Hi Caesarion, and welcome to Wikipedia.

Thanks for finding the time to contribute to our little project. Here are some pages you might find helpful:

• Welcome, newcomers - a general introduction, and a good starting point
• The help centre and the FAQs
• The Manual of Style - a guide to the community's writing style

And some quick tips:

• When discussing something on a talk page, you can sign your name by typing four tildes after your comments, like this: ~~~~
• Remember to use the 'Show preview' function before saving a page
• It's also a good idea to sign the new user log and add a little about yourself

If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask me at my talk page, or at the Help desk or the Village Pump.

Above all, make sure you be bold when contributing, and have fun!

– TPK 12:01, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hallo Caesarion,

Danke für Deine Nachricht. Ich kann Dich leider bei Deinem Projekt unterstützen, da ich selbst kein Saterfriesisch spreche. Ich halte das Projekt an sich auch für keine gute Idee:

1. Es gibt ungefähr 2000 Sprecher. Wie viele von ihnen sind Internet-Nutzer? Wie viele von ihnen verwenden die Sprache schriftlich? Wie viele von ihnen würden überhaupt Beiträge leisten? Eine Enzyklopädie ist ein Mammut-Projekt.
2. Sprachliche Minderheiten reagieren oft empfindlich, wenn ihnen Projekte zur Rettung/Förderung ihrer Sprache von außerhalb vorgesetzt werden - eine solche Initiative sollte von der Sprechergemeinschaft selbst ausgehen. Nur dann können wir sicher sein, dass es genug Interesse und Unterstützung dafür gibt. Dies ist u.a. der Grund, warum es immer noch keine Wikipedia auf Sorbisch gibt.
3. Ich weiß nicht einmal, ob es überhaupt eine schriftliche Form (standardisierte Orthographie usw.) des Saterfriesischen gibt.
4. Zur Unterstützung der Sprache wäre es vielleicht angebrachter, ein Wörterbuch oder ein Lehrbuch zu schreiben, oder an einer standardisierten Grammatik und Rechtschreibung zu arbeiten (Wikibooks?).

Wenn Du Leute finden willst, wende Dich am besten an den Interfriesischen Rat, sie haben auch eine Sektion und Kontaktperson für das Saterfriesische.

Mit freundlichen Grüßen, --zeno 15:23, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

De Nederlandse versie van de cursus Saterlands is nu klaar en staat op: Allezhop --Pyt 16:19, 13 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi! I'm proposer of Old Tatar wiki. The name should be used as a link in the interwiki is placed in the article.( This language differs much from modern Tatar and it is writen not in Latin, but in Arabic script (iske imla).

Thanks, --Untifler 14:54, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. Hé bedankt. Dat had ik niet in de gaten :-) Ziet een beetje rommelig uit die pagina. Zag door het bos de bomen niet meer. Of is het andersom :-) Komt zeker door die Scott Gall hehehe ... Meursault2004 14:51, 1 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey HaafLimbo, In fact, I didn't get the examples from that book... I found them on an entirely different website... but if it's not free, perhaps it should be removed or permission should be requested... though if it's removed, I hope somebody can replace it with a different example.

`Node

Dear Caesarion,

The List of country names in various languages, List of European regions with alternative names, List of European cities with alternative names, List of European rivers with alternative names, and others, have come under attack by a certain Mikka, who, having just stumbled into all these lists, having found them of little use to himself, and having repeatedly ridiculed them and their users, has then promptly filed a petition to delete the lists in question.

Please cast your vote to keep these valuable, informative, and indeed fascinating lists at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of country names in various languages.

