Re the name of the station: you are very welcome! I see you have contributed a lot to the article. Thank you! I intend to add something about the architecture as soon as I can. --Goochelaar 13:30, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding [1], we've already been gathering references about the history of the terminology on the talk page. I'd love if you could help. There's a reference from 1963 on there already with an explicit "(1K=1024 words)" definition, for instance, which predates your example. — Omegatron 17:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted your good faith edits that included a reference to how the eruption might have been a part of the Exodus myth. Unfortunately, the link didn't work (it went to a web page registration that is not really acceptable), and you didn't use the WP:CITET format. I'm trying to fix the article so that it might get an FA eventually. It's a fascinating article, and anything you can add, especially to the biblical section, would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. Orangemarlin 22:34, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Minoan eruption of Thera" sounds kind of strange, as if the Minoans themselves caused the eruption of Thera. Do you think there might be a better way to write it? There have been arguments on the discussion page between "Thera" and "Santorini" as the name of the article, so maybe we can clarify the lead somewhat. I'm not a geologist nor an archeologist, nor do I play one on TV, so I might defer to you on this point. Orangemarlin 09:04, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Please be courteous to other editors and use edit summaries when updating articles. The Mathbot tool shows your usage of edit summaries to be extremely low:

Edit summary usage for Classical geographer: 31% for major edits and 6% for minor edits. Based on the last 141 major and 18 minor edits in the article namespace.

Using edit summaries helps other editors quickly understand your edits, which is especially useful when you make changes to articles that are on others' watchlists. Thanks and happy editing! --Kralizec! (talk) 02:45, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You removed the Interreg III part of the article, because there was no relation to SaarLorLux. I have to tell you, that there are relations. I only forgot to show them. I undid your removal and added some content (including links) showing that relation. Please could you have a short look and tell me if it´s ok now. Thank you.--Thw1309 09:21, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Community Innovation Survey, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://cordis.europa.eu/innovation-smes/src/cis.htm. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot 08:13, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the main problem was the copyvio. Changing a few words here and there does not solve the problem. Speedy deletions generally do not preclude posting a new version of an article, as long as the deficiencies are addressed. So feel free to write a new version, in your own words, taking care to explain why the subject is important or significant. Good luck! -- But|seriously|folks  19:08, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've filed a request for recovery of the deleted page to salvage those parts which were not copied, and I'll attempt to write a new article from scratch. Classical geographer 20:59, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the "discussion" before editing this page. If you wish to contribute some text, fine. Campo Imperatore to Italians is our "Little Tibet".

SilviaManno 00:41, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Classical Geographer. This is Inkan1969. I see you went ahead with the merger. But I was away for the U.S. Thanksgiving day holiday and so I was not able to argue against the merger. What is the exact procedure of the merger. I feel this merger was an arbitrary action that was done without consensus. I did not see any strong movement to merge the article.Inkan1969 (talk) 15:32, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Inkan, indeed there was no strong movement in any direction - I had waited a few days and just went for it. That was a bit rash, I admit. The article I made List of Antarctic countries redirect to already contains a quite complete list of Antarctic territories, that would be the equivalent of the country lists for other continents. However, if you feel these should be in a separate article, we might also consider moving those to a separate article List of Antarctic territories to comply with the territories-by-continent system. I would not call them Countries, though. Classical geographer (talk) 16:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. If you have no objection, I can restore the "List of Antarctic Countries" page and move it to "List of Antarctic Territories", to reflect the fact that none of these political units have indigenous populations. Again, this "List of Antarctic Territories" page will include the four subantarctic island territories that Antarctic Territorial Claims does not include, those territories being of a different nature. This list of page will feature only a list, while "Antarctic Territorial Claims" goes into detail about the territories. That would be the same setup as Asia and List of Asian countries, or Europe and List of European countries. In those cases, the continent pages already list the countries in detail, but the "List of" pages are still considered non-redundant. Inkan1969 (talk) 17:16, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a nice alternative. You could even integrate the list-part of the discussion article to the "List of"-page. Or we could move the discussion to the main Antarctica article, which would conform even more to your parallels with Europe and Asia. Classical geographer (talk) 08:42, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

O.K. I've moved the article to List of Antarctic territories using the move button so that the discussion page is preserved. I'm not sure what you're referring to when you say "the list-part of the discussion article" or "move the discussion to the main Antarctica article, which would conform even more to your parallels with Europe and Asia", though. Inkan1969 (talk) 16:21, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I meant Antarctic_territorial_claims#List_of_Antarctic_territories which still contains some extra information - claim dates and limits. I guess the dates from there could still be introduced in the list in the List of Antarctic territories, and the limits might go into the footnotes. My proposal would be to then remove the article Antarctic territorial claims completely; the only bit of info left there then would be the top half, giving a summary of the Atlantic Treaty, but that treaty already has a main article elsewhere, so that Antarctic territorial claims would be completely redundant. Classical geographer (talk) 16:38, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

( Continuing ) I see. You then want to move all the information from Antarctic territorial claims to List of Antarctic territories, making the latter page replace the former. I have no objections to that. List of Antarctic territories may be more useful by covering both the unrecognized territorial claims and the undisputed island territories.Inkan1969 (talk) 14:36, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Somehow I missed out on Paul being stripped of his apostleship. Could you point me to that discussion? For that matter, people have questioned that he was from Tarsus. Maybe we should just change it to "Paul, just guy who supposedly wrote some material in the New Testament"? Student7 (talk) 13:21, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm afraid I don't get your point here. Does this relate to my adding a wikilink to the template 'Second journey of Paul of Tarsus', linking the title to the article named 'Paul the Apostle'? Classical geographer (talk) 13:35, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes.Student7 (talk) 14:48, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In what way, exactly? Classical geographer (talk) 15:39, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The former name was "Paul the Apostle." The new name is "Paul of Tarsus." Why did it need changing? What is going on? Why was it changed? The article is still the same so why does anything need changing? Paul's leaders and trailers are widely discussed normally. The last one was that he could not be called "St. Paul" outside of the article. Where is the discussion this time? Who were the "deciders?" Student7 (talk) 16:25, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't followed those discussions, I must say. I only noticed there was no link in the title of the template, so I changed that from of Tarsus to the Apostle. Classical geographer (talk) 12:16, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Classical geographer will be my main username across all wikiprojects, I hope. I've requested namechanges at nl:wikipedia and at Commons. Classical geographer (talk) 15:21, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. There are concerns of copyright infringement in Thesaurus Linguae Latinae. It was tagged on November 20th, but it seems that you were not properly notified by procedure so that you might help address these concerns. I see that the second paragraph of the article does duplicate material at the suspected source, here. The matter is supposed to come current for resolution tomorrow; however US Thanksgiving Holiday is likely to delay its closure for several days. If you can shed some light on this, please do so at the article's talk page. Otherwise, the material is likely to be removed. Thanks. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:16, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the warning. I see that indeed I stuck a bit too closely to the source when I wrote the first version of the article. The second paragraph is not the most important, though, so I've moved the bit that I actually did write, and leave the rest to be cleared. If I understand it correctly, only the section from the copyvio template to /div will be removed. Classical geographer (talk) 20:44, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ordinarily this might be the case, but now that it has come ripe for reinvestigation, I see that the opening paragraph is also duplicative of http://www.stoa.org/?p=550. That website is dated January 10th, 2007; the article was placed here on 12 August 2007, so there can be no question that the external source prepublished us. The only text in the article which is not copied from another source that I can see is "and at the same time treating words beginning with the letters 'N' and 'R'", "and on CD-ROM and DVD and are distributed by K. G. Saur Verlag." and "The project was instituted by the academies of Berlin, Göttingen, Leipzig, Munich and Vienna." This is obviously insufficient to sustain an article. Barring verification that we have permission to utilize this language, this article will have to be deleted. To verify permission, please follow one of the processes at Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission or, if you are the copyright holder, at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. Alternatively, if you wish to write a new version, please do so in the temporary space linked from the article's front page. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:05, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am removing my image. Yours seems better. I am researching the image I created as there is a dispute to the original layout of the rostra and other structures within the comitium.

