User talk:Svartalf

Welcome to the Wikipedia[edit]

Here are some links I thought useful:

Feel free to contact me personally with any questions you might have. The Wikipedia:Village pump is also a good place to go for quick answers to general questions. You can sign your name by typing 4 tildes, like this: ~~~~.

Be Bold!

[[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 10:45, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

email[edit]

Hi Svartalf, I got your email. You're the first person who's emailed me from Wikipedia — most people use my talk page. Sorry to scare you with the page split (I sort of announced it a few weeks ahead of time), but I'm glad you approve of the article. ×Meegs 15:38, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Meegs :) . I thought the matter private and not worthy of public posting, hence the choice for e-mail. Still, keep up the good stuff. --Svartalf 15:53, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I know what you mean. I've though about doing the same many times. ×Meegs 17:11, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Turtledove[edit]

Does he really put Lucius Vorenus and Titus Pullo in maniples? There's an error for you :) Maniples hadn't existed since the millitary reforms of Gaius Marius. - Beowulf314159 01:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a mistake, I meant cohorts (3 cohorts or 1500-1800 men). But I thought Marius hadn't abolished the maniple per se, just made it a sub unit of the cohort... my sources (darn it, they are French and I've not had them at hand for years) said that while the cohort (c. 600 men) was the basic tactical unit, they were still divided in 3 maniples for flexibility on the field, either for manoeuvering in close quarters (remember the maniple came to the fore in the Samnite wars, when a lot of the action took place in narrow defiles), or to be able to rush men to weak or embattled areas of the front during battle. Also, Turtledove has very firm background in Byzantine history, He's not a creditable authority on Roman times, but he cannot be utterly ignorant of the subject... would be like being a specialist in American history, and clueless on English ;) --Svartalf 01:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, you got me :D As soon as I wrote that I started digging, and found that.

Before his time the maniple had been the tactical unit. Now it was the cohort. A legion consisted of ten cohorts, each cohort containing three maniples, and each maniple two centuries. - The Gracchi, Marius and Sulla - Epochs Of Ancient History by A.H. Beesley

I think Marian maniples are different though. Maniples used to differ according to the "equipment level" of the self-outfitting landholder/soldier in old Republican times. With the Marian reforms, there is a standardization of equipment, so I think you go from several kinds of maiples to one type, which is a sub-unit of the cohort.

Beowulf314159 01:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not quite sure. Indeed, before marius soldiers were self outfitted (which is why cavalry duty fell to the wealthy equestrian classes)... but even after him, I'm not sure standardization was absolute throughout the legion : some cohorts, or perhaps even maniples in the cohort (a cohort = 3 maniples, makes it easy to implement the good old acies triplex) would have had heavy hastae to receive the shock of a charge, while others would have only the classical pila, plus, not all archers were auxilia, and of course there would be some velite cohorts with somewhat lighter equipment than the heavy chainmail implemented by Marius, and the lorica segmentata of Imperial times... I must admit that my sources on the matter are scanty and unreliable, plus, I'm not good at research, only at exploiting material I have handy and retaining what I learn. --Svartalf 01:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Me either - I'm skating on the edge of my own knowledge here. I'd have to roll up my sleeves and do some more research on the organization of the legions before I'd be happy making any more "prononcements". Time to start digging in the stacks I guess :) - Beowulf314159 02:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

King Kull[edit]

Svartalf, I feel your pain...too many comicbook publishers seem to tarnish the reputations of many a literary figure. Indeed King Kull is Fawcett's interpretation of the classic character. Note this stub from another (non-authoritative) site: "KING KULL Leader of a race of beast-men on Earth-S who were overthrown by their human slaves thousands of years ago. After ages in suspended animation, Kull returned, determined to destroy all am humanity. He originally appeared In CAPTAIN MARVEL ADVENTURES #125." http://www.mykey3000.com/cosmicteams/jla/_docs/awdc_villains.html

I'm still looking for further references that nail down his background, when I locate them I'll update the page. Thx. Netkinetic 00:46, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Historical innaccuracy[edit]

Some short-sighted people are about to delete that category. Jooler 19:27, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

and a real shame it is --Svartalf 22:47, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Boru[edit]