Thanks! 69.25.77.51 16:50, 2 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi anonymous user, thanks for pointing me at this poll. I've voted in favour op keeping the list. Caesarion 18:57, 2 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On closer inspection of Bulgarian, I agree. Thanks for pointing out my error. Bhumiya 10:01, 18 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I came across your subpage of toilet slang by accident using Google. I found it very amusing. It caught my attention because it suffered the same fate as two other slang lists which got axed or buried recently. List of body parts slang and List of sexual slang. The latter survived 2 AfDs, but then the sysadmin who had nominated it for deletion moved it without consensus and "cleaned it up" by blanking the list from the article. After a brief reversion war, the sysadmin protected the article. But the complete list still exists in the history (look for "revert blanking") and the source can be cut and pasted. As for the List of body parts slang, I saved a copy to disk. If you are interested in acquiring it, let me know. I saw how you defended the toilet slang list on AfD, and on your subpage, so I thought you might be interested in news about the other lists. Cheers. Go for it! 14:05, 20 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for your information. Glad to see my subpage still serves a kind of a goal :-). Caesarion 14:53, 20 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In response to your query on my change to the Blue Whale section, I think it is pretty common knowledge that some dinosaurs were larger than the blue whale, in fact it states this in Largest organism article

Hi, just wondering why, in the article Malgana language, you changed 'no native speakers' to 'not known'? Dougg 11:03, 18 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It is beleived to be extinct, as the text says, and I don't challenge that. But the language box entry for "language extinction" requires a moment in history when the language actually died out. Since it seems unknown when the last native speaker died, I changed the "no native speakers" message to "no known". Caesarion 11:19, 18 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Okay, thanks, I wasn't aware that the language box entry was to be used in that way. I guess I'll put in a date, then. I don't see where the text says it's believed to be extinct, unless you're talking about the Ethnologue entry (don't trust Ethnologue too much), but perhaps I should add something to that effect. Dougg 04:59, 19 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi and thanks for dropping by, well, h0nstly i don't understand what is complicated about it, understood that the last version i worte was a bit.... well not english word order i might say, but now i think it is ok.Please say what i should change or improve in order to augment understandability of that text. --Philx 23:05, 28 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi! I saw your vote on the anti-fasc. Userbox debate, "Delete all user boxes except for very few." I totally agree with you. I think people are fighting too much about the boxes, and I think other than the Language boxes, and maybe Location boxes, they should be eliminated. I have a suggestion for a replacement - User Interest Lists. They are easy to make and you can certainly still use Language-related Userboxes, by placing them on top of, or below, the lists. I would value your opinion on them, and if you used the idea, I'd be very flattered! Also, I like your idea for language reform. I was able to read it PERFECTLY. Some people say Frisian has similiarites to Old English and I notice you participate in that Wiki, too. Does Frisian have any resemblance to modern English? Nhprman 04:11, 16 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Nhprman, thanks for your message. Nice to find someone holding the same opinion towards those user boxes. On the Dutch Wikipedia, we have a single user box template which can be filled ad random by the user who places it on his page. Now about (West) Frisian. I'm afraid that 1300 years of separation have made it better mutually intelligible with Dutch than with modern English. CLoser inspection however still betrays the common linguistic heritage. Compare Fri. swiet with English sweet and Dutch zoet. Likewise, a key is called a kaai in Frisian and a sleutel (cf. German Schlüßel) in Dutch. The plural of ko ("cow") is kij, which is similar to the archaic English kine. However, the resemblance between modern English and modern West Frisian ends about here: some comparable sound shifts, some lexical similarity and a (very) few morphological correspondences. Caesarion 12:35, 16 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for this explanation on Frisian! How interesting that these similiarties existed. I wish you luck on the alternative English language project. Others have certainly tried to make it easier to write and more logical, but have failed, maybe because the words simply look too strange to the modern eye. Nhprman 02:43, 19 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Of course, you're right - I had added some placenames incorrectly - mea culpa. However, your global deletion removed legitimate entries which now need to be restored. I had also added a note to the talk page acknowledging the error and asking for info before I did the correct deletions. You weren't to know this although you could have checked, but a revert seems to have been heavy-handed. Folks at 137 19:51, 25 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Excuse me. I did not know the other places you added, so I suspected them to be nonsensical. Thanks for pointing this out. Have you re-added these cities already? Caesarion 20:14, 25 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yeah, added Cairo, Colchester & St Albans. Having read the talk page, I'll might have started another argument. Cairo qualifies as it's in the "Mediterranean basin" and the other two are English towns with significant historic impact in England. However, the inclusion of all of these has been criticised in the past. I'll just put on a tin-hat and wait. Thanks for your courtesy. Folks at 137 20:42, 25 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

YAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The Jade Knight 18:26, 25 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I highly appriciate your translation efforts... --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 22:56, 11 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, one more thing, could you please add ((NowCommonsThis)) to the images you've uploaded to Commons? Thanks! Angr (talk • contribs) 13:52, 4 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done. Steinbach (fka Caesarion) 23:04, 4 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, again. I didn't realize you were the same guy I spoke to before (above under "Userboxes") when I saw your comments in the Userbox deletion page. I certainly realize your frustrations with the "Keep Keep Keep" comments. I'm frustrated, too. People don't understand that if they keep these boxes in Template space where they don't belong, they will be deleted again and again. But I urge you not to lose your cool and write things that will inflame the debate or insult other users (like saying ALL Wikipedia users are Napoleonic - although you may have a point!) Educating people about why the Templated Userboxes should NOT be in the template space - or why they are a bad idea even if they are allowed in User space - is a better course of action. Best of luck to you! - Nhprman 04:17, 15 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ok, you're right, actually. Perhaps I'd better abstain from voting in cases like these... Comments like "block users who created many user boxes infinitely" are really overdone... Steinbach (fka Caesarion) 12:19, 15 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On the other hand, some people seem to want to remain ignorant of the policies of Wikipedia, even after they learn the facts. Maybe some blocking would do some good! - Nhprman 14:19, 15 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

[1] [2] [3] [4]

These comments that you made on May 14 at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 May 13 are violations of WP:CIVIL. Please don't express hate in your opinions. --D-Day^{(Wouldn't you like to be a pepper too?}) 19:36, 19 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You're right, my reactions were overdone. I just hate user boxes, not the users that make them. My apologies. Steinbach (fka Caesarion) 22:09, 19 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I totally agree with you. After learning Spanish, Esperanto, and a little German and seeing how easy they are to read, I have been wondering why English should be so fucking difficult to learn to read and write.Cameron Nedland 00:41, 29 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, I have modified Image:Cot-caught merger.png so that it represents individual speakers with dots rather than whole regions enclosed in lines. You may want to alter the text of nl:Amerikaans Engels accordingly. Thanks! Angr (talk) 15:48, 4 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Angr, thanks for your message. Your map mght be a reason to change the text of this article, but I won't do this in the near future, since I have taken an extended Wikation for the Dutch Wikipedia. I won't do a single edit for quite some time. Steinbach (fka Caesarion) 16:20, 4 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Steinbach, thank you for the welcome (my 1st and only welcome for so many months I am here :) ). Yes, I've seen the way the discussion went, now they want to make an ancient greek wikisource. I am currently waiting to see how this will go and then when things become more mature, maybe I will let the question about the Ancient Greek Wikipedia come to surface again. For all of this, time is needed and you know, I wish I had infinite of it! :) --Ravenous75 11:14, 5 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WikiProject Central Asia has finally been created! If you're interested, please consider joining us. Aelfthrytha 21:56, 4 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi! I noticed this edit by you. I don't exactly hold a degree in linguistics, but I think Sanskrit was added there because Malayalam has a strong tie with the language. Sanskrit was used in the southern part of India too during ancient times. The script used, was however, not the present Devanagiri, but Grantha. I'd like to hear your comments. Thanks!-- thunderboltz^(Deepu) 05:58, 28 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Deepujoseph/Thunderboltz, that's exactly what I think. Most Dravidian languages were influenced by the Indic languages, and some of them quite deeply. However, that doesn't permit us to distinguish a seperate group within this language family. The classification is usually done in a family tree-like way, that is, languages beleived to have the same ancestor are grouped together. Sanskrit, however deep its influence may have been, can't be seen as an ancestor of Malayalam, and therefore "Sanskrit-influenced Dravidian languages" are no valid grouping in traditional classification. So, for consistency purposes, I decided to delete it. Steinbach (fka Caesarion) 08:30, 28 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Okay. I think that sounds fine. Thank you.-- thunderboltz^(Deepu) 07:32, 2 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Are these varieties as distant from General Dutch as are Zealandic and Brabantian are ? Sarcelles 17:23, 1 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, they are certainly not. In Suriname and the West Indies, Dutch is an official language, but not a vernacular. People speak Dutch more or less as they learn it in schools. There are hardly any Dutch creoles (some do exist but these are very close to extinction). The main differences with Netherlands Dutch are the accent and some words borrowed from vernacular languages like Papiamentu and Sranan Tongo. Steinbach (fka Caesarion) 23:28, 1 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Are these dialects more distant from South Austro-Bavarian as Central Austro-Bavarian is ? Kind regards, Sarcelles 19:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi! First of all, you could have checked the article on the Slovenian tolar to realize that I did not make this up, I was simply following the standards given there. You might want to direct your accusations at the person who wrote it in that article. And secondly, you might want to read this: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Numismatics/Style.

By the way, it's 1 tolar, 2 tolarja, 3, 4 tolarji and 5, 10, 20 tolarjev. :) edolen1 19:23, 26 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Western Lombard is a different language from Eastern Lombard, and "Lombard" isn't a language but a group of language.

Some stupid guy has given this stupid names to this languages, but it doesn't mean that they are two dialects of one language. They are different languages. It's impossible for a Western Lombard speaker to understand an Eastern Lombard speaking.

In France two major languages are spoken: Occitan and Langue d'oil. If you list the Occitan dialects in parenthesis, why not so for Langue d'oil dialects?

Hi. First of all, why have this discussion on my talk page and not on the talk page of the Romance languages template? Then: the above is just your opinion. It will certainly be based on well-considered arguments in concord with your own observation, but someone who says otherwise is not automatically stupid. As you know, traditionally, the Lombard dialects are simply considered dialects of Italian just because they use Standard Italian as their prestige language. Now we are trying to describe Romance languages in a more linguistic way. The problem is that there is no fixed criterion for what is a language and what is not. You may find it absurd to consider Lombard one language, but you have no problem whatsoever in considering all oïl variants one language. Though some oïl variants, especially Walloon, are utterly untelligible with standard French. Just see the Walloon Wikipedia, you'll have a really hard time reading it, no matter how good your French may be. So if anything, in the template we should follow the consensus among linguists, and if most of them do not consider Western and Eastern Lombard separate languages, why should we suggest otherwise? Steinbach (fka Caesarion) 12:51, 20 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Steinbach,

I found these in the List of Germanic languages. As you haved made them up, I suggest you to replace these expressions with other expressions.

Kind regards Sarcelles —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarcelles (talk • contribs) 18:25, 7 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, this whole "Nederlimburgs" doesn't actually exist, it was my own OR. I'm bound to undo that some time anyway. Steinbach (fka Caesarion) 21:06, 9 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, Steinbach!

I just happened to run into the page Khanty language, and have a small question on a remark you made there a couple of months ago; cf. Talk:Khanty language. Best, JoergenB (talk) 05:43, 8 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Steinbach,

A while back you gave me a suggestion in the article Euro gold and silver commemorative coins. Just wanted to tell you that your suggestion was followed, and now the previous article is being split in other articles, so far:

• Euro gold and silver commemorative coins (Austria)
• Euro gold and silver commemorative coins (Belgium) ... under construction
• Euro gold and silver commemorative coins (Ireland) ... under construction, started by a fellow wikipedian

I was wondering if you can take a second look and give me your opinion. Thanks! Miguel.mateo (talk) 03:36, 10 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Miguel, I already noticed you followed my suggestions, and I am glad to see your project progress. I will certainly keep checking it regularly :-). Steinbach (fka Caesarion) 08:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wonderful, thanks! Dorftrottel (vandalise) 18:17, April 13, 2008

