User talk:Llywrch/Archive2

Poof! You've got sysop rights. Use them well. As your first act, let me suggest that you update Wikipedia:Administrators, Wikipedia:Recently created admins and Wikipedia:Requests for adminship to reflect your new status. --Uncle Ed 18:48, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)

So much for being able to try to settle edit wars by saying, "I'm just another contributor like you, but it appears to me . . ." ;-) -- llywrch 19:39, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)

No, that's still the way to do it. It's just that NOW you have to avoid BEING IN any edit war you want to settle. Otherwise some people will complain that you're pulling rank. (I made this mistake myself several times, until user:Eloquence straightened me out.) If you see the need to protect a page due to an edit war, you may do so, provided you yourself are not a party to the conflict; get it? --Uncle Ed 15:31, 3 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Actually I disagree with you over the term "pulling rank." Being a Sysop is much like the person one finds in every volunteer group who assumes mundane & thankless chores such as sweeping up, putting things away, etc. after every meeting. A volunteer janitor, if you will. Unfortunately because these people are at all of the meetings, the group officers get to know them well enough to say hello to, & as a result newbies think they are part of some secret cabal that runs the group.

I've always considered Sysop rights just another chore I've taken on here. Anyone who thinks having them somehow makes them a better Wikipedian shouldn't have them. (Although I'll admit it was a pleasant & timely ego boost to read all of the votes supporting my application.) -- llywrch 21:21, 3 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Hello Llwyrch! I would like to invite you to have a look and give an opinion on my Ancient Rome proposed directory. Have fun! Muriel Gottrop 10:57, 4 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Thanks for the tips! I wrote to the other guys too. Cheers, Muriel Gottrop 10:13, 5 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Why did you put Simón Bolívar on the Main Page? There is no indication in the article why it should be listed in the Anniversaries section of Selected Articles. Please add this context to the article per the guidelines for this. --mav 02:47, 11 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Hey Llywrch, I was just looking at the Hegesippus article and I saw it mentioned James the Just. Do you know if he is the same guy as James the Less? Both say they were the first Patriarch of Jerusalem, but they apparently have different families, so I don't know. Adam Bishop 17:54, 14 Sep 2003 (UTC)

The first bishop of Jerusalem, according to Eusebius that was James the Just. I think James the Less was another Apostle, along with James the Great -- neither of whom were related to Jesus Christ, as James the Just is said to be (according to such sources as Matthew 13:55, Mark 6:3, and Galatians 1:19). I'll be honest: I'm not certain about all of the relationships between these people (e.g. whether one or more of these James is fictional), & the matter isn't any clearer due to Christian dogma about the nature of Jesus Christ, which forces the logical conclusion that He was an only child. (Although there is sufficient evidence that He had a number of step or half siblings.)

BTW, I wrote the article on James the Less, & right now I'm not very happy about it: it suggests erroneously that the first bishop, James brother of Jesus, & the writer of the epistle all were the same person, when the matter is still under debate. It also needs some more suorce citations. If I find the time today, I'll fix it. -- llywrch 18:13, 14 Sep 2003 (UTC)

That's what I thought...I always get confused about the various Jameses. Isn't there also a James, Son of Zebedee? It's crazy :) The reason I was wondering is because I linked to James the Less in the Patriarch of Jerusalem article. The source I had said "James the Lord's brother", so if that's James the Just I'll fix that link. Adam Bishop 18:18, 14 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Ah, no, sorry, I meant the Orthodox Patriarch of Jerusalem article. Adam Bishop 00:42, 15 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Hi Llywrch, I suggest you be careful with your use of charts. The last time I used charts the way you are doing, administrators erased them. See the discussion at talk:Wikipedia policy on charts. The best approach is to not tell anyone you are using them. mydogategodshat 14:38, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)

