User talk:Llywrch/Archive3

WikiProject Ancient Egypt

The page has been created at WikiProject Ancient Egypt. Please add your name to participants and add the page to your watchlist and join in the discussion on the talk page. -JCarriker 15:21, Aug 24, 2004 (UTC)

Deir el-Bahri

I'm very pressed right now so let me apolgize for my tardy response as well as any spelling/grammar errors in this post. I have rewiewed Deir el-Bahri and I think you have done a superb job. I may add some additonal info latter but am curretnly very strapped for time. -JCarriker 20:03, Sep 4, 2004 (UTC)

Arrian

To say that Ptolemy was Alexander's half-brother is not an "allegation." It is a statement which may or may not be true. Adam 09:59, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Mediation Committee application

Hi Geoff, just a note to say that Grunt has applied to join the mediation committee. There is a vote at Wikipedia:Mediation_Committee#Grunt if you want to participate. Regards -- sannse (talk) 22:15, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Seattle meetup

I have no idea if you still live in Portland, but I'm trying to drop notes on the pages of any Wikipedians I can think of who might be in the Northwest. Michael Snow and I are planning a Seattle meetup for November 6th -- probably at the downtown library. I don't know if you have any interest in coming to such a thing (quite a drive), but I figured I'd let you know and let you decide. The details are still being worked out on Michael's and my talk pages. I hope you'll consider it -- have a pleasant autumn, Jwrosenzweig 22:13, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

thank you

Thanks for the heads about the Occupation of Iraq, 2003-2004 article. As I said at Talk:Iraqi resistance I didn't realize what I was doing.

the "Arthur stone"

No problem; it's a somewhat-recent discovery, I think, so older books (and probably most newer ones, too) won't have it. Here are links to some of the websites I've found about it:

Like I mentioned in the Historical Arthur article, it's by no means evidence that the King Arthur existed, but nonetheless it's interesting that there was a monarch named Arthur who ruled Tintagel in the 6th Century. Kuralyov 20:16, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

WikiProject Ancient Egypt

Thanks for the tip - I'll check it out (can't promise how quickly, though - totally snowed under with Wikiprojects at the moment, as usual! :-) Noel 08:03, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Pharaoh

Oh, well done on the hieroglyphics in Pharaoh! -- ALoan (Talk) 10:12, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Al Fayyum

Hi. I don't mind moving it over, and the spelling is not an issue for me. I'll go and change all the mentions in the article from "Fayum" to "Al Fayyum". Give me a couple of days. I'll also look into pointing any other links to "Al Fayyum". Thanks for the comment. --DanielCD 04:00, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Meetup

Geoff--It was great to meet you today. It was nice to "put a name with voice and face", as you say. I was glad to meet another Portlander. I put a couple pictures at Wikipedia:Meetup/Seattle, including one of you, by the way. Best wishes, Matt -- Decumanus 09:14, 2004 Nov 7 (UTC)

Invite

Hi

I'm posting this to invite you to participate in WP:LCOTW , a project you may be interested in. Please consider nominating and/or voting for a suitable article there. Filiocht 12:30, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)

First Crusade

Hey llywrch, I know you're more interested in ancient history, but as I recall you have helped out on some medieval topics too, so I was wondering if you have any comments about First Crusade article - a lot of work has been done on it lately and hopefully it is on the way to becoming a featured article. Thanks! Adam Bishop 06:54, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Mediation Request

Hi llywrch. Are you available for mediations at the moment? I've been doing the preliminaries for Wikipedia:Requests for mediation#Users CheeseDreams, SIrubenstein and Amgine - and you've been mentioned as a possible mediator. Would you mind having a look and seeing if you are interested? Thanks -- sannse (talk) 10:58, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Count me in if you are mediating the historical/cultural jesus article. I dont have an axe to grind, but I do have a view on it, and i have perhaps some input of value. FT2 19:09, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)

In case my e-mail attempt has gone astray (or the various anti-spams have eaten any response) I'm interested in any an all methods of communication to resolve the issues amongst us; I am willing to phone to the USA if this would be a useful methodology. - Amgine 22:23, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'm afraid your message must have tripped one of the anti-spam/anti-virus layers on that account. Especially under the current wave of netsky infections, that account is getting inundated with virii and spam (it's one of my oldest accounts)... Try SCFLmediation at NOsaewycSpam dot net, with the usual spam obfuscation removed.

