This user may have left Wikipedia. Jallan has not edited Wikipedia since January 2005. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.

Hello, welcome to Wikipedia. Please use the "move this page" link to move pages in future. You can find out more on Wikipedia:Move. Here are some other useful links in case you haven't already found them;

• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Manual of Style

If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian!

Angela 23:23, Nov 1, 2003 (UTC)

Why the move of Agenor to Agenor and Phoenix? Clearly, each should have their own article. John Kenney 03:29, 21 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

There is quite a bit more to add to Agenor and Phoenix genealogy which I will get to eventually, unless someone else does. But outside of idiosyncratic genealogical links and inconsistant genealogical information, everything that applies to Phoenix in some texts can be found applied Agenor in other texts, including some of the genealogical links. A full discussion of Agenor alone would end up saying almost everything that can be said about Phoenix (and vice versa). They are impossible to separate in a full discussion.

And beyond genealogy there's almost nothing to be said about either. They are just links in the genealogical chain. jallan 15:18, 21 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed your participation in the discussion and editing of Dido. Thanks for fighting the good fight against cranks. I've been in that situation myself. -- Decumanus | Talk 23:41, 29 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I've attempted to incorporate some of the material from the alternative viewpoint on this page. However, I can see you do raise important and serious concerns. If you have time, please have a quick look at the article and add a {msg:disputed} flag and/or re-add the NPOV marker if you're not happy with the results (with hindsight, I should have checked with you before removal). Thanks! -- EuroTom 00:49, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)

User:Trc, a Roman Catholic apologist with no previous interest in Moloch has reverted your excellent new material. This is a problem user to watch. Wetman 17:17, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I have contacted him on his talk page asking him about his concerns. If they are stylistic, he might be able to improve the article or suggest improvements. (Unfortunately getting as technical as I did did made some of the early presentation somewhat turgid.) He may simply not realize how incorrect the previous article was and how much it owed to POV's that scholars have long discarded. Even the out-of-date Catholic Encyclopedia entry on [Moloch] which is pre-Eissfeldt has a POV denying a connection between Moloch and Milcom, makes no mention whatsoever of Carthage or Melqart and all that and is honest enough to mention the theory it is possible that some child sacrifices were to Yahweh though it argues otherwise and quite possibly argues correctly. jallan 17:41, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

As much as I would really love to live every name of Jerusalem in Jerusalem, I've been advised in the past that it's not wise. Jerusalem is a site of frequent heated edit wars, and the more heated editors generally won't accept anything more than the Modern Israeli Hebrew and Standard Arabic names for the city. I've even heard some of the expanded forms derisively called "pseudo-IPA" and such. That's why I linked to Names of Jerusalem rather than listing all the names there. - Gilgamesh 03:37, 28 June 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I've quickly cobbled up some of your thoughts on the Hellenistic literary approach (leaving out some casual asides), in the hopes that you'll look over this new section and bring it up to speed. Wetman 01:26, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Hi, Jallan. Welcome and thanks for the honest critique.

Anti-<anything> might belong under persecution if you can find somewhere some people who are being persecuted for that anything, wherever exactly the lines between opposition, discrimination, and persecution are drawn."

I respectfully disagree. Persecution is a serious subcategory of violence, under which discrimination and harrassment are less serious subcategories, but there is some overlap. Some would justifiably argue that 9-11 was 'latent anti-Americanism' taken to the level of persecution. There is a case for that, but in perspective, its a fine example of the pot calling the kettle black... and thats the nature of pov... But "persecution" by its most general definition should trancend pov, no?

Then so define it with examples of what fits and what doesn't and obtain consensus.

"If you want a persecution category then obtain clear consensus guidelines for it that detail what constitutes persecution with clear examples of where it applies and where it doesn't. If there is no consensus for such guidelines and examples, then it's all individual POV and there should be no category.

I would agree with this, except that in my mind there can be a logical ordering of these issues into what they are. Ill plead guilty that my use of the classification question is to effect improvement in the articles themselves, by catalysing the questions, "what does this fit under" and "what is this thing, really?" This could have some postive effects within the articles for defining the scope and discerning genuine material from the pap, and this in turn might make the editing of these more reasonable. Thats where one's m:wikifaith must be strong. ;)

I've seen too many bad categories. I mostly stay away from all that. And I dislike the entire idea of heirarchical categories. This looks like another bad category. You might have a single non-heirarchical category of "claimed persecution" that was NPOV to allow searching for all such claims. That would be more useful to a researcher than attempting to settle in dogmatic NPOV fashion whether something was persecution or not. If you disagree, then set down your ordering that is in your mind and see if there is any consensus to accept it. Otherwise you will only inspire revert wars to get that category off various entries (and people who don't want such wars will want it off also rather than face another POV to argue about).

"For example, it seems to me that within the US in respect to anti-terrorist government policy that people who strongly support the current government position and those who are against the current government position can probably in individual cases claim persecution by others. jallan 18:47, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)"

Well, certainly there is a tendency of problematic wars to come back home; toothpaste may not go back in the tube, but the real ugly and dangerous demons need to go back in the box regardless; that's something that everybody (even the demons) can agree on. Yes, it would be difficult to call the Iraq War a "persecution" of Muslims and Arabs, because people in the US can be so completely convinced of its "humanitarianism," whether they mean "intended" or "genuine." People thought the Spanish American War was to "liberate" Cubans from the cruel Spanish; in the end some US admiral ordered his "troops" to kill everyone on a Philippine island over the age of "ten years."

I was thinking more of individual people losing jobs, etc. because they disagree with the local consensus or the boss on the issues, whether they are right-wing or left-wing.

So, yes, reality and fantasy have some distance between them. A great little test of this schism with reality might be to try put the Iraq War under the "humanitarianism" category.

Which would have the same results as trying to put it under a "persecution" category.

The opinion differences between US and the rest of the world is due a administration and media-induced ignorance, and this ignorance (unintended it may be) is itself a cause for "anti-American sentiment." "Dont speak too soon for the wheel's still in spin..." yes, but this is possible to do among reasonable people.