If not you, it must be some else that has added the unacceptable "previous/subsequent" chart at the bottom of all the Emperors and Patrachs. Sorry. mydogategodshat 23:20, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Personally I have no problem with your use of charts or tables. I just wanted to let you know that there are many administrators that will erase these charts if they see them. They are concerned with what they call excessive HTML, intimidating new users, difficulty of editing and maintenance, and the "non-standard" look. Good work on the classics pages. mydogategodshat 00:29, 2 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Hi Llywrch, I was looking at the WikiMoney page and saw your request for a translation of the Roman Emperors page into Latin, so I've attempted to do that. Of course, I've only been learning Latin for a couple of months, so I really have no idea what I'm doing! I assume you actually do know Latin...if so, would you mind seeing if what I wrote is at all comprehensible? It's at User:Adam Bishop/test. There are some links and dates still in English, but otherwise I tried to translate it all. Thanks :) Adam Bishop 19:30, 12 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Thanks...your rusty Latin is better than my "five chapters from Wheelock and a dictionary" Latin. Maybe I'll just submit and see how badly it gets hacked up :) Adam Bishop 00:36, 13 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Hey again, I'm not sure if you've checked it out, but the emperors article is up on the Latin wikipedia (Imperatores Romani). I had the title completely wrong, but I fixed that much, at least! Adam Bishop 18:49, 15 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Hello! Care to give an opinion on the format of kings of Portugal family tree? I'm not sure if the present works. If it does, i can make a similar page to all european houses. Cheers! Muriel Gottrop

Hi! No secret at all! Just a plain a simple corel draw graphic exported to *png. I started to use it for my geologic diagrams (my work) and then into the history trees (my hobby). I finished the Spain, France and Navarre. Coming soon... Cheers, Muriel Gottrop

On Caligula, what do you mean he had only one sister? He had three - Drusilla, Agrippina the Younger, and another whose name I don't recall. Don't know if he actually practiced incest with all of them, though. john 04:23, 31 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Check out Wikipedia:WikiProject Rivers for a first pass. I never know how much to advertise new projects... Stan 04:20, 2 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Good adds to the wikiproject! The disambigging strategy is novel but seems very sensible. Stan 03:56, 3 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Ah, finally someone made a comprehensible Sea Peoples article :) Adam Bishop 00:52, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC)

OK, I've just made some alterations to the baptism in the holy spirit thing. I hope its ok. You were right. But baptism in the holy spirit is diferent from baptism, so it shouldnt go in the same place Nbarr

Patriarchs of Constantinople

How shall we standardize the title nomenclature? Would it be XXX I of Constantinople, Patriarch XXX I, Patriarch XXX I of Constantinople. This question had been raised on Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(names_and_titles) but waned recently. May I wonder your opinions about it? All the best ;) kt2 02:15, 9 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Nice polish on Kassites Wetman 07:25, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I've created an entry New Age Ancient Near East Chronology where one might reassign (z)any 'alternative' theory about chronologies. Is that a good move? Wetman 21:47, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)~

Egypt

Re History of Arab and Ottoman Egypt. It will not be enough just to wikify and copyedit this mass of text. It needs to be put into modern historical writing style and have a lot of unnecessary detail removed. Is this something you fell like doing? Adam 03:59, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Edit conflicts

I'm probably biased because obviously I had been involved in the edit war, but it had already been decided at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection that protection was no longer necessary. Angela . 00:33, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

No problem. I'm hoping a compromise has been reached now as it hasn't been edited for 24 hours, but you might want to keep an eye on it in case it does start up again. Angela . 00:56, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Silesia page

I see you have protected the Lower Silesia page reverting to the Nico last edit. May I ask you to to revert to the previous version, as the current one contains false and extremist information. First this is artcile abou Polish province of Lower Silesia, and it is constantly vandalised ny Nico. 2) Goerlitz area is not part of Lower Silesia. (3) There are already 2 references to the Prussian province, and we don't need a trird one in the intro. -- CC, 04:30, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Nico

Nico has removed my two sections about him from this page (he is doing it all the time) -- CC 04:22, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

My primary area of interest is the history and geography of Poland, its cities, rivers, provinces and counties. I would like to contribute my knowledge and resources for the benefit of the WWW community. -- CC, 00:15, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC) Nico primary area of interst is also Poland. His activities are mainly making sure every single town and river in Poland is reffered to by its German name used in times Poland was occupied by German, Polish language forbidden, Polish people exterminated by the Germans. Nico activities are very destructive and annoying. -- CC, 00:15, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Hi, when we protect pages we're strictly supposed to list them at wikipedia:Protected page. I've broken that rule myself though :) -- Pakaran 04:31, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Just to contrast with my last comment about protection... on Lower Silesia, I think you did absolutely the right thing protecting it, so don't worry about the claims from various people that you shouldn't have done or that you protected the "wrong version" (whatever that might be). It's been protected quite often, and the same complaints are made every time. Angela . 06:15, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Western canon