Got your message, and responded. But something seems a bit flaky on my end, so if you didn't get a response I'll have to rearrange some things (read, use the other computers) and then try again. - Amgine 07:55, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

ANE

hi Llywrch, thanks for your comment on ANE chronology. Chronological systems of Babylonia and Assyria is purely 1911 at the moment. Chronology of Babylonia and Assyria is a semi-reworked 1911 text. My Chronology of the Ancient Orient is an attempt to give an up-to-date overview. The article is very unfinished. The statement "Starting from this date, the dates of the reigns of the Assyrian kings can be established to the precision of a year up to 883 BC" I pulled from a 1980s lexicon. May aim is to give a table that shows that for which reasons up to which year we can give dates to which precision, but I am nowhere near that yet. You are very welcome to help me out, and you are very welcome to participate on Wikipedia:WikiProject Ancient Near East. One of my more urgent aims will be to decide whether to prefer short or middle chronology (and between which dates they are acurate anyway), so I can clean up the king lists, stating which chronology is used for the reign of each king. It seems to me that middle chronology used to be favoured as a compromise, but since nobody seems to believe in the long chronology anymore, the 'middle' one has itself become rather long, and it may be advisable to opt for the short one as a standard. But we will have to state which one is meant for each date anyway, to distinguish them from 'unknown chronology' of dates that were blindly copied off the web. dab 10:03, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Cultural and historical background of Jesus - Compromise discussion

Llywrch;

Slrubenstein has said he will not further discuss compromise unless others are involved. Would you care to read or comment on Talk:Cultural and historical background of Jesus#Compromise discussion? - Amgine 20:28, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I am not certain I understood the motivation for asking for mediation initially; however it is clear an opportunity to work with an official mediator is a chance to avoid uncivil and non-productive interactions.
I think at least two other persons are involved in this discussion and perhaps should at least be invited to join the process: FT2 and John kenney.
I believe parties involved should agree to keep away from the article until mediation closes.
I would like to believe we could have a multi-sided discussion, but this has not proved to be the case. - Amgine 22:47, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Mediation (response from Cheesedreams)

Do I understand what the 3 people involved want from me? If not, what am I missing?

My concerns are expressed on the mediation request page, and many are also succinctly put by FT2 in the section "FT2s comment (copied by Cheesdreams....)" in the article's talk page.

Is this dispute simply amongst these 3 people, or should we draw in more participants who have editted this article?

the dispute is predominantly amongst the 3 people,

however, since 1 person has drawn virtually all the other parties in this talk page here to support their side (a list is given in the request for mediation page, and associated evidence), I personally consider them secondary parties to the dispute.

Maureen was not brought in, and hasn't discussed anything since Slrubenstein attacked her comments about this page (which she put in as an outside disinterested response to a referral for comment about the two competing sides for this page).

FT2 seems to have been treated as part of the "anti-Slrubenstein" side by the "pro-Slrubenstein" side, though I am under the impression the other 2 people (of the 3 at the centre of the dispute) view FT2 as a neutral mediator, and I think his comments are welcome, and important to mention.

Once we start this mediation, should all parties involved keep away from this article until mediation comes to an end?

On the condition that the article is reverted to a version before any of the involved parties (or any contacted by the involved parties - which, given the propensity of Slrubenstein to contact others for assistance, I consider an important point) made any edits whatsoever (this will be from quite a long time ago - about a month or so)

AND that the content from either of the sides edits is not put into the article during this time by anyone, and if so it gets removed (for the purpose of safeguarding from contact by external methods such as e-mail or phone contact etc.)

Am I correct in saying that all parties involved need to use me as an intermediary, or should we merely have a 3- or 4-sided discussion on a Wiki page somewhere?

