User talk:Ashanda/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Archive 1 Archive 2 →

Contents

Thanks

Thank you for your recent vandal reverts on my user page. You seem to know your way around Wikipedia quite well for a new user ;-) κaτaʟavenoTC 02:33, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

You're quite welcome. I've been editing for a while but only just recently registered, and the Twinkle and Friendly tools make RC Patrol really, really easy! Ashanda (talk) 02:38, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

HI!

Thank you so much, I wrote Cacua language in like 4 minutes. Look at my user page I have been writing articles for lots of native language since a lot aren't covered but episodes of TV shows are! So I just started to look them up on Ethnologue one by one. I want to cover all of South America and we'll see how it goes after that. I have also translated a few into Spanish but its kinda hard especially how the infobox is much more complicated over there. I have also added the infobox to any languages that don't have one that I have come in contact with. Have any advice? Maybe you could rearange the sentences for me, I don't think I do a good job of that or of naming the sections. I don't know what the standards are like and the guides on here are very convoluted and longgggggggg and jardon ridden. haha. cheers, Troy.Latinlover-sa (talk) 04:22, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there's much for me to fix on the articles you've created, they all look like pretty good starts to me! For obscure subjects there is often only one reliable source to be found, but if you can find more, that would be great. You may also be skirting close to original research by synthesis, but your conclusions seem pretty uncontroversial so it's hard for me to tell especially since I'm not a linguist by any means! Keep it up, the encyclopedia needs more hard science articles to balance out the pop culture stuff. Happy editing! Ashanda (talk) 04:47, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

The Berne Trial

Nice, very, very, nice picture on your home page.

  • I still cannot believe that you are here only since April 21, 2008! Tell me it's not true.
  • The above matter is what Urs Luthi is supposed to be the world's greatest authority on. Can you find a way to prove it? --Ludvikus (talk) 09:14, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
In the interest of keeping the discussion in one place, I shall reply to this along with your other points at your own talk page. Ashanda (talk) 09:29, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Revisionism & Historical revisionism

I wish to Wikipedia:Move the former into the latter! Lets talk first here (since it's a new topic). I'm willing to discuss with you this objective here, if you wish. But I think it's much better to do so on the main talk page(s) of the article. So let me know first here how you wish to proceed. --Ludvikus (talk) 19:17, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

But in brief, let me say that I cannot move the the Latter into the Form! Sorry! --Ludvikus (talk) 19:19, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
I cannot do it because the former is currently Wikipedia:Occupied (by an orphaned REDIRECT page). --Ludvikus (talk) 19:22, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, you could have done the move yourself... until you made a second edit to Revisionism after you did the page move. The software allows non-administrators to move pages over redirects only so long as the redirect only has one entry (it's creation) in it's history, see Help:Moving a page#Moving over a redirect for details. At this point you'll have to get an administrator to perform the move for you, and I suspect that since we're talking about a major article that they'll require consensus before doing so. I'll happily chip in my own opinion to the discussion you have started on the article talk page in question, though I'll reformat it in accordance with the procedure described at Wikipedia:Requested moves#Requesting potentially controversial moves. Cheers! Ashanda (talk) 20:24, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
  • OK. You did the easy stuff. No tell me this - you say I could have done the move myself. So I messed up by talking (ti myself no doubt) on a talk page. That being so an Administrator should consider that and Move the page for me. Now could you please contact an administrator in my behalf? I do not know that procedure. You would be very helpful explaining that "I could have done it all myself." If that's so, there should be no problem. Please contact an administrator in my behalf. --Ludvikus (talk)
  • But also, what's the Tag for Splitting an Article? Is there one? I think there is. If so, can you tag that on for me? Thanks.--Ludvikus (talk) 20:48, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
No, it was nothing you wrote on a talk page that prevented you from being able to perform the page move, rather it was the fact that made any edits to Revisionism after you did the page move. As it is explained at Moving over a redirect, a page can only be moved over a redirect if the redirect's page history only has a single entry. After you moved Revisionism to Revisionism (disambiguation), the page had such a single entry history; once you made an edit to Revisionism, however, you made it impossible for a non-administrator to perform the move you're requesting. As for contacting an administrator for you, I have already started the process by placing a listing at Requested moves and starting the discussion on the article's talk page.
Yes, there are several templates one can use to tag an article for potential splitting. They're listed at Wikipedia:Template messages/Merging and splitting. Unfortunately I'm not clear on what article you want to split.Ashanda (talk) 21:11, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I promissed myself to take a break, but curiosity got the better of. I just finished a meal and am going to go far away from my PC for at least several hours - taking a break is good and even often necessary.
  • In the mean time I want to say thank you so much. It can be frustrating working alone. So it's nice to find some co-operation - as you are demonstrating.
  • Also, I'm going to hold off on Tagging for Splitting because I want to see what happens with the Moves. Also, with the {{fact}} Tags, as well as with Cleanup Tags which I'll Tag before I leave.
Cheers! --Ludvikus (talk) 22:00, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Before I leave - let me bring to your attention that the Merge Tag clearly states the alternative - ... Article or a Section .... That's how I used the Tag - Sections should be merged into one another. I did not specify which, however. When I'm gone, please notice how much these developed articles require your editing work - much harder to do, though, than my Stub - as I'm sure you realize. I hope you look carefully at how much un-referenced statements are being made there - and act accordingly. By now! --Ludvikus (talk) 22:22, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