About your changes at Western canon: do you always make drastic changes to an article where there has been no discussion for a couple of weeks? I'm a little appalled at what just occured here. -- llywrch 02:22, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Just being bold. Do you think a NPOV canonical list can be produced? Daniel Quinlan 04:31, Dec 13, 2003 (UTC)

Rohl and other charlatans

Hey, check out the discussion between me and Zestauferov at Talk:Sea Peoples. While I very strongly feel that Rohlianism and other such nonsense should not be kowtowed to at Wikipedia, I also tend to fear that Zestauferov is probably right that official NPOV policy would require us to accommodate that stuff...one of the problems with this kind of thing is that followers of fringe figures like Rohl tend to be able to explicate very fully on the views of that person. Researching and writing about the counterarguments is more difficult to do, so we get left with crappy, ridiculously positive POV articles about these people (see the history for Immanuel Velikovsky, e.g. - it's gotten a bit better, but was pretty bad.) Anyway, I'm not sure what the solution is, but it's troubling. john 17:22, 31 Dec 2003 (UTC)

A neutral POV at Wikipedia does seem to be interpreted as equal opportunity for every crackpot spin. Llywrch is making a courageous effort. What if we work to develop a standard formula along the lines of each entry being a report not an essay? When I mention that I like to edit here, people sometimes roll their eyes... Wetman 18:16, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Michael, concerning Three-Chapter Controversy, you are more than welcome to fix any short-comings in the article you find; after all, the idea of a Wiki is for everyone to contribute. I don't see how adding questions to the text that you could answer helps. (I've had this article sitting on my computer for a few months, & although I know there's a lot more that could be added to it, I felt it was time to put it on WP for everyone else to use -- & correct -- the information.) -- llywrch 00:40, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)

It would be easier for others than for me to answer those questions, since the article seemed unclear to me. Michael Hardy 00:44, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)

On Semitic: it's awful but it was pretty awful before that too. I'll try to get Danny interested as he knows more about this subject than I do. --Zero 13:23, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Hi. Regarding the unprotection of Wikipedia:Conflicts between users. I unprotected it because silsor wanted to add alexandros, which I found to be a legitimate reason. Also:

The period of protection seemed to have cooled wik down enough, as he did not subsequently delete Jiang's comment on him. (Which is what the revert war was about, IIRC)
You seem to have contravened Wikipedia:Protection policy rule #2 when protecting Wikipedia:Conflicts between users: Protecting a page where you were involved in a recent dispute. --snoyes 00:56, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)

(My response from User talk:Snoyes:

I'm unaware of making any edits to this page except for the reversion I made immediately before locking the page (Wikipedia is slow again & I'm unable to look at the history of the page before 9 Jan. -- assuming you mean that I should never lock a page that I have mady any edit to?); I took a look at the page history, selected what appeared to be the latest stable version that was opposed by the prinicipal proponent of this edit war, & reverted that one to be locked. In short, I made a call based on what I saw was happening.

But I am concerned (& a more than a little miffed), that no one bothered to contact me about my action -- supporting, critical or indifferent -- before you undid it. I tried to settle a dispute in the best way I thought, & it appeared not to even merit an acknowledgement. -- llywrch 21:32, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)

The reversion you made prior to protecting the page is an edit, and it also means you are taking sides in a revert war. Which is clearly a contravention of rule #2. The reason for protecting a page are to let people cool down, and stop an ongoing reversion war. I'm not taking it that seriously, just thought I'd point it out. The lack of people contacting you is just a sign that everyone was happy with your protection: and it has achieved what it was set out to: end the reversion war, for which I am thankful. Just keep in mind that pages can't be protected indefinitely and must be unprotected in order to continue our progress. I would not characterize that as "undoing" you protection, as the aim of the protection had been achieved. Unfortunately thus is the nature of wikipedia that social interaction takes a lot of time, which eats away from the time we have to edit. Best, snoyes 19:44, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Hello :-) please read this [1] if you are not currently reading the ml. Thanks Anthere

Hello, Llyrwch. I have nominated you to act as mediator between User:Lizard King and User:UtherSRG regarded their interpersonal conflict as well as the image at Talk:Yeti. Would this be acceptable to you? Tuf-Kat 17:17, Jan 27, 2004 (UTC)

I sent you an e-mail. They have both agreed to mediation (though my e-mail explains Lizard King's misgivings about the project) already, and neither expressed any concern about who would mediate (I had already recused myself). Tuf-Kat 18:15, Jan 27, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for adding to Colorado City and the FLDS Church of Christ. Hawstom 22:57, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Mediation

I sent you an email, but it bounced back to me. I sent it back to you agian. Please let me know if you get it. Thanks! - UtherSRG 14:31, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite

Hi Llywrch, I thought you might know more about this than me...someone has been asserting that Pseudo-Dionysius was really Peter the Iberian, as if the question of his identity has been solved for good. Do you know if that's true? I assumed it was probably speculation at best (and possibly Georgian nationalism too). Adam Bishop 01:53, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Hi, Llywrch. I understand your frustration with User:Zestauferov, and have experienced a bit of it myself. However, I think that with regards to both Habiru and Hetto-Iberian he may be describing a legitimate theory that deserves its own Wikipedia entry. Admittedly, he's doing a poor job of it, in that he seems to not see the red flags that connections with Basque and Etruscans raise to anyone familiar with standard scholarship, and he doesn't seem to seperate speculation from scholarship very well, either. And of course, he's implied that I'm guilty of Imperialism.

Despite that, however, I think that even though he's raising all the crackpot flags, he may have quite a bit of useful information to add. -Ben (And, BTW, I have no respect for Velikovsky or his followers.)

Zestauferov has very little useful to add. He doesn't seem content to mess with only ancient history, either. Check out the utter garbage he wrote at Prussia (check the history and the talk page, the stuff is thankfully gone now). john 04:31, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up about Mr. Z. I'll avoid feeding his need for controversy and a sense of aggrievement by just linking to our records at Wikipedia. A troll is someone posting at a site whose primary interest is in causing trouble. A clever troll inserts just enough useful material not to get canned. Wetman 21:00, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the note on the Wik muckraking. I needed a lift after discovering that I'd mucked up VfD earlier today. Dandrake 02:30, Feb 17, 2004 (UTC)

We are discussing river naming at Wikipedia: WikiProject Rivers. Since you are listed as a participant, I wondered if you would like to comment. Rmhermen 21:24, Feb 21, 2004 (UTC)

Missoula Floods

Thanks for your comments about Missoula Floods. I had been wanting to make map for a while but couldn't find the right base image. By the way, I liked your mention of Tom McCall. I have a close friend in Portland who used to be a lobbyist and was a big fan of him back in the day. When I went to Willamette, I used to walk through the capitol rotunda sometimes on the way to class and admire that kooky portrait of him there. -- Decumanus 19:39, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Mercian rulers

Most rulers are listed as 'x of y', and I was just trying to do that. Plus some of the names aren't unique eg. the two Ceolwulfs. And almost all the written articles are in 'x of Mercia' format. I don't feel that strongly about it, though. Warofdreams 21:52, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Hapiru

Thanks for your contributions to User:Benwbrum/Hapiru -- they look great! I'm almost completely done entering my source material. After that, I'd like to move it to a spot off the Habiru article, like Habiru/References or Habiru/Sources. However, I don't know how to rename pages, and don't really have a good idea what to call it.

Do you have any suggestions?

Benwbrum 18:23, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Timeline Standards

Hey, just thought Id give you a heads up, but if youre using dates before 500BCE you should redirect the date (for example 699 BC) to the relevant decade. See Wikipedia:Timeline standards for more info

--Theon 02:11, Mar 4, 2004 (UTC)

Replied to your post Wikipedia:Timeline standards Theon 02:43, Mar 4, 2004 (UTC)

Theon, I think we came to a good consensus about openign new centuries. If no one makes any objections within a week, I think it would be correct to make a change to the Wikipedia:Timeline standards page. -- llywrch 19:16, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Agreed Theon 20:54, Mar 11, 2004 (UTC)

I appreciated your posts on the mailing list and the board [2] and thanks for the plug for the suggestions. However, I've been disappointed that there's been so little response -- I keep hoping to spark discussion and it seems like it's not working. Not to be too self-promotional, but would you mind posting to the thread I started on the board -- just to keep it going? And there are a few of us who do a lot of this sort of mediation in real life, so hopefully we can balance the folks like you who prefer research :)

Thanks, BCorr ¤ Брайен 22:50, Mar 8, 2004 (UTC)

