User talk:Pedant/2005-01-14

Vote for or against me on my adminship the voting is pretty close, so if you have an opinion, vote. Pedant

---

your version

If you are invovlved in the discussion, and I didn't already ask: Can you point me at a version of [Cultural and Historic background of Jesus] that is close to what you think is a correct version? And what parts of that version you think don't belong? Pedant 00:31, 2004 Dec 1 (UTC)

Archived Talk

Archive 1 Archive 2

NASA

File:NASA logo bw.png

Just thought i'd check up and see how your coming along with your scanning effort. Drop me a line over on my user talk page. Alkivar 06:13, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Uh, I never used my scanner for OCR. I would think the optimal solution would be to find software that allows you to scan directly to PDF format (I know its out there, just dont know if its free). Not only is PDF portable as all hell, it retains the exact same layout of the document without being a static image (that and you can export text). Your best bet would probably be to call your local college IT department and ask a question. Thats my $0.02 worth anyway Alkivar 23:16, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Excellent, looks like this is going to become an increadible resource (once all 9 bazillion pages are scanned) :) Alkivar 01:26, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Ships

This is the agreed-on policy wikipedia-wide for naming articles about ships:Naming_conventions#Ship_names; and here, under 'scope' are the "new policies" of Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships:

Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships#Scope

For information regarding the other stated policies of Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships, see:

Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships#Categorization;

Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships#Index Pages;

Nautilus

The text was from the Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships which is online at 1. They did indeed use OCR to scan the data in. Thanks for catching that one.

As for the category, please check the other ship categories and notice that typically index pages are used for ships with the same names, rather than categories. After all, how many "ships named Enterprise" would there be? Jinian 18:01, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Nautilus

Nice additions to the Nautilus article, 2 things though, please don't remove this article from Category:Ships named Nautilus, as it was a ship named Nautilus. Also did you use Optical character recognition to scan this data in? Would you check this phrase: "arid after provisioning" is that not supposed to be "and after provisioning"? Anyway, good job de-stubbifying the article. Looks great.Pedant 17:57, 2004 Nov 20 (UTC)

sorry, I think I'm not understanding your comment on index pages, categories. Would you really explain that? It seems like you're saying, well it seems like you are saying several different things and I'd rather ask you what you mean than try to interpret it, since you're online now. Would you mind explaining it as if I am an idiot, so I'm sure I understand? thanksPedant

Okay, and I'll do it here so that we can have the conversation in one place.

Most information about the style of ships' pages can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships. Index pages are discussed in section 2.1, but for brevity, it says Index articles about ships should include in their titles only the standard prefix used by that ship. Other identification should be omitted, so that a reader can easily locate the material sought; eg, name an index article simply "USS Enterprise." So, instead of an article entitled "Ships named Nautilus", to be in line with what every other ship article in Wikipedia looks like, it would be "USS Nautilus" (Moving the current page to one with this title is now on my list of things to do, after I noticed the problem.) See USS Enterprise for an example of what a ship index page looks like. Then each ship goes into the proper category based on the type of ship it was/is (destroyer/sloop/aircraft carrier/gunboat/tug, whatever).

Hope this helps. Jinian 18:50, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Maybe Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships needs some discussion, however, Ships named Nautilus is not a part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships, and I think that Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships needs some attention regarding systemic American-centric bias, if every ship is supposed to be listed under the designation "USS". Pedant.

One, Ships named Nautilus is not intended to be an index page, it is about all ships named Nautilus. Pedant

Fine, but it's pretty redundant with the individual ships' pages.[unsigned comment User:Jinian]

No, it is not redundant. Several of those ships pages are merely copied from Ships named Nautilus. USS Nautilus is not a likely page for me to look for HMS Nautilus or Nautilus (Fulton) -- neither of which are or ever were referred to as "USS Nautilus", or or USS O-12 (SS-73) which was USS Nautilus, but was not originally named Nautilus. Pedant

Two, not all ships named Nautilus were US ships. Pedant

Your point? [unsigned comment User:Jinian]

My point is that USS is a designation for United States ships. USS is not the designation for other nation's ships, nor for merchant ships, nor fictional ships. Pedant

Three, not all ships named Nautilus that were US ships were Navy ships. Pedant

Yes? [unsigned comment User:Jinian]

No. USS is a US naval designation, generally. Pedant

Four, not all ships that were Navy ships with the name Nautilus were named USS Nautilus. Please do not move Ships named Nautilus to USS Nautilus. Pedant

I was planning to break it into several pages, to properly disambig it. Obviously it's not as easy as just moving it, which is why I didn't just do it. [unsigned comment User:Jinian]

You "didn't do it because it wasn't easy". You actually said that? Then you say, 'to properly disambig it', but there is no ambiguity in the article whatsoever. Ships named Nautilus is not a disambiguation article, but it serves the function of one far better than USS Nautilus, as it has a broader scope, and disambiguation articles should have the broadest scope possible. Pedant

USS Enterprise is not the name of HMS Enterprise, however, HMS Enterprise is a "Ship named Enterprise. Pedant

And therefore has it's own page. [unsigned comment User:Jinian]

Lots of pages actually, the point of categorisation is to simplify searching and cross referencing... how would you navigate from HMS Enterprize (1709) to USS Enterprise (1799)? Pedant

Five, Ships named Nautilus is not as you term it, a problem. It was written by 2 experts on the name Nautilus, the Officer-in-charge of the Historic ship Nautilus, and the curator of the United States Naval Submarine Force Museum, Groton, Connecticut.Pedant

It's completely different format and structure than every other page about ships on Wikipedia. That's the problem, not the text. [unsigned comment User:Jinian]

It's not about ships. Its about the naval history of the name Nautilus in fiction and the real world. Pedant

Six, There are however problems with USS Nautilus, it contains innaccurate data and weasel words as presently written.Pedant

Fix it then. [unsigned comment User:Jinian]

I don't intend to. I had 'fixed' it by changing it to a redirect. However, you pointed out that the structure that is in common use at this point is to have an article with that title. So I reverted to the earlier version. It doesn't however serve the purpose of, or have the scope of the article Ships named Nautilus. It links to less pages. I don't think the article serves the purpose it's intended to, as disambiguation pages should have the broadest scope possible.Pedant

Seven, These two articles are separate articles each of whose existence does not depend on the other's.Pedant

Huh? [unsigned comment User:Jinian]

