User talk:Chaleyer61

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Chaleyer61, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  DS 14:26, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Categories

The "Category" tags have to be added by hand; this ensures that the category pages will update automatically: for example, rather than modifying the four pages "Category: Finnish politicians", "Category: Educators", "Category:1883 births" and "1944 deaths", all I had to do was add those category tags to the article on Fanny Sundstrom.

Stub templates involve category tags as well, but these are not immediately visible.

Am I explaining this sufficiently? DS 12:48, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Hi! I saw yoy did some copy-editing in Ephialtes of Athens. Thank you very much for that. Seeing the nice job you did I decided to ask you something else: If you have some time, can you have a quick look in Demosthenes and check if there are any major language flaws? I have rewritten the article and I would like to avoid any grammatical or syntactical errors and, since I am not a native English speaker, I want to make sure I haven't miss something. The first half of the article has been copy-edited by another user and it must be Ok. But I'm not sure about the second part.

In any case, thanks again for Ephialtes. I hope you'll continue your excellent contributions in Wikipedia.--Yannismarou 18:49, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! I'm grateful to you. Of you ever need anything I can help, just aske me!--Yannismarou 16:53, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Citing sources

It looks like most of the sources you have been citing are books or other matter not available online. Could I persuade you to migrate these to the format outlined in WP:FOOT/M:Cite.php? This would make clear which portions of article content are supported by which sources. It is important (for various reasons) to know what goes with what, but it with a dozen books in a clunky summer reading list, it becomes difficult to verify even one statement, and impossible to do it quickly. — CharlotteWebb 16:54, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice on the citing of books. I am pretty busy with work at the moment, so I will get onto improving the references when I have some spare time. In the meantime, if you think it better, I am happy to delete the references until I can update them properly. --Chaleyer61 03:26, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Well if you remove them somebody might assume the entire article is unsourced content, and that would make things worse, possibly. As it is now, we only have to worry about bogus content being added, and later editors taking no action (not reverting) because it appears that generic references are intended to pertain to the article as a whole. Just a thought. — CharlotteWebb 03:39, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Popups

Hey, popups are indeed great. My favourite feature is that I don't have to follow a link every time, but can just get the basic info by just floating over a link. As for the spell check capability, Wikipedia doesn't have one built in, but if you use Firefox 2.0, which will come out on Tuesday (I'm using a release candidate), then spell checking is included, and it works really good. Regards, -- Jeff3000 01:11, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sami Bey Frasheri

Hey, I was just editing the Sami Bey Frasheri entry and saw that you created it. Just for future reference, when categorizing articles, do not include the person in both an upper level (in this case Albanian writers) and a lower level (in this case Albanian people) category. Albanian writers is sufficient. Thanks.--Thomas.macmillan 19:12, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Appreciation

Hello! I would just like to give you my appreciation of your work with the year articles (5th century BC). They become so much nicer to read when they have extensive information about the events, their background, course, and aftermath/consequences. Thank you! Not being a native speaker of English myself, I translate your texts and add them to the appropriate year article on the Swedish Wikipedia, since I am Swedish. Therefore, I wonder: How far will you go? Will you just do articles BC or continue up till the fall of the Western Roman Empire or what? I'm not trying to pressure you into continuing soon (please, take your time), I'm just curious as to how far you will go. Once again, my big appreciation of your work. /Ludde23 Talk Contrib 12:35, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] References on the year articles

Hello again!

I must once more say that I love your work with the year articles. You're doing great! I have one question, though. In the beginning, you added references to them, but now you've stopped and you have even removed some of them. Why? What was wrong with them? /Ludde23 Talk Contrib 15:05, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Aristides

OK. I will post some things today and they would be all. --Anawhoisawitch 19:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)anawhoisawitch Believe me that the previous edition had horrifying grammar. Please, be careful with the data. I have been polishing it extensively.--Anawhoisawitch 20:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC)anawhoisawitch

[edit] Your user page

Hello! Is the User Australian Capital Territory template supposed to be a bit more to the right than all the others on your page, or should it be corrected? /Ludde23 Talk Contrib 08:56, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I have a slight idea of what the problem is and will make an attempt to fix it. If it doesn't work, I'll revert it. /Ludde23 Talk Contrib 11:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Fixed it. The big dotted box was due to your using spaces after the last boxes. The reason it was to the right was because the template was aligned to the right. I changed it to left and now, it should work fine. /Ludde23 Talk Contrib 11:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Keep up the good work!