About Robert Eisenman

I added some of the standard criticism of Eisenman, for NPOV. He is wordy and circular, to be sure, and it's a very speculative reconstruction, but he's working down through a lot of editing of the record. Wetman 19:28, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

BTW, your addition at James the Just a while back about his taking Nazarite vows needs to be expanded enough so we know (I don't) what "Nazarite" means in that context and how we know. (So much official Pauline disinformation about James we have to be clear). Wetman 02:55, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Is this a variant of Nazarene then? Wetman 03:37, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Your Nazarite entry is excellent to an untutored eye like mine! I wish you'd be more forthcoming about approximate dates (in parentheses?), though, and give some quotes from the sources you mention.Wetman 01:20, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Your mailing list opinion

You seem to have accepted without question RickK's judgment that the places mentioned in the New Haven article are without cultural or social value. His judgment was wrong, his characterization of the mentions as advertisements was incorrect, and in supporting them you do not strengthen your case. I would like you to read Talk:New Haven, Connecticut and formulate your own opinion. The repeated reversions at New Haven were not unlike a pack of sysops, from whom one would wish better behavior, constantly reverting Portland to excise mention of Powell's with sneering comments such as "Hmpf! A bookstore!" "Revert advertising!" - Nunh-huh 20:31, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to review that. - Nunh-huh 01:05, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

- Well, thanks right back. It would be a happier place if everyone concurred that we can have disagreements without being disagreeable<G>. --Nunh-huh 01:28, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Apostolic Fathers

There was nothing about you in my edit. It's historical context, that's all I was writing. Sometimes we forget that "heresy" is a decision that unfolds within a history, and also that there were more than one reaction to the sayings and actions of Jesus. You seem slightly affronted. I'm confused. I'll reread the entry again and see if I can make out what's not right. Wetman 01:56, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Some mention of James the Just who is not an Apostolic Father is a healthful reminder at that entry that those official "links" to Jesus are not the only possible connectors. I don't mean to over-emphasize the "heretical" others, just mention their existence. Wetman 20:58, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)~

Hey, could you take a look at the comment I just posted at Talk:Conventional Egyptian chronology? john 00:42, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Pelasgians

Good stuff! This article is gaining excellence. I have no issue with its POV as it stands now. I've made some links, fixed minor typos, tweaked for more explanatory clarity, I think without changing the sense. Minyans deserve more than a redirect to Argonauts, eh! and the Pelasgians of Lemnos connection through Alcimede. Wetman 20:40, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I think the Iliad reference to Zeus at Dodona suggests that still there was no temple in the grove at Dodona that Zeus had taken over from the Goddess ("Dione"). Calling Zeus "Pelasgian" is a true Homeric touch! Cheeky, right? Wetman 01:42, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Of course I don't read ancient Greek either. It's just arithmetic

Zeus + Dione ("God-dess" both scratched on votive sherds) - Zeus (time frame) = Dione, the "Goddess"! Wetman 18: 19, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Did you know vs. In the news

You expressed interest in the front page layout on Talk:Main page. Could you please vote in the poll there? Thanks, silsor 07:24, Apr 7, 2004 (UTC)

Archibald Sayce

Poor ol' fellow struggling away, and then when he went away they found thousands of documents at Boguskoy (or however it's properly spelled). Please check critically my bumbling efforts at a bio of Sayce, won't you?. Wetman 05:10, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Not RK

That's a good suggestion. I'll do it. Rick K 19:46, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

James the Just

The Nag Hammadi Gospel of Thomas is actually the only version, aside from some Oxyrhyncus fragments that didn't make sense until the Nag Hammadi library turned up. The other "version" is the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, Gnostic fabling. No connection. I didn't revert your edit though. Maybe you'd look at it again. Wetman 19:56, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Mediation

Hello Llywrch, Just to let you know that I am still in contact with Zestauferov and discussing your request for mediation. Regards -- sannse (talk) 20:06, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

DYK

L, just saw your post re Deluge and DYK--I suspect what happened is that it was broken off from a larger article and someone mistook it for totally new content--we recommend looking for 1000K+ pages, and any relatively fully formed article would probably top that. If you ever see a non-qual article on DYK, just go into Template:Did you know and yank it. To answer your other question, anyone can update DYK--I do it a lot b/c I love trivia, but it's totally open season. KingTurtle also is a big contributor. Ping me back if you have more Qs. :) jengod 00:44, Apr 29, 2004 (UTC)

Help requested

Also, I saw on your user page that you did a page on an extinct Oregon county. If it's not on here yet, any chance you could ad it? :) Thank you kindly. jengod 00:48, Apr 29, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks on both counts! jengod 03:04, Apr 29, 2004 (UTC)

Aloha, Oregon

Aloha, Oregon came to be in the top 20 Oregon cities by being a census-designated place with a Census-counted population of 40,000+, as the article states. I was just taking the data as I found it; folks like you who are more familiar with the actual facts are welcome to correct it. The box is at Template:Oregon :) I certainly won't take offense. -- Seth Ilys 02:30, 1 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Request regarding Mediation Committee

More than two weeks ago, on April 25, the Arbitration Committee referred a case to us which it had considered regarding Anthony DiPierro and a number of other user to us here: Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation#Issue_of_Anthony's_reverts_and_alleged_trolling.

While Anthony has agreed to mediation, so far, there has been no response from another party in order to begin working on the Anthony mediation. We have drafted a statement at User:Bcorr/mediation statement draft that we would like to post on the Requests for mediation to the Arbitration Committee and all other interested parties, but before we do so, we want to check with the rest of the Mediation Committee. Please review the statement and let me know if you approve, wish to make/suggest changes, or have another way you'd like to suggest that we proceed.

Also, in that statement we refer to ourselves as co-chairs of the committee. There was discussion at the mediation bulletin board on the bottom half of the page, but we wanted to confirm that there was agreement on our being co-chairs for the period noted there before we post the statement. Also, if people are amenable to our serving as co-chairs, I will add that information to the Mediation Committee page.

Please take a moment to comment on these issues at User:Bcorr/mediation statement draft.

Thanks, BCorr|Брайен 01:50, May 13, 2004 (UTC)

I've made a change to the statement to add in llywrch's comment. Please let me know if you object. Unless anyone dislikes this change I will pass on the statement tomorrow evening. Regards -- sannse (talk) 19:59, 15 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Yup

The Archduke comment was me. I can't resist being snarky, what can I say? :) jengod 00:02, May 23, 2004 (UTC)

From Title=User talk:Llywrch

On User_talk:Dino, you note,

I noticed you split off the lists of tributaries, cities & dams into their own articles in Columbia river. According to Wikipedia:WikiProject Rivers, this is not necessary (& personally I didn't think the lists overburdened the article), & a fair number of articles on various rivers still list their triubtaries (e.g., Congo river). How intent are you about this re-writing of the article? -- llywrch 18:06, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Not very. I was unaware of this policy. I was only trying to clean up a cluttered article. So do what you wish. — user:dino

( Dunc_Harris|☺ 22:55, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC) )

I know Dave Stevens, and I know Olivia. I've met Bettie but as she is the same age as my pop -- it just feels odd. - Sparky 06:31, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Regarding Economy of England.
It seems that you, and others contributing to the page are confusing the definition of England. On this page the terms UK, England and Britain appear to be interchangeable. In fact most of the content is dealt with on Economy of the United Kingdom, i.e. England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland. What should be contained here is information specific to England, excluding the other components of the UK. As the largest part of the UK I am sure the article is important and justified but needs clarification. Regards Mark 21:28, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Hola

Hi I responded to your "talk" about Tom McCall but I wasn't sure if you'd actually see it so I figured I'd just come to you and say Hi.

About a month ago I went on a Tom McCall binge at the reed college library and learned everything I could about the man. Sadly, i don't focus too well so it wasn'tas much as i would have liked. Anyway, I want to give McCall the article/entry he deserves but I'm not sure how much to include. I fear i may put too much minutia in it and ruin it or produce a clunky hard to read chunk of poo.

Anyway... any advice you can give would be appreciated, I mean the bottle bill, and the beach bill are a definite must but there is so much more.

I'm also fretting making it becausse my writing has been less than fluid lately as evidenced in my Oswald West entry.

well with all that said, Nice to meet you and know there are other's that appreciate Gov. McCall as much as I do.