But perhaps not by using with blanket categories which oversimplify, especially something like "persecution" which is so often claimed where closer examinations shows it should not be. And some people deserve to be persecuted, i.e. trolls to take a trivial example. Also compulsive liars (of any philosphical persuasion whether they themselves know they are lying). Persecution is a weighted term. I think attempting to include terms weighted with POV as categories is most unwise! I can amuse myself by imagining a category Religious propaganda to be applied to most "sacred" books. But I don't think it would help in any way. -Jallan

ROFL. All your points are well taken. I will consider them carefully in my verdict; though I feel a slight favoritism toward action on the classification idea than inaction, I will do so in a way that generates dialogue and consensus, whatever that may be. -Stevertigo 22:14, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Actually, we tried mediation. I put some introductory observations (inherently POV on my part, subject to further overview). The next thing IZAK did was bring the complete argument over the the mediation request page. Also, mediation was rejected and instead there was supposed to be additional comment. Not sure, but I think this multi-user comment is what we've been seeing. :P - Gilgamesh 09:14, 8 July 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Judaism is trying to decide all Hebrew linguistics issues for Wikipedia by themselves. But Hebrew is not purely the realm of Judaism; it is also the realm of Samaritans, Christians and Abrahamic religion as a whole, and also secular Canaanite languages studies. I'm trying to challenge mono-cultural mono-sectarian dominance over a linguistic field that we all should be sharing together. I invite you to participate in trying to pluralize Hebrew language conventions for Wikipedia. In particular, not only is Tiberian Hebrew transliteration challenged, but also Standard Hebrew transliteration, as some people want to use only Israeli Hebrew colloquial transliteration or Ashkenazi Hebrew liturgical transliteration. I think these are perfectly valid and worthy of participation, but not at the total expense of every other Hebrew linguistics study concern. Please support a multi-religious multi-cultural scientific NPOV mandate for studying Hebrew linguistics on Wikipedia. - Gilgamesh 02:43, 18 July 2004 (UTC)[reply]

That essay on the talk page of Wikipedia: WikiProject Judaism was really quite impressive. Thanks.

(One technical note on what you wrote: Yemenite Jews read Hebrew in a way, as you suggest, that may be correctly extrapolated from texts with Tiberian pointing. This in fact must be true, because otherwise they could never have adopted that pointing in any of their texts. However, at the same time, their Hebrew is not best represented by the Tiberian points, which they adopted over the course of time later in history, by rather by the Babylonian niqqud (supralinear), which corresponds exactly to actual usage with no need for extrapolation.)

I want to urge you to make a special contribution, which perhaps would best be in a Hebrew transliteration article. The idea would be to present the different systems of transliteration one at a time (not letter by letter as in Hebrew alphabet), describing when and how they have been used, by whom and for what purposes, what the rationale behind each one is, and what each one's weaknesses and advantages are.

If you could do that for the Tiberian points that would be wonderful. I cannot do it myself for two reasons: (a) because my graduate courses in Biblical Hebrew and Aramaic were far too many years ago for me to remember this stuff; and (b) because I know absolutely nothing at all about how they are represented in Unicode.

As a practical matter, by the way, for articles on Jews and Judaism I happen to prefer the time-tested Encyclopedia Judaica system as a usable, practical compromise between standard modern Hebrew and historical purity. Do you know anything about Unicode for the special symbols in that system (e.g. het, zaddi with dots underneath)?Dovi 09:45, Jul 21, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks! That software program you recommended is great.Dovi 03:50, Jul 22, 2004 (UTC)

Dear Jallan, I constantly humbled by your knowledge of Norse mythology. I have suggested that Bordeur's transcription is to be a norm for Wikipedia articles.

I agree. How that is implemented is another question, but Brodeur's translation is great, as far as I can judge. Io 15:13, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Great Sea

In Reply to:

• Delete all or Merge all with redirects. Notability should be the key for both fictional and non-fictional articles. Are the subjects of the articles likely to appear mentioned casually in works unrelated to the place or places where they are primariliy mentioned? We don't want an article on every person mentioned in a Shakespeare play either. So expand the Zork article. Create a new Zork universe article. Make redirects of these names to Zork universe. Include links in Zork and Zork universe to Zork information on the web, both Wiki-source and other. I think that would be more useful than numerous short stubs requiring a user to jump from entry to entry, entries which are unlikely to ever be looked up directly from the Search box. Almost any mention of Queen Alexis or Aggthora or Flathead Ocean that prompts a user to look up the name is probably going to be explicitly in context that mentions Zork. So put the information all together, using an annotated list of persons and characters within a Zork universe article. We've had other cases where short articles about fictional universes have been merged for the same reasons. Wikipedia is intended as an encyclopedia, not a biographical dictionary or place name dictionary. There is difference of emphasis between the two, which is sometimes unfortunately missed. Jallan 18:06, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Would you be alright with the plan I stated above: I plan on putting Encyclopedia Frobozzica (from which all these entries come) on Wikisource and linking (or even redirecting) from the various entry names on Wikipedia. Most likely, I'll put a short stub for each of the entries on Wikipedia, along with a link to the specific entry on Wikisource. If you have any problems with that, let me know. --Brian0918 19:19, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Since you participated in the discussion on this subject, could you express your opinion on what to do with the substub template at Template talk:Substub? Thanks. --Michael Snow 21:22, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

You are hereby invited to Wikipedia:WikiProject Hebrew languages. - Gilgamesh 08:17, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for standing up and voicing your opinion. It angers me that people are hiding behind "it's fact so it can't be deleted". Oftentimes, I don't think a lot of these advocates know the full extent of this stuff. It's been going on for at least four months. See the beginning of my first talk page archive. I'm accused of BEING that guy! Mike H 15:29, Aug 12, 2004 (UTC)