Ships named Nautilus is a good article and is accurate, NPOV, has room for expansion and serves a purpose. USS Nautilus does not adequately serve the purpose it is intended to, and because of its name, is limited in scope, and can never adequately replace Ships named Nautilus. Except for it being as you say: "in line with what every other ship article in Wikipedia looks like" USS Nautilus is an inferior article, in terms of scope only, ie, every fact in USS Nautilus, can be (and probably is) in Ships named Nautilus, but the same does not hold true in reverse. HMS Nautilus, Captain Nemo's Nautilus, and USS O-12 (SS-73) are not likely to be looked for at USS Nautilus

Eight, there are more than one ways to categorize articles: articles and categories may be part of more than one categorization scheme. If you were going to look up for example the Nautilus whose keel was laid down in 1916, you can go to Category:Ships>Category:Ships by name>Category:Ships named Nautilus>Ships named NautilusPedant 21:36, 2004 Nov 20 (UTC)

This is the only category in the "ships by name" category. Look for my request to delete it and make your case to the community on that page. Jinian 19:50, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC) [unsigned comment User:Jinian]

It is not the only category in Category:Ships by name. You listed it for deletion while I was still populating it. I won't be doing any work on any categories until we get this straightened out.Pedant 21:36, 2004 Nov 20 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification

Thanks. So the Lady Washington wasn't ever the USS Lady Washington? Did you find some reference where she was referred to as the USS Lady Washington? That's the one question I asked several times. If you did, where was that reference? Thanks again.Pedant 16:41, 2004 Nov 21 (UTC)

No, there is no reference for her as "USS Lady Washington". The article is titled that to be in line with the naming conventions of ships in Wikipedia, which I thought I had referred you to earlier. The prefix clarifies that she was a ship of the United States (even though it was before there was a United States). US ships didn't carry the appellation of "USS" until 1909. However, in Wikipedia, we use "USS" in the title of any ship that served in the United States Navy or Continental Navy. Jinian 16:58, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I disagree that "in Wikipedia, we use "USS" in the title of any ship that served in the United States Navy or Continental Navy" I think you are mistaken as to the convention: using your reference: Naming conventions#Ship names "Convention: Articles about ships that have standard prefixes should include them in the article title; for example, HMS Ark Royal, USS Enterprise."

It does not say ships that don't have standard prefixes should have them added whether or not that is accurate. This is about the article title of an article about a ship.

That reference also points to this reference reference as being for "Rationale and specifics:" (Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ships)) includes"

"Some authors use invented prefixes for consistency with "USS", "HMS" etc. It's not a mistake to do that, but at Wikipedia we choose not."

It says at wikipedia we choose not to use invented prefixes. (like calling a ship USS Something when it was never USS anything)

and

"Make an index page that lists all the ships with a name:

• USS Enterprise lists eight Enterprises
• HMS Vanguard lists ten Vanguards"

It says that an index page should "list all ships with the same name", not "all ships from one navy listed under an invented prefix", it says all ships.

So what I get from that is that

• There should be a list of all ships with the same name.
• Invented prefixes are not used by those following the ship article naming conventions.
• There is no mention that "an article about the naval history of an oft-used ship's name is a bad thing". (or anything close to that)

comments welcome. Pedant 17:36, 2004 Nov 21 (UTC)

(You have to interpret the naming convention in the light of its practical application, and not in a legalistic fashion. I didn't write it for interpretation by a court, but by sensible people.) Re "USS Lady Washington": We have a convention at Wikipedia of putting ship prefixes in article titles for ships that historically weren't always referred to with that prefix. For example, "HMS" was first used in the late 18th century, but we still have articles like HMS Royal Charles (1655). This is because (1) it makes it simple to title the article; (2) avoids the many disputes that would arise when there is doubt over how the ship was named by its contemporaries; (3) Royal Charles was His Majesty's Ship, so the title is right. In the case of Lady Washington if we disallowed "USS" because of the anachronism we would probably call the article "United States Ship Lady Washington". But then why not abbreviate that rather cumbersome name to "USS Lady Washington"? Gdr 20:30, 2004 Nov 21 (UTC)

I am a sensible person, and my reading of the project page in no way led me to an understanding that using the misnomer prefix was the standard way of doing things, in any case. If it has become the custom to do so, it should be discussed on the project page to avoid misunderstandings, and also to allow a real consensus process to occur, as I am sure the wikipedia community at large would like to know why one project has taken it on itself to subvert the established policies of the wikipedia in general. (in other words it looks to be a contravention of the clearly stated wikipedia conventions regarding disambiguation, that has been done in secret, by a subset of editors) Pedant

Remember, Lady Washington was thrown in my face as being proof that the category "Ships named Nautilus" was bad, because there "was only ever one" Lady Washington which is demonstrably untrue, at a mere glance. And so we use USS Lady Washington as a disambiguation for all the other ships also not named USS Lady Washington as well? Including ships that are not and never were United States ships? Why is this better than Lady Washington or Lady Washington (disambiguation?... but then I didn't bring up the subject of Lady Washington. Pedant

And my point is not to remove or to replace USS Nautilus. Regarding USS Nautilus, I'm not trying to delete or complain about USS Nautilus at all! I just don't think redirecting Ships named Nautilus to USS Nautilus is appropriate or defensible, Ships named Nautilus has more content than and is more accurate than USS Nautilus, and I'm quite certain the convention is not to delete information in this way. And as I have said before, Ships named Nautilusis not a disambiguation page, and does not duplicate any other page. Pedant

...regarding the Category:Ships named Nautilus, I just noted how very difficult it was to find the other articles in the Nautilus series, while reading one of the articles. (try looking at the wikipedia from an end-user perspective)...Pedant

I think I'm responsible for at least one generation of the "list all ships" phrase, and at the time it seemed so obvious that it meant ships of a particular navy that I didn't even think to state that specifically. In practice, the most common situation needing disambiguation is an "HMS Enterprise" reference; the next most common might be Enterprise, which you can see is already a disambig that includes HMS and USS forms as "sub-disambiguators". In any case, we now have hundreds if not thousands of articles following the per-navy convention; anybody who wants us to change conventions should at the very least sign up to change them all, so things continue to be consistent. As to whether ships named Enterprise is a worthwhile article in its own right, that is to some extent a matter of taste. Having read thousands of ship histories now, it seems pretty rare that there's any real significance to the reuse of names; it would be like having a narrative article for people named John Smith. Stan 23:24, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

regardless of who said 'list all ships', think about the case of someone knowing the name of the Nautilus, but not knowing what navy it was in. And besides, the general wikipedia convention is to disambiguate -- on one page -- all occurences of an ambiguity. What reasoning is there to contravene this policy? How is it helpful to the reader? Pedant

