text:
Talk:List of monarchs of Georgia

Konstantine II of Kartli
'''Why someone tries to present that as if the Kartli line more legitimate than Kaheti line? In the list it is specified that tsar Konstantin II (1478-1505) as though once was the king of all Georgia - it is a blunder! because last king of all Georgia was George VIII (1446-1476)who has been compelled to leave a throne of Georgia and to move in Kaheti. After that Georgia has collapsed on three kingdoms. The King Konstantine (Constantine) II never was the king of all Georgia !!! Therefore claims of a line of Kaheti more legitimate, than of a line of Kartli. Also it is necessary to notice that a line of kings of Kartli has stopped in 1919.'''--92.54.240.68 (talk) 12:13, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I moved this list for two reasons. (1) "in Britain and the Commonwealth, "Georgian" refers to the reigns from George I to George IV, therefore "Geogrian Kings" would simply be the kings during that time. (2), The King of Georgia, being a title, should have a capital K. Grutness|hello?  09:45, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This list has a David III reigning in 1155, yet according to the article on David the Builder (r. 1089-1125), he was David IV. So, how can a later king be only III? Should it be David V? - Nik42 07:31, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

I merged this page with the List of Kings of Iberia to make a better continuity. --Whaleyland 19:27, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
 * They need to be separated.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 03:07, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Why someone tries to present that as if the Kartli line more legitimate than Kaheti line? In the list it is specified that tsar Konstantin II (1478-1505) as though once was the king of all Georgia - it is a blunder! because last king of all Georgia was George VIII (1446-1476)who has been compelled to leave a throne of Georgia and to move in Kaheti. After that Georgia has collapsed on three kingdoms. The King Konstantine (Constantine) II never was the king of all Georgia !!! Therefore claims of a line of Kaheti more legitimate, than of a line of Kartli. Also it is necessary to notice that a line of kings of Kartli has stopped in 1919.--92.54.240.68 (talk) 14:18, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Annexation vs. Incorporation
Annexation in my opinion would be the proper term as it deals with specifically parcels of land, regions, or countries. Incorporation is a general definition which could describe a wide range of activities.
 * Sure. Furthermore, it occurred in violation of the previous Russo-Georgian treaty.. --KoberTalk 13:38, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Princes
Please don't add princes onto the list of kings- the royal house was removed and therefore did not exist to have any monarchs. If you wish to include them, by all means create separate articles if they were indeed notable. Monsieurdl 14:28, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Table
I have started on the table of monarchs partially. If anyone could, please help finish it. I am a little busy with other stuff right now.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 01:56, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Corrections to text
Many errors in the use of English or violations of NPOV in the article need corrections: "Gruzinsky of Georgia" is redundant: "Gruzinsky" means "of Russia" "of Georgia" in Russian. "House" refers to the entire patrilineage, whereas a "branch" or "line" is a sub-division of a house. There is massive over-capitalization throughout the article: For example, in section titles, only the first word and proper nouns should be capitalized (e.g., "Royal Dynasty" is redundant in an article on "kings of Georgia", and neither "Royal" nor "Dynasty" nor "King" is a proper noun in English). The "Almanach de Saxe-Gotha" is a spurious website that often copies information incorrectly from other websites: it is not a reliable source. Correcting many errors of grammar, syntax or excessive usage. FactStraight (talk) 18:32, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * First of all, Gruzinsky doesn't mean "of Russia", it means "of Georgia". Second, why did you remove Royal on Principalities? All the 5 principalities were Royal not just sovereign as you wrote. I'm gonna edit that mistake down there. GeorgianJorjadze (talk) 19:02, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I made a typo. You are right to correct my error, as all errors should be corrected. Thank you. FactStraight (talk) 21:35, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

The whole article is cluttered and horrible looking now. How do you expect anyone to navigate through the list of Georgian kings when comtemporary rivals and claimants are included on the same list? You seem to want to include everything yet you don't even include the Imereti line after the 1500s. I should have never included the table in the first place. The original simple list made more sense. Also I agree the lists of princes and dukes need to be moved. This is a list of kings; look at the title, not a list of everyone in Georgia that held a title. The links to external pictures and useless footnotes need to move to their own articles and the information about pretenders and the royal house should be move to somewhere else too. --Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 07:56, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Georgian royal family today (inappropriate section moved here)
This has been moved to Monarchism in Georgia by User:GeorgianJorjadze. Here is what used to here .--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 03:05, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Splitting into many lists
What exactly are doing to List of Georgian monarchs? The list has become such a mess. You understand the difference between "the Kingdom of Georgia" and its successor states:Kartli, Imereti, and Kakheti, and a plain old Georgian kingdoms of a reigion within the present day country of Georgia right? The table you have right now makes it look like the Kingdom of Georgia and the line of the Kings of Georgia has been since 1120BC. There was a state within Georgia with a king in 1120BC. You are making this list about every monarchs who lived in Georgia or were of Georgian ethnicity, when most of these states are not even the same or interconnected. --The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 23:57, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I think it would be most wise to split this into multiple different lists with the appropriate states and titles with a mother list with links to the different lists like Lists of monarchs in the British Isles. At present this article looks like what Lists of monarchs in the British Isles would be if all the sublists were merged together.
 * I think List of Georgian monarchs should only include the kings after Bagrat III of Georgia of the united state and the three fragmented states (again only after Bagrat III and not those before so Kakheti would start in 1465 rather than 580, we won't leave the earlier kings out entirely because they already have lists of their own and we can have a see also link for them where the entire line kings can be listed). I stress the importance of Imereti (David VI Narin's state and the one from 1446 to 1810), Kartli and Kakheti and united Kartli-Kakheti being listed together alongside the united state. The table on this list would look like this. The master list should be called Lists of monarchs in Georgia and then we can have separate lists for the kings of Iberia, Colchis, Kakheti and even list any princes and dukes like you had on the article before. For those which creating a separate list might be unnecessary because it is too short and the article on the state has a good list already we can have a link created which redirects to the list on the page on the state. For example on the master list we will have a bullet to List of Kings of Diauehi (time range of existent) and have it redirect to Diauehi; I created the redirect to show the example. --The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 00:05, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

List of monarchs of Iberia is done. I just copied and paste from here and changed a few links. I don't know if the princes of Iberia should be separate from the kings of Iberia because they seem to be two different states. The Kingdom of Iberia seems like an ancient state while the Principate of Iberia judging from the texts and the categories on each princes' articles to be a more direct precursor to the united Kingdom of Georgia. Maybe they should be separated into List of kings of Iberia and List of princes of Iberia or the rulers of Principate of Iberia should remain on the Georgian monarch list ahead of the kings of the united state of Georgia. All I am certain of is that we should have a separate list for the ancient kings of Principate of Iberia. --The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 03:33, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Also I want to say that is not appropriate to have a section called House of Bagrationi because it is just replicating List of Bagrationi rulers of Georgia, the section on the Kings of Iberia is not even chronological and repeats individuals already mentioned (it is just listing titles that the Bagrationi used or ruled with like a royal house article), and also some individual that are subsection of it are not Bagrationi like some of the Gureli kings of Imereti.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 04:04, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * With all respect how would this help out this situation? It created even more mess. And what do you mean those aren't Georgian kingdoms? All of those kingdoms put in the list are not just some monarchies which were on the Georgian soil once but they are ethnic Georgian monarchies with Georgian monarchs. And Diauehi is the first of such. There is a big difference in wording here. All of those dynasties were ethno-linguistically Georgian. And why would you put Iberian kings to the other article? Iberians were also Georgians, spoke Georgian language, wrote in Georgian. I don't understand the need of creating such a mess even more bigger. I'd suggest to put it under one article and creating the table's as I've did yesterday instead of just listing the names of the monarchs. You've asked for discussion but you already changed all these here so why would you do that? There should be a discussion first.  GeorgianJorjadze  07:24, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * My edits can be reverted if you want until we come to some consensus, I just been bold and trying to implement what I saw was best because I was bored with the waiting for reply. I understand what you are getting at with the definition of a "Georgian monarch" on "Georgian" soil within the bound of Georgian history, but I personally think it is too long of a list and covers too many different states, it is comparable to including all rulers of what became the modern state of Britain on one super list. Let me ask you a question so you can see how I view it. Would you think it is proper to move Kingdom of Georgia to Georgian Kingdoms and have all the contents we now have on Caucasian Iberia, Diauehi, Principate of Iberia, Colchis, Lazica, Kingdom of Imereti, Kingdom of Kartli, Kingdom of Imereti, Kingdom of Kakheti, Kingdom of Kartli-Kakheti and etc, placed on that super article and say it is correct because all those states shared the same language, area and history? That is what I see with this article right now. I thought you would agree with the split since it would allow you to list the dukes and princes that have been removed. I want to hear User:Kober's opinion as well. --The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 07:40, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * No I agree about the dukes and princes. As I remember you've cut them out from the article and also the part which was about Georgian royal family as well. I totally agreed with you on that step what you've did because there were no place for that. Georgian dukes and princes need another article with same format as well. But as for your question. I want to underline one simple fact here. History of Georgia is not just history of some land where some other people or some other monarchies existed and that it just happened by chance and now we are called Georgia and we should call everything Georgian. Georgian history is very complex and very rich in this regard and again I want to underline that Georgian history is inextricably connected with the history of Georgian people, as ethno-linguistic unity. So that is why I am saying that dividing the article into many other articles as if they were not Georgian monarchies is wrong. Starting from Diaeuhi ending with Kartli and Kakheti all of them are Georgian kingdoms who had Georgian kings, queens, princes, dukes. They spoke Georgian language, wrote in Georgian alphabet, and they were the ones who created that very history of Georgia. So again, I would like to suggest to put them back into article and start cleaning out other mess with sources, and creating the tables with better pictures etc. in them. As I've said it really needs to be cleaned but all of those monarchs and monarchies should stay under this article as they were Georgian ones in the sense what I've just explained above.  GeorgianJorjadze  07:55, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * You are repeating everything I just said you are thinking. I am telling you I understand your viewpoint on this but I don't agree it is the best way to go about this on Wikipedia. The mess I see isn't the content of the list it is the size and scope of it. With your same reasoning, I can merge all the articles on historical monarchal states with people "that spoke Georgian language, wrote in Georgian alphabet, and...were the ones who created that very history of Georgia" into one giant mess call Georgian Kingdoms. You are trying tie multiple historical periods into one unit when there just wasn't any one single unit that existed starting from Diaeuhi and ending with Kartli and Kakheti. I agree with you there were multiple states with different rulers that were Georgians, spoke Georgian, wrote in Georgian and are part of Georgian history. Keyword multiple and different (Again, I am only arguing political difference). What you are writing now is a list of every monarchs in Georgian history. I also want to note that dukes and princes are monarchs too, so via the recent change in title from List of Kings of Georgia to List of Georgian monarchs, they fit your definition of a Georgian monarchs (one "that spoke Georgian language, wrote in Georgian alphabet, and...were the ones who created that very history of Georgia"). --The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 08:20, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * No I am not saying that all those kingdoms should unite under one article. I am saying that as the article is about the monarchs then there is no point to divide them into their local naming as they all were Georgian monarchs. There were tones of Chinese monarchs with tones of their dynasties but they are united under major article which is about their monarchs only but do have their seperate articles about their dynasties and historical states, kingdoms etc. That is my point. Colchis, Iberia, Kartli etc. should be seperate with their own histories but all their monarchs should be united under Georgian one as they were the ones in fact so there is no point to dividing those. Again it creates even more mess. For example Colchian monarchs are not well-documented and some 5-6 names are known in history, same is about Diauhi so creating the articles just for 3 sentences? And it will be redirected which again loses its importance. Becomes messy, way more confusing for a foreign eye especially. So again suggest to bring back those lists back under this article and work on the better tables and cleaning out unnecesary infos from this article. Then the articles about princes and dukes can be created. They should have their own articles.  GeorgianJorjadze  08:36, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * With few rulers, you redirect which is a perfect way to get exactly to the list. Again I don't think it is appropriate to group them together. Chinese dynasties believed they were either ruling or contending for the rule of the same state (the only civilized state in their mindset) each time they replaced each other or fall into disunity. I don't think the rulers of Kartli looked back and view their kingdom was the exact same state with just a dynastic change as Diauhi. You might as well changed this article to List of monarchs in the History of Georgia the way you are looking at it. Also since you saw List of rulers of China, I want to stressed that if you plan to add tables refrain from adding picture slot (at least on some of the sections like united Georhia) because too many Individuals here do not have any images or illustrations of themselves and a list looks as professional with or without images; some of the best feature list on Wikipedia have no images. And don't confuse readers by listing both David Narin's line and David Ulu's line on the same table as you have done before. It is getting late so I end with this. At this point I don't think we going to get anywhere with this argument because you are as stubborn as I am. So, yeah I don't know what to do for now. I guess you should hope your next reply can somehow change my mind. Also, I want to state, if you want you can revert my edits until we come to a consensus. I am honestly just stalling until User:Kober gives an opinion and hopefully he would agree with me and somehow talk you into seeing it my way.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 09:01, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I want to state that I see you as an experienced and credible user on Wiki as I've seen your past edits and they are of highly quality contributions. But in this case I think we must try to somehow agree without dividing this article into many mini-articles of Georgian monarchs. This is not only about China. If you see and I am sure you've seen many monarch lists here most of them are united under their major monarchic article and are not divided into mini-articles as you've did. Same is for example on Persian kings. If we go this dividing way then we should create: Kings of Achaemenid Empire, Kings of Seleucid Empire, Kings of Parthian Empire, Kings of Sasanian Empire etc. They have their own articles as Kingdoms but they have one major article under Kings of Persia. Same should apply for Georgian monarchs. That is my point. I understand we both may be stubborn in this case but such division would make even more confusion and mess and will be way more difficult to navigate and to understand what the article is about. So better to be under one major article. We can create the dukes/princes article by its own.  GeorgianJorjadze  09:41, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, I think The Emperor's New Spy's proposal makes sense and I don't quite understand why splitting the article into daughter lists puts the Georgianess of, say, the kings of Imereti, under question. It's a purely technical issue; overcrowded lists such as the List of Russian rulers are not well read. There are some relatively minor issues which needs to be addressed, but these can be settled through the consensus (e.g., to which list the kings of united Kartli-Kakheti belong). GeorgianJorjadze's concerns can be addressed by making a separate list of comparative chronology of the Georgian rulers after the tripartite division of the kingdom in the 15th century (something like this). It will also easily integrate the periods of brief reunifications. I've always been interested in creating such an entry, but it's very timeconsumming. --KoberTalk 12:40, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * At this stage the list looks like the Russian one if all the other Russian princes were included....Exactly Georgianess would be preserved in Lists of monarchs in Georgia and keeping the list effectively in one unit with each of them only a click away. Just look at how well it has worked for Lists of monarchs in the British Isles. --The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 16:16, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * So you are dividing this article? georgian JORJADZE 16:25, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Please continue this part of the discussion here. The next section is for discussing how we should go about splitingt my proposed version further. I have reverted my edits until we can come to an agreement on splitting the list. Look at how nice I am. Again here is my proposed version and here is the master list Lists of monarchs in Georgia I made on the example of Lists of monarchs in the British Isles. I included dukes and princes of independent Georgian states because they are also monarchs. --The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 16:40, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Well I still disagree. What would you do with article List of Bagrationi rulers of Georgia. If your proposed version would be done than that article will be totally the same copy of the List of Georgian monarchs article. What the point then. My compromise version with you would be if there will be 2 articles.
 * 1) List of ancient Georgian monarchs or List of ancient kings of Georgia (Diauhi, Colchis, Iberia, Lazica included)
 * 2) List of Georgian monarchs (only Bagrationis till 1810 till Russian annexation).
 * What would you say? georgian JORJADZE 16:49, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Maybe it is time to delete that one. I don't see why a non-chronological list of just Bagrationi kings of Iberia, Hereti, Kakheti, Abkhazia and Tao-Klarjeti should remain and the complete list of Iberian kings and princes be removed. I am sticking to my original suggestion, more like before. And don't remove the split template because other users may have an opinion and this isn't settled yet.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 21:07, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I concur with your approach for handling this thus far. Unwieldy lists discourage readers: they count on Wikipedia to make it readable. Look how we handle Germany's monarchies. FactStraight (talk) 22:38, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Can you please be more clear what do you suggest? The article needs to have the normal table and be cleaned with those pictures which are making a mess in the article but dividing the article into many mini-articles does not make any sense. georgian JORJADZE 23:03, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The tables can be added either way. Dividing the article makes it more manageable. The links to all monarchs would be maintained on a master list. I am not sure what to include on this list yet as I stated before. I don't know if we should begin with Ancient Iberia or the Principate of Iberia or Bagrat III of Georgia. User:Kober and User:FactStraight have agreed that splitting is a good idea. --The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 23:57, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * This makes no sense. Monarchs of Diaokhi, Lazica and Colchis will have no their own articles. They will be just redirected which is way more confusing. There should be 1 or maximum 2 main articles as I've suggested. Diaokhi, colchis and Lazica monarchs will get less important if this article will be split into totally useless fake redirect article links.
 * I'd support split like this or let this article be the way it is now.
 * 1) List of ancient Georgian monarchs (Diauhi, Colchis and Lazica)
 * 2) List of Georgian monarchs (Iberia and all Bagrationis till 1810 till Russian annexation).
 * georgian JORJADZE 00:39, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * No because that leaves Hereti, Kakheti, Abkhazia and Tao-Klarjeti which I assume you want on List of Georgian monarchs. On no ground would I will agree to the inclusion of Hereti, Kakheti, Abkhazia and Tao-Klarjeti. As for the ancient list, each of those states had nothing in common other than that they are a part of Georgian ancient history which Iberia is part of too. No connection at all except the ridiculousness holding this one together. A majority of the kings listed on Lists of monarchs in the British Isles have no articles too and merely redirect to the article on the states. Not every wikipedia article on a kingdom has an alternative article listing all it's rulers and sometime there is no need for a separate list.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 00:49, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * All these monarchies were Georgian and they should be under this article. Monarchs starting from Diaokhi ending with Kartli-Kakheti should be in this article. British isles example can no be good in this case. I can bring many articles just like that which have all their monarchs in ONE article. So all monarchs should stay in this article. georgian JORJADZE 01:05, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Further division
I don't want us to get sidetrack here, so I spliting this part of my reply to User:Kober....Now my other questions are concerned with how we should continue to divide this article further. Because I question my splitting Iberia from here, should we A. have the two states of Iberia here or B. have one on a separate ancient list and the princes here or C. just begin with Bagrat III and only include the united kingdom, Imereti (David VI Narin's state and the one from 1446 to 1810), Kartli, Kakheti and Kartli-Kakheti or D. just divide into different states and periods. Going back to the list when I first saw it, it is so much much much more manageable then what we have now. One thing about it though, I don't really understand why everyone before Stephen III of Iberia is called a Prince of Iberia while after that during the rule of the Bagrationi you got rulers who start using the title of king of Iberia/Kartli and prince of Iberia/Kartli.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 16:16, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Should this list begin with Ancient Iberia or the Principate of Iberia or Bagrat III of Georgia?--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 23:51, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The Georgian kingship, abolished by the Persians in 580, was restored by Adarnase IV of Iberia in 888. Prior to that, the Bagratids were presiding princes, curopalates, etc. I think the split should be accomplished in the following way: (1) List of rulers of Colchis (incl. Lazica), (2) List of rulers of Caucasian Iberia (beginning with Parnavaz I of Iberia, through the presiding princes and Bagratid kings down to the unification by Bagrat III in 1008), (3) list of the kings of Georgia (from the unification to the division in 1490/1), (4) List of monarchs of Kakheti, (5)... Kartli, (6)...Imereti, + breakaway principalities. --KoberTalk 04:02, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * That is more radical than what I proposed....I thought it would make sense to keep some of the kingdoms together. My suggestion are.
 * 1. Something like this earlier version before User:GeorgianJorjadze started adding every monarchs in Georgian history to the list. With Ancient Iberia from Parnavaz I, the Principate, United Georgia, Kakheti, Kartli, and Imereti (including Narin's breakaway kingdom). The other kings, who I really don't care about, can either have seperate list created or be redirect to the lists that already exist on the page for the kingdoms. And all be listed on Lists of monarchs in Georgia.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 04:32, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * First proposal
 * 2. Or the main list can starts in 1008 and include just Georgia, Kakheti, Kartli, and Imereti while Iberia have its own list, already created here. --The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 04:32, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Second proposal
 * I've added the dukes and princes. georgian JORJADZE 10:54, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I going ahead with the proposal. I am tired of this civility. We are not going change each other 's mind. Two other users have expressed the need to split the list. I have posted on all wikiproject hoping to get someone else's opinion to be fair toward you, but no one has replied. You have been outvoted. Also I am readding the sources, introductions for each sections, and dates you deleted. If you want to push this further go to Dispute resolution and appeal your case.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 01:12, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