I got the image from here. There are other similar images here and here. It would be good to know the artist, or original source, although I'm not entirely sure how to find out. If you find out anything more, let me know! :) Would also be nice to have some more pics for the article, at the moment its pretty thick. - FrancisTyers 22:42, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bidenhänder[edit]

how about 9300 vs. 1800 google hits to begin with? Yes, German for "both" is "beide", and I don't know why the term came out as it did. I suppose it must be dialectal, or whatever. Fact is that Bidenhänder is now a word, and Beidenhänder isn't, check a German dictionary (a modern coinage of "implement to be used with both hands" would be "Beidhänder" [in actual use for "ambidextrous" but, idiosyncratically also in use for swords, e.g. [1]: this is a synchronic coinage as opposed to the inherited term, which is Bidenhänder], compare also "beidhändig", not "*beidenhändig"). dab (ᛏ) 16:18, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dracula[edit]

Dear Svartalf, I saw that you changed my edit to Dracula, deleting my comment on the closeness of the novel and the Coppola film. I reinserted a changed version.

I didn't want to say that BSD is completely identical to the novel, but that among all Dracula films it is the one that comes closest and is quite faithful to the plot. Yes, it adds "origins of Dracula", and the love story between the Count and Mina and a sort of "give me peace" happy ending, but at least all the characters are as they are in the novel (Dracula's romantic part excepted, but then again, we cannot tell from the novel how he felt), there is no Lucy-Mina swapping.

IMHO the Coppola film is faithful to the plot and adds interpretation (whether one likes it or not is another question), while all films before made considerable changes to plot or characters.

If you think, Svartalf, my edit overstated my case here, please feel free to improve. Str1977 20:49, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, I agree with what Your Grace has said. Can you come up with a wording which retains the "closer than others before but still re-interpreting" thought I wanted to include. 08:52, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for correcting my user page. I guess I have to recite declination tables again to fresh up. Have you considered a possible alternative wording for Dracula. Str1977 12:03, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What do think of this: [2] Str1977 15:00, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am content. Str1977 16:56, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Bathory Case[edit]

Yes, I meant the many speculations that article has. I was looking for the "Factual Accuracy" template, but I couldn't find it. Sitenl 22:47, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Old French[edit]

Hi Svartalf, I saw that you translated that bit of Old French on Sibylla of Jerusalem, "li plus apareissanz et plus dreis heis dou roiaume". My Old French is pretty basic so I was never bold enough to translate that, but I always thought "apareissanz" meant something like "obvious", as in "the most obvious and rightful heir...", in the sense that she was not only the heiress by law, but also that there wouldn't have been a better choice even if she weren't, since she was the closest relative of the previous monarch. I assume "apareissanz" is akin to "apparent", as in "heir apparent". Does this make any sense, or is your "proper looking" the better translation? Adam Bishop 16:56, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's true about Isabella, but presumably the court party would not have considered her an obvious choice :) I was looking for that line in the English translation (in the Crusade Texts in Translation series) but I couldn't find it. I will have to go to the library and check the big Old French dictionaries (ah, 19th century German scholarship). Adam Bishop 18:40, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment on the "Ringmail" AFD[edit]

While references in English are preferred on en: Wikipedia, references in other languages are quite acceptable if you can't find English-language ones. They're certainly better than a lack of references. I'd encourage you to add them! Thanks, —Matthew Brown (T:C) 03:20, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Copy Edit[edit]

I saw that you added your name to the translators list, and also that you are a native speaker of French. Could you check over my translation of Louis Braille and let me know what you think? --JTBurman 09:31, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're right: I took some liberties with the section headings. The first was reflective of my intent to preserve what I perceived to be an intentional pun on doit/doigt by the original author, which then became "bump" in translation. The second change occurred simply because I thought the original heading was boring. (Feel free to replace it with something better.) The third was my interpretation, since the content of that section was about his illness rather than his disappearance. (I assumed that the subtitle reflected an idiomatic usage, so I translated it using the equivalent English term: "consumption.")

