User talk:Bastin/Archive 4

This page is an archive of my talk page up to the 10th April 2007. If you wish to trawl something up from these discussions, please copy the relevant part and post it in the current talk page. Bastin

Jonathan Isaby

Ask him then, and pass on my regards. rob77

Kingdom of Great Britain

Thanks for implementing the Former Country infobox for the Kingdom of Great Britain entry. For future reference, an extended version of instructions for using this infobox can now be found here. Keep up the good work. - 52 Pickup 15:23, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Fulfil

The bot is replacing 'fulfil' with 'fulfill'. The former is correct in all non-American modern spellings. Please remove this from the list. Bastin 01:14, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh dear. It is indeed doing that. 'Fulfil' is interesting in that it's the correct British English spelling, as you say, but it looks really wrong to my eyes despite having used British spelling all my life. Ho hum, time to upgrade my eyeballs I guess! Thanks, CmdrObot 01:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Change to Common.css

Per recent discussions, the way in which Persondata is viewed by Wikipedia editors has changed. In order to continue viewing Persondata in Wikipedia articles, please edit your user CSS file to display table.persondata rather than table.metadata. More specific instructions can be found on the Persondata page. --ShakingSpirit^talk on behalf of Kaldari 00:42, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Luxembourgers and languages...

Hello Bastin,

I'm not sure I can agree with your recent change in the Luxembourg article. For those of us who grew up in Luxembourgish speaking families French was indeed harder to learn then German and most retained a greater degree of fluency in German then French. I myself consider myself both francophone and germanophone, but as you might have noticed on my user page I rated myself as native language Luxembourgish and German, near native for French and English, I believe the same applies to many others. Of course this is yet another issue for the large section of the population who have more recent migratory origins and therefore might have grown up with a romance language (best example are probably the Portuguese immigrants and Luxembourgers of Portuguese descent), these often have problems in school with German and English, but much less in French. This is probably one of the reasons for Luxembourg's bad scores in PISA tests, old Luxembourgers having trouble with one mandatory school language while immigrants or those of recent immigrant origin having trouble with two mandatory school languages and the unofficial vehicular language of school (Luxembourgish). I'm not sure how to remedy this in the article, but I found 208.50.126.126 useful. As an anecdote, like most kids of my generation I learned German from watching TV in the 1970's, I was more or less fluent in it before I ever was scholarised. We even used to play speaking German among ourselves. Of course I grew up in a mostly Luxembourgish (all my neighbours were actually Italian or Spanish immigrants, but they also spoke Luxembourgish by then) language area, which was already unusual back in the 1970's. French on the other hand came several years later and I only started to assimilate it's grammar around 7th grade (1st year of highschool). Even today I much prefer to speak Luxembourgish, German or English, though I indeed prefer to write French (as it's a beautiful language with a large and diverse vocabulary), at least for anything formal.--Caranorn 12:58, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it's definitely the case for those who grew up in a Luxembourgish speaking environment, which is a rapidly dwindling portion of the population. One reason for your experience might also be based on the fact that in every day life (especially working age and actual working people) Luxembourgish speaking people are definitely a minority. What's also correct is that indeed the Moselle region (one of my sisters lives there), but also the Eisleck tends to be more germanophone, the Minett is very francophone on the other hand, the center is more mixed... I will see whether I can edit that entry slightly to reflect this. If you get to it first go ahead, I'm a bit slow right now due to a cold that's been plaguing me for a few days.--Caranorn 15:01, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Template:Luxembourgian elections

Hi Bastin. Sorry, I've just reverted the template before I realised you had written me a message. Anyway, although it is a decent idea, it's a bit of a problem to fit them on the same box (some countries' are huge already as they have a lot of national elections and referenda, Denmark's being one).

I think I will keep excluding the European elections, as the box is really for national elections, and the European ones are more like regional ones (as they are done by regions too). I intend to create a new box for them that will go by country and year (hopefully it won't look to awful!). Thanks for the comments anyway! Number 57 13:15, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Luxembourgian referendum, 1937

Incidentally, are you sure Luxembourgian communism referendum, 1937 is a good name? It was a referendum on the illegalisation of the Communist Party, not on adopting or abolishing communism... —Nightstallion (?) 19:20, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't like it myself, and do now regret giving it its current (provisional) title. I think that 'Luxembourgian political parties referendum, 1937' is the preferred option, reflecting that it wasn't just the Communists that were to be outlawed (all parties that threatened violence, including fascists, were to be banned). Bastin 22:54, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Great; done! :) —Nightstallion (?) 12:04, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

City of Hollerich-Bonnevoie

I have been reading with some amazement the pages on Luxembourg (city) and Hollerich. There seems to have been a serious misunderstanding of the French ville and the German Stadt in the explanation of how Hollerich was given the status of a city. I feel very strongly that is should be corrected by translating ville as town is this context. City in the English language - and particularly in British English - has a very specific meaning which goes far beyond the French ville. Before I go ahead with making edits along these lines, I would like your reactions. Whoever added the information seems very intent on maintaining his view of the world! Ipigott 09:36, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Caranorn was the one that pointed out that Hollerich-Bonnevoie was granted the title of a city. If you want to argue the toss with him about usage of the French language, be my guest. Just as miserable is an attempt to argue the toss with me, since I understand the nuances of both 'ville' and 'stadt' perfectly well.

In this case, your translation is simply wrong. 'Town' is a relatively uncommon legal definition in English, but 'city' is one that is common to all. This is a translation that is universal, from both French and German, and to just about every language that does differentiate between the two. 'Ville' is the official designation in Luxembourg, and its usage with regards to Hollerich-Bonnevoie is identical to its usage with regards to Luxembourg City, Diekirch, Esch-sur-Alzette, or the nine other cities in Luxembourg. Hence List of cities in Luxembourg, the creation of which greatly predates my intervention. Bastin 19:50, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your detailed explanations on this which I have read with interest. I have indeed been in touch with Caranorn on this and he commented as follows: Concerning city and town, I feel city is appropriate though I've noticed that for instance in articles concerning dutch city grants these are called towns. But doing so actually risks leading to confusion. For me a town is a french bourg, a much less formal title (which can be attributed to a small rural community behind walls or of special status, to part of a larger city etc.). A city on the other hand is indeed the french ville, one granted that title and corresponding rights by charter. This once was a very important distinction and the reason why even today a small place like Vianden is called a city (my own village I seem to recall has a greater population then Vianden). The fact that Hollerich-Bonnevoie once was granted that status is also quite important (at that time city grants were of course for matters such as industrialization and population, but it was still a special grant), though by now it's mostly an anecdote (most locals probably don't know). In general, changing terminology from city to town could also create create a problem with Luxembourg City as I'm not sure any local place would bear the title based on size alone (we definitely do not fulfill the requirements for major city as applied in Germany, though I'm not sure what kind of population they require for minor city). But anyhow, it's largely a matter of tradition, places such as Vianden, Echternach or Luxembourg have had the status of ville for most of the past 7-8 centuries, while towns are often of much more recent origin and much less regional or local importance (particularly US use of town). Concerning Mamer and any other community without status of a 'ville' I'd agree that it should just be called a village or a municipality/commune. While these have grown relatively large in the past century they don't have any special status.

See also city, particularly it's The difference between towns and cities section, plus town and city charter (which is sadly underdeveloped). --Caranorn 13:13, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ipigott"

So I agree that in the case of Luxembourg we should translated the official status of ville as city. BTW this becomes more difficult in the case of Scandinavian places where the charter usually established a market town - similar in fact to market towns in England. In Spanish and Italian, with ciudad and cittá, every town is a city!Ipigott 22:42, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

WP NZ and WP Indonesia

Thanks for that - for some reason it brings to mind the leader of the eastern pacific's comment border relations between canada and mexico have never been better... maybe I should pen the border rels between nz and indonesia have never been better? SatuSuro 14:30, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Moving pages

Before you move pages you should probably discuss it first. regards--Vintagekits 13:56, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Latest edit to "Evil"

"Judgment" is not an incorrect spelling. "Judgement" is an alternative, but it is not more correct. AngryStan 06:43, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, 'judgement' is always incorrect in a legal context. Bastin 13:47, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out guys. It's actually a word I added to my corrections list just yesterday without checking it properly, so hopefully no major harm done. I've removed it from the list and made sure it won't be added again. Cheers, CmdrObot 15:02, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Mark Clarke

I am afraid to disappoint you, Bastin8, but I am not in fact Mark Clarke. I am however someone who knows him, hence the "personal" information you mention. I'm sure he appreciates your congratulations. User:85.210.26.72 16:38, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Reply: Redirects

Alright, I understand the "rediects with possibilities", but what is wrong with Lycée redirecting directly to the "lycée" section, thus helping the user by not haveing to scroll down to the intended section? Also, would you like me to self-revert all of my refined redirects?--Vox Rationis 21:29, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I can do that...thanks for the heads up, so that I don't do that in the future!--Vox Rationis 21:37, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

3RR

Warning

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing in Kingdom of Great Britain. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. You are well beyond this rule now. -- zzuuzz^(talk) 14:53, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Three revert rule report

I have reported a primâ facie breach of the three revert rule on the noticeboard. Please comment there. Sam Blacketer 15:28, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

User notice: temporary 3RR block

Regarding reversions[1] made on February 24 2007 to Kingdom of Great Britain

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

The duration of the block is 24 hours. William M. Connolley 16:49, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Re your mail: unfortunately this is all too late as the block has expired. But also... the RfC isn't relevant; nor are the warnings since you're experienced. Were AFDs edits vandalism? Not obviously so. And the usual answer to that is: get the other editor blocked for vandalism, if it is, rather than overdoing 3RR yourself William M. Connolley 17:07, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

London etc. conservative Societies

Now at AfD. Ignorant comments, but they will prevail unless you can get some cites in quickly for all 3 articles. The refs in Oxford don't display right, which doesn't help the article. Check the templates--You need to use one for each ref. Alternatively, do it inline . AND don't cite WP, I don't think anyone has noticed yet, but if they do it will sink the articles for sure. It has actually been challenged in each individual liked bio that the people are members, and actual refs will be needed. People are being thorough, andy ou will have to be. Regret I cant find time to help but it isnt my main interest. DGG 05:08, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Jan Smuts

Sorry about that mistake. I realised almost immediately - but you beat me to it. Thank you. CarolGray 18:28, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Larry Niven "Lib."

Can you give some evidence of this? It's certainly not a characterization that I would have chose. Niven's work is not particularly anti-government nor pro-market, so this seems an odd categorization --Belg4mit 13:39, 25 March 2007 (UTC)