Hello again! I just felt I ought to give you some encouragement about your work on the year articles. Being half way between 499 BC, where you started, and AD 1, is, in my opinion, a big step on the way to whatever year you will go to. Since you say on your user page that you're also interested in the renaissance period, I suppose you're planning to keep on at least until the 16th century or something like that.
A word of caution though, about the years around the birth and death of Jesus (when you come to them). As you probably already know, there are controversies over which year to give as his years of birth and death, so one has to be very careful not to say they are definite. But, I'm sure you're already aware of this.
So, for now, I'd just like to say: Well done about your work so far and keep up the spirit! I'll stay right behind you with my "clean ups" and my translation of your work into Swedish. See you! /Ludde23 Talk Contrib 13:32, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Skoglund's changes

Indeed! I hope he will notice what I've written in the comments and see his errors. Of course, I don't mind his adding information, as long as it's correct, but when everything he adds is wrong and sometimes down right strange, I have, over time, become quite suspicious of his addings.

I haven't bothered to "fix" what he's done on years after where "we" are in the chronology (240 BC), since I figured you'll change that anyway, when you come to those pages. /Ludde23 Talk Contrib 11:55, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Something's come up: Skoglund made an addition to the year 366 BC about the office of praetor being created. As usual I was just going to look up what the correct year was and then remove his addition. I got rather surprised when I looked at the appropriate article and discovered, that it was actually in that year (366 BC) that it was created. However, according to your additions, a praetor was chosen for the first time in 356 BC. Could you shed som light on this matter?
In addition, I see that you've added the creation another kind of Roman office in 366 BC, namely the Curules. Is this the origin of praetors and could it then be clarified on the page 366 BC? /Ludde23 Talk Contrib 18:02, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fictional references in year articles

Hello again!

Concerning fictional events on the year articles: There are lots of them in "recent" years (2005 for instance). Secondly: When people write fiction and specify exactly what time they put their events in, it's usually because they want to put their story in a certain historical context. Therefore, I see no harm in mentioning fictional events, to see the big picture when it comes to them, as long as you clearly point out, that it is fictional. /Ludde23 Talk Contrib 14:00, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Another pat on the back...

...for a job well done! I just felt I wanted to congratulate you on having done 300 year articles so far. I looked it up in the history of 499 BC and I noticed, that today (July 8) marks the one-year anniversary of when you began this enormous work. Is it a coincidence that you, today, have done your 300th article or were you aware of it yourself? Anyway, once again: Well done and keep up the good work!

Secondly, I'd just like to take this opportunity to mention that on tuesday, I'm going away on holiday (to make arrangements for my own wedding in September for instance) and I'll be away for a week, during which I won't have any access to the Internet. This means should you decide to continue during that week, it'll take a few days before I'll go through the changes with my "clean ups". It's no big deal, but just in case you're wondering why I don't do anything for a while.

Be writing you /Ludde23 Talk Contrib 14:33, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Which year is it

Hello again!

I have a small question for you. In the article Gelo, it says he became tyrant of Syracuse and left power of Gela to his brother Hieron in 485 BC, but you've added these events to 484 BC. Could you clarify which one is correct and which one isn't?

Secondly, I would like to take this opportunity to mention, that from Wednesday, September 5 until Monday, September 10, I won't be around any computer with access to the Internet, so I won't be doing my usual "clean ups" of your additions (which I've been very impressed by lately; are you on holiday or something, since you have done so much in the last few days?). The reason is I'm off to get married in a completely different town than my hometown.

Thanks in advance and see you /Ludde23 Talk Contrib 17:55, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I'm a male, and my spouse is female. Which one are you? /Ludde23 Talk Contrib 13:35, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
And another question: You've added Gelo's conquest of Megara Hyblaea to 483 BC, but according to the article, it was in 481 BC. Could you please check out if the year article or the colony article is correct? /Ludde23 Talk Contrib 21:09, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
I changed the year in the article on Megara instead, since it incorporates text from the old public domain version of the Britannica and the newer one probably is more correct. /Ludde23 Talk Contrib 14:05, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] invitation

Old Parliament House


You are invited to the next Canberra Meetup
10th November 2007, 2:30pm, Old Parliament House Cafe


This box: view • talk • edit

Graeme Bartlett 02:28, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Is something the matter

Hello again!

It's now been over a month since you abruptly stopped your editing of the year articles and I'm simply wondering why. Since you, after that, sporadically have done a few things here on Wikipedia, I know you aren't dead or invalidised, so that can't be the reason. Therefore, I'm just wondering: Is it because you have taken time of from the project (because you're ill or on holiday or something) and will continue sometime in the future or is it because something's come up that has made you decide not to continue at all?

Best regards Ludde23 Talk Contrib 06:44, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello again!
Since I don't know your political alignment or what you voted for, I'm not sure wether I should say "Congratulations to your side winning the election" or "I'm sorry your side lost the election", but at least I can say "Congratulations to Australia's using its democratic functions and I hope you won't be loaded with as much work, as you've given me the impression that you've had up until now". Last year, in the Swedish election, my side lost and since then, I have not enjoyed the present government's politics. I don't have the intention of going into a deep political discussion here, but I'd like to know, if you're glad or sad that Labour won the election. Best regards Ludde23 Talk Contrib 18:13, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Hello!
I hope you are alright. I just thought I'd look in on you and see how you're doing. Today it's been six months since you stopped your updating of the year articles and I must say, that I miss it. I was so "looking forward" to the first Punic war for instance. Therefore, I won't beat about the bush anymore: Do you intend to continue in the near future, have you put it on hold until further notice or have you decided to drop it all together?
Of course, if you are very busy with work or otherwise, or if you have grown tired of the whole thing, or if you don't feel any inspiration to take it up again after so long time etcetera, I understand. This little note is not to say: "Please continue soon", but rather just that I miss your year article additions and am a bit sad that they have stopped. Please don't feel any preassure, but it would be nice with a little note saying "Thanks for reminding me, I will begin again tonight" or "Well, maybe in 30 years, when I have retired" or "Sorry, but I have decided to give it up, try doing it yourself and see how easy it is" or whatever.
With hopes that you're not too overloaded with work and sorrows, best regards Ludde23 Talk Contrib 16:41, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Egyptzo

This may not help, but I've raised a complaint [1] which you might be interested in.--Doug Weller (talk) 14:28, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Draganparis

I am afraid you remove my last intervention to reintroduce some inexactness (The successors of Alexander III were Hellenised Macedonian kingdoms (India is today one anglicised Indian state, OK?). You do not seam to be a Hellenist by profession and I would suggest that this page be written by the experts. Why did you do this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Draganparis (talk • contribs) 13:43, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I corrected it again. Please do not change the introduction. The Seleucide empire was a Macedonian empire, the dynasty was Macedonian. The land was certainly Hellenised. Please refer to the well known literature starting with Hammond, Borsa etc, and older writers like Justin (Trogus), or Diodorus. I will give you these references if you do not know them (they are obligatory literature for the first university year of Greek studies all over the world!).Draganparis (talk) 22:28, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

The genre that predominates history pages on Wikipedia is "political history" and not ethnic or cultural history. Please hold to that principle. The genres should not be mixed. The ethnic or cultural history could be elaborated in one new heading.Draganparis (talk) 17:59, 12 June 2008 (UTC)