As for where to post the critique, please post it below the translation on the talk page. (If you're feeling generous, feel free to stick a note on my talk page too.) You'll notice as you review the article that I added a few details from the English version, where doing so could augment the text or could preempt a factual disagreement. I also cut out pieces that were overly "whiggish" (i.e., NPOV) or otherwise redundant when I reworded them. Thanks for helping out. --JTBurman 10:06, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your honest critique of the translation. As for your concerns about edit-warring, no worries: I hope to leave both our comments there so an editor without connection to the text can choose what to incorporate into the English article. JTBurman 20:11, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Úi Vs. Uí[edit]

Just a detail,, the Gaeilge version for O'someone should read Úi rather than Uí. Changing on which letter you put the fada completely messes up pronunciation, and Irish usage puts it on the U. and Turlough is spelt Táirdhealbhach... keep them h's, we don't have dotted letters here.--Svartalf 18:49, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Hello Svartalf, thanks for your comment. However, I'm afraid its you that has it wrong; not only is Uí correct, I have never seen the Úi form used, ever. Also, I'm well aware that O' should really be Ó. The spelling of any given personal name, nickname or surname varys greatly in the sources as there was no standard spelling in Gaeilge at the time. Thus, the same name is often found in slightly different forms, but this actually is'nt so bad as it helps differenciate the person concerned. All the forms that I use are directly taken from modern, authorative accounts of the people concerned, all listed at the bottom of (most!) of my articles. And I agree that some form of Táirdhealbhach should be employed instead of Turlough, as the latter is the term for a seasonal lake! I'm Irish myself, by the way, so I do have some idea what I'm on about. Yet don't let this gentle rebuke put you off pointing out any other apparent errors of mine - I DO appreciate all comments. Thanks! Fergananim 17:16, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to WikiProject Beer![edit]

Hello, Svartalf! I noticed you are a relative newcomer to WikiProject Beer and I wanted to extend a welcome to you. I see from your user page that you and I share a great many interests in common. In light of that, I hope to be "seeing" you around the wiki from time to time. Cheers! —CKA3KA (Skazka) 22:42, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Old French again[edit]

Hey, I checked in the big Old French dictionaries (Tobler-Lamartzsch, etc), and "apparaisanz" can mean "clear", "obvious", or "evident", so I guess I interpreted it correctly, Sibylla was both the rightful heir and considered the most obvious choice by the court party. Adam Bishop 15:18, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thanks[edit]

Thank you, Svartalf; I appreciate your sentiment. Nothing has happened so far, let's just wait and see how the decision process takes its course. See also User_talk:Lupo#the_remedy; skal, dab (ᛏ) 08:47, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ringmail Again[edit]

Hello Svartalf. User 211.27.13.86 is not a vandal, he is a new user, and an expert on the subject. I hope we can make an article including the new and accurate information without jettisoning all of the original article. Megalophias 11:28, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's a discussion thread on the subject on SFI here[[3]]. It would be great if you would come and talk, and don't be discouraged by any harsh comments in previous posts. Thanks. Megalophias 12:02, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ack. Sorry Svartalf, I guess that didn't work out too well. :( Megalophias 16:36, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Crom[edit]

Hello, bonjour, et salve. Would you mind terribly if I moved the current contents of Crom to Crom (fictional deity), and turned it into a disambiguation page? There's a Mexican union that uses the acronym CROM (the Regional Confederation of Mexican Workers), and I think a disambiguation page would help to avoid having to put an "other uses" template on the current Crom article. Let me know what you think.--Rockero 03:54, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like someone's beat me to it. 8)--Rockero 09:39, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Beer cats & kittens[edit]

It has been suggested by User:BrianSmithson and supported by User:Syrthiss that the Beer and brewery categories should be renamed. This proposal has been supported and expanded by myself. The notion is that the regional categories should follow the format of "Beer and breweries in Africa" /Europe/Asia/North America/South America/Oceania. "Brewers and breweries" could also be renamed "Beer and breweries by region". And all the countries should also be renamed (and merged if needed) as, for example, "Beer and breweries of Germany", "Beer and breweries of Britain", "Beer and breweries of Poland". The word in each case would be beer rather than beers to allow for general articles on beer culture in each region as well as individual beers.

