This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Welcome!
Hello, Flammingo/Archive, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! NickelShoe (Talk) 16:20, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks a lot, NickelShoe! I'm mostly with the German de.wikipedia, but I'd like to contribute to both... ;-) -Flammingo
Nazism
Do you have sources for this claim:
"When Socialism was not develolping quickly enough for some Socialists, they decided to violently reject the ideas of Internationalism, and focus on their own nation."? -- Vision Thing -- 22:04, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes, that was Michael Mann, I believe, or even Hannah Arendt's theory, the focus was on violence in politics in the 20s in general. But I have a better source that would rephrase that, it's just that my exam is on THursday and I fear I wont have time before, use "fact" flag if you like to mark it. --FlammingoParliament 21:40, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
No, I don't want to dispute it. I wanted to put something like that in the article too, but I didn't have a source. -- Vision Thing -- 11:07, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Inserted it. I must say, the Nazism article is hard to keep in touch with, with five edits a day and all...--FlammingoParliament 04:11, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
It's been removed again. I think the problem is that this is the pov of certain historians, but is not necessarily accepted in the mainstream. You are obviously knowledgeable in the field, but it is not in the scope of an encyclopaedia entry to discuss theories such as these. I think it would be better for us to stick to the widely accepted stuff. yandman 14:48, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Moving pages
Hi, in some weeks when I have a bit more leisure time I was going to take a look at the various Platini and similar pages (derivatives of that word). As a historian and the creator, yould you mind if i move it to the singular Palatinus? Just checking. --FlammingoParliament 19:22, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Please do not copy and paste articles, as you did with Palatini/Palatinus. When you do that, all the edit history gets lost. If, on the other hand, you use the "move" tab (top of the screen, between "history" and "watch") the edit history gets moved to the new title along with the article. We like to keep full history on our articles. Just FYI. Fan-1967 16:05, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Seen that. Doesn't work now... i added into the info of the history.--FlammingoParliament 16:29, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
You click on "move" and it asks you for the new title, and an edit summary. The edit summary is where you'd put the "should be singular". There's also a checkbox option to move the Talk page with it, which you should always do if there is one. It will automatically create a new page at the old title with a redirect to the new one, but the edit history will be at the new title. (It won't work if a page already exists at the new title. You'd need an admin to remove it to do that.) Fan-1967 16:37, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
If you really want to go to the trouble, you could do it. Here's how:
Edit the old article (Palatini) to put it back to how it was, with the full content.
Remove all the content from Palatinus and replace with a tag, {{db-move|Palatini}}. This is a sign to an admin to delete the page to make room for your move from Palatine.
Wait for an admin to get around to deleting Palatinus. (Might be hours. Deletions are really backed up.)
Go ahead and do the move.
Hope this helps. Fan-1967 16:50, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Ori edits
Hi fammingo! thanks for your contributions on Ori (Stargate), we always enjoy a fresh point of view ;) sorry for continuously reediting you contributions, I just don't agree with all of them. Maybe you could clear up our differences this way?
Your said in your last edit that the society of the ancients/alterans (the gate-builders) and the ori living in a distant galaxy (which would later become known as the ori home galaxy) were known to SG-1 as the "Ancients" before the discovery of the Ori... But before the discovery of the Ori, SG-1 always thought the Ancients evolved in this galaxy (as was stated in avalon), so the name "Ancients" clearly refers to the ones living in the milky way => not the ori and not the ori+alterans living in a distant galaxy...
sorry for making it so complicated :D Maartentje 15:46, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi Maarten, now i see your point! ok, so before avalon, all ascended were ancients and the newbies like Anubis and the Abydonians were just called ascended. Now with the Ori, even SG-1, namely Mitchell and General Landry seemed to have some problems understanding Daniel and Orlin renaming everything.
Do you agree that the Atlantians = Atlanteans = Lantians = Lanteans are the Ancients that left the Home Galaxy?
Alteran can be two things. Either it is Latin for "other", referring to the Ori (they are the Ori, we are the Others); or, self-contradictingly, it means "people living on Altera", which Orlin states would include the Ori - and he just explains to Landry that they are not Ancients when you talk about Ori, but now Alterans. I'd go for the first.
That would mean that "Ancient" is the name for the "ancient" evolution of mankind, the guys building the astera porta in general. Including the Ori, but those were supposed to be kept secret. Now that secret is discovered, Orlin wants a new name.
