Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:54, 9 May 2009

Your new articles

Hello! I was doing New Page Patrol and I came upon your new articles about the Nebula Award nominated books. I put tags on the article requested their expansion and editing to fit Misplaced Pages requirements. If you need help in this endeavour, please feel free to call on me. Thanks! Ecoleetage (talk) 12:58, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Ecoleetage (talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Homosexuality

Regarding the topic "homophobia" and suggestions for being inclusive to people referencing the article on "Homosexuality":

1. "Homophobia" and "Homosexuality in Animals" have their own articles entirely. To avoid unnecessary duplication and congestion and non-topicality, simply place cross-references and links within the "Homosexuality" article so interested parties can move to those articles. For any experienced computer user or Misplaced Pages user, such cross-navigation is easy and quick and also provides more substantial and effective treatments of the related topics in their proper encyclopedic location or place. (Some of those cross-links have already been placed in the article in question.)

2. Further, if in fact what you claim is true, then the proper location for that information is, in fact, under "homophobia" or a "homophobia" subsection--NOT under an "Animal Sexuality" subsection--when the article is totally focused on Human Sexuality or its variants.

3. As you can see easily under many topics in Misplaced Pages, appropriate treatment in sub-sections of articles is almost NEVER preferential to full and appropriate treatment in the main article itself--and it is easy to cross-link and cross-reference (as stated above). Thanks! Rbfitz0529 (talk) 02:26, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Further, I have reviewed the article and find absolutely no references to "homosexuality in animals" in the Misplaced Pages article (or and linked articles) under or with any "homophobia" sub-sections or passages. Please clarify that reference. Thanks! Rbfitz0529 (talk) 02:39, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

January 2009

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Rick Warren. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. --VS 00:39, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to the LGBT WikiProject!

Hi, Phoenix of9, welcome to WikiProject LGBT Studies! We are a growing community of Misplaced Pages editors dedicated to identifying, categorizing, and improving articles regarding lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender (LGBT) and intersex people. LGBT Studies covers people, culture, history, and related subjects concerning sexual identity and gender identity - this covers a lot of ground and your help is appreciated! Some points that may be helpful: Our main aim is to help improve articles, so if someone seeks help, please try to assist if you are able. Likewise feel free to ask for help, advice or clarification. Many important discussions take place on the project's main discussion page; it is highly recommended that you watchlist it. If you have another language besides English, please consider adding yourself to our translation section, to help us improve our foreign LGBT topics. The project has several ongoing and developing activities, such as article quality assessment, peer review and a project-wide article collaboration, all of which you are welcome to take part in. We also have a unique program to improve our lower quality articles, Jumpaclass, so please consider signing up there. If you're going to stay awhile, please create a square in our project quilt! You can put anything you want in it. If you have any questions, feel free to ask on the talk page, and we will be happy to help you. And once again - Welcome!

-- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 03:51, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Civility

Noting that someones opinion is "irrelevant" is not the way to maintain friendly debate on an issue. Surely you can do better? Kevin (talk) 23:35, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Chindi (novel)

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Chindi (novel), and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.sfreviews.net/chindi.html. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 21:32, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of SOSLynx

A tag has been placed on SOSLynx requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a company or corporation, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for companies and corporations.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the article or have a copy emailed to you. DARTH PANDA 21:39, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

LGBT template photo

Thanks! The new photo image is great. The old, crappy photo was put their by someone to replace a perfectly good symbol. Anyway, this little thing makes a world of a difference. --83.231.103.116 (talk) 21:49, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

LOL I agree. Phoenix of9 (talk) 21:50, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Show Me Love

