User talk:Xn4/Archive 3

Re: Kenneth Hari
For following up on the article, which might or might not be a hoax, but is certainly not backed up by sources yet. One of the contributors (the namesake of the artist) is currently undoing my reversions, and keeps re-inserting the questionable passages in other bios. Feel free to jump in! JNW 04:47, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

It seems you are right. Good work. JNW 04:58, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Just to clarify - we're talking about Kenneth Hari. He certainly seems to be telling what we used to call "fibs" but he does exist and does make paintings. See my comment on his talk page about his claims to have made "official portraits" of private individuals (a statement that is false on the face of it, because there's no such thing as an "official portrait" of a private individual) and he also claims (very improbably) to have gone back and made 25 to 30 more portraits-from-life of the same people. One possible reason for claiming such an improbable thing is to be able to sell paintings as "done from the life" even if they weren't. Macspaunday 13:09, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Well done! to whoever deleted this article. Xn4  06:23, 3 November 2007 (UTC)


 * This page came under attack this morning from three IP addresses in the USA intent on promoting Kenneth Hari, in -
 * S Cooper St, Arlington, TX (024.000.021.173)
 * Essex Avenue, Edison, NJ (67.85.242.195)
 * W 54th Street, New York, NY (66.92.109.66)
 * In particular, the blanking of the page isn't appreciated, but it's a mistake to think that anything can be deleted from a surviving page of Wikipedia - everything remains in the page's history, and all vandalism will sooner or later be reverted. The only effect of such behaviour is to make those responsible look childish. So please stop. Xn4  19:09, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I FIND YOUR WORDS ABOUT KENNETH HARI  TO BE WRONG. KENNETH HARI IS ONE OF THE FINEST ARTIST AND MOST CREDIBLE PERSONS I HAVE EVER MET..HE IS A TRUE GENIUS IN THE WORLD OF ART  AND WHO ARE YOU...? WHY DO YOU NOT USE YOUR REAL NAME .. PERHAPS YOU SHOULD TALK WITH HIM LIKE A REAL PERSON .. GIVE HIM A CALL —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.125.80.6 (talk) 22:07, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Who, for that matter, are you? Xn4  22:09, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I AM DR .JOHN EASTMAN...I HAVE CREDENTAILS  DO YOU?


 * But you don't appear to have an account here or a signature yet. May I ask, are you the person who blanked this talk page from the IP address 024.000.021.173 yesterday? That editor also wrote in capital letters only. Xn4  22:26, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

DEAR SIR OR MADAME, NO IT IS NOT I WHO BLANKED OUT YOUR PAGE..THAT MAY HAVE BEEN A STUDENT.WE ARE SORRY FOR THIS TYPE OF BEHAVIOR. I WRITE IN CAPITALS BECAUSE OF MY EYESIGHT ..PLEASE EXCUSE THAT.. WE REALLY NEED YOUR HELP WITH THE KENNETH HARI MATTER... HE IS A WONDERFUL ARTIST AND HE DOCUMENTS ALL HIS WORK..WITH A NOTARY. HE HAS PAINTED ALL THE PEOPLE HE SAID HE DID ( FROM LIFE SITTINGS ) AND MR. HARI IS PHOTGRPAHED WITH HIS SUBJECTS. MAESTRO HARI ALSO DEVELOPED THE OPTICAL CRYSTAL MATERIAL FOR SCULPTURE. HE HAS KEPT WONDERFUL RECORDS. CAN YOU HELP US WITH THIS MATTER? TO SAY HE DOES NOT TELL THE TRUTH ( FIB ) WOULD BE A MISTAKE. I TRULY THINK THAT ARTIST KENNETH HARI WILL MAKE A WONDERFUL CONTRIBUTION TO WIKIPEDIA. I GATHER YOU ARE AN ARTIST AND UNDERSTAND .YOU CAN REACH KENNETH HARI. HAVE A WONDERFUL HOLIDAY. I THANK YOU FOR YOUR HELP IN THIS MATTER.I AWAIT YOUR REPLY. TRULY, DR. JOHN EASTMAN —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.142.159.165 (talk) 06:24, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

