• Archive 1
• Archive 2
• Archive 3
• Archive 4
• Archive 5
• Archive 6

This is Rich Dengrove, the fellow who contributed to the article on Mephistopheles. You doubted that Michael Psellos had talked about an order of demons called the Misophaes, or Light Haters. You said you wanted either the passage itself or a citation. Being lazy and not being able to read Greek, I will give you the citation of my source, Jeffrey Russell. J.P.Migne, ed., Patrologia Graeca, "On the Work of the Demons," 122.819-876. Also, The "Life of Saint Auxentius," ed. Perikles-Petros Joannou,Démonologie populaire, démonologie critique au XIe siécle: La vie inédite de S. Auxence, par M. Psellos (Wiesbaden, 1971). I would have written the title of the first article in Greek but I am not certain which of the letters below are equivalent. If need be,I will make this citation into a PDF file and send it to you.

Yours,

Rich Dengrove User:RDengrove

)

Signpost updated for December 26th, 2007.

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 13:44, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Margaret of Sicily/Germany

Hi. I've made a bit of a cockup of the move request. I had a tiring day, got home, saw that Michaelsanders had put in the move request, was concerned that he might think I was being unhelpful, and went ahead and moved it without checking because I didn't realise it was controversial. Do you want me to undo what I did, or shall we just carry on with the discussion and move it back later if that's what people want? Deb (talk) 18:35, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Augustus

I think you'll find my response amusing at best, juvenile at worst, and hopefully just satisfactory and clarifying as to my stance on Augustus.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 08:50, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXII (December 2007)

The December 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Choice words choice

Hey, I don't begrudge you your sentiments, but would you consider rephrasing your last comments on the FJS talk page? We can afford to be gracious, don't you think? Cheers. Unschool (talk) 07:45, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Gaelic names

Just wanted to say good job on opposing the rather daft attempt to rename god knows how many articles to Gaelic names in one fell swoop. I must admit to being a leyman in the matters of scottish history (ONly having studied them in relation to my Anglo-Saxon history) which just makes this seem more bizzare as, well, we didn't use much anglo saxon in studying it (except for loan words like whitten and fyrd and such). Narson (talk) 19:22, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

History of the Peerage FAR

The History of the Peerage FAR is coming to a close. Are you willing to work on it? Joelito (talk) 01:04, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Courtesy notice

No one seems to have notified you that you are being discussed here. --Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 18:47, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for spotting that his response was incivil. I was wondering whether I was mad in thinking he was being abrasive. I must admit, I don't venture into eastern european article alot, despite my family's roots, and only strayed onto the subjects as I watch RM and comment on some. I can't say that I have much desire to venture into the articles if this is the general attitude of the involved editors. Kudos to you for putting up with the toxic atmosphere. Narson (talk) 10:06, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Blocked, January

24 hours for a violation of the 3RR rule. Try getting consensus before you make controversial changes. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:09, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for replying. No, I don't think it too harsh, if the four edits consistute a 3RR breach; and I'm not sure how I would see that it weren't me. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:00, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

As the editor break the 3RR 3 times before (the last block for 3RR being 52 hours), I propose to extend his block to at least 64 hours. --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 19:43, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I request that note be taken of the vindictiveness displayed here; especially since there is a reasonable argument that the poll Eurocopter wants should not take place until I am unblocked. If he had nothing to discuss but the issues, we might actually get somewhere. The 52 hour block was nine months ago. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:46, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Seems we already have editors which support the idea of an poll, so it will start in few moments. I also mention that a pool will be the most civilized way to stop this disruptive conflict. --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 19:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

You have one editor, who supports a poll when I return. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:57, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure that more will come. However, I will assume good faith (a thing which you didn't) and wait one more hour to see other opinions. --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 20:05, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

- [1] first and only warning to Eurocopter tigre. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks much. See you tomorrow. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:00, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Romania

Hi PMAnderson - at the risk of jumping into a contentious situation, would you consider having Rumania given in the intro but just not in the first sentence? --Reuben (talk) 23:02, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

The only qualm I would have is: Will editors dumped there by the redirect from Rumania see it, and realize they are at the right article? This is the principal reason to include it at all, besides documentation of the obvious stating a mildly important fact, not now included. If (as we probably should) we have an approval poll, please add the wording you suggest to the list of alternatives, and I will probably support it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:07, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the (recently elided) text I put in can fairly be considered equal billing. It certainly wasn't intended to be. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:13, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

That's true enough. I hadn't studied the edit history. --Reuben (talk) 23:16, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Idiom

Template:Idiom has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Ddxc (talk) 17:05, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Unblock

Y	Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s): Although a 31 hour block was imposed, stated block time of 24 hours has elapsed. Request handled by: Lara❤Love 21:57, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

link

I fixed a link for you. Sorry if this was stepping on your toes or anything. I just didn't want the new user to click it and be like "what the heck is this?" --Cheeser1 (talk) 00:30, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for January 2nd and 7th, 2008.