Thank you for your outstanding contribution, however.....the image states that it is "Before the time of Ceasar" is not very specific. Could you elaborate?--Amadscientist (talk) 05:15, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not my image, really - File:Forum_of_Roma_before_Caesar.svg states it's been made by User:Yug on Commons. But I believe Before Caeser is meant to indicate 'just before Caesar', i.e., before any building activity Caesar undertook. That would date this in the early part of the first Century BC, say around 80. Classical geographer (talk) 08:03, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Following the discussion regarding Template:Elkins' Germany, do you agree with me that pretty much everything in Category:Specific-source templates as at least questionable? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:36, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do - ouch, there's really a lot of them out there. Maybe something to have a general discussion about at Wikipedia talk:Citing sources, to verify whether most people feel this is too much; and then have a bot subst the templates all at once, posting notices at the talk page of anyone who has used a template? (Don't know if that's possible, though...) Classical geographer (talk) 16:06, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've had a map request up on the Maps Project for a while (under Cologne War), and could really use some help on it. No one has responded and I'm thinking it might be too difficult. Would you take a look? Auntieruth55 (talk) 18:39, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ho visto che parli italiano e quindi mi permetto di scriverti qui. In realtà si tratta di due entità amministrative diverse; quella descritta nella voce è la provincia dell'impero romano mentre la Lucania riportata nella mappa è il thema dell'impero bizantino che è nato 600 anni dopo (circa) ed era, secondo gli storici, molto più piccolo. Rimango a tua disposizione per qualsiasi chiarimento. Grazie.GJo (talk) 10:13, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GJo, grazie per le tue indicazioni! Classical geographer (talk) 11:40, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sehr schöne Karte, aber irgendwie hat man den Eindruck, dass Schweden nur aus dem südlichen Teil besteht. Die Inlandsbanan fehlt auch. Gruß User:Gunnar1m09:04, 1 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.81.31.163 (talk) [reply]

The Inlandsbanan is listed as mothballed on its wikipage, and as 'touristic use only' on the Chomenko drawing. I therefore chose not to include it, but if it's in any way important other than for historical reasons, I can, of course. Classical geographer (talk) 11:41, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Danke übrigens für das Kompliment. Die Frage, wie man ein enges Land wie Schweden gut auf 'ne Karte abbilden kann, ist immer schwierig zu beantworten - vielleicht ist mein Versuch nicht so gut gelungen wie ich gedacht hätte... Classical geographer (talk) 11:43, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Guten Tag Classical geographer,

Du gibst an, Du hättest Deutschkenntnisse, so schreibe ich Dir in Deutsch. Mein Anliegen geht auch in diese Richtung: Ferner Bist Du als Mitarbeiter im Portal:Trains eingetragen. ich hätte ganz gern die Karte de:Datei:Fahrordnung-weltweit_CS4.png übersetzt, allerdings von einem Muttersprachler und Bahnkenner. Bin ich bei Dir richtig? Würdest Du mir die richtigen Begriffe liefern? Gruß Clausthal (talk) 10:20, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Clausthal, I have it on my to-do list, but I'm not very active nowadays, so don't count on me... Classical geographer (talk) 16:47, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Allright, thanks. Clausthal (talk) 09:40, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You removed some parts of the text i have add yesterday cause they are taken from the official site www.asiagocheese.it but i work for the "Consorzio tutela formaggio Asiago" in the press area and i'm allowed to use this kind of text. Please re-add the text.

Hai rimosso alcune parti della voce Asiago che avevo aggiunto ieri con la motivazione che erano estrapolate dal sito ufficiale www.asiagocheese.it. Io lavoro per l'ufficio stampa del "Consorzio tutela formaggio Asiago" pertanto sono pienaemente autorizzato ad utilizzare questi contenuti. Ti prego di riaggiungerli al più presto perchè erano informazioni importanti. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fabiolandi (talk • contribs) 15:23, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Fabiolandi, thank you for clarifying this, and thank you for your cooperation in Wikipedia! Since you wrote both, it can be easily arranged that your text can be included on Wikipedia; however, some steps need to be taken - see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. Two small things: one reason I removed the contents straightaway was because they still included <br/> tags; you'd do best to remove those if you copy-paste from somewhere else. One other request: on a talk page, please add a new section at the bottom, not at the top. Warm regards, Classical geographer (talk) 16:47, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contribution to the discussion at Talk:Autobahn#Split_or_Merger on whether Autobahn should be split to articles Motorways of Switzerland and German Autobahns. The proposal was made a very long time ago and appears to have gained a reasonable amount of support. It is now time to bring the discussion to a close. Please add your final comments at Talk:Autobahn#Split or Merger so the proposal can be actioned or abandoned. Thanks, Nankai (talk) 21:10, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because i rquested a map of Transilien line P you gave me an answer to my question. You answered my question by saying if i wanted a schematic map (as on the official Transilien website) or one overlaid over a map of Paris which would have the advantage of showing more clearly that Transilien services reach somewhat further out than the RER network.