"Having read thousands of ship histories now, it seems pretty rare that there's any real significance to the reuse of names; it would be like having a narrative article for people named John Smith"

I agree that it is rare to have a name that has a long tradition associated with it. However, Nautilus is one of those rarities, a ship of that name is visited by a quarter million people each year, and the name is associated with Napoleon Bonaparte, Robert Fulton, Harry S. Truman, Dwight D. Eisenhower, Jules Verne, Edward Preble, the first submarine, the first fictional submarine, the first nuclear submarine, the first submerged traversal of the polar icecap, the Notrh Pole and polar exploration, Ancient GreeceWar of 1812, Battle of Midway, Nuclear power, a ship with that name won Presidential Unit Citation, the highest decoration for a US naval vessel, and the first to be awarded in peace time... etc. I disagree that this is like people named John Smith". Pedant

and the microcategory Ships by name is intended ONLY for ships whose name is so common as to have a dozen articles with similar names, such as Enterprise and other exceptions to the "John Smith is not notable rule" Pedant

The use of "USS" for Continental ships has been troubling me for some time. There was a statute (turn-of-the-century?) that changed the old USF etc to USS for all vessels; it's possible that the fine print made "USS" officially retroactive for Continental Navy vessels. Many sources don't even use prefixes, but they also don't do hyperlinking on our scale, which makes it a problem unique to WP. I'm certainly interested in the evidence for and against using "USS", and how alternatives would handle the existing body of articles, plus how to inform future editors what they should do. In any case, we should continue on the project and/or naming conventions talk pages, that's why they exist (individual users clean up their talk pages, so not the best place to have an on-the-record debate). Stan 23:39, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Changing things

I see you're pretty new here, but have already gotten embroiled in a bit of a fight. Sorry about that! In the couple of years that WP has been around, we've evolved a number of conventions intended to facilitate construction of the encyclopedia, and to reduce the number of disputes. Almost no one is totally happy with the body of standards and policy, but they support it as an alternative to incessant arguing about the same old things. So if you wade in, tell the oldtimers how they're all wrong, and start doing things in a completely different way, you're not going to get a positive reaction. It would work better to spend your time asking people why things are the way they are first, and fixing existing articles rather than leaving them with mistakes, and creating new articles that duplicate much content. I welcome your ideas and am pleased to have another person interested in naval things, so let's see if we can get started off on the right foot. Stan 02:45, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

OK, I see, you have been around WP for awhile. In that case I'm puzzled by your behavior with respect to ship articles; you're presumably familiar with the existing consensus for naming and content, and proposed changes are worked on at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships - in fact there are several ongoing debates there, for which I and others have been doing library research before committing to changing lots of articles - but yet you silently chose to work at cross-purposes to that consensus. You see from the recent edit history of ships named Nautilus that it's going to be hard to defend the article from random editors who simply follow the guidelines that they see written down somewhere. That for me is the real underlying reason to develop consensus and rationale for an idea; while you're working on water heater and I'm pruning shrubs, we want other editors to agree with our additions and improve on them, rather than messing them up. Stan 04:43, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"categories deleted before they could even be populated" - heh, that's happened to me a couple times, it is very annoying! I think one thing that gets a bad reaction is that you do things like characterize "USS Nautilus" as "flawed at it's premise" - the dozen-odd people who've worked a lot on naval articles pride themselves on seeking for accuracy, and you come off as dissing them en masse. When I've done research on ship prefixes and their usage, I've found that it's been very inconsistent - authors are all over the place, navies report their current usage and profess ignorance that it was different in the past, etc. That's why it would have been better to bring it up at the project page first; while you make some good points, I think other editors are apprehensive of the potential for chaos, especially if you're not signing up to fix the hundreds of articles and thousands of links that would be affected. Stan 05:31, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

When I see an article that seem drastically wrong in some way, or inconsistent project rules, but the edit histories shows that a number of people active in the topic must have reviewed and accepted them in that form, I assume that there's a underlying reason and ask on talk pages first. Frequently my questions get other people to realize their mistakes, and they jump to fix the problem - everybody wins. Stan 17:00, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

again, I didn't set out to get embroiled in a debate on disambiguation, I just added an article and a couple of useful categories. All I'm really interested in discussing along these lines is:

As long as we're talking about what you've done. As I recall, and as the history page shows, you redirected the disambig page USS Nautilus to Ships named Nautilus. Otherwise I would have never even stumbled upon your work. Thanks for changing it back, by the way. Not trying to by nasty or rude, just trying to ensure that we're all clear that I don't troll the 'pedia for people to attack. Jinian 00:35, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• What is wrong with adding an article on the history of a name?
• How do the new categories harm or impede the wikipedia.

as these reflect on things that I have done.

I specifically am not inclined to be interested in Lady Washington or The name John Smith any other red herrings thrown in my path that distract from the present discussion on the above two topics. Telling me that Ships named Nautilus is bad because Ships named Lady Washington would be bad is a non sequitur, I didn't create Ships named Lady Washington. Bringing up Lady Washington or John Smith is like saying "Dogs on a leash is a bad idea because there are so many ducks that won't tolerate wearing a collar". Pedant

I am only peripherally interested in USS Something and the ship project's apparently different-from-wikipedia-in-general policy on disambiguation pages, and only because it slightly relates to the above two topics. Pedant

Anything that doesn't bear on articles I've written, proposed or edited, or categories I've added, populated, proposed or deleted, really doesn't bear on me personally and should be discussed as you suggest, on the talk page of the article in question. There's only so much I can do. Once topics directly bearing on me have been resolved, perhaps I will have some time to suggest improvements in other areas.Pedant

I'll leave this full discussion here, until the issues above are resolved, or there is no discussion, and anyone is welcome to copy text to or from this page that bears on the discussion, no matter how cluttered the page gets.Pedant

