Misplaced Pages

Undeletion request

The history is as follows:

• 2005-04-30 10:37:50 (UTC): Created by Nixdorf (talk · contribs). Content:

  '''Pmanderson''' is obviously someone interested in for example ], the ] and ].

• 2005-05-05 21:02:48 (UTC): Blanked by Pmanderson (talk · contribs)

– ABCD 16:01, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Plato's works naming convention

I don't understand why you have created this convention which seems to me both unnecessary and contrary to the conventions already in use. Works should be named by their title when there appears to be no other usage of the name (eg Phaedo), and by standard naming convention otherwise . That being said, I would imagine most any work named as "Title (book)" would likely have the name priority, being a Platonic work. But this "Title (Plato)" convention in my opinion smacks of bad form and largely unnecessary disambiguation. I respect your work in the Philosophy section, but I beg you to reconsider on this matter. Thank you. --Girolamo Savonarola 23:25, 2005 May 8 (UTC)

As an active participant in the discussions on Category_talk:Dialogues_of_Plato, I wanted to draw your attention to my survey proposal. This would likely bring in a number of outside and (presumably/hopefully) objective views - at the least, a fair enough number to make a consensus at the conclusion. Surveys need to be discussed by the involved parties ahead of time in order to come to an agreement as to their content, and thus make them valid. If you have the time, I'd appreciate if you got involved. Thanks! --Girolamo Savonarola 23:18, 2005 May 23 (UTC)

Bayreuth Festival

Read your comments on the User page and found your discussion of non-NPOV very interesting (I think I agree). During WWII the Bayreuth Festival was not closed (at Hitler's insistance) though only Die Meistersinger was performed. Villa Wahnfried sustained bomb damage from British bombers. All this is easily documented. Most recently Daphne Wagner's book The Wagner's (published circa 1996) has a good discussion of Bayreuth during that period. Thanks. Nobs 15:03, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Kandidatuur

Ben jij dit op meta:  ? Waerth 11:36, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

My user pages

Hi Francis! Here are my user pages: meta:User:BjarteSorensen. Good luck with future involvement in all things Wikimedia-related. BjarteSorensen 21:51, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

YOU ARE NICE.

Ｉ will vote you. from japanese that can speak English little.

Election question

(from user:Francis Schonken:)

Do you have any potential conflicts of interest? For example, any ties to Yahoo, Google, Microsoft or other potential competitors or donors? Lunkwill 29 June 2005 08:04 (UTC)

2. No conflict of interest, no ties with any of the companies you mention, nor any other for that matter.

--Francis Schonken 29 June 2005 21:07 (UTC)

Republic definition

Why move the bizarre rant rather than delete it? I don't see anything salvageable there. Morwen - Talk 08:46, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough. I wouldn't let fear of 3RR stop you from editing/removing bizarre stuff first time - if they revert then its worth considering stopping. I've hacked away at it so make it NPOV (it no longer makes bizarre and paranoid prescriptivist claims) but its still totally stupid. Morwen - Talk 08:56, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Template

Yes the template looks good. Thank you very much for your interest. Miskin 21:29, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Wikimania?

Hi Francis, I assume you're coming to Wikimania? I'd really like to get the opportunity to thank you in person for all the help you gave me during the year with my research, which is still ongoing. I'm giving a presentation there on "Misplaced Pages as a learning community" if you're interested. By the way, well done for putting yourself forward for the board elections - it shows courage. Unfortunately I didn't vote for you - I would have done, but I still didn't have the required number of edits! (That will change.) All the best. Cormaggio 12:26, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

That's a shame, Francis. Looks like an interesting programme. And yes, I'd seen that survey - we're trying to work on another one for the m:Wikimedia_Research_Network if you'd like to chip in.. Cormaggio 14:27, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:No original research

Francis, could you discuss your changes on the talk page before making them please? This is a policy page and we have to be careful that changes don't contradict the official policy. Many thanks, SlimVirgin 22:39, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

Well, no. My edit removed some odd editing, and SR's clarified what was already there. Also, we were both part of the group of editors who reviewed this policy in draft form for months before it went on the page, so we're not likely to add any contradictions. You want to add something new, and the English isn't quite right, so it's not clear what you mean. For both these reasons, it would be appreciated if you would use the talk page first. SlimVirgin 22:55, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't mean to sound snippy. It's just that this is such an important policy. It keeps a lot of nonsense out of WP, so we don't want to see it watered down or have any loopholes inadvertently introduced. SlimVirgin 22:59, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

Erik Satie

Hello, Francis! I'm sorry if you took the cleanup template on the Satie page as an offence. I read through the article and I thought it was not written in a very encyclopedic style, so I thought that adding that template would only draw attention of other editors so that they could improve it. I would love to improve it myself, but I'm not an English native speaker. If you feel that the article is fine the way it is now, remove it, it's no problem :) Looking forward to future collaborations, --Missmarple 18:19, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Plato naming scheme

Hello again, Francis. Hope you are keeping well!

Just wanted to once again request your comments on Category talk:Dialogues of Plato, as I'd greatly appreciate your thoughts (and hopefully support) for some final work that needs to be done to complete a full standardization of the article names of the dialogues. There are still three articles that have the (Plato) ending but cannot be changed manually and thus require a formal request. This is the last major task that remains at the moment.

Thanks! --Girolamo Savonarola 01:36, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

• I have a suggestion: why don't the two of us put together a survey on the matter? It would likely add some fresh perspective to the matter and hopefully break a deadlock and establish a consensus towards one side or the other. It would also be a good point to archive the old discussion and simplify the choices - I fear that the current talk page occludes the matter significantly for an outsider. It's no surprise to me that people are more reticent to join in given that what we're talking about now is vastly different from what the page discussion starts with and huge amount of text needed to be read to get to the latest matters. Let's streamline things into two or three overall naming scheme proposals for a survey, as well as a few other polls within the survey on options for particulars like Republic and Apology where there is more uncertainty. --Girolamo Savonarola 07:29, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Writing is difficult ..holding just a little...

Hello Mr./Ms. Francis Schonken. I'm 220.209.92.64(IP). Thank you for pointing out NPOV. It agrees. It describes by the machine translation, and I want to apologize for no too good it sentences previously. It is very joyous to change along the style of Misplaced Pages. It holds out so that I may also write a good article. Thank you.

Login is waited for a little more :) --220.209.92.64 14:49, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

The description above is mistaken and it has written in UserPage. I'm sorry it is shameful... --220.209.92.64 17:29, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

div items

Hi. As you made an item of sweden-norway in lame, I am curious to know were you present in that edit war? Or how do you know about it?

If you know the Sw wp, please tell what the situation there is. I have heard negative things of that place.

Btw, have you visited another battled place, Talk:William of Orange. Arrigo 08:16, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Questions that went by unnoticed

Over a month ago you posed me some questions, which for some unknown reasons I never noticed until only a few minutes ago. Better late than ever as they say, I'll try to answer you to the best of my knowledge.

• Was Katharevousa in the 19th century (or beyond) important for uniformising the way Greek was written, I mean the common way to write Greek alphabet and/or which sounds were represented by which letters and/or accents & diacriticals?

People tend to think of Katharevousa as an artificially created dialect which aimed to replace the popular language of Greece, but this is not totally correct. Katharevousa (=purified) is an semi-artificial language, a purified version of the language of the Eastern Orthodox Church,which had its roots on the patriarchy of Constantinople. It had not impact in phonology nor the spelling of popular Modern Greek, it only added a significant amount of archaisms in grammar and vocabulary. Despite what people say, it was intelligible with the popular speech. To answer your question - no, it had not any importance on the way Greek was written, it was promoted for purely political reasons in order to strengthen the cultural links between the modern Greek Kingdom and ancient Greece in the eyes of the Western supporters of the Greek revolution against the Ottoman Empire.

• Is it true that the "old" way of diacriticals (with spiritus asper/lenis and accents in various shape and direction) was only fixed in 19th century, to be abandoned in 1976 with the most recent spelling reform?

I take it that you're referring to the polytonic system being replaced by monotonic. That accenting system (polytonic) was not introduced in the 19th century. It was introduced with Koine Greek and it had been part of the Greek writing ever since. It had always been pretty much useless, as it was used to reflect Classical accents that had already fallen out of use at ancient times. It was dropped in 1981 by means of a new law, which had nothing to do with Katharevousa. As I said earlier, spelling was never affected. In my opinion Katharevousa is not much different from Dante's standardised Italian, which was chosen as the official language of the polylinguial Italian nation. The only difference between the two is that in Greece a common popular language had already existed, this is why it didn't work.