Comments, suggestions, objections, free beer and simple votes to Wiki Beer Project SilkTork 15:29, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ringmail again (again)[edit]

Hi, I don't think protecting it would be wise, since the edits take place over such a long period of time, but I will keep an eye on it. Adam Bishop 23:03, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, well the next problem is that the edits are not actually vandalism. This is just a difference of opinion, I can't protect a page because of that. You'll have to work it out on the talk page. Adam Bishop 16:40, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied to your post on my talk page. Let's keep discussion of the content on the article's talk page for everyone to see. Regards. ×Meegs 19:43, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bram Stoker's Dracula[edit]

What do you think the word "completely" adds to the sentence? JoshuaZ 04:52, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Katana[edit]

Thanks for your reply and for correcting me. --Karimi 20:26, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Advice[edit]

Hi Svartalf. I think you made some good arguments on Talk:List of ethnic slurs, but the reception that they receive may be affected by the aggressive way that you ended the post, "And anyway, mr esprit, who are YOU to decide what's worthy of inclusion or not?". Esprit has not done anything terribly drastic or unreversible, and has not taken a combative stance (unless this is part of a larger conflict that I am not aware of). I would suggest that you always try to enter discussions like with in a friendly, persuasive, and diplomatic tone. Best regards ×Meegs 07:09, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Beer & brewery notability criteria discusion document[edit]

A discussion document has been opened up. Wikipedia:WikiProject Beer/Notability Criteria. Please put in your views either on the main page or on the attached talk page. SilkTork 17:58, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Poll[edit]

Your vote/opinion on brewery notability is requested here: [4] SilkTork 12:23, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Imperator Scotorum[edit]

Hello Svartalf. You raise a very good point, and this goes right to the very heart of the whole issue of the High Kings and the 10-12th centuries progression towards a Irish national kingdom ruled by one king. It was a bombast on Brian's part, but bombast he could and did back up. Mentioning it draws attention to the fact that Ireland was never ruled by a single native king at any time in its history, though it was well on that road by the time the Normans invaded. Who knows where we would have being by 1269, or indeed 1369? Yet by all means disagree with me, as this is a subject I would like to generate thought and discussion on. Thank you for dropping by; hope to see more of you in future. Fergananim 14:53, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Höfuðlausn[edit]

Your point is well taken, except that William Miller can hardly be described as unknown; he is internationally-recognized as a leading authority on the Icelandic sagas. I entered that information about substitution based on notes from his class (which I took an uncomfortably large number of years ago) that I discovered while cleaning out my house. When you challenged it I looked through those of his books in my collection to see if I could find the particular reference to Egil's substituting Eirik for Athelstan, and couldn't find it. I've emailed him to ask him for a citation. If he replies that this was in fact idle speculation and not written up in a scholarly source, I will remove the reference.

Cheers,

Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 18:30, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have spoken with Dr. Miller. He told me that the idea that Egil substituted Eirik's name was first published by a German scholar in the late 19th century, but he unfortunately does not remember the work's title or author. I am going to look into this as best I can. In the meantime you can leave the paragraph as is with the "citation needed" marker, or remove it as you see fit. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 19:10, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Njal's Saga and Laxdaela Saga[edit]

I've been wanting for some time to bring these articles up to featured status, as was done with Hrafnkels saga. Is this something that you would have the expertise/interest to collaborate on? Do you know anyone else who might be willing to help out?

--Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 20:24, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Red Sonja vs Red Sonya[edit]

Have a look at the Red Sonja article which contains more details and a link. -- Beardo 18:07, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Closing an AfD[edit]

No, sorry. I'm not an admin. I close AfD's that should be kept or speedy kept. The kinds of AfD's like the one you refered me to is left up to admins. Try checking an AfD that was deleted and ask one of the closers who deleted it to take a look at it. If you adress the concern properly to them, and if there is no reason to delete, it should be kept if thats what you are looking for. SynergeticMaggot 08:07, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I request your kind attention to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Using_the_subject_as_a_source check that the article in question does not contain any unsourced or poorly sourced criticism. If it does, delete it. Hence, I guess, as per policies, I have every right to delete an article about me. I don't want guys who have NO (I repeat NO) knowledge about Indian Books pass judgement about my merit unnecessarily. The article was proposed for deletion first on notability. When I proved notability, it has changed to Vanity. I guess it is some one who does not like me trying to tarnish my name. This is a phenomenon that has been emerging in Wikipedia. Since they cannot write rubbish in the main article, they nominate the article for deletion and vent all the frustations (non-notable, limited shelf-life etc). One guy has written that the author is non-notable since he has "never read the book". I have never read any plays of Shakespeare. Can I tell that Shakespeare is non-notable just because I have not read the books. If there is any doubt regarding the books, one can always email or phone the publisher. Instead, nominating biographies for deletion and then slandering the individual has been the recent (sorry) phenomenon in Wikipedia.