If any one editor who is a participant listed on the Ships Project page tells me to just stop adding anything that relates to seagoing vessels at all, to just entirely butt out, I'll do so. I have other things to work on. However, if any of the participants do tell me to butt out, I will require a group consensus and invitation before I add anything more to anything that might impinge on the project.Pedant 17:58, 2004 Nov 22 (UTC)

Speaking for myself, I don't want you to butt out, I just want you to work with the rest of us. Stan 07:08, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I don't want you to butt out either, but I'd prefer we discuss relevant issues. If you don't like the way we've done things, recommend a change on the projects page. I'm going to stop discussing abuptly again, since I don't care to spend me time on this types of interactions. Jinian 11:44, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I didn't even know that we were doing things like putting false information into articles, until you told me that was the way "we" do it. The project page says nothing near the way you say that we do things. I don't think discussing it on the project page is going to do any good, since no matter how many times I refer you to the pertinent part of the project page, you persist in saying that the Ships Project does things differently from the entire rest of the wikipedia, although I see no evidence to that effect. The Ships Project page has what seems to me to be correct instructions on classifying ships, but apparently you and perhaps several others have developed your own custom of doing things your own way, without any reference to either the Ships Project page or wikipedia guidelines. I think that this maybe needs to be brought out into the open, in the community at large, as it seems to be a dirty little secret some subset of the community has foisted upon the wikipedia. You have never pointed me to anything on that page that says that ships that are not USS ships are to be called "USS" or that disambiguation pages for ships should start with "USS". If that's the way "we" do things, I can't in good consciensce participate in it. I'm intend to gather more information and submit this for a Request for Comments.

Pedant 22:38, 2004 Nov 24 (UTC)

This type of comment verges on threat

You might not want to call too much attention to your complaints about the ships project - others will look at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships and see that you've made exactly two additions to it so far, and that a number of your remarks there and elsewhere are bordering on personal attacks, which can get you in trouble. If you're going to keep making claims of false information, I expect to start seeing some citations to published literature, not unverifiable references to some conversation you might have had. BTW, I'm putting my note because you've totally scrambled your talk page with redirs and such. Stan 18:21, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I wonder why it is you think I want to keep this a secret. Your insinuations above have no merit. I have never in any way borderline or otherwise personally attacked anyone on wikipedia. Nor would I. If you think that I have done so, point it out. Pedant

I am merely bringing to the community's attention a pervasive problem that is growing fast. I have never made reference to any conversation I might have had in as you say "making claims" of false information. By your saying so it seems that there is a deliberate lack of clarity in your remarks: your comment above could lead someone to believe that I am the one adding false information and that I have cited a conversation as my proof, or some similar claim which is demonstrably not true. Pedant

What I have said is true: many of the ship articles contain false information; many of the articles entitled USS something are titled contrary to both wikipedia naming conventions, and to the stated conventions of the ships project; and I have cited the conventions which they are contrary to. Pedant

But just so you have it right here where you can see it, here is an example of false information, for which I cite two articles from within the Ships Project itself:

USS Nautilus says "The first Nautilus, was a schooner that served against the Tripolitan pirates and into the War of 1812"

and

Nautilus (1800) says "Nautilus was the first practical submarine, commissioned by Napoleon and designed by the American inventor Robert Fulton, then living in France. Launched in 1800...".

Obviously it cannot be true that the first Nautilus was both a schooner and a submarine. One of these articles must be incorrect. I chose this example because it was the very first ship listed in the very first "USS Something" article I encountered, of a very large set of articles, every one of which I have encountered contains at least one blatant error that a cursory examination by even a slightly diligent editor would readily discover. Pedant

It concerns me that only you and one other editor have expressed a resistance to my expressing this to the community, and that you make allegations of personal attacks (but only on my talk page). Even more intriguing to me is that you feel the need to make vaguely threatening innuendos such as "You might not want to call too much attention to your complaints about the ships project". I have not yet completed my documentation of this problem as it is so widespread that I may need help to even begin to describe the scope and nature of the problem. I am devoting all of my wikipedia time to this situation at present. Pedant

You have made it quite clear that you do not wish to have this matter discussed. It is not my job to judge your motivations. I will not waste my time with you any further if you wish to conceal this matter. I don't intend to drag anyone into this personally, barring evidence of bad intent. I do however intend that this matter be resolved in the best interests of the wikipedia, and that all false information be removed, and that if there are valid reasons for flouting wikipedia conventions and wikproject conventions, that those conventions be rewritten to reflect the actual practice, so that this issue does not get worse. At present, the problem is growing faster than I can research it, and I would welcome assistance from any editors with principles who are able to understand what the problem is.Pedant 04:50, 2004 Nov 26 (UTC)

Please don't put words into my mouth - I'm happy to discuss all this at length, anywhere, anytime. Believe it or not, I'm trying to give you my best advice as to how to address your complaints. My original advice was to discuss it at the project page, which you've not done (two postings is not a discussion), and now having failed to convince anyone there, you're making exaggerated claims of a "red alert situation" in which editors are "adamant in continuing to add false information", most definitely a direct attack on those editors. Who's going to take you seriously after all that? Even worse, who's going to give credence to a self-admitted dilettante who's worked on a couple ship articles, versus the 20-odd people who've collectively built and organized hundreds? So if you want to put a lot of time and energy into this, feel free, but I just don't see how it's going to get you anything that you want. Stan 06:26, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

On your "first Nautilus" claim of error, it's easily explained - by definition, USS Nautilus primarily disambiguates only commissioned USN ships, and so in that context "first Nautilus" clearly means "first USS Nautilus"; we could include the "USS" with every ship reference, but there is also a general rule to only include the "USS" with the first use of the name. In the nearly two years that I've been working steadily on WP, you're the first person who's complained about this tiny bit of ambiguity; everybody else seems to understand what is meant. Even so, had you brought that specific point up on the project page, I don't think it would have been that hard to get support for the change; I've waffled about it myself more than once, and also contemplated just whacking the "first", "second", etc, because the numbering gets complicated for 17th century RN rebuilds and the like, plus it invites pointless debate about who was "first". Stan 06:45, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

What words did I put into your mouth? If you have a problem with my behavior, my user page is not the place to do it. Make your case to someone and have me banned. All I want is that wikipedia not make any statements that are not facts. None at all. A single error could be edited out, but this is much more than that. If you don't think having a factual wikipedia is worth whatever energy there is to put into it, that's you, not me. Go to your user page and complain about it.

