User talk:Andrew Dalby/Archive 2009 to 2010

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Les plaisirs du goût, Maison Française d'Oxford, 13 mars 2009[edit]

Cher Andrew,

Puisque vous résidez en France et étant moi-même français, je me permet de vous écrire en français. Alors voilà: je suis chercheur au CNRS, en philosophie ancienne, et actuellement en poste à la Maison Française d'Oxford où j'organise une journée intitulée "Les plaisirs du goût/The Pleasures of Taste" le vendredi 13 mars 2009 et j'aimerais beaucoup que vous puissiez y participer. Je sais m'y prendre bien tard, mais je joue de malchance avec les conférenciers prévus… La journée devrait comporter 5 à 6 conférences de 30' à 40' et se conclura par la projection du film "le festin de Babette". Il y aura un exposé sur les Épicuriens et les Cyrénaïques (Jean-François Balaudé, Université de Nanterre), un autre sur la notion de modération chez Aristote (par moi-même) et aussi un autre sur les plaisirs de la table dans le cinéma français. Je recherche actuellement quelqu'un qui pourrait présenter quelque chose sur cette question au XVIIIè (peut-être un collègue d'Oriel). Si donc vous étiez libre et intéressé, sentez-vous absolument libre de votre sujet!

Bien cordialement, Jean-Louis Labarrière Maison Française d'Oxford 

81.110.177.236 (talk) 16:42, 28 January 2009 (UTC)labarrierejl@free.fr[reply]

Wikipedia Signpost, February 8, 2009[edit]

The Wikipedia Signpost
The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery


Volume 5, Issue 6 8 February 2009 About the Signpost
News and notes: Elections, licensing update, and more Wikipedia in the news: Wikipedia's future, WikiDashboard, and "wiki-snobs" 
Dispatches: April Fools 2009 mainpage WikiProject Report: WikiProject Music 
Features and admins The Report on Lengthy Litigation 
Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View Shortcut : WP:POST

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.--ragesoss (talk) 15:35, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 21:20, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Signpost — February 16, 2009[edit]

The Signpost
Volume 5, Issue 7
Weekly Delivery
2009-02-16

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.

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 05:56, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Signpost — February 23, 2009[edit]

This week, the Wikipedia Signpost published volume 5, issue 8, which includes these articles:

The kinks are still being worked out in a new design for these Signpost deliveries, and we apologize for the plain format for this week.

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 00:56, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Signpost — 2 March 2009[edit]

This week, the Wikipedia Signpost published volume 5, issue 9, which includes these articles:

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 19:52, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Signpost — 9 March 2009[edit]

This week, the Wikipedia Signpost published volume 5, issue 10, which includes these articles:

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 22:39, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Wikipedia Signpost — 16 March 2009

The Wikipedia Signpost  — 16 March 2009

Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 21:58, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 23 March 2009[edit]

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 04:52, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

indefinite schoolblocks[edit]

Hi, Andrew. I noticed a thread posted to the Administrator's Noticeboard on indefinite schoolblocks that might be relevant to the blocks you put on 75.147.24.106 and 75.147.24.105 at Vicipaedia. Would you please consider unbanning these addresses. If problems should recur, a finite block, perhaps corresponding to the school year or semester, might be more appropriate. The school to which these addresses belong requires Latin of all its students. Perhaps one or two at some point will make a positive contribution to your project. At the moment no student, however well intentioned, may edit or create an account from these address. Aramgar (talk) 16:54, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. Thanks. I have de-obstructed these addresses. Andrew Dalby 17:08, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Aramgar (talk) 17:12, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 30 March 2009[edit]

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 20:50, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Gere[edit]

We are having a discussion that you spoke about once before. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Richard_Gere#Gerbil Fodient (talk) 19:50, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 6 April 2009[edit]

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 18:40, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 13 April 2009[edit]

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 15:55, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 20 April 2009[edit]

Delivered by SoxBot II (talk) at 18:01, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 27 April 2009[edit]

Delivered by SoxBot II (talk) at 19:49, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 11 May 2009[edit]

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 21:27, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 18 May 2009[edit]

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 12:28, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 25 May 2009[edit]

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 03:12, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 1 June 2009[edit]

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 22:02, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Diocletianic Persecution[edit]

Could you have a look at this article, and comment on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Diocletianic Persecution/archive1. I'm not as up on the details here as I thought I was, and while it passes my minimal "will not be a public embarassment" test, it could probably use detailed criticism. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 13:36, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

a quick look?[edit]

Dear Andrew: PMAnderson suggested you might be in a position to take a quick look at this FAC WRT content. PMA has had a preliminary inspection, but will not be around much for a week. Tony (talk) 14:14, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 15 June 2009[edit]

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 11:00, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: la:Canada[edit]

Thanks. I was just browsing around and saw the problem. I think I'll convert some more, if I ever get some more time. I'll just leave the sections requiring knowledge blank for now. Thanks, The UserboxerComplain/ubx 13:45, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 22 June 2009[edit]

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 02:21, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia_talk:Centralized_discussion/Macedonia#Winnowing_proposals[edit]

We're holding a preferential vote to decide what proposals should go forward to the community and narrow down the vast selection that we currently have. Since you've commented at the above discussion, I thought you would appreciate the opportunity to participate Fritzpoll (talk) 08:27, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Macedonia article naming[edit]

Since you have in the past taken part in related discussions, this comes as a notification that the Centralized discussion page set up to decide on a comprehensive naming convention about Macedonia-related naming practices is now inviting comments on a number of competing proposals from the community. Please register your opinions on the RfC subpages 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5.

Shadowmorph ^"^ 21:12, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Salut![edit]

Văd că cunoşti limba română.

Te invit să participi şi la Wikipedia în limba română!

