User talk:Peter Isotalo/Archive 8

823:

they'll block me and when I saw that warning on my talk page, I needed your help and then I called you at Yesterday evening. What can I do? I want to contribute enwp and can be blocked, isn't that really strange? I had a very strange warning and needed your help. I was going to say that to you when I called you, but you didn't want to talk to me, because you were sleeping. I'm sorry for that I disturbed you, but I was scared and needed your help. But what can I do?

1111: 1877:), but they are really late medieval/Renaissance galleys. About the only reliable image of a dromon is the one by Pryor we use in the related article... Congrats on the undertaking of this task, it really was about time for the article to be brought up to standards. I'll be rather busy in RL over the next weeks, perhaps even months, but I'll try to help when and if I can. Feel free to ask any questions however :) Best regards and keep it up! 1665:

evidence of a semantic difference between the "gaol" and "jail" variants, and both have been in use since the Middle Ages, so I don't see how it can possibly matter to the meaning of the article if we chose the latter. So far the article not had any mention of a "Leicester Gaol", only "Leicester's gaol", so I don't see any problem there either. Personal preferences and traditions aside, switching to "jail" in this case would not go against

32: 1700:, and the majority of the latter appear to be references to the modern HMP Leicester, not the former gaol. I don't know where this idea that people will confuse it with "goal keeper" has come from, as the sole evidence is one post on the talkpage—the slightest glance at the article would make it clear that it isn't about football, leaving aside the fact that football was invented more than 50 years after the man's death. – 2390: 1755:

recently-sentenced criminals awaiting transfer somewhere else. Since then, England has merged the two systems so "gaol" and "prison" are synonymous in current usage. "Gaol" has always been the official term (it derives from "gay hole", hence the unusual spelling—write your own punchline), but in present-day usage "jail" is creeping in, probably thanks to Elvis in no small part. The institution Lambert ran was called

3379: 3254: 3129: 3004: 2879: 2754: 1287: 1204: 294: 157: 85: 947: 2431:. If you are willing and able I would like you to translate it in Swedish as it is an international competition for talented violin musicians. It had no Swedish participants, yet. Actually there is no Swedish information about it anywhere in the web. I am available for any related questions. Don't bother with the tablet contents, I can do that by myself. Many thanks in advance. Kindest regards 782: 226: 643:

with reaching consensus but rather to try to force me to concede to your interpretation of policy. I don't see how my view on this has anything to do with forcing you to "back down". I'm only suggesting a reasonably compromise based on the fact that we have more policies and guidelines that are relevant to this case than just the one's you've chosen to stick to.

613:, I think it's time you did more than pay lip service to it. There is is more than one dissenting opinion containing lines argumentation that you have so far chosen to disregard. Consistently avoiding to talk about that which doesn't agree with your point of view is really no different from avoiding discussion altogether. 2581:. DYK clerks usually ask for at least one footnote per paragraphs. The other 4 wikiarticles need footnotes to go with the proposed DYK hook. I have put in {cn} there. Please add footnotes and refs if you are interested in having articles you have worked on featured on MainPage. Thank you. Happy editing. Cheers! -- 836:

In my opinion NW overreacted a bit. There's obviously no need to block you for what you did, and I tried to point that out. NW was probably just frustrated because you didn't seem to understand the advice you were given, and I think he wanted to point out to you that they were serious about what they

642:

This is not discussion. This is merely repetetion of technical argumentation with the intention of portraying your position as objectively correct. That's exactly what I mean by paying lip service to the idea of constructive discussion. You're certainly posting a lot of text, but none of it has to do

473:

within the promised time. I'm currently busy and stressed out for RL matters, so the major commitment to make the article up to GA status is too much burden for me at this point. I'm only adding something to unsourced BLP from being deleted or minor edits. If I implement the article later and fix all

2334:

Blocked or banned from editing, big deal, i hope you morals come to haunt you, as you are obviously letting them go as if they were nothing, you know I am right about the ethnicity, if it means fighting this injustice than be it. Listen to YOURSELF, HOW CAN THERE BE TURKIC PEOPLE WITH BLOND HAIR AND

541:

I see the information you added to that article has been fact tagged by another user, so much for the alleged compromise you cited. Since it has been tagged, I am satisfied to leave it a month or so, and remove the information again. I hope you can see how it breaks up the whole flow of the section,

268:

Okay, I've approved Henrik's rewording. Good luck with dealing with the trust people. I think it must be approximately 20 years since I last had contact with Alex jnr, so I can't help through him. (I've just noticed I linked the wrong Alexander McKee. I've now added a dab link to make our one easier