I find that you have recommended that my biography be deleted.

WHen I prove that the AFD does not hold as per the established guidelines you take it as an offence and ask whether the subject can intervene. I have intervened only as per the above guidelines. Please note the policy. And one final request. Before keeping or deleting an article, be sure to know the exact rules

Thanks for your time in reading this Doctor Bruno 15:31, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

mister, you have proven nothing. Notability is not so easily achieved and proven, even (or especially) when restricted to such a limited interests field as "writers of exam-cramming books of India". Maybe such a biography might be appropriate in wiki:hi or wiki:mr, or possibli wiki:kn? Notoriety in a given geographic or linguistic area may make one notable there, but this does not necessarily extend to the worldwide English speaking domain --Svartalf 15:52, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to suggest that Wikipedia is limited to English speaking Domain. Is it so Doctor Bruno 19:16, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have proved[edit]

That I have written 6 books and satisfy the criteria

Wikipedia:Notability (doctors) : I satisfy the following points

The person is regarded as a significant expert in their area by independent sources. (Area of Expertise - PG Preparation. If you do not even know what it means, then You should ask people in India
The person is regarded as an important figure by those in the same field. Same. See www.rxpgonline.com or www.aippg.net/forum or www.netmedicos.com or www.targetpg.com
The person has published a large quantity of academic work (of at least reasonable quality). 6 Books (entire books and not just papers) that are selling well in India are proof for academic work

Wikipedia:Notability (books)

Books should have at a minimum an ISBN number (That has been given)
Self-publication - 4 books Published by the leading Medical Publisher in Asia. remember that there are publishers in Asia also
Sales numbers - You have to consider this with the usual number of Medical books sold in India (with the number of seats in Medical Schools here) and not compare this with Harold Robbins or Dan Brown. Any how, you can always contact the publishers

Wikipedia:Notability (people) 1. Published authors, - Rest of the points already given

WP:VAIN An article should not be dismissed as "vanity" simply because the subject is not famous. There is currently no consensus about what degree of recognition is required to justify a unique article being created in WikipediaDoctor Bruno 01:48, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Remember the rules[edit]

Please make only one recommendation; if you change your mind, modify your original recommendation rather than adding a new one. The recommended way of doing this is to use strike-through by enclosing a deleted part between <s> and </s>, as in "~~Delete~~ Speedy keep".

The very fact that you did not even take time to read the basic intructions, but has wanted this article to be deleted (Speedy Delete) shows that you are hell bent on defaming me and not on maintaining Good Spirit of Wikipedia

You don't have to make a recommendation on every nomination; consider not participating if:

A nomination involves a topic with which you are unfamiliar.Doctor Bruno 16:17, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Andrea di Robilant[edit]

Hi, It's a fairly marginal article but I suppose his one book was translated into German and Polish (and either to or from Italian). FWIW the current version of the article is copyvio from [5]. Dlyons493 Talk 12:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I left you a note because I thought you might be interested in the copyvio aspect. That seems to have been edited out now - the article has ended up as a fairly harmless stub. Dlyons493 Talk 17:16, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

religioustolerance.org[edit]

You left a note on my talk page earlier in the month asking about religioustolerance.org. Almost all of what I know about it is from the website itself, which is pretty open about things. That's how it is possible to know that almost all their essays are written by Bruce Robinson, aged around 70, who has no theological background whatsoever - and how it is possible to know that the "Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance" and the "we" referred to on the site contains at most five people. The essays largely reflect the personal viewpoint of Bruce Robinson. I don't think he holds a grudge against specific groups of people, but like anyone else, he has a natural bias, his own opinions.

Personally I think good luck to him. The site has presumably been a very enjoyable hobby for him for the last 11 or so years. It/he has benefited from the site being one of the earliest on the web (which wasn't very developed in 1995) and by getting a very good name for the website.