I'd like to thank you as well. This person has exceptionally pained Mike due to the subject matter, or perhaps the lack of it. It's pained me simply because I care about how this site should be treated, and even my shortest contributions have not only been useful IMO, but I do go back over my contribs every so often to check for inaccuracies and such. In fact, I just realized that I goofed on an article of mine, namely Tamiya Blackfoot. I'm not going to wait for the mistake to grow into fact. :^P Take care. - Lucky 6.9 22:05, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Uh, you seem to have put your VfD listing above mine, although it comes after it in time. Just a mistake, I'm sure, and I don't suppose it'll really confuse anybody, in fact never mind. Bishonen 00:36, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Absolutely, that's fine. See how close the listings are in time, too? Maybe my twin will be younger than yours when s/he returns to earth. :-) Bishonen 01:09, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for the jeremiad on the village pump (re: naming policy). You saved me from going on one :) →Raul654 04:52, Aug 24, 2004 (UTC)

I did nominate the kings of Numenor pages for deletion and it seems that they're too popular. Apparently my factual pages on election results are far less notable than lists of names out of a Tolkein appendix. Acsenray 16:19, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I like your work on the naming in Norse mythology. Could you only please see to it that the links work afterwards. An example: in the page your renamed Hrólf Kraki, you renamed Fyris Wolds into Fýris Wolds, which destroyed the link. I have been spending some time on making the links work.--Wiglaf 08:30, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Why is the connection between these two characters so controversial? They apparently correspond to each other in at least two stories in two related traditions.--Wiglaf 19:04, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

OK, I see your point. Would you agree that the characters "correspond to each other" in particular stories? BTW, I appreciate your edits, but don't the diacritics make it harder for non scholars to search the names? Wiglaf

Good evening, Jallan. On 26 Aug, you voted to delete the article about the Bradley Amendment because it was a POV rant. Even though the discussion period has run out, no one's acted on that thread yet. I've completely rewritten the article. I'd appreciate it if you'd take a read through and see if it's now worthy of a keep. Rossami 01:18, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Jallan, you really went above and beyond the call of duty in trying to eliminate the B-Movie Bandit once and for all. Unfortunately he's back, he's reverting articles and it's business as usual for the jerk. Others are still happily formatting these stupid things since, heaven forbid, information must not be lost! Result: I've lost whatever interest that I had in contributing to this project. I'm not blanking my pages, but nor am I planning on returning. Best way to reach me during the week is my work e-mail: production@dc.rr.com. I'm there during business hours Pacific, or UTC minus 7. - Lucky 6.9 05:11, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

You might want to be just a bit more careful with your redirects; I fixed several of yours that weren't properly typed. For reference, the correct format is #REDIRECT [[Article]]. I'm not admonishing you; I'm just trying to keep the mess on Wikipedia to a minimum. --Slowking Man 03:06, Sep 11, 2004 (UTC)

When I arrived at Wikipedia, "Geats" was already used as the name for the Gautar/Götar. Almost everything seems to point to the conclusion that they are one and the same, and I consider etymology to be a fairly reliable source. Moreover, the Swedish authorities who has claimed that they were Danes or Jutes, had special agendas, such as Curt Weibull (it was only a skirmish in his academic wars, and he even talked of "killing" the disciples of his enemies. He was very succesful in killing them). Almost every single page I can find on the Geats on the Internet either does the same or consider it to be the most likely identification. Do you think it is worthwile trying to standardize the terminology (calling the Gautar Geats) or do you find the identification too uncertain? I'd also like to thank you for the work you're putting into the mythology part.--Wiglaf 08:32, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'll keep the forms Gautar and Gautland for stories appearing in Scandinavian sources, and Geats and Geatland for Beowulf. Considering the fact that most Anglophones have heard of the Geats, but have never heard of the Gautar I will provide the other name in parenthesis, e.g. "Gauts (??? Geats)" and "Geats (??? Gauts)" as is already done concerning other names, e.g. "Hrólf Kraki (Hrodhulf)" and "Adils (Eadgils)".

I think that tribal names are fine in the plural, but I agree on House of Yngling. It should be Yngling or Scylfing. Edit: Yngling is apparently taken. What about Scylfing?.--Wiglaf 10:29, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

By ??? I meant any kind of phrase such as "generally held to be the same as". Since there is no obvious alternative name for the house of Yngling, I'd vote for keeping it as it is. One possibility could be Yngling (clan).--Wiglaf 19:18, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I don't think clan would work. I don't recall it ever being used in English translations, probably because there's nothing particularly like a clan in the old accounts, no word corresponding in Old English or Old Norse.

If we define clan as a social unit bigger than a family but smaller than a tribe, there is a term in Scandinavian, the ätt (see Norse clans). Every person had to belong to an ätt in order to have some kind of legal security, and children and freed thralls were formally led into the ätt at the Tings. If the ynglings had been around for several hundred years, as the sagas claim, there would have been hundreds of men claiming to belong to the ynglings. However, the ätt was quite different from a Scottish clan. I don't insist on calling them the Yngling (clan). The names Yngling (dynasty), Yngling (line) or Ynling (lineage) would work fine.--Wiglaf 20:04, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• I've taken your comment into due consideration, and have listed this page on the VfD for a public vote. If people there think it can never possibly be more than a stub in regards to the full number of possible entries, then so be it. -Litefantastic 00:38, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

From the discussion on the Village Pump (Random page meanderings), I think your idea of taking 100 or whatever random pages and asking for comments would be very interesting. The articles could be copied to subpages of a Wikipedia: or User: page. They might not need to be protected, as long as there is a prominent message regarding their status (seeing as they would be outside the encyclopedia space). If you want to run this experiment, I'll be happy to help you out; (or I could run it if you can't be bothered :P ). TPK 08:39, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the work on the Shingo page. The legend is of course controversial. Nobody will be surprised to find people posting rants and dissertations there from time to time!

I can't imagine historians ever working out the details of the origin of the legend, but I've imagined that it started with two Christian (Catholic) missionaries, among the many who were active in the Tohoku region in the 1500s and early 1600s. They might have been priests or brothers, and/or could have been related as brothers.