Quote in incest article

Nice addition to incest. Just wondering whether the error in the passage you quoted ("When instances of brother-sister marriages first began to appear in the papyri, they were greeting with great scepticism in some quarters, [...]") is a transcription error or not. If yes, then there's probably a [sic] needed. Thanks, snoyes 12:18, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Request for mediator in the case of User:AndyL and User:WHEELER

A few days ago, AndyL listed a request on the Wikipedia:Requests for mediation page between User:WHEELER and himself:

see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User:WHEELER and associated TALK page. Specific complaint about his anti-Semitic comment on Talk:Early_National_Socialism but also about his general conduct around POV editing and unencyclopedic behaviour. AndyL 05:31, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

After discussing the matter with sannse, it seems that the first step is to identify one or more members of the committee who are willing to mediate in this case, although before proceeding it will be necessary to clarify the goals of the mediation.

And just FYI, there has also been quite a bit of chatter on the WikiEN mailing list about similar issues.

If you are willing to act as the mediator in this case, please leave a brief note stating so at Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation#User:AndyL_and_User:WHEELER. The more people who are willing to mediate, the better, as this will provide more options for the two users to try to agree on.

Thanks, BCorr|Брайен 18:37, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Pharaoh

I actually made the move because I believed that the form "Nth Dynasty" was only employed with Egyptian royal dynasties. I had never heard it used with other nations, so I thought that "of Egypt" was unnecessary. -- Emsworth 14:20, Jul 10, 2004 (UTC)

Mediation Committee applicants

Hi. I've changed the format slightly on the requests to join the mediation committee. There was another application after you commented - so I've added your support to the first two and there is now another for you to comment on (if you so desire ;) -- sannse (talk) 14:58, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Poll about whether we should keep either Euramerica or Laurussia

I accidently duplicated Laurussia in Euramerica. Since you contributed to these articles, I invite you to a pool on my TalkPage about how to remedy this.

Ŭalabio 19:43, 2004 Jul 24 (UTC)

Gododdin

As you may know, I've tweaked Gododdin till it seems ok, and have got Votadini well enough extended to cover their earlier period. Re. your hobby, one of my books had info about hill forts on the tops of Arthur's Seat and I added this to the page with the speculation that it might have been named after Arthur as a hero they (maybe) knew of. In a continuation of these interests, I was trying to make a new page for Traprain Law when I found it was already there as Trapain Law, so edited it with a discussion saying why it should be renamed: it appears as Traprain Law in all the books and maps I've looked at, including an Ordnance Survey atlas and a Johnston road atlas of about 1940 (street plans omitted because of the war). So far so good, but then in Wikipedia how to edit a page, I found how to redirect a page and rushed ahead - later found a bit saying don't do that, use the move tab. Oops, frightfully sorry, my bad etc. The old page, history etc. can be reached by using the link that comes with the redirect notice, so all is not lost. By the way, some of the speculation in the old version didn't relate at all to the references I used, but I tried to leave them in and put alternative arguments. Enjoy, --dave souza 21:45, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

WikiProject Ancient Egypt

I was wondering if you would be interested in starting a wikiproject about Ancient Egypt? It could be useful for creating infoboxes and standardizing spelling in article titles as well as dates. If you are interested, please alert me via my talk page. (P.S. You may want to consider archiving some of your talk page it is 36KB.) -JCarriker 05:06, Aug 23, 2004 (UTC)

Hanilgalbat

Thanks for the great work you did with correcting and expanding Hanilgalbat, expecially the addition of the egyptian sources, which I am not familiar with! --Yak 14:03, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Information that you have on Tekle Hawariat Tekle Mariam is not entirely correct- as per his family members.

Hello,

I am his Great-Granddaughter. Some of your information is not accurate and the family would like to give you the accurate information. I am not versed in Wikipedia but as you can see I attempted to correct some of the data which you rejected.

Historians over the last 30 years have not been consistent with the information due in large part to the revolution and the displacement of so many people. I do however represent the family and we would like to present the facts with accuracy.

He was actually adopted by Princess Volkonsky and was affectionately referred to as "Petya Abissinyet" by the family. This is just one of many facts that is missing from his page on Wikipedia, there is more. I would appreciate it if you allowed us to fill you in on more accurate details of his life, or allow us to update the Wikipedia information ourselves. There is so much more to his life than is noted here, and we just want his his life to be remembered properly.

I would love to speak with you regarding his life, or better yet, put you in touch with my Mother who is extremely knowledgeable about him and would love to speak with you.

Thank you kindly for your cooperation,

S.Endeshaw bellaendeshaw@att.net