User talk:Acjelen/archive2

Smith (surname)

I've restored the "urban legend" of forced name changes, with an explanation that it is, indeed, largely an urban legend (but with the caveat that some immigrants did adopt Anglicized names upon entering the U.S.). Thank you for inspiring me to research this issue more fully! BD2412 T 14:56, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

That's cool. As a librarian, it is always nice to hear about others' pleasures in discovery through research. The Norwegian immigrant family in my own background changed their first names to appear more English. For a family last name (as they hadn't had one before), they used the Anglicized version of the wife's brother's last name. -Acjelen 17:23, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

French-Canadian / Quebecois template

Hello,

Because the image used is specifically the flag of Quebec I renamed the template from "French Canadian" to Quebecois. It's not entirely the same thing since there are small numbers of French speakers in other provinces, but I'm not sure what image or symbol you could use to represent French Canadians in general. -- Curps 08:09, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed that. Thank you. Very quickly fixed, if you don't mind me saying. Aren't French Canadians generally of Quebecois ancestry? I suppose a French-speaking Canadian who does not trace his ancestry to Quebec could create another template with that ancestry: Haitian, Algerian, and so forth. The provinces all have their own French-Canadian flags, but there doesn't seem to be a general one. -Acjelen 08:17, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

The overwhelming majority of French Canadians are in Quebec, but historically the presence of French speakers in other provinces predated the establishment of Canada as a country and the modern provincial boundaries. However I believe that presence is numerically small and steadily declining percentagewise in most areas outside Quebec. -- Curps 10:03, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

My own grandfather was born in Manitoba, but his ancestors were from Quebec. Someone did note on the template talk that Acadians living in Canada today are French-Canadian without being Quebecois. -Acjelen 10:13, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

God Bless America?!

Greetings from the Great White North! I hope you're well. I apologise for having to change and revert your compromise at America: however, a spurious listing of multiple items unnecessarily complicates the issue and term. In a disambig page, we needn't list every possible constituent (geographic or ethnocultural) of the Americas – e.g., Middle America, Latin America, Ibero-America, Anglo-America, et al. – only those that will help clarify possible ambiguity. In this instance, this is only true (geographically) for:

(1) the two continents and associated lands in the Western Hemisphere, and

(2) the country.

In support of this, both the Oxford and Webster's dictionaries list only North America and South America as constituents of the Americas/America without at all elaborating, as do any number of atlases. So, even indicating Central America, Northern America, et al. may be excessive. Similarly, a visitor can consult the relevant links to learn more about the various definitions and distinctions.

I apologise if this seems brusque, but this is part-and-parcel of my 'quest' to organise and clarify these various definitions/concepts, et al. in Wp. Whenever there's doubt or ambiguity, I'm defaulting to UN categorisations: they aren't perfect (particularly for transcontinental nations like Russia), but at least they're neutral. If you have any questions, please let me know. Thanks again! E Pluribus Anthony 06:07, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi there ... recent edit works for me!  :) Thank you for your co-operation. E Pluribus Anthony 15:48, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Furthermore ...

Hello again! Mindful of America, your contributions there, and our discussions thereof, I've drafted a 'provisional' article with definitions and maps of prominent entities containing America. I'd very much like your input on its talk page, specifically:

• (1) Is the proposed article title sufficient: "...in/of the Americas", "Regions of the Americas", etc.?
• (2) Are there any notable territories I'm missing, or are the definitions deficient somehow?
• (3) Can you suggest a way to better render the maps? I've a vision of how I want them to appear (two columns on the right side of the article), but my knowledge of the coding to get there is admittedly limited.

Remember this is a draft, not public. :) Once I get feedback from you and others (over the next few days), I will place this as a legitimate article and include links in appropriate articles.

Thanks for your assistance! E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 21:23, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Oxford Annotated Bible

I agree that further cleaning up was needed, I think an atheist perspective was needed (like mine). What are your views on references to the Apocrypha on WP? -- Tompsci 20:13, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure what you mean. Wikipedia has extensive and comprehensive treatment of the non- and differently-canonical books of the Bible. There's no question that some Christian denominations differ in what texts are included in the Bible and their order. Also, some Bible publishers respond to this by publishing different versions of their titles. WP should cover these facts and the reasons behind them in the same neutral way it tries to cover everything. -Acjelen 22:09, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I was refering to a previous edit[1], "so-called apochrophal" as it was put. Generally there must be hostility towards the books inclusion, is this an issue on the rest of WP? -- Tompsci 22:48, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