After the missionaries died, the people might have come to believe that one was truly Jesus. This would be sort of a reversal of the story line of many Noh plays: in them, a wandering priest arrives at a place where he meets a person and asks to be shown the location of a battle, suicide, or other tragic event. When he arrives, he falls asleep, or is it a trance?, and the guide reveals himself to be the spirit of the general who died in battle, or committed suicide etc. (It's often unclear whether the revelation is real or not.) The farmers who started the legend in Shingo need not have been aware of Noh, a dramatic form of the military aristocracy; Noh had arisen from peasants' art forms, and legends of the sort that the plays present might have been common.

Having identified the missionaries as Jesus and his brother, the people could then have tried to make the other pieces of the puzzle fit. They would rely on the teachings of the missionaries, as well as stories they had told about travels that they or others had done.

But of course all of this is speculation! I hope nobody ever takes my ramblings as history. Fg2 22:55, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)

• Delete. I appreciate the work the writer is doing here. But...would the author cover the similar material for every year to the same depth if the school were seventy years old? Does the author expect this article to be maintained to the same depth for the next forty years, for this and every high school? I am close to voting Keep on this one and would interested in AAAAA's comments because, unusually for high schools, we have a very capable editor who is obviously trying very hard and intelligently to create an excellent article. Jallan 17:56, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • My guess is that if the school was 70 years old, it would have many famous alumni and it would have received several national awards. As of now, the school is too young to have that.
  • Regarding the question if the article will be maintained with the same depth for the next forty years: I think that Wikipedia is quickly becoming the MAIN source of enciclopedic information IN THE WORLD. I envision wikipedia getting a TOP 100 place in Alexa[1] within the next 2 years. Students all over the world are using Wikipedia and will use even more as an enciclopedic reference tool. I believe that as time passes, more and more studends, and probably even the school teachers and/or administrators, will be involved in maintaining their own Wikipedia articles. I don't think that the idea of making a Wikipedia article as a class project for English or Journalism is far fetched. Once teachers all over the world start noticing Wikipedia as a powerful tool, I don't think that the "DELETE" community will be able to stop schools from becoming an integral part of Wikipedia.
  • Your KEEP vote will be greatly appreciated, when and if you change your mind. I hope so :) --AAAAA 18:38, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Jallan 19:55, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Your answers did not cover my questions. Please also check my comments on another article at Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Alonso_High_School and the response by another user. The difficulty is granularity. To cover a 70-year old high school in the depth you are attempting here would probably amount to writing a short book on the school. And yet you have not yet named in full the current teaching staff by department.Jallan 19:55, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • I don't think so. A 70-year old high school would probably have NATIONAL awards, that will REPLACE the State awards currently on the article. It would probaly have Nationally or Internationally famous Ex-Alumni, that will REPLACE the local recipients of $500 grants currently on the article. It might have few instances of events that have some national interest.--AAAAA 21:16, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• I would quite like to see such material existing on the web, but possibly another project than Wikipedia would be the proper forum, just as the rambot articles, really, are not appropriate to Wikipedia though they are tolerated here. The conflict I am having is that I really think that what you are doing is probably about the best that can be done for a normal, non-notable, high school. And it's not encyclopedic because it covers only the present. (This is a problem with many articles in Wikipedia, contributed by editors fixated only on what is current.)Jallan 19:55, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • I think Wikipedia is the perfect place. You are right that the school is still non-notable, but I have no doubt that with years it will have some kind of national interest (as most high schools will, I think).--AAAAA 21:16, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Regarding covering the present, the problem is that this school started operations in 1998 (I believe). My main source of information is the web, and it's hard to find articles about events that happened before 2003. I guess that with time that will change. Also, I guess that some students of the school will eventually read the article and contribute to it.