The problem I have with the website is that some people latch on to points they agree with and start citing Robinson as an academic reference. He isn't. He clearly states he isn't. He doesn't want to be. In fact, it's easy to poke massive holes into his essays if you try to look at them as academic pieces. So the site should not be used as a reference. Of course, sometimes he does use good academic references for his essays - and where that is the case, his site can be could for tracking down those references. jguk 09:39, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi[edit]

Just popped in to say hello. Looked at your userpage, we have some similar interests. Dessydes 14:44, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your question[edit]

You stated, I can't tell about beliefs, as in the religion/philosophy as opposed to secular corporation... but it sure is interesting material concerning their practices, and I'd like to know if what those who still believe after breaking away from the church do any differently... What's yu view about this angle?

If you wish to discuss that issue, I am willing to discuss that issue. Terryeo 06:43, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More Andrea di Robilant[edit]

Hi, I'm thinking of moving this article on which you have commented. Comment at Talk:Andrea di Robilant? Cheers, JackyR | Talk 15:26, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS I saw your comments about notability. There's a fairly new project Wikipedia: Notability (books) in which you might be interested. JackyR | Talk 15:26, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Butting in...[edit]

Btw, while I don't want to wind you up when about to start a discussion about di Robilant, I've just noticed a conversation on this page on a topic that matters to me.

Would you like to think again about the idea that someone is notable enough for one Wikipedia but not for another? I'm not referring to Dr Bruno in particular, but to this concept in general. AFAIK, this encyclopedia is supposed to be for all human knowledge, not for all knowledge within the reader's home culture(s)/language(s). For me, one of the beauties of WP is that it has the potential to avoid the more egregious bias of centrally written encyclopedias, where different standards of notability are applied to events/people from different countries.

And there is a particular problem with suggesting something is suitable for hi.wiki but not en.wiki: India uses both languages. So an Indian reader is subjected to all sorts of trivial US (for example) content of en.wiki, because enough Americans think of, say, a TV personality there as notable. And this reader quite rightly applies the same level of notability to an Indian TV presenter. If the article is then shunted to hi.wiki as being "not notable enough outside India", we are enshrining a bias towards the US and essentially stating that US interests are more important than Indian interests. The effect is further exacerbated by the fact that, due to levels of English-as-a-second-language in the world (never mind India, where it can be a first language), en.wiki is in practice the Universal Wikipedia. It is therefore even more important that it be written for a world audience, not a narrow selection of countries.

And lastly, but really the same thing, I like to read articles emanating from cultures from which I am usually barred by my language skills. They broaden my understanding of the world. Dammit, I find it a relief just having easy access to articles from an Irish perspective (no language barrier required), instead of from a tedious British-hegemonic perspective.

My egs are not intended to pertain specifically to the case you have been discussing, so please don't feel I'm trying to misrepresent you. I'm more trying to illustrate the general case. And my apologies for dropping this lot in from the blue! Hope to see you at di Robilant, all best wishes, JackyR | Talk 16:08, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Illugi the Black[edit]

He was the father of Gunnlaug Worm-tongue so Gunnlaugs saga is probably the best starting point. (yes, I stalk other users' talkpages) Fornadan (t) 10:27, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

inclusivity and the soapbox of self[edit]

Hi. Having been involved recently with JackyR regarding deletion of an obvious vanity article I noticed her talk page edit above. I feel that admins should have a stricter policy regarding deletion of vanity articles. What do you think of the following idea: that each country have its own Wikipedia? We already have one for each language (encompassing 'all' useful/notable human knowledge) so why not one for each country which could contain all the local bits of knowledge and local personalities, such as the trade uniojn leader or Indian newsreader emntioned in your correspondence with JackyR? Then it would simply be a matter of bumping off the article from main wiki to the local wiki for that country concerned, and the matter could be voted on in the same way as for deletion. Lgh 23:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

country wiki[edit]

