Ionius Mundus

Welcome to Simple English Wikipedia!

Dear Ionius Mundus: Welcome to Simple English Wikipedia, a free and open-content encyclopedia. I hope you enjoy contributing. To help get you settled in, I thought you might find the following pages useful:

• Rules
• Community Portal
• How to write Simple English articles
• Copyrights
• Useful pages

Don't worry too much about being perfect. Very few of us are! Just in case you are not perfect, click here to see how you can avoid making common mistakes.

If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Simple talk page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have!

Wikipedians try to follow a strict policy of never biting new users. If you are unsure of how to do something, you are welcome to ask a more experienced user such as an administrator. One last bit of advice: please sign any dicussion comment with four tildes (~~~~). The software will automatically convert this into your signature which you can change in the "Preferences" tab at the top of the screen. I hope I have not overwhelmed you with information. If you need any help just let me know. Once again welcome to Wikipedia, and don't forget to tell us about yourself and be BOLD! -- Psy guy 01:25, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Welcome

I also welcome to you. I saw your edit to the Indian independence movement. --Bhadani 09:33, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. I would like to try and improve many similar articles and make some new ones. --Ionius Mundus 15:56, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

moving/renaming pages

If you need to rename a page (like Khmer rouge to Khmer Rouge), please use the "move" link at the top (or side) of the page. Don't move a page by copy-and-pasting the text. Thanks. -- Netoholic @ 16:29, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, I have never tried moving a page before, and so was unsure of how to do it. --Ionius Mundus 18:02, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

10,000 articles

I don't recommend creating articles merely to reach the 10,000 mark, and especially to abruptly stop creating articles afterward. Please take this into consideration. --Ionius Mundus 06:17, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Could an admin harm me just for doing this? Those are valid articles. Ok, I guess I'll make like 3 more. --E.N.G. 06:19, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I made three more articles. Why did you not recommend what I did before? What's a possible issue that may arise? --E.N.G. 06:36, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

User page history

I've removed the vandal's name from the history now (as well as the vandalism itself). Personally I find it entertaining to look back through my user page vandalism, but if you ever want it doing again just give me a shout, it's no problem. To see the effects of the removal on your history page you'll probably have to reset your browser's cache, which you can do by holding down 'Shift' and clicking reload on most browsers. Clicking this link should also work if that doesn't. Archer7 - talk 19:59, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Image is gone

Was just getting down to it. - Amgine 05:31, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

<nods> The account has been permanently blocked from editing. This doesn't really mean anything. - Amgine 05:33, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

In the process of trying to restore it now. - Amgine 05:40, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

A suggestion

To avoid making the history of your user page very very long, and thus difficult to undelete, I would encourage you to creat the page User:Ionius Mundus/Pages I have created and transclude *that* into your user page. (currently you have 45 revisions to your user page which you would like to keep, each of which needs to be selected by hand when undeleting it.) - Amgine 05:57, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

It is much less likely to be vandalized this way, so less work for the admin. Yes, only an admin can do what I was doing. I was temporarily admined to deal with vandalism. I've asked that the adminship be removed, so I can't fix things now. Hopefully an admin will be here again soon. - Amgine 06:12, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar

For your excellent efforts to making Indian independence movement more Simple. Really great work! --Bhadani 16:59, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello, for your efforts in making the Simple really Simple. As a token of my appreciation and regards. BTW, right now I am logging off, I shall come up with more comments next week. --Bhadani 16:59, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Tag on top

Hi, I just "decorated" the tag on top. Hope it's more attention catching. :D-- Tdxiang 08:31, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Sure. I'll be glad to help. Good luck! :D-- Tdxiang 05:18, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Please use the edit summary

Hello, Its nice to see people editing. However, when olny looking at the edits from the New Changes page, it is sometimes useful to see what was changed. thats what the edit summary box is for. please use it. Thanks -- Eptalon 20:45, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Change on Socialism

I saw you just removed Nazi Germany from the line in Socialism on oppressive dictatorships. Any reason? The Nazis were technically National Socialists. I might buy the dictatorship label, but Hitler certainly was close. -  BrownE34  talk  contribs  21:34, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm well aware that Hitler hated communists. However, the line read on oppressive, socialist dictatorships. The party name translates as National Socialist German Workers' Party. So, I fail to see how Nazi Germany doesn't meet the criteria. -  BrownE34  talk  contribs  21:44, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Were the Nazis notorious? Yes. Was Nazi Germany a dictatorship? Not exactly, but pretty close. Oppressive? Understatement of the century. Socialist? The only real question, I would qualify them because of their party name and certain elements of their economy were socialist in nature. Were they socialist by modern standards? Certainly not. An argument could be made for that reason. However, I don't think that was the argument you were making in removing the reference. -  BrownE34  talk  contribs  21:51, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

That article does need some work, I won't aruge with you about that. I added the NPOV tag a while back. It's probably too complex as written as well. -  BrownE34  talk  contribs  21:57, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Hanoi

Given that most English sources write the city as Hanoi instead of Hà Nội (the Vietnamese spelling), I think it would be appropriate to move the article back to Hanoi. Tell me what you think. Nishkid64 (talk) 23:50, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't help but notice your conversation with Nishkid64 and thought I'd share some pages on English Wikipedia regarding this sort of thing: here and here. If my interpretation is correct, they seem to indicate that the page should be spelled as it commonly is in English--Hanoi. Hope you don't mind me adding my input. :-) · Tygartl1^·talk· 03:12, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Basically, Tygartl1 summed up my reasoning. Since this is the Simple English Wikipedia, I believe Hanoi should be used. Nishkid64 (talk) 16:58, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi! :) I wish to repeat the same thing that has been already pointed out to you by Nishkid and Tygart above. Please, feel free to revert the moves you've performed to foreign spellings. I'll be happy to help. Have a nice day, Phaedriel - 21:35, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, for engaging in constructive dialog (even tho you copy-pasted for me the same message you sent to Nishkid some time ago! just kidding ;) You'll forgive me, dear Ionius, but even tho I understand your point, I don't think that'd be appropriate. Like Nishkid and Tygart already told you, this is an English speaking project, and whether we like it or not, there are certain naming conventions that must be respected. The information you wish to introduce is perfectly useful, tho, so I encourage you to anotate the name with the diacritics by the name of the article, at the text: for example:

Hanoi (Vietnamese: Quốc Ngữ Hà Nội; Chữ Nôm 河内) is the capital of Việt Nam.

This way, the information you're interested in providing will be preserved, while keeping in tune with our naming conventions. By the way, I see we have good friends in common, like Bhadani. That's great to see, and it's always nice to meet great editors like you. Have a beautiful day! Love, Phaedriel - 22:03, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Good :) I'm sorry that you disagree with the naming conventions; but all I can suggest is, please bring this matter to Wikipedia:Simple Talk if you wish the community to consider this case. By the way: following the naming conventions also means, not only naming the article itself "Hanoi", but also using that form uniformly throughout the article(s)' text. The same can be said about other names like "Hồ Chí Minh", "Mỹ Lai", etc. Again, don't take this badly, please: imagine reading the article on, ie. Moscow, and seeing it written all the time as "Moskvá" instead; or reading our entry for China and only read "Zhōngguó" everytime the country's name is mentioned. Best regards, Phaedriel - 22:30, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

For the reasons that have been mentioned above by myself, Nishkid, and now Phaedriel, I am moving the pages you redirected back to their common English spellings. Please do not move them back. If you would like to discuss your opinion with the community, you are free to do so. However, if you move these pages again, it will be considered vandalism, and I (or another administrator) will be forced to act accordingly. If you do not understand the reasoning behind my edits, you may contact me. Thank you. · Tygartl1^·talk· 01:35, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Articles

Some of the articles you wanted to create have already been created, I hope ya know ;)--Choosnink ^TALK 18:22, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Created article

I created a stub on Igbo language, just so you know. Panda Bear | Talk | Changes 23:17, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi again!

Hi! Don't you think you're overreacting? Phaedriel - 02:55, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I mean, going on a single handed crusade against anything that remotely resembles diacritics from Simple English Wikipedia, as a reaction to Tygart's request and Barliner's reversions. I understand you may feel frustrated, but you should be discussing with the community at the proper venue; not going vigilante on every single form of foreign spelling. Phaedriel - 02:59, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, you say you're not confident "they" will accept your arguments, but why not even trying? Don't judge in advance. Try to discuss your changes first; there's nothing to lose, and much to be gained. By doing this, all you will achieve is alienating the community's opinion on your edits, and I'm very sorry to say, on you. Phaedriel - 03:16, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Diacritics are not "illegal"!

Diacritics are not "illegal". It goes by common sense. There is plenty of precedent for adopting many French diacritics into English. However, Vietnamese words are generally not rendered in English with the special Vietnamese letters, because that is considered an entirely different alphabet. Blockinblox - talk 03:17, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Please stop

I strongly suggest that you stop moving articles with diacritic marks to different locations. While you may be in a conflict with another editor over such marks, it is not acceptable to disrupt Wikipedia to prove your point. Sean William 03:18, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I do not believe that I have disrupted wikipedia. --Ionius Mundus 03:56, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, because it seems attempting to prove some point and is creating a lot of work putting titles back to their most commonly used form. Proper names in English are English, including Ho Chi Minh and Lech Walesa. Please take a break from performing further article moves until a needed style page is developed. Thanks Blockinblox - talk 16:14, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually if you are going to find the right page to move an article, just try to use Google to find out what the most common English form is. For example if you Google Lech Walesa, you will find several English pages with Lech Walesa, and several Polish ones with the diacritics. You can even narrow down the language with the Google tools. Blockinblox - talk 16:18, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Reply

Thanks for your note. I have replied on my talk page ---barliner--talk--contribs- 14:46, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Jesus

Dealt with the little Jesus problem that you pointed out by simple removing the contentious line from the intro, which now makes it much more general in focus. The intro now says simply that he was the founder of Christianity but nothing about what Christians believe. It has retained the line about festivals.

There was already reference to Jewish and Muslim beliefs, but I included, as well, a slightly expanded version of what you wrote, under the Heading of "Truly God" which is the real matter of contention between Christians, Jews and Muslims. I think I'll change that heading to "Jesus as God" which makes the reason for dispute clearer.

--Amandajm 00:21, 24 August 2007 (UTC)