User talk:Eric/Archive 1, 2006 thru 2012

It's late over here, so I will give it some thought overnight. I will get back to you tomorrow. - Mgm|^(talk) 21:32, 8 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

• Nah, contacting me here ensures I see it almost immediately. It may be weeks before I check the talk page for a specific article. I'll check some online translation sites to see what they think. The German->Dutch dictionary on my shelf says "shack" may be a good translation, but I want to check online translation services too before I make a final decision on the matter. - Mgm|^(talk) 07:56, 9 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

You told me you're new and I saw you did mostly small edits. Can I interest you in written an article? It doesn't have to be long, but I'd like to see at least a non-stub on various subjects and I can't write them all myself. If you do, there's a Barnstar in it for you. If you like the idea, I'd like to hear what your interests are, so I can suggest some much-needed articles. I know a full article can be daunting, but I'd be happy to offer support along the way. It's a great way to learn those little tricks of the trade. See ya later! - Mgm|^(talk) 19:27, 9 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

I'm not sure if "broodheer" can be translated as breadmaster. Does the word breadmaster exist in English? - Mgm|^(talk) 21:53, 10 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

• Yes, "broodheer" does sound funny in Dutch, but only because it's such an old word. I'll see if I can find some sort of confirmed translation as soon as I can. - Mgm|^(talk) 18:21, 13 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Do you know of a shortcut to add a link to one's own Talk page on one's signature, the way I've seen you and others do?

• You need to put [[User talk:EHM02667|talk]] in the box in your preferences (along with what else you want to display - like your regular userpage) and check 'raw signatures'. The date doesn't need to be included. What I typed above is the shortest way to type your talk page link.

Is there a preferred format for quoting a post from one's Talk page (italics above) when one wants to include it in a reply on the poster's Talk page?

• No, as far as I know there's no standard format. To tell the truth, I don't even always quote the other side of the conversation when I answer.

I will see if I can find an interesting article project for you. - Mgm|^(talk) 22:31, 17 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi EHM02667,

Check these out. [1] [2] Rfrisbie^talk 22:36, 19 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Votre français est parfait, je me permet d'écrire en français. Effectivement, il semble y avoir une erreur dans l'article. Je vais me documenter et changer cela.

C'est vrai que j'habite dans une région très agréable. Il y a plein de superbes sentiers de randonnée qui vous attendent. Romary 18:45, 21 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Je viens de comprendre le problème, il y un sentier GR 11 en espagne ([3]) et un en France. J'ai fait deux articles fr:GR 11 (France) et fr:GR 11 (Espagne). Romary 19:06, 21 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hey there EHM, many thanks for your help on Architecture of Sweden - I queried the Bergher translation on English - German translations talk page - and a user there told me the German wikipedia gave 3 distinct definitions of Burgher - I also discussed it at User_talk:Lectonar#Many_thanks_for_your_offer. We've kept the medieval Freeman/craftsman link rather than the more modern 'citizen' meaning because it seemed more appropriate for the middle ages section. Regarding Festung - yes, I take your point, the trouble is the German wiki version isn't any clearer - perhaps we rewrite the sentence to encompass both meanings - just a tic I'll have a look. --Mcginnly | Natter 16:32, 3 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Ok I've done that now - what do you think? --Mcginnly | Natter 16:36, 3 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

I've noticed that too. The intro section doesn't get a header, so it doesn't get an edit section button. I wish it did, but it's probably a software issue. You just have to edit the whole thing if you want to change something in the intro, unfortunately.

Yeah, LOTR is getting loads vandalism.. doesn't help that my current connection seems ridiculously slow.. so frustrating when I want to zap some nonsense. --Fang Aili ^talk 17:31, 5 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

And welcome to the 'pedia! Looks like you're off to a great start. :) --Fang Aili ^talk 17:33, 5 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

I think you did the right thing posting to my talk page, in this instance. You might want to post about section headers and intro edit buttons at the Community Portal, or find the technie questions page (not sure exactly where). I bet ya this is a question for a developer. They might already be working on related code (just a guess). Does that help? --Fang Aili ^talk 18:50, 5 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your questions - just adding my response here in addition to on my talk page.

• fr link: Look on the left-hand side of the page. You'll see a box titled "In other languages" - in there, there's now a link called "Français" which links to the relevant page. This is the standard way to link a page to its counterparts in other languages. (Have a look at a page like Brussels and you'll see the same thing done for virtually every different major language wikipedia.)
• category: You mean the category Category:Hiking trails in Europe? I think this is the best category to include the page GR 11 (France) in. I don't think there's a more specific one that's better at the moment. Do you disagree? It's helpful because it allows people to easily locate articles on related hiking trails. --David Edgar 09:53, 6 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Yes, you are right, I was changing from American to British style, but further, I believe that putting punctuation marks inside quotation marks makes the punctuation look like it is part of the quote. To my mind, that is just wrong. Maybe take this to Talk:The Lord of the Rings and see if others have opinions? Carcharoth 16:31, 9 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Eric. I'm sorry to say that whatever is wrong with this page, it doesn't show up in my browsers, so if there's still a problem I can't really help fix it. It might have something to do with the combination of two infoboxes, though; on occasion that sort of thing has pushed text down the page, so a temporary fix might be to move the second box away from the start of the article. Josh

