User talk:OhNoPeedyPeebles

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Tabasco Sauce on the Lusitania

OhNoPeedyPeebles,

Thanks for adding the trivia about Tabasco sauce on the Lusitania. I work for the company that makes Tabasco sauce. Can you tell me the source of this information (book or article title), as I'd like to obtain a copy for my files. Sincerely, --Skb8721 00:01, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Covered cupboard

Hi OhNo,

I am rather surprised that you reverted my edit to cupboard. Please explain on Talk:Cupboard. --Slashme 09:24, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Cupboard

Hi Peedy. Just saw your post on the cupboard/covered isssue. All good then! --Slashme 11:02, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Charles V succession Box

What do you mean by saying that I sound muddled? I was just asking why it says Charles was only King of Germany until 1531? Emperor001 19:30, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Charles V

What do you mean he was never King of Spain? That might not have been an official title, but many consider the Spanish monarchy to start with him because that is when all of what is now Spain came under one throne. Also, in a book I read called The Life and Times of Martin Luther, there was a letter that was either written to Luther by Charles or by someone representing him. That letter listed his various titles including King of Spain. Emperor001 23:39, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nationalities of UK golfers

I'm reverting your changes of nationalities in infoboxes of UK golfers. The European Tour uses the flags of the four constituent countries of the United Kingdom on its golfer's pages and all other UK golfers follow the same format.Tewapack 21:11, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What's wrong with getting it right?

As the Spain article says: "In 1469, the crowns of the Christian kingdoms of Castile and Aragón were united by the marriage of Isabella and Ferdinand."
Also note that a disamb page like this one refers to Charles as "Holy Roman Emperor (as Charles V) and King of Spain (as Charles I)."
So my honest question of curiosity is, why "King of Aragón and Castile" and not a reminder of the unison? I am trying to understand the sensitivities in this area.
Cheers, Iterator12n Talk 00:54, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
FWIW, I recognize that Aragon and Castile each one independently had to consent to the kingship of Charles. This is a rather normal construct, at least for the 15th-18th century. But consent by say A, B, and C does not necessarily make one a “[Ruler] of A, B and C.” Instead, it makes one “[Ruler] of [collective name for A+B+C]. ” -- Iterator12n Talk 01:47, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. Indeed, the present version of the Charles V is fine. Still, the "King of Spain" matter is worth two notes. (1) Columbus claimed American lands in the name of "the King and Queen of Spain," not the King or Queen of Aragon or Castile. (2) Around the middle of the 16th Century, "King of Spain" was in general use, see for instance the Dutch national anthem, and P.C. Hooft's De Nederlandse Histooriën (at least in my abridged version). (Of course, Hooft wrote his work 75 years later, but he is said to have been extremely precise in his facts and words.) Cheers. -- Iterator12n Talk 02:21, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


Actually, evidence of the primacy of "Spain" is right in front of us, in the Wikipedia article of Charles V where it shows a coin from the early 1540s with "Hispaniarum" on it! A second case is Charles's appointment of Philip in 1543 to "Regent of Spain." By that time, apparently the power of Charles already had become absolute enough to drop the niceties of "Aragon and Castile." -- Iterator12n Talk 05:25, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Talk Page

Please leave messages on the talk page, not the userpage. I didn't notice your message until I checked my Userpage, which I rarely do. Emperor001 20:21, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

You seem cross. --OhNoPeedyPeebles (talk) 22:00, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Matthew Arnold

Thank you for your contributions to the Arnold page. I am afraid, however, that I have reverted them all. Can we talk before you go in and edit again (i.e. lets chat on the discussion page for Matthew Arnold). I think some of your edits may be of value, but I had no way to revert them piecemeal. I am afraid, however, that several of your edits have resulted in a rather unhealthy loss of "tedious and poorly written" information. Arnold was a school inspector. That is an extremely important part of his biography. His credentials for speaking about education (which is arguably today a more important aspect of Arnold's biography than his brief career as a poet) rely to some extent on his professional relationship to the educational process. No matter how tedious that might be to you, I feel it needs to be there. As to it being poorly written, well lets look at writing it better, rather than taking it out. Mddietz (talk) 19:43, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I've actually gone in and reinstated most of your edits. Frankly, the only one I seriously had problems with was the removal of the "tedious and poorly written" paragraph, which, as I point out, I have asked you to reconsider. Have you read Honan or Collini or any of the various bios on Arnold? It might help if we start from those. Mddietz (talk) 20:26, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Edits

You edited Frederic William Maitland which is a page I watch and someone else reverted it... I then went through and looked at a long list of your edits. I appreciate your flamboyance and can't help but laugh at some of your edits (I had to laugh and leave Pub quiz alone where you added the photo and caption, for example). Anyway, I would just like to suggest that you exercise your wit on talk pages and use your excellent editing skills in articles. You are extremely capable and smart, so I hope you stay around and continue to protect and cultivate Wikipedia... in simplicity. Just as an example of what I think you ought not to do, perhaps you could look at the change you made to the translation of the latin motto in Eltham College‎. The 'parents paying the fees' is clearly not part of the quote, and the translation you changed had a very different meaning from the one you left behind.

Because you clearly value Wikipedia and spend a lot of effort trying to improve it, I hope you understand what I am suggesting... anyway, now that I have sounded cross for a moment, let me note that I thought your recent edits of Orlando Figes, Andy Townsend, and Twitchen, Devon amply evidence your capacity for useful, thoughtful edits that add information or remove extraneous junk. Carry on! --Matthew K (talk) 02:05, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] April 2008

Welcome, and thank you for your attempt to lighten up Wikipedia. However, this is an encyclopedia and the articles are intended to be serious, so please don't make joke edits, as you did to James Joyce. Readers looking for serious articles will not find them amusing. If you'd like to experiment with editing, try the sandbox, where you can write (almost) whatever you want. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 22:00, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your edit to Ann Winterton

Your recent contribution(s) to the Wikipedia article Ann Winterton are very much appreciated. However, you did not provide references or sources for your information. Keeping Wikipedia accurate and verifiable is very important, and as you might be aware there is currently a drive to improve the quality of Wikipedia by encouraging editors to cite the sources they used when adding content. If sources are left unreferenced, it may count as original research, which is not allowed. Can you provide in the article specific references to any books, articles, websites or other reliable sources that will allow people to verify the content in the article? You can use a citation method listed at How to cite sources. Thanks! TomPhil 12:31, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] May 2008

This is the only warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
If you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did to Chargoon, you will be blocked from editing. SchuminWeb (Talk) 18:32, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article, as you did to Common misconceptions, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 18:42, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

An opinion without sources doesn't belong here. We report majority and significant minority opinions only. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 12:42, 28 May 2008 (UTC)