This is a mix-up without a drawing! ;-)
Ancient evolution (Altera Galaxy?)
| split into |
"Ancients", main group and Ori
(Milky Way & Pegasus) (Celestus in unnamed Galaxy, now in what SG-1 calls Ori Home Galaxy)
=> new name: Alteran
(ie. "not Ori")
1)So I thought when there is a paragraph "Ori vs Ancients", it should include the oppositon bit and that both are one race, not coincidently both ascended beings. 2)You asked why talk about how jaffa prefer their traditions in a section about ori religion?, it's because the Ori do not tolerate other traditions, an important aspect for the traditional Jaffa (most of the galaxy!) and Earth (Free Will and Reason)--FlammingoParliament 16:01, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
wow, this is getting really complicated, no wonder mitchell and landry get confused :p now this is the way I see it:
=> Ori + alterans/ancients living on celestis in the ori home galaxy => we have no idea what their civilization was called
=> according to dialogue in avalon and the fourth horseman: alterans = the group that left the ori home galaxy millions of years ago (still long before Rising (Stargate Atlantis)) and came to this galaxy, where they eventually became known to the second evolution of humanity in the milky way (us) as the "ancients" (daniel in origin: "it stands to reason they weren't always called the ancients")
=> Lanteans/Atlanteans: the ancients/alterans that left from the milky way "several millions of years ago" according to Rising (Stargate Atlantis) and went to Pegasus.
And about your other 2 comments: 1) yeah, the paragraph "the ori and the ancients" was rewritten to included the opposition bit and that both were one race (see the subparagraph "before ascension").
2) the jaffa just don't belong in a paragraph that explains the ori religion. okay, jaffa traditions and origin might be difficult to reconcile, however, so are origin and christianity, judaism, budhism, etc. however, they're not mentioned there, and they shouldn't be. the paragraph about origin doesn't serve to compare the ori religion with the traditions of all the people in the Stargate universe, it just explains the basics about origin...
PS: plz answer on my talk page, as is customary on wikipedia...
Maartentje 07:27, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Kipling
Hi, I read with interest your additions to Rudyard Kipling and your note on the talk page. I am in the process of rewriting much of that article. I've got as far as Kipling's yearly visit to South Africa. Unfortunately, I haven't got to the Death and Legacy section and that is where most of the problems are. I had left a number of "citations needed" tags in the article and especially in that section, but couldn't finish my rewrite in time and people objected to the sections looking unsightly, so I removed then two days ago. I more or less agree with many of the things you say. If you look at my treatment of the Recessional or White Man's Burden in the "Career as a Writer" section, you'll notice that I give a number of interpretations. I didn't mention the Biblical interpretation specifically only because I didn't want to overdo the interpretation in the life-history section. Kipling was certainly influenced by the Bible especially in his writing style; however, he was not particularly religious himself, certainly not in the same way, say as the Christian evangelists (like William Wilberforce from an earlier era) were in their view of India. And his view of India was one of leaving the natives alone for the most part in matters of religion. I quote from David Gilmour's recent biography, "The Last Recessional: The Imperial Life of Rudyard Kipling": "In his adult poems he often invoked a Divinity--whom he vaguely believed in--and certainly he respected other people's religions. But he was never, in any real sense, a practising Christian. Whatever bigotries he may have collected in the course of his life, religious ones were absent." (Gilmour also mentions in a footnote that in 1908, Kipling described himself as "a godfearing Christian Atheist.") At any rate, I hope to finish the rewrite in another week. Sanjay Tiwari 20:23, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Hello, when you want to link to the article about something British, please do not link to British, as that is a disambiguation page (which nothing should be linked to). Instead link to the one of the options found on that page such as United Kingdom or Great Britain by writing out [[United Kingdom|British]] or [[Great Britain|British]]. Regards, Jeff3000 20:14, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
It seems you spent some time fixing that on many pages yesterday, thank you. Although I disagree and think that [[1]] is perfectly fine and explains more about culture than United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, it shall remain. Please mention which page you refer to next time! ;-) --FlammingoParliament 19:02, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm very sorry for you. Though your English is very good, your manners are not English at all. Knock yourself out, best regards to the President of my university, but this seems all very off-topic. I'm sorry --FlammingoParliament 19:54, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Flammingo, if anything comes of this, please contact me or leave a note on the administrator's noticeboard. Off-wiki harassment is a serious offense. | Mr. Darcytalk 01:59, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Heh, no need to worry. I can imagine Prof. von Figura's secretaries chuckling and shaking their heads in amusement. Like, for half a minute or so. But the guy has clearly earned himself a ban here. Fut.Perf.☼ 11:36, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
I wished you came here first before undoing without argument. FlammingoParliament 18:17, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Also, please don't do cut and paste page moves. There is a special function for page renaming. Also, please don't destroy disambiguation pages. `'mikka 17:27, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
"destroy" is a wrong word in the context, and very emotional at that. Please calm down. The reason is that it is not in line with naming conventions, would you like to hear my arguments? --FlammingoParliament 18:17, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