I have already stated that I will not talk directly to Slrubenstein until I receive an apology for his incivility, so I do not think that a 3/4 sided discussion would be very workable.

CheeseDreams 23:38, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Archiving

Hi llywrch. Is it OK for me to archive the discussion on your current mediation on Wikipedia:Requests for mediation? I would move it to Archive 12.-- sannse (talk) 00:19, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

mediation

Hi, Sorry you haven't been feeling well. I currently do not have access to e-mail. I consider FT2 to be part of my dispute. I understand why you deleted a message I left here, but for the moment that remains my best summary of the situation for you. I have nothing to add to that and to my original request for mediation. I do think that if you have to time to review the entire discussion you will have more than enough of a picture of what is going on. I will try to limit my participation over the next few days, Slrubenstein Got your note and appreciate it, I will have e-mail access next week, Slrubenstein

I have an e-mail acount it is just that I am in transit and it is hard to access. And I can't access your e-mail. It's the first eight letters of my last name, "at" and then ohiou.edu Slrubenstein

Putting this 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?

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/CheeseDreams

appeal

Cheesedream, summarizing what I have written, wrote:

Slrubenstein disputes translating "Yohanan" as "Jonathan" rather than "John". FT2 points out how David's associate "Jonathan" is "Yohanan" in Hebrew, to which Wesley states that the New Testament is Greek. Slrubenstein states that "Yonatan" is "Jonathan" and "Yohanan" is "John". Slrubenstein states that FT2 is a nut, and questions whether FT2 is masturbating Slrubenstein.

First, as an account of my point about names, it is a distortion and misquote. Second, I ask you as mediator whether the link to "mutual masturbation" is a banable offense. Slrubenstein

First, the text in my summary is 100% what was written by the parties I ascribe it to. In summarising, I employ the method of removing unnecessary detail from the text, continuously, until it is at a reduced size. At no point have I added detail or paraphrased. (You can check my first pass of the summary (which I do in two passes)- in which I cut out the extraneous statements by protagonists, but left, without paraphrasing or editing, all the statements that had importance - via the history).

Second, he said "FT2, are you yanking my chain", which (at least in the UK, though I think it likely the same in the US) is a (rather rude, and offensive) reference to mutual masterbation, I was merely tidying up and reducing the offensiveness of what he actually wrote.

Thirdly, I object to the manner in which he, and his associates, continually try to have me banned. I feel that such is immature, and pathetic behaviour, and furthermore counts as harrasment. CheeseDreams 19:35, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Article Licensing

Hi, I've started the Free the Rambot Articles Project which has the goals of getting users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to...

...all U.S. state, county, and city articles...
...all articles...

using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) version 1.0 and 2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to the GFDL (which every contribution made to Wikipedia is licensed under), but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles (See the Multi-licensing Guide for more information). Since you are among the top 1000 most active Wikipedians, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles.

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the {{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}} template (or {{MultiLicensePD}} for public domain) into their user page, but there are other templates for 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:

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:

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 at my talk page what you think. -- Ram-Man 20:47, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)

e-mail

I tried e-mailing you, using the address on your home page. It bounced back. How do I e-mail you? I left my e-mail address for you but haven't heard from you. Slrubenstein

This is the e-mail I have -- root@127.0.0.1 -- what did I do wrong?

127.0.0.1 is the IP address for the local computer, everyone has it. It refers to their hard disc. It does not refer to a location anywhere on the internet, it refers to the computer it is typed in at. It is identical to the term "localhost". CheeseDreams 01:25, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Just to be an annoying nitpicker, it refers to a network interface. Network interfaces and hard disks have nothing to do with each other. Otherwise you're exactly right. — JIP | Talk 13:15, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Injunction

Could you please comment on Talk:Cultural_and_historical_background_of_Jesus#Injunctions

as I would like the discussion on the page to stop forever repeating the same ground mindlessly? CheeseDreams 01:25, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Abuse of Adminship