Hi. My suggestion makes sense in that the locals of a particular country, having not found information on say, Jo Bloggs of Nowhere Town, Country X, might very well find Joe in Country X's Wiki - if Joe was, say, a prominent headmaster or similar, with enough local kudos to be of interest to citizens for country X but not in the general global community. Likewise, someone from country Y who was interested in Joe and having not found him in the general wiki would know to go and look for him in Country X's wiki. As far as putting the sum of human knowledge on wiki, I think it was Albert Moravia who said that if one were to try and record every piece of information, there would not be enough books in the whole world to describe even a single room. Most knowledge is in fact trivial, and this is exactly my point: that there should be stricter criteria for wiki inclusion, especially as regards non-notable people, but it may be appropriate (and indeed satisfying to the ego's of non-notables) to have them included in a local/country wiki where they can be looked up by their compatriots or others who would know that it is there (their country's wiki) they can be found. A Zambian expert on Zambian legends, to further clarify the point, may deserve an entry in the hypothetical Zambian wiki but not one in the general wiki. An enthusiastic student of Zambian legends, would know to look him up there having not found him in general wiki.Hope this clarifies the point. And no, I have not floated it in the general wiki population because it's only just occurred to me, and I thought that seeing as you are so active I might see how you reacted first. Lgh 01:09, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Village pump "proposals" would seem to be the best place. Just state the case/suggestions whatever and see what happens. Tyrenius 02:35, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

further clarification[edit]

The idea of a country wiki is entirely congruent with my wanting to crack down on vanity articles in the general wikipedia. It is precisely to provide borderline articles or items of only local interest with a venue/forum that I suggest a country wiki. And no, this is not the same as a global/general wiki in a particular language, such as French, as that is simply a commendable effort to have a comprehensive encyclopedia of globally notable information. It is roughly analogous to having a local and an international telephone directory available to you in your own country. You would know where to turn for local information. Lgh 02:56, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Candy versus Candice[edit]

Hey there,
I was the one who reverted Candy's name edit back to Candice, after which you reverted it back to Candy. So to avoid an edit war, I've explained my pro-Candice reasons on the talk page. Could you join the discussion on her full name there? I will not change her name back to Candice yet (if indeed needed): I would like to come to an agreement on the talk page first. Ninja neko 19:35, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cadaver sanguisugus[edit]

Hi, do you have a scholarly source for the term "cadaver sanguisugus" having been used at least once by William de Newburgh or anyone else? I notice that there are a lot of Google hits on vampire forums etc., but according to this paper, only the word "sanguisuga" occurs, and it is translated by historian James Carley as "a leech". In the Medieval sourcebook edition of Newburgh, the sentence reads "The young men, however, spurred on by wrath, feared not, and inflicted a wound upon the senseless carcass, out of which incontinently flowed such a stream of blood, that it might have been taken for a leech filled with the blood of many persons." --194.145.161.227 12:50, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Palmes académiques[edit]

Wot I need, I thought, is someone who not just speaks French but is French. *lightbulb* Svartalf! Would you be so kind as to check my hack translation of Palmes académiques, particularly wrt to translating govt offices, etc. Then it can be moved off the "Needs translation" list. I apologise in advance for the hideous errors you are likely to find... V many thanks, cheers, JackyR | Talk 13:33, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I suppose I'll have to check the connected articles too? --Svartalf 19:59, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. I know nothing of the other articles - just copied the list at the article on fr.wiki and some came up blue. But if you're into translation, it would be a worthwhile job. :-) Cheers, JackyR | Talk 22:36, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS Do you want to go drop your ha'pporth in at Wikipedia:Notability (books), since it's a topic on which you have an opinion? More cheers, JackyR | Talk 22:36, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Schwarzenegger[edit]

I never said that it is useless to state that Arnie is an American Citizen, because that is what he has become after living in USA for a long time. But what pisses me off is the fact that users either say he is Austrian-American, which he is not, or Austrian-born, which is untrue, because he was born in Austria to Austrian parents. By the way, he first learned English in ENGLAND, but that's no longer relevant. Arnie is not the only case of "Wikipedia Americanization". I have also noticed that Wikipedia states most British actors to be "British-born" or "British-American". That's what should be stopped, because it is false imformation, and a good example is stating Arnold to be "Austrian-born" or "Austrian-American" when he is 100% Austrian and an American citizen. Being an American citizen does not make you half American, because it's not in your blood.

I am a different case. I am Iranian, but I was born and raised in England, and I speak with a perfect English accent, which makes me British-Iranian. It's a case like that of the Japanese-American Pat Morita.