• What your article feels like is the beginning of a kind of web log for Dr. Michael M. Krop High School.Jallan 19:55, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • The difference between a Wikipedia article and a Web Log for a school is that a Web Log would the "journal", and an article evolves (with time) to a more enciclopedic state.--AAAAA 21:16, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• It would probably be a good thing if every high school and public school and local charity and university club and so forth had one of these.Jallan 19:55, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • I would not mind.--AAAAA 21:16, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• And I would not want Wikipedia to ever become the "main" source of information in the world. (Imagine the edit conflicts! Argggh! Millions of dollars might depend on getting a single line into a Wikipedia article and making it stay there. Kids and teachers at Dr. Michael M. Krop High School in great editorial fights to insure that the entire world sees the correct viewpoint about some event happening in Dr. Michael M. Krop High School that year because on that single article depends how the world views their school. School boards would get in on the act.Jallan 19:55, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • This WILL happen (if not happening right now already). The higher traffic Wikipedia gets (and it is climbing), the higher probability of this occurring. I and believe it WILL happen, eventually.--AAAAA 21:16, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Should all A students be listed in the article on graduation?Jallan 19:55, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Maybe the limit will be the size of a Wikipedia article. Maybe these kind of lists will be deleted by average wikipedians. I don't know.--AAAAA 21:16, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• There would be thousands of undercover Wikipedians paid to assure that what their employers want to appear is what does appear. There are suspicions that some of this is happening now.Jallan 19:55, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • I am pretty sure that this is happening already.--AAAAA 21:16, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• For something comparable, did you know that reviewers for amazon.com are sometimes sent free copies of books by publishers if they will write reviews?Jallan 19:55, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • I didn't know, but I am not surprised.--AAAAA 21:16, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Fortunately, there will certainly be forks in Wikipedia's future and competing projects or partially competing projects, partly because no volunteer project could sustain the kind of pressure of being anything close to the single source of information on all topics. The pressure alone would be hideously counter-productive. Jallan 19:55, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • I agree.--AAAAA 21:16, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• And mirror sites will want to mirror something different to stand out, not just Wikipedia. What value to be just another of hundreds of mirror sites showing exactly the same Wikipedia content? But part of what Wikipedia must not do now is to try to be everything. There has been for a while a split on VfD between the "every high school is notable and deserves an article" group and "most high schools are not notable". The not-notable votes have tended to be outvoted resulting in keeping of what were often only stubs which never did get fixed up and only get in the way of people searching on the web for information on a school when the same bad stub comes up again and again on Wikipedia mirrors. Currently, the tendency seems to be the other way, for the first time, I think, perhaps because it has become more and more obvious that these articles don't get cleared up and that no-one knows what good articles would be for ordinary schools. The path you are following, that of recording the news of a single school year, seems to me far too granular for the Wikipedia project, to be unsustainable, unless you intend a master article on each school with dependant articles for every school year. If so, you should indicate this.Jallan 19:55, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • I have no intention of writing an article on EACH school. For now, I am only interested in ONE school. But I am already working on getting other people involved, so the article keeps evolving for years to come.--AAAAA 21:16, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• But eventually downloading of every high school yearbook into Wiki-source or a comparable project will probably happen.Jallan 19:55, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Probably.--AAAAA 21:16, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• The problem is that the issue is bigger than your article alone. What kind of encyclopedia article can one write about a normal high school that is not simply what is happening at the moment? Do we want mere lists of minutiae for every year for each high school? Yes, we do, if we want to find that minutiae. It would be helpful if this were on the web. But should it be in Wikipedia?Jallan 19:55, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • My opinion here is again that although at the beginning you get minutiae, since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, with time contributors will replace MINOR information with more important and relevant information. Some information currently in the article will survive, some will be replaced. And not every high school will include an article. I think that even now, Wikipedia contains articles that all Wikipedians until today have written because they wanted. There are many things or events in the world that probably deserve a space in Wikipedia, but no one has written about it yet. What I am saying is: If there is interest in a High School, let the interested Wikipedian write about it and don't destroy his/her work. Maybe only a few High Schools will get a Wikipedia article. Maybe many. But why should we bother about the ones that nobody has written about yet? Let the interested parties write about them.--AAAAA 21:16, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, on the topic you have chosen, the excellence of what you are doing is far from the only issue. Are you producing an excellent article of a kind that should not actually be in Wikipedia but in some other more specialized project?Jallan 19:55, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Maybe, but I don't see another medium for it yet. I have contributed on different articles in Wikipedia, and just recently decided on creating an article about this school, and make it better than the school's own web site, make it informative, interesting, and of Wikipedia value. But it obviously takes time.--AAAAA 21:16, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• I, AAAAA, have copied below what Jallan wrote at the Vfd discussion in another school, for further reference.

• • I vote to delete most high school articles not just because the article is a stub but because most schools are not notable and won't ever ever generate an encyclopedia article beyond a bad stub.Jallan 19:55, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Maybe bad stubs should be deleted. I would not mind. But an article with a lot of effort into it, let it live.--AAAAA 21:16, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• • Most high schools are normal high schools much like any other normal high school. People mostly neither know nor care about any of them individually. Those who care about a particular school are mostly those employed at that school or by the local Board of Education or who are attending that particular school during a few years of their lives at most. Immediate family also care while a child or sibling is attending such a school. But most don't think that their school is special or notable or stands out. That most high school articles are uniformative stubs reflects the fact that the editor writing such an article either doesn't care much or just can't make a good article from information easily available oor both. What people do care about is their own years in "high school" in general rather than about the history of the particular high school or high schools that they attended.Jallan 19:55, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • In this case, this high school produces about 1000 graduates every year. This means that about 1000 prospective students (maybe more, because some have interested but never enroll) and their parents have some interest every year. Then, they have interest during the course of the years the student is attending. Then, they have interest after graduating, because the school is always part of their personal histories. So, in this case, 3000 people become interested every year. Over the course of 20 years it is 60,000 people that have or might have interest in the school at one point in their lives. And this doesn't count the people that might have interest in the school of an ex-alumni that suddenly becomes famous and starts appearing in the media.--AAAAA 21:17, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• • Notable high schools, like notable people, or notable organizations of any kind, would be those mentioned in media as being recognized for some reason other than merely existing and performing their normal, mundane functions. The repetative litany that "high schools are notable" is belayed by the substance of most Wikipedia high school articles which don't provide any reason why a particular high school is notable and often don't say much at all. An encyclopedia article should not provide only the minutiae of present day information such as the name of the current prinipal and whether a football team is doing well, all likely to be out of date even a year from now. Yet a history of a high school would be mostly nothing but such disjointed minutiae: names of principals, lists of teaching staff, awards won each year by teams or bands or clubs, average grades obtained compared to other schools, additions and renovations of the building, and so forth. Such an article would be encyclopedic. But people don't write them. Jallan 19:55, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • As mentioned before, after 20 years of starting operations, a high school would be of interest or potential interest to at least 50,000 people. And with the growth in Wikipedia an in Wikipedian numbers, I am sure that articles of high schools will eventually evolve to become more "encyclopedic"--AAAAA 21:16, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• • And there's no point in retaining bad stubs when it would be just as easy for a knowledgeable editor to start an article fresh. Wikipedia is not improved by bad articles that don't improve and are unlikely to improve. Jallan 19:55, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • I agree. Bad stubs should probably be removed. Articles with quite a lot of work on them should remain.--AAAAA 21:16, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Hello. You don't appear to be an administrator, but I think you should be. If you would like for me to nominate you, I will do so. You may reply here or on my talk page. Regards, Wile E. Heresiarch 17:26, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I've posted your nomination at WP:RFA. Please reply there to accept the nomination. Good luck! Wile E. Heresiarch 04:26, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'm pleased to let you know that, consensus being reached, you are now an administrator. Congratulations!. You should read the relevant policies and other pages linked to from the administrators' reading list before carrying out tasks like deletion, protection, banning users, and editing protected pages such as the Main Page. Most of what you do is easily reversible by other sysops, apart from page history merges and image deletion, so please be especially careful with those. You might find the new administrators' how-to guide helpful. Cheers! -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 04:12, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Congratulations, Jallan! We're in the same 'class,' so to speak! [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 21:43, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for the tone, balance and improved accuracy you've recently given this entry. --Wetman 23:48, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Hi, Jallan. You might already know about this, but in case you don't ... there is a poll at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style that you might be interested in. Maurreen 05:26, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Dear Jallan, I could see that you have editet Norse saga in the past. Maybe you have some time to look at Talk:Norse saga#Characters "Ǫ" == >& # 4 9 0 ;< and "ǫ" == >& # 4 9 1 ;< and Wikipedia:Invalid article names. Would be happy to get your feedback. Thanks! Gangleri | T | Th 20:52, 2004 Nov 11 (UTC)

• Dear Jallan, I wished I would have found this informations one month ago. I moved your answer to Talk:Norse saga#feedback from Jallan because I think much more people interested about the sagas are looking there. Let us wait one week (one week? Wiglaf writes a dissertation and it will take some time until Io is back again) for more feedback and see then what actions should be done. Best regards Gangleri | T | Th 05:17, 2004 Nov 12 (UTC)

• Dear Jallan, could you please take a look at the WP:RfD#November 11 regarding Talk:Norse saga. I am fully confident, that you do it right.
• It was hard for me to make User:Gangleri/tests/Unicode ISO 8859-1/Runes. You may take a look also at Talk:Runic alphabet#Unicode. Regards Gangleri | Th | T 17:07, 2004 Nov 18 (UTC)

Corrected old style signature. It conflicts with the actual MediaWiki software version 1.4.

Maybe you have something to add to the disambiguation Gangleri. See also de:Gangleri. Best regards Gangleri | Th | T 20:26, 2005 Mar 5 (UTC)

Dear Jallan, I'd want to thank you for you great and inspiring work on the Norse sagas!--Wiglaf 12:43, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with the naming, it is very hard. As I use Swedish works of reference, I am restricted to Swedish forms and as often as I remember, I try to look for a common English form. Perhaps, the best solution would be to stick to the Old Icelandic forms all the way (except for Thor and Odin).

Could you please have a look at Wulfings and Helgi Hundingsbane and tell me whether they are NPOV. I have summarized them from a Swedish book from the 1920's.

Since you're an administrator, and can revert easily, would you like to keep an eye on the Heruls article? An anonymous user keeps insisting on removing the accounts of Jordanes and Procopius. I am so tired of reverting those changes that I am taking a long break from it.--Wiglaf 16:33, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It was the next day, that I realized that I could ask you, since I am thinking of leaving Wikipedia.

I won't say, "Don't go", because I don't know the details. You've done a lot of good work that will remain. And this is project where people can participate at any time to the exact level at which they wish to, a place where one can jot down one's own notes on various things one is interested in for others to appreciate, at least such notes as are encyclopedic. And then one can hopefully see them corrected or bettered. And if worsened by a later editor, well the originals are still in the history. And it is so nice to be able to actually change errors in material one reads! There is not need to be a regular contributor.

Yes, the purpose of the book is to try to find the kernels of real history behind the legends. I did not realize that I had transposed that POV into the article.

I got that impression from the way the discussion concentrated on the possible historical elements and ignored the entire Valkyrie lover element found in the tales of all three of the Helgi figures. The result is something like a discussion of Beowulf which concentrated on the political relationships between Geats, Swedes, Danes, and Heathobards and ignored Grendel and the dragon.

Great, you seem to know a great deal about this legend. Concerning the dating, the author is pretty believable. He was once one of the foremost scholars. That does not mean that he was right, though.

If you are doing a book about possible history underlying legends, then that kind of POV is quite expected and not at all disreputable. You should put forth your theories, not hold them back. But I've probably been rendered immune to attempts to extract fact from legend, in part by reading seventeen or more different accounts of the supposed historical Arthur, some by very competent scholars, but all different. The arguments themselves are often worth the reading and worth repeating. But then other top scholars present other arguments equally strong for competing theories. I often point out that someone reading the Nibelungenlied would never be able to extract the truth about characters like Gunther, Etzel, Dietrich, and Ermanaric. (Of course Heinz Ritter claims that the legends, at last as presented in the Thidrek's saga are mostly history, and that the characters have nothing at all to do with Gundahari, Attila the Hun, Theodoric the Goth and so forth, but are historical princes of Saxony and surrounding regions, though ones not actually mentioned in surviving history.)

There is support from both history, linguistics and archaeology, and the no evidence argument is quite spurious as it can be claimed of many facts presented in history writing. One could just as well ask for conclusive evidence against the Scandinavian origins.

Exactly. We don't know either way. Archaelogy and linguistic study can very seldom prove individual pieces of history, but usually doesn't disprove it either. (Again and again when archaeology does seem to prove or disprove something, suddenly some archaelogist will show that the entire system dating is wrong or that a new style of pottery or kind of grave did not mean a new people in the area, but just a new style of pottery or new burial customs.) But traditions about origins are also often confused, and ancient historians, like many modern ones (and like many editors in Wikipedia) were quite ready to fill in blanks with whatever dubious information they could find. (The Ættartolur traces Attila the Hun's kin back to Scandinavia.) Perhaps the puzzle pieces don't fit and never will, but there is nothing gained by hiding them when nothing has been proved to the point of general consensus. And in any cases, statements from ancient historians are worth citing just because they are said by ancient historians. Even if statements are shown to be incorrect, they have the value of evidence against those who would put total faith in everything that an ancient historian claims and are often valuable for showing what people formally believed. I will continue to keep an eye on the Heruli article.