It is not emotional. It is what happened. There was a disambiguation page and now no more. It was not deleted. I admit I don't know English perfectly. How will you call your action? `'mikka 18:51, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
I know about naming conventions. I also know that some things are traditionally called in plural (which is also mentioned in the namingg conventions, by the way). I explained this and gave you numerous examples from wikpedia. I can give you several hundred other ones. `'mikka 18:51, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Pural granted, still my main point is that calling the 2004 kind Monday demonstrations is POV, and the term in the encyclopaediae does not have another reference than the 1989 one. THe recent ones were protests against social benefit cuts, not about free speech and freedom of leaving a country. Given NPOV and that there should be a disambig only when several terms are equal, it should not suggest by disambig that both have the same meaning: one led to the reunification of Germany, the other was considered an unjust policy (which is in the article, too, and not by me btw) FlammingoParliament 19:01, 18 January 2007 (UTC) There are two ways to see this: either the protesters are taking the name to see this as a demonstration for democracy, etc. Or there are several titles for the protest, only a fraction is decided to call them as above. Times calls them Hartz IV protesters, since that is the name of the reform that cut social benefits to the poverty level. Another name would be "protests against social benefit cuts". To see what the opposite, pro-POV would be, they might call them "Protest against the Social Reform" (notice that the cuts here receive the positive term "reform".
I apologize for not writing any of that in the edit summary, i will if you do not argue about that. Also, i'll be happy to call them a plural name, suggesting "Hartz IV protests 2004", the name most often given to them on our news.FlammingoParliament 20:01, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Please do not delete {{fact}} tags from articles, as you have been doing to wife. Statement that need sources need to be tagged as such, both for the reader to know what is contested in an article, and for other editors to know what needs further citation. Thank you. — coelacantalk — 19:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
There is a disagreement between some editors, namely Joie de Vivre, who thinks "wife" should not be given an article, and wishes to flood it with those tags as much as possible. He calls it "defamation" when I claim that his methods are unusual at best (and people at talk:wife already agreed they are, although that might be a fair assessment for his edits on that article. To resolve this unhappy situation, as I wrote on your page, please join!FlammingoParliament 20:03, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Whatever the other editor's intentions, as you perceive them, this does not allow for you to remove {{fact}} tags that are attached to controversial statements, and I can see that plenty of these statements can be controversial. — coelacantalk — 20:04, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
I dont see how, every single sentence (or two connected sentences) does indeed have a source??? This seems to be his pov-thingy, and "fact" does NOT support a deletion! FlammingoParliament 20:10, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Hello Flammingo I was just looking back to see how your project was going and I have to agree with you on some issues. All these fact tags make the article look ridiculous.
Granted, fact tags are appropriate, They do say "article or section". This article is very short and does not need multiple repeats of the same tag and/or a repeating of derrogatory rhettoric. One tag at the top of the article is sufficient.
I might have a go at doing a little restructuring on the article later on. I am a little reluctant to jump into this, but I believe there is place for an article on wife, husband, cousin, etc. etc. etc... If I make any changes I will discuss them first on the talk page and make it clear that they are just recommendations which I think are easier to express visually and I have no qualms with them being reverted. I hope you and anybody else reading this has a great day. Thank you for looking out! OfForByThePeople 18:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, as a new group of family articles. Sounds good. I did a lot of research, but knowing the atmosphere in that region of articles is heated, i will not post them until Monday; i dont have time for that one right now (simply because of that debate raised there, still dont really know why they truly did that); i will introduce many related terms (bride, dowry, widow) and give more details for Christianity and Islam; would you like to dig up something for Buddhists and Hindus? That would cover most of the people, which is what that "Bias" actually means ;-).--FlammingoParliament 21:12, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Hey, sorry I have been reeeeaaallly busy yeah know "life happens" I have gone to my local library and have done some research on the term wife, but as far as the term in its social context throughout the years I am having a really hard time finding anything. Even in EBSCO host, but I will keep lookin. Thank you for looking out! OfForByThePeople 21:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi, that is great news!! I just rewrote the article, and above proving what i thought was common knowledge, i added some new stuff i didnt know before myself; every single statement is proven now, and hopefully the discussion is over now. Did you read the new version? Cause i just saved that shortly before you wrote. At any rate, i suggest we go over to Talk:Wife to let people know what's going on. --FlammingoHey 23:16, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Hey FLAMINGO!!! WOW that looks GREAT, good for you I knew you had something good going on. Hats off to you, you stood up for what you know could be great and you did it...I applaud you :-). OK now I am going to get into this somemore and lets make it great. Let me know on what you think we should start on next, husband, cousin, uncle??? keep me posted on what is next because two brilliant heads are better than one Thank you for looking out! OfForByThePeople 05:24, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
commons -amphitheatre
Hi, could you tell me why you removed one of the pictures of the Lucera amphtiheatre?
I added those photo's earlier this week and really don't see any reason why it should be removed?
Regards, Joris1919 21:29, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
It seemed to be an error like these pictures that had been deleted as it seems, and when i was checking Greek Theatre and amphitheatre articles, the picture was not shown, so i deleted the line. Sorry, no harm intended, thanks for fixing it! --FlammingoParliament 12:07, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi, Flammingo! I put the LGBT project on Dionysus for a couple reasons. First, he's the god of theater. More importantly, he's cited as having male lovers, including Prosymnus and Ampelos. I'd love to hear your thoughts on the matter, though. Thanks! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 20:54, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Hm, does the lgbt project list all characters with only (1) lgbt traits? He is more the party-drinking god(2), and though prosymnus and ampelos fancied him, he didnt love them back (says the article) and is not primarily a lgbt person (3). There are other gods that fit the label better. Since "Greek" can also refer to queers, outdated maybe, it might be mentioned at Greek social life; but in the end, it mainly depends on how Dionysos would be notable to the project (which doesnt mention him, or any Greeks, yet)(4). You said "first...theatre": How is that related to lgbt?(5) Those were the questions that popped into my mind. Cheers! --FlammingoHey 21:19, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Wait - Dionysus (according to the story with Prosymnus) basically invented the dildo. Need I say more? There are certainly other gods that fit the label / project better — Hermaphroditus anyone? — but Dionysus can be within the scope of many WikiProjects. As for theater, Dionysus basically invented cross dressing (remember that in ancient Greece, women weren't allowed to be actors). Just my thoughts, but I think he qualifies :) -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 03:54, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
So I admit, I'm being taken by hyperbole on those statements. But when dealing with the Greek Gods, it's hard not to be :) -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 04:07, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Ok... you got me smiling. Thanks! --FlammingoHey 10:15, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Schnorrer
Hi! It looks like you're trying to move one or more pages. However, please stop doing that this way - the new name of the page might be good, but Wikipedia has another procedure for moving pages. Look at Help:Renaming (moving) a page: you need to use the move tab, and not cut and paste. Cut and paste moves don't take the edit history with them and thus violate the GFDL copyright terms. Also, in some cases, when the move might be controversial, you might first want to discuss the move on the article's talk page. If a move is not possible because a page with the new name already exists, go to Wikipedia:Requested moves. Thanks! Khoikhoi 08:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Hello Khoikoi, this seemed to be an automated message; to let others participate, please see the reasons for the move on Schnorrer; Keep it up! --FlammingoHey 10:54, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I was trying to explain to you that you can't move pages by simply copying and pasting the contents. This method destroys the edit history. If you want to move the pages, please try WP:RM. Thanks, Khoikhoi 15:41, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
WP:RM isn't about reverting, it's about listing a page there, starting a poll at the talk page, and in a few days, the page will either be moved or not moved. Khoikhoi 02:41, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Not my point, still that's long since happened, also, there are many reasons I listed on both pages. --FlammingoHey 02:48, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Just wanted to drop you a friendly line about disambiguation pages. As per the style guideline for disambiguation pages, only the words being disambiguated get wikilinked, rather than the normal practice of linking all interesting terms. As such, I reverted the links you added to the Magdalen College disambiguation page. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions or issues. --Kralizec! (talk) 20:02, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
It's ok, I know. Cheers, --FlammingoHey 20:16, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Theatre of Dionysus
Well, I was just plain dim and hadn't twigged the difference between an amphitheatre and a plain old ancient theatre.... So much for my A-level in classical civilisation...tee hee...Madmedea 08:15, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Flammingo, if you like the subject, but don't want to read so many pages *please* do not delete something just because you think it is unreferenced. I spent a lot of time going through the articles and collecting those opinions. I did not put those references next to the interview summaries, because I had added *a lot* to the article based on those interviews, and I wasn't about to put a little reference sign next to every sentence. My additions were based on those interviews, and I added them as general reference. If you read the article and can't the quotes, I can understand that, somehow. But if you can't bother even reading the references given or doing a simple search on those references to look for those quotes, then why do you decide that it's unreferenced? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Misheu (talk • contribs) 15:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC).
I just replied over there, and I think it's good now. Yes, I read the pages and did not see that claim, browsing through all them is asking a bit from the readers, as I thought: Sorry, it sounds like a probable quote from that woman, but as in college, the source should be attached to the claim, otherwise it'll seem to be your own claim - after more than two sentences, it's impossible to distinguish. and, secondly, making claims is in this place WP:OR, a policy allowing deletion. --FlammingoHey 15:48, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Making claims *without reference* can lead to deletion. Since I did put in reference, how about talking about it first? Asking? Look at any factual article, and tell me if for every sentence there is a reference mark. If you want, I'll go back and write for every sentence in the entry where I got it from, but I think that's ridiculous. Misheu 15:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Oh, I've been there... and I fully agree with you. In fact, please note I added sources there myself, as far as I knew, and claims like "muslim fundamentalists kill apostates" dont need sources if you ask me, same as "the sun shines"; just this one sounded very different: not "we want to have talks with those groups" but "I am against all religions", which gives this person a whole new context. --FlammingoHey 16:02, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm new.. guess it shows ;-) Ok, I agree with what you say. I admit I was surprised to read it. I guess I'll take that as my new 'rule of thumb'. Misheu 16:03, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Postcolonial theory
I noticed that you recently posted on the postcolonial theory page. I was wondering how familiar you are with postcolonial theory. My knowledge is limited and I would appreciate someone with some background helping me out a bit. I've read an article for a page I'm working on (Mary Martha Sherwood) that relies almost entirely on postcolonial theory. Unfortunately, my only glancing knowledge does not allow me to adequately summarize the article and its ideas in non-jargony language for the page. If you would be willing to read the article and help me out, I would really appreciate it. The article is cited in the "Bibliography" at Mary Martha Sherwood (I believe it is available through JSTOR). You can also see my pathetic attempt to summarize it under the "colonialism" subsection. AwadewitTalk 08:33, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
You've removed the Satyr disambiguation saying "satyr play mentioned in first sentence".
The removal was unjustified, please notice Satyr is not Satyr play. I've recalled the disambiguation.
No, but the point is the appearance of the article. Whoever would be looking for a satyr would type a "y", not "satire", and the pronunciation is just as different. The link deserves no headline on top of the article. Later in the text, the satyr is linked to in the text when it is mentioned. If you have other reasons than the one I suspected, explain on that talk page, please! --FlammingoHey 04:23, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
If I don't know the correct spelling, how could I know I should have put a "y"?
As far as appearance goes, disambiguation is common practice and may be seen in many articles, including featured articles (see Demand Note, for instance). When we have two words with similar sound and spelling, a disambiguation is in order. The separation of "satyr" and "play" is not a solution (and also contradicts ordinary guidelines), it still appears like a single term.
An encyclopedia is supposed to be a helpful and informative tool. Information counts more than appearance. The point is that if I'm looking for the mythological creature, and I'm not sure of its spelling (like I was, BTW), the disambiguation helps me getting to the desired article quickly, without forcing me to read an article I'm not interested in, in a search for some clue that may or may not be there (yes, I know it's there, but before I've read it, I couldn't know it).
I'm recalling this information back to the article again. Please don't turn this into an "edit war". If you're still unconvinced of this disambiguation's merit, you're welcome to add an RFC in the talk page. I'll, of course, accept whatever decision the majority takes.
Oh, yes, and thanks a lot again! btw, how do you like wife now? --FlammingoHey 19:04, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Elyssa Davalos
Hi Flammingo,
Not sure who to ask about this, but a few months ago the Elyssa Davalos page contained a lot of information regarding the actress. Now her biography only has one sentence. Would you know why that is?
You mean Elyssa Davalos? Well, two weeks ago there was a bit more in this version, but the link you added was deleted as not fit: its in the article's history (click "history" there!), Irishguy has removed them, probably due to WP:EL and WP:SPAM again, but after reading both pages, you might want to talk to him and tell him your reasons for keeping them!--FlammingoHey 10:09, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
