User talk:Veledan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Veledan (talk | contribs) at 22:18, 17 August 2005 (→Disambiguation: pasting own reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Jump to navigation Jump to search
Welcome, & How to use my page
  • Please leave new comments at the end, preferably by clicking here
  • Please sign and timestamp your entries using four tildes (~~~~). If you don't, I'll do it for you!
  • I'll normally reply on your talk page, but I'll generally copy it here too so I've got a thread.
  • On any other page, I welcome your corrections to what ever I have ritten. On this on, I ask you to leave my contributions as well as everyone elses alone, even if given the most flagrant provvocation (except for link repair etc)
~ VELEDAN TALK • CTRB' 19:35, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Archive 1: My Welcome message


Sarracenia

Thanks for the work you've done on the Sarracenia page: I did a huge revamp of all the carnivorous plant pages about two months ago, but ran out of steam (not to mention time): it's nice to see some action on these articles! Could I tempt you to have a look at butterwort and bladderwort too? Feel free to spell hybridisze however you like :)

polypompholyx 19:38, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note! I was going to drop by your page in any case to add a thanks of my own for your excellent copyediting on my additions to Sarracenia. The article is looking much more polished and it's much more enjoyable to read.
I've just been reading the impressive carnivorous plants page though - and the Sarra article has got a long way to go to catch it up! I'm still intending to add more Sarra info if no-one beats me to it but yes I'm happy to start another one at the same time. Utrics it is.
Last thing: I'm new around here so forgive me asking questions, but when you have large lists of species (such as in the bladder & ping generic articles), is it the done thing to leave them in the expanded article in their entirety, or can they be shunted off to a /subpage? *off now to search for a pd picture of an Utric trap*
~ Veledan | Talk | c. 21:28, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if there's any convention for this: the lists aren't terribly exciting, but it might be worth leaving them where they are for the moment, at least until the content is a little more extensive. I'm also relatively new, and have no idea how you managed to get your comment posted both to my talk page and to yours. How is this wizardry achieved?
polypompholyx 10:21, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No wizardry I'm afraid. I manually edited both pages and copied the same comment to each. ~ Veledan | Talk | c. 09:51, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oh. That's a pity. I've often wanted to cross-post comments. Would be a useful feature for talk pages.
polypompholyx 10:13, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vatican

I replied on the disambiguation page, basically a big "ok good" and added your comments to the list I had added at the bottom for when to use which. Though I wanted to ask which ypage you would redirect to for uses such as "The Vatican condemed the attacks ...."? I changed one instance of that from Roman Curia to Holy See and am wondering if I should change it back. I think in terms of political involvment there is still some ambiguity between these two, making disambiguating correctly difficult. Dalf | Talk 22:39, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you fully on that one - an official statement or condemnation that important will always come from the Holy See. The Holy See = Curia + Pope :-) . The only time you'd say that an important announcement had come from the Roman Curia would be if for some weird reason, the Curia had issued the statement without the authority of the pope. At least, that's how I understand it ! But minor decisions (the Vatican has postponed the beatification of [...] a week to allow time for the pope to conclude his visit...) can be safely ascribed to the Curia ~ Veledan 22:50, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ok here is another question. ADO (Südtirol) refers to people during WWII of doing or going "under the protection of the Vatican". My first impuls was that this shoudl be Holy See, but that feels wrong as the actual presence in most locations here and the effectprotection is from church individuals on loaction and facilities. What do you think about linking that to Roman Catholic Church ? I've let it alone for now. Dalf | Talk 02:22, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Having re-read it a few times, I've now changed my mind in exactly the pattern you did and I'm thinking that Roman Catholic Church is the option after all - only research on the actual history would really separate the two, and having just spent the last 20 minutes reading other documents (some extremely detailed) and finding no reference to the Holy See, I guess that any catholic protection did come from indiviual priests and lay people. I'd leave a note on the talk page in case anyone can settle the question for definite. The article is only 2 months old as well, so a note for the original author asking him/her to clarify if s/he can would be good. ~ Veledan | Talk | c. 14:38, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I can live with that, I did that one very last and only went with Holy See since there were so many others that I had done that were not QUITE as hard as that one that seemed to naturally go that way. For the Ratline (history) article I went with Vatican City as the claim seemed to be agains some specific croatian priests working physically in the Vatican, though I can't say I feel really good about it either way and wish there was a better option. I will go ahead and change the link above to Roman Catholic Church after reading what you said here and also as that was my first thought (first impressions being a decent indicator). Dalf | Talk 19:22, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I have changed the link and left a note on the original editors talk page. Incidently, are you having any problems with the [edit] links on this talk page? When I click on the edit link next to this section it takes me to edit the section below it (using Firefox). Dalf | Talk 19:32, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I am having the same problem with IE. Hmmm.... ~ Veledan | Talk | c. 19:56, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Friendly Chat

Hi, how you doing? You did a minor edit on one of the articles that I originated Ramiro L. Colon and a very good one at that. Sometimes when I'm not editing or writting an article, I check out the people who've edited some of mine. I'm very impressed with your user page (very artistic) and the dedication that you've shown so far. I've got a feeling that you're going to become one of our best Wikipedians. You take care of yourself and do not allow anyone to stress you out. Your friend in Wikipedia Tony the Marine 06:13, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

  • Thank you for your kind words and for the Barnstar, I feel honored to be the first person awarded a barnstar by you. Remember, if you ever need me for anything, just drop me a line. Your friend Tony the Marine 19:39, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

Phatcat68

Hello Veledan. I really appreciate the message that you posted on my talk page. It makes me feel better to know that you could see that my opinion about the argument meant alot to me. Sometimes, I can be very forceful at times with my beliefs on specific subjects. It is not your fault or any of the people who shared your opinion on the matter that I felt ganged up on. It was just a topic that I was the minority opinion on and I probably overreacted to feeling ganged up on. I do not hold any ill will toward you and hope I did not rub you the wrong way with my passion about my viewpoint. I really do appreciate the message! It adds to the pros of staying on Wikipedia! --phatcat68 20:20, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation

Thank you for helping with disambiguation link repair, but please try to repair more carefully. For example, in Alexander Young you changed Irish to point to Ireland, when really it should refer to Irish people. Make sure you consider all options before picking one. Generally, using the name of the actual country is a last resort when no other option is appropriate. Thank you and happy damming! Soo 21:02, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi Soo. Re the dab I made to Ireland, I've consistently followed the same pattern on that type of link after reading all the linked articles a couple of times. I may be wrong, but it honestly wasn't just sloppiness.
I've usually used Ireland as a dab for an Irish person where there is no link to Ireland on the article, where the link isn't part of a list (when you match what's there), and where the context doesn't concern the history or dispersion of the Irish people (which is what that article concerns). I think the article on Ireland is fuller and covers the overall concept of Irish more comprehensively and I still think it feels more the sort of thing someone browsing Irish on most of these articles would naturally expect. But if you disagree, please explain because I'm still learning the art :-) ~ Veledan • Talk + new 21:30, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There's quite a scope for personal opinion in these things so if you're happy with linking to Ireland then I'm happy with that. Personally I prefer to refer to a specific article if there is one, but either way it's better than nothing. Thanks for helping and keep up the good work. Soo 21:34, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You have me doubting now; it occurs to me that I am linking away from Irish people because that article is a bit too narrow at the moment. It would only take a really good expansion of the article though, and my links to Ireland would look like they wanted dab'ing again. Hmm, I'm off to go and find another dab page until I stop wavering! ~ Veledan • Talk + new 22:18, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Veledan&oldid=21246431"