User talk:Lemurbaby/Archive 2

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

Cuisine of Madagascar[edit]

I will be glad to take a look at it and make some comments, though it may take me a few days. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:22, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Featured Article promotion[edit]

Congratulations!
Thanks for all the work you did in making Malagasy cuisine a Featured Article! Your work is much appreciated.

Thanks also for your reviews. Featured article candidates and Good Article nominees always need more reviewers! All the best, – Quadell (talk)

Excellent job! Congrats! – VisionHolder « talk » 19:51, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Congrats. Great job. --Redtigerxyz Talk 05:42, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Feologild/GA1[edit]

I see you quick failed the article for being "... inadequately developed to meet GA standards. Please continue to expand upon the content." However, that is all that is known about the subject. The Oxford Dictionary of National Biography entry (can be seen here if you have access) is all of 61 words, while the current Wiki article incorporates pretty much all information known or speculated upon him. Rather than take this directly to GAR, I've brought this here to discuss with you first, realizing that you're relatively new to GA reviewing. I'll point out Wikipedia:What the Good article criteria are not , section 3, where it states a mistake to avoid is "Requiring the inclusion of information that is not known or addressed by reliable sources." and "Imposing arbitrary size restrictions, rather than directly addressing GA issues of coverage, conciseness, focus and the use of summary style." Sometimes there just isn't coverage of every aspect, especially for early medieval subjects. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:26, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ealdgyth, I can entirely relate to the challenge of limited sources for historic figures. I've written several articles on 17th century kings of Madagascar whose accounts have survived through oral history, and you're right - sometimes there's just a limit to what can be said. It would have been helpful to indicate as much on the article talk page to help reviewers understand you were at least trying to be thorough. That being said, there is more that can be added about this man, and particularly given the short length of the article it really does require that you or other interested editors do your best to flesh out the story as completely as possible. Nobody likes a quick fail - it always feels unfair, especially when there are not many comments to justify it. If I could have seen some evidence that you believed you'd done a fair job of gathering all known information about him, I would have gone into more detail in the comments. However in this case the quick fail is not without reason because there's more that can be said on this person. I've expanded my comments on the review talk page. If you can make those changes and resubmit, I'd be happy to work with you to pass the article. Best of luck, and thank you for all your contributions to the site. Lemurbaby (talk) 00:53, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article promotion[edit]

You did it again!
Another round of congratulations are in order for all the work you did in making Ranavalona III a certified "Good Article"! Thank you; your work is much appreciated. All the best, – Quadell (talk)

And again! Ranavalona I is a good article as well. Congrats! – Quadell (talk) 14:34, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Page blanking and redirecting[edit]

What was your reason for wiping out Ranavalona III and copying the content to Ranavalona III of Madagascar? (The same question goes for the talk page, which you wiped.) If you want to move an article, there's a "Move" option. If you don't have permission, then you should request the move of an administrator. Anyway, page moves should generally be discussed before being implemented. – VisionHolder « talk » 16:58, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've decided to revert this for now. Let's discuss it on the talk page. In the future, if a move is needed and a redirect already exists (which you can't overwrite), please use {{Requested move}}. – VisionHolder « talk » 17:03, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the other pages for royalty, Name of Country seems to be the standard format for article titles. That's why I changed it, in preparation for moving them through the FAC process. I didn't realize that redirects weren't supposed to be done by anyone else, or that there was a separate process for "moving" an article. It seems the articles need to be renamed the way that I just changed them to be. What is the best way to proceed? Lemurbaby (talk) 18:51, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, I apologize—I don't want to discourage you from being bold. This was just a simple faux pas. The issue at stake here is the edit history of the three articles. By simply copying and pasting the content to a new article, you leave behind the edit history on a redirect page. Using the "move" option is strongly preferred for page moves since it preserves the history. However, in these three cases, the redirects already existed. Because you don't have admin rights (nor do I), you can't overwrite another page, regardless of the fact that it's just a redirect. In order to proceed, you should technically use the {{Requested move}} template on the article and, as the documentation for the template says, start a discussion on the article's talk page so that people can discuss the issue. In more clear-cut cases where there's clearly an error in the article's name, you might just drop a note on an admin's talk page (someone you know) asking for help. In the cases here, I'm not 100% certain you need to add the country name behind the ruler's name. I don't know of any stated convention for it, and it seems like only half of the GAs under "Royalty, nobility and heraldry" follow this. I'd say you could either wait for FAC and make sure that reviewers share this view, or use the {{Requested move}} template and make your case per the directions. It may take a couple of weeks, but it will be resolved before you finish your next FAC. Hope this helps! – VisionHolder « talk » 19:22, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Btw, this should answer the question as to whether or not the articles will need to be renamed: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility) From what I read, they do not need to be renamed. So unless I read it wrong, if someone says something about it at FAC, I would direct them there. – VisionHolder « talk » 23:13, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rova FAC[edit]