Toate cele bune!--FeodorBezuhov (talk) 09:22, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 29 June 2009[edit]

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 01:29, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 6 July 2009[edit]

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 02:09, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 27 July 2009[edit]

Delivered by -- Tinu Cherian BOT - 07:29, 28 July 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Article[edit]

Hello, I'm the editor of a Greek food magazine called Epikouria (www.epikouria.com). I was wondering if you would be interested in writing an article for us about the intersection (if any) between what the Ancient Greeks ate and what is eaten today in modern Greece. Sadly, the deadline is in a month. I apologize for this means of communication, but had no other option as there is no contact link available on your website. My email is ellen.gooch sendyne.com. Please let me know if you are interested! Kind regards, Ellen Gooch70.107.220.106 (talk) 19:43, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 3 August 2009[edit]

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 03:14, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 10 August 2009[edit]

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 02:33, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 17 August 2009[edit]

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 01:02, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 24 August 2009[edit]

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 02:51, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 31 August 2009[edit]

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 14:44, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gui d'Excideuil[edit]

This article of yours from a while back just got nominated for deletion--of course it hasn't been, but perhaps you could add an exact reference--if it's many troubadors & other poets, who are they ? .You're the best prepared person here to do this quickly. DGG ( talk ) 01:30, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

also Andre de France. You should have been notified, but I don't think the ed. who did it knows you're currently around, since the article was written sometime ago DGG ( talk )
These are now being discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lost fictional characters

The Wikipedia Signpost: 21 September 2009[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 22:59, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 28 September 2009[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:12, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 5 October 2009[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 04:41, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

About some deleted pages[edit]

Hy Andrew

My name is Mario Barangea. In wikipedia I use the nickname Altenwolf (is a german translation of my name). Some time ago (sorry for my english language dominion status)I introduce myself in Wikipedia. The romanian page was deleted but still remains the oc and lat pages. It was an amusement and a lamentable way to promote myself. I really regret that. My e-mail adress is barangamar@yahoo.com. My wish is that those pages on wikipedia who referes to my person to be deleted. I'm sorry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Altenwolf (talk • contribs) 21:05, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, Mario, I understand. Thanks for explaining. I have deleted the page on the Latin Wikipedia (where I am an admin) and I have suggested on the Occitan wikipedia that they do the same. But I looked at some of your articles on Ziarul Financiar. Interesting ... Maybe your name will return to Wikipedia one day! Andrew Dalby 06:15, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 12 October 2009[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 03:36, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Re: Earl of Clare - I would be interested in your input as to the Medieval Earls of Clare on the discussion page for the Earl of Clare. Thank you. 64.148.59.168 (talk) 16:17, 16 October 2009 (UTC) Mugginsx (talk) 16:29, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 19 October 2009[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 02:40, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment[edit]

To the Etruscan Poets

Dream fluently, still brothers, who when young Took with your mother's milk the mother tongue,

In which pure matrix, joining world and mind, You strove to leave some line of verse behind

Like still fresh tracks across a field of snow, Not reckoning that all could melt and go.

--Richard Wilbur

It was actually posted as a comment below the WSJ article reviewing one of your books and I "borrowed it". :) I was thinking of its significance more in terms of your work on languages and language extinction (and more broadly as a commentary on the art of writing and publishing itself), but it does seem rather apt in capturing the sometimes ephemeral quality of Wikipedia article writing. Which of us are the Etruscans and which are the Latin speakers (is that what superceded Etruscan? Was it the Romans? Not my area of expertise I'm afraid).
I enjoyed reading some excerpts from your book on Wikipedia on your website. I found them provocative and had lots of ideas and follow-up questions. :) I liked that they seemed to capture the inspiring and often beautiful collaborative magic that happens here, while others gave a sense of the pettiness and gaming that pervade. The good the bad and the ugly I suppose? ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:10, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How is the book tour going? ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:08, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ha! Book tour! I've never done one yet. I mean, no one's ever suggested ...
Which is good, because I would hate it. I love travelling, but not in a different anonymous hotel room every night. Two months ago I visited the Getty Villa at Malibu, stayed for a week at Santa Monica, met nice people, talked about ancient food, modestly spread some press releases about the Wikipedia book. That's OK. Next week I go to England to make the acquaintance of my new granddaughter and I'll spread the word again. That's fine. I know people who've done book tours: it didn't make them any happier. Look at Oscar Wilde. Look at Julius Caesar. Andrew Dalby 12:48, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 26 October 2009[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:48, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cover art for Dictionary of Languages.[edit]

I love your Dictionary of Languages --

I recently got s copy of the book Color by Victoria Finlay, which uses exactly the same cover art as your DoL.

I am interested in the subject of the picture. Unfortunately, neither of you makes any mention (that I can find) as to what the image is, where it is from, or anything like that.

Can you tell me anything about the cover art? With no sense of scale, I can't tell if it's a building, a dollhouse, a picture of a painting or what.

Avjewe (talk) 17:22, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, I'm afraid. The book doesn't credit the image fully (only naming the immediate source of the illustration). I, too, have seen it used on another book. But where does it come from? If I remember correctly, I didn't know the answer at the time. I was a bit exhausted by the effort of finishing the book to a deadline (more or less) and I simply said, yes, that's a nice picture. I afterwards learned ... what? I think it's a wooden screen in a building in Istanbul. But I don't have any idea where to verify this, and my memory could be at fault. If you find out any more, please tell me. If I remember any more, I'll add the information here. Andrew Dalby 18:56, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:The World and Wikipedia.jpg[edit]