In your position as mediator, I wish to formally object to Slrubenstein's abuse of adminship by reverting then protecting Jesus in a cultural and historical background, without even placing a protection notice on the page, despite being involved in the revert war over the article. CheeseDreams 21:38, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

A note of thanks

Geoff, I've been meaning to say hello anyway ever since we met at Wikipedia:Meetup/Seattle. I have been noticing your work in a mediation recently (to which I am not a party but in which I am interested), and I realized that you've been working very hard, and that when I work hard on Wikipedia without anyone recognizing my effort, I generally get cranky and/or stressed. You really have been putting forth admirable energy and I appreciate it. I hope you very soon get to buy some Xmas presents for your wife and then settle down with a cold beverage to watch our Northwest winter out your window.....as a matter of fact, I wish the same for myself. :-) Best wishes, and thanks again for your tireless dedication here, Jwrosenzweig 23:37, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Ah well....thanks for trying. :-) Take a gander at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jwrosenzweig if you want to keep up with where things have headed. You probably should avoid commenting there, though -- I wouldn't want to give the impression that I was marshaling votes in my defense, as I am sure that CheeseDreams has not made any such attempts herself. I just thought you might like to read the latest dispute. If you'd rather not, I'll just see you around. Best wishes, Jwrosenzweig 23:37, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Jesus Background talk page

The talk page is already perhaps 80 kilobytes too long. CheeseDreams persists in summarizing, rather than archiving, old discussion. I archived his summary and he keeps restoring it. This is not a dispute over content, or even process -- it gets to the mechanics of an online encyclopedia. Some servers cannot handle overly long pages and so talk must be archived. I am asking if you can do anything as mediator, but if you feel you cannot I ask for your advice as to what to do -- ask for arbitration? Slrubenstein

Partiality

I no longer feel you are an impartial mediator. Goodbye. CheeseDreams 21:30, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thanks!

I just wanted to take a moment here to say thank you for stepping up to offer your services as a mediator. Although our mediation did not work out, I really appreciate the effort and time you put into the process. I know being a mediator is not one which normally garners a lot of accolades, or that warm fuzzy feeling of success since it's rarely total, but you should know that a lot of us do appreciate the job you're doing.

- Amgine 05:02, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Your claim that P52 is evidence of the Gospel of John

here is a link to an image showing the whole of P52. As you can see, it is hardly sufficient evidence that the gospel of John existed at the time P52 is dated to.

Totally convincingly the Gospel of John, obviously. It could be anything.CheeseDreams 13:13, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

So you doubt that a small fragment of text cannot convincingly be proven as belonging to a longer, well-known work -- like the Gospel of John? Jesus wept. -- llywrch 07:32, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

January 15 Seattle meetup

Just wanted to let you know we are planning another Seattle meetup on January 15, 2005. We're trying to get a sense of who will attend, so please drop by that page & leave a note. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:39, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)

Vote on Main Page intro

Hi Llywrch, there's now a vote on the new Main Page text. Drop by if you can! Ta, Dan100 09:33, Dec 26, 2004 (UTC)

Could someone please start mediating? - Andre Engels 16:02, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The I Ching & Dark Shadows

Your point, as I understand it, is that the use of the I Ching in Dark Shadows is highly unorthodox. I agree. The I Ching has a venerable tradition in Chinese culture. However, it is also an oracle. (Note: I put a link on the word "oracle," then checked it only to find that the article is woefully deficient and is now on my "to do" list). Oracles have strange and unpredictable powers sometimes. Certainly they can transport you to a future world, if only in the realm of imagination. What I was trying to do with my edit was take out the POV that there was some way of using the I Ching that was "accurate," to the exclusion of others. Those who do use the I Ching properly (i.e., according to its rules of divination) are very likely to become aware of its predictive power. As you note, it is also possible to use it for meditation. Given the range of the various traditions of meditation, time travel is not inconceivable. It is possible that one of the writers for the show was well aware of the I Ching's capacity in this regard. Sunray 20:11, 2005 Jan 12 (UTC)

Assyrimenans

Thanks for the catch at Armenian (people). I must have been asleep at the wheel to let that sit there. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:55, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)

Barnabas

Thanks for handling the copyvio. I would not yet be confident enough. I left a reply to your comment on its talk page, repeated here for your convenience:

Sadly, I support your findings. I shall not be doing any more wiki/copy-editing work on this for now. I have nothing to add to a rewrite. Maybe I will return later.

