Jump to content

User talk:Auntieruth55: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
EyeSerene (talk | contribs)
20,213 edits
Line 101: Line 101:


I've completed the run-through. Good luck at ACR. --'''<font color="#0000FF">[[User:Jayen466|JN]]</font><font color=" #FFBF00">[[User_Talk:Jayen466|466]]</font>''' 08:46, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
I've completed the run-through. Good luck at ACR. --'''<font color="#0000FF">[[User:Jayen466|JN]]</font><font color=" #FFBF00">[[User_Talk:Jayen466|466]]</font>''' 08:46, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

== Congratulations again! ==

{| style="border: 2px solid lightsteelblue; background-color: whitesmoke;"
|rowspan="2" valign="middle" | [[Image:WPMH ACR.PNG|90px]]
|rowspan="2" |
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" |&ensp;'''The ''[[Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Awards#A-Class_medals|Military history A-Class medal]]'''''&ensp;
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid lightsteelblue;" | For prolific work on [[Siege of Godesberg (1583)]], [[Karl Aloys zu Fürstenberg]] and [[Army of the Danube]], promoted to A-Class between February and March 2010, by order of the coordinators of the [[WP:MILHIST|Military history WikiProject]] you are hereby awarded your '''third''' [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Awards#A-Class_medals|Milhist A-Class medal]]. Well done and thank you for your continued contributions to the project, [[User:EyeSerene|<span style="font-family:Verdana;color:#4B0082">EyeSerene</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:EyeSerene|<span style="color:#6B8E23">talk</span>]]</sup> 09:40, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
|}

Revision as of 09:40, 16 March 2010


The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVIII (February 2010)

The February 2010 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.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:56, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mindomys

Thanks for reviewing Mindomys; would you mind getting back to Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mindomys/archive1 to clarify your concern with the sentence you quoted? Ucucha 04:20, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Military offices boxes

Auntieruth55, you may want to add military offices boxes to your Austrian general bios. I've started adding them to mine for regimental proprietors. See Anton Ferdinand Mittrowsky and Johann Meszaros von Szoboszlo for examples. To get the proprietor information, try the Smith-Kudrna link or http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liste_der_Kavallerieregimenter_der_kaiserlich-habsburgischen_Armee_der_Fr%C3%BChen_Neuzeit#Stammliste_1798_und_Verbleib_1806. Good luck. Djmaschek (talk) 05:28, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Floß, Potthoff

Hi Ruth, I have excellent news, on two accounts:

  1. The book with the Potthoff chapter arrived today. It has a lot more detail about the course of the siege prior to the explosion, which we can use to expand our account of the siege proper, e.g.
    • where the cannon were positioned,
    • that the wall of the Vorburg had been breached in late November, but repaired again by the defenders when Ferdinand's experts decided that storming the Vorburg would still incur too many casualties,
    • peasants from the surrounding countryside were forced to dig the saps; many of them were killed by stones launched by the defenders;
    • sapping to approach the outer walls lasted from late November to December 6th; undermining the walls lasted another 10 days;
    • the explosion was clearly on the 17th, apparently;
    • the collapsed walls were defended and still presented an insurmountable obstacle;
    • 40 or 50 attackers entered through the latrines, climbing up on two ladders they had tied together;
    • the defenders eventually retreated into the keep (Potthoff's chapter does not mention the St Michael's Chapel at all, oddly enough, even though it clearly was altered to play a defensive role).
  2. I've realised that the Floß chapter, complete with Ferdinand's letter to his brother, is in Wikisource!

I'll be in touch by mail once I've had a good look through both sources. (I've started the copyedit on the potato war article ... will carry on later.) --JN466 20:01, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is good news! Never occurred to me to look in Wikissource for Ferdinand's letter. Will have to look and see if Max Lossen's volume 2 is there. Auntieruth55 (talk) 22:18, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Floß chapter begins here, really. It covers the fall of Poppelsdorf, Godesberg and Bonn. The appendix has the older sources Floß drew on. --JN466 23:04, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ruth, just happened to notice your post at VP. It's kind of you to have credited me for the translation. I'm fine either way, whatever is in line with WP policy. User:Moonriddengirl is usually the expert around here when it comes to copyright-related questions. (As far as I recall, Wikiquote asks for translations to be attributed to the editor concerned.) I'll drop her a note. --JN466 17:07, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Having discussed this with Moonriddengirl, we can simply delete the in-article attribution. Talk page attribution is not required either. It was enough to have mentioned it once in an edit summary. Best, --JN466 20:52, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Gott sei Dank. It was getting tedious, reverting those edits. I took it out, but left the attribution to the original source. Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:58, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. I've had my 15 minutes of mainspace fame now. :) --JN466 00:21, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