Hi Andrew, I removed File:The World and Wikipedia.jpg from User:Andrew Dalby/The World and Wikipedia, as a fair use image, its use is only permitted in articles in the manspace, per Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria. Further to that, it can only be kept if it is used in an article, and the only article that it could be used in is The World and Wikipedia, which doesn't exist. Unless the article is going to be written in the immediate future, the image should be deleted (as it is orphaned, and NFCC criteria 7 is its use in at least one article), and uploaded again if in the future the article is written, but my Google News search for "The World and Wikipedia" came up with nothing, suggesting that at this time, any article written will not meet the General Notability Guidelines, or the book guidelines. I am not sure what your plans would be for an article about the book....--kelapstick (talk) 18:27, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the message, Kelapstick.You're quite right, certainly not notable yet. If it becomes so, I might re-upload. We'll see! Best wishes Andrew Dalby 12:59, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 2 November 2009[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 04:06, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Andrew Dalby/The World and Wikipedia/Editors whose work is mentioned in the book[edit]

Hi Andrew,


I found out about this book through a Wikipedia-related blog. I've made a few edits to User:Andrew Dalby/The World and Wikipedia/Editors whose work is mentioned in the book, but I can't figure out who User:Julila is supposed to be; it's definitely a typo for "Julia" but I can't be sure which user is meant.

I'd be interested in obtaining a copy of The World and Wikipedia, but since I'm blind as it says on my user page, I wouldn't be able to access the print version. Graham87 06:54, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aha, "Julila" wasn't a typo after all. I checked the user's deleted contributions and found nothing, so I just assumed that the user never existed. From your comment about him still being active on the Latin Wikipedia, I figured out that the article he spammed across multiple wikis was Artur Balder. The creator of the Artur Balder page on this wiki was Starwar25, and the article was deleted here because of this deletion discussion. But you probably already knew that. :-)
Thanks for considering my request to have the book in an alternative format. I'd be happy to obtain it electronically, in a text or HTML-based format (e.g. a Microsoft Word document, a PDF file, an HTML file, etc). Another option I have is trying to scan it using optical character recognition, but I shudder to think what the software would do to some of the Wikipedia usernames. Graham87 14:18, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Of course. Why didn't I think of that? No need to go the OCR route. I will get a final PDF version from the publisher and send it on to you. This will take me a couple of days as I am travelling right now. Send me an email, and you'll get the file from me as an attachment.
Yes, you have the story about Julila now. I used it as an example of cross-wiki spamming. I suspect Balder actually succeeded by this method in getting some foreign editions of his Curdy books published: briefly his Google results were pretty impressive. Andrew Dalby 17:57, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much; you've got mail. Graham87 01:19, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (File:The World and Wikipedia.jpg)[edit]

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:The World and Wikipedia.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. kelapstick (talk) 16:36, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As discussed above. Cheers. Also, you ever consider archiving your talk page? 240 kb is pretty big.--kelapstick (talk) 16:38, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 9 November 2009[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:37, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 16 November 2009[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 14:56, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your book...[edit]

seems to be rather difficult to get. I've ordered it from a major book retailer, but it's on backorder... LadyofShalott 22:17, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since my work on bacon mania is noted in it, the high demand should come as no surprise. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:00, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No comment on that ... please keep on asking :) It's published in Britain but it does have a US distributor, and the distributor seems reasonably good at responding to demand and encouraging retailers to stock it. Demand will result in supply! Andrew Dalby 09:29, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, after posting this, I got an email last night saying my copy was on its way to my local store. (Yesterday afternoon, they could not tell me anything beyond still on backorder.) LadyofShalott 15:52, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Did you want me to sign it for you? ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:47, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll let you know if I decide so... LadyofShalott 23:38, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: myself in World and Wikipedia[edit]

I disagree with your assessment in the extract given that the rules supported its inclusion; the existence of several Wikipedia articles are known to be not because of adherence or allowance by the rules, but because their existence is supported by people who don't follow them. I've been trying to reduce the number of "criticism of..." articles, especially about politicians, to avoid political bias. With that said, do you mind if you e-mail me anything relating to me, or the article? I don't really have the financial means to buy the book just yet (ah, the joys of being a university student), but I'm interested to read what you've written about me :). Thanks, Sceptre (talk) 01:58, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The deletion of criticism is censorship. How anyone can argue that criticism of Bush or other office holders at that level isn't notable is beyond me. And the suggestion that it's been merged elsewhere is silliness. "Public perception" or whatever it's called. Absurd. This has been enormously damaging to the encyclopedia and made it much less comprehensive. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:02, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We're not deleting criticism, we're displacing it to places where it's more encyclopedic. But enough of this; I don't want to argue on someone's talk page. Sceptre (talk) 02:21, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll reply on Sceptre's talk page. In general, I'm happy of course to tell people what I've said about them -- and I hope they will think that I've been fair, but who knows? -- but since I live by writing I need to sell books. Please remember, if you can't afford it yourself, you can afford to ask for it at a public and/or college library! Andrew Dalby 09:10, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

oldest recipe[edit]