There is a convention on Wikipedia (Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names)) for determining the titles of articles. The set of books differing between the "Catholic" Bible and the "Protestant" Bible are generally called the Apocrypha. In fact there is considerable treatment of Christian and Jewish religious texts on Wikipedia, regardless of their status in the various canons. Many Christians from Protestant churches might be surprised that you consider the exclusion of the Apocrypha from the Bible as hostile; they might not even know about it. -Acjelen 04:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Again, thanks for clearing that up, I just know some evangelical Christians personally and they are generally hostile towards the Apochrypa, which I thought was a single book. You learn something new everyday :). -- Tompsci 12:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

"Amorica (legend)" article

Hi Acjelen, the article you once created on "Amorica (legend)" is apparently up for deletion, because of lack of sources. People think it's a hoax. I've tried to dig out something but didn't find anything. If you want that article saved, I guess you'd better hurry. Lukas 23:17, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Cohabitation

I don't know what is going on at Cohabitation either. It is clear that what User:Mwbuck 152.163.100.202 (talk • contribs) posted was a textdump essay. Large parts of it were interpretations, assumptions and projections that do not belong on wikipedia. Instead of removing it altogether (perhaps keeping the wikipediable parts in), editors have tried to wikify it and incorporate it into the article. I believe that it has gone wrong there. I will post a note on Mwbuck's talk page asking him for further referencing and sourcing. If (s)he does, I will try to write it in a more encyclopedic tone. If (s)he doesn't, I will remove the sections altogether. As I said on the article's talk page, it's better to be incomplete than to be wrong. I don't know if it will be fruitful to ask this on the talk page of an AOL proxy. Aecis ^{Mr. Mojo risin'} 13:03, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Quiddler image

Aloha! While editing, I came across an article using Image:QuiddlerletterG.jpg, which you uploaded. You've stated that your friend created the image, but haven't specified a license. Unfortunately, Wikipedia requires that all images used in articles be either released under a free license or contain a fair-use rationale. If you're still around, could you edit the image to include a copyright tag usable in wikipedia ({{GDFL}} etc). See WP:ICT for the full selection. GeeJo _{(t) (c)} •00:18, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

For honesty, I suppose the creator of the image will have to add the {{GDFL}} tag herself. -Acjelen 00:36, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, if {{GFDL-self}} were to be added, I'd agree. So long as you've had a statement to the effect that she'd be OK with it, you can add {{GFDL}} or the equivalent yourself. GeeJo _{(t) (c)} •00:38, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Is that kosher, as they say? -Acjelen 00:44, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Angry White Male

An article you created, Angry White Male is up for deletion (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angry White Male). Since it has been some time since you created the article, I thought I'd let you know about the deletion discussion, so you can participate if you want. Thanks. --W.marsh 23:09, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Pocahontas

She is never named that. The Native Americans call her "Sister" and "Daughter" or "she", Smith never calls her anything. When she comes to live with the whites and when she goes to England, they call her "Princess" or "My lady". There is one scene when she has come to live at Jamestown, and an English woman has been hired to serve as her maid, and the English woman says, "And you are called ..." but the man introducing them stops her and says, "She doesn't go by that name any more." Once she is baptized as a Christian, she is called Rebecca. User:Zoe|^(talk) 21:51, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Now you ask! If I'd thought about it, I would have stuck around to read the credits.  :) User:Zoe|^(talk) 21:58, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I live in a kind of cinema hinterland and must drive at least two hours to see it. Hopefully the movie will be in my town on Friday (and hopefully Brokeback Mountain will stay as well) and I can find out for myself. -Acjelen 22:09, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Public Ivies

Hah. You think it's bad now? Take a look at the way it was back in December:

[2]

Complete with statement that their "prestige is analogous to that of the Ivy League universities," and a paragraph of "Academic Comparisons" that practically defines academic boosterism. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:07, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Sabbatarianism Cleanup Tag?