EKD

What's bad about the EKD article? --Mk4711 (talk) 23:15, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Both articles make some sweeping assumptions and ambiguous claims, especially in the history section. Neither deal with the period of national socialism very well. There are citation problems in both articles, with ambiguous citations, not enough citations, etc. Finally, the intermingling of German and English is inconsistent, and serves to muddy any explanation of things for readers who don't speak German. Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:28, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The history section may be the problem of the EKD article. Actually the history of the EKD begins in 1945 the earliest. It's different for its member churches. As suggested on the EKD talk page an article on the history of Protestantism in Germany would be a good thing. It's too complicated in order to do it in just a few lines. I added come sources for the EKD article yesterday, e. g. concerning same-sex blessings. If something else strikes your attention, tell me. Also if there is too much German in the text. --Mk4711 (talk) 10:19, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Class project

is the link to my sandbox where my article is located. If you could take a look at it and let me know what you think so far, that would be greatSaralo16 (talk) 00:43, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Return

More or less. I recall a piece of wisdom I get from my history teacher freshman year in high school: Despite the missiles, jet planes, and rocket engines, no one has yet developed anything that goes faster than a vacation. Words of wisdom :) TomStar81 (Talk)

IUPAC

IUPAC is the article we are working on. The publications and some of the current projects still need some work, but for the most part the general outline seems to be coming along well. Let me know what you think on my talk page. Thank you.Salamakajakawaka (talk) 19:55, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Auntieruth55. You have new messages at The ed17's talk page.
Message added 16:30, 10 March 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

—Ed (talk • majestic titan) 16:30, 10 March 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Incidentally, have you thought about standing to be a WP:MILHIST coordinator for this term? It's really not a lot of work; mainly you would be needed to give opinions on random topics at WT:MHCOORD. Regards, —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 19:33, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Tom asked me about it not long ago, but I'm trying to finish my dissertation, and I'm too easily distracted by other things. I'll run in the Fall, though. Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:36, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, sounds good. :-) Regards, —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 19:39, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Muse in Arms assessment

Wanted to thank you again for the initial reassessment you did for The Muse in Arms. I've left a note here. Would you have time to take one more look? Carcharoth (talk) 19:48, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

History of logic

Does this clarify? From the other side (talk) 12:20, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Karl Aloys zu Fürstenberg

Question: You spell Fähnrich without the Umlaute. Is this intentional? MisterBee1966 (talk) 20:18, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Fox and the Hound (novel)

{{subst:empty template|This template must be substituted. Replace {{Courtesy blanked with {{subst:Courtesy blanked.}}

History of logic

Hi - could you be a little bit more specific about which parts of the article you find confusing. I re-worded the part on Plato to make it clearer, but the relevant section in Kneale (the Kneales' book, they are/were husband and wife, are the locus classicus for history of logic) says "Both in the Republic and the Sophist there is a strong suggestion that correct thinking is following out the connections between Forms. The model is mathematical thinking, e.g. the proof given in the Meno that the square on the diagonal is double the original square in area. For Plato necessary connections hold between Forms, and inference is presumably valid when we follow in thought the connections between Forms as they are" (The Development of Logic p. 20).

And which parts of the content are you referring to? Is it a question of not being sure? Or do you have specific objections? Whatever you have, I will address these. From the other side (talk) 09:10, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[edit] I have addressed one specific complaint (about the library) here [1]. Elsewhere you say "Plato was preoccupied with definition. Not the nature of it. Didn't definition provide the nature of something else (the thing/idea/whatever) being defined? " Yes, Plato thought that it is the nature of a definition to provide or signify the nature of something else. Correct. Try using Google scholar "plato nature of definition" and you see it is perfectably acceptable terminology in context. Would it be easier if I put "Plato was preoccupied with what a definition is"? From the other side (talk) 09:23, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[edit] In fact Kneale himself says that Plato asks 'what is the nature of definition?' (p.17) and "Our third question concerns the nature of definitions" (p.21). See also here [2] "More doubts about the strict simplicity of Forms emerge from reflection on the nature of definition in Plato's middle period" From the other side (talk) 09:29, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

War of the Bavarian Succession

"Despite the poor numerical odds, Nauendorf and his 50 Hussars sallied out to engage them. When his small force encountered Wunsch's, which was more than triple its size, Nauendorf greeted the Prussians as friends; by the time the Prussians realized the allegiance of the Hussars, Nauendorf and his small band had acquired the upper hand, and Wunsch withdrew. The next day Nauendorf was promoted to major." I can't quite visualise what happened on the battlefield here. Wouldn't the Prussians have realized the allegiance of the Hussars the moment they were attacked? If they weren't attacked, how did the Hussars gain the upper hand? --JN466 06:54, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another sentence I can't get my head around: "While the British had been Austria's allies, Austria could count on support in its wars." Should it be "could not" instead of "could"? --JN466 08:32, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've completed the run-through. Good luck at ACR. --JN466 08:46, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations again!

 The Military history A-Class medal 
For prolific work on Siege of Godesberg (1583), Karl Aloys zu Fürstenberg and Army of the Danube, promoted to A-Class between February and March 2010, by order of the coordinators of the Military history WikiProject you are hereby awarded your third Milhist A-Class medal. Well done and thank you for your continued contributions to the project, EyeSerenetalk 09:40, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Auntieruth55&oldid=350173707"