I've just been working on some Wikipedia articles on some certain queer fish, and I've come across the (stub) article you started on Mithaecus. Supposedly, he wrote the first recorded recipe, this being for, as the article put it, "Cepola rubescens." Cepola rubescens is an obsolete (junior) synonym (biology) of Cepola macrophthalma, the fish I started an article about, and was a name invented by a Victorian Englishman. It is thus unclear if recipe in question actually refers to C. macrophthalma. I can't make any more headway, as Mithaecus lacks inline citations, so none of the statements there can be paraphased to the article on macrophthalma. If you can provide inline cits there, that would be great, and I'll probably be able to get macrophthalma in the DYK on the main page. Thanks, innotata (Talk | Contribs) 18:26, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. That should be enough to improve the bandfish page, which I'm going to copy to my userspace. As for Cepola rubescens, it was described by Linnaeus: I was confusing it with another synonym. innotata (Talk | Contribs) 14:47, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
At Mithaecus, you state that Sicily "was rich and highly civilized." Not only that, it was known as Magna Graeca, big Greece. Surprised at the omission. innotata (Talk | Contribs) 15:36, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
More precisely, not Sicily alone but Sicily and southern Italy together were given this name. There's no reason not to add the information if you want! Andrew Dalby 16:00, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The point was, it was thought to be part of Greece. Blame my little geographic error on Norman Davies's maps. innotata (Talk | Contribs) 17:50, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I don't think I would accept "it was thought to be part of Greece". At least, I would want to see an ancient source for what ancient people thought about that. It might be like saying "New England" was thought to be part of England ... Andrew Dalby 12:04, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of which, we're trying to get some coverage of Guanti, (Assisi) Bastoncello, (Calabria) Scaddateddi, Zeppole Spignesi, Chiacchiere, Lattughe, Cenci, Donzelle, Bugie, Crostoli, Fritole, Ciambelli (Cocullo, Abruzzi) and Bomboloni as part of the Doughnut Days: Drive for the Next Decade event. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:04, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As for Sicily, it is worth remembering that there was no Greece exactly at the time, but an area where people spoke Greek incl. Asia Minor, I suppose. And Sicily was more Greek than modern Greece. Anyhow, Cepola macrophthalma has been rolled out and probably will be accepted with a caveat for DYK. Why don't you take a look at it? There is a lot more to this fish than a taste that Sicilians thought went well with cheese! All sorts of interesting behaviors, and I've only started the article. innotata (Talk | Contribs) 22:44, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 23 November 2009[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 12:16, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings (regarding your book)[edit]

Hi. In case you ever write an updated version, or even just for your own interest, I would like to draw your attention to this. Grundle2600 (talk) 15:52, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have a look right now ... Andrew Dalby 16:16, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 30 November 2009[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 12:52, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great News!!![edit]

Bacon Materializer

Unable to resist bacon's temptations, rogue editors have kicked off the Bacon Challenge 2010 before the New Year even starts! This is a fun and collegial event and all are welcome. There are many non-pork articles for editors who enjoy some sizzle, but object to or don't like messing with pig products. This year's event also includes a Bacon WikiCup 2010 for those who may want to keep score and enjoy engaging in friendly competition. Given the critical importance of this subject matter, I know you will want to participate, so remember to sign up today and get started A.S.A.P. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:37, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

World and Wikipedia[edit]

I just stumbled across this subpage of yours, and I was wondering if you would care to clarify in what respect I am "mentioned". -- Scjessey (talk) 02:33, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 7 December 2009[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 04:55, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 14 December 2009[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 15:11, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 21 December 2009[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 02:32, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 28 December 2009[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:51, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Important Wine Project discussion needs input![edit]

Hello, the Wine Project is currently in the process of hammering out a proposed policy relating to Wikipedia:Notability (wine topics). As Wikipedia and its wine coverage continues to grow, the need for a clear, concise guideline on how Wikipedia's notability policies such as WP:CORP, WP:SIGCOV and WP:NOTE relate to wine articles has emerged. Please review the proposed policy and take part in the talk page discussion Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(wine_topics)#Ready_to_go_live.3F. All input and view points are welcomed. AgneCheese/Wine 21:37, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 January 2010[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 22:46, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Input request[edit]

Ancient Roman inquires[edit]

Your input would be appreciated at

Thanks.--Doug Coldwell talk 20:37, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 11 January 2010[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 08:07, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 18 January 2010[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 14:09, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 25 January 2010[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 03:17, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Book The World and Wikipedia - How We Are Editing Reality[edit]

Good morning Andrew,

yesterday I found your book The World and Wikipedia - How We Are Editing Reality, in the Royal Library in The Hague, The Netherlands.

I will buy it as well - and I already put a recommendation on my Dutch weblog JanDeFietser.

--JanDeFietser (talk) 04:31, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's great, Jan. Nice to hear from you, and nice to know that you've mentioned the book on your blog. As a former librarian, I'm also pleased that the Dutch Royal Library has the book already! Andrew Dalby 19:45, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 February 2010[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 20:38, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bergin and Wilson[edit]

Since you started this article and are a librarian, could you take a look at the table I added to Africa (Petrarch) to see if this is appropriate. All the other reference footnotes go to Bergin and Wilson.--Doug Coldwell talk 13:33, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ping! Talk:Africa (Petrarch)#"Main characters?".--Doug Coldwell talk 13:19, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have made several major improvements to Africa (Petrarch) lately. It has been upgraded to a B-class on the of WikiProject Middle Ages. If you see any improvements, please feel free to make them or suggest what I should do. I would like to soon submit for a Good Article. Ill check back here for any replies.--Doug Coldwell talk 13:37, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have done several improvements and expansions to Africa (Petrarch) lately. Perhaps you can copyedit for additional improvements, IF you have time.--Doug Coldwell talk 23:11, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 8 February 2010[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 02:06, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 15 February 2010[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 12:26, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 22 February 2010[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 11:26, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 March 2010[edit]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 8 March 2010[edit]

Nuntii Latini[edit]

Since you're active on Vikipaedia, I thought this item might be of interest to you. Paradoctor (talk) 23:05, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 15 March 2010[edit]

War Edition at Dili[edit]

Users J. Patrick Fischer (talk) Merbabu (talk) and Darwinius (talk) are removing systematically the symbols of the city alleging they are not used anymore. The problem is that they doesn´t quote any relevant source to remove the symbols and prove they are not used anymore, despite there´s a law supporting them. I gave the data, he is disputing it, just for personal taste. Domaleixo (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.41.242.19 (talk) 14:22, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I like your work[edit]

... and I'd like you to take a look at my humble translation of yor Wikipedia biography, de:Andrew Dalby. Best regards from a Göttingen classics student, Jonathan Groß (talk) 09:22, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 22 March 2010[edit]

Chaucer coming in contact with Petrarch or Boccaccio[edit]