Thanks for the notices. It has been long enough that I need to carefully reread the article before commenting on it at the FAC. I have been quite busy in real life of late and so have not yet had time to do this, but should be able to do so in a few days at most. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:31, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have a look later today. Note that I also have an older current FAC which could do with more reviews Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:06, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

William L. Walsh[edit]

Hello Lemurbaby. There has been no recent improvements to the William L. Walsh article for GA status. Possibly this article needs to be withdrawn from the Good Article nominations page, unless, recommendations have been addressed. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:00, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Main page appearance[edit]

Hello! This is a note to let the main editors of this article know that it will be appearing as the main page featured article on August 11, 2011. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/August 11, 2011. If you think it is necessary to change the main date, you can request it with the featured article directors Raul654 (talk · contribs) or his delegate Dabomb87 (talk · contribs), or at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions of the suggested formatting. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :D Thanks! Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 18:52, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lemon and mango sauces traditionally accompany meals in the northwestern coastal regions of Madagascar.

Malagasy cuisine encompasses the diverse culinary traditions of the island of Madagascar. Foods eaten in Madagascar reflect the influence of Southeast Asian, African, Indian, Chinese and European migrants that have settled on the island. Rice, the cornerstone of the Malagasy diet, was cultivated alongside tubers and other Southeast Asian staples by the island's earliest settlers from Borneo. Their diet was supplemented by scavenging and hunting wild game, which contributed to the extinction of the island's megafauna. These food sources were later complemented by beef in the form of zebu. Trade with Arab and Indian merchants and European transatlantic traders further enriched the island's culinary traditions by introducing a wealth of new fruits, vegetables and seasonings. Throughout almost the entire island, the contemporary cuisine of Madagascar consists of a base of rice typically with an accompaniment termed laoka. A wide variety of sweet and savory fritters as well as other street foods are available across the island, as are diverse tropical and temperate-climate fruits. Locally produced beverages include fruit juices, coffee, herbal and black teas, and alcoholic drinks such as rum, wine and beer. (more...)

Ranavalona III[edit]

You mention a pregnant Razafinandriamanitra and then call her Razafindramanitra a few lines down. Which is the correct spelling? You might want to change that.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 16:44, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for catching that! I'll fix it now. Lemurbaby (talk) 16:46, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wondering who is this Marie-Louise you mentioned in the article does she have a Madagascan name besides her French name?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 18:57, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen several different Malagasy names used in association with her, but I'm not sure which one (if any) is correct. I've seen Ranavalo, Razafinandriamanitra, Razafinkeriefo (this doesn't look like a real Malagasy name to me!)... Also, there are quite a few people who claim to be a descendant of Ranavalona III via a daughter she supposedly had with her first husband (who was reportedly poisoned so Razafindrahety could be married to Rainilaiarivony). She reportedly sent the infant to be raised in the countryside with a sister,. The child's whereabouts were kept hidden and her existence had essentially been forgotten and was kept a secret by the extended family when Razafindrahety became Queen Ranavalona III under such suspicious circumstances. I wish I could write all about that in the article, but all the discussion about it is in online genealogy forums and not in any "official" sources. Lemurbaby (talk) 19:17, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I requested for the lead image on this article to be clean up and added the new image and a signature of the Queen. See if you have any other opinions to these changes at Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Photography workshop#Ranavalona III. I think the image might be too bright but I don't know.KAVEBEAR (talk) 00:30, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Were you aware that your nomination is not transcluded at the main FAC page? DrKay (talk) 09:03, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats and a question[edit]