Peter Hitchmough 23:16, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Just to reply - I'm only put off further work on this as a rewrite would take too much time at present. Other priorities. No problem. Thanks for the note. Dizzley (Peter H) 13:04, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well edited recently. Thanks. Dizzley (Peter H) 09:10, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Trog(l)odytica

Hi, please read my answer to your removal of the L at Talk:Berenice (port). Thanks! Hippalus 07:21, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)

I tried to incorporate your/Huntingford's view in the article. Have a look! Plus made some responses on the talk page. By the way, maybe part of the etymology-story should also get a place in the history section of the Tuareg article. I'll leave that job to you ;-). --Hippalus 11:23, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)

Images of biblical manuscripts at the Commons

Thanks for letting me know about the images you've uploaded. Have you found articles to showcase them all? I'll see if I can put them to good use.

The Egyptian hiero templates are getting into some order now: please feel free to play with them.

Gareth Hughes 00:25, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome message

I'll start watching the PNW Wikipedian pages for a Seattle meetup. Dave Cohoe 05:46, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Prince's Islands

Better late than never. -- Cyrius|✎ 02:20, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Calcutta -> Kolkata name change

Hi there. I noticed you voted in the Wikipedia:Naming policy poll to keep the Wikipedia policy of naming an article with the most familiar English name. You may not be aware that another attempt has begun to rename the Calcutta article to Kolkata, which is blatantly not the most common name of the city, whether it's official or not. If you want to vote on the issue you can do so at Talk:Calcutta. Cheers. -- Necrothesp 13:49, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

A message to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Rivers participants

Would you, please, consider participation in the discussion about the naming of the articles on rivers? Certain users suggested that the word "River" should be omitted from the title. Currently the discussion is held at User talk:Markussep#River naming, but it will hopefully be moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rivers soon. Thank you for your attention.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus europeaus) 21:09, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)

Bring back quickpolls

I think it's time that quickpolls be re-evaluated as a solution to short term disputes between users. What say you? --Ryan! | Talk 05:20, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)

That's what I've tried to do. --Ryan! | Talk 05:50, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rivers

Your signature below your (as far as I can judge) perfect paraphrase would make it even better. :-)
--Ruhrjung 18:48, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)

Could you state what you want at: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rivers#Naming methods . Maybe we can all agree on a compromise, on one hand only allowing uppercase (to reduce number of variants) on the other not inforcing X River if X is not ambiguous, thus reducing opposition of non-english-natives. As far as I can see now only Shan and Tobias made clear they would support this medium-approach. Tobias Conradi 23:15, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Why did you move Neckar to Neckar River? According to the above mentioned discussion there's nothing wrong with "X" here, because there is nothing ambiguous about "Neckar". Markussep 21:22, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Xfire VfD

I rewrote that article entirely. Please review if you have time. SYSS Mouse

Congratulations

Also congrant for winning the Wikipedia:Half-million pool. SYSS Mouse 16:14, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Darn it - I wanted to be the first to congratulate the winner :) CONGRATULATIONS! --Neo 20:13, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Umm, last time I checked, we were still missing 56 articles. But with the current rate of expansion, it's practically over. The only way anyone else would win would be to avoid adding any new articles for a little over one day. So, premature congratulations, Llywrch! (How is that pronounced, anyway?) — JIP | Talk 20:16, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Allow me to add the first mature congratulations. It should be official now! — David Remahl 21:04, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Me too. I was monitoring through a sandbox page and it clicked over between 20:53Z and 20:55Z. There was a flood of articles, probably by people all trying to be the one. David Brooks 21:22, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Wow. I didn't think my guess would be the winning one! -- llywrch

So, what's your choice for the Million pool so we can see what's still open near you? hydnjo talk 01:47, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Oops - Never mind. I mis-read and thought that entrys for the Million pool had been extended 'till articles reached 666,666. My error. hydnjo talk 01:53, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Roman Emperors

(congrats too!)