1739:

It's not clear from this discussion of a gaol in 19th century Britain has a specific use apart from jail. Jail is different from prison; jail is a holding cell for people awaiting trial or serving short non-serious offenses. Prison is for more severe penalties where sentences are much longer. So is

2695:

I've reviewed the article and left notes on the talk page. I've put the nomination on hold for seven days to allow the issues to be addressed. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, here, or on the article talk page with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been

2363:

I see that you replaced a picture of a shore-based quarterdeck with a photo of the after section of the Vasa. Your justification was that the article shouldn't be dominated by modern U.S. Navy ships. That's great as far as it goes, but if you click the small ship quarterdeck image, you'll see that

370:

is in no small part the reason for our success and continued throughput of high-quality content month after month. It has been my observation that MILHIST requests are usually responded to much quicker as well with a better quality of review since those reviewing usually have some knowledge of the

1716:

Iridescent left a note on my talk page about this. My inclination is to use the American "jail" because it is universally understood, whereas some American readers may wonder about "goal" (it's assymetical, coz they have 70% of native speakers, and tend to be underexposed to BrEng, whereas we are

1623:

Outside of Knowledge (XXG), the only time I've seen "gaol" is in Nathaniel Hawthorne. Oh, Sarah Waters, too. It seems to be a topic where "gaol" fits appropriately for the time and location. How does Knowledge (XXG) handle such issues as cookies/biscuits, sweaters/jumpers, trunks/boots, and other

725:

Swarm, thank you for dropping by and commenting. The attempts have indeed stalled, primarily because the BRD cycle is broken continually by Peter. The version of this article without the uncited material that he added, is unarguably stable and uncontroversial. Peter, if you really do wish to move

417:

Glad to help - I also made two more comments on the PR and if I get a chance will try rereading the article to see if anything else jumps out at me. I wonder if it would be possible to make an electronic recreration of the vellum rolls? Stitch together the images from Pepys' book... Just an idea.

2600:

does not have an article himself, and many works list the archipelago fleet, Chapman and Trolle as some sort of trinity. He was also one of Chapman's most important allies in the powerplay regarding the navy. I could start an article later on today after work, but any input would be appreciated.

1754:

Complicated. In this period, the gaol/prison distinction was the same as the current jail/prison distinction in the US—that is, Lambert's institution would have held prisoners awaiting trial, prisoners on such short sentences that it wasn't worth the authorities' while taking them to prison and

1664:

I have a hard time seeing that we could ever squeeze Knowledge (XXG) into the category of "British official use" or pretend that we're writing a period drama. And a cookie/biscuit-issue this most certainly is not; British texts similar to Wikipeia obviously use both spellings today. There is no

1567:

British spelling in the same way that "-ised" or "-ous" is. OED accepts both and lists "jail" first. When I searched the web for British newspapers (tabloids as well as broadsheets) and "gaol/jail", articles with "jails" are abundant. Seems like it would be easier to just go with "jail" in this

822:

Hello, Peter. I write a message now when you don't want me to call you. They say that they'll block me for that I'm creating articles. Why did they warn me? When I'm creating their articles, I read the Swedish article and translate that and they say that I'm creating unsourced articles and that

560:

As far as I'm concerned, this is a rather aggressive distortion of what has actually happened. It's obvious by the article talk that I've had "no intention of discussing the issues". If you genuinely believe what you're saying here, I advise you to look over how you communicate with your fellow

2371:

I looked a long time for an image that adequately shows the quarterdeck of a sailing ship, but I never found one. The Vasa picture doesn't really illustrate it, IMHO. Also IMHO, the ideal quarterdeck article would have images of a sailing ship quarterdeck, clearly showing where it is, and of a

601:

The only thing I see in this reply is that you're not interested in mutual discussion. You've already decided that you're sitting on The Right Interpretation of policy and you're openly admitting that you'll revert as soon as you feel that formal rules allow for it. You're inviting nothing but

646:

I've expressed my concerns about your behavior here, but I have no interest to discuss article issues here. I've made some fairly coherent and relevant replies over at the article talkpage so please try to discuss them there instead of merely waiting for enough time to pass so you can revert

576:

As it's your talk page you're more than welcome to remove anything and everything on it. However you may characterise what was said on the talk page, the third opinion given and the opinion of another editor who weighed in agreed with what I said. At the very least, mine is not a solely held

2398:

Sorry I missed that the first image was Japanese, but the point I was trying to make was that it shouldn't all about be modern navy terminology. It doesn't really matter if it's US or not. And the on-shore bell-ringer is pretty far off from what is by most likely perceived as a nautical

624:

If I'm still here discussing it, I'm hardly paying lip service! I think you mean that I'm not backing down and taking your side, which is an entirely different thing. For your part, you've simply repeated that you can see a link between the portrayals of certain characters and that's

1522:

Completely disagree, and if Wiktionary says "gaol" is obsolete, they're talking nonsense. (It's "obsolete" in the sense that gaols no longer exist in Britain, but the word for the former gaols hasn't changed.) "Gaol" is the British spelling; "Jail" is the American spelling.

