Jump to content

User talk:John K

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Pitchka (talk | contribs) at 20:08, 18 December 2005 (Hello). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

User talk:John Kenney/Archive 1 User talk:John Kenney/Archive 2 User talk:John Kenney/Archive 3 User talk:John Kenney/Archive 4 User talk:John Kenney/Archive 5 User talk:John Kenney/Archive 6 User talk:John Kenney/Archive 7 User talk:John Kenney/Archive 8 User_talk:John Kenney/Archive 9

WWI template - flags

Thanks for noticing that the flags were wrong, John! I was not the one who added the flags, and I am not sure whether I like to have them in the template. Since many of them are wrong, I think it's better, for now, to remove all the flags. I have done this, but I have put a backup of them on Template talk:World War I.

My regards, Dennis Nilsson. Dna-Dennis talk - contribs 20:24, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

EffK

I see that you archived the discussion of the German Centre Party, saying that it consisted mostly of ranting monologues by EffK. I mostly agree. I also am aware that you had problems with Flamekeeper/EffK before anyone else did. You may be aware that Str1977 and I are in arbitration against him. Could you please visit the Requests for Arbitration subpage to see whether there is any further evidence that needs to be added? Robert McClenon 23:36, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As you can see, my recommendation is that he should be banned for six weeks and then required to obtain a mentor. Thank you for looking. Robert McClenon 00:53, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sources for Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations

Hello, some time ago you added a fair bit of content to Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations. As you may be aware, we are currently trying to improve Wikipedia's verifiability and reliability by making sure articles cite the sources used to create them. Do you remember what websites, books, or other sources you used to add content to Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations? Would it be possible for you to mention them in the article? See WP:CITET for some quick templates to use for citing sources. Thanks! --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 02:43, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for adding the citation and for all your good work on wikipedia! I appologize that you felt patronized, it was not my intention to insult you. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 03:34, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Britannica articles

I just noticed that you created a couple of articles on Austrian statesmen for whom there were already articles. I merged Johann Bernard von Rechberg with Johann Bernhard von Rechberg und Rothenlöwen, as it was the same text from EB1911, just slightly differently wikified. Another example is Felix zu Schwarzenberg, where another article exists as Felix Schwarzenberg. I think you should take a look yourself at how a merge is best done in that case. Tupsharru 21:36, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

largo, florida

I've been adding to the Largo, Florida page and I'm concerned with all the external links I've added. Is it possible to have too many? I also wonder if the timeline should have a page of his own.

Thanks,

Mikereichold 01:53, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hitler ... and another one

Dear John,

  • I'm in the process of overhauling EffK's recent edits to Adolf Hitler. Of course, as he saw it he started to rave. And you won't be surprised that he has called you as a witness to his truth again. Could you please have a look. (I have overhauled up to the 30 January, the rest is still to come).
  • Speaking of EffK. I'd like to ask you once again to consider appropriating the first part of my [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/EffK/Evidence|evidence]. It assembled the thing you wer einvolved into one section. Please have a look whether you agree. The thing is, I have so much evidence, that cannot post it all. If you carry a piece of the load, I can carry more. Please consider it and let me know. Str1977 22:15, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

EffK is forced to Abandon a Corrupted Wikipedia

I refer you to my response of a few moments ago at 15 December [[1]],http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/EffK/Evidence#3_December_2005 EffK 01:35, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Classics

Salve! I see you have participated in many articles on the classics, glad to see a fellow classicist about. -- User:wackyvorlon

Castro and List of dictators

We've picked up two editors who are trying to put some anti-Castro POV stuff into the dictators list. I have a hunch that User:65.2.82.238 and User:Antispammer are the same person, but I could be wrong. Both have very short edit histories that are mostly about Castro; and both started editing the dictators list today. It went through a few rounds, but the latest is mostly toned down. Still slightly off, but less ranting than List_of_dictators&diff=31579809&oldid=31419427, which actually puts me into the description, apparently as a notable pro-Castro pundit (under my WP username, not even my outside name).

I'm not really sure what I'm looking for here, but you've worked on the page (and very professionally), and are an admin. So maybe take a look at the last few edits. Not sure what else might be needed. Thanks. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 06:39, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Dark City and Dieselpunk

I'd like to thank you for your perspective on the Dark City talk page. I think that you raised some good points that ought to have been addressed by User:Piecraft, but have not yet been. If you are so inclined, there is a longer discussion taking place at List of punk genres regarding the verifiability of dieselpunk and other literary "x-punk" genres. Your opinion there would be welcome. Thank you. Avogadro94 17:41, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Partitions of Poland

Would you take a look at talk:Partitions of Poland#Discussion. We are discussing a possible change of the name of the article there and I believe that a view from non-Polish perspective would be helpful. --Wojsyl (talk) 20:57, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Succession boxes and dates

I've noticed that you've been adding succession dates to a number of English peers. Does this mean that PeerNavbox (which has no intrinsic provision for dates) will eventually be replaced by Succession box, which does? Also, what do you make of User:KuatofKDY's proposal to use complete (day-month-year) and interwikied dates in succession boxes? (See Template talk:Succession box.) Choess 21:11, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

John Kenney, I beg to permit me into your conversation since it regards certain aspects of my templates I would be very willing to reform. When I reworked the old templates to conform to a better style, I did so to try to keep everyone in sync. The issue with dates has always been one divergent between people. I have never supported complete dates in the actual succession title fields despite the Russian tsars all having them. However, I did always prefer them to be wikified, although I am not sure why. Most of the time those dates could be found elsewhere in the entry, but many times they were not or at least never noted clearly. Now if you are referring to the Template:s-hou that I am only just now beginning to spread around, then now would be a good time to resolve problems with that. I created that to summarize the person's family origin and birth/death dates, therefore making it necessary to place dates as well. In all of these cases, wikifying the dates is still not resolved and, in some cases, are beyond resolution unless we schedule a major sweep of all tens of thousands of succession fields in wikipedia. Almost half the boxes I come across have wiified dates.
So let's work this out before I spread chaos in areas that don't need to be chaotic. It's good working with fellow succession box fiends. 'tis life!
Whaleyland 04:02, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Unusual Peerage disambiguation

William Herbert, 1st Earl of Pembroke designates the first earl of both the 1468 and 1551 creations (the article is about the latter). How should they be disambiguated? Year of creation in parentheses afterwards, or something else? Choess 17:44, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

I thank you for your help with the BCE/CE dates, but Euripides has now been changed to BCE/CE even though it possesses a long BC/AD history. I do not want to violate the 3rvt rule and would like it if you'd help. Chooserr 18:34, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice, but I think I can take my own counsel. john k 18:46, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wicca

My rationale is that placing at least one or two date markers in the article will help focus people who might otherwise have a silly moment and think of Wicca as something ancient. It is generally a good idea to keep Wicca well rooted in its 20th century origins. There are a *lot* of ignorant books being sold in popular bookstores that try to assert otherwise. It may seem redundant in the context of the Wicca article to use even a few date markers, but...

I admit that the reasoning is not as solid as, say, for an article referring to Julius Caesar or Herod, but the points remain as given above.

Thoughts?

→ P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 19:27, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Just wanted to say that it is refreshing to see someone who actual seems to possess some intellect at Wikipedia. Nice to meet you! Dwain 20:08, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:John_K&oldid=31879060"