I've fixed it, if it was the issue you were thinking of. HAving multiple sidebars in a section that push past one or more other sections causes some text to shift incorrectly. It's generally a good idea not to have things stacked so tightly. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:27, 12 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Ah! Inhabits... good word. Yes, the box now lives in the "description" section. If multiple items are added to the description section, they'd stack together. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:56, 12 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Ugh... Incubus was so bad..... - UtherSRG (talk) 15:33, 12 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Dunno why we remove the pores - I ate them and Suillus granulatus in a stew when I was a kid with my dad in New Zealand. I think I have read somewhere it was a good idea (critters in the pores???). I'll google it later or have a squiz in me fungus books when I get home. cheers Cas Liber 04:05, 13 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

You made a move request at WP:RM for Départements of France, but I closed the request early and commented on the talk page of the article since the request was incomplete. Feel free to request the move again by completing the instructions at WP:RM#Steps for requesting a controversial page move. -- tariqabjotu 09:47, 14 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Eric, thanks for the note about fr:Relativité (philosophie). I have to say that it's not really my field either, but I'll check the refs you found and see if I can bodge up something for here. Thanks again ! Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:25, 17 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for pointing out my error. The phrase is one we learned in school; one memorized passages and conversations in French, then learned the associated grammar. This particular passage seems to be the only one that people (who did the same program) remember: a warrant officer and I were in the mess one day after work with a few "barley sandwiches", and out of the blue, I said, "Tu connais Marcel Martin?" and he replied almost automatically "Mais oui, nous sommes de bons copians." He then realized what he said, looked at me with bewilderment, and said, "What the %$#& was that?" We both went through the same school system -- twenty-plus years ago -- and both consider ourselves monolingual anglophones. The only other things I really remember are a longer conversation between two guys on a beach discussing lemonade, "SEPARATED MAD MAN" (a mnemonic for remembering verbs that take the auxiliary être in the passé composé), and my French labs: "Écoutez puis imitez...". Amazing what sticks in your head after all these years. À la prochaine. -SigPig 13:56, 24 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

I have not seen you message immediatly. Thanks for the correction. Romary 10:55, 25 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

I do not how to translate "sidebar" (« barre de coté », « barre de navigation » ??) in French, "link to" is « lien vers ». Romary 18:46, 26 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

G'day and welcome, looks good - you're rigth about Suillaceae so either one of us can change it (I'm running out the door to work and Wikipedia is trés slow there. I always italicise scientific names unless it is a very well known common name (like Grevillea). Naming convention is first word in capitals then small afterwards.

mnre later Cas Liber 21:09, 2 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

PS: there is no hard and fast rules on measurement or english v american english (as I am Australian, I use metric and english english) - as long as the article is consistent. cheers Cas Liber 21:16, 2 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Umm, I don't think so. If it is a page I have edited in the past then it will automatically turn up on my watchlist. Otherwise if there is a whole bunch drop me a note and tell me to look at your contributions which will show everything you've been working on. I'll recognise the fungi :) Cas Liber 20:50, 3 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

First of all, I'm not the best person to ask about this. I just happened to look at that talk page and see a request for a trivial change that needed admin privileges, so I did it. I had no idea what you were talking about at first. Second of all, we can't just change Template:Commons, we'd have to change all of the templates in Category:Interwiki link templates, because they match. Third of all, maybe the source of your confusion is that you're thinking of the template as an inline element, when it's really a floating element. It's supposed to float off to the side while text flows around it. In Leccinum aurantiacum, the "See also" section was effectively empty because it contained no text, only a floating template, which doesn't really belong to a section. —Keenan Pepper 06:29, 4 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi SDC- I saw your AWB change to the hyphenated adjective "privately-owned" on Cape Cod. The term "privately-owned" is correct for that sentence because it is a compound adjective that precedes the noun. You will often see hyphenated adjectives used incorrectly, as in: "These houses are privately-owned." I guess the AWB designer is probably trying to find and correct such instances, but the bot is not yet sophisticated enough to analyze every case properly. I'm not terribly passionate about this, but wanted to remind you that AWB and other spell-checking routines are not foolproof and need human supervision. BTW, here's a cool pic from today with a title missing a hyphen: [4]. -Eric ^(talk) 13:38, 7 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi Eric: My removal of these hyphens is causing trouble. "Privately-owned" is never correct, whether it precedes a noun or not. "privately-owned" is not a compound adjective; it's an adverb/adjective combination. Check any manual of style or the Hyphen article. With an -ly adverb, a hyphen really is redundant. Here's an article which explains it: [5]. Does this clear it up? SDC 13:45, 7 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi SDC- I agree that many -ly adverbs don't want a hyphen between them and an adjective that follows. A quick search finds several sources including the combination "adverb + adjective" as one of the constructions defined under "compound adjective." I see why you don't think the hyphen should be there, and it looks like most sources would agree with you, but I saw some evidence that I might have a few comrades in my dirty camp. For now we will not act out in the open, but in our remote hideout we will convene secretly and continue to treat "privately" + "owned" in front of a noun as a single element that acts as an adjective. -Eric ^(talk) 15:18, 7 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

This really shouldn't be a matter of personal preference. I checked every style guide including Wikipedia's hyphen article. Every official source says that such hyphens are incorrect. Even some of the links you just showed me say not to use the hyphen. So I think we need to go with official policy here. Is there a higher authority to whom we should appeal? There are numerous instances of -ly- here in Wikipedia, but they are in the minority as my searches with AWB indicate. I will continue to remove these hyphens until I see a style manual that says they are appropriate. SDC 20:06, 7 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

No need to appeal. Sorry, I didn't mean for you to think I was arguing to keep hyphenating those cases on Wikipedia--I'm not. I wasn't pointing to those web sources to support my view; I wanted to show the definitions they gave for compound adjective. Maybe for me, "privately-" is a special case--I don't know. I don't have time to research a logical argument for it; it just looks better to me, in the way "well-behaved boy" looks better than "well behaved boy." In any case, I have no intention of pushing my non-conforming instinct on others. -Eric ^(talk) 20:31, 7 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

SDC is mistaken. I've pointed out several cases where removing a hyphen is the wrong thing to do, and asked SDC to try to clean up the mess, at user talk:SDC#Machines shouldn't dictate writing style. —Michael Z. 2006-11-14 18:10 Z

Hello David- Why did you put the division names back in the plural? Have you found some consensus on this? I had made them singular a while back because that seems more appropriate to me for a reference work. -Eric ^(talk) 14:33, 22 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

I guess that at the time it seemed appropriate, as the terms are referring to particular sets of administrative divisions (viz. those of France) that each have more than one member... Does that make sense...?  Yours, David Kernow (talk) 06:01, 23 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Well, it doesn't not make sense, and both approaches are used on Wikipedia, but I think such terms should be written in their most basic form, the way entry words appear in a dictionary, e.g. "state", not "states". I don't know if it's worth me pushing for it too much, though, since, in the interest of consistency, we'd then have to re-examine titles like Departments of France. If I were king, that title would be more like "Department (French administrative division)". But, in our online democracy, it would probably take too much campaigning to "fix" those titles. -Eric ^(talk) 15:16, 23 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

I recognise what you mean, but, on reflection, I think I'd opt for the plurals "of [country]" as a singular (1) might give the impression that all divisions so named are roughly equivalent (e.g. the scope of a "district" in one country being roughly the same as a "district" in another – not always the case!); and (2) as with "Department ([country] administrative division)", more disambiguation would probably be required overall... Regards, David (talk) 16:12, 23 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Re: (1), I don't think there'd be any danger of confusion there as long as the reader is familiar with the Wikipedia disambiguation format. From what I've seen in titles here, the only purpose of the part in parentheses is to distinguish the term from other uses of that same term in English (especially other occurrences of the same term in the English Wikipedia). The article itself will make clear how the administrative/geographic division differs from other classes of divisions. Re: (2), I agree. Regards, -Eric ^(talk) 19:58, 23 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

It is nice to know someone has read it. :-)

La Côte d'Or est une ligne de hauteur, située en Bourgogne et surplombant à l'ouest la plaine de la Saône. La Côte d'Or est couverte de vignobles réputés et a donné son nom au département de la Côte-d'Or en 1790. Copied from fr:Côte d'Or. This calls it a 'ligne d'hauteur' which does not translate very well into English but would be a 'line of heights'... overhanging the Saône plain from the west, which is sort of true but does not express matters very well.

le carrefour dijonnais et la Côte d'Or, dernier escarpement abrupt de la «  Montagne  », qui porte l'un des vignobles les plus fameux de France. Copied from fr:Géographie de la Bourgogne. This too is in a rather literary style but does it not baulk at the word 'escarpment'.

I am not on thoroughly firm ground because it is not as clean-cut an escarp as that of the North Downs for example, being rather more broken by valleys but escarpment seems a reasonable description, indeed, the best available. (RJP 00:10, 2 January 2007 (UTC)) ;-)Reply

I don't see that any improvement is available. If the percieved problem is that a reader may not know what an escarpment is, then he would be in the right place - an encycolpaedia. All he has to do is copy Escarpment into the seach box, click on 'Go' and the Wikipedia will come up with something.

Other possibilities for the article title seem to me to be more vague or long-winded or both. For example, you might use 'côte' but that word is not really adopted into English and the reason for adding the word escarpment to the title was to avoid confusion with Côte-d'Or, the name of the département. Using the same word again would not help, besides the possible confusion with a sea coast.

Another possibility is 'ridge' but geographically, 'escarpment' implies a dip slope which is present in the general structure of the Paris Basin and more locally, in the drainage pattern of the Armançon Valley. Sorry, but you seem to be trying to solve a problem which is already solved as far as it can be. :-) (RJP 11:43, 2 January 2007 (UTC))Reply

Hi Eric. I'm not the biology expert. I only translated the article from dewiki. :) You may check there and ask the German writers. Cheers. Mmounties (Talk)   18:24, 6 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Eric, I just saw that you had a question on the meaning of "Bude". In addition to the meanings I saw on your and Mgm's talk page it is also used to refer to place, house or residence like in "at my place" or "at my house" without depicting the actual structure of the residence as somewhat of a shack. Mmounties (Talk)   18:30, 6 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