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 09:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Pless

It seems it is happening again. Two or so users are pushing a non-English name; one is citing a single source as "evidence". I have posted on the talk page under "princes of the duchy". Charles 16:56, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Nobody is changing the name of the article into Duchy of Pszczyna. The voting was in regards to the name of the Duchy, now Charles wants to rename the city of Pszczyna into Pless, this was not under the vote, and such proposal should be made at city's page.--Molobo (talk) 17:29, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

What a bold lie. Maybe you should read the article's talk page regarding my views before you foolishly make such assumptions. Charles 20:36, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Please try leaving them a message on their talkpages, about it; if needed I will comment there. Oh, and please archive your talk page, it's a bit on the 'way too long' side :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:29, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Knowing Poeticbent, he will reply at your talkpage. Let me know when he does so. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 02:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I will see about it, but please consider archiving.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 02:17, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I will endorse any just action because I have experienced a fair share of related difficulties. Tell me where and I'll view it and follow up in whatever matter is appropriate and fitting. Charles 19:08, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

LOL, I wasn't aware there was a Piotrus Principle... thanks for pointing it out :) Yes, occasionally good stuff will be added to non-article pages and needs to be moved to talk. Perhaps an even more fitting name would be 'Reference Desk principle' - I have seen this done often, with impressive explanations on RDH (often by Clio) being turned into articles.

As for DoP issue, I lost track a little - I am not sure which argument of mine do you refer to. But yes, Dukes of Pless should have a separate article from Duchy of Pless at some point; even if most of such articles start as as little but lists of office holders, they have a potential to develop into something more.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 05:57, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

A useful editor does not mean perfect. That said, adding tags is not in violation of our policies, usually.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:55, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Duchy of Pless

(You wrote)

You have blanked the following sourced text:

but the Dukes, and later Princes, of Pless would remain owners of its soil, and lords of its inhabitants. The Dukes of Anhalt-Cöthen-Pless inherited in 1765, being descended from the earlier dukes in the female line; the last of them died in 1847, and was succeeded by Count Hans Heinrich X of Hochberg, his son-in-law. The Hochbergs <:ref>Hans Heinrich X, XI, and XIV; the dynastic numbering was, like other princely families, given to all males of the House</ref> were among the wealthiest families of Germany, and lived in great state; they maintained a herd of wisent, given to them by Alexander II of Russia in 1864, but it was reduced to three survivors during the First World War.

The Duke of Ratibor was defeated in the first election to the Imperial German Reichstag, in 1871 by Eduard Müller, one of the founders of the Centre Party, although Hans Heinrich XI von Hochberg not only endorsed him, but had so much control over the local government that he used the constables as election workers, parading the streets with drums to get out the vote; he also threatened, for example, to end wood-gathering rights for those who displeased him.

• This has been edited so as to claim that the Duke of Ratibor in question was defeated by the Polish Nationalists in 1903. This is certainly not the case; the Centre Party held the seat in the intervening thirty years; I am not sure he was still alive.

Hans Heinrich XIV succeeded in 1907; he had married Daisy, Princess of Pless, the diarist, whose memoirs are cited by Barbara Tuchman and other social historians.

Since these are the materials for which the sources are cited, they are now valueless. What form of Mediation would you be interested in? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:42, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

• • You pasted the same text in two different places, here and here, making it look a lot less like a message to me, nevertheless, since you want to be taken seriously, I would expect that you do the same first... and respect my sources. I'm not totally against whatever relevant information there is in your paragraphs, but the cheap editorializing and runaway digressions ought to be edited out. Here are some of the worst examples:
    
  1. "Princes of Pless would remain owners of its soil, and lords of its inhabitants." Gimme a break, is this a blatant WP:COPYVIO or what?
     
  2. "Hans Heinrich XI von Hochberg not only endorsed Eduard Müller (and, what is this guy doing here?), but had so much control over the local government that he used the constables as election workers, parading the streets with drums [blah, blah, blah… more WP:COPYVIO to get out the vote..." I'm asking you, what does this have to do with the Duchy? Here's a simple answer: nothing! --Poeticbent talk 06:37, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Indian Navy article

I warn you from indulging in edit wars. If you cannot provide the details asked and cannot provide information, then you have no right to remove any content from the article. You will be reported to the Administrator if you continue with these kind of behavior.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 13:14, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I am not a fan of conspiracy theories

"There are those who disagree with my principles, and would indeed like to wipe Poland out of Wikipedia." I am not a fan of conspiracy theories. I even don't exactly understand what you mean by that. Frankly it disturbs me, as it seems you are guided by some strange theories in regards to edits. As to the name of the article, nobody is changing it, so I see no reasons of your concern. Nobody is changing the voted on Duchy of Pless into Duchy of Pszczyna.--Molobo (talk) 17:41, 17 January 2008 (UTC) I don't agree with the vote, but as nobody does change the name of the article and I don't see anybody entering the name Duchy of Pszczyna, then there seems to be no problem.--Molobo (talk) 17:48, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I noticed your comment here [2] If anybody moves the article to name not agreed by the vote, feel free to aske me to change it back. --Molobo (talk) 18:59, 17 January 2008 (UTC) Btw my original question was regarding improving the flow of the article, Pless is repeated in every sentence almost, it would be nice if you would come up with more ideas to improve the text and make it less akward by reducing the mention of Pless to reasnoble number rather then having it in every sentence, sometimes numerous times even in one. Which of course reads terrible. --Molobo (talk) 18:59, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Request for mediation accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party has been accepted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Duchy of Pless. For the Mediation Committee, WjBscribe 01:45, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for January 14th, 2008.