My answer (If possible of course): A overlaid map

Thank you a lot if you can do it.
Aliesperet (talk) 18:43, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I put this on the railroad maps group discussion page but then read a note that the page seems not to be read often so I sending it to a few group participents in the hope of getting some advice.

Thanks

I have added more info to the Green Bay and Western page to the point where it needs a route diagram. I have the info to do this but no matter how many times I read the route diagram template page I just don't get it. Is there a "Templates for Dummies" page - oops I am sure use of "for Dummies" is a copyright violation!. But I need a real simple how to guide. Please reply on my talk page. Alternatly I can list the info for someone else to do it. But would really like to be able to do this. Years ago it seemed to be easier to cut, paste and edit something someone else had done - that does not seem to work now.

I would appreciate a reply at my talk page. Thanks. --Wickifrank (talk) 13:29, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As an individual who has made suggestions involving the organization of Foresight content, I thought it appropriate to notify you of a new Foresight and Futures Studies Project Proposal being undertaken. I look forward to any discussion you might have on this subject. John b cassel (talk) 17:30, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know, and I'll look forward to seeing your progress! Classical geographer (talk) 19:01, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Great! I should let you know that this proposal has been accepted and the Futures Studies project is live. John b cassel (talk) 14:35, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	Hi I would like to create the map with a GIS software myself for the Spanish High Speed network. Where could I find the file to create the map? Ruben.ardao (talk) 09:06, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Ruben! The original file is in CorelDraw format, which most GIS editors I know of cannot read; however, I can export it as a vector image for you (emf, or svg). You'll have to add your own geocoding. Classical geographer (talk) 11:40, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Source: http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/single-view/view/cuvillier-confirms-high-speed-alignments-to-toulouse-and-dax.html

• Bordeaux - Toulouse now planned for 2024
• Bordeaux - Dax now planned for 2027
• Dax - Spanish border now planned for 2032

M Carling 01:37, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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) 16:34, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Normally I'd thank you for your addition to FP (Poulenc) ;) - I want to take that article to DYK, did you know? It needs to be 7 days young or 5 times expanded. Expansion could have been any time, and I don't have time right now. Now expansion started, and we have to do it within a week from yesterday, - teh rulez. You are welcome to help, two ways: expand the prose (model Max Reger works), and add more of his pieces which can be found on the French Wikipedia. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:40, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Gerda, I didn't know - and I'm not around that much. Most days have passed now; hope something else comes up that's worthy of the DYK template! Classical geographer (talk) 19:17, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I did it, with help from a friend: long enough, all pieces in, just polishing needed ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:11, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So far I've spotted these 7 pieces:

• fr:Banalités (Poulenc)
• fr:Aubade (Poulenc)
• fr:Chanson à boire (Poulenc)
• fr:Sonate pour cor, trompette et trombone
• fr:Soirées de Nazelles
• fr:Les Chemins de l'amour (Poulenc)
• fr:Sonate pour deux pianos (Poulenc)

Do you want me to work until the wee hours of the night or can it wait 1 or 2 days? LouisAlain (talk) 21:17, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wait ;) - and don't translate stubs, like the first and last. He died 30 January. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:00, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:11, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A year ago, you were recipient no. 1560 of Precious, a prize of QAI! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:41, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still impressed - thank you! Classical geographer (talk) 13:47, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Two years now, and Happy 2019! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:46, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

.. and three --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:47, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. 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 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:09, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. 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 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:33, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. 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 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:13, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Precious

Seven years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:25, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]