Hey. A note to say I'm not trying to be difficult here, but the former Lesbian article used shady sourcing culled from very quick Google searches, and lists or unrelated sentences somehow fused together in incoherent paragraphs. I'm trying to do something more with this article. First, I'd like to use the best sources available anywhere. This means editorial-reviewed books over web sources like afterellen.com or curvemag.com. imdb.com and amazon.com are not sufficient sources to verify that the material is lesbian (I saw the film, so I know it is, but bear with me here for a moment). Both imdb.com and amazon.com are user-generated sites, very much like wikis. Instead, a source should state that Fucking Amal is considered part of a milestone in portrayals of lesbianism. I would like a book to say it. I have more work to do on the article. I won't forget it, I promise. --Moni3 (talk) 18:26, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Prop 8 on Rick Warren page

Hi Phoenix of9. In hopes of facilitating consensus on the matter of how best to refer to California Prop 8 on the Rick Warren page, I wrote up a framework of seven points that I *think* interested editors agree on, and three points that I *think* interested editors disagree on, and put it on the discussion page. I'm hoping you'll return to that page and provide your input. Thanks.... Benccc (talk) 20:18, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi Hi, Phoenix of9, thank you for all the efforts you have been making on these articles, i appreciate that you have asked for mediation and are doing good work to bring (hopefully more) objective eyeballs to the discussion. I'm sorry to say that i have become so fatigued with the whole debacle, i just can't find a good way to participate there anymore. I was going to write a reply to the mediator on the Talk:Rick Warren page, because i feel they have not addressed some primary issues (COI, censorship and whitewashing, etc) and i also feel they are noting complete irrelevant issues (i.e., whether or not any editors are "pro-gay-rights", which seems like a strange thing on which the mediator would comment, as they seem to be focusing on the editors rather than the edits.) But i just don't want to say anything further on those Rick Warren or SaddleBack Church pages because i just don't know how to contain my ire and indignation, and i'm afraid i will just "fan the flames" even more if i open my mouth again. I want to be supportive of you and any other editors who are attempting neutral objectivity and reliably sourced citations, but i'm sorry if i don't seem very helpful. Maybe the only way i can "help" is to avoid doing any harm to the principles of neutrality and civility. So i came here to your TalkPage to basically say i'm taking a bit of a wiki-break to keep out of trouble, and i am just ever so grateful that you and other editors have the energy to keep on pressing in the uphill struggle for fairness and ethical wikipedia activity. Thank you for being so productive, maybe at some future date i can find better ways to be involved, i am just glad there are people like you who are willing to spend the time and effort even when others of us grow so weary. Best wishes, Teledildonix314 ~ _4-1-1 22:47, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Damn. I guess we could just repeat my whole spiel from 23 February 2009. I'm going to chill out, before my head explodes into flames, i don't think i can handle that Mediation TalkPage right at this moment without expressing anger, and that won't help anybody, especially reasonable people like you, so i'll see you later after i cool down. Thanks for being a model of good patience. ~ Teledildonix314 ~ ~ _4-1-1 ~ 09:07, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Your characterization of other editors opinions

Your characterization of Lyonscc's opinion as "irrelevant" is out of order. I have warned you about this before, and I will not issue a further warning. Kevin (talk) 04:23, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Altered proposal

I think it will confuse things if you change proposed wordings that others have already supported, as it becomes unclear exactly what they supported. Perhaps you should add a 4th proposal. Re the proposal itself, I think that the second sentence should expand on the first and explain the reason for the criticism at least a little. Kevin (talk) 06:32, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. Phoenix of9 (talk) 06:57, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Request for mediation accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party has been accepted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/Rick Warren. For the Mediation Committee, Ryan Postlethwaite 20:10, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Careful please

You are quite rightly taking part in the Rick Warren mediation. It is important that your considered views are included so I would ask again that you please remember the previous advice given, including that from Kevin detailed above in the threads marked "Civility"/"Your characterization of other editors opinions" and not again say anything that could be considered a disparaging reference to the other editors.--VS 20:14, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Stow the wikitalk

If you have something to say, say it in plain English.

