User talk:John K

/Archive 1 /Archive 2 /Archive 3 /Archive 4 /Archive 5 /Archive 6 /Archive 7 /Archive 8 /Archive 9 /Archive 10 /Archive 11 /Archive 12 /Archive 13

I replied to you here, if you're interested. Cheers, Dabomb87 (talk) 02:44, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The July 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:55, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed your comments over at Talk:New Chronology (Rohl), & thought I'd drop by to say hello. The 'pedia has gotten so large our paths don't cross any more. -- llywrch (talk) 20:41, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes I think I'm the only old-timer left. :-) -- llywrch (talk) 21:03, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

John, please go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Princess_Louise_Marie_Th%C3%A9r%C3%A8se_of_France where I tried in a mile-long explanation (!!!) to answer your question as to surname *d'Artois* vs *de France* for Louise Marie Thérèse, daughter of the duc de Berry. Regards, Frania W. (talk) 14:47, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

John you created an article called Lord Forbes way back in 2004. Should it not be at Baron Forbes? --PBS (talk) 11:47, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the information, I did not know that. --PBS (talk) 12:18, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One more personal attack on me and I will seek to have you blocked. Sarah777 (talk) 21:11, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's a new AfD nomination for an article you've previously discussed. Please stop by to voice your opinions again. CzechOut ☎ | ✍ 11:53, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have no argument with you - I am sorry that I don't still have the few books I found. My main concern is that many people today consider Charlemagne the fonder of the HRE for ideological reasons. I am aware that Otto looked back to Charlemagne as an antecedent but clearly he did so for ideological reasons. Myabe my problem is that there is no satisfying discussion of the meaning of these words in the context of struggles for legitimacy. MY fear is that most Wikipedia articles are naive realists and do not see things in their political context. They think that there is this real "thing" called the HRE and Charlemagne was in it, or he wasn't. When the issue is more complicated. Am I wrong?

I am willing to defer to your knowledge. But I am sorry that Johanna Kemp is not still around, as I also respected her knowledge. here is what she wrote on the matter:

I've removed all the references to the Carolingians, because they just weren't Holy Roman Emperors. It's not even arguable. They styled themselves either Roman Emperors or Emperors of the Romans. Their Empire was in no was organized like that of the later HRE, nor were their administration or institutions the same. The fact that some of what eventually became the HRE had once been ruled by the Carolingians is beside the point. The HRE arguably starts with Otto I, because it was under his rule that it began to take shape in the way we know it. The 'arguable' comes in because there is some evidence that Otto himself looked back to Charlemagne as a model. There is also evidence, however, that the Ottonians looked to the Byzantine Emperors as well. In any case, Otto is a much safer beginning point, although it was not till later -- AFAIK, not to the Salians, that teh title HRE comes into normal use. This means there is clean-up to do in terms of the Carolingian emperors, who will need to be changed to something else -- this is especially sticky, by the way, because the Carolingian emperors themselves seldom used the "Roman", preferring merely the title ' Imperator '. I've been wading through Carolingian legal documents all day, as it happens. JHK 02:51, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, I could have cleaned it up, but I don't have the time. I used to contribute a great deal, and got tired of fighting lame battles. Also, since I didn't write the original errors, I don't see why I should clean up every piece of someone else's mess. It would be like going in and trying to fix the mess that is the Charlemagne article. Some of it is not bad, but it's misleading in many places. By the way, AFAIK (and I have to say I know a decent amount -- my PhD thesis was on the Carolingians), there is no current accepted authority that argues for continuity. Most of those arguments come from late C19 and early C20 history that tried to show a great continuous history of a German Nation. And I don't know of any reputable history that considers the Spoletans as anything more than interlopers. Althoff, who is perhaps the most accepted authority on imperial traditions and the Ottonians at the moment, certainly doesn't see continuity, except in some of the imagery and ritual. Even then, the Ottonians ignore the Carolingian emperors -- the look directly to Charlemagne. JHK 03:05, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think that you could spend some real time on the article and revise it so that these points, to the extent you find them falid, are not just there but clearly explained?