1071:

Very belated congratulations from me as well - the Mary Rose article is a fantastic piece of work and easily one of Knowledge (XXG)'s best articles. Reading the article has made me want to revisit the museum! (shame I live in Australia, and it's not open again until 2012).

2335:

BLUE EYES, EXPLAIN IT TO ME, YOU PEOPLE ARE THREATENING ME, BUT NOT EXPLAINING MY SIMPLE QUESTION, WHAT IS YOUR LOGIC. Why are you being like this, what is your problem, for this aricle the rules are being pushed to far, to cover obvious facts and hide the truth.

2673:

Hey there, thanks for the message. I'm afraid the best of intentions didn't quite meet with reality, in the form of a new job. I do apologize. I will try and get around to a reeview in the next few days; but if not, I will definitely delist myself as a reviewer.

388:

Thanks for the suggestion and helping out with cross-linking. Making the Mary Rose PR into a general history topic was quite intentional, though. I know that MILHIST is an extremely efficient project, and I have a lot of respect for your work. However, since the

848:. English Knowledge (XXG) believes this is very important because otherwise editors might write bad things about people who are still alive and could be hurt by it. All you need to do when you write about living people is that you find a reliable source ( 1793:

Seems pretty clear to me that as Lambert was a gaoler in charge of the County Gaol then "gaol" is to be prefered in this specific instance. The note that's been added serves to educate those readers unfamiliar with the 19th-century English penal system.

2696:

addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on.

2513:

Hi, Peter, I'll do the two remaining sections tomorrow, I'm beat. Please check it out. Oh, and naturally, a discussion of your Swedish post on my page has broken out among some of the nuttier of my page watchers, in case you want to join in. :-)

534:

I take it then that you have no intention of discussing the issues with the article above with me? So be it, I have provided plenty of scope for discussion and have done everything I can be reasonably expected to do in my position.

371:

subject which is beneficial. You do not need to worry about this one because I have enabled cross-listing of this review within the MILHIST framework (we maintain this capability for instances exactly such as this). Thanks, -

1502:

for consistency, but using it to remove explanations for non-British readers doesn't seem meaningful in this case. Subtle and learned and all that is very nice, but I don't see why it can't be complemented with a minimum of

1599:

the current spelling, it wouldn't alter the case in this instance; the institution of which he was keeper was Leicester Gaol, not Leicester Jail, and (as with every other gaol in England) was never known as "jail" at any

732:

This small, unverified piece of information has been through BRD, a third opinion, wikiquette alerts and now the OR noticeboard. Surely after all this effort we might be rewarded with knowing why it should be included?

1756: 1626:

variant spellings of JAIL, JAILER. In British official use the forms with G are still current; in literary and journalistic use both the G and the J forms are now admitted as correct; in the U.S. the J forms are

1470:. It's an article in British English on a British topic, and the British spelling is "gaol". Knowledge (XXG) doesn't provide running-translation between British and American where the spellings are different. – 1178:

Thank you so much for such a help Peter! Take your time: it took almost six months to develop the article, and I know how long it takes to, I will proceed now to tune the references as you have suggested, most

487:

No problem. The improvements you made still raised the quality of the article. I'd be glad to look at it again if you so wish. You know my main concerns, so next time around shouldn't be too difficult.

1535:(the modern equivalent of "gaol" in the period in question) because most people searching on "gaol" will be people looking for the modern meaning of "prison". The earlier discussion on the problem is 867:

I accept your apology and I recommend that you keep working according to the advice that I and other Wikipedians have given you. I'm sure you can keep making useful contributions to Knowledge (XXG).

393:

is about so much more than just military history, particularly maritime archaeology, I didn't want it to be classified as a purely "military" review. MILHIST's input on the military aspects on the

1447:

Thanks! This was a pretty major project that took a darned long time to finish, so your comments are greatly appreciated. And thank you for taking some much-needed photos of the salvaged guns.

1721:

British. But SandyGeorgia has just left a note suggesting a compromise: why not use "gaol" and add a footnote. Indeed. Better than a link, I think. And you educate everyone at the same time.