There's your proof. Jienum 15:42, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Olaf the White[edit]

Please contribute if you are able. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 15:13, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wine statement[edit]

About the wine blurb: It seems like relevant and credible information, but it still needs a reference, so I've hidden it for now. I'm hoping to come across a paragraph or two about it in some of the sources I'm reading at the moment.

Peter ^Isotalo 11:46, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Medieval cuisine up for peer review[edit]

Greetings and all that!

I'm working on getting the article up to FA-standards and your input would be much appreciated. Don't be shy now. Any and all comments (or criticisms) are beneficial.

Peter ^Isotalo 10:50, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that your a member of Wikipedia: WikiProject Occult[edit]

I saw that your a member of Wikiproject Occult; would you like to join my new Wikipedia: WikiProject Kabbalah? Your participation would be much appreciated. Thanks. Lighthead 02:22, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks![edit]

Any help would be appreciated. Thanks! Lighthead 00:54, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scots, Attacotti and Deisi[edit]

Hi! I would like your opinion on the above short addition I made to Prehistoric settlement of Great Britain and Ireland. Cheers. Fergananim 14:46, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Iceland[edit]

Maybe you are interested in this project... --Michkalas 15:57, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Seppuku in popular culture[edit]

Seppuku in popular culture, an article you created, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that Seppuku in popular culture satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seppuku in popular culture and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Seppuku in popular culture during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Eyrian 17:09, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

PROD of Aqua aura[edit]

Greetings,

I have added references to bring Aqua aura up to speed with WP:N and WP:RS, to this end I have removed your PROD of the article. If you still feel that it does not make the grade, please feel free to lodge an AfD, but please let me know if you do. Fosnez (talk) 12:47, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Beer category decision[edit]

A discussion has been opened on changes that have been made to the existing Beer category system. The changes reverse the decision made by the Project in April 2006. The changes were based on agreement by only two people, and by a discussion that took place outside the Beer Project. There may be some merit in the changes, and to prevent future conflict it is important that there is some discussion of the matter. If you're interested, please see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Beer#Brewery_cats. SilkTork *^YES! 18:00, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

D&D articles for Wikipedia 0.7[edit]

Hi there! :)

As someone who's worked on D&D and/or RPG articles before, I'm inviting you to participate in our goal to both improve articles that have been selected to be placed in the next Wikipedia DVD release, as well as nominate more to be selected for this project. Please see the WikiProject D&D talk page for more details. :) BOZ (talk) 18:11, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Executed people[edit]

Have responded to your query. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:22, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Warning Excalibur (film)[edit]

The article Excalibur (film) contains a section on the Charm of Making which is supported by references to material published on the internet and in such reliable sources as the Walde-Pokorny Vergleichendes Wörterbuch der indogermanischen Sprachen. You have made it clear that you believe based upon your own research that this material presents an incorrect interpretation of the facts. You are entitled to your opinion, but you are not entitled to (1) delete references, (2) insert your own personal opinion for sourced material, or (3) add your own unpublished personal comment as a reference. [[6]]. I suggest that you familiarize yourself with WP:OR which explains why you must provide a reliable source and not just your own opinion to support edits, and WP:VAN which explains how disruptively removing sourced material to be replaced with personal comments is inappropriate. This is a warning. These behaviors are inappropriate, and can be grounds for administrative action. Please feel free to add material supported by reliable sources to the article. Further deletions of sources and editorial comments may be grounds for a suspension of editing privileges and will be reported to an administrator. Wrotesolid (talk) 18:17, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my response to your note on my talk page on the article's discussion page. Wrotesolid (talk) 19:24, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

patent nonsense[edit]

If you enjoy debunking absurd folk etymologies, you might enjoy checking out the "acaba casa" etymology in the article Carabane. Wrotesolid (talk) 17:35, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Draugr, recently moved to Draug, should be moved back. The discussion may be found at Talk:Draug#New requested move discussion: return article to Draugr. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:04, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Hello, Svartalf. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. Mdann52 (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]

Hello, Svartalf. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 14[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Irish mythology in popular culture, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Corum (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:16, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message[edit]

Hello, Svartalf. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Help to check a sandbox before publication[edit]

Hello. I want to translate an article ("fr:Manoir des Croft" in French), but my English is not great. Can you check and correct my sandbox, please, before publication ? Thanks in advance--Paul Morère (talk) 17:36, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:19, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:21, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]