User talk:Ludde23/2008-2009 archive

Yes, I am still around

Thank you for your enquiries about my well-being. I am sorry that I haven't had time to do more entries for the year timelines. I am very busy at work and when I do have spare time I am focusing on doing more research not only to add more information to the years entries on Wikipedia but also to improve some of the biography entries for individuals covered by the period that I have already updated on Wikipedia. So you will see my Wikipedia name appear occasionally against certain biographies of ancient Greeks and Romans while I start doing more research on the remaining years from 150 BC towards the birth of Christ. Regards. --Chaleyer61 (talk) 00:47, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blank sections

Re: [1], why the insistence on a blank section? It's empty, so there's no header needed. Powers ^T 13:27, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In order to keep the year articles consistent with each other. If those headers are always there, it's easy to put births and deaths on the pages in the future, without people making up their own headers like "Born" or "Died" etc. /Ludde23 ^{Talk Contrib} 18:46, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

emergency-numbers proposal

I see that you blanked the subst:ed and modified {{multimove}} templates that I had earlier added to several talk pages, such as, for example Talk:112. I can only assume that you did so because you strongly oppose my proposal, in which case you should probably cast an "oppose" vote at Talk:911, or discuss here. Please reply to this message on my talk page. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 14:39, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hope it was not to express opposition; Disruption is not a good way to express such opinions. But I'm puzzled as to what else it could be. I'll watch with interest for your reply. Andrewa (talk) 02:54, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Peg Entwistle Death

Hi! I'm James Zeruk Jr.--Peg Entwistle's authorized biographer. I left some interesting and factual information on her Wiki Discussion page regarding your wonder about when she actually died. I hope you will take a look a what I wrote. Thanks. Jameszerukjr (talk) 08:36, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimania 2010 could be coming to Stockholm!

I'm leaving you a note as you may be interested in this opportunity.

People from all six Nordic Wiki-communities (sv, no, nn, fi, da and is) are coordinating a bid for Wikimania 2010 in Stockholm. I'm sending you a message to let you know that this is occurring, and over the next few months we're looking for community support to make sure this happens! See the bid page on meta and if you like such an idea, please sign the "supporters" list at the bottom. Tack (or takk), and have a wonderful day! Mike H. Fierce! 09:10, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Translation

Hi, I found you through WP:BABEL in search of someone to translate, or at least, give me the basic gist of, a news story. Would that be at all possible? Thanks, Seegoon (talk) 15:39, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for taking so long with the answer, but I haven't been around my computer today. What was it you wanted to have translated? /Ludde23 ^{Talk Contrib} 21:05, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Roman Army

What was wrong with making a link in 9 ? Lars 05:34, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing. Why do you ask? /Ludde23 ^{Talk Contrib} 08:21, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cause you undid it. Lars 13:00, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No I didn't. However, I undid the removal of spaces between the asterisks and the text. Check out the article. /Ludde23 ^{Talk Contrib} 14:52, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, my mistake. Thnks for your patience! Lars 14:55, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lars has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Thanks for the smile. Made me glad. /Ludde23 ^{Talk Contrib} 15:08, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

359 BC

Hi! I saw where you undid my edits on 359 BC. I was trying to fix "edit" section headers that are all bunched up. Do you have any suggestions on how to fix this? Cheers! TN‑X-Man 11:42, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! No, I don't have any idea of how to fix it (I'm not quite sure what you're talking about), but I guess I was a little bit too fast in removing your additions. I just a lot of extra templates, with, as it seemed to me, no use - they only seemed to create lots of empty space at the top of the article. However, I'm sorry for having just rudely removed your edits. But what exactly do these templates do? /Ludde23 ^{Talk Contrib} 12:00, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At the top right of each section, there's a box marked "edit" that allows you to edit a specific section instead of having to edit the entire article. On 359 BC, all of the "edit" boxes were bunched up in the same place. The {{fixbunching}} was an attempt to sort it out. The template forces the text sections not to overlap the templates. Let me know what you think, because if I can work out a solution, it looks like the other year articles may have the same issue. Cheers! TN‑X-Man 13:14, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is/Was

Please explain how 69 BC "was" a year in the Julian calendar [2]. I find this a little confusing. When you revert a good faith edit a more detailed edit summary is desirable. I see now that you did put a comment on the article talk page Talk:69 BC. It would be good to mention that in your edit summaries when you do a revert. Best to continue the discussion at the article talk page. Thanks.Edison (talk) 04:18, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hey

you're cool : D Evaunit♥666♥ 13:26, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gelo son of Hiero II

Hi, You made an edit to 216 BC which implied that Gelo son of Hiero II was a ruler of Syracuse. This Gelo was never ruler of Syracuse. The Gelo that ruled in Syracuse died in 478 BC. I will amend and cite the entry accoringly.

Cheers, Flaviusvulso (talk) 19:49, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User lang subcat/N

Why was this text [3] changed from plural to singular? As far as I can understand the plural is better for this template. Was there any discussion about it anywhere? --Gamlevegen (talk) 15:38, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why should a user box be in the plural form? I wouldn't call myself "these users" on my user page. Secondly, no other language user box is in the plural form. /Ludde23 ^{Talk Contrib} 20:07, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can understand these boxes are for use on category pages, such as Category:User_sv-N and Category:User_no-N. Check out the difference with Category:User_sv-3 which uses Template:User_lang_subcat/3. It's in the plural.

What you want is a real Babel box. Just write {{user sv}}. It will work like the English and the French box you've already got.--Gamlevegen (talk) 00:03, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Links to redirects

Hi, Ludde. Regarding your recent edit to 265 BC, I wanted to point out that, per Wikipedia guidelines, "fixing" links to redirect pages is not necessary and in most cases is actually discouraged. I myself used to be zealous about changing these to direct links before I discovered this guideline.

Have a good one! —Tonyle (talk • contribs) 18:20, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

303 edits

You reverted some changes I made to 303 which fixed the bunching of the edit links and combined the two hatnotes into one which covered both alternatives. Neither of these should have been controversial. What gives? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:11, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To me, the text and infoboxes seemed to get a very strange and odd layout with your changes and I didn't see what they were for. But, if I'm wrong, please undo my edits. /Ludde23 ^{Talk Contrib} 13:28, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've made another attempt to resolve this. It results in a little whitespace but is generally tidier. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:33, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

404 BC - History of Sparta v Sparta

I have given my reasons on the talk page. If after having read my reasons you decide to revert me, that's fine.Dejvid (talk) 07:53, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

480s BC

Hi!

Your edit of 14 September 2007 to this article created eight DEFAULTSORT conflicts. This appears to be because almost everyone of the pages that have been transcluded into the article has its own DEFAULTSORT value. I have been monitoring Category:Pages with DEFAULTSORT conflicts since it was created a little over a year ago and this is one of the largest number of conflicts I have seen on an article and I have resolved a few thousand conflicts.

I think there are three options for me. I can delete each of the individual article's sort values. I can delete the template that transcludes the individual articles and copy each of the articles into to this article. I can ignore the article in the Category:Pages with DEFAULTSORT conflicts. None of the three is truly acceptable. What do you think should be done?

No, I have no idea why the article just popped into the category last week. I do not pretend to understand the speed at which categories are populated.

JimCubb (talk) 00:36, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After having had a look at the page in question (and also the 490s BC article, which was suffering from the same problem), I've put the original contents back on those articles. I have no idea why the conflicts have begun, but I assume it has something to do with the template. At least, it should be safe for the moment. /Ludde23 ^{Talk Contrib} 12:42, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now I've found the problem. Seems there's a bot that has put a {{DEFAULTSORT}} at the bottom of each individual year article, after the IW links. It should work if we remove them. I'll try that later on. /Ludde23 ^{Talk Contrib} 12:46, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Smackbot strikes again. Thank you for fixing the problem. JimCubb (talk) 20:55, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]