IF YOU ARE JNW, YOUR PAINTING OF ADRIANE IS BEAUTIFUL AND YOUR CONTRIBUTIONS TO WIKIPEDIA ARE HONORABLE. DR. JOHN EASTMAN —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.142.159.165 (talk) 06:44, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your interest, but I'm not JNW (you can click on that name to go to his or her page) and I also haven't said anything about Mr Hari not telling the truth. With all due respect, I think I'd rather not have any more part in this matter. Regards, Xn4  12:04, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

DEAR SIRS OR MADAME, ( MYSTERY PERSON ), YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO SPEAK OF MAESTRO KENNETH HARI IN A NEGATIVE MANNER IF YOU KNOW NOTHING ABOUT THIS WONDERFUL MAN...HOW CAN YOU TELL THE TRUTH... PLEASE BE CAREFUL WHAT YOU SAY ABOUT MAESTRO HARI.WITH ALL DUE RESPECT TO HIM.

HAVE A WONDERFUL HOLIDAY..AND REMEMBER KNOWLEDGE AND HISTORICAL FACT IS WHAT WIKIPEDIA SHOULD AND COULD BE ABOUT.

DR. JOHN EASTMAN

CC: MR. JIMMY WELLS FLORIDA, OFFICE —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.142.159.165 (talk) 15:33, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm watching the article Fine art. Like the editors reverting them, I don't find your edits there constructive. Xn4  01:33, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

DEAR SIRS OR MADAME, I MADE NO EDITS IN FINE ART OF WIKIPEDIA.. I UNDERSTAND YOUR CONSERN..I AGREE WITH YOU...I RESPECT WIKIPEDIA AND HAVE NO INTENTIONS OF BEING DESRESPECTFULL TO SAME. I WILL ONLY MAKE IMPORTANT CONTRIBUTIONS TO WIKIPEDIA. AGAIN I TRULY THINK THAT ARTIST MAESTRO KENNETH HARI STILL BELIEVES THAT MR. WELLS IS DOING WONDERFUL WORK WITH WIKIPEDIA..SOME SORT OF HAKER IS DOING THESE AWFUL THINGS AND IT IS VERY DISRESPECTFUL TO YOU. I DO NOT CONDONE VANDALISIM... TRULY, DR. JOHN EASTMAN


 * If you look here, you'll see that someone using your IP address has three times added material promoting Hari to the Fine art article, although no other artist is named there. May I ask, are you the John Eastman who works for the John Watson gallery, which sells Hari's work? Xn4  09:40, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

DEAR SIRS OR MADAME, I AM ON THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE JOHN WATSON GALLERY ( FOUNDED IN 1730 IN PERTH AMBOY, NEW JERSEY ) TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION ABOUT MY IP ADDRESS I HAVE NOW PUT A LOCK ON THE SAME.... I TOO AM UPSET THAT SOMEONE HAS GONE INTO MY IP ADDRESS AND CAUSED PROBLEMS FOR WIKIPEDIA AND MAESTRO KENNETH HARI. I CAN ASSURE YOU I WILL GET TO THE BOTTOM OF THIS SITUATION...THANK YOU FOR ALL OF YOUR RESPECT. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.142.159.165 (talk) 14:28, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Dear Xn4, Thank you for updating me on this. You have handled this very well. For the most part, it is not within our purview to determine whether Mr. Hari was a great artist or a fine human being. From the point of view of an encyclopedia, the relevant question is whether a subject's notability has been established via reliable sources and scholarship. Whoever has promoted Mr Hari thus far has yet to provide adequate published documentation from a neutral source, and has displayed no interest in honoring the guidelines of an encyclopedic venture. Cheers, JNW (talk) 22:42, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, I did not realize that a coterie of ip addresses was vandalizing your talk page. Something really childish afoot, and hardly meriting acknowledgement. Again, kudos for your good work and level-headed responses. JNW (talk) 22:56, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

To Recognise YOU...

 * Thanks very much, Bluegoblin7! Xn4  17:24, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi again
I saw you had a new article and thought I'd join in. I tried to put it forward for "Did you know" but couldn't find a "hook". I therefore did some research ... added that.. and hence this hook.


 * ...that the odds of Sir John Eardley Wilmot, an eminent judge also having a eminent grandson were calculated in Galton's book Hereditary Genius as 30 to 1 against? by User:Xn4 nom by Victuallers 11:47, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Hope you like it ... but if not don't worry you have 5 days to change it before it should go on the main page. Cheers Victuallers 11:47, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

--Oh and you dropped this

Well done!

