Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:15, 4 April 2008

Archives

Archive 1

Von Neumann "Personality"

I did not write the original text (I am only reinserting what was deleted) so I can not give the exact source for everything, although at least some of it seems to come from Notes: #1. Most of what is contained within the paragraph conforms with everything I have read about von Neumann. My only point in reinserting this material is that I believe it has a legitimate and important place in any portrait of von Neumann. If someone else can work it into better shape, great! I may even try to do so myself.

Von Neumann

Sorry but I mistakenly placed my response to your message in your archives. Please look there. Again, sorry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.148.1.17 (talk) 16:54, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Roman Catholic Church

Hello Squash Racket, I was wondering if you would like to come vote for this article to become an FA. I have done extensive reworking and I would like to know what you think. Thanks! NancyHeise (talk) 01:02, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for coming over to the page and giving me your comments. I addressed them to your satisfaction I hope. Let me know what you think. Thanks again! NancyHeise (talk) 20:26, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I contacted the user you recommended and I appreciate your comments. NancyHeise (talk) 13:02, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Hungarian Americans

Hi Squash racket, thanks for fixing any mistakes I made. I am trying to correct nationality in the lead sentences per wp:mosbio. For people born in Hungry and then naturalized here it can be a little less cut and dry. I would go with "Hungarian-born American" as a last resort unless duel nationality can be established. --70.109.223.188 (talk) 17:43, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Kingdom of Jerusalem

Hi Squash Racket, thanks for your help on the Kingdom of Jerusalem article - but yes, I do argue that that reference is not necessary. There are two reasons that it is not - firstly, it is from another encyclopedia. Britannica is of course a better encyclopedia, but it's very odd to use one encyclopedia as a source for another, especially since anything they say should be equally transparently sourced, and we can just use whatever sources they use. Secondly, the very basic definition of the Kingdom of Jerusalem, a crusader state founded in 1099, does not need a source. Every source will agree on this simple fact, and there is no possible way for there to be confusion or controversy about it, so it is unnecessary to give a reference for it. Adam Bishop (talk) 07:30, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh my...are FA requirements really that strict these days? I find that a reference for every statement is ugly and distracting. I cannot even attempt to read the Israel article! I don't think that's a good idea at all. Adam Bishop (talk) 07:51, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey again, I've just created a Crusades task force as part of the Middle Ages WikiProject, so I thought you might be interested in helping out. Adam Bishop (talk) 09:59, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Great Moravian empire

Szia Squash Racket! We do not know each other yet, but I see it how you are interested in the Hungarian topics. Did you revise all of the sources on the talk page? MarkBA complains because I forced him that let he wipe the proto Slovak-state before the Hungarian conquest from history of Nitra yesterday.Cheers Nmate (talk • contribs) —Preceding comment was added at 16:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

pozsonyi vár

Szia Squash Racket! I read what you had asked on the Bratislava castle's talk page. That is the reason that the Slovaks checking of the Pozsony topics. Nmate (talk • contribs) —Preceding comment was added at 20:04, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Szia Squash Racket! You did not set up for yourself e-mail messaging alternative on your user page. The email address is secret on the wikipédia but anybody can read the messages on your talk page.All the best.Nmate (talk • contribs)

Sorry, I don't have e-mail enabled. If you have something to say, please add it here. Squash Racket (talk) 11:03, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

All right. Nmate (talk • contribs) —Preceding comment was added at 16:03, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Svetovid

Yes, I saw all the prior sections. Instead of trying to piece together months of arguments, I decided to ignore it for the most part (unless someone else chimes in at WP:AN) and started pushing him to specifically describe his issues with the article. I hope this works out better than what happened the last time I got myself in a dispute like this. If he personally continues his incivility, I'll just block him myself (regardless of the accusations I'll invariably get). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:48, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Do not respond to his incivility. He will simply ignore it and continue to aggravate. Again, use the warning template and report him to WP:AIV if he goes at it again. I am not in a mood to try to piece together past incivility as the blocking policy, blocks are not punitive but attempts to stop future problems. In this case, I didn't care about his last comments, but when it was clear that he would continue calling everyone "nationalists", it seemed clear. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:21, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I know, I've just tried to avoid repeatedly reporting someone if possible. This time he called an administrator himself and the case ended up at WP:AN, so I had no problems with discussing the situation. Thanks for the advice, maybe in the future I will turn to administrators earlier in a similar case. Squash Racket (talk) 05:01, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Merger

I hope that we all agree that Zrinski-Frankopan conspiracy need to be deleted ?? I ask this because of you demand to administrator.--Rjecina (talk) 07:47, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Removed my comment. If everything useful is saved from the article, then no problem. Squash Racket (talk) 07:51, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Abusive IP edit summaries

Squash, take care of filing the checkuser request if you feel that it will help. Frankly, it's been a large number of individual IP addresses with few edits each, so I'm sure that there is an off-wiki connection to this nonsense. I'm not able to block and deal with all of them, so I'll just repeat my spiel:

If you are annoyed with some else's edits, use the warning templates on their talk page and then report it to WP:AIV. If it is appropriate, the person will be blocked. Be prepared that if you are the one who initiated it (or it is equal), you could be blocked as well. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:15, 4 April 2008 (UTC)