I was just about to revert National Emblem of Belarus back to the last version by User:Nuke-- when you did it. Keep up the good work. I'd guess some of this is due to the triangle of Byelorussian nationalism - Lyukoshenko - Russian nationalism which can get pretty nasty. I'll try to watch it a bit, but my time is limited. Perhaps you know the proper administrators to notify? I'd done a Today's FA last month and was surprised by even the "well meaning vandalism" but this is likely to be worse. Any more help appreciated.

Smallbones (talk) 00:31, 27 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Schaust du da mal rein? Gruß --Euku 22:12, 29 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Danke für die Antwort! Warum sollte man bloß reagieren, wenn man selber gesperrt hat? --Euku 10:05, 6 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Vielleicht hatte ich mal keine Lust, mich mit Wikipedia zu beschäftigen. Vor allem nicht wenn man solche Vorwürfe bekommt. Steinbach (talk) 11:18, 6 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Du bekommst eine Nachricht um 00:12, 30 October 2008 (eigentlich die schon zweite) editierst aber munter weiter, das ist kein Zeichen von "keine Lust" sondern von "Ist mir doch egal! Was kann mir schon der Typ in der li-Wikipedia anhaben?". Wenn du keine Zeit hast, dann vermerke das und wenn du jemanden sperrst, solltest du schon 3 Minuten investieren dir den Fall nochmal anzuschauen. Für mich ist die Sache beendet, ciao. --Euku 17:23, 7 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

hi. pedagogical does not mean "education for children" as you suggested on the Navajo page. It's a more general term covering education to any kind of student. English words borrowed from other languages are not always semantically decompositional in the same way as in the loaning language if it is decompositional at all. So, whatever the roots meant in Latin is irrelevant to the meaning in English. And for this word I doubt that most native speakers can segment this word in to the Latin roots using their internal linguistic knowledge (of course they can if they have historical knowledge, but this is a different type of knowledge). anwway, just a note for fun. peace – ishwar  (speak) 05:56, 8 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

yu rayt: Inglish speling shud be rifôrmd rædikalli.

OK, but then "bi" not "be" and "raedikli". 89.74.156.100 (talk) 23:11, 17 December 2008 (UTC) Wojciech ŻełaniecReply[reply]

Ûps! Hædn't noutist ðæt. Of kôrs it mast bî "bî"... Steinbach (talk) 00:05, 18 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

First - please watch your language, be civil. Second - the following is taken from Wikipedia:Verifiability:

Shortcut

• WP:CIRCULAR

Articles and posts on Wikipedia, or on websites that mirror its content, should not be used as sources, as this would amount to Wikipedia citing itself, a self-reference. As an exception, Wikipedia may be cited as a primary source (with caution) for information about itself, such as in articles about itself.

Editors should be careful not to use sources that present material originating from Wikipedia to support that same material in Wikipedia, as this would create circular sourcing—Wikipedia citing a source that derives its material from Wikipedia.

Third: I fully agree that Nostratic is controversial, and that it would be cumbersome to cite sources in the Afroasiatic article to support that claim. But somebody has made that claim, and since it is contentious, it needs to be supported in that article by verifyable sources, not just by a reference to another Wikipedia article. I see from your edit history that you have a lot more experience on Wikipedia than I have, and that I don't really need to explain the rules to you, but rules they are. My suggestion to solve the problem is just to leave the claim in there that Pedersen included Afroasiatic in Nostratic (that claim is well supported), delete the claim on the controversial nature of Nostratic, maintain the link to the Nostratic article, and let everybody read up in there what discussion there is on Nostratic. But any person who insists on having the contentious claim in there that Nostratic is controversial also needs to accept that this claim needs to be referenced with reliable sources. I'm sure you know that.

