Difference between revisions of "User talk:PeterKa"

Revision as of 01:49, July 25, 2014

We don't allow copying from other sources, unless the contributor wrote the material that was published at the other source. Are you the original author of No Gun Ri?--Andy Schlafly 23:50, 15 December 2013 (EST)

Yes. I am. The material was on Wikipedia years ago. But the current No Gun Ri article is quite different. PeterKa 00:02, 16 December 2013 (EST)

OK, thanks for your answer.--Andy Schlafly 09:26, 16 December 2013 (EST)

It is the same story with Roman Warm Period. I wrote it a while back for Wikipedia, but later a liberal editor came along and revised the POV. PeterKa 20:33, 16 December 2013 (EST)

Nuclear option

I see that I may have disparaged your writing style. No offense was intended. You made a great improvement to an earlier version. It seems that we each have our pet peeves: you believe a definition shouldn't say what some people may think about the consequences of something; it should say what that something is. And I have a peeve about "when". Other than that, you write well. SamHB 22:40, 22 December 2013 (EST)

I rewrote the opening and added additional material. Tell me what you think. PeterKa 21:20, 1 January 2014 (EST)

Taiwan

Contents of Republic of China article moved to Taiwan; please make necessary corrections as you see fit. Karajou 01:11, 7 January 2014 (EST)

Cool. Will do. PeterKa 01:42, 7 January 2014 (EST)

Quick note

I notified some Admins about the unlocking of the articles. I have nothing further to say about this matter. Conservative 03:15, 30 January 2014 (EST)

Um, ah....you are certainly being very mysterious. Welcome back? PeterKa 07:18, 30 January 2014 (EST)

China history, et al

Instead of trimming articles, split them. The History of China article could be split into, say, four or five articles that cover a specific timeline, i.e. History of China: Ming dynasty: 1368-1644, History of China: Reforms 1901-1908, etc. Think it's possible? Karajou 06:28, 21 February 2014 (EST)

What I trimmed was material about internal Communist party wrangling, the coverage of which was all out of proportion to every other issue. I don't think anything terribly interesting was lost. It was all about who was up and who was down and what titles they held. We already have a structure in which each of the traditional historic eras gets its own article: Qin dynasty, Ming dynasty, Qing dynasty and so forth. Template:History of China holds the story together. My vision is that each era receive a full treatment in the appropriate era article. Each one would also have a section and a summary in History of China. We're still a long way from that, but I'm getting there slowly. Unlike "History of China," the era articles are all too short. What's missing is an era article for the People's Republic. We could a create a separate article for People's Republic of China, since I already wrote a Republic of China article to cover the 1912 to 1949 era. Another possibility is History of the People's Republic of China. Either way, the modern history could be offloaded there. PeterKa 08:12, 21 February 2014 (EST)

Atheism article intro

I wanted something very authoritative noted in the beginning of the atheism article so I kept the Encyclopedias of Philosophy and other reference works being mentioned.

Second, the Greek derivation of the word atheism is somewhat complex and I didn't want the beginning of the article to get bogged down so I left that part available via the footnote (the third footnote). Conservative 17:34, 17 July 2014 (EDT)

I think we should act like we are the authority, even if we some ways away from actually being that. I got the derivation from Random House. The derivation probably not the second most important fact about atheism, but I didn't see anything else that stood out. PeterKa 22:10, 17 July 2014 (EDT)

Encyclopedias of Philosophy are the highest authority in this case and so I want to stick the original. Conservative 22:12, 17 July 2014 (EDT)

re: Diacritics

Since CP is primarily an American conservative encyclopedia, I am guessing the owner of Conservapedia will want to go with the Merriam-Webster format for diacritics. Conservative 21:41, 23 July 2014 (EDT)

I think we should put a recommendation to that effect in the style guide. Britannica uses Merriam-Webster spelling nowadays, so there is not really any difference between two. PeterKa 23:11, 23 July 2014 (EDT)

I think the diacritics section should go after "Talk pages and Archiving ": here after it is drawn up (unless it is lengthy and then it should go after "Debate topics"). We can also have a "See also" above the section with a full blown article page on it. Write up the suggested content and put it HERE. If you need to remind me to do it, no problem. Conservative 23:49, 23 July 2014 (EDT)

I am glad you liked the way I incorporated your diacritics material in the Manual of Style. Conservative 21:49, 24 July 2014 (EDT)