"Strong disapproval of homosexuality was reported for 41% of 42 cultures; it was accepted or ignored by 21%, and 12% reported no such concept. Of 70 ethnographies, 59% reported homosexuality absent or rare in frequency and 41% reported it present or not uncommon." Haiduc (talk) 12:33, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

And...This supports your addition how? Phoenix of9 (talk) 13:16, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I think our disagreement stems from the fact that you are using a statement referring to orientation in a way that incorrectly makes it seem applicable to homosexuality in general. Haiduc (talk) 00:01, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Orientation and behaviour are related closely. Also note that Homosexual orientation will be merged. I moved your stuff to history section. Give me like a week b4 making more changes. Phoenix of9 (talk) 11:24, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Rollback

I have granted rollback rights to your account; the reason for this is that after a review of some of your contributions, I believe I can trust you to use rollback correctly by using it for its intended usage of reverting vandalism, and that you will not abuse it by reverting good-faith edits or to revert-war. For information on rollback, see Misplaced Pages:New admin school/Rollback and Misplaced Pages:Rollback feature. If you do not want rollback, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Good luck and thanks. –Juliancolton |  21:17, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Nah, I just like to keep things operating smoothly. :) No worries, and best of luck with the new tool! –Juliancolton |  21:22, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

cookies for your great work

Mediation

Thanks for your continued good work on the mediation. Sunray (talk) 08:22, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Coat of arms of NRW

As I see it, neither alternative for that link is truly acceptable - the section of the river bears little relevance to a political area with a merely similar name (admittedly named after the same thing); whereas the only political area on which Misplaced Pages has information, is, as you correctly point out, a subset of the true area. We have a choice here - have a poor, (largely) irrelevant link or none at all. Both options don't actually add anything, IMO, to the enjoyment of the page. Do you have another view? - Jarry1250 20:59, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Yea, leave the link in coat of arms article and improve Rhine article. Phoenix of9 (talk) 22:56, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I think that Rhineland might actually be the best. If you compare these two maps:

it seems that the area Niederrhein is equivalent to Rhineland as now is. In my mind, that's the perfect political entity, because that makes there three distinct political areas - Rhineland, Westfalen/phalia and Lippe which match up with the current arms. Also the Rhine province used the same vert a bend wavy argent arms as here:

I can't find the arms of the state of Grand Duchy of the Lower Rhine, but one is left to assume the arms of the Rhine Province became the basis for North-Rhine Westphalia; for 'in 1946, the Rhine Province was divided up between the newly-founded states of North Rhine-Westphalia and Rhineland-Palatinate', so this leaves two options: use the area Rhineland as the area represented by that 'third' of the arms, or make it clear that it was the areas coming from the former state of Rhine Province that led to that third. - Jarry1250 16:39, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I've found my book of flags which states that 'The colours of the flag are taken from the arms which combine the symbols of the three parts of the state which are Rhineland (river), Westphalia (horse) and Lippe (rose)' so I definitely think the link should be to the Rhineland page. - Jarry1250 17:09, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

3RR analysis

Btw, are you sure that wasnt a violation of 1rr? Because his edits were consecutive? If it isnt a 1rr violation, I'll have to delete it from his RFC. Phoenix of9 (talk) 04:42, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay, let's look at this systematically. The common understanding of WP:3RR I've seen in action as a Wikipedian cultural norm varies slightly from the "letter of the law" as it's written on the 3RR policy page. Specifically, with the recognition that making major changes to an established page (per WP:BOLD) will almost invariably involve "undoing" some of the work of others, somewhat of a pass is given to initial edits in a particular burst of editing unless they are blindingly obvious undoings of the contributions immediately prior to theirs (it's also a huge pain in the ass to hunt down the origins of what an initial edit may or may not have undone). At the first edit in this series, Collect had not touched the article since 9 March and had not made a substantial change since 8 March. Meanwhile several others were editing heavily. I would consider the deck sufficiently shuffled to consider the first edit on 12 March as a start from 0.