As for your second paragraph, first Nautilus also was not the first "USS Nautilus", as that was nearly a century later. If you don't care about that... I just don't know what to say.

I'm not asking anyone to take me seriously until I can come up with a detailed summary of what's wrong in the ship constellation, when it started, how it seems to have happened, and how many man-hours I estimate it will require, then find some advice from others on how to minimise the work, revise my estimate, and present the issue in complete form with a request for comments. If you don't take me seriously, please just let me waste my time without your interference. I won't be editing anything related to any watercraft until I've made my case. As far as I'm concerned, if you can't see that there's more than just one tiny ambiguity, you can't help fix it. Come back when you understand the problem. I'd welcome help when the time comes to overhaul the hundreds or thousands of articles this negligent editing has affected. If you actually do want to help, start by quoting the policies you keep referring to as they don't seem to say the same thing to you that they do to me. Otherwise stay off my user page, right now this page is devoted to solving this problem or at least framing a description of a solution preparatory to whatever wikipedia decides to do about it.Pedant

Fine then, have at it. Stan 07:41, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Confusing issues

I'm confused about what the problems are. It seems to be that there are several issues that need discussing:

1. Is it OK to have pages like Ships named Nautilus that list all ships with a name, irrespective of navy? (discussion here)
2. Is it OK to have categories like Category:Ships named Nautilus similarly? (discussion here)
3. Do ship articles properly follow the conventions at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ships)? (discussion here)
4. Are those naming conventions in accord with general Wikipedia naming policies? (discussion here)
5. Is it OK to backdate ship prefixes when naming articles? (discussion here)
6. Is it OK in USS Nautilus to write "The first Nautilus" when "in the Continental Navy or US Navy" is to be understood?

I find much of the discussion above difficult to follow because it keeps slipping from one issue to another. I also think it would be best if this whole discussion continued in the relevant sections of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships where participants are more likely to read it. Gdr 13:03, 2004 Nov 26 (UTC)

We really need you at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships to discuss these issues, as you're the one who feels most strongly about them. Gdr 19:38, 2004 Nov 28 (UTC)

My adminship request

Thanks for your support! --jpgordon{gab} 04:31, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Putting a link here

Putting this link here will undoubtably attract Slrubenstein and Sam Spade and company to the link destination. Nethertheless, would you like to comment? CheeseDreams 19:23, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/CheeseDreams

Oh, you might also like to see the nuclear option

Everything else

Jesus

Pedant, I'm not sure I've seen a version that I feel gets the balance exactly right, but I haven't looked through the pre-edit conflict versions. I think that the version of the article currently protected is better than the FT2 version, and I noted my issues with each version earlier on the talk page. At any rate, my basic feeling, in terms of how much Jesus should be in the article, is that the article should not be about Jesus, but that it should be about the context of Jesus. To discuss context, there ought to be some necessary reference to what is being contextualized. Thus, discussion of the Pharisees should indicate how the Pharisees relate to the Jesus story, and so forth. john k 00:38, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Culture/History/Jesus

I would start with the article in its current, protected form [1], and then make the changes I outlined (but honestly, I took into account what others had said), here: [2]. If you look at the article in its protected form, after section 3 "sources" is sections 4-7, starting with "material from earlier version." When I was revising the article, I left this material in as a courtesy: in case others thought any content from it should be in the article, people could move it to the appropriate spot. Personally, I think all of this material could be deleted.

This is the version I really do not like: [3]. Here [4] are my reasons for not liking this version (I call it FT2's ultimate version using "ultimate" to mean "latest.")

I hope this is clear. Slrubenstein

I don't have a version I can point to, per se, as one I prefer. I do think it should be organized more or less chronologically, rather than divided up by topic. And as I said before on the article's talk page, I think the article should say just enough about Jesus for the reader to know why everyone thinks this background stuff is worth learning about. Wesley 04:06, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Where Category:Waste Management went

Since you created the category and may have been watchlisting it, I thought I should mention that I moved it over to Category:Waste management to conform with Wikipedia capitalization standards. Unfortunately there's no automated function for that so I had to create a new page and delete the old one. Just in case you wondered where it had disappeared off to. Bryan 05:38, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

WikiProject Bible

The project is going from the Christian point of view of what the "Bible" is... Obviously, there is a big overlap with the Hebrew Bible, and there is not consensus about the right thing to do when the project overlaps with Wikiproject Judaism. Unfortunately, I announced the project right before Sukkoth, so the participants in Judaism who were going to comment haven't done so... Mpolo 20:15, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)

Request for help

Hi there. I was wondering if you could help out a bit with Fact and Reference Check's biweekly special article. AFAIK I am the only one who has been helping out with it...I'm disappointed by the lack of enthusiasm for this. Anyways, if you get a chance, we would really appreciate your help. As of now, we're not really referencing 'properly' because it causes numerous problems. Not only does it force readers to jump around a lot, but if you need to add a footnote in, you're forced to manually update the rest of the footnotes (search for all the footnotes in the article, and add one to each). This is quite a pain, and doesn't warrant the advantages...besides, the current guidelines for referencing with footnotes actually encourages linking directly to the source.^[5] Thanks for your time. -[[User:Frazzydee|Frazzydee|✍]] 22:27, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse (no pictures)

I notice you created the picture-free article. It was deleted because it split the article into two complete versions that aren't edited in tandem. I believe I've solved this problem. Basically, I've turned the main article into a template with parameters enbedded in the image tags. When it's used as a template from a subpage with the parameter set to "-5px", the images error out. This makes a version of the page without images, but one that's still based on one and only one article.

See Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse/pictures suppressed. Cool Hand Luke 08:10, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Heh. Yeah, I'm an admin, but I do appreciate the endorsement. I'm one of those that self-nominated under the radar with very few votes and no strong opposition.

At first I thought this kind of trick could be done by making both versions feed off of the same template. You would just include template parameters outside the brackets of each image like {{{openbracket}}} and {{{closebracket}}}, but I figured editors might object to moving the content of the article to a template. Then I thought about using the article itself as a template (which you can do in the main namespace by adding a colon before the title like {{:Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse}}), removing images in the censored version by putting template parameters inside of each image tags and setting the pixel width to 1px. Working on a personal sandbox I found that didn't work (the images just got long ugly boxes), and 0px did nothing. I was happy to discover that negative values make the image error out though, and that's basically how it works—with a little hacking for the page headers.

