to stick with us. I started to do theatre around that age, and I'm still doing it, and I was introduced to cryptography via a story book I was given a few years earlier, and it remains an interest.  I think probably I started reading science fiction at about that time, too. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:02, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Do you still use or display your arms in some manner? [tk]  XANDERLIPTAK  22:44, 8 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I decorate my website with the doubled bendlets motif. That's all.  The only other way I've ever used it, that I now recall, was on a cloak. —Tamfang (talk) 22:50, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

RV
re http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=A_Fire_Upon_the_Deep&curid=2080&diff=389986659&oldid=389964018 - don't worry about it. It was just a vandal making a Haskell (programming language) joke, as strange as it sounds (it's a paraphrase of a common Haskell joke that difficult-concept-is-actually-very-simple). --Gwern (contribs) 02:07 11 October 2010 (GMT)

Sun in splendour
Apologies for hitting rollback, in error - but I'll comment on your merger proposal on the article talk page. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:54, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 15:11, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Zombie passages in "Gun Laws"
Hi. The law described in the broken paragraphs that you removed from the Washington section is actually a reference to the history of California gun laws. California had no licensing system and the carry of firearms was unrestricted until the mid-20th Century. It was in response (knee-jerk) to the ostentation of armed and politically unpalatable Black Panthers that the legislature created the carry permit system that exists today. I'm not as well versed in WA as I am in the CA affair, although I recall that some Seattle and King County ordinances were born of the same reasons, and in nearly the same time frame. Although WA Statutes preempt any incongruous firearms laws created by municipalities, well, there you have it. I did not contribute those wandering passages, but I do reckon their significance. If you're in the mood for some research−tracking down proper sources in this case is a tall order−the complete story would be appropriate to the article topic and would compliment the WA section. If you could not possibly care less, I'm certainly not distressed. This is just a friendly FYI. Cheers. -Digiphi (talk) 06:42, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

The Geth/Tines similarity in A Fire Upon the Deep
I don't get why this isn't a valid addition. Why wouldn't folks want to see Vinge's ideas popping up elsewhere?

I mean yes, clearly Bioware's writers ripped off the idea wholesale. I don't see how burying this link is somehow defending Vinge's honor - if anything, it's showing how his book influenced popular culture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kindatrue (talk • contribs) 22:18, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

AfD
I went ahead and nominated this article for deletion: Articles for deletion/Alternate successions of the English crown. Kitfoxxe (talk) 13:27, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Our Boarding House
I see your point and rewrote to clarify. Pepso2 (talk) 23:42, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

New Article
Hi Tamfang, if you've got the time or inclination, could you assist me on a new article User:Stephen2nd/Royal Labels of the United Kingdom? Although the box-format seems an easy one, there are no existing "Labels with charges-images". As the "charges" are in sets of three and five, each "label-section in the box-format" needs to be re-sectioned to hold either the three, or the five "charges-images". Ta for now, Steve. Stephen2nd (talk) 21:47, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

my holy mission is to stamp out "a thing is a term" language
LOL! I saw this edit summary of yours at the One-night stand article. I like it, and understand what you mean of course. There are some terms here that need to start out as "refers to" instead of "is" (for example, sexual intercourse commonly refers to vaginal sex, but has other definitions too; thus, to say "is" in that case is briefly ignoring those other definitions). But the great majority of articles, should use "is."

Anyway, good work. And funny quote. Flyer22 (talk) 02:09, 9 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I'd say sexual intercourse includes ... —Tamfang (talk) 02:15, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the suggestion. I've been back and forth, and all in between, with that lead. The thing is...so many people first and foremost define sexual intercourse as vaginal sex. Even the first source -- from Encyclopædia Britannica -- defines it that way. That's why I start out the lead with the most common definition. That...and also because of the terms coitus and copulation...which pretty much mean vaginal sex/sex for reproduction. To say "Sexual intercourse, also known as copulation or coitus, includes the act in which the male reproductive organ enters the female reproductive tract" is like a non-brainer to people. But then again, so is "commonly refers to," and "includes" probably works since it is documenting what intercourse entails. If there is another way to word the lead without using "refers to," that gets across the most common definition before going into the other definitions, and without the most common definition initially seeming like the only way to define the term, I am definitely open to hearing it as well. It's just that I've learned starting out with the most common or authoritative definition works best for Wikipedia articles. There have been so many discussions on the talk page about what people do and don't consider intercourse or "real sex," but no one argues against vaginal sex fitting the definition. Flyer22 (talk) 19:06, 9 December 2010 (UTC)


 * An attempt: Sexual intercourse is erotic contact between one person or animal and the reproductive organs of another. The term is applied primarily to vaginal intercourse, and by extension to ... —Tamfang (talk) 19:14, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * "Erotic sexual contact" perhaps? I say that because one person's "erotic" may not be another person's "erotic." But I'm also worried about including outercourse as intercourse as the starting off point, since most aspects of outercourse aren't considered intercourse to most people. The wording "Sexual intercourse is erotic contact between one person or animal and the reproductive organs of another" could be taken to mean outercourse in addition to intercourse (frotting, for example). And for some reason, some people become really upset when we distinguish people from animals. Really, we have had people come on the talk page to point out that humans are animals too, which is why we have an "In other animals" section instead of just an "In animals" section. This is what I mean about my having been all over the lead. I wish I was making it more complicated than it has to be, but my reasons are due to so many past, extensive discussions. I'm sure someone would also ask me to provide a cite for the "applied primarily to vaginal intercourse" part. But, yeah, the lead addresses sexual penetration first, because vaginal sex, anal sex and oral sex are commonly considered intercourse (with vaginal sex being the most commonly cited)...while outercourse is less so considered intercourse. Thus...outercourse is tackled in the second paragraph.


 * I'd say your first suggestion is definitely better than the second, and I might go ahead and trade it in for "commonly refers to." I don't see a problem with "commonly refers to" in this case, for the reasons I stated above, but I wouldn't object to "includes." I was/am just trying to get across the most common definition of sexual intercourse in the most neutral way possible. I thank you for your help. And for putting up with my ramblings, LOL. Flyer22 (talk) 21:21, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Coming back to say: Better yet, the word "involves" would work. I just thought about that when looking at the lead-in for the Vegetarianism article. I hope "involves" doesn't sound too final for the lead-in of the Sexual intercourse article. But even if it does sound that way, we immediately go into how else the word is defined right afterward. I would say "commonly involves" is too much of a "duh" wording, but maybe that would work best as to make clear right off the bat that sexual intercourse does not always involve penis-vagina sex. Flyer22 (talk) 00:08, 10 December 2010 (UTC)