If you have some spare time, could you tweak this article that I started and have been working on. Also if you have any recommendations for improvements, I'll keep a "watch" at the article Talk page. Thanks.--Doug Coldwell talk 19:31, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Doug, I don't think I can help. Andrew Dalby 21:49, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
O.K., thanks.--Doug Coldwell talk 22:12, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 29 March 2010[edit]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 5 April 2010[edit]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 12 April 2010[edit]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 19 April 2010[edit]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 26 April 2010[edit]

The World and Wikipedia[edit]

Becuase of your only post to Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language, I visited your user page and your website and the Wikipedia article Andrew Dalby. Also, I added your name to my list of Wikipedians at User:Wavelength/About Wikipedia/Wikipedians, and I started the article The World and Wikipedia. -- Wavelength (talk) 02:19, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the message, and I'm glad that my only-ever posting on that desk aroused your interest! (Currently I work more on the Latin Vicipaedia; we received an appeal over there for help with this reference query.) I'll have a look at the new page: I might be able to add references to a couple of reviews. Andrew Dalby 10:38, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 3 May 2010[edit]


Happy Andrew Dalby's Day![edit]

User:Andrew Dalby has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian,
and therefore, I've officially declared today as Andrew Dalby's day!
For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian,
enjoy being the Star of the day, dear Andrew Dalby!

Peace,
Rlevse
00:14, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A record of your Day will always be kept here.

For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:14, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello[edit]

I see you write about Wikipedia and are also a historian. Interesting mix. I wondered what your historiographical sensibilities thought of WP:POLE? --Dweller (talk) 11:13, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 10 May 2010[edit]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 17 May 2010[edit]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 24 May 2010[edit]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 31 May 2010[edit]

Dear Andrew, would you be so kind as to give us support![edit]

Hello, I hope you are doing fine and that everything you are intending to study or create will be successful. I am a member of an association "Amical de la Viquipèdia" which is trying to get some recognition as a Catalan Chapter but this hasn't been approved up to this moment. We would appreciate your support, visible if you stick this on your first page: Wikimedia CAT. Thanks again, wishing you a great summer, take care! Claudi BalaguerCapsot (talk) 12:00, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 7 June 2010[edit]


About French Wikipedia Modèle:Utilisateur grc-2[edit]

J'ai cru comprendre que je pouvais vous écrire en français et j'abuse donc de la situation. N'hésitez pas à me répondre en anglais si vous le préférez.
Je viens de faire une proposition de modification du libellé du Modèle:Utilisateur grc-2 et serais très heureux d'avoir votre avis à ce sujet.
Cordialement,
--Jean-Loup HAZAËL-MASSIEUX —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.240.106.4 (talk) 16:07, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are now a Reviewer[edit]

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 18:23, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 14 June 2010[edit]

Rosetta Stone[edit]

There's a message for you over at: Wikipedia:GLAM/BM/One_on_one_collaborations#Rosetta_Stone. Witty Lama 20:27, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 21 June 2010[edit]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 28 June 2010[edit]

Rosetta Stone article[edit]

Hello there:

I see that you have begun working on the English version of the Rosetta Stone article. I like what you have with the Latin version of the article, especially with the section on the attempts at translating portions of it over the years.

Since languages are clearly your specialty, I will work on the ancient historical background of the object rather than duplicate your presumably forthcoming work in that area.

Cheers! Captmondo (talk) 23:35, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's great. I aim to work at it steadily now, and I'm very happy that you are dealing with the historical background. Andrew Dalby 09:02, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have a copy of an article you *might* be interested in: The Predecessors of Champollion by Don Cameron Allen from the Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society written in 1960. In it he looks at the attempts to decipher Egyptian hieroglyphs in the Western word, including the crackpot ideas of Athanasius Kircher in this field, and the attempt by several 17th Century scholars to link hieroglyphs to Chinese. It might serve as a good background to the later, more successful efforts by de Sacy, Young, Champollion et al, and it also makes for an amusing read. ;-) Let me know if you would like me to email you a copy for reference. Cheers! Captmondo (talk) 14:20, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's OK, thanks, I have a copy myself via JSTOR. It's a very good source, though, I think, more use for Decipherment of Egyptian hieroglyphs than for Rosetta Stone ... But I will certainly cite it. Andrew Dalby 14:59, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough! Captmondo (talk) 16:00, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Test of Roman road template[edit]

Legend
mp
0
 Roma
25
 Aricia
Palus Pomptina
35
 Forum Appium
45
 Tarracina
Vinum Falernum
Liris flumen
Via Traiana
70
 Neapolis
Source: Antonine Itinerary

The Wikipedia Signpost: 5 July 2010[edit]

Re:Congratulations![edit]

I send your's congratulations to ca:usuari:MarisaLR, The article's editor. Good Luck !, I hope you will conquer the prize too.--Mafoso (talk) 09:18, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well done ... Congratulations too --Mafoso (talk) 14:48, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations --MarisaLR (talk) 17:15, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good job and see Template talk:Cnote2[edit]

Good job on the Rosetta Stone, and I've answered your question on Template talk:Cnote2. 67.190.48.91 (talk) 07:44, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review for the Rosetta Stone article[edit]