• Collect (15:06, 12 March) Pass.
• Others Someone rewrites the intro.
• Collect Collect re-rewrites the intro; however, he does not return it to how it was when he last edited. Instead he changes it, apparently building on previous revisions. This is not reversion but evolution, the process through which articles mature during periods of heavy editing.
• Others Collect is substantially reverted.
• Collect Collect adds {{sectOR}} tags to three sections and takes out two images.
• Others Collect is completely reverted.
• Collect (15:25, 13 March) Collect partially reverts the reversion. 1RR.

This does not appear to have been a 3RR situation. --Dynaflow babble 06:06, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

not "Wiki"

Not meant at all otherwise as a comment or take on what you have to say, wiki is a kind of software, this project is called Misplaced Pages. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:04, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Must be my education in "socialist/fascist" government school (!) or whatever that was. Phoenix of9 (talk) 20:08, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Very likely so. If you have (or ever have) kids please think about homeschooling ;) Gwen Gale (talk) 20:18, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh btw, I'm from Lower Saxony (Northern Europe), I'm not related to any of Central/Western/Other Europeans and I think Charlemagne was a moron.

And if you have kids, please think about sending them to school so they can have a decent social life. Phoenix of9 (talk) 20:33, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Lower Saxony? You're most likely related and one of your g.g.g.g...grand-dads was a... (mine too). No need to go on about it, but healthier social lives can be found for kids outside of state and state-sanctioned schools. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:43, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Easy there

The RFC on Collect makes it easy to get annoyed. But I think we'll both do better to keep things cool and calm.Mattnad (talk) 15:32, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Over-flavoring your comments with too much venom weakens their effect. Too much spice in the stew ruins the pot for all!--Buster7 (talk) 12:29, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

My concerns

Alright, I seem to be having trouble with this on the RfC so I'll try be a little more specific in my concerns (this isn't meant as sarcasm, I'll admit I can be a little vague). What I mean is you are asking for things such as the Drudge ban w/o talking to those involved to see if they agree or disagree that it is really necessary. You are passing judgement in one area w/o first seeking out whether those who are actually taking part think it would help rather than hurt. As for Fascism, the user in question was inserting material against concensus and has since been reverted by other editors, I think Collect just jumped the gun a bit on this one. Soxwon (talk) 16:17, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

As I said, Collect's behaviour is not isolated to those 2 articles and those 2 instances. Phoenix of9 (talk) 16:20, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

True, but I think my concerns with the DR topic ban is valid. Perhaps you could talk to those invovled? Soxwon (talk) 16:21, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

If those in DR think it's unnecessary, I'll drop my 6 month topic ban suggestion. But 1rr for 18 months still stands. Phoenix of9 (talk) 16:24, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, that addresses one of my main concerns. I guess we can just agree to disagree on Fascism. Soxwon (talk) 16:27, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

• Hi there. Please avoid repeatedly referring to various policy/guideline/essays - that's what the section "applicable policies and guidelines" exists for. On another note, as you are aware, users certifying the basis of the dispute are requested to provide diffs showing that they tried to resolve a dispute, and failed to do so. I've tried to fix the formatting so that it is consistent across RfCs in general; if you can provide diffs of certifiers trying and failing to resolve the dispute, then there are no issues with the filing of this RfC. Cheers, Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:54, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm not an admin, and anyone can move it to approved if it has been certified - somehow, the sections regarding trying and failing to resolve the dispute were omitted in the template (perhaps when it was moved), so this has been restored. Diffs are always preferrable, especially if the RfC is looked at later down the track by the community or ArbCom. Diffs of what you said/did (whether it was on user talk page, article talk page, edit summary) in trying to resolve the dispute, and diffs of what the other user said/did in making that attempt a failure is what is needed here, and will resolve the issue. Admins will generally come to RfC when a deletion is requested due to the RfC being uncertified, for example. Does that help? Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:08, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Replied at talk page. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:17, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Collect RFC

I think Collect believes your examples of effort to work out disputes are all mine because you didn't sign it. He'll certainly make an issue of it you don't make it clear which parts are yours vs. mine. You should probably go back there since it's only a matter of time before we get a paragraph or two about it from him which will only confuse issues more. Mattnad (talk) 21:51, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

re: Ending RFC - perhaps we might have a good catalog of examples, but Collect is benefiting from which gives the edge to gamers. By working on the margins of acceptable behavior, he'll remain free to do what he wants. Mattnad (talk) 22:15, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Saxon steed

I did actually read your reasoning re the move and had looked at that German page before making the move; I still believe it it better served on an individual page - the fact that the de.wikipedia.org choose to have it that way is their business - and there are significant differences between the pages in terms of content and scope.An individual page, on the other hand, creates consistency across the page spectrum, while Saxon steed could continue to show the use of the horse as an icon, along with the general thoughts behind it. I was not suggesting that the Saxon steed page need to be removed or anything close, but the information specifically about the coat of arms of Lower Saxony should be presented in individual page format with an infobox. Grandiose2 (me,talk,contribs) 20:08, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Do you understand German? The coat of arms of Lower Saxony is the Saxon Steed. Phoenix of9 (talk) 20:10, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I can't find a piece of German that actually says that. There are things like Heute ist es das Wappen des Bundeslandes Niedersachsen which is the other way round - the Saxon steed is the coat of arms of Lower Saxony; this doesn't mean they are synonomous. There are other aspects to both parts, such as the issue date and armiger of the arms of Lower Saxony, which aren't relevant to the iconography of the Steed as a whole, and there are aspects of the steed, such as its use in Kent, which aren't relevant to any coat of arms section. Grandiose2 (me,talk,contribs) 20:25, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

On second thoughts, I can see you argument better- give me a second to think :) Grandiose2 (me,talk,contribs) 20:27, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Also note that saxon steed has been the symbol of saxon people. And Lower Saxony is the home of Saxons. (ie: it isnt Saxony) Phoenix of9 (talk) 20:33, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

(ec) I'm sorry, but you've failed to sway me over this point. The German Law actually (unlike the article) says „Niedersachsen führt als Wappen das weiße Roß im roten Felde.“ which says about a white horse on a red field, which, while it is clearly an allusion to the Sachenross, doesn't actually say that it is. In other words, the coat of arms of Lower Saxony isn't the Sachenross, it's a red field with a white horse that happens to be exactly the same. They both, therefore, require articles. maybe a CoA page saying that it displays the Sachenross, with an extract and {{main template to Saxon steed? Grandiose2 (me,talk,contribs) 20:35, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Look the german article is FA. So I think yea, this wikipedia should do like it does. "Heute ist es das Wappen des Bundeslandes Niedersachsen". And if you need a further source:

"Peter Veddeler: Das Niedersachsenross, Geschichte des niedersächsischen Landeswappens. Hannover 1996" Phoenix of9 (talk) 20:48, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm still not convinced they are better served as a single article. The German Saxon steed article is nothing like the one on the English Misplaced Pages in terms of scope, and, as I pointed out above, the quotation we both used from the German text does not necessarily mean they are synonymous. Clearly there's an interesting history behind the Saxon steed, and that this is reflect on the coat of arms. But the Law makes no mention of this fact, and this is one reason why, just like we have articles on other charges, such as the fleur-de-lis, or similar charges, this ought to be the case with the Saxon steed.

Your source for the law? Phoenix of9 (talk) 21:08, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Nevermind, I think you used this: Did you read all of the article? "Wappen des Bundeslandes Niedersachsen ist das springende weiße Ross im roten Felde." (The part you quoted) Then: "Es blickt auf eine Geschichte von über 600 Jahren zurück" and goes on about saxon steed. Phoenix of9 (talk) 21:13, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't disagree with that source. It says that Lower Saxony uses a white horse on a red dield, and that has a long history. All true. All I'm saying is that the additional functuanality of a separate page is better for the viewer. I know that it shows the Sachenross, but that it shows the Sachenross, but that the two things are separate. For example, the Sachenross appears on the inescutcheon of Hanover, but here it isn't the arms of Lower Saxony, it's something different. Here, they are not two names for the same thing, and hence, on English Misplaced Pages, they deserve separate pages, no doubt linked. I cannot see how this would have a negative effect on the reader. - Jarry1250 21:20, 18 April 2009 (UTC)My idiotic left it signed in, and I failed to notice because everything else's the same. Grandiose2 (me,talk,contribs) 21:32, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

The Law's from the German article: Die neue „Niedersächsische Verfassung“ vom 19. Mai 1993 übernahm die Regelung und sagt in Artikel 1, Satz (3) aus: „Niedersachsen führt als Wappen das weiße Roß im roten Felde und in der Flagge die Farben Schwarz-Rot-Gold mit dem Landeswappen.“ in full. Grandiose2 (me,talk,contribs) 21:34, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

weiße Roß = Sachsenroß = Saxon steed. See this is for kids but its official: "Als das Land Niedersachsen 1946 gegründet wurde, übernahm der damalige Ministerpräsident Hinrich Wilhelm Kopf das Sachsenross mit der ehemaligen Hannoverschen Provinzialflagge als Hausflagge der Staatskanz'ei (Weißes Ross auf rotem Flaggentuch)." Phoenix of9 (talk) 21:45, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Even with weiße Roß = Sachsenroß, there is still the red field to account for, and hence the Sachenross is simply the charge on the coat of arms. I will draft a two-page solution in my userspace, if you want to amend it, I will; if you still think that the entire page is unwarranted, we'll put it to the WP:HV or any other group of people. Grandiose2 (me,talk,contribs) 10:12, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

(Outdent) OK, it's at User:Grandiose2/Coat of arms of Lower Saxony. The main Saxon Steed page would only have to be reworded slightly. Your thoughts? Grandiose2 (me,talk,contribs) 11:46, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I made my points. Asking for a 3rd opinion seems the way to go. Phoenix of9 (talk) 18:01, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Fine. I will message WP:HV, referencing this convo. Feel free to ask anyone you want to. - Jarry1250 18:18, 19 April 2009 (UTC) Not again! Don't worry, Jarry1250 will not have any views for the purpose of this discussion because of the fraternal relationship. Grandiose2 (me,talk,contribs) 18:37, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Also note that Saxon steed has been the symbol of area of Lower Saxony for a long time. Its latest usage (coat of arms) is just continuation of that history. So I dont understand why you dont want all the info in COA of Lower Saxony under Saxon steed. Phoenix of9 (talk) 18:31, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I understand that it's a historic symbol. But I think the information's better served as two pages. For example, Misplaced Pages could have one page on English history, but instead it is better to have Sub-Roman Britain, Roman Britain etc, they could be considered separate topics. I think it should be taken the other way round: why shouldn't we have a page called coat of arms of Lower Saxony, since we have 'Coat of arms of' for other states. There's enough material and it's a separate subject. Grandiose2 (me,talk,contribs) 18:37, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Because it serves the readers better when they are a single article. Neither article is long. Phoenix of9 (talk) 18:38, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

That map

Image:Gay_military.svg? Wouldn't it make sense to simply ask the creator for the sources used or is there something else? -- Banjeboi 00:07, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

He doesnt seem active. Phoenix of9 (talk) 17:49, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

No problem, it was pretty but not "overnight" pretty! -- Banjeboi 03:00, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Lower Saxony

Well I'm glad we've come to an agreement (I mean that) and I'd (by which I mean Misplaced Pages) love your input. I'll try to find out or translate as new info as possible because no-one wants to see short articles. Sorry I didn't see your talk earlier. :) Grandiose2 (me,talk,contribs) 19:15, 25 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grandiose (talk • contribs)

{{subst:REVISIONUSER}} has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. {{subst:if||| {{{message}}} ||subst=subst:}} To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

- dicussion breeds improvement. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 12:54, 9 May 2009 (UTC)