Why did you mark Sabbatarianism for cleanup? And why didn't you post to the talk page? Am I missing something? I saw your comments on the cleanup page, but I wasn't exactly sure what you wanted done. I'd be willing to it if you're specific. Vincent Valentine 04:05, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry. I intended to leave something in the talk page. I guess it slipped my mind. -Acjelen 00:23, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Links to (disambiguation) pages

Please don't revert or bypass links to America (disambiguation) and other pages with (disambiguation) in the title. This is done deliberately to signal other editors that the link is meant to refer a disambiguation page, and should not be "disambiguated" to point to a more specific article. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation for more info. --Russ Blau (talk) 14:22, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

As I noted in my edit summary, America (disambiguation) is a redirect to America. Why should the Amerika page (or any other) link to America (disambiguation) instead of America. You may be interested to know that America links to Amerika, not Amerika (disambiguation). -Acjelen 17:12, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Well now it does. I found the policy, which seems to contradict other WP norms, but that is fairly typical with Wikipedia:Disambiguation. -Acjelen 17:24, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Johnny Weir

Is he really homosexual? I don't think it was hidden, I think it was added by someone without a knowledge of the Wikipedia structure, i.e., a vandal. I took it off, but if he actually is an open homosexual you can put it back. zellin t / c 02:41, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

That's why I moved it. I wanted to bring it to the attention of the page's normal editors. I'm watching the U.S. coverage of the Olympics. After NBC showed his short program, I looked him up on Wikipedia. I'm in no position to know if he's a homosexual. Hmm. The sentence had only been there for a few minutes. It seems that your assessment is accurate. -Acjelen 02:51, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Cultural Heritage move to Wiktionary

I have removed the move to wiktionary tag that you placed on the article Cultural heritage. I believe that the article can be expanded to include examples of the heritages of specific countries. If you believe that I am in error, please visit that article's talk page and leave your thoughts. -Danaman5 21:52, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

If we're going to expand the article beyond being a definition, I am worried about limiting cultural heritage to something that nations have, as opposed to cities, states, ethnic groups, etc. Also, the definition is very narrow in what makes up cultural heritage, in this case physical items "worthy of preservation for the future". Jazz is part of the cultural heritage of New Orleans, but jazz cannot be preserved the same way a monument or a Monet can. -Acjelen 23:45, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Re:Daniel Rabinovich

Hi there. Daniel Rabinovich and all the member of the Les Luthiers group are a tough case for stub sorting, since they sing and play many different instruments, some of which have been invented by them. they are a very well known humor-musical band. Rabinovich himself sings, and plays guitar, drums, violin, and some of the invented instruments (specially the "basspipe a vara"). I have no idea how to clasify them; good luck! Mariano(t/c) 17:51, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

"In that case, we'll just have to leave him in musician stub. The information you left on my talk page is just the sort of facts that would be informative in an encyclopedia article and avoid later attempts at sorting his stub tag. -Acjelen 20:55, 16 February 2006 (UTC)"

Err... good point. Truth is that I started searching for that info to answer your question. ;o) Take care, and good wiking. Mariano(t/c) 14:26, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Information scientists

Thanks for adding that to the userbox template. Mea culpa! —Serein 16:02, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

My only worry is that I don't know if non-librarian LIS people refer to themselves as information scientists. The article I linked to does a good job, in the introduction at least, of explaining the field. I think it sort of looses its way further down, but the beginning is relatively clear and informative considering. -Acjelen 16:23, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Here in the UK, the preferred term seems to be information professional, although I do know one self-proclaimed information scientist. —Serein 19:29, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Cornet

Hello, you put a Split tag on the Cornet page. It is not clear why. Could tell us more about it here. Thanks. Lvr 11:20, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Forget about this. It is quite obvious... !

user:MJBurrage

Hello, you put a note on my talk page that my userboxes looked wrong. I use Firefox and IE and they look fine to me. Could you elaborate? —MJBurrage 20:08, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

What browser do you use? Could you send me a screen capture? —MJBurrage 03:59, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Bass on I'm Wide Awake, It's Morning

I know this is an almost ancient question, but in case you were still wondering, I'm almost positive that it's a double bass on "First Day of My Life" and "Landlocked Blues," and possibly "At the Bottom of Everything". I've heard no signs of it on any other tracks. Hope that helps. Elvrum 20:46, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Romanza

Hi Acjelen,

thanks for your modifications to the Romanza disambiguation page. I just wanted you to know why I reworded the part "includes a song titled "Romanza" (I guess the other modifications are clear; but don't hesitate to ask if you want to): the reason is that Romanza (album) is just a greatest hits album with a few, live, unpublished performances; "Romanza (song)" actually belongs to Bocelli's previous album (entitled Bocelli). I reworded the sentence to avoid that it could be taken as an original song giving title to the whole album. I don't know what the situation is instead about Ron Murray's CD. --Gennaro Prota 00:20, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Isn't it possible

that adding the phrase whose "names in English include" to the Indigenous peoples of the Americas discombobulation page for American is a bit redundant. This is the English language wikipedia after all. However after noticing that you are a librarian from Texas I decided not to change anything but instead ask you about the sculpture contests in and around the Texas Centennial of 1936 instead. I'm trying to learn more about the competition for the Pioneer Woman statue in Denton TX. Any ideas? Carptrash 16:05, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Well the only restriction to the English-language Wikipedia is that it is written in English. There are plenty of editors who want to contribute to the English Wikipedia with a "Spanish-speaking" world view for instance, but in the English language. Indeed, this page used to be a collection of polemicals about what an American should and should not be (see history of Use of the word American). So my point in adding the phrase "names in English include" was that the Indigenous peoples of the Americas are called a variety of names in several languages, but at least three in English include American (or a portion of that word for Amerindians). Yesterday I was listening to NPR. They reported on some protests by Indians in Ontario. It took me a long time and a fair amount of reasoning to realize that it was First Nations people rioting and not Canadians with ancestry in South Asia. So I always try to be specific. -Acjelen 18:42, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

As for the Pioneer Woman statue in Denton, try the Handbook of Texas. I'll see what else I can find. -Acjelen 18:47, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm one of those folks who believe that language and words are important, but also see political correctness as a form of religion, and as a monolatrist i don't allow it power over me. The Indians in New Mexico either call themselves Pueblos or Apaches or Indians. News From Indian Country, which I believe is based in Wisconsin, is a papar published by . . . . well, Indians, and they have no problem with the term.

l already have done a fair amount of research into the Pioneer Woman Statue in Denton including many back-and-forths and even a visit with the librarian there. This is part of the reason that I'm so biased towards librarians in Texas, and most anywhere else for that matter. Anyway, what I'm looking for is info on the sculpture contest [who held the contest, who were the judges, who entered, etc] that produced the work now seen. I am about to burst forth with the definative treatment of statues of pioneer women in America and Denton is one of the main spokes of that wheel. Carptrash 23:28, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Saints Wikiproject

I noted that you have been contributing to articles about saints. I invite you to join the WikiProject Saints.

You are invited to participate in Saints WikiProject, a project dedicated to developing and improving articles about saints. We are currently discussing prospects for the project. Your input would be greatly appreciated!

I also invite you to join the discussion on prayers and infoboxes here: Prayers_are_NPOV.

Thanks! --evrik 19:03, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Grammar on Bill Windsor

Since everyone else stopped using it! However, I shan't revert it back since it's not incorrect, although it is old-fashioned and unfamiliar, per [3]. All the best, Badgerpatrol 01:24, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Texan Collaboration of the month

Texas needs your help!! The good news is the most recent Texan Collaboration of the Month - Juneteenth has recently been featured on the Main Page! The bad news is that we chose this article six months ago and we haven't kept up to date with choosing and improving a new article. This page is traditionally administered by Katefan0 and JCarriker, but since they are both semi-retired, Johntex is filling in. (Yet another reason to hope Katefan0 and JCarriker come back soon!!) We are going to pick up right where we left off. Please visit Texan Collaboration of the Month and help select the new collaboration - we'll begin working on the selected article 1 July 2006.

America

The behavior on America is unconcionable. I have filed this Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:22, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Texan Collaboration of the Month

Johntex\^talk 19:14, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Prince William article

Sorry about the edit gliches, Ive got this old computer software that blocks out anything remotely obscene, even if it is contained in another word!!! Thanks so much for correcting the gliches! --Cjwpmm360 17:48, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

-oral seems a little overly cautious as an obscene word, but I understand the worry. But death? Is it Shakespearean or attempts at decency run amok? Well, if sex is obscene I suppose death must be as well. -Acjelen 19:36, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Reversion of American

Take your time. As a new member of the Wikipedia:Harmonious editing club, I've adopted the 1RR. If it means that much to you, I'll just leave it alone. :-) --Wing Nut 17:51, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Keeping up the good fight!

Thankyou for your message. The vandalism didn't get me down but I sure was relieved when the vandal was finally blocked! :) Sarah Ewart (Talk) 23:55, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Revert of romantic redirect

Hi there, saw you reverted my redirect on romantic. My thought was that it ought to go to the romantic love article as the closest match, rather than to a DAB page...not good? Bookgrrl 01:24, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Since romantic is the adjective form of romance, it should redirect there. It think the issue is a matter of structure rather than use. Generally in Wikipedia the adjective form redirects to the noun form. While many editors will link "romantic" for the flowers/candles kind of romantic, just as many will link for the ruined abbey/field of daffodils kind. Thank you, though, for bringing it up here instead of just reverting my reversion. -Acjelen 01:54, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

What, you mean not everybody thinks like me?? Just kidding :) Thanks for the explanation, makes sense. Bookgrrl 01:57, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Romance DAB page

Awesome work on the romance DAB page -- very thorough, looks much nicer, and I think a big topic like this deserved the extra attention. Kudos!! Bookgrrl 16:36, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Bookgrrl. I really appreciate it. -Acjelen 16:42, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Please support

Hi. I'm wondering if you could lend support to a proposal for a Stub-sorting Barnstar. The page is here. Have a good day :) SynergeticMaggot 17:31, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, please excuse the wording. I do not mean to ask for a vote, just that you participate. SynergeticMaggot 18:03, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Clementine disambig

That was the gentlest edit summary, thank you. I'm not sure what I was thinking, I normally would not revert like that and I did know that the unparenthetical goes before the "may refer to" list. Can I blame the cat, or low blood sugar? Or the cat's low blood sugar?
brenneman ^{L} 02:08, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

That's okay. I've never thought of blaming my cat's behavior on her low blood sugar. I know there's only one thing she hates more than the laptop and that's Wikipedia. -Acjelen 02:16, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Commoner

Thank you for the link. But it still seems incorrect to me. While that might be the belief in Britian now and is fairly recent. It certainly does not apply to Princess Diana. A title does not just make you royal, you also need the royal blood line. That is the way it use to be anyway. It was required for Prince Charles to marry someone who was a virgin and with a strong lineage. Diana was a direct descendent of King Charles II and of a arstocratic family. So, she was picked for her bloodline. Kate Middleton's family has no royal blood or any arstocrats, that does not mean she will not get to marry William. The British Royal Family really really needs some new blood. It is just a question of will the marriage be allowed if the family follows the same protcols.

Thanks anyway!

I'd be surprised if Ms. Middleton is not descendent from a royal Stuart somewhere, let alone someone like Edward I. If anything, she would be the continuation of a pattern set by the Queen's father when he did not marry a foreigner. All of the Queen's children have British spouses, as did her sister, and most of her father's siblings. One uncle even married an American! That Ms. Middleton's father is a business owner instead of a peer is more natural progression than revolution. -Acjelen 02:33, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, Queen Elizabeth's uncle did get to marry an American, but he was forced to give up his throne for her. The royal family did not approve of their marriage because she was not of royal blood but also because she had been divorced.

I do not believe that Kate's Middleton's family has any royal descent. She would be considered a commoner. Princess Diana, again, was picked for her royal bloodline and her family was close friends with the royal family. Up until Prince William went to college, Kate's family had never met the royal family or been in any contact with them. The only reason Kate and William are together is that he went to her college. If Prince William had not went to her college I doubt they would be dating or know each other.

If Kate Middleton had any royal descent, someone would have mentioned it somewhere. The fact is she does not. The only pattern, as you said, she would continue is that she is British. But, that is understandable as their are very few royal families left.

Now, that is not to say William and her could not get married. Prince Charles was forced to marry Princess Diana, it was not for love and because of that the marriage did not last and it ended badly. Therefore, the royal family may allow William and Harry to marry who they want.

IU Reverts

I've reverted your edits to Indiana University. Unlike other system universities with WP articles (e.g., University of Wisconsin), Indiana University does not redirect to the main campus (the historical site and the campus associated with athletics and thus (unfortunately) a lot of press attention). Since this is not the case (and since I don't know that I necessarily agree with making it so), I think that the primary campus should be in bold. Also, the primary campus's official name is "Indiana University", so putting "Bloomington" after it is incorrect. This is something which is being discussed on the Indiana University talk page, if you're interested in weighing in. --Merope 19:46, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

There is no room for this kind of sillyness on Wikipedia. If the system wants to be known as Indiana University and not Indiana University System, there is nothing we can do about it. A campus "Indiana University" and its system cannot have the same name. -Acjelen 19:49, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, weigh in on the talk page, but that's exactly what the case is. Perhaps we could rename the page Indiana University System? That I'd be okay with. At any rate, there have been rumors that the principal campus may change its name to "Indiana University Bloomington", but until that happens, it's incorrect to refer to it as such. -- Merope 19:51, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Then why has the change already occurred in Wikipedia? -Acjelen 19:53, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

My understanding was that Indiana University of Pennsylvania wanted a disambiguation page, since they also lay claim to the name "Indiana University". But this was over a year ago. I will send messages to some other key editors of the IU page to reopen the discussion. For now, can we leave the page as is? -- Merope 19:55, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

As an untagged disambig page? I don't think so. -Acjelen 19:59, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

First of all, there is no way the system was founded in 1820. -Acjelen 20:01, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

No, I principally meant not to put "Bloomington" after Indiana University. I would love if Indiana University redirected to Indiana University Bloomington since 90% of the time that's what people mean. (Not to mention that the Bloomington campus still retains that as its official name.) I won't fight you on that. I just don't want "Bloomington" added to the end of the university since 1) that is not it's name and 2) it makes it sound like a regional campus, and not the world-class institution it is. -- Merope 20:04, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

For some reason I was very angry and snappish earlier today. If I seemed short at all, I apologize. While I like piping, I don't want it used to "cover-over" wrong-headed article titles. I also don't like so-called parent companies, i.e. entities given birth to by their supposed children for legal or other reasons. Having the Indiana University System page at Indiana University and the actual university at Indiana University Bloomington, but piped as Indiana University pressed both of those buttons. You were doing the good hard work fixing the redirect on the article Edgar Meyer and I should have left it alone. I will now, but I think someone should fix this problem. -Acjelen 21:46, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, don't worry about it! I was pretty bitchy myself, mostly because I spent all day looking up alumni in the IU database and making sure their WP articles linked to the correct page. (I think I put in 300 edits today alone -- slow day at the office!) Anyway, I imagine some of the IU people will come to the discussion and we can figure something out. Or maybe I'll get over the fact that my beloved alma mater is trying to become a corporate entity and just allow the disambig page. *sigh*

Incidentally, Edgar Meyer sounds like a terrific musician. I'll have to look into his stuff. -- Merope 22:32, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Door County

I see your point in general; but this is a very brief overview of the history of one of 72 counties. In that regard, I thought a brief reference to some Indian history of the region was germane. Here's a sentence from the Wikepedia entry for "Potawatomi": "The Potawatomi are first mentioned in French records which suggest that, in the early 17th century, they lived in what is now southwestern Michigan. During the Beaver Wars, they fled to the area around the Bay of Green Bay to escape attacks by the Iroquois and Neutral Nation." Also, don't forget that one of the most popular parks in Door County is named "Potawatomi State Park," and I suspect that many people will wonder why it is so named when today the native American populution of Door County is .6% Reason--negotiation under the Indian Removal Act of 1830. That was my reason for the inclusion in the history overview. Let me have your thoughts. Rossp 22:40, 30 August 2006 (UTC)rossp PS--Here's an entry from the web I found: "Estimates of the original Potawatomi population range as high as 15,000, but 8,000 is probably closer to the truth. Although they had undergone 30 years of war, relocation, and epidemic, the French estimated there were about 4,000 in 1667. Since all Potawatomi bands had gathered into four villages near Green Bay [later became Wisconsin] at that time, this probably was fairly accurate. Later estimates vary between 1,200 to 3,400, but the Potawatomi had separated into many bands, and these estimates failed to list all of them. Accurate counts were not possible until the Potawatomi had been moved to Kansas. In 1854 the Indian Bureau listed 3,440 on the reservation, but some had left with the Kickapoo for northern Mexico. The report also mentioned 600 "strolling Potawatomi," who had avoided removal and were somewhere in Michigan, Indiana, and Wisconsin."

British Royalty

Acjelen/archive2, WikiProject British Royalty wants you! WikiProject British Royalty is an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to British royalty on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you should visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

DBD 09:41, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Template:Texas

Hi Acjelen,

I see you reverted my last edit on the texas template. May I ask what is in particular that you didn't like about my edit? Perhaps it was the fact that I unbolded Austin or the fact that I removed the border around the Lone Star Flag? Anyway, I'm going to make a compromise version. Let me know what you think, or join the discussion on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. states/state templates. Thanks for your help. Lovelac7 21:11, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

It was the combination of black background and blue text that I didn't like. Also, I checked three other state templates and they had not been changed. -Acjelen 21:39, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Edit of Chrismon's talk page and comments on Disciple (Christianity)

I removed KingLloyd's "welcome" post because it is HUGE and would keep me from seeing other posts. Had I not looked at the history of my talk page I would never have seen your additional comments! I have once again removed that huge and all too colorful "welcome" post, please do not put it back. However, thank you for the advisement on not editing the page - as for regular comments I do not and did not plan to edit anyone's out.

As for Disciple (Christianity), If you disagree with the content, then please add your own research to the article - but I hope that your unsupported comment to me is not simply a reaction in disagreeing with what I have added to the article. If you believe I have added original work, please indicate where I have done so, so that I can edit the article and learn from our interaction. Please show what is not justified by citation or reference. Please be as rigorous in your rebuttle as I have been in my actual additions. In my perspective, every word I have added to the page that is not from the source material given (reference to and quotes from Luke 14) is simply a contraction. Please note that that contraction is from source material not only cited but given verbatum on the page, not only from the Christian scriptures (St. Luke and St. Paul) themselves but from published Christian ethicist, Lee C. Camp.

My concern was more to style and tone than content -Acjelen 16:03, 14 September 2006 (UTC).

WikiProject Disambiguation Talk Request

This is a form message being sent to all WikiProject Disambiguation participants. I recently left a proposed banner idea on the WikiProject Disambiguation talk page and I would appreciate any input you could provide. Before it can be approved or denied, I would prefer a lot of feedback from multiple participants in the project. So if you have the time please join in the discussion to help improve the WikiProject. Keep up the good work in link repair and thanks for your time. Nehrams2020 21:13, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Pony Express Trail

I see you knocked off the trail template and category for Pony Express. I didn't put them on there to begin with but I'm curious about the logic. The Trail obviously follows the route of the Pony Express and thus they are pretty close to one and the same. The Pony Express Trail in fact currently redirects to Pony Express. I suppose there could be separate articles but the trail article doesn't exist right now and it would be splitting hairs and inviting inconsistencies between the articles if it was created. Americasroof 18:20, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed that after I had changed the template. My reasoning follows: (1) the Pony Express was an unsuccessful but well-known business venture, not a trail or a road; (2) any "Pony Express Trail" recognized by the U.S. government deserves its own separate article; (3) the template I removed from the Pony Express article can go on that article; (4) redirects can be easily redirected to the appropriate article and see references created so that readers and editors will be able to find the right one. -Acjelen 18:30, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. I personally would prefer the template and category be put back until such time the trail article is written (right now the template sends folks to Pony Express and then disappears). Even the NPS resources are pretty skimpy. There are other precedents such as the Oregon Trail which makes no mention whatsoever that there's a NPS historic trail. Putting the template on the article might encourage somebody to write the article.Americasroof 02:41, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

P.S. after writing thing I reverted a third party vandalism and put the template back on. If you're not comfortable with this let me know. Americasroof 02:45, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Prince Henry of Wales

Hi, I note from the talk page and edit history of this article that you were involved in previous discussion of what coverage questions of Prince Harry's parentage should have in the article. I have removed the present discussion of the topic as POV and unsourced:

Ever since Harry was born, there have been rumours about whether the Prince of Wales is truly his father. Diana admitted to having an affair, and most believe this affair was with James Hewitt. It has also been noted that although William bears a resemblance to both his parents, Harry looks nothing like Charles but bears a striking resemblance to Hewitt. It was rumoured that Diana was considering a paternity test but decided against it before her death.

I have started a discussion on the talk page as to how best to include the claim neutrally in the article and to find sources for both sides of the debate. If the subject is still of interest to you, your contributions would be very welcome. - WJBscribe ^{(WJB talk)} 02:32, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Regular Day Off

I've added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Regular Day Off, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree with the notice, discuss the issues at Talk:Regular Day Off. You may remove the deletion notice, and the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached, or if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria. Anthony Rupert 03:25, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Joseph Moskowitz

You tagged Joseph Moskowitz with {{percussionist-stub}}. I don't know my way around the musician stubs, but "percussionist" seems an odd way to describe a cymbalum virtuoso. Yes, the instrument is technically played percussively, but so is a piano, and I presume that pianists are not classified as percussionists. - Jmabel | Talk 04:07, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Thank you for pointing that out. I must have misread the see reference. I've changed the tag to {{string-musician-stub}}. -Acjelen 05:07, 18 December 2006 (UTC)