I haven't done much editing in a long time due to severe time constraints in real life, so I can't lend you much help there. But you can probably find the answer in the Manual of Style. If you don't get lucky there, try the Village Pump. Mmounties (Talk)   07:08, 9 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Eric, I am not good at navigating my way round templates just yet. Will have a look later as I have to dash out the door to work. Please feel free to embellish beefsteak description. I never knew if it was eaten widely - if so, then bump up importnace to mid I'd guess.....Cas Liber 20:56, 17 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Scanning down I could see the offending hyphens - will have a look at some other templates now. Must say it hadn't really bothered me. (PS: You don't wanna vote and break a tiebreaker on the Fungi collaboration page?)Cas Liber 18:40, 19 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Wikiproject Birds has it too. It is in the text down the page on the fungi template - I haven't seen other templates yet.Cas Liber 19:39, 19 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Where is the fungi template? I can't find it. -Eric ^(talk) 22:22, 19 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hello - I'm contacting you because of your involvement with using English instead of foreign terms in articles. A few are trying to "Anglicise" French terms in Wiki articles according to current guidelines but there is some resistance (eg/: "Région => Region"; "Département => Departement"). Your input would be appreciated here. Thankyou. --Bob 16:22, 18 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

(This is a copy of what I wrote as reply to you query in my user page)

Hi Eric, "cowardice before the enemy" was the crime so-called, I am afraid, and soldiers were shot by most armies involved during World War I. So it was not the act of shooting the poor beggars that was the crime, but the fact that they might incite or commit mutiny, stand accused of cowardice before the enemy, self-inflicted wounds, disobedience, desertion, throwing away their arms and ammunition, etc. The trouble with all these things is, it is easy for us with hindsight to condemn the authorities for committing these shootings, but at the time often weaknesses on the part of soldiers were somewhat unfathomable and nobody knew just how far this would or could spread in an army, after all it was a relatively new dimension in a war.

An overview of this is http://www.shotatdawn.org.uk, it gives the numbers of soldiers shot by all countries involved in World War I. As far as the British Government is concerned, it agreed only as recently as 7.November 2006, that soldiers executed for 'military offences' should be given a a posthumous conditional pardon. The United States military courts executed ten soldiers but for reasons such as murder or rape. The greater number of the populations at the time probably saw it in a different light than we do now. Dieter Simon 02:23, 20 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Do you ever get the feeling that you are constantly banging your head against a brick wall? --Bob 06:08, 21 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

There is now an RfC open on the subject of using English in French administrative division articles. I don't expect you to contribute much time to this, but if you can, could you please voice a statement and disagree/agree with those statements found there. Maybe we will arrive at a reasonable conclusion soon. It can be found here. Thanks in advance. --Bob 22:01, 22 January 2007 (UTC) Disagree/Agree with my statement with Support or Oppose and make your own statement. You can use whatever text you wish from mine. --Bob 22:49, 22 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Format has changed, but a statement from someone in the field of translations is still more than welcome! Just follow the others lead. --Bob 00:06, 23 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

I have initiated a Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Anglicisation of French administrative terms. Please leave your comments. -- NYArtsnWords 22:56, 12 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hello! We are a group of editors working to improve the quality of France related articles. You look like someone who might be interested in joining us in the France WikiProject and so I thought I'd drop you a line and invite you! We'd love to have you in our project :-) STTW (talk) 19:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

		Military history WikiProject Distinguished Service Award
		For your invaluable assistance to the Military History WikiProject, I award you these chevrons. Wear them with pride! RJASE1 Talk 03:20, 24 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hey, Tim, I'm glad I could help--thanks for the groovy chevrons! -Eric ^(talk) 18:45, 24 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hello. The template to edit is commons:Template:Self :-)

(Suggest changes to its talk page)

Fred-J 11:36, 21 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi, apologies for not making myself clear in the delete. I moved it to Wikipedia:Main_Page/Errors, that is the best place to put main page errors, and is where it will get noticed first. This can also be found at the very top of Talk:Main_Page. Thank you for assuming good faith and asking me about it. Apologies again. Capuchin 13:28, 24 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Eric. Thanks for the heads up. You probably should do it inside the actual debate, so other editors can see your response and let it help form their opinions. :) I don't always watch AfDs, but since that one had more room for discussion, I am. The general practice is to mark such comments as Comment in the same way that you would mark it Keep or Delete. --Moonriddengirl 20:03, 8 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi. :) Sorry for dropping out. I've responded and clarified at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Threat. :) --Moonriddengirl 19:06, 18 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

No problem. :) Would you like some assistance with this? I'd be happy to go to the pages that link "threat" as a definition and redirect to coercion. Remember that when you rename a page, the old title becomes a redirect, so the links won't be broken. --Moonriddengirl 13:37, 19 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Yes, but the links meant for a simple definition of "threat" will then be pointing to a stub on int'l law. If I wanted to fully expose my mania--and not get anything done on my house today--I'd be tempted to go to all those articles and remove the simple vocab links (the ones not referring to the int'l law component). Would that be too crazy? -Eric ^(talk) 13:52, 19 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

That's why I said redirect to coercion. :) But, here, let me show you what I mean. --Moonriddengirl 15:05, 19 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