Incorrect Accusation
Recently by this username, I was accused of joking about on the Queen Margaret High School page, which I have never been on. I do not have an account with Wikipedia and this accusation was blamed on me is nonsense. I am a frequent user of Wikipedia and use it wisely. I am aware of the rules so you must have the wrong person. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.145.133.228 (talk) 22:22, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Hello. This is about my comment here, which is to do with Queen Elizabeth High School, Hexham. Please see this edit by 86.145.133.228, which changed "an Ofsted inspection judged the school to be outstanding" to "an Ofsted inspection judged the school to be all right, i suppose". If not by you, then you may find you have a shared IP address. Don't worry, the simple answer is to create a user account. I hope this is helpful. Xn4  23:44, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

John Eardley Wilmot
Hi. Just wanted to let you know that your article on John Eardley Wilmot was included in Veropedia. You can find it here. If you have any other articles you would recommend, please let us know. Thanks. Danny 13:58, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi, Danny. Thanks for letting me know. Xn4  14:48, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Veropedia takes "your" article Sir John Eardley-Wilmot. I thought I would take a look at what you had written. I can only find 2 links inserted by Xn4. Even if the ownership of articles were encouraged, this seem a small contribution (though, no doubt, worthy and significant) on which to assign authorship. There are about 10 other non-Bot names showing in the history. I can't see you as the sort who would take credit for others' work. There must be something here I am failing to comprehend. Bielle (talk) 20:58, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * It's okay, Bielle. Sir John Eardley-Wilmot was the grandson of Sir John Eardley Wilmot. It's the article on the grandfather (apart from the infobox and the succession box) which is nearly all by me. Xn4  21:41, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * And the answer was, "Yes, there is something you are failing to comprehend, Bielle". However, you are much too polite to put it quite so boldly, even having been offered the words. I never was good at dates, always skipping them when reading. I used to be a text book editor, but I would never edit a history book. I would have been found the next day, non-repro-blue pencil still in hand, drooling on the page proofs.
 * For what it is worth to you, I am sorry to find you involved with Veropedia, though. "Vetted" articles are not what Wikipedia is about, and article ownership is the antithesis of its writing principles. Veropedia by itself is one thing. "Helping" Wikipedia to become something it is not, by feeding the expert articles back into WP, thereby subverts the very experiment which is at the heart of Wikipedia. If Wikipedia is changed by virtue of what Veropedia does, then Veropedia will not have helped Wikipedia except to its destruction. Citizendium at least does not want to force its ideas of who is qualified to write what onto Wikipedia. Perhaps you have another view. Bielle (talk) 22:16, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I can't say I know much about Veropedia, but I've seen Angr's page If, which offers some warnings about it. As I have a high opinion of her, I take what she says seriously. To my surprise, I noticed yesterday that that page had been proposed for deletion, and at Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Angr/If I added the comment "Keep - useful factual page, in good faith." On Sir John Eardley Wilmot, Danny let me know that he'd uploaded it to Veropedia and I had no right to object to that, so I saw no harm in a polite answer. The main point Angr makes is that we need to keep a particular eye on any articles which are taken up by Veropedia, and I do that. I don't have an account at Veropedia, so I hope no one will get the impression that I'm involved with it. Regards, Xn4  22:48, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * There are some interesting approaches being used with respect to introducing Veropedia. It's being advertised by way of user name, and it would appear that first approaches to many individuals are openly made on talk pages. The notification to you is set up as if you had been asked about some of "your" articles and you had selected this one for Veropedia. Your polite answer, and I believe they are counting on such thing as politleness, and positive feelings about being asked to be involved with some "expert" group, is also a part of what appears to be a plan to get as many positive and/or neutral instances of the name as possible onto Wikipedia, so that readers and editors alike start thinking that Wikipedia ia specifically working with Veropedia, that this conjunction has received the blessings of the power-that-be. There have been two negative bits of which I am aware. The first was the response to the advertisement of the Core Article Improvement contest in all the page headers, once again as if it were an official Wikipedia project. That has now gone, after a lot of protest. The second is Angr's review, which I do believe would be the stronger for the change from Viropedia back to Veropedia. That looks like a solid Keep from here, but I will watch it. Her point is well taken as a concern. I still have my concern that the whole method of writing articles, "expertising" them at Veropedia, and then re-inserting them back into Wikipedia, is an arrogant way of slithering past the "anyone can edit" to accommodate the people who really never have wanted anyone except themselves (being the experts) to be involved. In other words, they want to change the whole point of Wikipedia. It reminds of a doctor who might suggest that she can cure all of my physical ailments, but I would become superwoman in the process. (I get tired just thinking about all those clothes changes, for a start.) I wouldn't be "me" anymore, and being "me" is important to me. Being Wikipedia, not a repository for expert articles, is important to Wikipedia. I think Agr and I both would be content with everything that Veropedia wants to do, except to re-insert the texts into Wikipedia. That's my rant for today. Thanks for lending me a bit of your talk page. Feel free to delete it if it is not appropriate. Bielle (talk) 23:30, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

DYK

 * Many thanks for letting me know, Carabinieri! Although I'm the main author of the article, the hook used was contributed by Victuallers. Xn4  18:55, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Kingshott School
Want another challenge? Tiddly - Tom 21:19, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

DYK
I was pleased to see your article made the picture slot. Its almost a photograph quality pic. I had seen this but not included it as I couldn't find enough evidence to put it into commons ...I see you have. Well done. I admit my hook was a "little tart" of a hook but at the time there was little that was "hooky". The Americam link would have done it. Actually I think the picture was the best hook as it pictures his achievement. Not sure if you resented my blitz on your creation, if so, then please say... Not sure what you meant by OD in your comment.. as in another one. There is another Derbyshire article in prep about the 6th Earl of Derby coming up. Can you add to it?


 * ...that after Robert de Ferrers, the 6th Earl of Derby was pardoned for his part in a civil war against King Edward, he did it again? by Chevin nom by Victuallers 09:23, 9 November 2007 (UTC)Victuallers 09:12, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi, Victuallers. In this context, an OD is an Old Derbeian. Thanks for your message, I also thought that picture was a lucky find. On your latest nominated article, I'll see if there's anything I can do. Regards,  Xn4  14:46, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Outstanding!
Beyond my appreciation for your answering my Humanities ref desk query, may I express my admiration for the depth, breadth, and sheer speed of your response! You provided a meaningful matrix for grasping the values involved, caveats included. I'm sure anyone who reads your answer will be enriched by it, not the least for its being an exemplary treatment by any standard.

As quid pro quo, I'll explain the object of my interest as soon as I have the material at hand again. Watch this space! -- Cheers, Deborahjay 00:53, 14 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your kind words, Deborah, and happy holidays! Xn4  01:19, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Jillson and Reed
Hi! Thanks for your response.63.3.22.2 (talk) 18:42, 18 November 2007 (UTC) I'm looking for info on vaudeville duo, Jillson and Reed.

Thanks so much for your help! The info you lead me to has been most helpful.209.244.188.132 (talk) 20:43, 18 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Glad I could help. Xn4  17:09, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

DYK

 * Many thanks for letting me know, Zzyzx11. Xn4  14:06, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

John Mawe
Hi, good work on John Mawe, but somehow the ref name for the old DNB has got broken, I can't see quite how, but I think it happened when you combined the refs for the new DNB, I'll have another look, but am a bit new to using the citeweb template! DuncanHill (talk) 01:10, 22 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, I'm sorry about the broken reference, but I've at last found the problem and fixed it. Xn4  01:29, 22 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Cool, thanks. I'm really pleased with the way the article has attracted so many positive contributions from editors - it's a great example of editors working together to improve Wikipedia. Thanks again for your improvements, DuncanHill (talk) 01:31, 22 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Could you check that the links to google books I've just inserted work propwerly? They work for me, but would like them double-checked - I've linked some of his works, so readers can go straight to the texts mentioned. Thanks, DuncanHill (talk) 02:25, 22 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, those links (and others to archive.org and Oxford Digital Books) are all working for me. Xn4  13:17, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks again - I am so pleased with how the article has developed. DuncanHill (talk) 23:03, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

dyk
Fine ... may take me to Tuesday to do the nom. Do you know anyone with some graphics skills? I think a Ferrers coat of arms would come in useful. Ive seen it and it looks pretty easy. Oh... would you like to find a hook for Thomas Bancroft? Victuallers (talk) 17:46, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I've found a hook and nominated Thomas Bancroft. For these arms, is it an image of vairy or and gules you're after? Xn4  19:10, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


 * 1) Didnt understand the arms question ... I was just thinking a red and yellow shield would brighten the page ...
 * 2) Did you know Sarah Mawe is on the next update of DYK?
 * 3) I've added a picture to the Marquess of Dorset - I think every article should have a pic even if its not 100% relevant ... hope its OK
 * 4) Ive added a dorset hook... OK?
 * 5) I really like the hook you wrote - unfortunately they are complaining about length. I suggest
 * ...that Thomas Bancroft's last collection of verse included satires against whoring, gluttony, alcoholism, hedonism, lying, pride in clothing, false friends, ambition, cowardice, cruelty, and the abuse of poetry?

I love that added extra of "the abuse of poetry" ... not an obvious choice for sinners I think?Victuallers (talk) 20:41, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for all that. You wrote - "Didnt understand the arms question"... I meant, is this the coat of arms you have in mind, or some other one? Xn4  22:11, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Another DYK

 * Many thanks for letting me know, Royalbroil. Xn4  02:38, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

DYK

 * Many thanks for letting me know, Carabinieri. Xn4  02:37, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

DYK

 * Many thanks for letting me know, Daniel. Xn4  02:37, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Dorset
It looks good to me: well researched; well written; well laid out; well referenced. Well done! Clio the Muse (talk) 23:28, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Many thanks Clio. Glad you couldn't find much wrong. I thought perhaps I relied too much on the DNB, but it makes life so easy. I'll just mention, I was pleased to stumble on the love story of Sir Richard Woodville and Jacquetta of Luxembourg. Just occasionally, truth can be stranger than fiction! Xn4  02:34, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Megullia Dotata
Your input would be appreciated on the new article Megullia Dotata. --Doug talk 21:21, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi, Doug. I've added a little to your new article. I do have a copy of Boccaccio’s On Famous Women (mine is the Guarino translation), and I'm bound to say it's a problem that even Boccaccio has so little on Megullia! His short biography is nearly all padding... kind regards, Xn4  22:07, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the improvements. If you care to, your thoughts on the matter at this article's entry on the Articles for deletion page would be appreciated. --Doug talk 22:11, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Done. Xn4  03:00, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Volumnius Flamma Violens
See Talk: Lucius Volumnius Flamma Violens. --Doug talk 14:05, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I've replied there. Xn4  01:02, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Towers of Trebizond.jpg
BetacommandBot 20:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Please see Image talk:Towers of Trebizond.jpg. Xn4  01:52, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

The Afghans of the Bridle Path
Now that was funny, though you had to be a Torontonian, or have lived there a long time to have known how utterly startling the juxtaposition of vast numbers of any recent (within 100 years or so) immigrant group with that neighbourhood. I have been assuming that you were a Londoner. Perhaps you were/are or, perhaps not. It doesn't matter. The joke still works. It may be, however, that some of those who don't "get it" will have objections to equating immigrant groups with dogs, however high their pedigree (and noses). (I have been wrong about a similar thought when Clio made her comment about Decadent Art, so I may be wrong again.) Thanks for the surprise and the laugh. Bielle (talk) 03:08, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi, Bielle. No, I'm truly from darkest Barsetshire, but I have some relations in one of the leafier bits of Toronto. Perhaps I should heed your warning and stay away from the Sudan for a year or two. Xn4  03:25, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * "One of the leafier bits"! I love it and I shall think of you when I use it. (I always feel as though I should have my legs and my car waxed before I drive the Bridle Path.) As for avoiding the Sudan, religious controversies aside, no country that actively segregates its women as second-class citizens will ever be on my visiting list. You might want to stay away from O'Connor and Parkview, however. Bielle (talk) 03:57, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Ah, you should see my short article on The Towers of Trebizond. Aunt Dot had a plan to emancipate the women of Turkey by converting them to Anglicanism. Xn4  04:09, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * That sounds like the perfect book to accompany sitting in the living room in front of the woodstove, watching the flames on one side and the snow fall on the other, both separated from me by glass. We have had 25 cm of the wicked white stuff arrive in the past 36 hours, which means the pond and the woodlot are gorgeous to look at, but the local roads are tedious to drive. We have "leafy" by the acre, but it is a long way from your relatives and buried in snow to boot. Thanks for tonight's amusment. Bielle (talk) 06:02, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Then perhaps Rose Macaulay's previous book, The World My Wilderness, about a maquisarde. I don't have miles to go before I sleep, the moment has come. Xn4  06:18, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Tessalate
Looks great! It will brighten up a lot of the Ferrers articles.... you should be asleep? Victuallers (talk) 04:59, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * In partibus infidelium sum. Xn4  05:03, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