Fourth: I personally do not believe in the Nostratic Superfamily, but that is not the point here. Landroving Linguist (talk) 05:49, 4 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

O, that's funny, I do... But if it bothers you there's no citation and you're a linguist, is it then such trouble to add those citations yourself? I mean, everybody just puts templates in everywhere, "this article doesn't this", "this article doesn't that", and in the end noone bothers to fix the matter. It would be a different thing if you weren't an expert on the matter, but as you clearly are one, who else but you is supposed to provide the citations needed? Steinbach (talk) 10:27, 4 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Looks like your running a campaign against templates. Often someone who complains about the lack of a citation is not in a position to provide one - especially if the claim is doubtful. In that sense, the template is a polite reminder to the person submitting the claim to support it appropriately - or remove it. I understand Jimbo's idea in the sense that instead of putting up a template one should remove an unsupported claim right away - and not that it is ok to leave an unsupported claim without comment. But I really do believe in the polite way. Alas, often it does not work, and then I should be bold to remove the claim together with the template after an appropriate length of time. As for the matter at hand: I am a linguist, but with very little interest in historical linguistics, and not much knowledge. So I have nothing to contribute except my discomfort about an unsupported claim on the Nostratic hypothesis (actually, I think I did not put the template there, but I objected to removing it). When I say that I do not believe in the Nostratic Superfamily, that is also subject to my limited knowledge, and it will be fairly easy to convince me of the opposite, if someone provides convincing evidence to me. But what I really want to tell you is that you should reconsider your position on templates. I agree they make an article to appear more messy, but I think they serve an important purpose anyway, and they are a lot more polite than just removing a claim without warning. Landroving Linguist (talk) 22:27, 4 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi! From your edits, it looks like you might be interested in ancient Dacia. Would you like to join the WikiProject Dacia? It is a project aimed to better organize and improve the quality and accuracy of the articles related to these topics. We need help expanding and reviewing many articles, and we also need more images. Your input is welcomed! Thanks and best regards!

--Codrin.B (talk) 21:39, 3 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Steinbach. You have new messages at Tom Morris's talk page.
Message added 00:43, 17 February 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.Reply[reply]

I dont think their are any looking to secede from Canada. Pretty much all of them are looking for more autonomy, but most within Canada and/or within their province of residence. The only ones that want to secede that I know of are apart of the already mainsteam Quebec secession movement. Hope that awnsered your question mate, cheers!--184.77.10.72 (talk) 04:50, 18 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the fix at Arab Spring, someone had vandalized the positions of the text a few minutes before your edit; I've reverted everything back to original positions. Kuru (talk) 22:13, 8 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The reason is ... I hadn't had my morning coffee yet and I misread the diff. My mistake! We're both trying to do the same thing. --Coemgenus (talk) 10:21, 14 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Greetings, saw your edits at Ainu language and thought you might like to know that we just founded the Wikipedia:WikiProject Japan/Ainu task force. Hope to see you on the Members list! MatthewVanitas (talk) 20:29, 1 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Dutch profanity, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Theo van Gogh (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:25, 4 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Steinbach. You have new messages at Talk:Unbiquadium.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.

Double sharp (talk) 08:58, 21 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, the articles on superheavy elements are often hard to read. Some years ago Drjezza expanded all the articles on elements with Z ≥ 102 (i.e. nobelium and up) and added lots of information about nucleosynthesis. This really helped the articles, but also made them very technical and difficult to read. Now, some of them have been rewritten (among discovered elements, rutherfordium (104), meitnerium (109), copernicium (112), ununseptium (117), and ununoctium (118)), but many still have not. I've previously tried to expand and simplify unbihexium (do you have any comments?). Double sharp (talk) 09:20, 21 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, hard to read is not the main problem, imo. Many of these articles do contain information about relativity or other advanced physics topics. While there is much I don't understand (yet), I know that I can either ignore these bits or, if I really want to find out, read the articles on these phaenomena. In the Unbiquadium article however, confusion arose not because the matter was above my head, but because it was confusing: had this element been synthesised or not? You fixed that splendidly. Btw coincidentally I just read the Unbiquadium article; it was both informative and fairly readible. Steinbach (talk) 09:40, 21 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's why I said "often". :-) Being hard to read also makes it more likely that this kind of thing will happen, because of unexplained terminology ("compound nucleus" hadn't been defined there, which caused the confusion.) I'm working on a rewrite for nobelium currently, but haven't filled in much of it yet (you can see it at User:Double sharp/Nobelium). Double sharp (talk) 10:38, 21 September 2012 (UTC) Double sharp (talk) 10:36, 21 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Undid revision 601486708 by Thanatos666 (talk): a bit too far removed from the topic of the article.
Yes there are so many pages/articles all over the en. and other language wikipedias (in fact all over the internet and the planet), full of Mycenaean Greek word forms, especially pages containing lists of such words written in Linear B, etc, that in fact undoubtedly indeed said link is totally utterly fully overwhelmingly absolutely universally out of place... ;-) Thanatos|talk|contributions 23:36, 28 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, I do think it is out of place. The Mycenaean Greek article covers the language, not any other aspects of Mycenaean culture. If people want to find out about bronze age Greece, they can consult the Mycenaean Greece article, which is linked in the see also section. However, a list of Mycenaean gods covers merely another aspect of Mycenaean Greece, and is thus two steps removed from the article on the language (the Mycenaean Greece article being the intermediate step).

However, if you feel the list is that relevant, why not link it in the main text? You can add a clause saying "from the surviving clay tablets, a number of [list|Mycenaean deities] could be identified". Steinbach (talk) 00:04, 29 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In normal conditions it would be irrelevant, out of place. The problem is that in this case the conditions are not normal... Anyway... Thanatos|talk|contributions 15:20, 29 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Red Red Wine, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pop. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:26, 8 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[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) 12:56, 23 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for your contributions. Please mark your edits as "minor" only if they are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. SummerPhD^v2.0 17:21, 18 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Steinbach. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. Mdann52 (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Steinbach. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, Steinbach. Please consider joining this discussion on the same-sex marriage article talk page regarding additions to the lead and to support/oppose the proposal. This message is being left for you as you have previously edited in this topic area. Thank you! --Justthefacts9 (talk) 16:04, 15 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Steinbach. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:04, 19 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:20, 24 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:07, 23 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Let us discuss, as I think reversion of everything was over WP:BOLD Pro-Putin - No Referencing Yes and Picture - yes, but also because It is Satire Happy to remove picture Suggest we go through each section 1 by 1 on article Wakelamp d[@-@]b (talk) 21:49, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Will now post on talk Wakelamp d[@-@]b (talk) 10:26, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not Pro-Putin? Well, let's see. Your edit included:

• a lengthy, completely irrelevant discussion of how confident Putin's supporters were and how insecure his critics sounded
• the removal of a comparison with Stalin
• the posting of a frame from an unapologetic piece of Putin glorification, without context whatsoever. While the picture is so stupid that it does indeed look like satire, it seems to be dead serious and part of Putin's cult of personality. At any rate, it's not a political joke so what other reason could you have for adding it?

I think these three things are enough to identify your edit as pro-Putin propaganda. I will revert your putting it back, with or without the picture, and I will not discuss the matter further here. Any replies will remain unread. If you keep on putting your propaganda back, I will take the matter to the village pump. Steinbach (talk) 11:00, 30 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rfc is finishing. I am reaching out because everyone has bad days. Do you want to work together to fix the article in a few months?

I am Australian, and my interest was because I was reading about some Russian Generals under Stalin, and I was interested in how they still made. My family were coal miners and military and the humour was similar, and my father was on the Arctic Convoys in WW 2. Anyway, no need to respond if you don't want to. Otherwise I will do the revert and move on to other articles, Wakelamp d[@-@]b (talk) 08:43, 20 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:27, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:22, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Tour Down Under, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Stephen Williams. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, --DPL bot (talk) 17:49, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]