Congratulations on the recent Main Page appearance.

I looked carefully at the map File:Map of Rova of Antananarivo Madagascar 1990.jpg and one structure, No. 9 "Soamiadanana", is not mentioned by that name anywhere in the article that I can find. Can you please clarify? Thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:36, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Ruhrfisch. I actually can't say much more about Soamiadanana. The source I used to make the 1800 map shows the location of the building (also called Soaniadanana in some alternate versions of the map) but does not provide any other information on it. The building is also not mentioned in the classic transcription of Merina oral history (Tantara ny Andriana eto Madagasikara), which was clearly one of the original mapmaker's primary sources. Nonetheless, that researcher is very well-reputed, so he probably based the map on unpublished primary sources in Madagascar that I can't get here at the Library of Congress. Print sources and archeological information about the Rova are pretty limited for this early time period. I can't add anything to the article in regard to that building, but it would be unjustified to remove it from the 1800 map. However, I am about to redo the 1990 map. I have a better illustration to use now and it does NOT specify Soamiadanana on it. I will be uploading it shortly. Lemurbaby (talk) 21:31, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks[edit]

Thank you for comments at the Caroline of Ansbach FA candidacy. We've made some changes to the article hopefully in line with your comments. DrKay (talk) 12:08, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Church of the Holy Mother of God, Donja Kamenica/GA1[edit]

This has been on hold for 48 days now - are you planning on concluding soon? Jezhotwells (talk) 22:09, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Featured Article promotion[edit]

Congratulations!
Thanks for all the work you did in making Rova of Antananarivo a Featured Article! Please accept this award. Your work is much appreciated. – Quadell (talk)

International community[edit]

Hello, regarding the edit on Andry Rajoelina. I need to tell you that international community is a phrase of term and is not something that an objective medium would use liberally. When used positively, it invariably implies a preponderance for global powers; when used negatively, it usually originates from those who may feel victim (such as by politicians of smaller/weaker states) to an injustice in claims such as "why is the international community doing ABC for XYZ but not for us?", I recall examples when people were up in arms about Abkhazia and South Ossetia in Georgia, 2008, using echoes of Kosovo earlier the same year. You mention "civil" in your summary. In world affairs, the only voice is the government; only it speaks to others who themselves are governments at smallest, or intergovernmental organisations on a bigger picture. That is to say, public opinion is irrelevant. More to the point, even if we wanted to introduce a new section to state that the coup in Madagascar was unpopular with ordinary folk throughout the world, how do we go about proving this? Blogs? Statistics? I'll be fair with you, give the average British person a map of Europe and he'll have difficulties finding Ireland. To many people in many places, affairs of African nations don't make mainstream news and this certainly didn't. Libya is hot on people's mounths but Ivory Coast wasn't when a similar "opposition closes in on government" scenario occurred in the previous months. The only important reactions to political acts are the responses from governments and organisations, they are on another plain. This brings me back to referring to the IC, you probably know of not single time that the U.S. was "comdemned by the IC" or that the IC stood firmly by one view which the U.S. believed differently. Sometimes the "international community" (even when referring to governments) is in a minority. A good example is Iran's nuclear ambitions, denounced as being against the will of the international community and yet Iran was endorsed by 118 countries. The UN only has 193 members. On one note, you are right, the rump term "international community" is given to take in cultures and ordinary populations but as I stated before, not only will we find no information on public opinion throughout the world on the coup, but you can also bet your money that views would in any case be mixed. If you're lucky, you'll get a majority that condemned the action but that won't make the remainder a lesser faction of the IC. I don't have an opinion on coups, to me, what happens happens and I am poweless to prevent it. I do know however that wherever and whenever it happens, there is a reason and it is never because things are beautiful for everybody. In Libya for example, Captain Gaddafi took control by ousting the king which now looks despotic but people sidestep the fact that Libya had been oil-rich for ten years and all of the money was confined to the central circle. All right, a coup simply meant that one evil was replaced by another! But the point is - not everything was beautiful for the Libyan people before September 1969. My roots are in the Balkans (especially former Yugoslavia). In the whole region of south-eastern Europe, you will NEVER get "one voice" - it is irrational. Many people follow world affairs, that is their mainstream the way people follow showbusiness in other countries. You watch the news and after 20 minutes of today's parliament, they switch to the outside world, they inform you that there was a coup somewhere in the world and that the U.S. president along with his NATO allies have condemned this, they are then told that their own leader has "mirrored" the "IC's" view and joined the parade of disgruntled. What then happens with the folk? Most of them instantly smell a rat - is this political or moral? 101 times out of 100 it is political, then as others take an interest they familiarise themselves with the conditions that led the coup in question and before you know it, a thousand opinions are formed! This is the same with people in the Caucasus and everywhere that their land has been embroiled in international affairs. This is why I suggest we modify it. If there is such thing as the IC - everyone is part of it, so logically nobody can be outside of it and court condemnation by it! It would at most be "the rest of the international community". High profile world leaders/governments is more truthful and appropriate as they are the ones with whom a new administration will have direct dealings. If however, the source suggests that there was widespread dissatisfaction from the public in Tonga, Bolivia, Belarus, Iceland, Chad, Angola, Nicaragua, Benin and St.Kitts & Nevis over what happened, we need to state this separately as even THAT still presents IC in a political light. The administration's supporters approved it if nobody else in the world did. Newsreel and journalism is one thing and an encyclopaedia is different - I oppose the use of "régime" for the same reason. Its literal meaning is innocent and well-defined, its practical usage however expresses dissatisfaction towards the target being labelled one, as testified by no citations of "my régime" uttered by a president; or "the régime of my ally" by the same! Can we work on this one? Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 11:38, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm using international community precisely because it is what's being used in all the media discussions within and outside Madagascar to characterize where the opposition to the HAT lies. I've never heard any newspaper or televised news report speak about "international governments" opposing the HAT - it's always the "international community." You raise plenty of good logical points but this is the predominant term used, so it makes sense to use it here rather than invent one of our own, and thereby set a new precedent, don't you think? Lemurbaby (talk) 12:30, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You hit the nail on the head when you said the word "media". Regardless what they say and what IC means in its fullest form, the truth is that it is simply the power bases that transmit their thoughts and in turn have power to act. There are ways around this - let's explore one of them. How about we say "in a move that was widely condemned" and avoid mentioning collective names for pseudo-organisations. For the record, IC is not subjective at all; for those who do not speak of it, when wishing to refer to the same nexus they will cite the global elite. This stretches from people to governments and includes media. I'll await your reply. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 22:30, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Widely condemned" is quite vague - it fails to explain who is doing the condemning. Even if the International Community is a global elite, that doesn't change the fact that the term is globally recognized shorthand for a group of organizations (governments, civil society orgs) that have almost universally condemned Rajoelina's regime. It is also from the International Community that the Rajoelina regime alternately seeks or rejects the IC's stamp of approval (and thereby, the HAT's legitimacy). Given that the term "International Community" is widely understood and used within and outside of Madagascar when describing the very situation that the article discusses, why are you so intent on changing the terminology? It isn't misleading because it is widely and internationally understood for what it is, and in fact as the shorthand that it is, using any other term might be more confusing and misleading than the present one to the average reader who would anticipate seeing "International Community" rather than an alternate term.
As regards the use of the word "regime" - you're probably right. It would be more correct in English to say "administration." In French, the word for administration is "regime", and since I'm pulling so much of the information for the Madagascar articles from French language sources, sometimes I forget there is another implied meaning for the word in English. Lemurbaby (talk) 01:34, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I always change "régime" with administration or government and it has never been challenged. I generally always amend "IC" with world leaders, governments, etc. and this too had never hitherto met with resistance. I'm sorry to say but I will not settle for "IC" in any circumstance as the term is POV. I still say, the message can be delivered without having to use it. If "widely" is too vague, I'll suggest something else. In your above statement however, I cannot help notice that you too have the habit of using "IC" with the language of official sanction when you know there is no such body. We can speak of the UN, NATO, OPEC, NAFTA, ECOWAS, the EU, CEFTA et al, but there is no "International Community" rotating presidency, flag, seat or true representation, to that end there can be no such thing as a "stamp of approval". As for its recognition? The congoscenti will permanently take this to mean the powerful heads of state. Media will use it liberally but there is more than enough publication out there that condemns its usage and exposes it for its true nature. How does the following example sound to you? ...in a move that was internationally condemned or condemned by most of the world. Better? Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 08:54, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It sounds like we can both acknowledge that the media related to the situation in Madagascar commonly uses the term International Community. I do want to clarify, however, that the media itself is stating that the HAT is "seeking the approval of the international community", or that the international community has condemned the HAT. This is not my opinion, or a reflection of my own word choice - this is the language used in common parlance and in the media and does not necessarily reflect my personal views at all. Furthermore, in my many discussions with Malagasy people about this situation (including Malagasy politicians, members of civil society organizations and your average Joe), they themselves constantly use the term "international community" to describe what we're talking about here. The term is a real and legitimate one in the field of international affairs, and one that embodies distinct meaning from its components (such as government or NGOs etc) in that it is meant to represent a "community of humanity" in a certain sense, a sort of grouping of the peoples and their leaders who share the predominant positive universal values of the day. In practice, of course, there are the practical ways this community is operationalized through government spokespeople, contradictory values it may seem to represent, or contradictory meaning that people invoke in using the term (most of which you discussed above, and which form the basis for the criticism that you and others offer of the term).
As I stated earlier, I don't see it as our role to create new precedent for "correct" terminology when there is already a term widely used in multiple languages when describing an issue, and particularly this specific issue. Although previously you haven't encountered resistance from others about changing from IC to "world governments" or something similar, each circumstance is different and in this case the use of IC seems most appropriate. It's a bit concerning to me that you say you "will not settle for IC in any circumstances as the term is POV." I think that's something highly debatable, and perhaps largely irrelevant in this case, because the term is in common parlance when describing this situation, and your disinclination to use the term may effectively hinder the average reader's understanding of the situation by demanding changes in terminology. The appropriateness of the use of the term really ought to be situation-specific, because the term is not inherently incorrect or non-neutral. Even the definition listed here on Wikipedia does not appear non-neutral. - Lemurbaby (talk) 12:29, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a reference from BBC that states the situation in Madagascar was "condemned as a coup by the international community." Now that I have included this specific example of the language choice in this article, let's agree to a mutual understanding of the validity of using the term in the context of the Madagascar situation, at least as the most appropriate term to be used on WP when discussing the issue due to the precedent set in international media. This is for the ease of comprehension among readers who may already be familiar with the body of reporting and analysis on the topic in English, French or whatever other language and who will be expecting consistency in the terminology when reading about it here. I respect your views but can't agree that it will be beneficial in the case of writings on Madagascar on WP to substitute alternative terms based on your perceptions of the meaning (or lack of meaning) represented by the term International Community.
I'm working hard on a number of Madagascar-related articles right now (I am in essence the only person writing any substantive articles related to the country's people, rather than its wildlife) so I probably won't be very available to respond further in this discussion, but if you do feel very strongly about this, I encourage you to bring it up to a mediator who can act as a neutral arbiter in the decision process. Thanks for all of your contributions on WP, and for the thoughtful discussion. - Lemurbaby (talk) 12:47, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Believe you me, I know you are working hard on Madagascar-based topics and I don't want that to change. Because IC - in my mind - is in POV territory, I would be far happier to find a solution. Before I announce another suggestion, can I make it clear that I am not an apologist for Rajoelina (I detest all political figures everywhere but that's just Evlekis) and it is not my intention to amend the actual content. What happened happened, you know and I know the circumstances concerning the military split and how he seized power tactically. I know we've exhausted everything we need to say about the "IC" but I cannot help but feel it is unencyclopaedic. Remember me saying it was used either positively or negatively but never in such a way as to encompass what it actually means? The remnant here of its true meaning is - and I grant you this - it states "most of the IC", had it said "IC" alone then that would certainly have been POV. But don't put it past its proponents!!! I sometimes find it funny that the term is used when it is jaw-droppingly obvious that it doesn't include everybody! When you've been a naughty boy, you're not in it! When you ARE that naughty boy, you're on the outside looking inward (that's what I meant about "negative" usage). So - George W.Bush and western press cited IC as disapproving Iran's nuclear ambitions when over half the world's states gave it the thumbs-up. In 2000 after Slobodan Milošević was ousted, Tony Blair hailed the revolution and spoke of welcoming Serbia "back into the international community" (surmising that it - or FR Yugoslavia as was then - has been expelled from this nexus), whilst from the negative angle, Robert Mugabe when addressing the UN cited the "illegal sanctions imposed on Zimbabwe by the IC". In and of itself it means nothing but somehow we both know that Zimbabwe itself didn't play a very active role in the imposing of sanctions upon its own self!! You don't need me to provide sources for these things. Anyhow, back to the article. The original source stated mainly the AU, normally - as you know - when IC is mentioned, we know that also implies the west. Do you feel the same message can be conveyed if we were to say "vehemently condemned across the globe including disapproval from the AU whose members refuse to recognise his governance, and by the west" - and obviously, we can develop "west" to mean what it needs to. It's long-winded but nobody on this world can dispute it or call it POV. What do you think? Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 18:10, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Church of the Holy Mother of God, Donja Kamenica[edit]

Hi! I've followed your advice and renominated Church of the Holy Mother of God, Donja Kamenica at WP:GAN, with all images removed (because they were all from the same source). Thanks very much for offering to do that, I'd be glad if you can review the article once more! Best, — Toдor Boжinov — 06:35, 2 September 2011 (UTC

David Jones[edit]

Thanks for your kind comments and very informative articles on Madagascar: I've learned a lot from them! Philip.marshall (talk) 14:22, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Matangi[edit]

Thanks for the GA review. Please take a look. I have made a few changes. --Redtigerxyz Talk 05:40, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have replied on GA page. --Redtigerxyz Talk 04:40, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the pass. --Redtigerxyz Talk 16:26, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

re:Merina Kingdom vs Kingdom of Madagascar[edit]

In my opinion we should rename the Merina Kingdom to Kindgom of Madagascar (Fanjakan'i Madagasikara), because the article only covers the unification of the island till the end of the Monarchy. Actually the kindgom of Imerina is much older that stated in the article : it's written that it was established in 1787 whereas first known Kings of Imerina reigned in the 16th century. We can keep the article name but then we will need to change the date of the establishment and add more details about pre-unification epoch.

I am not opposed in creating a separate article about the Merina Kingdom and the Kingdom of Madagascar. But you will have to rename Merina Kingdom (a small Kingdom established in the 15th century which will become more and more extended) by Kingdom of Madagascar which will be about a "modern" Kingdom (officially recognized by European powers). Respectfully yours, --Jagwar - (( talk )) 19:02, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Antoni Gaudí[edit]

Hey, I noticed that one edit you made severely truncated the talk page. I don't know if you intended to do that or not. Should we attempt to recover and archive the old discussions? I am afraid the old Spanish vs. Catalan identity thing is going to come up again. Elizium23 (talk) 19:50, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Antoni Gaudí[edit]

Hi Lemurbaby, thanks for your note. I was very pleased to see other sensible people were taking an interest in this article, and I congratulate you on your diligence! I'll take a look and see if there's anything more I can do. By the way, please let me know when you actually pass it as GA. Thanks. AdeMiami (talk) 17:31, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seasonal greetings[edit]




Merry Christmas and best wishes for a happy, healthy and productive 2014!
Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:56, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 25 December 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 01 January 2014[edit]

Amakuru mabi (Bad news) - more work for us to do I'm afraid![edit]

I was having a look through the articles on the WikiProject (and thanks again for all the assessments there), but I realised that there are a number of articles that have for whatever reason never been added to the project. Some of those are really quite important ones like Mountain gorilla, Fred Rwigyema, Agathe Uwilingiyimana and Kibeho Massacre. So I've been spending today and yesterday going through categories, starting from Category:Rwanda and working down the tree. In general this seems to work really well - I think most of the important articles are captured this way (and often several times via different routes through the tree). I'm about half way through the list of 1,471 articles covered now, adding in the WPRWANDA template to each that didn't already have it. Sadly I haven't categorised any of them though because it was a time consuming enough task just adding them! There are a few categories that are descendants of Rwanda that I decided to stop following, for example Category:French language, Category:Recipients of the Royal Order of the Intare (Rwanda) and Category:Great Rift Valley because those led down to articles with pretty much no connection to Rwanda, e.g. Donald Rumsfeld and Aqaba. I also kept in a few that I wish I hadn't, for example Category:Treaties of Rwanda and Category:Tutsi people (not great because it includes Burundians as well). I might go back and weed a few of those out afterwards.

Anyway, once that's done (hopefully by tomorrow evening), I'll then over a longer period of time go back and start the more painful task of actually classifying them for importance and status. So, eventually we should have the final picture on what we need to work on. Onwards and upwards!  — Amakuru (talk) 00:38, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 08 January 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 15 January 2014[edit]

Rwanda articles classified and page views[edit]

Hi

Just to let you know that I've finished off classifying the remaining Rwanda articles, and I've also been having a bit of fun writing an application to collate data for every article using the page view stats at http://stats.grok.se! I've calculated the total page views across the whole year, and also the median daily views (which gives us a better idea of those that are consistently looked at day-to-day rather than those that might receive a spike, as Dian Fossey did last week when she was featured on the Google Doodle). The results are at Wikipedia:WikiProject Rwanda/Article Views 2013. Not particularly well formatted right now, and some of them such as English language, are probably not ones we'd consider improving under an exclusive Rwanda banner, but the list does give us a clue as to what is most sought after anyway!

Thanks, and hope things are going well in Pakistan at the moment!  — Amakuru (talk) 22:09, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 22 January 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 29 January 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 29 January 2014[edit]

Rape during the Rwandan Genocide[edit]

I respectfully request you restore the content you removed, it most certainly belongs it this article. You also need to mention who wrote that content, or at least where you copy and pasted it from, see copying within wikipedia. Darkness Shines (talk) 01:51, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Smith[edit]

Hi Carrie, how are you? I hope you're well. I don't usually do this but I remember about a month ago you showed an interest in reviewing a Rhodesia article, so I thought I would drop you a line so you could have first dibs on this one. I've spent the last couple months writing a fresh Ian Smith article from scratch, and have just nominated for GA. As you probably know this is one of the biggest Rhodesia articles there is and I must warn you it's a very long one at over 13,000 words. Anyway, if you are interested in looking at the article (and have a lot of spare time!) there it is. Keep well, take care. —Cliftonian (talk) 15:12, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi John, and happy new year! Hope you had a chance to enjoy the snow last month. Here in Islamabad it's been cold as well and gas has been low so it's been tough to heat the house or even boil water for tea. Still, we get by. Internet is still working. ;) Incredible job you've done on the Ian Smith article. Thanks for giving me first crack - I will happily review it, though it may take me a little time to work through the whole thing. I'm so glad WP has someone like you to fill the Rhodesia gaps on here, and do it so well. - Lemurbaby (talk) 05:03, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you very much for the very kind words! A Happy New Year to you too! Luckily we don't have such problems here with the gas. I'm very glad to hear you like the article and look forward to hearing (well, seeing) your thoughts. A project like this takes a bit of effort from everyone, and if everybody covers their areas of expertise as well as you do the Madagascar subjects, we'll do well. —Cliftonian (talk) 16:44, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Carrie, thank you very much for the great review! I'm glad you seem to have enjoyed reading the article. I have just nominated at FAC here if you are interested in taking part there as well. Have a great rest of the weekend, and thanks again for your very kind words before! =) —Cliftonian (talk) 14:04, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 12 February 2014[edit]

Chilembwe uprising[edit]

Hi Lemurbaby,

I've got an African article up for GAN and I don't suppose you'd be willing to do the review? It's the Chilembwe uprising - an important anti-colonial uprising in Nyasaland in 1915. Thanks! Brigade Piron (talk) 09:36, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 19 February 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 26 February 2014[edit]

(test) The Signpost: 05 March 2014[edit]

Zim hockey team[edit]

Hi Carrie, how are you? I hope you are well. I am just dropping you a note to let you know that I have nominated the article on the Zimbabwe women's national field hockey team at the 1980 Summer Olympics at FAC. This is a bit of a change of pace for me as you can see—while I usually burden myself with massive tracts of political and/or military history in this case we have an uplifting, fun story of an underdog's victory against the odds. Anyway, I thought you might enjoy the article. If your schedule allows your thoughts would of course be very much appreciated. Cheers! =) —Cliftonian (talk) 20:29, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 12 March 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 19 March 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 26 March 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 02 April 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 09 April 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 23 April 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 30 April 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 07 May 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 14 May 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 21 May 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 28 May 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 04 June 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 11 June 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 18 June 2014[edit]

Reference Errors on 24 June[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:36, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fady (taboo)[edit]

Hi Lemurbaby,

I don't know if you're still active on Wiki, but I've recently created the article on Fady (taboo) (a Malagasy thing) which I would certainly welcome your contribution to!

All the best, Brigade Piron (talk) 17:49, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Brigade Piron. It's true I've been away from WP for a while, mostly because of the long hours I've been working at the office. But a couple of days ago I got spurred to come back a little bit when I saw the article about a self-important 18th century adventurer claimed he was "king of Madagascar" during the reign of King Andrianampoinimerina, and had to do something to stick a fork in that glowing example of systemic bias. Working on fixing it now. :) I read your work on the Fady article and it's excellent - a great addition! WP really needed this article since the concept is referenced all over the place in articles about Madagascar. I went through and found all the articles with the word "fady" and added the link, so it's integrated into the web of Mada articles. Thank you for your work on this! It's truly a help. Best wishes, Lemurbaby (talk) 04:26, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Lemurbaby, it is much appreciated! I can certainly see the appeal of Madagascar articles after this, a really fascinating theme! I certainly hope you'll stick around - WP:Africa would certainly be a good deal weaker without your excellent contributions!Brigade Piron (talk) 09:39, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 25 June 2014[edit]

Disambiguation link notification for July 4[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Monja Jaona, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fort Dauphin. 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) 08:54, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Lemurbaby/Archive_2&oldid=1089854037"