Welcome!

I'm back!

Thank you for your input, just learning the system. BVC2000

Hello and welcome! "Wikify" means adding wiki-style markup such as bold, italics, and links. "fyi" simply means "For your information." I hope you have fun and if you have any other questions just ask me or the Village pump. --mav

Muriel, you might like to add something here about yourself?

Um, for list of people and its sublists, I think it was agreed not to wikify the years, since they're all in the bios, and there's not likely to be much value in linking the year directly from the list. Stan 13:32, 2 Aug 2003 (UTC)

• Well, in this quixotest quest of mine, i discovered several discrepancies between bios and lists. I also found lots of repetitions of people: the popes are a mess. About linking the years, i was starting to agree with you. But, then again, there are lots of years, specially before 1800, who don't have much information. I think i will continue with the removal of duplicates and adding births and deaths to years, without linking the years. Or do you think that's just a terrible waste of time? Did i understood your comment? Muriel

• • There's some discussion in Talk:list of people about using metadata in bios to auto-construct the list, because it has a pretty stereotyped form. It's probably not going to happen soon, so weeding the list is still worthwhile. I tweak it to push closer to the form that I think it's most likely to have when automation happens; years unlinked, plus 1-5 words about occupation/notability as a hint in case the name is unfamiliar. Stan 15:03, 6 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Hi, Muriel. Thanks for your help! Hba 10:12, 6 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Heh. No problem. This morning I've just been using the spellchecker, as opposed to actual copyediting. But trust me, your articles are among the least of my problems spelling-wise. :) - Hephaestos 10:44, 7 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Hi Muriel,

Thanks for the legions link, I'd been working from my old second edition of The Oxford Classical Dictionary. I must confess I got the idea of doing a few legion entries from your user page list. Lisiate 06:05, 8 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Olá, Muriel! Era para te agradecer as palavras que deixaste na minha página. Espero ter tempo para continuar a página sobre o 25 de Abril. Já agora, boas férias no mais belo país do mundo. ;) Marco NevesMarco Neves

Thanks for the Hello! and the tips, Muriel. Yes, the Wikipedia is a marvel (even a Dream, actually), and Geology is on my list of extra-special interests. I have read and studied dozens of Guide pages in the last week, and am gradually becoming less of a hazard to all. While reading, I have seen some disturbing tales: "24", Edit Wars, Vandalism, and more .. <shudder>. Those came after Can It Really Work?, and other introductory Sure, Go Ahead! articles. Brave folks, and an impressive product ... but I have reservations, honestly. I would like to grapple with such points in an appropriate place and manner. -- Ted Clayton

I went over to Olivenza and realized that copyright isn't even the largest issue--some NPOVing has now been done. Thanks for the pointer.Vicki Rosenzweig 15:09, 28 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Thanks for you help!

Hey, it sounds like a good call to me, but I've occasionally gotten rapped on this kind of change in the past (e.g. when I went to straighten out the Medicis). The Wiki rule is that the article goes under the most common form in English - even when scholars, or logic, disagree. See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names) and the link there to royal names (which applies in this case) for more. So we have Ramesses under "Ramses", for instance, even though the scholars now pretty much use "Ramesses". Lots of people tend to use Google searches to find the most popular form, especially the "Advanced Search" page which lets you specify English-only. Noel 19:06, 30 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I think Afonso ought to be all right. English, after all, would be Alphonse, but I've never heard anyone call them that. (Actually, I've never heard anyone refer to the Portuguese kings at all, except for Henry the Navigator.) - Montréalais 03:18, 31 Aug 2003 (UTC)

• I agree with wikipedia policy for names. Whenever there is an english option, like in John I or the Peters, this is used. What i dont agree is to see portuguese kings in spanish names, except in the spanish wiki! By the way, Henry the Navigator was just a prince and a duke, not king... :) Cheers, Muriel Gottrop 12:08, 31 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, as I'm not aware of any of the spellings being particularly prevalent in English usage. However, given that there's this ambiguity, it's at least possible that English-speakers might look for them under any of those spellings, so there should probably be redirects. --Delirium 21:45, Aug 31, 2003 (UTC)

Olá, Muriel! Já vi o teu artigo sobre a Batalha de Aljubarrota. Parece-me muito bom! Logo que possa (estou em mudanças e tenho pouco tempo de internet por estes dias), leio com mais atenção, tudo bem? Cumprimentos sinceros deste conterrâneo ;) User:Marco Neves

What timing! I just got back from Europe three hours ago, with nearly 2,000 pics in hand (we love digital cameras) and considerable progress in reading Livy. At first glance, your Rome proposal seems noncontroversial, but I'll look it over more closely tomorrow. Stan 03:34, 4 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Hi, I don't know if you have seen this site:

http://sirius.sgic.fi/~juha/konsuli.html

It has a small list of some of the princeps senatus you were looking for, but it's obviously very incomplete. It might be a start though. Adam Bishop 21:34, 4 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I've been looking at your proposal, but I don't really know much about Roman history aside from the basics...my knowledge starts as it turns into the Byzantine Empire, and even that is a little sketchy :) I do have a Roman history class coming up in January, though. I'll try to help as much as I can! Adam Bishop 12:46, 5 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Hi Muriel

Thanks for the message. I've had a look at a few of the different documents you mentioned. I get the feeling I'll be fairly regularly contributing to Wikipedia, even if it's just proofreading a bit. I'm afraid I'm the kind of busybody who'd correct everyone's spelling and punctuation if I could, especially misused apostrophe's.

cheers

Gypsum Fantastic 15:57, 5 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Catching up on all your legion additions - great stuff! But I have a kibitz; the articles launch into details without actually saying what the article is about ("a legion of ancient Rome"). Think of somebody using the random page function that doesn't know much about ancient history - it will be totally confusing. You want the first paragraph to let readers know what the article is about, even they have no background in the subject. I'll tweak the ones I'm reading - the needed changes are minor. Stan 17:10, 6 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Your subpages have been deleted as requested. If you change your mind and want them undeleted, then Wikipedia:Votes for undeletion is probably the best place to go, or just let me know if I'm around. Angela 13:25, 9 Sep 2003 (EDT)

I (and apparently User:Fonzy) have been correcting _List of People by name_ pages somewhat randomly. Unfortunately, I use a semi-public computer which swaps IPs in occasion. When Fonzy begun from A, I rechecked letters from L onwards and, as of this writing, A to K again. Unfortunately I mainly add only what I can remember - usually nationalities. I also modified some comments.

Some of the personages seem to have had two or even three entries - I have removed mainly those that have lead to redirects or, in occasion, to disambiguation pages. Although I did not check all the priests and monarchs. Also some musical bands have been listed as persons. Not sure what to do with the hidden comment in St. -81.197.15.117 11:02, 24 Sep 2003 (UTC)

All I am doing is bolding the letters for example M and Mn as they are just links to the same page. -fonzy

I'm just loving the Julio-Claudian family tree. Good stuff! -- Cyan 00:00, 2 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Welcome back! I've been reading a recent translation of Friedrich Munzer's 1920 book on the patrician gentes lately - lots of good dirt on the families and their relationships that can be deduced from the sketchy bits in Livy and inscriptions. Stan 16:14, 16 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Dear Muriel, thanks for your comment. I had no indication that he was a new user, or indeed a user at all in the sense that he wants to contribute to the encyclopaedia. I think he is just a malicious and politically motivated idiot. Maybe I am being harsh :)

I see we have some interests in common. Did you approve of my rewrite of Augustus Caesar? Adam 00:42, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Just for you, Muriel, I will try to be nice. :) What isd yr PhD on? Adam 12:37, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC)

• In my name and all of the Wikipedians, wiki-love to you, Adam... The PhD is in Structural Geology. Cheers Muriel Gottrop 17:05, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Hi Muriel, you might be interested in looking at the Latin translation of the Roman Emperors list I recently made...I know I completely bungled the title of the page at first, so who knows what else I've done wrong :) Llywrch helped a bit, but I assume you know more Latin than either of us! It's at Imperatores Romani. Adam Bishop 12:54, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Could we have a Latin translation of the US Presidents list? Adam

• Jesus! is that a Wiki in Latin? I cant wait to see the articles about Monica Lewinski, and the Iraq wars, and the Spice Girls and Oscar winners and etc there! I can try and give a help. Technically you can write everything, except concepts unknown to Romans like satelite or atomic fusion and the likes. In fact, i know the ideal person to help: one of my professors - he got Harry Potter in Latin (its true, it exists) for his birthday. Lets try and make him a wikipedian! Cheers all, Muriel Gottrop 17:05, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC)

It's true, there may not be a lot to say about some Roman laws, but most of them have a political story, or the date is less certain than the list can explain, or you need more space to explain what the law says or how it relates to other laws, including Byzantine and medieval laws. Working through the OCD systematically for list of ancient Romans indicates there are quite a lot of jurists with surviving works, and references to hefty tomes, so I suspect there is plenty of article material in the library. Of course, if you know there's not, then un-free-linking a law's name is the right way to express the conclusion! :-) Stan 13:15, 20 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I took the liberty of correcting superstition in your to-do list. Don't mean to offend. -- Smerdis of Tlön 00:25, 21 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Heh, I'm getting there! Finally finished with Friedrich Münzer, now can go on to what he wrote about. Much of the material is gens-focused, been waffling about whether to call the articles gens Valeria or Valerii etc; the second is more common in Google, but the gens form seems more like the name of an article. Stan 13:44, 22 Oct 2003 (UTC)

It's basically a question of which should be the article, and which should be redirs. Valerius is sort-of-OK, but for instance that doesn't work for Claudius, for which I made the awkward Claudius (gens) a while ago. The pluralized form works better with subfamilies, as in the Calpurnii Pisones, but they may never need their own article. Valerii is amusingly parallel with non-Roman peoples such as Boii. Decisions can always be changed later with page moves, just trying to forestall that. Stan 12:52, 23 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Hi Muriel, I just took a look at the png's you created & linked to Kings of Portugal family tree, & I've been waiting until I knew you came back to ask you this: How do you create these diagrams? I've futzed around with writing LaTeX code & piping it thru the necessary programs to turn the end result into a *.png file, so I know it's possible, but you've put enough work into the effort & have created a nice enough end result, so I thought I'd grovel a little & beg for your secret. -- llywrch 00:28, 23 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I stumbled across your userpage and see that you're a (history?) PhD candidate. If you need more things to do on Wikipedia, you might want to check out graduate student and GRE, as those entries were started recently and need more input to remain NPOV. If not, no worries.  :)
Best wishes, zandperl 15:21, 23 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Hi I noticed you said somewhere about creating a WikiLists project. I think it might be a great solution to ease all the disputes we currently have over these. You should mention it on the village pump. Good luck with it if you do take it on. Angela 16:02, Oct 25, 2003 (UTC)

• I started talking up the wikilist, either as automated or as a wikiproject. If I find further opportunities to do so, I will. I hope we manage to get something.
• Grad student: I'll put in some start to non-US viewpoints, but I don't think I've the inclination currently to research it extensively.
  

-- zandperl 21:27, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Hi; I've nominated you for sysop/administrator at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship. This basically means you'd be able to protect/unprotect pages, edit protected pages (such as the Main Page), delete obvious junk on sight, use a handy quick-rollback button, and some other assorted features (see Wikipedia:Administrators for the full details). If you'd like to accept, please comment on the Requests for adminship page saying so. --Delirium 12:41, Oct 29, 2003 (UTC)

Muriel, there are no obligations if you accept, you can just have the privs waiting in the wings. Fuzheado 10:21, 30 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Oh I know all too well about the time-sucking nature of Wikipedia. :) I'm supposed to be applying to PhD programs myself at the moment, but here I am instead. In any case, you can accept the nomination and not actually do anything with it: having extra powers doesn't mean you have to use them. Of course, it is a temptation, so do as you see fit... --Delirium 10:29, Oct 30, 2003 (UTC)

Hola Muriel :) You have to wait until someone bestows the powers of admin-ness upon you, doesn't happen in an instant :) but you'll know when it happens Dysprosia 12:34, 30 Oct 2003 (UTC)

What she said. They (the dreaded developers) like to promote a clump of new admins while they are at it, so don't get impatient if it takes a while. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogostick 13:00, Oct 30, 2003 (UTC)

Muriel, just wanted to say congratulations, and that I was one of what I imagine was a fair number of editors who would have added their own "second" to your nomination had I made it to the RFA page before you accepted. :) Best of luck at the admin position: I shared your hesitancy when becoming an admin at the end of summer, but so far it's not drained any more time than WP used to, and there have been occasions when it's been very nice to delete gobbledygook on sight. :) Best wishes, and congrats once again, Jwrosenzweig 22:52, 30 Oct 2003 (UTC)

On the French family tree, looks good, but two comments, one related to a routine error, and the other substantive. Firstly, for the Bourbons, the header still says "Third Dynasty, Valois." More substantively, the text about Henri IV seems to suggest that he inherited the throne in right of his wife. He did not. He inherited it in right of his descent in the male line from Robert, Comte de Clermont, youngest son of Louis IX. This should be made clear. john 04:49, 31 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words on list of ancient Romans, but it's just typing! :-) It's an interesting way to discover orphaned articles (and there seems to be lots of those). Pauly-Wissowa has 5,000 Roman bios, this list only 1,100 names, but the expansion can wait a bit! :-) Stan 16:02, 31 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Eggenberger's An Encyclopedia of Battles uses Wars of the First Triumvirate, which isn't great, but I can't find any other refs that give it a specific name. Stan 18:20, 31 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Eggenberger starts with Carrhae, so the triumvirate existed at his starting point, but Googling shows his terminology hasn't caught on. Ironically, Google's three uses of "Wars of the First Triumvirate" includes a red link in our list of battles (alphabetical). Part of the rationale is that it's parallel with Wars of the Second Triumvirate with Octavian and co. Or you could just not partition, lump all together in Roman Civil Wars (that's what Appian does after all), and worry about it when/if the lumped article gets large. :-) Stan 19:14, 31 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Thanks Muriel for encouragement. You wrote "Tip: you can sign, like Angela and Menchi in Requests..., with 4 tildes (~). Any question, please post it in my talk page." Can you elaborate on 4 tildes a little? User:Moriori 23.26 Oct 31 2003

You're now a sysop. Or possibly an administrator. Maybe even both. What I'm trying to say is that I've just switched on your "sidebar clutter" flag, which makes it almost impossible to find anything in your sidebar, when you are viewing articles. You should read Wikipedia:Administrators and the associated policy pages, if you haven't already done so. -- Tim Starling 06:39, Nov 1, 2003 (UTC)

Yeah, that's Michael. I used to keep the page protected to avoid work, but now that he's not around so much I figured leaving it unprotected is a good way to spot him when he shows up. Thanks for fixing it! - Hephaestos 23:58, 1 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Ah, if you like that, you'll be pleased to know I've been adding a lot of Greek history stuff lately...Ephialtes, Aristagoras, Lade, Marathon, Thermopylae, Artemisium, Salamis, Plataea, Mycale, Eurybiades, Pausanias, Mardonius, Alexander I of Macedon, and Artemisia are some of the ones I created or expanded in the past couple of weeks. I was planning on doing Cleomenes I today, but I have a test I should be studying for :) Adam Bishop 19:28, 2 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Hi Muriel, the problem is that I haven't been able to locate the original piece by Czeslaw Milosz, so I can't really summarise the debate. I think both the letter and Milosz's reply are important commentaries on the Zofia K and contribute a lot to the article. Adam 13:51, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Hi, Muriel. Thanks for the heads up -- I'd already taken the comment to the talk page. I suppose it's always good to read the directions first! Mike (24.91....)

Actually, your question stumped me. I don't recall that situation coming up before. Maybe just keep a watch on them, unless they start doing "simple vandalism" like blanking pages. Oh, report them on Wikipedia:Problem users, of course! -- Cimon Avaro on a pogostick 18:06, Nov 7, 2003 (UTC)

Great family tree drawings at Kings of France family tree! --Menchi 10:46, 8 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Hi Muriel, that's an interesting page! I immediately thought of Stephen of Cloyes, but I see he is already there :) I'll try to think of some more. Adam Bishop 01:31, 9 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Hi Muriel, I just saw the continuation of the short thread on the talk page of our friend Wik. Don't take it personally, he is always rude and impolite, and a friendly word is apparently a sign of weakness in his view. Unfortunately he was right in this special case, speaking about the facts only, not about the way of reverting. That is the problem with this person, that even if he is right, he is not able to state his views in a polite way on a talk page. Keep up your great work here, and don't get discouraged by people of that ilk. -- Baldhur 09:02, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)

• No he is not! But he can have it his way, i'm not going to give him the pleasure of entering a rv-rv war. I dont think Wik is rude: he is just ridiculous. Cheers, Muriel 11:37, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Thanks for your congrats :) Secretlondon 12:35, Nov 12, 2003 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome Muriel. I actually have a question about editing pages. How do you create Table of Contents for a page? I have looked in the Help and FAQ sections but can't find any mention of this. Nor could I deduce it from the markup of pages that have one. Petermanchester 13:11, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Wik is interested in what I am interested in, He follows me around -- randomly reverting my edits. Lirath Q. Pynnor