Just received a thorough review, which you can see at Wikipedia:Peer_review/Rosetta_Stone/archive1. I suggest we divy up the work. Common practice in this area is to place your indented comments under each point when done making a fix, so the reviewer can verify that the change has been made, which they then cross off the list. Captmondo (talk) 19:44, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but would it be better to wait briefly in case other opinions and suggestions appear? I'm not familiar with the system.
The toolserver links are handy: didn't know about those.
The BC/BCE thing has had other hands involved besides ours, so no wonder there's inconsistency. Is your preference for BCE and CE? If so we'll go with it. I don't mind much.
As to the references/bibliography, we are already half way to the system used (with variations) on Royal Gold Cup and Chalukya Dynasty (recent FAs), and I would be happy to take it all the way. Since Wikipedia is so utterly inconsistent in this, I was just waiting for an opinion really. Andrew Dalby 20:47, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, just dive right in. Other opinions may or may not be forthcoming, and these suggestions are from an experienced reviewer. Also, be free to challenge on specific points if they are not clear or would like further guidance (I've never run across the idea of not starting a section with the article "The" before; as a copyeditor I would normally allow it myself, but there may be a guideline on WP I am not currently aware of). I do take his point about the lead section title—"The Stone"—as being awkward though.
My preference is for BCE, which is more the trend in historical journals these days. Honestly though, as long as it is consistent, it doesn't matter which form is used.
Given where the object is located, I suggest we keep with to British spelling whenever possible (I'd forgotten about "artefact" vs "artifact", that was a good catch on his part).
By all means tackle the bibliography format.
I don't know if you have checked the history of the article recently or not, but there has been several good minor copyedit passes done to it already, not only by the main reviewer but by some associates from the Ancient Egypt portal that I alerted over the weekend. So far the consensus from them has been very positive.
I don't have time this evening to tackle much, though I have fixed a problem somebody pointed out about the stele image not appearing when viewed in Internet Explorer. I re-saved the file in a Microsoft application and re-uploaded to Wikimedia Commons and that fixed the issue.
Will set aside some time tomorrow to tackle some of other issues. Cheers! Captmondo (talk) 02:18, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
With regards to the lead image used being a bit on the dark side I have to agree. I also agree that we are bound to use freely available images from Wikimedia Commons, so our available selection can be found here: [1]. Unfortunately it is hard to get a good shot of the RS because of a) the crowds that gather around it, and b) the glare of light shining off the glass case that surrounds it. (I should know, since I tried when I was there two years ago, and had no joy). Of the images that are there, I think there are two good candidates: [2] and [3]. Both have problems though: the first has a somewhat cheesy diffuse drop-shadow added to its outline plus some slight reflection from the glass to the right of the image, and the second has some serious flash glare on the right-hand side. Let me know which one you prefer and I'll see if I can Photoshop it tonight. Captmondo (talk) 12:40, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 12 July 2010[edit]


The Laszlo Garai case[edit]

I would ask a favour: let me understand whether the English Wikipedia is or is not interested in getting information also from non-English (e.g. Hungarian) sources. I mean, of course, reliable, trustworthy sources (such as, e.g., the Hungarian Academy of Sciences. If your answer to my question will be negative, I shall by no means insist on writing for the English Wikipedia further articles about Hungarian scholars. The matter is that I have two rather time-consuming pastimes: I am the research-manager of a large EU university department and I am writing a rather sizeable book on the scientific work of the outstanding Hungarian psychologist Laszlo Garai. As a matter of fact, this work of mine gave me the idea of presenting some elements of my findings in the English Wikipedia.

But in case you happen to think that these Wikipedia texts of mine has been of any use for your readers I would ask another favour: Please, investigate about the real motive for a serial deletion-destruction JzG has committed with all my texts wherever he found it in the Wikipedia- End if you find (as I concluded to) that s/he has nothing but some mean motivation for it, goive me, please, some safe, secure protection against it. And immediately delete, please, humiliating nonsense, JzG inserted to the starting point of the Garai Laszlo texte. Of course, I keep accepting all intelligible criticisme to my Wikipedia-texts.

Thanks! Szalagloria (talk) 08:47, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is based on reliable sources. Wikipedia articles (like scientific papers) need to have precise citations of reliable sources such that other editors can verify them. This is especially important with biographies of living persons such as Garai Laszlo; the sources need to be independent of him and his department. If you are writing a book on this topic, you will already know how to give precise bibliographic citations, and this is what you need to do here. Once you have properly footnoted the information about Garai, and as long as your footnotes demonstrate, from independent sources, that his work is notable, there will be no need for the template at the top of the page. Thank you for your comments. My problem has been (and still is) as follows. As you may see, my article about LG has precise citations but whether the sources are "reliable sources such that other editors can verify them", I maysay so, but only in principles: for that verifiability editors in question ought to understand Hungarian. It's no use three volumes of Laszlo Garai having been published by the Academic Press, two monographs by the editing house of two bigest Hungarian University Press and so on for five other volumes, they are published in Hungarian. Itz is why I have been driven to despair when I wrote the above cry for help. Szalagloria (talk) 06:08, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