I just do not think it is a simple matter of adding Charlemagne's name or not. If we add his name even if we use some nuanced terms like "Although not considered HRE by historians, Otto considered Charlemagne an antecedent" I am still concerned some people will just think that there is a real continuity where there wasn't, and that these names have simple meanings divorced from the politics of legitimation. That is why I feel that IF we put his name in the lead, we need to add more, not in the lead but in the body, about how various people's claims to being Holy or Roman were highly ideological and that the success of the Ottonian enterprise had as much to do with institutional innovation, or even more to do with institutional innovation, than with continuity with Charlemagne (or Theodosius!!). Is this a reasonable point? Slrubenstein | Talk 17:58, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not entirely satisfied with what you propose, in part because I thought I read - and John, i can SO easily be wrong - that Charlemagne refered to himself as Roman Emperor, but not as "Holy" Roman emperor. There are several variables here: the precise title used; whetheror not the Pope was inolved are just two. My preference would be to leave the intro as is, saying most historians consider Otto to be the first Holy Roman Emperor even though he id not use that title, because he was the founder of what would soon be called the HRE.

Then I would propose a section, either in the history section or before it, describing the power vacuum with the fall of the Western empire, and the fact that with its demise the Church was one of the few stable institutions. Thus, warlords who sought to establish institutionlized dynasties or regimes regularly refered to the Roman Empire or to the Catholic Church as props for legitimation. For exmple, Charlemage refered to himself as Roman Emperor ... and so on - just a paragraph or two about the environment which made certain moves available and appealing. Then something about how the Ottonians are properly considered the HRE not merely because ofthe invocation of Rome or the associaion with the pope, but because of the creation of new forms of institutionalized governance that functioned for over a thousand years. Request/proposal: could you write such a paragraph perhaps incorporating material written by JHK in what I pasted above, and then put it in the body? I still be ieve such a paragraph or two would do far more to educate our readers than just throwing Charlemagne's name in (or keepeing it out) as a sop to a partiular political position. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:14, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you still care - which you probably don't - Louis XV was duc d'Anjou before his uncle and father died. -- Jack1755 (talk) 11:02, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Thanks for the explanation on Mary II and France! I would love to do a Ph.D. in history one day...

NOTE: The date and time of this meetup has been changed to accommodate other regional activities.

The purpose of this meeting is to finalize our plans for the Wiki Takes Philadelphia event. We'll discuss logistics, establish jobs, and coordinate with participating groups.

The floor will also be open to discussing other projects relating to the Wiki and Free Culture movement.

Afterward at around 5pm, we'll share dinner and friendly wiki-chat at a local sports bar.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 17:20, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop edit warring on this article. Why, exactly, do you feel this article is improved by a sea of redlinks? Sarah777 (talk) 23:21, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please sign up here. Thanks. Mblumber (talk) 01:02, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

John. I see you apologeticness didn't last very long. You have just posted a personal attack on me; one which I removed as per advice from Chillum. Please do not restore it again. Sarah777 (talk) 01:08, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chillum actually said, "If when you remove a personal attack you are reverted, then do not remove it again". (01:01, 14 August 2009 in his talk page archive). MickMacNee (talk) 11:38, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ha. Wonderful. john k (talk) 12:43, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chillum has a less than 100% record in the judgment department. McNamee, your personal attack on me is not forgotten. Sarah777 (talk) 18:57, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah, you're the one who cited Chillum to support your actions. john k (talk) 18:59, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Who the fuck is McNamee? Does he play for Celtic? Cos he's getting humped if he is. MickMacNee (talk) 20:23, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

John. Because I agree with one piece of advice Chillum gives hardly means I need to share his religion, now does it? Sarah777 (talk) 23:24, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MackNamee, please don't write "f***" on Wiki, especially on John's page. He is most likely a refined person. A concept foreign to you I wager. Sarah777 (talk) 23:27, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm okay with profanity. I'm not overly delicate about such things, so don't stop on my account. I will say that I'm generally not a fan of purposely getting people's names wrong, as you are now doing with MickMacNee and were previously doing iwth me. As to the "piece of advice" from Chillum, it was not at all what you said it was. He said you were free to remove personal attacks if you like, but that you should not re-remove them if somebody adds them back in. He was not advising you to remove personal attacks at all, just saying that it was arguably acceptable. To the extent that he was giving you advice, it was not to do something which you did in fact do - removing supposed personal attacks a second time when somebody has put them back in. john k (talk) 23:34, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You did get Masem's title-name wrong here [1]. I was out for the evening and thought it's be all over and done with. Disappointed to say the least. Tfz 00:31, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