• Is there difference between "new Greek" and "Modern Greek" (Dutch wikipedia made that difference before I came involved), "kini neo-elliniki glossa" = "common neo-Greek language" (the "official" Greek from after the last reform) being identified with "Modern Greek"?

In Greek the term that's being used is "Nεοελληνική", which I assume translated to Modern Greek (although it literally means Neo-Hellenic). Strictly speaking (amongst linguists), Νεοελληνική (or Νέα Ελληνικά), is a family of dialects and is not restricted to the common form of popular speech, which is called "Κοινή Νεοελληνική" (Common Neo-Hellenic). In English the word "modern" is used instead of the Greek "new", but I don't see why in any language someone would use both words. You should find the commonest way that translates "Modern Greek" in Dutch (either with Neo or Modern) and then use it to describe the dialect family of Modern Greek. Then in order to describe the standardised form of Modern Greek, which the anglophone wikipedia calls 'Koine Modern Greek', you can use terms such as standard or even Koine in front of it. Unless Dutch scholars explicitly differentiate (which I doubt) between "New Greek" and "Modern Greek", you should just use the common term of Dutch and ditch the other.

• Or is all this just invention of one of my predecessors?

In my opinion one of your predecessors was confused because although the direct translation from Greek is Neo-Hellenic, in English it's known as Modern Greek.

I hope I could be of some help. Don't hesitate to message me regarding any other clarifications. Miskin 13:06, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

William of Orange

I think the 2 options as expresses in the WP:RM vote are better. Another page just leads to confusion. Philip Baird Shearer 13:35, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

I do not think that a "simplified version of the William of Orange disambiguation page" is desirable or necessary. The debate is simply should the page "William of Orange" be a page which points to William III of England with a line at the top of that page:For other men named William of Orange, see William of Orange (disambiguation) to cover those instances where links to the William of Orange page should go to another. Or whether an reference to William of Orange should go directly to the disambiguation. I think the former due to common English language usage, others think diffrently. But this is debated at length on the William of Orange talk page. Philip Baird Shearer 15:34, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Please follow the page . I believe it should be redirected to William of Orange (disambiguation) at least until a consensus is reached whether to move/change it. I could use help in watching it (and defending the mantioned principle). Arrigo 20:50, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Primary Author

The expression "Primary Author" is a common shorthand for "If all else fails, consider following the spelling style preferred by the first major contributor (that is, not a stub) to the article" Taken from Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style#National varieties of English now while this is not strictly a dispute about a spelling style it is close approximation. As the vote is now >60% in favour of a page move my position will become irrelevant shortly. Philip Baird Shearer 07:59, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Tacitean Studies

I'm sorry you disagreed with my disambiguation. Since Claudius died in 54, and Pliny the Younger was born in 63, it seemed like a reasonable assumption that the quotation referred to Pliny the Elder. However, as you probably know more about this subject than I do, I'll defer to your judgment. --Russ Blau (talk) 22:16, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

Do not edit Talk pages

Francis, you should not erase any comments of others from article talk pages, if the comment deals at least somehow with the issue. Such removals are regarded as disrupting Misplaced Pages. If you do not personally or for some other reason, like the comment, that however is no reason for erasure. Only vandalism can be removed, and the defitition of vandalism is narrow. Then, you also should understand that anonymous users are as entitled as you to contribute to Misplaced Pages and as entitled as you to comment on relevant issues at talk pages. Even the process called WP:refactoring is a tad controversial, and if refactoring is done, it only means edition that replaces personal attacks with nicer terms. Lastly, you should refrain from making personal attacks. Arrigo 11:32, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Hi there!

I saw your post regarding the potentially disruptive editing behaviour. Seems very much a boarderline case and I don't think the edits are sufficient for a block. It's too bad those pages are sprinkled with intensifiers. Hopefully things will subside in a little bit. You've done a lot of work on Misplaced Pages - I hope the editing environment will get better for you soon. --HappyCamper 13:49, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Hey, got your message. I'm glad you feel better! :) Sure, I'll look into it - but no promises! These things take a while to do because not everyone has access to this information, and you sort of have to make a "case" to justify getting this information. However, because it can potentially resolve many issues, I'll spend some time to look into it. I think it is very sneaky for an IP to do that - it's misleading for one thing. I'll get back to you in a bit! --HappyCamper 14:23, 28 August 2005 (UTC)