There. The non-dicdef sits at Threat of force (public international law). The subsequent redirect page Threat has been retooled into a disambiguation page. That's what I meant at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Threat. :) Now I'll go and redirect the pages that send to threat directly to coercion, since its not good practice to link to disambig pages. Will you add the text you found to the new page? It could be helpful to future editors in expanding. --Moonriddengirl 15:21, 19 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Not a problem. I was planning on working on Wikipedia anyway. :) This kind of stuff is tedious, but also good for the project. As to the addition, I suppose that's what I meant. Without going back to reread, I seem to recall your mentioning during the AfD that you had encountered something that led you to believe this title would be better. That's what I was asking about. :) --Moonriddengirl 16:56, 19 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

(Not sure what I'm doing, no idea why the IP is blocked)

Y	Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s): Hardblock of 71.252.64.50 lifted. Request handled by: Mr.Z-man 23:43, 13 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Academic Challenger, are you out there? I can't edit your talk page to ask you what's up. I don't know if I'm "blocked directly," as it says on my talk page in the text generated by this template, because no definition of "direct blocking" is provided. If I'm supposed to put a reason for my request to be unblocked, I don't see where to do that. Someone else using this IP must have done vandalism?? Why would I be IP-blocked when I'm logged in? Help! Thanks. -Eric ^(talk) 20:30, 13 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Did you check with anyone before redirecting all those or was it a unilateral decision? I'm all for bing BOLD, but I have a feeling there's a consensus that the articles have a hyphen. Katr67 22:35, 22 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Replied on my talk page. Katr67 00:12, 23 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

I've blocked the IP again. You can warn the vandals using the templates given at WP:WARN. If they persist, you can report them to WP:AIV. utcursch | talk 04:26, 23 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Effectivement, une partie des GR à 2 (ou 3) chiffres sont des variantes de GR. Mais ce n'est pas aussi simple. Pra exemple le GR 340 (tour de Belle Ile) n'est pas une variante du GR 34. Il est simplement très proche. Je sais qu'il existe une carte de France avec tous les GR [6], je vais essayer de la trouver.Romary (talk) 11:49, 29 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi. The one who added the message was a sockpuppet of a previously blocked troll. He's blocked now. Cheers, --KFP (talk | contribs) 18:52, 6 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

At first glance, I see two problems. First, while this article correctly identifies the Persian Wars as ending in 479, the "Persian Wars" article chooses to date the end of the war at 449 BC. Wetman and I have butted heads over this. More importantly, the chronology is weird. It seems to jump from the 5th c. to the 4th, and then back to the 5th. Strict chronological order is impossible in such an article, but I think this area needs revision.Ifnkovhg (talk) 00:36, 15 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

(Responded on Ifnkovhg's talk page) -Eric ^(talk) 21:10, 15 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

French wikipedia implies it is the abbey in the distance. I only added it as I coincentally stubbed an article on the french village which is linked in the article only an hour or two ago. I'm not certain about it though ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 23:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thats what I thought. Remember if you are tagging unreferenced articles though that it is February 2008 rather than Feb 2008. People have to do things the long way don't they! ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 23:27, 18 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi Lampman- I saw your new article after seeing the bit on the main page--looks good. One note--I would tend to translate 'Le Bénédicité' as simply 'Grace' in English. Since I'm not familiar with the painting and so would not know how often it's referred to with an English name, I didn't want to change it without contacting you. -Eric ^talk 13:35, 5 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

The painting was referred to by so many different names in English, but the Louvre web site simply calls it "Grace", so I guess you're right, and I've changed it. Thanks! Lampman Talk to me! 14:49, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

No prob--glad to help. Now, just to complicate things a bit, I just found a couple references to it--the best being from an articleI found on JSTOR--that give the English name as 'Saying Grace'. That actually sounds better to me as well. -Eric ^talk 14:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Well, as I said, I've looked at several different sources, and they all seem to operate with different names. I'm thinking it's best to just let the Louvre be the authority on this. Lampman ^{Talk to me!} 15:01, 5 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your comments on this article. Funny, I had the very same impressions and questions but wanted to sleep over it. There may be some improvements, I do not know yet, but there are also some changes which go in the other direction, probably inadvertently so. I would like to stay in touch, if I find out something tonorrow. Thank's again, --Ambrosius007 (talk) 19:38, 12 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

I posted to the wrong person. I thought I was on Erik's talk page. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 14:17, 27 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

No prob--I thought that might be what happened. -Eric ^talk 20:06, 27 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Do whatever you think works best. I based in on a quick, lazy, Google search of define:burr and define:bur, although my Robert & Collins calls it burr. At any rate, both spelling should be in the lead because they both seem to be in use. If you're feeling extra generous, you could gloss over the Wiktionary pages to bring them in line. Cheers. -Oreo Priest ^talk 21:22, 30 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Although I agree that it's a somewhat unlikely search term, it is already in use in a number of articles as a redirect, as you can see from Special:WhatLinksHere/Excavated, which suggests that a number of articles writers have found it useful in the past. This being the case, I don't see a compelling reason to delete it. Even if you disagree, I think it's clear that it shouldn't be deleted without discussion, and so the next step would be to take it to Redirects for Discussion. Scog (talk) 15:09, 21 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