You left a rather contradictory note on my user page: if there is a list of Roman Emperors than it should be clear whether Julius Caesar should be on that list or not. Presently there is some non-NPOV stuff which goes from the supposition that all scholars would agree that the title of princeps is the determining title with which in ancient Rome an "Emperor" was indicated. Well, all scholars do not agree. I couldn't find a single reference to an authoritative scholar who says it is necessarily so (probably there are, but then at least some of those references should be mentioned on the page). The only reference mentioned, Suetonius (which is a very old writer), does not agree, while he clearly includes Julius Caesar as the first of the 12 Caesars (where "Caesar" is the equivalent of "Emperor" in many languages). There is no use in leaving such a confusing message on top of this list.

For me, I don't care where this is discussed, but you trespassed a no-do line by simple erasing what I had written (and which me, as a non-sysop costs more trouble to recuperate than you). You could at least have moved it to Roman Emperor if you think that is where that discussion belongs, and replace the "Julius Caesar" paragraph on "List of Roman Emperors" with something like:

"For a discussion whether Julius Caesar is to be considered an Emperor see ((page where you moved it to))"

Thanks!

--Francis Schonken 08:45, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Please read the Elagabalus article

I have been working on it for some time now, and would like to nominate for featured status. I'd appreciate it, if given your expertice on Roman History, you would review it. Thanks -JCarriker 15:32, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

I've noticed that you have edited the article, I'd apreciate it if you got back to me with your opinion about the artcile via my talk page. Thanks. -JCarriker 12:24, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)

Wow! I haven't been to the featured page in a while, but if it's gotten that bad, then Hatshepsut's going to be hell when Ancient Egypt noms. her as the example artcicle. I'll follow your advice, and get back to you when I'm done referencing. :)

I've started several times to put in the inline references but to be honest I just don't have the patience to do it, to use the famous watergate phrase-- at this point in time, to do it. I'm going to ask several users who have edited it before to review it and then nominate it. I hope you aren't upset, as I know it is a cause near and dear to your heart, I'll try to see if I have the patience later or better-- maybe one of the user who reviews it will do it themselves. -JCarriker 02:44, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

Quoting style in The Cantos

I'm really sorry, Llywrch. I was in too much of a hurry, and too focused on getting the actual vandalism reverted, and didn't take long enough to look at what you'd done. I did check out the diff—the differences in edit code between your version and the previous one—but stupidly failed to scroll down and see how the changes actully looked on the page; and, in short, I'm afraid I thought it was the usual Britsh/American commas outside quote marks/commas inside quote marks nonsense. (I call that nonsense because both styles are acceptable, because both of them are actually recognized in both countries, because I think Filiocht's original choice of style needs to be respected, and, well, because I think it's a bit pathetic to get so patriotically hung up about the minisculities of inside/outside as some people on both sides of the Atlantic do.) I had no idea it was about italics until I found the discussion at the Pump just now. That weird use of italics for quotes is supposed to be, uh, un-American? I had no idea. I always assumed that was some special wikipedia style, as I have never seen it anywhere else. Thank you for taking the trouble to change it and making the quotes look (to my eyes) much more "normal". It must have been quite disheartening to then have an idiot come along and revert you. :-( I do apologize most unreservedly. (I've restored your version.) --Bishonen|Talk 22:42, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Dates

In no way is it a new standard; it's just my playing about with an alternative that I find attractive and that I occasionally slip in on the off-chance it'll catch someone's imagination and spread, like a metaphorically mixed viral wildfire, thru the 'pedia. I also harbor the hope that one day someone will build a datesbot and expand the year pages to such an extent that articles such as April 1822 have to be created. If you find it ugly, useless, intimidating, or against established practice, I extend my apologies and an invitation to be bold. –Hajor 01:51, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Great; let's see what (if anything) happens. –Hajor 02:17, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)