John S. Curtiss

Can you help - in this related item? Can you finish the tagging , names & universities? There's a notability challenge there too - but it's much easier to do & finish. Thanks! Ludvikus (talk) 18:08, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're asking me to do. I could do some cleanup and tagging, but I'm not sure you'd appreciate the results...--Ashanda (talk) 18:15, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
I would. Use your best discression. I only oppose Strongly the non-notability Tag. The other issues are minor. I want to keep the ALL CAPS - because I'm really kind of Quoting directly from the book - which I happen to own and have in front of me. Then I want to keep the Tags in blue to emphasize notability. Finally, the Red should also stay because these are all notable historians neglected by WP. But I only feel Stronly, like I say, on the notability issue. So I trust your judgment on the rest. Ludvikus (talk) 19:15, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Herbert Baxter Adams Prize

I messed up on this REDIRECT. There are apparently 3 prized named the Adams Prize. See if you can fix things please. Also undo my redirect without an Administrator. THNX. Ludvikus (talk) 19:10, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with the redirect, unless you want to have it deleted or you want the pages swapped. I've added a disambiguation hatnote to the article and will be reformatting the dab page you've created. In general, disambiguation isn't needed until an actual article is created, though. --Ashanda (talk) 19:19, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
I'll deal with that later. Now check this Adams Prize (disambiguation) out (I just created it). Ludvikus (talk) 19:27, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Already did, and already reformatted it. --Ashanda (talk) 19:28, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I think there is though the following major problem: (1) WP has NO article on this AHS Adams Prize check the historical link [1]. And (2) if you look carefully you'll see a confusion still, I think, with that math prize under the same name! --Ludvikus (talk) 19:34, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
  • If you click on: Herbert Baxter Adams Prize you get the Math Prize - not the History Prize! Ludvikus (talk) 19:37, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Good work! Finally I really feel like I'm not working alone. I do not not want to spend time on these prizes - it interests me not. So if you can deal with, fine. I want to move on to my main interests. Ludvikus (talk) 19:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

For your good work & cooperation I give you my acknwoldgement! Ludvikus (talk) 19:52, 28 April 2008 (UTC) {| style="border: 1px solid gray; background-color: #fdffe7;" |rowspan="2" valign="middle" | [[Image:Barnstar_of_Diligence.png|100px]] |rowspan="2" | |style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" | '''The Barnstar of Diligence''' |- |style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | I award you this for the precision of your work, and your cooperative spirit! [[User:Ludvikus|Ludvikus]] ([[User talk:Ludvikus|talk]]) 19:52, 28 April 2008 (UTC) |}I recind my Award for what you have done after my {{hangon}} tag was posted on your regarding your Speedy Deletion tag. Ludvikus (talk) 20:33, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

That's your privilege. I never saw the hangon tag, evidently the deleting admin decided not to pay attention to it due to the copyright issues involved. Ashanda (talk) 20:40, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
You are right on that. And I see that therefore I cannot blame you for that mistake. However, it is what I consider your recless tagging which cause this problem in the 1st place. Also, I think you are absolutely mistaken in merely changing the official name of the prize by turning its Capital "P" into a small one like so: "p." I cannot understand your justification for that. My "x" was not misleading - like what we have now. Ludvikus (talk) 21:06, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

For the work you have done now, I decided to give you back the award I gave you above. After reconsideration, I think you acted in Good Faith and that the Speedy Deletion was probably inadvertant on your part.Ludvikus (talk) 23:35, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

The Barnstar of Diligence
I award you this Barnstar for your work on the Adams Prize articles. Ludvikus (talk) 23:35, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Regarding the Red Links - do not assume that these named historians are non-notable just because their names are in Red. I think that just because Wikipedians have not researched them. Why don't you surf the Web with Google and see if you can start a Stub on some of them? --Ludvikus (talk) 07:07, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
So you can do the same thing to them that you did to the one I wrote up yesterday? Uh, no thanks. Ashanda (talk) 10:08, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Kaidan

Hello, I wish to help with the whole "Kaidan/Kwaidan" issue. I'd like to suggest that we relable the beginning part Kaidan (alt. Kwaidan) (not the title) as Kwaidan was the older spelling and not just a mistake by Lafcadio Hearn. This is only an idea, and I just wish to help because it seems the issue is quite oppinionated. Yojimbo501 (talk) 19:38, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe you are referring to this edit of mine. I really have no opinion on which spelling is to be preferred. My reason for reverting was that the title of the article shouldn't be different from how the subject is referred to in the article; although alternative spelling should be addressed in the introductory sentence. If the consensus of the regular editors of the page is that the other spelling is to be preferred, then the page should be moved to the new title along with changing the spelling within the article. Thanks for your note! —Ashanda (talk) 19:46, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree we souldn't have defering spellings inside an article already labelled as something. I also think Kaidan is probably the most appropriate spelling, as it appears to be the more well known English and Japanese spelling. But, I'm not a linguist and I think I'd need to contact someone who has good Japanese to see what to put down. Thanks for your opinion. Yojimbo501 (talk) 20:02, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
I have added the alternative transliteration to the introductory sentence per your suggestion. You may note also that the origin of the spelling differences is addressed further along in the article. Cheers! —Ashanda (talk) 20:23, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, I would've done it myself, but I was waiting to see if people thought it was a good idea. I hope this goes well with everyone. Yojimbo501 (talk) 23:07, 3 May 2008 (UTC)