I don't think the case for deletion is so clear-cut that it bypasses the need for a proper discussion, and so I simply don't think that speedy deletion is appropriate here. If you still want to see it deleted, then we should take it to RFD so that we can get the opinions of a wider selection of editors. Scog (talk) 10:03, 22 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

I think that both the Time's reference and Fox's are needed. The Fox reference showed that American officials are not supposed to be Gaza, which is very relevent to the Fulbright Program. The Time's article, that you supplied was, helpful in that it showed who actually was killed and injured. The Fulbright Program is an American institution. If Americans get killed trying to access Gaza citezens then everyone suffers. Hughey (talk) 18:08, 23 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Funny you should ask because I have been meaning for some time to bring up the whole slew under Category:American university and college presidents as "performer by performance" (College administrators will have many positions in a career; no single one of them should be defining as to merit a Wikipedia category. Miami International University? I mean, really ...). I think you have to go through the process for the first one, then when you add the tag to the subsequent ones it has to link to the original CfD. It explains how to do this somewhere on the page. Daniel Case (talk) 21:37, 31 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

It's there. Look under II on the CFD instruction template for groups of categories. If you want help with this, I'll do what I can. (I can see decade categories for the last two or three centuries, where better records are available, but for the Middle Ages? Wouldn't centuries be better?) Daniel Case (talk) 21:40, 31 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hello Jc- I noticed your interest in category issues and thought you might be interested in these Cfd discussions:

• Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_August_1#Category:Religious_organizations_established_in_the_1110s
• Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_August_1#Category:Religious_organizations_established_in_the_1100s

-Eric ^talk 02:47, 2 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for the notice. I've commented there. Also, just in case you may not be aware of it, you may wish to be mindful of WP:CANVASS. That said, I'm not making a presumption either way. Have a good day : ) - jc37 10:11, 2 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for pointing me to the canvassing guideline. I wondered if such a guideline existed and had a little feeling I might be moving out of the bounds of chivalrous conduct. I admit my motivation was both to influence the outcome and to improve the quality of the discussion. Thanks for your input. -Eric ^talk 14:44, 2 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hey there. Thanks for the welcome. As well, thanks for the feedback: I guess I'm just anxious to edit, and don't always proof my edits. :) I'll try to be more attentive and use the preview feature more. Thanks again. Ixtapl (talk) 16:35, 15 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

http://www.newadvent.org hosts text from the Catholic Encyclopedia of 1913, which is public domain. Charles Matthews (talk) 16:44, 19 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Okay, thanks. I wasn't sure what to do. Do you know if there's a general consensus as to whether we should lean towards or away from copying public domain material directly? -Eric ^talk 17:52, 19 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

I've put the adjectival form on the conversion - it's a standard parameter to the conversion template. I agree on the over-use of conversions, but there again the manual of style suggests they be given. regards TrulyBlue (talk) 15:49, 2 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

I hope you don't continually go around Wikipedia looking for editors to insult. Before making a comment like wanting "to remind you about the guidance at Help:Show_preview," check out the editor's contributions. For a new editor, this comment would be appropriate. But when you make the same comment to an editor who has made a ton of edits here, you come across as snitty and insulting. For the record, different Wikipedia editors have different editing styles. I tend to reread my edits over a period of minutes or hours and refine the copy. I use the preview button quite often but as with any editor, I still make mistakes which then have to be corrected. I should also note that the important thing around here is for people to make good, quality edits. If it takes them a few extra edits to achieve that goal, why worry about it. So in closing, don't be an insulting know-it-all, which is never a good quality in an editor.--SouthernNights (talk) 12:33, 10 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Is that an assume-good-faith section heading? I responded on your talk page. -Eric ^talk 14:44, 10 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

I later copied my response from SN's talk page:

You hope correctly, I don't look for editors to insult, and I did check out your contributions (that's what the (and others) referred to--sorry if that wasn't very clear). I certainly didn't mean to be insulting. You can say the same thing to two different people, and one will thank you while the other is offended, so I try to be matter-of-fact and neutral. Funny, I originally added that since you were such a prolific editor and an admin, I was surprised to see the edits every minute or two, which is usually something beginners do (including me). But then I took that out because I didn't want to come across wrong! Apparently I did anyway. Sorry if I hurt your feelings. -Eric talk 14:42, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I tried to assume good faith in your comments. But they still came across as insulting and very much like a know-it-all. I mean, I simply don't see how it is any of your concern how myself or anyone else goes about improving Wikipedia, as long as we follow WP guidelines and the edits themselves are good.--SouthernNights (talk) 18:58, 10 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Sigh. As irritated as I am by this, there's no need for bad blood here. I accept your apology and likewise apologize for being so in your face about this. Best,--SouthernNights (talk) 19:07, 10 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Bonjour Eric and happy New Year!
Merci beaucoup pour ces encouragements ayant d'autant plus de valeur pour moi qu'ils viennent d'un professionnel.
La création de cartes n'est effectivement pour moi qu'un hobby, dans le cadre de Wikipédia, et la disponibilité de données comme les SRTM de la NASA me permet d'augmenter grandement leur qualité. Pour la vectorisation, il s'agit 'simplement' d'extraire chaque niveau d'altitude puis de les vectoriser avec Inkscape qui fait du très bon travail, même si cela nécessite de simplifier les chemins, donc de perdre en précision, afin de maintenir le poids du fichier à une taille raisonnable.
Encore merci et bonne continuation. Sting-fr (talk) 19:01, 10 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

I've placed our conversation on the article talkpage in the hope that your suggestion gets a wider airing. Fritzpoll (talk) 13:41, 21 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Ok--thanks! -Eric ^talk 15:29, 21 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Apologies for part of my reversion of The Deal (2003 film) article. I've always read the sentence in my head as "Margaret Thatcher's Conservative government enjoys..." -- and I was the one who wrote the plot summary! Bradley0110 (talk) 14:39, 30 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

No prob. I didn't know that I shouldn't take into account the lead's wikilinks when weeding out repeats. Is that the general consensus? Eric ^talk 18:17, 30 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, the idea is that the lead is a completely separate introductory entity, and the article proper doesn't begin until the first main section (in this case, the plot section). However, some shorter articles (< 1,000 words) don't need to follow this convention. Bradley0110 (talk) 19:17, 30 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

To me it seems logic that it's called "Champagne-Ardennes" since the forest is called the Ardennes exclusively in English. In the mean time I have asked them for their opinion and am waiting for a reply. ChrisDHDR 19:47, 21 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

They've replied and the answer is no: it stays "Champagne-Ardenne". Oh well, just being bold. ChrisDHDR 17:07, 22 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi, thanks for the advice. I will certainly do so in future. Being entirely self-taught I sometimes miss out on these useful tips. Jack1956 (talk) 16:19, 15 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

eric, thank you for your concern with my editing technique. i do use preview. i prefer many small edits in order to track each individual change with full transparency and justification. cheers, bc XKV8R (talk) 14:22, 2 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

C'est très sympa de me proposer d'améliorer le mauvais anglais de ma page utilisateur. J'accepte bien volontiers, avec un grand merci! Bonne année à vous. --Martha e (talk) 08:30, 12 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

If you're merging, feel free to remove the tag; that is, if there's consensus for a merge. Nobody seems opposed so far; personally I'd just WP:BOLDly merge where no man has merged before. Regards, Ironholds (talk) 17:18, 12 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

If you feel you cannae give Gemmaux any more, feel free to make it so :P. Ironholds (talk) 17:39, 12 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Stained glass. That sentence about Picasso was jammed in between the sentence on Gemmaux and its reference. The Picasso sentnece was not referenced, even though it appeared to be. I presume, therefore that the precise date 1936 that was previously given for Gemmaux came from the given reference, Britannica.

As for the statement about Picasso being excited by and working in Gemmaux.... I don't know of a single Picasso stained glass window (or object}, except those made as copies of his paintings by later artists. Was this Wiki editor muddling him with Chagall, or what? This might seem heavy handed, but whatever else Picasso may have been, he was not a significant stained glass deisigner, so I've deleted it. ..... Oh, I think they might have meant Matisse. He did some stained glass. Amandajm (talk) 06:58, 13 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. I wondered if the Picasso bit was accurate, and tried to verify it, but didn't have time for proper research, so I just trimmed it and fixed the bad English. Glad you came along and spotted that. Eric ^talk 14:06, 13 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Bonjour LPLT- While checking on his fr activity, I saw your messages on Marcmaison's fr talk page and thought you might be interested in these:

• Special:Contributions/Marcmaison
• Special:Contributions/AzitaS
• User_talk:Marcmaison#Picasso and gemmail Eric ^talk 16:51, 13 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Bonjour Eric,

Thanks for the links. It appears that this contributor uses an acute and excessive promotion of gemmail on the WP in french and here too. Promotion that is not supported by any bibliographical references furthermore... I'll keep an eye on it. Best.--LPLT (talk) 17:19, 14 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

I can't find any record of Picasso having done fifty gemmail works. If he did, where have they all gone? I think that the number is drawn from this article [7] which is fairly clear that the fifty are reproductions of Picasso's work over his entire working life, to that period. I have found, online, reproductions of several works such as the Three Musicians. Picasso and Braque's works lent themselves to reproduction in this technique. The article says that "Picasso is already working on several designs...". This doesn't mean that they were actually made. I am going to delete Picasso, unless we get much better evidence. Walter Womacka, on the other hand, was a major exponent. But his name doesn't have quite the same ring as Picasso. Amandajm (talk) 01:21, 17 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hello Eric,

On the WP in french it is now well contained from my point of view. The Times reference he gave strictly supports the text he added, and we removed the links to the manifesto considered as a spam. It is clear that he contributes under both Marcmaison and AntoineDelorme identities or at least that they are tightly cooperative... The matter is of course in my watching list. Thx for the reminder on my user talk page on WP:fr. Best--LPLT (talk) 20:10, 19 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hello Eric,

Would you please help me by precising what exactly a good source is for a Wiki article. Picasso had especially designed artworks for Gemmaux and not all the gemmaux's signed by Picasso are the reproduction of his paintings. There are 3 Gemmaux by Picasso in the collection of The Corning Glass Museum (Corning, NY) that you can check on line. M. Raymond Loewe and his associate Mr. Snaith donated a Gemmaux by Picasso to The Evansville Museum of Arts and Science (Evansville, Indiana). The rest of the Gemmaux by Picasso are in Private Collections.--AzitaS (talk) 17:24, 21 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

For guidance on sourcing, I look to Wikipedia:Citing_sources. I searched the Corning website and found some mention of 'gemmail' and also works in glass designed by Picasso, but couldn't see the images or find documentation. Searching the Evansville site yielded no hits for either term. I'm not an expert in tracking down art sources, so I don't know how much help I can be. I've already done a lot of research trying to verify all your gemmail statements. Eric ^talk 20:37, 21 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Good morning Eric, I wanted to make sure you saw this on my talk page. Also, the two links I mention could perhaps serve as before-and-after illustrations if used in in the external links. --CliffC (talk) 16:38, 19 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

That's not what you call a "minor reword"; that is a considerable improvement to the intro. Amandajm (talk) 04:12, 26 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, Amanda. It seemed like it took just a couple strokes of the plume to make it read better, whereas one sometimes has to don high boots and wade in with a big shovel! Eric ^talk 13:39, 26 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi Eric, just wanted to say thanks for removing the vandalism on the Cape Cod Tech article. 3/10/2010

No prob! Eric ^talk 02:35, 11 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Statements like "People who don't want to know that they've been in error all this time will merely cite erroneous sources to support their delusion" are unlikely to be persuasive.[8] You may find WP:COOL helpful. Best wishes, Walter Siegmund (talk) 17:31, 31 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I guess delusion was uncool. I was revisiting my initial frustration with trying to get people to see outside what they were used to during the first discussion I was involved in. Eric ^talk 03:43, 1 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

I will try to improve my way of edit articles here. I didn't know the "show preview" button. Thanks again for your help and your comments!. --Valencian (talk) 00:25, 17 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

You're welcome! Eric ^talk 04:30, 17 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

"[T]his idiot" is a personal attack. I suggest you rephrase that. LadyofShalott 06:33, 12 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

In vino veritas, good lady. I shouldn't edit WP after a long dinner...bitter truth briefly overcame my natural sweetness. Still, I'd call it a lament rather than an attack, especially as the "victim" is highly unlikely to be aware of it. He's too busy bloating WP with categories such as what day of the week different Mormons of mild renown do their laundry. I'd have no objection if anyone wanted to revert my naughtiness. Eric ^talk 13:05, 12 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

I am sympathetic to your frustrations. Nevertheless... Anyway, I have just changed "this idiot" to "this [guy]". LadyofShalott 22:28, 12 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

D'accord! Eric ^talk 18:45, 13 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi Eric, I am looking for a bilingual speaker to tranlate an article from french to english. This article is existing in english but it is not satisfying. Article is better in french and deserves to be tranlated in english instead. My english level is average and so I can't carry out this job. Thank to help me to achieve it. Article is this one Georges Emile Lebacq. Thank in advance for your help. Amisdesbrus (talk) 23:16, 14 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi- I did some formatting of the headings to better match the French version. Are you looking to translate the entire French article? Not sure I can do that soon, but happy to at least review the English version. Eric ^talk 00:18, 15 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi - Thank you for what you have already done. Yes the best solution would be to translate the entire French article. I know it is real work. I can't do that myself my english is too rough. Amisdesbrus (talk) 23:41, 20 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

I would like to help, but am pretty busy these days outside--lots of spring planting and work to do! If you have the time, do you think you could try the translation yourself in your sandbox, then have me proofread it? Once we like it, we can copy it to the article. Eric ^talk 13:09, 21 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

 

This user's request to have autoblock on their IP address lifted has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Eric (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

216.81.94.73 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

---

Block message:

Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "216Home". The reason given for 216Home's block is: "Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/216.81.94.68.".

• Blocking administrator: Elockid (talk • blocks)

---

Accept reason: Granting IPBE. — Daniel Case (talk) 14:41, 1 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

Eric ^talk 12:45, 1 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

I have granted your account an exemption from IP blocking. This will allow you to edit through full blocks affecting your IP address when you are logged in.

Please read the page Wikipedia:IP block exemption carefully, especially the section on IP block exemption conditions.

Note in particular that you are not permitted to use this newly-granted right to edit Wikipedia via anonymous proxies, or disruptively. If you do, or there is a serious concern of abuse, then the right may be removed by any administrator.

Appropriate usage and compliance with the policy may be checked periodically, due to the nature of block exemption, and block exemption will be removed when no longer needed (for example, when the block it is related to expires).

I hope this will enhance your editing, and allow you to edit successfully and without disruption. Daniel Case (talk) 14:41, 1 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, Daniel. Eric ^talk 14:44, 1 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for creating The Rise of Rome: The Making of the World's Greatest Empire, Eric!

Wikipedia editor Razr Nation just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

The article is at Wikipedia:Articles for Improvement. I invite you to help us improving the article on its entry there.

To reply, leave a comment on Razr Nation's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Answered at improvement page entry. Eric ^talk 22:38, 30 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

Response: AFI is not deletion, is improvement. On AFI, Wikipedians gather to improve a selected article over a span of 7-14 days on a collaborative effort. It has not been nominated for deletion. — ΛΧΣ21™ 22:52, 30 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

I'm watching Wikipedia:Articles for Improvement/The Rise of Rome: The Making of the World's Greatest Empire. Eric ^talk 00:03, 31 October 2012 (UTC)Reply