561:

editors, because it doesn't seem quite in touch with what has actually been said and done. Please don't attempt distortions on my talkpage again, or I'll remove them just like I did with

1692:

I imagine nothing will convince you your position (which appears to be "if I've not heard of it, it isn't true) is wrong, but as a very quick Google Test, there are three times as many

694:

Hey Peter! I see you and Alistairward's attempts at communicating have more or less stalled for a couple of days. This is probably a good thing. You may want to take the dispute to the

2641:. I'm pretty sure you didn't mean to copy-&-paste that over. I hope you don't mind my revising your edit. Hopefully, a reviewer can take a look at your new hook soon. Cheers! -- 1369:

from the list of potential upcoming requests as the article is gonna be tomorrows TFA. You probably already noticed this, but in case you didn't I thought I would leave you a notice.

2717:

The file you uploaded, Voiceless_alveolar_affricate.ogg, is mistakingly linked to voiced alveolar affricate as well... I was looking for a way to fix that but I wasn't successful...

1697: 628:

You should check out the South Park good article drive. After that's passed over an article there simply isn't any room left for uncited material, you might consider that yourself.

362:

about the newly-opened peer review. In the future I suggest that instead of opening a general peer review (where general editor response can be lacking), open a peer review at the

2375:

Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be room for all that, and of course we don't have a really good image of a sailing ship quarterdeck. Maybe we can keep working on all of it. --

1693: 1531:, as the two are historically different (a jail is still different to a prison in the US, although the distinction has been abolished in England); however, it can't redirect to 1124: 2619:

I'm spurting to do some last touch-ups to the other articles, but I'll take a look at Trolle and see if I can find something in the refs I've used for the other articles.

1595:; in literary and journalistic use both the G and the J forms are now admitted as correct; in the U.S. the J forms are standard." (My emphasis.) Even if the "J" spelling 246:

I suspect you can just tone up what is said in the article. If you do change the hook, you're very close to the character limit. So be careful not to make it too long.

580:

Given that Knowledge (XXG) policy is also on my said, I stand firm by what I said. As I type this, I see a note below reminding me that "Encyclopedic content must be

2163: 667:

That's the point though, it doesn't just apply to one article in particular but all articles in general. Why should synthesis trump verifiability in any article?

587:

I would also like to know what happens when the week expires and, in conjunction with the third opinion given, I remove the uncited material from that article?

729:

BRD calls for discussion before adding material again that has been highlighted as controversial, perhaps you might also explain why you disargee with this.

1915: 1821:

1851 Census entry for Welford Road Prison calls it the County Gaol. Every other reference I've found so far to Leicester's gaols also calls them gaols.

853: 1839:

Etymology apparently derives from two variant spellings in Old French, giving rise to gaol and jail with different pronunciations- "gayole" had a hard

1026: 800:

article and particularly for getting those fantastic photos released by the Mary Rose Trust, together with coverage in the press. Brilliant work!

474:

problems that you raised, I will ask for your review. Thank you for your time and patience as well as your all efforts made for the GAC review. --

856:. In short, this could be articles published in magazines or newspapers (online or on paper), books, interviews on TV and such. Sources that are 1669:

in any way. More readers would understand it and no one would be distracted by the slightly whimsical, if coincidental, "goal keeper"-confusion.

1056:

I know that of all the comments at the Mary Rose FAC mine were probably the harshest, but I'm glad the article passed all the same. Well done!

2221: 2577:. Please feel free to propose new (better) hooks there. For DYK purposes, please add more footnotes and refs to the 'History' section of 239: 3500: 2342: 1030: 3522: 2315:

Do you think this is better? I have also added a "dialects" section. Please feel free to make any changes that you see fit. Thanks,

1766:

should satisfy everyone. I'm very reluctant to have "jail" in the first sentence, since the next sentence talks about the "gaol". –

1487:

But it's not particularly clear. I had never seen "gaol" before seeing this article, and I wasn't even particularly enlightened by

2168: 1989: 1806:

Are US readers unfamiliar with dictionaries, or google? He worked in a Gaol, and was a gaoler. It really isn't that difficult.

885: 48: 1690:

The spelling with the g is the primary spelling in British English and this is an article in British English on a British topic.

1090:

Thank you, Nick. That's a very flattering compliment. And much oblige to you too, Steve (though I've already replied elsewhere).

2733: 1873:

Hello, nice to meet you! You are quite right, that is not a Byzantine dromon. Commons has a couple of such pictures (including

317:, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page 180:, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page 108:, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page 1310:, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page 1227:, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page 3471: