Hey, sorry to bother. I've just done a small rewrite of Institutions of the European Union and want to head it towards GA. I think there ought to be more on something but I can't think what or where to find such information. If you have a spare moment, could you do me a favour and take a gance at it and tell me if you think of something that needs to be talked about. Thanks. - J Logan t: 17:29, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
The August 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
Delivered by grafikbot 09:01, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
As the original author of the 840th Air Division article, I read your comments at WP:MILHIST with an obviously biased eye; however, my question is more for me to understand your reasoning for something you wrote. You mentioned that the AFHRA, as an U.S. Air Force organization, automatically fails as a primary source. Why is that? By the same logic, the U.S. Army's equivalent (whatever it may be, to be honest I don't know) historical record-keeping agency could not be used as a primary source for Army units, and so on for the US Navy and Marines. I'm not upset or anything, just a bit confused (nothing new) and a bit concerned that I may be doing something wrong by including the historical Air Divisions in Wikipedia. It has kind of been my pet project for the last couple of months.... Thanks, and I look forward to discussing this further with you! - NDCompuGeek 17:27, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
The Original Barnstar | |
I would like to award you this barnstar for taking another user "under your wing" and taking the time to teach me a bit about notability - a very important part of the Wikipedia process. Dank U! NDCompuGeek 07:02, 7 September 2007 (UTC) |
Hello. I'm considering translating this list from German, but I have two questions with which you may be able to help. First: should I make a separate list, or should it be inserted here? Second: if I do make the new list, what should I call it? Is "List of monarchs of the Netherlands" all right? Or could I use the simpler "List of Dutch monarchs"? Thank you for your advice. Biruitorul 00:49, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments! Please do not hesitate to vote for the FA if you wish to, as the article may end up a little bit short to get promoted! Regards PHG 11:03, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
No problem! I probably got bit hot under the collar too. I didn't realise about the procedure! Imperium Europeum 21:06, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Please do something! That guy is going a head with his plan of renaming. And I cannot find where the new category is being discussed under Wikipedia:Categories for discussion. Plus, the general psychology community appears unaware that a massive reorganization is about to take place. (Of course, this is Wikipedia, so why not something like this?) Regards, --Mattisse 02:09, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree with your comments on my talk page completely. The person wanting to change Category:Emotion is a single person who has introduced a template "Emotion" into Category:Psychology. Since I complained to him that many, if not most, of the topics listed in the template were not in the purview of Psychology, he is proposing to change Category:Emotion into Category:Affective and related states (or something like that) in order to introduce his topics into Psychology. Not only are most of them not affective states, many of his included articles are on religion and spirituality which, in my opinion, do not belong in Psychology unless they are part of a solid research design. The person appears to have gathered from the comments on Category:talk Emotions page, that he has received support for his position and he is going forward.
However, I believe opposition is hopeless. It is a fact on Wikipedia that one person can do this sort of thing and will. I will work on the Forensic Psychology article as that is my area. Otherwise, I am bowing out of the whole mess. I will make an oppositional comments to the creator of the category change now and then, but I realize it is fruitless, like blowing in the wind. Regards, --Mattisse 13:05, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
I want to say that I have nothing to do with those templates on emotions (sidebox, footer, or positive emotions footer), which I find awful. It appears that my renaming proposal will not be accepted. I should have be warned that affective was not a word common enough in English. You are perhaps not a native English speaker either... nevertheless, I am rather disappointed that you changed your opinion. So, we all share the same feeling! Feeeeeeeelings, wo-ho-oh, feeeeeelings.... --Robert Daoust 16:24, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Is it just me or has there just been a sharp rise in vandlaism on EU articles? Am I imagining this? - J Logan t: 16:03, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your helpful suggestions at the North Sea article. i hope youll check back periodically to help us evaluate the progress being made. thanks Jieagles 17:22, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I've just made an alternative proposal regarding the renaming of Category:Emotion, and I thought you might like to comment before the discussion closes. Thanks. Cgingold 15:59, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
For the same reasons as in Dutch, one may use the present tense in an English description of a painting: to bring the picture "to life," to make the picture speak to us, to involve us. See here for an example, Reinier Nooms's The Battle of Leghorn. The Maritime Museum's description uses the past tense to describe the historic background; then it uses the present tense to describe what we actually see in the picture. "Appleton is fighting a losing battle" gives the story an immediacy. Cheers. -- Iterator12n Talk 18:35, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
The article needs a lot of work. I'd like to work on it, but would need help. Are you willing to take a run at it? DCDuring 17:59, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
The September 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
Delivered by grafikbot 08:54, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
You recently helped reviewing the article Golden Film. Currently this article is a featured article candidate. Maybe you are interested in commenting to the article or supporting/opposing the candidacy. – Ilse@ 20:27, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for rating this article of mine. You said it was almost B-class - what more needs doing to get there? Neddyseagoon - talk 17:42, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Arnout, dont put wrong information on the paintings in the article on Jan J. Hinlopen! Your fantasy was working. Next time check with me or the book. Taksen 07:19, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Hello Arnout, you did not recognize the article on Gerrit Paape has been translated extremely well. It should be more than stub-class. If you call this stub I dont have much confidence in your opinion. Taksen 17:37, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
The Barnstar of European Merit | |
I was going to wait till the EU FA had been completed to award this, but I now feel it wouldn't properly recognise your wider contributions. You have done a lot of work on European (and of course Dutch!) articles and helped the project immensely, including some of the most tedious work. Your work has also helped up a lot to getting the European Union article towards FA status. I thank you for your invaluable contributions and hope you continue for a long while yet! - J Logan t: 20:55, 21 October 2007 (UTC) | ||
this WikiAward was given to ((subst:PAGENAME)) by ~~~ on ~~~~~ |
The October 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
Delivered by grafikbot 12:54, 3 November 2007 (UTC)