You need to focus on giving true, precise citations. For example: you cite a book which you call "Personality dynamics and social existence" and you say that the publisher is "Academic Press". This seems to me completely wrong. The book's title is, I think, "Személyiségdinamika és társadalmi lét". You need to give that title (and then, if you like, an English translation afterwards). Also, the publisher is "Akadémiai Kiadó". This is a famous academic publisher in Budapest. You should not try to translate the name: it is not the same as "Academic Press", which is a British and US publisher. Also, you have not given the date of publication. What all this means is that you are not giving correct citations, and other editors find it difficult to verify your statements. Andrew Dalby 12:23, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
It is excellent! So you do understand Hungarian: otherwise you would not have been able to reproduce correctly Hungarian diacritical marks. And if it is so you would be the very third party editor, who could eastablish whether it is or isn't by any chance a mistake to declare the WP-article about the topic as being inappropriate for inclusion and destroy it repeatedly. If it is true, that
1., LG in 1969 in the volume you mentionned("Személyiségdinamika és társadalmi lét") presented his hypothesis of Specifically human basic need and the Akadémiai Kiadó immediately published it;
2., the reputed interdisciplinary review of Hung. Ac. Sc. "Magyar Tudomány" published a rather voluminous paper of the same author re-visiting his hypothesis 40 years later. --Szalagloria (talk) 22:43, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your critical remark about the mode I identified the Hungarian sources I referred to. I ignored the rule you indicate now and took the rule operative in my French acadenic world instead. In the nearest future I shall correct in this Garai-biography fault of mine. But at the same time I shall stop all further activity since I have taken into account that Hungarian sources for scientific discoveries are not considered interesting for the readers of English WP (should it be otherwise the abstracts I specially redacted from the Hungarian texts of LG would not be repeatedly deleted). Still I would have a respectfull petition: delete the starting framed remark about the established or not established notability of LG: this remark is humiliating not me but a respected (everywhere outside the English community of WP editors) scholar (see e.g.http://en.academic.ru/dic.nsf/enwiki/4974859). Szalagloria (talk) 22:43, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I can help you, because I don't know the subject area of psychology, and I didn't study the reasons why the template was placed there. But you are mistaken in believing that a notability template is humiliating: it is placed on an encyclopedia page, and the page cannot be humiliated. It is not a message to the subject -- he is not involved here at all. It is a plea to all editors (not just you) that the page needs accurate citations from independent sources, showing that the subject or his work is notable.
Wikipedians have many mother tongues -- there are many other Hungarian contributors, and there are thousands of biographies of Hungarians. You have had problems not because Laszlo Garai is Hungarian, but because you, personally, are very closely involved in his work. If you want to work on an encyclopedia, it's better to write about topics in which you are not emotionally involved. Andrew Dalby 09:14, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am very-very thankful to you for your unquestionable, manifest benevolence. However I am presenting now the earnest request to delete comptely and definitely my "Laszlo Garai" article. You definitely convinced me not that, as you put it, you could not "help me", but that nobody can from the English community of WP editors. You can't help me, you argue, "because I don't know the subject area of psychology" and it is a difficulty indeed. On the other hand, you console me, that "there are many other Hungarian contributors" and it is true. But we would need 1., Hungarian contributors 2., knowing the subject area of psychology, and 3., on top of everything, who could write English texts. Am I wrong?

Well, here am I, one who might satisfy this triple condition. Thus I specially redacted from the Hungarian texts of LG containing his scientific discoveries English abstracts for the non-Hungarian-speaking readers, including redactors who nothing but from these (mainly Hungarian academic!) sources could judge whether he is or isn't sufficiantly notable. Well, these souces has been completely destroyed and then the article got prefaced by the (I have to insiste on this point) humiliating template: "Please help to establish notability by adding reliable, secondary sources about the topic. If notability cannot be established, the article is likely to be merged, redirected, or deleted."

Isn't it funny?

Well, as you may have noticed, I have put a lot of work into this page. It was never your page -- material submitted to Wikipedia is free for others to use and improve -- and, having worked on it, I disagree with you that it should be deleted. I think he is notable by Wikipedia definition. I'm sorry if you won't help me to find a secondary source on his work. I'll just have to try to find one myself. Andrew Dalby 09:31, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now, let us take as an exemple the case of "Specifically human basic need". Prof. Garai presented it in 1960's. From 1962 to 1968 he published 6 papers in two journals of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, in 1968 he defended his kandidate's thesis that was published by the Akadémiai Kiadó [Academic Press]. Meanwhile the hypotheses was published by a French, a Spanish and two Russian scientific journals. The European Journal of Social Psychology published its longest ever book review on the book in question (F. Eros: "'Personality Dynamics and Social Existence', by L. Garai". 1974/3. 369-379.) For these and more details see Need for freedom, Specifically Human Basic Need (SHBN)

On one hand.

On the other: it got deleted. Wikipedia is based on reliable sources, isn't it?

Well then: I am asking humbly, delete "Laszlo Garai" as well. By no means I allow present my text mutilated. I would do the deletion by myself but my texte used to be linked to so many other textes and I don't know, how to eradicate all of them.

I can't delete it: I am only an editor, just like you, and editors cannot delete Wikipedia pages. However, now that you have told me about Eros's long review of Garai's book, I can include a reference to the review. That is all that was needed: a reference to some independent person's published opinion on Garai's work. Now that we have this, the template can be removed.
After I have inserted the reference and removed the template, look again at the page. I hope you will think that I have improved it, not mutilated it. Andrew Dalby 14:43, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, well, I was too optimistic: the template was put back again. It's true: more was needed. Andrew Dalby 20:22, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just throwing in my $0.02: take a look at Notability (academics) for the specific guidelines that need to be addressed.
From my cursory glance at the article, it seems to me like he fits most of the criteria. In the end, if you are systematic in applying the specific notability rules as they apply to academics, you should be fine. Captmondo (talk) 21:51, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When I thank you once more for what you have tried with this article I have to ask yo: Was I wrong when maintained that the only thing to be taken into consideration is what is written in English? Please, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Help_desk#The_case_of_.22Specifically_human_basic_need.22. Szalagloria (talk) 07:15, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it really is not a language problem. It is that you need to find writings by other people about Garai's work. Andrew Dalby 09:14, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 19 July 2010[edit]

Ready for taking the Rosetta Stone article to FA nomination?[edit]

Okay, I think we are at the point where we can safely take this to an FA nom. without it being immediately shot down. There will still be work to do undoubtedly. Let me know when you are ready and I can start the process for taking this article to the FA nomination process if you like. Cheers! Captmondo (talk) 13:33, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: File:RosettaStoneAsPartOfOriginalStele.jpg Info Wanted[edit]

Just saw the comment for this on the Rosetta Stone FA page. Just to let you know that I have seen it, but am currently in the wilds of Northern Ontario for the weekend, and so am very distant from my library at the moment. ;-) Will likely get to it on Sunday evening my time.

For the record, I think the English FA nom for the article is going very smoothly, especially as so far there has only been comments and no objections.