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:49, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Duchy of Teschen#Name in article

Do you have any opinion on this discussion? Note the very lame, age-old "move the other article" argument. This is about one user replacing all English instances of the name with the Polish name, Charles 17:33, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:AN/I#Lil' mouse 2 (talk · contribs) taking over articles and removing tags

Your input would be appreciated here... A user is arguing that surnames can be literally translated and is claiming that I made the claim that only royal names can be translated (I never said that). I made the distinction between surnames, house names and territorial designations but was ignored. The user is asking me to prove a convention which exists only because translation of surnames is rarely exercised in the English language (essentially, I "have to" prove that not translating names is right instead of pointing out that it's never done as it rarely appears anywhere). The user also has compromised sources. Charles 22:28, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect: I am asking Charles to prove with a reference only his POV that commoners' surnames cannot be translated into English. For the rest of my stance on this issue, see my replies here and here. Thank you! Lil' mouse 2 (talk) 22:43, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

University College Dublin move request

I added UCC to the UCD move request. Please comment or append your comment accordingly. — AjaxSmack 01:08, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Hamilton

If the info is so "well known," you should have no problem finding a source. I would encourage you to use said source to rewrite that paragraph so that it's more substantive and informative than "there was a method..." (what method? where were the rules written? etc.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.174.180.145 (talk) 16:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for January 21st, 2008.

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 00:21, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Polish kings

I'd really love if we could agree on a naming convention for Polish kings; I have proposed one at guideline talk - I am sure you have noticed it (or would shortly). I'd like to seem them standarized; nicknames are popular in many cases and I see no reason why not to use them wherever possible (for standardization). They are useful; people find it easier to associate people with nicknames than with numbers. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:20, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

RE:

Take it to the talk page NC talk page. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:44, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what you're trying to achieve with these messages. They're really irritating, esp. using WP:Point like that. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:52, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: Pressburg

No, I think Pressburg is an excellent example and your wording is very good. Tankred (talk) 15:24, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for January 28th, 2008.

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 04:08, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Kings of Cilicia

Considering your involvement at Talk:Levon V of Armenia#Requested move, can I get you to look at User:Srnec/Kings of Cilicia and tell me what you think of these proposed moves before I do them? It is designed to remove all inconsistency and ambiguity and favours English forms for non-Armenian names and whatever Armenian anglicisation is most popular in English texts for Armenian names. I am very open to changing "Thoros" to "Toros" or "Hetoum" to "Hethum", for example, based on evidence of superior usage. Srnec (talk) 21:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIII (January 2008)

The January 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:35, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the support

Thanks for the support for the move on the Brunei Dollar. Just an aside, searching for "Brunei ringgit" gives me 2,060 hits on Google, searching for "Brunei dollar" gives 4,530,000 hits. I should go post that somewhere... --Novelty (talk) 05:30, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

template:History of Manchuria

I have made a request for move on behalf of the editors who's been persistently edit warring to add "Northeast China" to the title of the template. Please join the discussion[3] to help reach a consensus. Cydevil38 (talk) 01:01, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Currency naming guidelines change proposal survey

You have previously participated in a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Numismatics/Style. If you care, please go here to register your opinion on two proposals for currency naming guidelines. Thanks. — AjaxSmack 03:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for February 4th, 2008.

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:29, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Numerals & Nicknames

Hello Pmanderson, I'm a numeralist when it comes to 'regal names'. However, should any articles be moved to nicknames? I won't revert them (not my style), PS- the article name Gustavus Adolphus of Sweden still gives me heartburn. GoodDay (talk) 16:42, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm curious of something though, about the Swedish monarchs. Doesn't Gustav actually go with Adolph and Gustaf go with Adolf? If so? all those articles are incorrect. GoodDay (talk) 22:09, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

POV tag

Just a quick question - why did you put the tag on Samuil of Bulgaria? I need to know so to improve it and have it removed. I'm only asking cause you didn't point the reasons in the edit-summary or the talkpage. Cheers. --Laveol ^T 13:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Hors d'oeuvre

Based on the overwhelming evidence presented by 2 different users, would you consider stopping by the Talk:Hors d'œuvre to strike or change your vote not to move Talk:Hors d'œuvre to Hors d'oeuvre. Check it out. Nearly all the culinary literature and dictionaries surveyed spelled the term without the œthel.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (