Jump to content

User talk:Robert Prummel

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome

[edit]

Sorry, it seems that nobody has given you a formal greeting to Wikipedia yet. So if you don't mind...

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome!

Zzyzx11 | Talk 02:27, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I allready made dozens of contributions on the Dutch, German and English Wiki and i greatly enjoy co-creating an encyclopaedia having read encyclopaedias for fun since my early childhood. Now all this no-use-knowledge will be regurgitated! I am aware of the fact that as a Dutchman I am bound to make mistakes in foreign languages.. I am fluent in several laguages but this does not make a " native speaker" out of me. My English is bookish and old-fashioned. I have been told that my pronunciation is is as snobbish as the Prince of Wales's ... I do hope that the English , or even American, Wikipedians will correct me whenever i sin against grammar, punctuation or spelling!

Faithfully yours,

Robert Prummel 22:14, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Huh?Biruitorul 21:44, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Commander of the Legion of Honor" has 9820 Google hits, versus 97 for "in the Legion". But I agree that it is a difficult question and if you feel strongly it's not a problem if you change it back. Maybe we could include a section about how difficult it is to translate the phrase. In any case, do you know why it's a disambiguation page? It doesn't seem like one to me and that status should probably go. Biruitorul 22:12, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Dear Biruitorul,

The number of hits on Google is not the issue! There are guidelines or conventions on transcribing and translating French words.I concluded that these guidelines lead to the conclusion that we should stay close to the French and write "Honour". I am not fond of American "English" anyway. Are you, as a Romanian, having been educated in a Roman language? "Honor" just looks silly to me. Then there is the Philippine " Legion of Honor". Let's devote a page to that and stick to the rules of Wikipedia, not Googlepedia. A lot of people use American spelling. As Europeans we should stick to our roots.

Greetings from the Netherlands,

Robert Prummel Robert Prummel 22:26, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Légion d'honneur

[edit]

Robert, please calm down. I haven't destroyed anything. Everything you write is in the history and can be restored. The sitation when I found it was a compeete mess. The article was at Legion of Honour (disambiguation) (which is certainly no place to put a complete article see WP:DISAMBIG). It had been the subject of a number of cut'n'paste moves. Which is not the right way to move articlles on Wikipedia. What I discovered was that the article had been living at Légion d'honneur until April of this year when someone decided to move it without discussion to Legion of Honor. You then came along and did a cut and paste move and I understand why you did it I am a Brit and Honor is not a normal spelling for me. I am trying to restore the original situation but it has to be done through the right process. Cut and paste moves at not acceptable, because you lose the edit history. Please see Talk:Legion of Honor where a vote to move is in progress. BTW as far as I recall I restored the article to the last version you edited. Please look through the edit history of Legion of Honour (disambiguation) and I think you will find that the last version you edited is the same as the one I restored to Legion of Honor. Jooler 09:21, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well it appears that perhaps I didn't restore it to your last editfrom the disambiguation page, but from you last edit on that page. But you can perhaps understand the confusion involved. Jooler 09:32, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Dear Jooler,

Editing the Legion was a lot of work and i was a bit cross to see that most of it was lost. I have since restored the article. The DISIMBAG was my mistake. I did try to rename it as the google rule was not appropriate. In my intertretation the rules of spelling on Wiki proscribe Honour. I do support Légion d'honneur with the appropriate links. I was clumsy in editing the disambiguation... i tried to put it right but failed. Thanks for your coöperation!

Greetings,

Robert

Re: Saint Stanislaus

[edit]

Mr. Prummel,

I agree with your idea of addressing the four separate entities on their own pages. Keep up the good work. I chose the {{disputed}} tag because I believe it would be one that all of the anonymous editors would agree with. Once they see this, they just might all follow the link tot he talk page and follow your suggestion. :-)

--ZsinjTalk 22:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I disagree with separate pages especially if you going to give them ponderous ugly titles such as The order of Saint Stanislaus.(re)established in Poland in 1990. What little you have to say about the re-established order can easily be said in the Order of Saint Stanislaus article. -- RHaworth 08:35, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

my reply:

  • I agree that it is a bit of a mouthfull! It sounds a bit like " The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" doesn't it? That is because it is a diplomatic solution in a quarrel without an end. They all claim to be THE Order of Saint Stanislaus, and then claim that the other ones are fake. In fact they are all somewhat questionable. Then there is the issue of the propper name and style of one of the Grand-Masters and the indissolved and unsolvable question as to who was the legitimite Polish government in exile.

Given a free hand a number of anonymus contributers keep adding and deleting the same words over and over again at an astonishing pace. They do not reveal who they are and they do not discuss the questions before us. One gentleman once contributed a list of books and I added them to the appropriate branch of the Order. All I ever wanted to do was describe the historic order, now I found myself in a quagmire of pseudo-orders and well intended charitable foundations that call themselves orders. If I put all the information on these orders on one page there is no possibility to keep the subject neutral. The zelots of the various orders will get into a frenzy and this will undoubtably result in a useless, opiniated article that will change every minute or so. But I am open to suggestions...

Faithfully Yours, Robert Prummel 21:52, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I started or contributed to dozens of articles on orders of merit, try my dutch contributions on the Military Order of William and Orde van Sint Stanislaus ( Dutch Wiki). These articles give a lot of historical facts and pictures. Here all I ever get to is restoring mischief. I am happy to say that this one is unique! I am allso glad that there are only two orders of the Garter, the American one is , I am glad to say it, very meek. Would they dare to call Elizabeth II an imposter?

Hello Robert, I am not very often here on wiki.en., if you want contact please go to the German wiki. Greetings Alex--Alexvonf 10:45, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Order of Columbus

[edit]
Your recent contributions to the Wikipedia article Order of Columbus are very much appreciated. However, please take a moment to look over your contributions for spelling, grammatical, and punctuation errors before submitting them in final. This will help lessen the amount of copyediting work that fellow Wikipedians need to do, and will help improve the overall appearance of Wikipedia. This is not meant to be a disciplinary message, but merely a friendly request. Thank you!

-- Kerowren 00:34, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Dear Kerowren, only native speakers can be expected to write and speak flawless English... I am a Dutchman and allthough I am fluent in English, French and German it would be foolish of me to believe that my English (or any other language) is perfect!

By the way, how many mistakes did I make in "Order of Columbus"? Robert Prummel 01:14, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Robert, sorry if the template was a little too harsh. The mistakes in fact were more superficial than anything as the article is very small, so there's nothing to worry about :-). You can take a look at the log for the changes that I made. -- Kerowren (talk • contribs • count) 04:49, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fatherland and Motherland

[edit]

Hi, Robert. You wrote:

  • Sir, you wrote ("patrie" means fatherland (from L. pater = father), despite having feminine gender grammatically) as a correction of my "It is LA patrie, to the French France is femminin and therefore " the motherland" To me as a Dutchman my country is my "vaderland/fatherland" Russians on the other hand have a motherland!". It is an interesting problem! The French speak of "La France", personify it with "marianne", a fair maiden. The Russians speak of their "Narodna", the motherland or "mother Russia", would you translate "Narodna Ruskya" (pardon my Rusian) as "Little father Russia" despite the original meaning? The French and Russians think of theit countries as femminin enteties and to you and me our countries are male. When I translate I consider this: what translation does most justice to the original meaning , sentiment and (political) message?
    My compliments with your page, I enjoyed the poetry! Robert Prummel 14:46, 9 January 2007 (UTC). P.S. On my own Dutch Wiki page ([1]) I put an Oscar Wilde portrait in a userbox.    [reply]
center|44x44pxDeze gebruiker voelt zich erg verwant met Oscar Wilde. En dat om meer dan één reden...'

My response. It is an odd thing indeed to have a feminine word that means "fatherland". Vive la langue française étrange! Despite the personification of France as Marianne, and the classic depiction of France as a bare-breasted woman holding aloft the blazing tricolor in the climax of battle, the writer of La Marseillaise chose not to use any of these cultural references, but preferred the specific word "patrie", which is clearly cognatic with the Latin word for "father". Maybe "fatherland" is not the best possible translation, but I think that "motherland" is even more distant. All I can tell you is what our own page on La Marseillaise says: the official English translation, according to the website of the French President himself, is "fatherland". That said, I recognise that translation of poetry is a difficult, nay impossible task. If you go for a literal translation, you lose the poetry. If you go for a set of words that more closely equates to the rhythm and music and feeling in the original, you lose the precise meaning. The French President's website apparently prefers the former solution; but you'll find various other translations all over the web, many of them making no reference to fatherland, motherland, or anything like those words. By the way, "narodna" is grammatically feminine in Russian, so there's no conflict with "motherland" in that case. Cheers. JackofOz 23:38, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The picture of your cat has been automatically tagged for deletion, but can easily be saved

[edit]

The photograph of your cat has been tagged for deletion because the rights to it have not been released. The best way to protect it for deletion is to apply a license that Wikipedia accepts. This can be done in two easy steps:

  1. Click this link
  2. Delete all the text that appears below == Licensing ==, and replace it with {{Cc-by-2.5}}. This means that others can use your image, but must give you credit for your image if they do so.

Let me know if you'd like more information or assistance. JDoorjam JDiscourse 01:08, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wei Hai Wei

[edit]

I was looking at your stub article Wei Hai Wei and, before you proceed further, you may want to look at the Weihai in existence in wikipedia. Cheers! --Stormbay 22:26, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • These bl**dy Chinese names! They keep changing... I can turn Wei Hai Wei into a redirection. It was only written to fill an open space in the article on Sir Herbert Annesley Packer and I did not plan to persue the matter. One should leave things for others doesn't one? The article on Packer is enough work as it is anyway.Robert Prummel 23:25, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is tough to pick up . I wanted to save you some work if you were expanding. I expect a redirect instead of the text would be a good idea. Happy editing! --Stormbay 00:37, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Reichsritterschaft

[edit]

I agree that order of knighthood is incorrect. categorization isnt my forte so please feel free to categorize it as you see fit. ill be keeping an eye on it and comment if neccesary. thanks Jieagles 02:25, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Jieagles, Categorizing was not my forte either but once you get the knack of it it is great fun! I am now categorizing the 220 Orders of Knighthood on the Dutch Wiki. You are not the only one mistaking the legues of German nobles for Orders of Knighthood. The "Sankt Jörgenschild is often mistaken for an Order. The bounderies are somewhat vague... Robert Prummel 14:16, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cross of St James

[edit]

Regarding Image:Jacobuskruis volgens Stalins en Graafland.jpg ... maybe you should load it to the commons:Category:Saint James Cross. --evrik (talk) 23:04, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is not much of a picture as it is... the heraldic atlas is to big and to old (edition 1932) and vulnarable to scan. It was drawn in a minute or so. I just wanted to show that serious sources give various models to illustrate the cross of Saint James. The spade or sword in combination with the fleury arms seems to be the distinghuising factor.Robert Prummel 00:12, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

[edit]
Wikimedia Commons logoThis user contributes to Wikimedia Commons.

--evrik (talk) 23:07, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Crown of the Netherlands

[edit]

I suggest you add some references to the article. You must have gotten the information from somewhere. As for the English, it could probably be improved if you used an English language spelling checker. DGG (talk) 21:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, it was easy to take the printed sources from my bookshelves. I allso wrote the much more encompassing Dutch article using these, and other, books. The neccessery refferences have been added, or so I hope. I leave the correction of my English in the hands of a "native speaker". I am a Dutchman and a leave it to me to judge the quality of written Dutch, then I will leave the English to an Englishman.

Faithfully yours,

Robert Prummel (talk) 14:41, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Order of Saint Charles

[edit]

The mistakes that you have found must be fixed, I understand that, so if you could fix what you can, I will edit it, copy-edit, and fix any mistakes I find, and add references and it will be better than before. ~ Dreamy § 16:51, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Hello Dreamafter! I was a bit harsh.... But there were so many mistakes... .An order of England, the military use, the strange way to describe a rosette. The American habit of calling everything a medal and an award makes it impossble to differentiate between an order of a state and the "hairdresser of the year" award. There is also a difference between medals, crosses, stars and badges. In phaleristics an idiom has been developped, just as in heraldry, to be able to call things by their exact name. Did you know the rosette that you decribed as a "It has a ring of clasping metal on the ribbon" is called a "depiction of a cartwheel" in a Wiki-article on a Baltic Order?. Writing articles on Wiki is a learning process, the Order of Merit (France) is a good example of an faultless article on decorations.

I am left with one question; The large number of appointments in a tiny state. Is there a reliable source ?

Faithfully yours,

Robert Prummel (talk) 17:16, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Silver Skates

[edit]

Hej Robert...could you do me a favor and check out my edit at Hans Brinker and also my comment on the discussion page. My edit was only an attempt to give an alternate source to the tourist factor rather than the "local boy does good" factor. Whatever you decide...let me know...I'll leave the omission or re-instate. Bedankt--Buster7 (talk) 05:19, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!--Buster7 (talk) 20:02, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thai Awards

[edit]

Hi, I saw you have been doing a bit of work with Thai honours and awards, and that you recently copied the Thai Honours Order of Precedence page to the Dutch wiki. I wanted to let you know that I will be adding to that list shortly - I am visiting Thailand next week, and a friend there has sourced a document that shows the ribbons etc that I am missing from the list. By early September I hope to have them up on the page. Letting you know in case I can save you some work! PalawanOz (talk) 20:57, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have now completed my work on the Thai Honours Order of Precedence page. I have added some additonal entries, and confirmed the ribbon designs. Some of them I had mixed around, I have changed the source images on Commons to correct my error, whilst retaining the same image names. PalawanOz (talk) 13:02, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment welcome

[edit]

Hi Robert. I've made a comment here and seeing as you created the article, I'd appreciate your comments. Do you have any sources for the article? Thanks, Craigy (talk) 21:00, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

O yes, Quitte a few. It was one of my first articles on Wikipedia and it is based on his obituary in The Times. When I wrote it I was not yet experienced enough to give references. But apart from the obit. most was found on the internet.

Robert Prummel (talk) 00:30, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gaston Palewski

[edit]

Please provide a caption for the image you added. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 01:03, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • No Mr. Toad, it is meant to be pleasing to the eye, be it a frog's eye. It is just an illustration in an otherwise dull article, by rhe way, I am working on another of Palewski's medals right now. It is on [2] Robert Prummel (talk) 01:47, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is an encyclopaedia, not an art gallery. Unless you provide a caption explaining what the image is, I will delete it. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 02:18, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • That is not very intelligent of you Mr. Toad, They are Gaston Palewski's medals, what else? That is why they are there. Why this threat?
Thankyou for adding a caption. You say they are pictures of Palewski's medals. Are they the actual medals awarded to Palewski? If so, what is the source of the images? Did you photograph them yourself? If they are not Palewski's actual medals, what are they? Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 03:29, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They were caefully drawn, the ribbons got the right star and the proper bar. Why are you so concerned with this picture in an otherwise un-illustrated article? Robert Prummel (talk) 03:35, 17 August 2008 (UTC) And yes, that a minister for nuclaar energy and author of the book "The atom, our future" dies of radioactive contamination is an important fact![reply]

  • Kindly answer my questions.
  • It's not a fact, it's speculation. That a man dies at 83 need not be attributed to anything other than old age, unless it is a clear and properly referenced fact that he died of something else. Your "reference" is "Charlotte Mosely." Where did she say this? On what evidence was her statement based? Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 03:51, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another source? Try [3] in the French Newspaper L' Humanité, it states that "En particulier le 1er mai 1962, en présence des ministres des Armées, Pierre Messmer, et de la Recherche, Gaston Palewski, lors de l’essai baptisé « Beryl », des matériaux radioactifs s’échappent de la montagne. D’après des déclarations de Pierre Messmer, Gaston Palewski aurait été convaincu que la leucémie dont il est mort en 1984 était le résultat de cet accident". The leukemia was probably caused by the Berylium. Robert Prummel (talk) 12:26, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's a much better source, thankyou. See, it's not hard when you try rather than just be childish. Now, try to answer my questions about the pictures. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 12:36, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is an attempt to establish the source of images you have posted. These are your original illustrations? They're very nice. But they are not the actual medals awarded to Palewski, are they? No. They are generic examples of decorations which Palewski was awarded. How is that relevant to the article? I could just as easily add a generic illustration of a hat, and say "This is a hat similar to a hat worn by Gaston Palewski." Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 13:56, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Indeed, but when a man was known for wearing a certain kind of hat or attribute a generic illustration would be usefull. I try to promote interest in the many articles on decorations. The decorations are mentioned in the Palewski article, that is why they are there. As far as genericis concerned, all the 2000 000 colonial medls are the same, the come from the same cast in the Parisian mint. The same is true of the other, rarer, decorations.Robert Prummel (talk)
OK well I won't argue with you about it further, I have other arguments running. Perhaps you could expand the caption to identify the individual medals. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 23:33, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Charlemagne

[edit]

Hello Robert, I believe there have been studies that have shown it is statistically likely that every single person of west european descent is a descendent of Charlemagne, so it is not a noteworthy distinguishing fact. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel (talk) 18:08, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

True, but those of us who can prove it[4] are a small elite, and where this is the case it can be noted. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 23:11, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Who believes that they are an elite? Gustav von Humpelschmumpel (talk) 20:23, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We do. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 23:38, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can I ask who is we? Gustav von Humpelschmumpel (talk) 01:39, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

James Lonsdale-Bryans

[edit]

Hi I noticed your Dutch version of this page has more information about a connection with Rudolf Hess, could you please explain, as a typical brit I am rubbish at foriegn languages. Also I have paid for the PDF's from the national archives, would you like me to e mail them to you? RohypnolFTW (talk) 00:13, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • There are availeble sources that state that is was because of Mr. Lonsdale's indescretions that Hess believed that there was a poerfull pro-peace group in the cabinet and among the high nobility. Some of these sources are in English!

And yes, that would be most welcome! My Email adress is Godelijntje@home.nl


Greetings from Groningen,


Robert

Jehova Order

[edit]

I have removed the tag. – ukexpat (talk) 02:22, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


EARLY EARLS OF CLARE

Dear Mr. Lindsey and Mr. Prummel and others : I would respectfully disagree with you that the early Earls of Clare were not actual Earls, but rather that they, "called themselves the Earls of Clare". I believe the later Earls have documents which the early Earls did not have or that, more likely, its "medieval equivalent did not survive". But "the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". Carl Sagan. The early Earls of Clare are mentioned in medieval chronicles in more than one place. These chroniclers were some of the most educated men in their day. The Chronicler Gerald of Wales was a clerk to Henry II. I do not think he would make such a mistake and it not be corrected. Yet, to date, I have not found such a correction by this Chronicler or any other. If one had to weigh the statements, I think there is more reason to believe that the early Earls were, in fact, appointed by at least one King. Also, I re-checked Hereford and Hertford, and have quoted the texts correctly as they were spelled in the texts, i.e. Hereford. It would be improper for me to quote a text and not quote it exactly as it appeared on the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.183.194.228 (talk) 15:57, 16 August 2009 (UTC) I do not have a discussion page. Unfortunately, I am learning to use the web and Wikipedia as I go along. I apologize for not signing my statements. At this time, I do not know how to accomplish that. I am still somewhat of an internet illiterate. mugginsx —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.183.194.228 (talk) 16:51, 16 August 2009 (UTC)--Mugginsx (talk) 17:31, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~* Thanks Mugginsx, As I am not an Englishman or Irishman but Dutch I must not give a definate answer to this highly interesting question. Were they "self styled" Earls or not? Hmm. Shame on them or Well done, why not make yourselve an Earl in a period of weak government, wars and general chaos? By the way, the oldest nobility has no proof of their position. It is an age-old tradition and on the comtinent these families are called Uradel a German word that means "Nobility from oldest times". Younger families that owe their nobility to a document are "Briefadel" or "patented nobility". The first nobles were local potantates and succesfull protectors of village.

Faithfully yours,

Robert Prummel (talk) 23:32, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arrow without a head

[edit]

Hi, Robert. You seem to have been the person who created the article Arrow without a head. Since I'm unwilling to grow old and die while trying to figure how to nominate an article for deletion, I thought I'd come straight to you. (Actually, I've posed this question on the article's Talk page and at the Classical Warfare Task Force, with no response so far.) Where the heck did you find this? (Four years ago.) I find no evidence of its existence, searching online with various search parameters, and including possible Latin terms. As I say elsewhere, I'm beginning to think it's an invention by a writer of historical fiction on the model of hasta pura. If you look up hasta in the OLD, you find hasta pura noted; nothing comparable under sagitta. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:50, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion nomination of Arrow without a head

[edit]

I have nominated Arrow without a head, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arrow without a head. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Intelligentsium 16:53, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Honour vs Honor

[edit]

Please consider adding a comment at Talk:Medals of Honor (Japan)#Honour vs Honor. --Tenmei (talk) 20:54, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Medal

[edit]

I came across the Medal article, and was rather appalled at the lack of references and the interchanging of terms, and the apparent misunderstanding of those terms used. I began editing the article, mainly the introduction and the military medals sections, and will eventually over time rewrite the remainder. Seeing your comment on the same topic of incorrect terms, I wondered if you would take the time to read through the sections I revised and see if my edits are 1) understandable and 2) that I did not miss any corrections in the terminology between decoration and medal. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK —Preceding undated comment added 20:32, 28 November 2009 (UTC).[reply]

  • Thanks Xander! It is a confusing article because Americans and Europeans use deffferent words. The English and Americans are divided by a common language...

And yes, I would like to help.

Robert Prummel (talk) 02:20, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arrow Without A Head

[edit]

Hi, I did not delete this article that you claim is "yours" (you do not own Wikipedia articles you create). I merely participated in an Articles for Deletion discussion about this article over two months ago, in which the result was to delete the article. I did not bring it up for nomination, nor was I the Wikipedia Administrator who closed the discussion and deleted the article based on the consensus of the discussion. I don't understand why you singled me out, since other users participated in the discussion. Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook 02:39, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, you promoted its delation. Why didn't you google it first?

Robert Prummel (talk) 02:42, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, mayb~e this is a reliable source: It is mentioned in the second part of the Claudius novels by Robert Graves. See Claudius the God and his Wife Messalina. London: Arthur Barker, 1934; New York: Smith & Haas, 1935. Graves was meticoulis in these things. A civil servant called Claudius Balbillus is mentioned by Graves. His awards (the hasta pura and perhaps corona aurea) were given by Claudius during the Triumph to celebrate the conquest of Britain in 44AD. As a friend and part of the Emperor’s retinue, his awards, as much as his military rank, are likely to be entirely honorary. See http://www.legioxx.org.uk/xxdona.html Maxfield 1981, 160-161 In Latin the spear is called the "Hasta Pura". It is also mentioned in the article Hasta (spear). Are you going to delete that as well?

Robert Prummel (talk) 15:31, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

      • Indeed, I am sorry that the highly learned Graves didn't give a source. but Maxwell isn't fiction. As to the link; Hasta Pura is Latin for Arrow without a Head.See the German Source on http://www.gottwein.de/latine/LLLh1.php that states (not alltogether to the point because the Hasta Pura was not a phaleræ for bravery) this explanation:
  • hasta Lanze, Stoßwaffe im Gegensatz zum Pilum]
  • hasta pura Ehrenlanze, die einen Schaft aus Edelmetall und statt einer Spitze einen Knauf hatte. Sie wurde als Auszeichnung für Tapferkeit vergeben. (Source: Suetonius.Claud.28,1). Is this convincing enough?

Robert Prummel (talk) 23:11, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • Look, I'm not the person you need to be bringing this up with, because - as I said before - I was not the editor who initially suggested the article be deleted, the editor who nominated the article for deletion or the administrator who closed the discussion. If you wish to discuss something like this you can bring it up here or you could discuss it with one of those three editors I mentioned above. Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook 02:13, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you have created an article entitled Arrow without a Head. It looks like an excerpt from the Hasta (spear) article. Arrow without a Head is a strange title for an article and, although I am no Latin expert, this seems like a strange translation of the term hasta pura. What is going on here? Gaius Cornelius (talk) 18:01, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Gaius, The translation is quite usual, take "toga pura" that means toga without a (purple) rim. I decided to write about Roman honours after heving read about this Hasta Pura in a book by Graves. Robert Graves translates it as Arrow without a head. The same translation more or less is usual in German and Dutch. I will try and find out what the French make of it but I only know these five languages.
Salve,
Robert Prummel (talk) 23:49, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be a very good idea to change your article's name to Hasta pura (military decoration) so that it falls in line with similar article titles such as Armilla (military decoration) and Phalera (military decoration). You may find useful templates etc in those articles. I don't think many people will go searching for "Arrow without a Head", but you can keep it as a redirect. If you need help renaming an article, just ask and I can do it for you. Besides, renaming will avoid the inevitable kerfuffle that will start when a bot discovers that you have resurrected a deleted article. I had previously assumed that "pura" meant something along the lines of ritually or simply physically pure. Never mind. Issues around the correct translation can wait until later. Gaius Cornelius (talk) 17:26, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Gaius. I have doone just that. Now let us see how others improve the article. Robert Prummel (talk) 15:14, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have deleted Arrow without a Head as you can't have two articles with identical text. You are welcome to recreate it as a redirect. Incidentally, you do realise that Robert Graves either made up or mistranslated the term 'arrow without a head'. Hasta means spear, not arrow - sagitta is arrow. The hasta pura is, as stated in the article quite clearly, a thrusting weapon. Your german source says it is a pilum - not an arrow. I've taken the term out of the lede, moved the whole Graves section lower down (no harm referencing that Graves termed it arrow without a head in the Claudius books - and it probably appeared somewhere in the tv series).Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:27, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've also added a few more scholarly sources - if you're interested in this stuff, the Perseus Project is an excellent resource. Pura technically seems to mean it is without iron - it's not clear whether this means it had no head, or that the head was made of something else. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:19, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And having looked up all those refs, I've also been able to improve Hasta (spear), so it's all good. Incidentally, if you do create a redirect, it should be Arrow without a head, not any alternate capitalisation. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:35, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gibbet of Jesus

[edit]

Some time ago, you participated in Talk at an article which has been variously named Torture stake, Cross or stake as gibbet on which Jesus died, Historical disputes over the shape of the Crucifix, Dispute about the shape of the gibbet of Jesus, Dispute of Jesus' execution method, and Dispute about Jesus' execution method. Editors are considering another name change; I thought you might participate in that discussion.--AuthorityTam (talk) 21:55, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gentry

[edit]

Nikkimaria has drastically forced on the article Gentry an solitary, unparalleled and uncompromising destruction of an article in the name of summarizing. Under the disguise of summarizing she exchanges material for other material. Yes, reducing was needed and it has been done. The galleries and images in the Gentry article have already been over 50% reduced in the spirit of cooperation. Still the reduction continues. Please help in the discussion. The changes have been major and constructive discussion would bee needed on the Gentry talk page. Thank you. Major Torp (talk) 12:26, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

John Smith (died 1835) and John Pratt (died 1835)

[edit]

Hello, You mentioned on my talk page that to the LGBT community the execution of John Smith (died 1835) and John Pratt (died 1835) is an important milestone. There are several sources, then why the tag about noteworthyness? Ruth Ellis' has her article.

I have gone through the source and found no mention that they were the last to hang for sodomy as well as any sources that mentioned their hangings' importance to the LGBT community.

As for the Ruth Ellis article, it is notable not only because she is the last woman executed in the UK, but with the anti-hanging debate already in full cry, she might have won a reprieve had she taken her solicitors' advice.

♠♠ BanëJ ♠♠ (Talk) 10:50, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Socialist Orders of Merit

[edit]

Socialist Orders of Merit, an article you created some time ago. Before I really mess up this article, thought I should consult you. A couple of problems. As far as I can tell, Orders of Merit actually have "of Merit" in their titles such as Order of Merit. See orders within Orders, decorations, and medals of the Soviet Union and you can see none have "Merit" in their name. Now, in the sense that the award is for "merit" as an adjective, you will notice that there is no article on wikipedia "Orders of Merit" other than a disambiguation page see:Order of Merit (disambiguation), and therefore makes defining "Orders of Merit" rather dubious (as an order may be for service that calls for a higher adjective than "meritorious", such as "distinguished", "exceptional", or "outstanding"). It is one thing to refer to the order as an order of merit (adjective) in the body of the article; I'm really referring more to the title of the article. And Hero of the Soviet Union and Hero of Socialist Labour (USSR) were not orders.--Nyctc7 (talk) 16:52, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • The fenomenon of an "Order of Merit" as opposed to other types of orders of knighthood, military orders, crusaders orders etc. is made by distinguished writers on phaleristics like Václav Měřička. The French Legion of Honour was the first of this type. The socialist ethos was not really compatible with orders.

In the original Dutch article the title is simply "socialist order" (Dutch: "Socialistische orde"). I could live with that as the English title. I am affraid that it will be confused with the politics of socialism. Epithetons ornans like "meritorious", "distinguished", "exceptional", or "outstanding" or "Most Ancient and Noble" mean nothing.

As there was no nobility or court these orders were all given for merit. In Europe there are several orders that are not conferred for merit or valour.

Due to their shapes, their organisation and their use the Socialist Orders are, in my view worth an article of their own. However, the Europeans distinguish more sharply between types of orders than the americans. In the USA the contributors to Wikipedia tend to call anything an "award". The consequence was that orders, decorations, medals, the various stars, ribbons and crosses were all calleds awards as in "The Knight Grand Cross wears three awards". Furthermore Wiki started to list Golden Globes, Award for Manitoban patissier of the year" and the Order of the Garter as awards without distinction. Then there was the gentleman that called everything a "military order" even the "Ordre du Mérite Agricole"....

Anyway, I could live with another title.

Robert Prummel (talk) 21:50, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • I put "phalerolologie" into Google and nothing came up, eventually I found Faleristics. Anyway, taking a look at the article on the Legion of Honour I think I understand what you mean. I wish there was an article on Wikipedia on "Orders of Merit"...I'll do my best on the Socialist Orders of Merit, and of course anything I do can be edited or undone.--Nyctc7 (talk) 21:21, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, it is "Faleristics" in English. I'll write Order of merit as a translation of the Dutch article "Orde van Verdienste". Robert Prummel (talk) 21:51, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

[edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:01, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

[edit]

Hello, Robert Prummel. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of File:Napoleon door Ingres.jpg

[edit]
Notice

The file File:Napoleon door Ingres.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unused. Low quality. Superseded by File:Ingres, Napoleon on his Imperial throne.jpg.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 03:06, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Robert_Prummel&oldid=1181951075"