Cheers! Captmondo (talk) 13:29, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem: have a good weekend! I'm glad you noted the question. I guess we could add (in caption or text) a link or reference to the BM's reconstructed image, which, I imagine, we still can't use on the page. Andrew Dalby 14:53, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 26 July 2010[edit]

Re: some mistake, Captmondo?[edit]

No, we seemingly have a revisionist Macedonian who is making his amendments to the RS article, along with his sockpuppet. Not to worry, everyone seems to be keeping on eye on the RS article (and him). Captmondo (talk) 14:34, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thanks. But I do not fit that description and you reverted me and not him. Thank you Andrew for correcting this obvious mistake and don't mind my temporary intrusion on your talkpage. BTW it is always a great pleasure talking to you :) Take care. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 16:05, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 2 August 2010[edit]

Just saying hi[edit]

Greetings Andrew! You may remember me from the Macedonia arbitration case. I ran across your name in the most peculiar way, seeing you had created the French Latin page for Emmanuel Benakis - I did the English one a while ago. Well, I just finished Ioannis Papafis, another benefactor of Greece. As in all things Wikipedian no-one writes in your talk page just to say hi :) -... well not really... I since I happen to have Dr.K's page in my watch list ;-)- ... I'd just like to ask you to check out those two pages, a bit of copyedit if you may. You see I'm not exactly confident about my grammar.

Take care and have a nice summertime! Shadowmorph ^"^ 11:27, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response from Botteville[edit]

Oh Hello, Andrew. I remember you from earlier in my WP careen. I won't say say career, because no one gets paid for this. Some other editors were getting abusive and somehow your name got associated with it. I'm not even going to bother to look it up, as I always did regret that. I'm gratified to hear from such a famous (of sorts) author. I've used your language book, I believe, as a source - I can't remember if as a formal reference. I was on Greek studies for while but one simply cannot do everything here. I've been concentrating on the Italic and of course my native state. At some point I do plan to get back to the Greek. I find that after time goes by deadlocks often get broken. The issue I think was whether the possibility of Homer actually existing should even be mentioned. I didn't see any reason not to mention it, still don't. I'm not revisiting right now. But, when I do, with my current experience, I will not be accepting any baloney or abuse as an excuse for not following WP policy. The Homer theory is far from dead. One problem with scholars on WP is that they want to contribute scholarship here, which they are not supposed to do. We're only reporting on authoritative points of view. You know, Andrew, I agree with you, working on WP does give you immediate article-writing experience. One just has to be careful to make the fine distinction. These are not articles as such they are only papers. I found the linguistics papers in pretty tough shape so if you are sticking with WP and not going entirely off into scholar-land that is an area that could use some expertise and experience. I will get back to the articles you mention, only not right now. When I do the fur may be going to fly. But, I've learned one can't be distracted by these issues often over inconsequential points from what one is trying to accomplish. I only have so much time. Unlike you I have to keep the wolf from the door and these wolves seem to be of ravenous ice-age type. But thank you for the thought, in the message anyway. Whether I will have to agree with you or take you on I do not know, won't know until I start to get back there. Best wishes.Dave (talk) 12:29, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 9 August 2010[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:00, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Entering the "home stretch" for the RS article[edit]

Hello there:

I believe we are now entering the final phases of the FA review process for the RS article. Pending any further comments that might hold it up, from what I have seen previously I believe that the process will likely be closed within another week or so.

Have been keeping a close eye on things, and refrained from commenting on Thanatosimii's query, as it is not my area of expertise. (He and I both worked on bringing the Ahmose I article up to FA status a few years ago, so I have worked with him before). I am glad (and impressed) with the depth of Iustinus's reply to Thanatosimii's query (I know that Ptolemaic-era hieroglyphics often differ significantly from those of previous eras, after all the number of hieroglyphs exploded in this time), but Iustinus was able to bring a depth of knowledge in his reply beyond what I could have been able to do, so kudos to him for that.

I know it has been a bit of a slog, but hold on a little while longer and I believe we will get the RS article to FA status soonish.

Cheers! Captmondo (talk) 13:32, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations on the Rosetta Stone article going to FA status! It's been great collaborating with you on it.
So the usual next stage in this process is nominating it to appear on the main page. Do you have any preference as to the date it should appear (preference is given to anniversaries). Cheers! Captmondo (talk) 14:53, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rosetta Stone FAC[edit]

Great work on the article! I had some comments on the FAC I hope you can help with. Jayjg (talk) 03:36, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 16 August 2010[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 07:40, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rosetta Barnstar[edit]

The Rosetta Barnstar
For the FA-class work done on the Rosetta Stone article in both the Latin and English Wikipedia, I can't think of a more appropriate award. Captmondo (talk) 15:04, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 23 August 2010[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 19:36, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rosetta Stone review[edit]

Hey mate! It's been a while since I've seen any activity at Talk:Rosetta Stone on the prose review. Are you interested in continuing? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 14:08, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 30 August 2010[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 14:45, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 6 September 2010[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 22:20, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Translating a very short shell description from Latin?[edit]

Hi Andrew Dalby. Can I ask you if you know anyone who can perhaps do us at WikiProject Gastropods a favor by translating a Latin phrase written by an 18th century biologist (they did not always use very correct Latin, plus it's in note form)? It's a short description of the shell of the Dog conch pictures here, as written by Carolus Linnaeus. In fact it's his original description of the shell of that species from his book Systema Naturae published in 1758. It reads as follows:

S. testae labro rotundato brevi retuso, spiraque laevi.

I think "S." is an abbreviation for the genus name "Strombus".

Many thanks, Invertzoo (talk) 01:06, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 13 September 2010[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 18:55, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rosettana again[edit]

Vobis gratulor!! --Iustinus (talk) 00:42, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 20 September 2010[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 21:30, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 27 September 2010[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 20:31, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 4 October 2010[edit]

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 23:30, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Andrew_Dalby/Archive_2009_to_2010&oldid=1166515872"