Everything I know about templates I learned from m:Template, especially the sections on parameters and defaults. Cool Hand Luke 02:41, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Kiki needs your help!

If you remember back a little bit, you were kind enough to test the idea of Kiki with nine kids. You said they were interested in her, as long as she were intelligent. Since then, Kiki has developed into a character that appears on ever few pages in the books, and occasionally interviews real-life scientists, politicians, artists, dancers, zookeepers, what ever relates to the book. These people will be shown in cartoon form, in their work environments. For example, I'm hoping to have "Kiki" interview a NASA scientist or astronaut, or some sort of astronomer, for the debut Solar System issue. Would you be able to run this new role for Kiki past the kids you talked to before, and see if this interests them? The character is in trouble of being eliminated by criticism from other users. -- user:zanimum

Point me at the discussion please? Pedant 18:52, 2004 Dec 6 (UTC)

Sure, it's at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikijunior_project_Kiki_character . Thanks! -- user:zanimum

User:Pedant/Ronald

No problem. I'm glad you didn't mind; I don't normally edit other people's personal pages. :) &mdsah;tregoweth 00:03, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/GeneralPatton

Oppose. I think 3 months on wikipedia should be more than enough time to grind down the rough edges. I prefer admins to be a little more active on chores and a little more sensitive to the needs of the community -- pretty much right away. The longer it takes a user to become accustomed to simple editing and discussion, the longer I expect them to wait for adminship. Also, I'd like to see more activity behind the scenes.

Hi, could you please explain this further? The comments in question where made back in May [6] [7]. Only around a month after I initially joined, and may I add that I was not particularly active up to that time. I've been pretty active ever since, from editing articles to community work. GeneralPatton 01:18, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

ok, first, you edited this page, my talk page twice within minutes of me voting to oppose your adminship. That right there is a little insistent.

Of your 50 most recent edits, only seven were in the wikipedia namespace, 5 of those were on your votes for adminship page, and it seems you are trying to 'manage' your own election.

At a quick glance:

22:03, 2004 Dec 3 (hist) Talk:Battle of the Bulge (welcome to fourth grade english)

within the last week you behaved insultingly, your edit summary provided no info on the actual edit as well.

to explain "3 months on wikipedia should be more than enough time" and "longer it takes a user to become accustomed to simple editing and discussion, the longer I expect them to wait for adminship" :

I don't think I need any more admins who behave insultingly, and the longer it takes for you to learn that, the longer I will expect you to work before I am willing to award you extra privileges. I think one week on wikipedia is plenty of time to learn good wiki manners.

"I prefer admins to be a little more active on chores " ... "Also, I'd like to see more activity behind the scenes"

I'd like to see more edits in the wikipedia: namespace and just all in all to notice you doing chores like reverting vandalism, helping to negotiate consensus, etc. Not that you haven't done those, but I am on an awful lot, and haven't noticed that much of what I would term chores from you. I read a lot more than I edit, so I generally expect to notice an admin candidate before they are nominated.

"a little more sensitive to the needs of the communit":

the community needs less insults and more politesse... "more lubrication and less friction" and even more so from an admin. You will probably become an admin anyway, but I find it odd that you are tracking your opposition and immediately interrogating them, particularly odd to have you query me twice before I can respond once. You haven't improved my opinion of you. Not that I have a bad opinion of you, there are far worse users, but you could take a look at the behavior of admins I HAVE supported, and you will note that their behavior is pretty near impeccable. Whether you gain adminship this time or not, I hope that my comments are of use to you. I don't bear you any ill will. Pedant 01:57, 2004 Dec 7 (UTC)

I did not write "welcome to fourth grade english", User:Xmnemonic wrote that heading, I did answer that there was a further explanation back up in the article. I do appricate that you have a high set of standards. GeneralPatton 02:12, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

alright, I'll delete that part, but 2 edit summaries in a row showed that same text, so will you agree that it is a poor edit summary? Will you allow me to hold the opinion that I think you could do a little better if you tried? May I be allowed to expect admins to be chosen from the group that tries to do a little better than average? You don't need to answer on my talk page, I read everything [wp:Requests for Adminship]. I don't want to hammer on you, but you are really showing me more reasons to oppose promoting you to more privileges at this time.Pedant 02:30, 2004 Dec 7 (UTC)

Richard Nixon Mask

"public displays of disaffection". [8] Heh :-)

chocolateboy 22:25, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

RFA candidate

Salve, Pedant!
I nominated myself for adminship at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/PedanticallySpeaking2 and would appreciate your vote. Ave! PedanticallySpeaking 19:48, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)

Great Sedition Trial ("comments" clean up)

Dear Pedant! I really appreciate your concern deleting a few lines from my correspondence with Tagishsimon, but now all there's left of it is my phrase "This is gonna be my last COTW nomination", which, taken out of the original context, makes me look like a hysterical user, who is upset for no apparent reason. If it hadn't been for Tagishsimon's harsh response to my comment, I would have never volunteered for discontinuing my participation in COTW. And now Tagishsimon's comment looks very neat and innocent, as if nothing happened. You should've deleted all of it or nothing at all. Is there anything that can be done? KNewman 21:49, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)

Article Licensing

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 1000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

• Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
• Multi-Licensing Guide
• Free the Rambot Articles Project

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

OR

Option 2

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:

{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)

If you are worried about templates changing, the template pages are protected so that only users with sysop access can edit them. I've editted them to clarify their purpose, but never to change the underlying meaning. If that still bothers you, you can always make a copy of the template for your user page, then it won't change. At least one of those two options should satisfy your concerns, hopefully. – Ram-Man ^{(comment) (talk)}[[]] 20:01, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)

Requests for adminship/EdwinHJ

Thanks for the message regarding this. Edwin 21:56, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

WikiBank

There's no such thing as a WikiBank, it's called WikiMoney. And the difference between that and my scheme, Wikiclub is that the points in my scheme AREN'T TRANSFERRABLE! --Computerjoe 11:07, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I think this is from someone I agreed with. Pedant

Barnstar of vigilance

Posted on User_talk:ClockworkSoul

What do you want it to look like? I'll make one. Pedant 08:21, 2004 Dec 11 (UTC)

• Great! I'm not exactly surewhat it should look like, though. I was thinking maybe a barnstar over a background of graffiti, but anything creative would do nicely. Besides, if we come up with a better image after, we can always overwrite the old one. -- ClockworkSoul 14:11, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Re: ViP is actually a duplicate of this group of harrassers

In response to

The Vandalism in Progress report is infact merely a reiteration of some of the accusations above, made by exactly the same group of people.CheeseDreams 08:36, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You wrote

this is false. [9] if you will look at this you will see that I am the one who put you on Vandalism in Progress. I'm not part of any "group of harrassers". On the article in question, I believe that I have made no edits whatsoever. I'm not a sockpuppet: I'm within the top 700 editors, with respect to edit number. I frequently talk to you on your User talk page, and you have several times asked for my help or advice on my talk page. I'm certainly not your enemy. Your behavior is your enemy... and it's not too late to change. It's up to you: do you want to resolve these issues amicably or through controversy and dispute? It seems to me you picked a bunch of christians to bully around and expected them to turn the other cheek forever. This isn't an attack, either CheeseDreams, just advice from a friend.Pedant 15:34, 2004 Dec 4 (UTC)

However, it is in fact true not false.

The VIP you point to is in fact a completely different one to the one being referred to, and I don't regard you as part of the group of harrassers. This is the VIP they refer to Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress/CheeseDreams controversy CheeseDreams 18:18, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Ok, I didn't know there was already a vandalism thing for you. So I guess we're not disagreeing here, as we are talking about 2 different things... I hope it doesn't inconvenience you, to have 2 VIP things going on at once. I'm glad you don't consider me part of a group of harrassers... in fact I hope you don't consider me to be a harasser at all, because I am just critical of your behavior. Hope this all works out. Pedant 20:19, 2004 Dec 12 (UTC)

No, it doesnt inconvenience me at all. Oh, you said somewhere you were in the top 700. You are at 695. P.s. I'm already at 644, and thats just due to my first month and a half. CheeseDreams 01:27, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'd have thought that you would have been a lot closer to the top, as often as you edit. It might be worthwhile to compare our actual contributions. Maybe look at what I spent my first month on, etc... might be of some interest to you. By the way I'm trying to drop down to about 1000th or so. I spend too much time here, and would like to increase the quality and decrease the quanity of my own edits. I think that's a worthy goal. Pedant 18:49, 2004 Dec 13 (UTC)

Collaboration of the week

Congratulations, the candidate you voted for, Underground Railroad, is this week's Collaboration of the Week. Please help edit the article to bring it up to feature standard.

Fishy Pictures

Salve, Pedant!
Many thanks for putting up the picture of Marjorie Courtenay-Latimer and the coelacanth on her page. Ave! PedanticallySpeaking 18:06, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)

This needs no introduction

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Slrubenstein

CD Arbitration

I've reformatted your comments here because I believe that your original version had some wikisyntax typographical errors that made it difficult to understand. Please look over my corrections and feel free to revert if need be. I changed no words/text, just formatting. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 18:49, Dec 17, 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse/pictures suppressed

If you have any interest. The vote looks close, but it wont be a wall of deletes like it was with the forked article. I'm almost glad someone finally nominated it: I think this sort of thing deserves more attention, as it might be useful elsewhere on wikipedia. Cool Hand Luke 04:52, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Possible copyvio

Pedant, can you clarify the claim that there is a possible copyvio from http://www.nocturne.org/~terry/wtc_4000_Israeli.html ? - Mustafaa 18:21, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The mutual citation is slightly confusing, but has a simple explanation: after finding this rather useful cite and adding some of the new information in it into the article, I wrote to its writer pointing out some gaps in his account which had already been filled in the Wikipedia article, which he proceeded to cite in turn. I can't see how a copyvio could have arisen, since most of the edits on that article for a rather long time have been me, unless it was at a very early stage; but maybe I'm missing something. - Mustafaa 00:01, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

COTW

Congratulations, First Indochina War has been voted this week's Wikipedia:Collaboration of the week. Please edit it to help raise it to featured article status.

What do I think it is?

I think it is a group of people thoroughly enjoying baiting one another. If CheeseDreams is a troll, I see people happily feeding him/her. You want me to condemn CheeseDreams for being smarter and funnier than his/her opponents? For being more willing to be upfront mean rather than backdoor mean? I don't understand.Dr Zen 02:36, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I think you just flat out didn't read it. It's CheeseDreams insisting to a non-Christian that he is a Christian fundamentalist. Have you ever seen the Monty Python "I'd like to have an argument sketch"? Clever does not equal smart, and annoyingly persistent does not equal funny. I suggest you actually read that bit of text some time. I note that in your last 500 edits approximately 70 are edits to articles. You spend a lot of time talking and not much time writing articles, similar to CheeseDreams. But you are an admin, right? hmmm.Pedant 17:38, 2004 Dec 20 (UTC)

Call for AMA election

AMA Member Advocate,

There's a poll currently in the AMA Homepage about making a new AMA Coordinator election. Please, cast your vote there (though it's not mandatory). Any comments you have about this, write it on the AMA Homepage talk page. Cheers, --Neigel von Teighen 18:43, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Proposals for AMA Membership Meeting

As AMA Coordinator I am requesting that suggestions be placed on Wikipedia:AMA Membership Meeting plans for our first membership meeting, to be held in the near future, (hopefully before any election occurs.) Since we have never had any kind of "official" meeting we need to discuss how this will occur (i.e. Wiki pages or IRC channel), how it will be structured (i.e. meeting agenda) and if there will be any "chair" to supervise the meeting and meeting "secretary" to write up minutes or keep some kind of official record of what transpires. Thanks in advance for your input and your continued work as an advocate. — © Alex756 20:04, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

devilstick

http://henrys-online.de/Webshop/de/dept_52.html <-- alle 65cm - Wieso ändert jemand einen fremden Satz, ohne sich mal handelsübliche Sticks anzuschauen? 70-100 ist ja wohl ein wenig zu lang.

   Tut mir leid. Meine Devilsticks und die, denen ich bisher begegnet bin, waren alle länger - eben 70-100 cm - daher die Änderung. Gut, dass Du das wieder rückgängig gemacht hast. --Martin Roell 17:47, 8. Dez 2003 (CET)

"Eng verwandt ist der Devilstick mit dem Diabolo. Dies zeigt auch die englische Bezeichnung für das Diabolo "Devil and two Sticks"." <-- Kannst Du genau dann wieder reinstellen, wenn Du Belege findest. Wenn google nur zwei Hits liefert, die falsch geschriebene Erwähnungen des Buches "Devil on Two Sticks" von Alain R. Le Sage sind, ist das wohl mehr eine erfundene Ähnlichkeit der beiden Geräte in der englischen Sprache. Die beiden sind zwar uU sprachlich ähnlich, aber ich habe starke Zweifel daran, dass sie einen gemeinsamen Vorläufer haben.. Das Diabolo kommt ja eher von Kreisel/Jojo etc, während ich mir nicht vorstellen kann, dass der Devilstick sich jemals sinnvoll um die Längsachse gedreht hat.

--Hijackal, 07:42, 08. Dec 2003 (CET)

   Ich habe mal in "Devil Stick" (ISBN 3-924690-60-x) von Todd Strong nachgeschlagen. Da heißt es: "Im Englischen heißt [das Diabolo] manchmal auch "devil on two sticks"." (Was falsch zu sein scheint.) Und weiter: "Die Ähnlichkeit zwischen dem Namen Devil Stick und Diabolo ist bemerkenswert. Eigentlich könnten wir sie als zwei Varianten des gleichen Spielzeugs betrachten." Das überzeugt mich nicht. Lassen wir es mal hier stehen, bis sich ein Beleg für einen geschichtlichen Zusammenhang der beiden findet. Das erscheint mir nämlich auch wie eine "hübsche", aber falsche Konstruktion. --Martin Roell 17:47, 8. Dez 2003 (CET)

vgl. meine Änderung

   Die Änderung war: "(Der Devilstick wird manchmal auch Teufelsstab genannt.) Dies deshalb, weil sich der Name - ähnlich wie das bei Diabolo der Fall ist - aus dem griechischen herleiten lässt (dia ballein = hin- und her werfen). Das ist auch die Wurzel für 'Diabolo' = Teufel, weil der einen aus der 'Bahn des Lebens werfen will'."
   Das ist überhaupt nicht schlüssig, deshalb habe ich es gelöscht. Der Devilstick wird auch "Teufelsstab" genannt, weil das die wortwörtliche Übersetzung des Begriffs vom Englischen ins Deutsche ist. Die Verbindung "dia ballein" -> Devilstick erschließt sich mir nicht. (In Diabolo könnte die aber durchaus Sinn machen.) --Martin Roell 16:49, 13. Mär 2004 (CET)

Vgl. z.B. http://www.unet.univie.ac.at/~a9505940/zirkus/geschichte.html oder mal sich die Mühe machen ein ganz normales etymologisches Wörterbuch zu schauen oder z.b. jmd. fragen, der altgriechisch kann... Was einem selbst schlüssig erscheint ist häufig nicht wirklich relevant...

---

http: // henrys-online.de / web shop / de / dept_52.html <-all 65 cms - Why of Ð' ndert somebody a foreign sentence without looking sometimes handels Ñ Œ bliche Sticks? 70-100 is fine a little too long. Is sorry me. My Devilsticks and they whom I have met up to now were all l of Ð' nger - just 70-100 cms - hence, Ð " nderung. Well that you have done again r Ñ Œ ckg of Ð' ngig. - Martin Roell 17:47, 8. Dez in 2003 (CET) " is narrowly used the Devilstick with the Diabolo. This also shows the English one

This also shows the English name f Ñ Œ r the Diabolo "Devil and two Sticks". " <-c do you exactly again reinstellen when you find vouchers. If google only two hits delivers, the wrong written Erw of Ð' hnungen of the book "Devil on Two Sticks" of Alain R. Le legend are, is probably more fictitious Ð " hnlichkeit of both Ger of Ð' te into English language. Indeed, the both are uU linguistically of Ð' hnlich, but I have strong doubts about the fact that they have a common Vorl of Ð' ufer.

I have looked up sometimes in " Devil Embroidering " (ISBN 3-924690-60-x) from Todd Strong. Because hei Ð ¯ t it: " In the English hei Ð ¯ t [the Diabolo] sometimes also "devil on two sticks". " (What seems to be wrong.) And further: " Ð " hnlichkeit between the name Devil Embroidering and Diabolo is noteworthy. Actually, k Ñ +nnten we look at them as two variants of the same toy. " Ñ Œ berzeugt me not. If we leave it sometimes here, to himself a voucher f Ñ Œ r a historical connection of the both

Ð " nderung was: " (the Devilstick is sometimes called also devil's stick.) this, because itself the name - Ð' hnlich is the case like with Diabolo - from the Greek one derive l of Ð' sst (dia ballein = to and fro throw). This is also the root f Ñ Œ r 'Diabolo' = devil because one from the ' road of the life wants to throw '. " This is Ñ Œ berhaupt not schl Ñ Œ ssig, therefore, I have it gel Ñ +scht. The Devilstick is also called "devil's stick", because wortw Ñ +rtliche Ð ¬ bersetzung of the concept

Man from UNCLE

Back in November, you added a title to the Man from UNCLE booklist, "The Catacombs and Dogma Affair". I can't find any reference to this book anywhere on Google or in any of my UNCLE references I have, nor does the exhaustive UK SF Booklist site list it. I pulled it out of the list and made reference to it in the context of "some sources mention another book..." Can you provide a source where this book is listed? Perhaps it was a retitled edition of one of the Ace Book editions? Thanks! 23skidoo 22:39, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Catacombs must me a renamed edition, since the 20-odd books listed as published by Ace are the only ones that are acknowledged. Unless Catacombs is a more recent book? I know in 1998 there was a short series of Wild Wild West novels, and UNCLE itself was briefly revived as a comic book around the same time. Meanwhile, I was intrigued by your mention of items from Get Smart being in Reagan's library. Do you know what items and why they'd be in a presidential library? 23skidoo 18:20, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Adminship

I'd like to see you answer the candidate's questions at RFA before I consider voting you. Not only the bragging, but also the other ones ;) Mgm|^(talk) 12:04, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)

Tom Sutter

Oh, OK. Thanks for correcting me. Odd for a National League pitcher, though... Meelar (talk) 22:57, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)

who are you to judge?

we just don't want all those crappy unknown bands you are competing against to have articles. your name is right pedant, who are you to call my band crappy without hearing it? mister god in person? User:Tba03

not your band, all the crappy ones you are competing against. Just make your band stand out from the crowd a bit so we'll know it's not one of those unknown bands. Pedant