JK, sorry for misspelling your name; that was actually an error not deliberate. In your case. I think. I spotted your question re the Triangle of Civility. It was something I found on Chillum's page; a "how to" measure comments for their civility quotient. Copy of it on User:Evertype's page. Or there was. Sarah777 (talk) 07:17, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And Philly in September - that sounds damned inviting if you are stuck on a rainy rock in the North Atlantic! Sarah777 (talk) 07:23, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just a suggestion --- perhaps you would like to move your personal page User:John Kenney/Elephant (wikipedia article) to User:John Kenney/Wikipedia:Elephant. Since undoing a move is somewhat of a hassle, I'm not going to do it for you, just suggest it to you if you would like to do it. Honestly, I cannot envision this personal page ever becoming an article, but I can see it surviving under Wikipedia:Elephant. Take it for what it's worth. However whatever (talk) 21:51, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The August 2009 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. Alan16 (talk) 17:29, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did start marking the edits as minor; sometimes I forget. I shall try to remember. The way you used the word "seriously" in your admonishment could be construed as verging on uncivil. Please dont leave me any more messages.Willy turner (talk) 19:37, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Apologies for any incivility. john k (talk) 19:59, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bad indeed. In fact, there's a general problem which is that in most of our articles some editor has chosen a particular set of dates and we generally ignore the fact there are other dates. Thus we get someone asking how Sneferu's reign can have been over before he started building the Red pyramid, for instance. This is made worse by navboxes at the bottom of Pharaoh articles that allow for only one set of dates. Dougweller (talk) 16:33, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion about my archiving of your comments is ongoing at my talk page. Any feedback would be appreciated there. Thanks. Protonk (talk) 03:45, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you want a good laugh you should read Ottava Rima's editing philosophy page (previously his "Mentorship guidelines"). It begins: "Below is a list of guidelines that I have committed myself towards" including:

• In order to avoid WP:CIVIL problems and to work on WP:Consensus, I shall seek to avoid conflict whenever possible. Instead of judging others, I should focus on issues... should seek to be a peacemaker, and not an instigator. I should keep my mouth shut and open up my ears more often.
• In order to avoid unnecessary conflicts and fights, I will explain my position shortly and not argue with others if they disagree. If they ask questions, I shall respond politely and not judge the questioner. I should seek to be inclusion and not exclusive, and consensus involves everyone and not a majority that overruns a minority.
• In order to stay neutral and refrain from committing personal attacks, I shall speak politely, not judge other people's words harshly, assume good faith, and believe that everyone can and wants to contribute to a discussion.

Maybe you should add some comments there as he invites you to do. IIRC Ottava evaded a community ban last year by agreeing to be put under mentorship. Once the mentorship period expired, he was back to his old ways. He now thinks he has carte blanche to insult any user who contradicts him in any way. This guy will never admit he is wrong on any topic ever. His friends on Wikipedia will try to prevent any ban. --Folantin (talk) 08:36, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(I must apologise for inadvertently bringing him to the page. He has a long-standing grudge against me. I try to avoid him as much as possible but unfortunately I edited a page on his watchlist which happened to mention Persia. As you can see, he knows nothing about the history of Iran). --Folantin (talk) 09:06, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Folantin, I've had that page watchlisted for a very long time. You didn't bring anything. If anything, you came to the page simply because I pointed out that according to it you were 100% wrong so you decided to edit it out of existence. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:57, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

this series of edits goes against the MoS. The MoS is clear - we use only last names (after first use of full name) and we keep the same use of names throughout. MoS requires "Cambridge" and only "Cambridge". Ottava Rima (talk) 17:56, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fraid I can back that up, even though it's technically incorrect. We do things the wrong way here, but any attempts to change that have failed. Good example: Lord Denning is at Alfred Denning, Baron Denning rather than something along the lines of Alfred Baron Denning of Whitchurch in the county of Hampshire. Gets my goat (although it was previously at Tom Denning, Baron Denning. Eugh.). Ironholds (talk) 18:02, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea about what MoS says, but if that is what it says, it is utterly incorrect about actual Wikipedia usage. We do not call Lord Palmerston "Temple," we do not call the Duke of Marlborough "Churchill" after 1689, we do not call the Duke of Newcastle "Pelham-Holles," we don't call Lord Castlereagh "Stewart." This simply isn't how any wikipedia article on a peer has ever been written. john k (talk) 18:10, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At this, you should consider that such articles were mostly started in the early years of Wikipedia, when MoS and NPOV were rather poorly developed, and that their creators are/were generally the same people. ~~ Phoe _talk ~~ 21:44, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You claimed: "See for instance the featured article John Churchill, 1st Duke of Marlborough, which referst to its subject as "Churchill" before 1689 and "Marlborough" thereafter."

Your actions instead did: this - "Cambridge was born" to "Alexander was born". You took a last name and turned it into a first name. Your own example uses a last name. Thus, you don't even follow your own example. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:14, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can I suggest that it is abusive to reopen a discussion in the confidence that the consensus is unlikely to change, and to claim while advocating such a change, that you aren't going to advocate it? If you really don't want to advocate it, I would ask you to delete the comment; if you do want to advocate it, then you can again force the discussion, as you seem to want. However, it is entirely unclear just what your motive is. Can you please make it clear, rather than lobbing a grenade in and ducking away? Tb (talk) 07:04, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ottava_Rima/Persian_Empire - my condensing is half way done. I have not put up paragraphs for the lead (4), paragraphs for the term (2), paragraphs for the imperial system/explaining "shah" and the rest (2). Over all, it should be about 50k after those are added in and the next sections condensed. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:53, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The last two sections of your history look like what I would propose for the last two sections of my own. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:07, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've significantly rewritten this article, which I note you prepared the list of holders for. I've moved the list to a separate article for size reasons, and will probably turn it into a Featured List, but I can't find sources for many of the early office holders. Where did you find that list? Ironholds (talk) 22:49, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brilliant, thanks. Haydn is unfortunately notoriously inaccurate, in regards to early dates and names, although he provides a good general guide to an office. If you don't mind I'm going to remove the early ones that I can't find any other reference to, at least until a copy of Haydn can be picked up. I've got an original at university, actually, which will be accessible in a few weeks. Thanks, Ironholds (talk) 11:06, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 12 September!
Many thanks,  Roger Davies ^talk 04:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I submit that Wikipedia does not always accord people the titles they claim, as with the members of this category [2]. My review of related Wikipedia articles dealing with pretenders led me to the language I used in the article, which I think is more consistent with Wikipedia's general practices than the less specific version (note the articles I cite on the talk page). Part of the problem with this article comes from the fact that Jenrette and her friends have repeatedly attempted to add exaggerated claims to the article; Jenrette herself at one point characterized herself as a "celebrity centerfold" in Playboy, even though there's no such thing, and recently has added claims about her career as a realtor that contradict all the available news reports and the public record. If her new husband actually is who she describes him as being, there ought to be a truckload of reliable sources, but so far all that have been cited are his own website and a self-published genealogy page. (Maybe I wouldn't take such a hard line if Jenrette and her partisans weren't so quick to fling insults rather than engage in reasonable dialogue about sources.) Hullaballoo, Lord Wolfowitz (talk) 04:10, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

John, if you'd have some time, please look at http://books.google.cz/books?id=VsFjlKKWn6EC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q=&f=false

it shows very nicely why there is not possible to say Charles University is either German or Bohemian or Czech or whatever else. Hope this helps to understand. Please refer to page6 & page214 Ibrahimibnjakob (talk) 11:08, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi John, I've been watching...I don't get the point of that section either. I'll take another look. Adam Bishop (talk) 15:35, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The August 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 20:14, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your support in that debate. Cody7777777 (talk) 18:31, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Voting in the Military history WikiProject coordinator election has now started. The aim is to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of sixteen candidates. Please vote here by 23:59 (UTC) on 26 September!
For the coordinators,  Roger Davies ^talk 22:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hy there, first of all I want to thank you for moving the article towards its proper name Parthian Empire. I think that the case was quite evident from the start. However you have forgotten the article's talkpage (which remains at Talk:Arsacid Empire). Could you move it towards Talk:Parthian Empire asap? Thanks Flamarande (talk) 14:49, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another thing that is bothering me. I was intrigued by the name "Arsacid Empire" so I took a look around. I remembered an ancient empire (a major power of the east) which invaded ancient Greece, won (but also "lost") the battle of Thermopylae and after some centuries was invaded and conquered by Alexander the Great. What was it called again? Persian Empire (as in Persian wars)?

English is not my mother language but I do know what 'common name' means. It means use the names taught in school, written in books, and shown in the History Channel. 'Achaemenid Empire' is not the common name, 'Persian Empire' is the common and even famous name of this nation.

Should I follow the previous procedure (propose a move on the article's talkpage as I did with the Parthian Empire, wait for the opinion and votes of other users, etc) or is there some procedure to bring this issue to the attention of "higher" authorities? Flamarande (talk) 14:49, 21 September 2009 (UTC) PS: I find this issue very troubling and I'm sorry for being blunt and honest but: what the hell is going on in Wikipedia?[reply]

The talkpage, don't forget the talkpage, please. Flamarande (talk) 15:09, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One simply can't argue against tireless preachers. I stated my argument (simple common use) at Talk:Persian Empire. As far I can judge this matter the 'other side' defends more or less that "the name 'Persian Empire' can possibly be used by a handful of nations and therefore should not exist as a seperate article" (conviently it's a redirect towards Achaemenid Empire - if the other side were true to their arguments it would have to lead to a disimbigation page).

The fact and arguement that in common use 'Persian Empire' clearly applies to a single state was simply avoided again and again to a frightening degree. I placed a proper move request at the Achaemenid Empire's talkpage and I believe that I have done my duty already. Flamarande (talk) 19:39, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Sigh) I believe that common use (and common sense) is going to lose this case. Noone is putting in question that 'Persian Empire' is the common name for that state (besides Ottava but IMHO he is clearly a fool, a chameleon, and a lawyer). They are just avoiding the issue completly and defending that 'Achaemenid Empire' is a more precise name which will avoid any possibility of confusion. One only has to ignore that the average reader probably never heard that name at all (as all English mass media is quite happy in using 'Persian Empire').

I have no doubts whatsoever that the veredict will be a 'No consensus' ruling. So be it; Wikipedia will be the loser in the end but it isn't our fault. A likely side-effect is that no article with the title 'Persian Empire' will be created. A 'listing of all the historical states' is utter nonsense as the common use of that name designates a single state.

I managed to rescue 'Parthian Empire' but failed to do likewise with the 'Persian Empire'. We will have to lick our wounds, keep a careful watch over the articles, and hope that an increasing number of ppl start to question the name issue. It will probably take a couple years but the Persian Empire will rise again :). Flamarande (talk) 11:45, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi John, I see you're still fighting the good fight on the Byzantine Empire article...whenever I get bogged down in something like that I remind myself that even real-world academia is full of pointless black holes. Oh well. I was wondering if you had ever come across "ref name" template, and what you thought of it...I have been ignoring it for years but these recent edits pushed me over the edge. Are there actual real referencing systems like that, or is this one of those things made up for Wikipedia? This seems totally bizarre to me. Adam Bishop (talk) 03:05, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I don't know either, other than removing them whenever I see them, but someone will just add them back, I'm sure. Oh well. Adam Bishop (talk) 07:45, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Since you're an admin and a member of the Military History WikiProject, feel free to list yourself here. Cheers, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:05, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi John, It's been a year (or two) since we last interacted on an Indian-history related discussion ... Your feedback at History of Mysore and Coorg FAC is greatly appreciated. Feel free to be completely honest. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:51, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All the issues (except additional alt-text that I will be adding in bits and pieces during the day) have now been dealt with. I welcome comments from you at the FAC review or on the article talk page. Thanks! Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:11, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi John, I'm looking for good editors to conduct a peer review of an article I'm thinking of submitting as a featured-article candidate. It's 1948 Palestinian exodus from Lydda and Ramla. In particular, I'd be interested to know whether there are any factual errors, glaring omissions of key sources or significant points of view, and whether it's a fair overview.

If you have time to look at it, even if it's just a glance, it would be most appreciated. If it's inconvenient, please feel free to ignore this request. Many thanks, SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 06:22, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The September 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:29, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello John! You are cordially invited to my user page for a little visit if you would like to know my basic ideas and opinions about when to use English (pre-1900) and when not to (post-1900). I think our stances might actually coincide pretty well. It feels important to me that we understand each other, at least, though we may agree to disagree at times. Sincerely, SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:00, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear John, can you keep an eye on the East German Foreign Ministers situtation. Another editor removing these from the German FMs has appeared now. Thanks! Str1977 ^(talk) 08:56, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, President Kennedy. I was editing an article about a sports star when another editor informed me that listing the baby's name was in violation of Wikipedia policy, WP:BLPNAME. I was shocked because I did not know of this policy.

I looked at Family of Barack Obama. BLPNAME says that non-notable children must not be named. President Obama's children have been noted as non-notable in their AFD. There are 2 choices that follow policy:

1. Declare the children as notable.

2. Declare they are not notable and remove their names. So the wording might read "President Obama and the First Lady have two children, XXXXX and XXXXXX.

I don't care which. However, violating policy is wrong. With all the press about them, #1 might be the logical choice but, again, I don't care.

What do you think, President Kennedy? PresChicago (talk) 05:11, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please look at the sourcing in Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mandell Creighton/archive1 on the British Historian Mandell Creighton. I have some concerns. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:44, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear administrator, Please do some administering at the WP:RFPP board to unprotect Malia Obama. The basis for unprotect has been proven and should be done. Let me write the article. Mayor of Gotham City (talk) 03:34, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As a member of the Military history WikiProject or World War I task force, you may be interested in competing in the Henry Allingham International Contest! The contest aims to improve article quality and member participation within the World War I task force. It will also be a step in preparing for Operation Great War Centennial, the project's commemorative effort for the World War I centenary.

If you would like to participate, please sign up by 11 November 2009, 00:00, when the first round is scheduled to begin! You can sign up here, read up on the rules here, and discuss the contest here!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:11, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The October 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:11, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"we shouldn't be promoting incorrect forms, even if they are occasionally used by the ignorant" — Thank you, thank you, mille gratias tibi ago! — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 05:03, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Graham Greene.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. PhilKnight (talk) 12:13, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The November 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 18:48, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello John Kenney! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 13 of the articles that you created are Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. Please note that all biographies of living persons must be sourced. If you were to add reliable, secondary sources to these articles, it would greatly help us with the current 942 article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the list:

1. Pierre Mauroy - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
2. Michel Barnier - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
3. Hubert Védrine - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
4. Hervé de Charette - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
5. Roland Dumas - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
6. Maryon Pittman Allen - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
7. Richard Alan Cross - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
8. Jean François-Poncet - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
9. György Lázár - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
10. Jan Krzysztof Bielecki - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 16:47, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The December 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:33, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I created Conservative Government 1979-1997, spanning both Thatcher and Major, which is too big. Tryde broke that up by general election (it appears) at 1983, 1987, 1990 and 1992. List of British governments divides it into 1979-1990 and 1990-1997, both of which redirect to my first page, which I've just proposed for deletion. What, in your opinion, are the appropriate points of division? Choess (talk) 17:55, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The current series is split at the Thatcher resignation as well as at elections. Looking at the precedents on List of British governments, I'm inclined to lump them back into 1979-1990 and 1990-1997, but I'd be grateful for a second opinion. Choess (talk) 18:23, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'll drop a note and ask Tryde, but I don't think this is terribly controversial—s/he seems to be the only other person actively working on them. Choess (talk) 02:54, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The January 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:54, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey john: Old topic of discussion, but I'd like to get Memphis as a dab page instead of its current position as a redirect to Memphis, Tennessee. If you could give your opinion at Talk:Memphis, I'd be very grateful. I need somebody to comment before I get WP:BOLD. Cheers! Night w (talk) 03:22, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A review to see if Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom meets Wikipedia:Good article criteria has started, and has been put on hold. Suggestions for improvement are at Talk:Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom/GA2, and are mainly to do with coverage and neutrality, and building the lead section. Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom is one of our most high profile and popular articles, attracting an average of over 11,000 readers every day. You have made more than 20 edits to the article, and so you might be interested in helping to make the improvements needed to get it listed as a Good Article. SilkTork *^YES! 12:39, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, I just realized how many times I've encountered you on Sporcle! I guess that's not surprising, it seems like the kind of place Wikipedians would enjoy. Adam Bishop (talk) 08:19, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure you noticed but there is again a discussion going on whether evangelische kirche in deutschland should be translated or not. I'm a little bit fed up to be honest. another user changed the name of the ekd article and all its member churches. they all appear under the german name now. he did that without giving any reason, calling it bald, but wants now justification for undoing his move (see Evangelical Church in Central Germany). first he said that evangelical should be translated as protestant and sold the german form of the word as a kind of compromise/solution. Now he and an other user say kirche or landeskirche are "concepts" that can't be translated. I think you wre right to point out that several churches in the English speaking world are called the same way. maybe you want to have a look at the discussion? --Mk4711 (talk) 20:46, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know wikipedia rules that well. In the case of the North Elbian Evangelical Lutheran Church: Would it be okay to move it back to the English name? There isn't much of a discussion there. Or would that be an edit war? I've already undone the move and then it was moved again by motroos. Probably it's better to find a general solution on the EKD discussion page. I just don't really understand what we are waiting for. I guess you know because you are an administrator (I think you are). --Mk4711 (talk) 15:53, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now another user has taken the initiative... You are right. This really is madness. Maybe I should move United States of America to Estados Unidos, without any prior discussion of course. I'll call that "bold" as motroos did... And then I'll ignore all the reasons for moving it back. That's apparently the way it works. --Mk4711 (talk) 17:16, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 8 March 2010! More information on coordinatorship may be found on the coordinator academy course and in the responsibilities section on the coordinator page.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:46, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The February 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:39, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mootros (talk) 20:39, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Takes Philadelphia is a photo scavenger hunt and free content photography contest to be held all around Philadelphia aimed at illustrating Wikipedia articles.

Scheduled for Sunday, April 11, 2010, the check-in location will be at the Drexel University quad (between Chestnut and Market, 33rd and 32nd) at noon, and the ending party and photo uploading (location to be announced) will be at 6 PM. To reach the Drexel quad, walk south from Market Street at 32nd Street into the campus.

This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 15:03, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom/Article title. DrKiernan (talk) 09:09, 18 March 2010 (UTC) (Using {{Please see}})[reply]

Voting for the Military history WikiProject coordinator elections has opened; all users are encouraged to participate in the elections. Voting will conclude 23:59 (UTC) on 28 March 2010.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:58, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi.

Please have a look (as an editor who seems interested in the article) at Monarchy of Canada, where there is currently some disagreement about wording in the lead. Thanks. -- 205.250.72.215 (talk) 20:08, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The March 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:00, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For a great many years there has been an almost-loophole at this policy "cite facts, including facts about opinions, but not opinions themselves." I have always interpreted this to mean that a verifiable account of someone's view is encyclopedic. However, some people read this to mean that Wikipedia should emphasize facts, not opinions. And opinions = views. I think this line of thinking leads to a contradiction in the policy (that we must include all significant views from reliable sources) and undermines the dictum, "verifiability, not truth."

The problem is, there is a user, user:Zaereth who states excplicitly on his user page that he is opposed to our NPOV policy and wishes to change it. And he has been trying to edit the "loophole" I mention above to mean that we should strive to present the truth. He has teamed up with user:QuackGuru who is claiming that there is another policy called "state facts accurately" which he believes means that certain claims do not have to be attributable to any source (since they are "facts" - i.e. a total subversion of "verifiability, not truth."

Currently, the discussion is happening on the bottommost sections of the talk page (there was a convenience break). I think the discussion really could benefit from the input of experienced editors with real institutional memory and I am asking that you consider participating in this discussion until this issue at NPOV is satisfactorally resolved. Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 13:01, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Slrubenstein, please strike all your false statements you made against me. QuackGuru (talk) 16:45, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

QuackGuru, please don't use my talk page to communicate with people who are not me. john k (talk) 17:36, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough,thanks for contacting me, Slrubenstein | Talk 22:57, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you comment here: [3] and in the next section, which is entitled Comment? I am asking you to comment solely on policy, not content. This discussoon sorely needs the cmments of others who really know policy. Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 09:54, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing, William Cavendish, 5th Duke of Devonshire, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Cavendish, 5th Duke of Devonshire. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Yappy2bhere (talk) 23:23, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The April 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:34, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good morning, John! A friend and colaborator of mine requested a peer review on Pedro II of Brazil with the goal of nominating the article to Featured. If you have any interest or spare time, could you take a look in it and share your thoughts? Since I saw you in its talk page, I thought you would like to help. Thank you for your time! Regards, --Lecen (talk) 13:47, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The May 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:17, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was suggested to me that I note for you that I mentioned an edit of yours in Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Herostratus 2. You were not singled out for any particular reason, and I found nothing particularly problematic with your edit in question, at least in terms of being a ground for you being recalled as an admin. Sorry.--Milowent (talk) 18:38, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue LII (June 2010) Front page Project news Articles Members Editorial

Project news Catch up with our project's activities over the last month, including the new Recruitment working group and Strategy think tank	Articles Milhist's newest featured and A-Class content
Members June's contest results plus the latest awards to our members	Editorial LeonidasSpartan shares his thoughts on how, as individual editors, we can deal with frustration and disappointment in our group endeavour
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here.

This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:11, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am reposting here a response to your comments on the James VI article: George I was not a "King" of Hanover, merely an Elector, the Kingdom of Hanover was not created until 1814 . And to your earlier point regarding Edward VII as Prince of Wales, that title is an honorific of the heir to the throne of England, much as the title Duke of Rothesay is to the Monarch of Scotland, neither are titles of sovreignty, as indeed neither was the position of Elector in the Holy Roman Empire, a vassal to the Emperor. As to your insinuation that Scotland was a marginal backwater during this time is just another example of the sort of faux history perpetuated by various English commentators, and is a racist slur that the Scots have endured ever since the union of the crowns. Furthermore, King Jamie did return to Scotland in 1617 in an attempt to harmonise the structures of the two very different churches within his realms, he also continued to speak in Braid Scots, . As to your point that as King of Scotland, King James had no influence in Europe, why was he given the hand of Anne of Denmark, daughter of one of the arguably most powerful monarchs in Northern Europe, Frederick II of Denmark? And to cap it off, a quick google search returned 118,000 for "James VI of Scotland", yet just 92,900 for "James I of England". Brendandh (talk) 17:13, 11 July 2010 (UTC) Brendandh (talk) 07:42, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bonjour John K:

In the discussion[4] concerning the inclusion of "Israël" (!!!!!) in the territorial "possessions" of France or under its protection or whatever in WWII, I suggested removing the list of such which was added to the infobox this past May 29[5], and which is rather confusing as things were not that clear cut in the period 1940-1944, and were changing, with, for instance, governors of certain territories changing side or being replaced or, as the case was with Japanese-occupied Indochina which is difficult to put into the category of Possessions constituents, with, to boot, listed in their modern names, which makes the list totally incompréhensible for that period.

Hoping this long sentence makes sense to you, as this is the best I can do being in a rush in the middle of a heatwave and not taking the time to re-read my prose.

Cordialement, --Frania W. (talk) 13:03, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Go to the talk page of the Austria-Hungary article. Do you try to dipute the historic fact that the Eastern front of Entente was Collapsed by Central powers in ww1? Read about that: [[6]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stubes99 (talk • contribs) 17:20, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi you obviously have a working knowledge of User:Blablaaa there is a discussion Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Blablaaa you might be interested in commenting on.--Jim Sweeney (talk) 08:41, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is a discussion on whether articles on the rioni of the City of Rome should follow the naming convention for Italy, or should be treated differently. I have notified you as you were previously involved in the discussion on a Naming convention for Italian cities. Please feel free to add your comments at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)/Archives/2010/July#Italy: rioni of Rome. Skinsmoke (talk) 09:58, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. I didn't mean to muddy the waters. --Kansas Bear (talk) 05:45, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, John K. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--Phoon (talk) 22:10, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We definitely need to have more people involved in the discussion so we can hash out how best to define the list. A formal RFC is probably not needed at this time. The better course of action may be to not rebut every point as this seems to just generate endless walls of text. --Polaron | Talk 13:43, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is the only warning you will receive regarding your disruptive edits. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did to List of cities proper by population, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Removing the (in this case United Nations) definition for scope and content of a list, along with all the references, is an egregious act of vandalism. The fact that this act is perpetrated by an administrator who should be familiar with Wikipedia policies, exacerbates this act. This will be your only warning. BsBsBs (talk) 18:56, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]