DYK

 * Many thanks for letting me know, Woody. Xn4  15:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Lords and laughs
I'm reasonably certain that this is the artist formerly known as Lord Loxley. You may remember him? Anyway, he was banned under that name. Clio the Muse (talk) 02:40, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Aha, then he may rely on his own memories of the greenwood gossip from his incarnation as Robin Hood! Xn4  02:52, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

DYK

 * Many thanks for letting me know, Carabinieri. Xn4  21:27, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


 * ...which in turn caused me to write la:Cornificia. Thanks for the inpiration and information! --Iustinus (talk) 04:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm flattered that you've found it helpful, Iustine! Xn4  21:27, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Ancient Greece
Perhaps you might be familiar with ancient Greece and/or ancient music / poetry. I am trying to add a Music section to the article Sappho, however another editor will not allow any part I have added even though it is a large part of her life. I have many excellent references to show what I said - which is just a small section with just the basics. Could you look over the edits I did 19:09 today to see what it would take to add such a section. At this point in time, nothing is allowed. A debate is on the Talk page of the article. Thanks.Doug talk 21:44, 13 December 2007 (UTC) P.S. Use my next edit at 19:11 for seeing the references I added in the reference list, since a previous editor left out a that then drops all other references past his number 17 - which I corrected but is back in again since my edits have been reverted.--Doug talk 21:59, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi, Doug. I've repaired the broken reference you've spotted and also left a note at Talk:Sappho. It's always possible to learn from Wareh, he does know his subject! I agree with him that we need to avoid presenting non-contemporary material (or fiction like the work of Ovid) as if it were factual. Wareh isn't hostile to the principle of a Music section, but it will need to be carefully referenced, not least, of course, from Sappho's own work. Xn4  23:04, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. --Doug talk 23:06, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Re your message
Sorry I couldn't get to your message you left on my talk page. I wasn't at my computer at the time. :)

-- V S i m o n i a n ( [talk] - [contribs] - [email] ) 05:00, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Outrageous claims by User:Michaelsanders
Please visit Talk:List_of_titles_and_honours_of_the_Spanish_Crown and contact this user to stop readding positively false claims of pretension on the part of the Spanish monarchy. This adds to the stereotype of the monarchy being totally up and in the clouds, simply by a violation of WP:NPOV. Thank you. 24.255.11.149 (talk) 06:23, 15 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I've moved the title of Byzantine Emperor from Titles held by the King of Spain (which at worst is mistaken and at best is very uncertain) into a new section headed Eastern Roman Empire, reading as follows -
 * The last titular Byzantine Emperor, Andreas Palaiologos, sold his imperial title to Ferdinand II of Aragon and Isabella of Castile before his death in 1502. However, the sale of such a title in pretense was of uncertain validity and no kings of Spain are known to have used the title of Roman or Byzantine Emperor, except that Charles I of Spain was elected as Holy Roman Emperor in 1519.


 * I hope this edit is a fair compromise between including the title in the list and excluding it from the article? I've also added a note to the article's talk page. I don't really feel I should take the matter up with Michaelsanders direct, I don't have any authority to do that. If there's an ongoing edit war, then the best way to resolve it is discussion on the talk page. Regards, Xn4  08:20, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm quite sure that he doesn't care to respect my efforts, simply because I haven't chosen an account. 24.255.11.149 (talk) 17:33, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Gualdrada
Hi Xn4! I just wrote a new article on Boccaccio's biography 103 on Gualdrada. Whenever you have some free time look it over and make any improvements you feel appropriate. Since you also have a copy of De mulieribus claris translated by Guarino, perhaps you can add another reference. Thanks. --Doug talk 21:13, 18 December 2007 (UTC) P.S. Also just wrote biography 97 Faltonia Betitia Proba--- look it over also if you would.--Doug talk 21:22, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Jane
Thanks, Tarzan! Clio the Muse (talk) 00:24, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry to be the killjoy, but fair use images like Image:Vbrown.jpg must not be used outside of article space; see WP:NFCC no. 9. Sandstein (talk) 06:27, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

DYK its Christmas?



 * Merry Christmas! Victuallers. Xn4  21:15, 24 December 2007 (UTC)