Jallan 01:19, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

FYI, I have (at last) responded to your comments on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Draft trim (November 2004). I think we are nearly there, though there are a small number of points to resolve. I look forward to receiving your comments in due course. jguk 21:25, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up on talk about my changes to the Manual Jallan, I have left my thoughts on the subject there. adamsan 09:04, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind comments about the article! :)--Wiglaf 19:44, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hi, Jallan. You did an excellent job prosecuting the neutral spellings rule. Maurreen 05:18, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Jallan, thanks for the info about International English. I'd like to learn more. Do you know any decent online references about this? Maurreen 08:48, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Jallan, I love your comments and the quote. You made a beautiful, sonorous argument.

But unfortunately, I expect the meaning will be lost on the intended audience.

You might appreciate this quote from Dylan Thomas (I hope I'm remembering it correctly): "I am in love with the shape and sound of words." Maurreen 06:50, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

And yes "school boy humour" is childish! But it is from that play on words, that a whole strand of British humour comes. For example instead of saying "nuts" when asked to surrender at the brige in Arnhem, the officer choose to misunderstand the German offices use of the phrase "discuss surrender terms" and told the officer that his small band of paratroopers would like to take a whole German division prisoner but there was not room in the building for them all. Philip Baird Shearer 11:14, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Should RFC pages be placed on VfD to be deleted? I'm considering removing Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Slrubenstein, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jwrosenzweig and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/John Kenney from WP:VFD. Each of them was listed by CheeseDreams. Your comments on whether I should do this would be appreciated. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:46, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 1000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

• Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
• Multi-Licensing Guide
• Free the Rambot Articles Project

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "((DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual))" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

((DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual))

OR

Option 2

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:

((DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual))

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "((DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual))" with "((MultiLicensePD))". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)

Hi, Jallan. Thanks for your support about the style guide. User:jguk had asked me, among other things, for a cooling off period of about two weeks between he and I. That time has now passed. In case you're interested, I wanted to let you know that I have reopened the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (jguk's changes). Maurreen 07:08, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hi, Jallan. The Bibliography at Norse mythology seems to have gotten doubled when you edited it, would you like to take a look at it? (I'm uncertain as to which bits represent your changes, I'd better not mess with it.) Incidentally, if you know about this stuff, would you maybe like to turn the primary sources (the eddas) into proper bibliograpical references, from their present sad state? There's also a need (proclaimed by me on WP:FAC) for subdivision of the bibliography into References (=sources actually used for the article) and Further reading, if you're up for it. Several people are working to improve the article now it's been nominated for FAC, but I'm thinking maybe you have the most expertise of them, and that's what the referencing job needs.--[[User:Bishonen|Bishonen (talk)]] 19:06, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Jallan, thank you very much for your full answer. I'm only sorry to say it's a bit wasted on my Talk page, this is far from being my field. I do know about references and bibliographies, I deal with them in my day job as you do, and I have a couple of points there (though I don't honestly know when/if I'll find the time to make them--I'll just say that the WP:FAC hardasses are going to insist on a division into "references used" vs. "further reading", they always do). But that's unfortunately the sum of my competence here, I only got drawn into some superficial copyediting of Norse mythology through voting on it on WP:FAC. Is it OK if I copy your post to Talk:Norse mythology, along with my original question? It's quite an active page at the moment. I hope you'll agree, but I won't do it until I hear from you, in case you'd rather not get inexorably drawn into the Ginnungagap.--[[User:Bishonen|Bishonen (talk)]] 02:20, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hi. I saw that you voted on the RFC regarding Tucson, Arizona, and I thought you might be interested in commenting on a broader application of the formatting to other city articles. The discussion (for now) is at Talk: Tucson, Arizona#Other Arizona and nearby cities. (It might get moved to WikiProject Cities, if there's interest in doing so.) Thanks! kmccoy (talk) 01:37, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hi, Jallan. I will try to help mediate with this, but probably won't be able to give it any deliberation until tonight. Maurreen 15:17, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You're welcome, Jallan. Glad if I could help, one way or another. I figured why you were away. Happy new year. Maurreen 05:49, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I don't have any great preference, but want to get something started to clear up the maze of redirects and strange spellings that currently afflict the Norse mythology articles. (Actually, many of them aren't strange, it is just that they don't agree with one another.) As you have mentioned, you generally use Swedish sources and often accordingly use Swedish spellings. Do you have any objections to me generally changing those spellings to more normal English adaptations of the Norse originals?

Hi Jallan, no I have nothing against you changing the names into more normal English adaptations. I don't mind at all. Concerning the spelling, and I am going to add that to the discussion page, I am starting to think that we should either go the whole hog and have a hypercorrect spelling with thorns, eths and diachritic marks, or make the names as plain as possible.--Wiglaf 19:14, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Jallan, sorry to see you go. Maurreen 05:20, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hi! You appear to be an QUALIFIED interested disinterested bystander... I'm just making the rounds to everyone that has made their mark on Tsushima Islands which lead me to Fg2, (thence to then YOU! Congrats! Booby Prize, but I badly need some responisble People to help me mediate therein that are familiar with things Japanese... Sorry, but I infer that's still YOU!) in the last month trying to mediate this flaming revert war — I can use your help — Bring lots O water! (Better yet Beer) Frank

This is the message I've been dropping on anyone on the Talk or Article pages since 13 May, I'd appreciate it if you can familarize yourself on the small article and stand-by to jump in on Tuesday with some cogent watersprays from a logical firehose! Thanks for the trouble -- the issue is trivial, (Is proper name plural or singular, Forsooth!) save there seem to be at least two teens in a war going well over three hundred edits in this one month sampling interval, over 70 edits in the past three days.

• I would appreciate a rational explaination (after you read my Comments in the subject dispute Talk:Tsushima Islands), of the arguement or arguments you consider vital and germane to the discusion and vote. Frankly, MOST all of you are being silly over nothing of particular importance, since both names can be redirected into the one used. I have left a comment concerning my contribution to the article, which contribution — seems to have triggered the current edit and revision wars. For that I apologize, but see the Comments on the vote. I am also taking the liberty of putting the vote section AFTER the Comments about same.
• Still, I have just spent over four hours of valuable spare time, and would welcome your thoughts after you read and understand the distinction I put forth between a governments termonology as a governing body and a geographical reference like an archepelego, which it certainly is.
• More to the point, I'd like to see your defense regarding your favorite POV of what I had to say viz a viz the mergest attitude of the senior editors and administrators that frequent the Wikipedia:VfD discussions. To my recollection, I don't recollect any of you hotheads in this dispute ever spending anytime thereon, possibly excepting Mel Etitis, but rarely even then.
• In any event, I'm neutral here, and have asked that the article be kept EDIT FREE for the next three days by placing The Inuse template into it — I'd copyedited over two and half hours before I suspended that effort the other night because this shameful fued was going on — proper English grammer does depend, unfortunately, on whether one uses the plural or the singular. I saved that on my hard drive, but I don't need to wade through yet another 70 edits to finish the job. As it is, this matter will probably double the time it takes for such a simple job.
• If you are local to Japan, some history of the canals or Sea-channel is certainly germane to the ongoing discussion, moreover, any cogent arguement you condsider being particularly telling needs to be clearly repeated in the current on going comments if you want them counted on in the vote.
• I will make sure this message goes to each contributor to the article the past month, so you are not being singled out. Now is the time to take a deep breath, for rational concise summaries, not all the arguing that is so wearisome in 66 printed pages - half a novelette, I'd guess! It's certainly a lot to ask your fellow editors to wade through on a minor issue.
• I will also personally be making sure that at least a dozen other Administrators I'm acquainted with take a look at the debate after the time below. I will in fact ask for twenty commitments, so be clear and respectful of our time!!!
• Thankyou for your time, attention, and good professional behaviour. I'll check the Talk state again no sooner than Monday around Noon (UTC), And ask the uninvolved others to do the same. PLEASE BE CONCISE. 24.61.229.179 03:09, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

24.61.229.179 03:09, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well that's my heads up, and appeal -- Hope you can help. I really don't have a dog in this fight! If you can alert a few others qualified on matters Japanese, by all means, please do so!

Hi!

I've been away from Wikipedia for a long time, and you have no time as it says on your page, but since you are apparently the person to ask, I have this question: What was originally a hooked o is now spelt, by consensus, as ö. Well and good. I can accept that (although the hooked o is dear to my heart). But how do you, in Wikipedia, spell a hooked o with an accent over it, which is rarely a problem, I admit, unless you are transliterating Old Icelandic, where the difference was real? I mean, it's OK to use ö instead of the hook, when ö suffices, but when you are, say, giving examples of old poetry, where there was a real difference, (ö is an umlaut of a, o with a hook and an accent is an umlaut of á), one being short, the other long, what do you do? If all this has been discussed to death, I apologize. As I said, I've been away.

Cheerio

Io 20:49, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The user categorisation scheme for linguistics has changed. Henceforth there are separate categories for Wikipedians who are professional linguists (Category:Wikipedians by profession→Wikipedian linguists) and Wikipedians who simply have an interest in linguistics (Category:Wikipedians by fields of interest→Wikipedians interested in linguistics). You are currently listed under the former category; please reassign yourself if necessary. —Psychonaut 17:09, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Many years ago, when you were twee l'il thing, you originated an article called Sefer haYashar (Biblical references), a daughter to the Sefer haYashar article. Being unaware of your daughter article, I created an independent article called "Lost Book of Jasher."

If you're still interested in the topic, I wonder whether you'd be kind enough to allow me to merge the daughter article into the new article. They seem to have an 80 percent overlap.

If I'd seen your article first, I might have merged the other direction. But as things stand, the new article is linked in quite a few places, as part of a series of articles on Lost books of the Old Testament.

Perhaps you'd like to simply edit the new article with info from your article, then we can do a redirect from old to new? Thanks! --The Editrix 23:53, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are listed in the linguist by profession category. Would you please look at the discussion at Talk:Caron? It has been suggested that professional opinions are required to resolve the dispute there.

I was told to merge my article on Hannibal and Melqart with this article I tried my best to fit it appropriately, feel free people to rearrange its positioning. By the way this article on Melqart rocks I struggle to find information on the subject but this is superb, great job!!! user:king Alaric

For your information: I have made a new text for the Norwegian corresponding article about Vikar since the previous text tried to, rather doubtfully, establish the figure as historic rather than a legendary figure. My new text is much closer to your English article. There have been though a few edits lately on the English article that you may want to check out. --FinnWiki (talk) 14:19, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative privileges of users who have been inactive for one year, meaning administrators who have made neither any edits nor any logged actions in over one year. As a result of this discussion, your administrative privileges have been removed pending your return. If you wish to have these privileges reinstated, please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e., as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised and that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions). This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. RL0919 (talk) 21:40, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. You are receiving this message because of a recent change to the administrator policy that alters what you were told at the time of your desysopping. The effect of the change is that if you are inactive for a continuous three year period, you will be unable to request return of the administrative user right. This includes inactive time prior to your desysopping if you were desysopped for inactivity and inactive time prior to the change in policy. Inactivity is defined as the absence of edits or logged actions. Until such time as you have been inactive for three years, you may request return of the tools at the bureaucrats' noticeboard. After you have been inactive for three years, you may seek return of the tools only through WP:RFA. Thank you. MBisanz ^talk 00:20, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Doctor Dolittle Meets a Londoner in Paris, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

LukeSurl ^{t c} 10:55, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you've had no experience of Wikipedia to speak of since 2005. I would suggest that you should remind yourself of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA before you start ranting at me (per here, and escalating to an outright attack here when it is apparent that you haven't actually bothered to read qualifications as to the problem at hand. Please try to reacquaint yourself with the art of discussion as opposed to abuse! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:49, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are cordially invited to join WikiProject Phoenicia You appear to be someone who may be interested in joining WikiProject Phoenicia. Please accept this friendly invitation from a member of the project. I can't wait for us to work together! ~ Elias Z. (talkallam)

Let's go!

~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 10:12, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]