I am done! I am tired with dealing GeorgianJorjadze as he slowly ruin this article. I was hinting all along that article looked it best before you started editing. This article can just rot in hell.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 11:44, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

 * Unfortunately, I have to agree with you. The article is a total mess and, from what I can see right now, without any chance of improvement in the nearest future. The intro says the article lists the Bagrationi rulers, while I see dozens of non-Bagratids in the list. Also, the highly "rounded" royal style in the intro cannot be applied to all the monarchs in the Georgian history and the patriarchate in Georgia appeared only in the 11th century. The article lists the kings of Imereti and states the Georgian monarchy ended in 1810 (the year of the Russian conquest of Imereti), but the infobox claims George XII, the last king of Kartli-Kakheti, was the last Georgian monarch. There are myriads of other issues, inaccuracies, inconsistencies and exaggerations, which cannot be settled without proper cooperation. I'm also withdrawing from this and related lists until they stop serving the only purpose of being the battleground.--KoberTalk 12:14, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

This is really a fine mess now. Another WP:BATTLEGROUND triggered by someone not here to write an encyclopedia. WP:LIST articles have to have a reason to exist. A List of kings of Georgia makes good sense, as the list is too long and would burden the kingdom of Georgia article unduly. Otoh, Diauehi has three known kings. Just mention them on that page, 1 Sien, 2 Asia, 3 Utupursi, and be donem there is no conceivable reason to make a list article from that. Also, if people would simply ignore the national mysticists and patriots around here instead of wasting time and space trying to "debate" people who cannot or do not want to debate, we could actually get something done for a change. Thank you. --dab (𒁳) 05:41, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

What now?
So the consensus seems to be that this list – and the cluster of associated lists, family trees, and articles, is a big, bad, mess. Fixing it seems at times out of reach, given the complexity of the subject and the various approaches of different contributors, but let's give it a try.

The list of lists lists 10 lists and family trees, many overlapping with each other, and built on divergent principles; the main list is still particularly cluttered, with some royals appearing twice and haphazard chronology. Some lists are based on (A) geographical/historical units (kingdoms), some on (B) dynasties (mostly the Bagration), although on the main list, both principles coexist.

Perhaps we should stick to (A) for lists, to (B) for family trees.

The problem with these is that as we go back in history, the exact family relationships between rulers becomes less certain, primary sources cannot be trusted and secondary modern sources offer various hypotheses rather than clear-cut solutions: building an NPOV family tree of Georgian rulers before the 10th century seems doomed to me. For an illustration of conflicts brought by such an endeavor, see Talk:Georgian monarchs family tree of Bagrationi dynasty. The family trees should in my opinion be more closely associated to the articles about the dynasties, either as a section or a stand-alone linked from the article – we would also have to source them correctly (if that's even possible) and change the terrible names some of them have. Maybe "Family tree of the Iberian Chosroids", "...of the Guaramids", etc., could work,. Family tree of ancient Georgian monarchs as it is now has absolutely no point, as it doubles a list with absolutely no regard to historical accuracy and sources in the purported family relations it depicts.

As for lists for each kingdom, as Dbachmann just said re. Diauehi, this is not useful as long as the amount of rulers is not too long: in such cases, a section in the article about the political entity seems perfectly enough to me. A good example would be Kingdom of Abkhazia.

Regarding this main list, I think the best way to start fixing it is to focus on the unified kingdom and its successor states, that is from 1008 to the Russian annexation. For earlier periods, depending on how this goes, we could either integrate it in this list or develop one or more lists for pre-unification Georgian kingdoms, ancient kingdoms (mostly Iberia, as the others don't have so many historically sure rulers), etc. I think it would be premature to take a position on that question now. For 1008 and later, especially for periods of fragmentation, I think a good model to follow is List of Frankish kings, which splits into columns during periods of division. Looks a bit tough technically, but I could try myself at it unless some more competent user wants to try that first.

Anyway, sorry for the long post, and please discuss! Susuman77 (talk) 12:53, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

As a first step, I suggest to redirect the "fake" Family tree of ancient Georgian monarchs into List of Kings of Caucasian Iberia (merging this list with the Caucasian Iberia article has been proposed too, I have no strong opinion on that one. I've opened a discussion at Talk:List of Kings of Caucasian Iberia. Susuman77 (talk) 13:26, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

OK I've had fun building a table of Georgian (including Imereti, Kartli, Kakheti) monarchs from 1008 to 1810 in my sandbox, that I think could serve as a basis for this list. Tell me what you think of it, and if there's consensus, I'll integrate it here. We'll still have to deal with the pre-1008 period, but I hope this table could be considered a first improvement. Susuman77 (talk) 15:06, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Looks clear & straightforward. I suggest you proceed. FactStraight (talk) 05:09, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

not the Great Khan - the Il-Khan
Demetrius II was not executed by the Mongol Great Khan, who nominally was the Yuan Emperor. The Great Khan's title was now nothing more than a traditional designation, as the Mongol Empire had split into its various confederations half a century earlier. Argun was the Il-Khan. Please correct the table.50.111.57.134 (talk) 19:38, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

?
Why not expand the chronology in any form? Why could not we leave the chronological tables. Is it from a source?--Lasha-george (talk) 05:55, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Question

 * Please be informed that I have made changes to your request regarding Hayk and Argus. If the mentioned redirection was problematic, should we add the genealogy of the descendants of Georgian kings?--Lasha-george (talk) 14:24, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Revised
I repeat that I followed the instructions and corrected Hayk (Haos) and Argus (Arg). I think the descendants of Georgian kings should be added as necessary to better understand the chronology of kings.--Lasha-george (talk) 05:40, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

The need to change the picture in the information board of the Kings of Georgia.
The last king of united Georgia was George VIII! George XII was only the king of Kartl-Kakheti and during his time the king of Imereti was Solomon II. Therefore, the image of the dashboard needs to be changed. Lasha-george (talk) 08:18, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Greetings Lasha-george. George XII was an ultimate final ruler and his death and absorbtion of his kingdom was a defining moment lf an end of Georgian monarchy. Regards, An emperor ✖ 12:56, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Ok An emperor, but officially he was never the king of united Georgia. He was the king of Kartl-Kakheti. At the same time, Solomon II reigned in Imereti... Epigram of Amazaspos Why did you change? I don't think it was necessary to remove the picture... Thank you.--Lasha-george (talk) 15:50, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello Lasha-george! This article is a list for all Georgian kings from Iberia to Kartli-Kakheti and Imereti. But George XII, sucessor of Erekle II was recognized as the leading Georgian monarch thus had higer standing than Imeretian monarchs. Georgia's domiantion by Russia exactly starts from 1801 when Kartli and Kakheti were annexed by the Russian Empire. Imeretian annexation just followed bit later. As for epigram, I want to thank you for adding another source as well but the picture has no significance. It is just a bookpage print and not an actual inscription. Regards, An emperor ✖ 20:44, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:List of monarchs of Georgia


text:
PremiAir

PremiAir may refer to:

 * Air Premia, a South Korean airline
 * Kendell Airlines, an Australian regional airline 1967–2001
 * MyTravel Airways, a British airline 1990–2008
 * Premiair, an Indonesian airline
 * PremiAir Aviation Services, a defunct UK airline formerly based at Blackbushe Airport, Yateley, Hampshire, England
 * PremiAir Racing, an Australian motor racing team
 * Sunclass Airlines, a Danish charter airline

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: PremiAir


text:
MyTravel Airways

MyTravel Airways Limited was a British scheduled and charter airline with headquarters in Manchester, England. It operated worldwide holiday charter services mainly for its parent company, the MyTravel Group. The airline merged with Thomas Cook Airlines UK Limited in 2008 and was renamed Thomas Cook Airlines Limited.

The airline was founded in 1990 as Airtours International Airways and was to be the in-house airline for Airtours Holidays, (Going Places Travel Agent). In 1993 they purchased Inter European Airways and the fleet was merged. In 2002 Airtours changed their brand name to MyTravel and therefore Airtours International Airways became MyTravel Airways. During 2007 the MyTravel Group agreed to merge with Thomas Cook AG, and on 30 March 2008, MyTravel Airways was fully integrated into Thomas Cook Airlines.

MyTravel Airways A/S was the Danish sister airline of MyTravel Airways, which was re-branded Thomas Cook Airlines Scandinavia on 8 May 2008.

History
The Airtours tour operating company was founded by David Crossland and established its own in-house airline, Airtours International Airways, on 1 October 1990. It started operations on 11 March 1991 flying McDonnell Douglas MD-80 aircraft to destinations throughout Europe.

Cardiff-based Aspro Holidays and their inhouse airline, Inter European Airways, were acquired and integrated in November 1993 adding new aircraft types such as the Boeing 757 and Airbus A320 to the fleet. The MD83's were replaced in 1995–1996 with more Airbus A320s. In 1996 the parent company also acquired Danish charter airline Premiair. Airtours also had operations in Germany with airline FlyFTi, operating Airbus A320s until this was merged back into the UK fleet during 2003.

In the 1990s Airtours added long haul capabilities, with the addition of the Boeing 767 and McDonnell Douglas DC-10, flying holiday makers to destinations including the Caribbean and the United States. More Airbus aircraft joined the fleet during the 1990s with Airbus A320s, Airbus A321s and Airbus A330s accompanying the fleet of Boeing 757s, Boeing 767s and DC-10s. In 1995, the airline began offering pre-bookable seats, meal choices and duty-free on its flights – a practice that was subsequently adopted by many other UK charter airlines. The Airbus A330-200 aircraft delivered to Airtours in 1999 featured improved passenger amenities over older long haul aircraft and offered Premium Economy cabins in the form of Premiair Gold, something the Boeing 767 and DC-10 did not offer at the time. The Airbus A330-200's, operated by Thomas Cook for their long haul flights, were known for their unique cabin design. The special design forfeited several rows of seats in the middle of the plane for a steep staircase down to a lower partial deck, which incorporated a galley, three jumps seats, and 4 toilets.

On 27 January 2002, Airtours International became the first airline to use the new Swanwick Air Traffic Centre, as flight AIH550 from Las Palmas to Birmingham was handed over to the new facility.

Following the renaming of the Airtours Group to the MyTravel Group in February 2002, the Airtours International and Premiair operations were rebranded as MyTravel Airways with effect from 1 May 2002. In October 2002 MyTravel Airways launched its scheduled low-fare airline, MyTravelLite, but this was reintegrated in 2003.

In common with airlines worldwide, MyTravel Airways saw a reduction in customers due to the effects of the September 11, 2001 attacks. Official statistics from the United Kingdom Civil Aviation Authority (see reference below) indicated that the number of passengers carried by MyTravel Airways UK increased from 7.21 million in 2001 to 7.52 million in 2002. However, the figure dropped to 4.38 million in 2005, due to the number of aircraft being reduced from 45 in early 2001 to 29 in 2005, as part of the restructuring of the wider MyTravel Group.

In late 2004 the last of the McDonnell Douglas DC-10s and the last Boeing 757 were withdrawn from the fleet. MyTravel Airways was the last British airline to operate DC-10s. In December 2005, MyTravel Aircraft Engineering (MTAE) became a wholly owned subsidiary of the MyTravel Group, based at Manchester Airport. The facility performed all light maintenance checks (up to 'C' Check) for MyTravel Airways and MyTravel Airways A/S, as well as work for third party airlines such as Skyservice, and has now been re-branded Thomas Cook Airlines Engineering following the merger.

In late 2005, one of its Boeing 757-200s were used for the filming of American biographical film United 93, which was released a year later. The original flight was flown by a 757.

MyTravel Aircraft Engineering Caribbean, part of MTAE had bases throughout the Caribbean in Cancún, Cozumel, Montego Bay, Newark, New Jersey and Sanford, Florida, as well as seasonal bases at various Spanish, Greek and Turkish airports as well as Jeddah for the Hajj operation. It handled more than 3500 aircraft for over 40 airlines a year.

Due to necessary consolidation within the UK IT market, MyTravel Group PLC and Thomas Cook AG agreed to merge in March 2007 to form Thomas Cook Group PLC. Under the merger, MyTravel Airways and Thomas Cook Airlines fleets became one and the airlines became Thomas Cook Airlines, operating under MyTravel's AOC. Thomas Cook Airlines subsequently changed their callsign from 'Topjet' to MyTravel's callsign 'Kestrel'. MyTravel's last flight operated on 30 March 2008.

Destinations
Most flights were operated for MyTravel Group Tour Operators as MyTravel Airways was their in-house airline. Many routes to Canada were operated by MyTravel Airways on behalf of specialist Canadian Affair. It was the only British airline to fly to Djerba from Manchester Airport and Gatwick Airport. As of 2007, MyTravel Airways flew to the following destinations:

Africa

 * Egypt
 * Hurghada - Hurghada International Airport
 * Luxor - Luxor International Airport
 * Sharm El Sheikh - Sharm El Sheikh International Airport
 * Kenya
 * Mombasa - Moi International Airport
 * Morocco
 * Agadir - Agadir – Al Massira Airport
 * Tunisia
 * Djerba - Djerba–Zarzis International Airport
 * Monastir - Monastir Habib Bourguiba International Airport

Americas

 * Antigua and Barbuda
 * Antigua - V. C. Bird International Airport
 * Brazil
 * Salvador de Bahia - Salvador International Airport
 * Canada
 * Toronto - Toronto Pearson International Airport
 * Vancouver - Vancouver International Airport
 * Barbados
 * Bridgetown - Grantley Adams International Airport
 * Cuba
 * Varadero - Juan Gualberto Gómez Airport
 * Dominican Republic
 * Puerto Plata - Gregorio Luperón International Airport
 * Punta Cana - Punta Cana International Airport
 * Cayman Islands
 * Grand Cayman - Owen Roberts International Airport
 * Jamaica
 * Montego Bay - Sangster International Airport
 * Mexico
 * Cancún - Cancún International Airport
 * United States
 * Las Vegas - McCarran International Airport
 * Orlando - Orlando Sanford International Airport

Asia

 * China
 * Beijing - Beijing Capital International Airport
 * Hong Kong - Hong Kong International Airport
 * Sanya - Sanya Phoenix International Airport
 * Shanghai - Shanghai Pudong International Airport
 * Cyprus
 * Larnaca - Larnaca International Airport
 * Paphos - Paphos International Airport
 * India
 * Goa - Dabolim Airport
 * Trivandrum - Trivandrum International Airport
 * Japan
 * Nagoya - Chubu Centrair International Airport
 * Osaka - Kansai International Airport
 * Tokyo - Narita International Airport
 * Maldives
 * Malé - Velana International Airport
 * South Korea
 * Seoul - Incheon International Airport
 * Taiwan
 * Taipei - Taiwan Taoyuan International Airport
 * Turkey
 * Antalya - Antalya Airport
 * Bodrum - Milas–Bodrum Airport
 * Dalaman - Dalaman Airport

Europe

 * Austria
 * Salzburg - Salzburg Airport
 * Bulgaria
 * Burgas - Burgas Airport
 * Finland
 * Kittilä - Kittilä Airport
 * France
 * Grenoble - Alpes–Isère Airport
 * Greece
 * Corfu - Corfu International Airport
 * Heraklion - Heraklion International Airport
 * Kalamata - Kalamata International Airport
 * Kefalonia - Kefalonia International Airport
 * Kos - Kos International Airport
 * Rhodes - Rhodes International Airport
 * Thessaloniki - Thessaloniki Airport
 * Zakynthos - Zakynthos International Airport
 * Italy
 * Naples - Naples International Airport
 * Olbia - Olbia Costa Smeralda Airport
 * Rimini - Federico Fellini International Airport
 * Malta
 * Luqa - Malta International Airport
 * Portugal
 * Faro - Faro Airport
 * Spain
 * Alicante - Alicante–Elche Airport
 * Almería - Almería Airport
 * Fuerteventura - Fuerteventura Airport
 * Girona - Girona–Costa Brava Airport
 * Gran Canaria - Gran Canaria Airport
 * Ibiza - Ibiza Airport
 * Lanzarote - Lanzarote Airport
 * Málaga - Málaga Airport
 * Menorca - Menorca Airport
 * Palma de Mallorca - Palma de Mallorca Airport
 * Reus - Reus Airport
 * Tenerife - Tenerife South Airport

Incidents
On 5 July 2007, a first officer who was not an employee but was paying MyTravel to gain flight experience on their aircraft (pay-to-fly) landed an Airbus A320 heavily at Kos airport in Greece, causing substantial damage to the main landing gear. The report was critical of both the pilot's training record and non-employees paying airlines to gain experience.

Fleet
Airtours was formed in 1990 and changed to MyTravel Airways in 2002 with the merger of Premiair. Since the formation of the airline as Airtours International Airways in 1990, until the merger with Thomas Cook in 2008, MyTravel Airways has operated the following aircraft types:

Awards
MyTravel Airways achieved several punctuality awards between 2005 and 2007.
 * FlightOnTime.info Most Punctual UK Charter Airline - Summer 2006, Summer 2007 & Winter 2007/08
 * FlightOnTime.info Most Improved UK Charter Airline for Punctuality - Summer 2005 & Summer 2006
 * CAA Air Transport Users Council – Most Punctual UK Charter Airline – Winter 2005/2006

title: MyTravel Airways


text:
Purple prose

In literary criticism, purple prose is overly ornate prose text that may disrupt a narrative flow by drawing undesirable attention to its own extravagant style of writing, thereby diminishing the appreciation of the prose overall. Purple prose is characterized by the excessive use of adjectives, adverbs, and metaphors. When it is limited to certain passages, they may be termed purple patches or purple passages, standing out from the rest of the work.

Purple prose is criticized for desaturating the meaning in an author's text by overusing melodramatic and fanciful descriptions. As there is no precise rule or absolute definition of what constitutes purple prose, deciding if a text, passage, or complete work has fallen victim is a somewhat subjective decision. According to Paul West, "It takes a certain amount of sass to speak up for prose that's rich, succulent and full of novelty. Purple is immoral, undemocratic and insincere; at best artsy, at worst the exterminating angel of depravity."

Origins
The term purple prose is derived from a reference by the Roman poet Horace (Quintus Horatius Flaccus, 65–8 BC) who wrote in his Ars Poetica (lines 14–21):

title: Purple prose


text:
Peter Bakowski

Peter Bakowski (born 15 October 1954) is an Australian poet. His poems often use deceptively simple words and images, reminiscent at times of words in a child's picture book, but with some stylistic similarities to the work of writers such as Charles Simic or Vítězslav Nezval,

Biography
Born in Melbourne, to Polish-German immigrants. Bakowski was born premature, with a hole in the heart; he has survived two heart operations. His parents ran a delicatessen, and after completing his secondary schooling he worked in a series of low-paying jobs before opening his own record shop in the early 1980s. He commenced writing poetry while travelling through Texas in 1983. His early works, including his first book Thunder Road, Thunder Heart (1988), show the influence of American Beat writers such as Jack Kerouac, Allen Ginsberg and Charles Bukowski. His poems have appeared in over one hundred literary magazines worldwide, predominantly in English but also in Arabic, Bahasa-Indonesian, Bengali, German, Japanese, Polish, Spanish, Mandarin and French. He has lived in Melbourne and London, and travelled widely throughout Australia, Europe, North America and Africa, occasionally as an artist-in-residence. In 2007 he became an artist in residence at the University of Macau. He has been writer-in-residence at the B.R. Whiting Library in Rome; the Cité Internationale des Arts in Paris; the University of Macau; Soochow University, Jiangsu Province, China; the Katherine Susannah Prichard Writers' Centre in Greenmount, Western Australia; the Hobart Writers' Cottage in Battery Point, Tasmania; the Arthur Boyd Estate of "Bundanon" near Nowra, New South Wales; the Broken Hill Poetry Festival, New South Wales.

His travels have provided a wide range of material for his work; his fifth collection Days That We Couldn’t Rehearse contains poems set in Paris, Transylvania, the Upper Volga, Uzbekistan and Sarajevo.

Raised a Catholic, in 1994 he married Helen Bourke, an Irish-Australian seamstress. Their child, Ophelia Bakowski is a DJ, performance artist and photographer.

Bakowski's book In The Human Night won the 1996 Victorian Premier's Award, the C. J. Dennis Prize for Poetry. In 2010 he was shortlisted for the same award, for his book Beneath Our Armour.

In 2015, a bilingual book (French and English) of selected poems was published in France. In June 2022, Peter Bakowski was Virtual Writer in Residence with the International Anthony Burgess Foundation via Manchester UNESCO City of Literature.

Awards

 * 1996 Victorian Premier's Literary Awards: C. J. Dennis Prize for Poetry

title: Peter Bakowski


text:
North Dakota Hymn

The "North Dakota Hymn" is the state song of the U.S. state of North Dakota. It was written by poet James Foley at the request of North Dakota Superintendent of Public Instruction Minnie Nielson in 1926 to the tune of "The Austrian Hymn". Dr. Clarence Simeon "C.S." Putnam arranged the music with distinct ragtime syncopation.

Lyrics

 * North Dakota, North Dakota,
 * With thy prairies wide and free,
 * All thy sons and daughters love thee,
 * Fairest state from sea to sea;
 * North Dakota, North Dakota,
 * Here we pledge ourselves to thee.

 * Hear thy loyal children singing,
 * Songs of happiness and praise,
 * Far and long the echoes ringing,
 * Through the vastness of thy ways;
 * North Dakota, North Dakota,
 * We will serve thee all our days.

 * Onward, onward, onward going,
 * Light of courage in thine eyes,
 * Sweet the winds above thee blowing,
 * Green thy fields and fair thy skies;
 * North Dakota, North Dakota,
 * Brave the Soul that in thee lies.

 * God of freedom, all victorious,
 * Give us Souls serene and strong,
 * Strength to make the future glorious,
 * Keep the echo of our song;
 * North Dakota, North Dakota,
 * In our hearts forever long.

title: North Dakota Hymn


text:
User talk:MarkSweep/archive1

Hello MarkSweep, welcome to Wikipedia.

You might find these links helpful: How to edit a page, How to write a great article, Naming conventions, Manual of Style. You should read our policies at some point too.

If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump, or ask me on my talk page. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian!
 * You can introduce yourself on the new users page.
 * You can find lots more information, including open tasks and daily tips, at the community portal.
 * You can sign your name using three tildes, like this: . If you use four, you can add a datestamp as well.
 * Before saving a page, it's a good idea to use the Show preview button to review your edits. Also, consider writing a summary for each edit.

Again, welcome! Chris Roy 19:19, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Hi Mark. The content at Gustatory urinalysis said nothing about the topic. Could you please see Stub article for guidelines in creating a stub? Thanks Dysprosia 08:42, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm aware. Just being silly. MarkSweep 23:27, 2004 Apr 26 (UTC)

incomplete beta/Beta
Hello. It appears that you have moved incomplete beta function to incomplete Beta function, and also changed some instances of "beta" to "Beta" and "gamma" to "Gamma". I wonder how much need there is for this. The names are of course established only by convention, but from what I can tell writing the names in lowercase is substantially more common. Arfken and Mathworld agree on lowercase; "Numerical Recipes" writes the names in lowercase; a random sample of web pages shows lowercase is preferred except in titles; Abramowitz & Stegun isn't very helpful since most proper names appears in titles and therefore capitalized. My copy of Boyce & DiPrima does mention the "Gamma function" in passing. Would you care to explain your reasoning here? Regards, Wile E. Heresiarch 15:42, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * Very simple: preserving case. If I see "Beta function", I know immediately which function is intended. If I see "beta function" out of context, I might have to guess whether Beta (B) or beta (β) was intended.  Look at Beta function and beta-function.  The symbol for the first is always a "B" (capital Beta), never a "β" (lower case beta), though sometimes it's given as "B" (Latin upper case B).  The symbol for the second is always a "β" never a "B".  If it weren't for the hyphen, the two pages about "beta functions" would be indistinguishable.  Also see the notice on the top of each page about case.  Similarly, you could distinguish an "incomplete Gamma function" Γ where the integral is taken from x to infinity from an "incomplete gamma function" γ where the integral is taken from 0 to x.  Granted, the case distinction in the last case might be too subtle.  Abramowitz and Stegun seem to treat all function names as proper names and So They Capitalize Everything, even things like "Riemann Zeta Function", which is never denoted by a "Z" (capital Zeta).  If you're looking for precedent, portions of netlib attempt (somewhat successfully) to use "Beta" and "Gamma" consistently. --MarkSweep 00:42, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * I see your point, but we're not in a position to impose an unconventional name, even if it's more logical and consistent. If people who commonly work with these functions commonly write their names in lowercase, or upside down or backwards, Wikipedia has to follow suit. As to precedent, I have already made a brief survey which indicates the lowercase spelling is more common; it's up to you to show that in fact uppercase is more common. Wile E. Heresiarch 01:18, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * Oh well, I thought we were in a position to strive for consistency, at least in the article title. It's not such an important matter, so move things back if you think. --MarkSweep 04:30, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * I've moved incomplete Beta function back to incomplete beta function and substituted "beta" for "Beta" and "gamma" for "Gamma" in some articles. Thanks for all your excellent contributions, keep up the good work. Regards & happy editing, Wile E. Heresiarch 16:01, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia question
Hi MarkSweep. I am doing a small research project on Wikipedia and have a couple questions about your contribution to Hidden Markov models listed on my discussion page. If you have time, I'd really appreciated if you could send me answers. Great articles and thanks!

--Caromk 01:41, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Decision Analysis
Mark:

I notice that you are suggesting I merge a lot of my recent decision analysis stub articles into one grand decision model article. I won't at this stage, since it is my intention to flesh out the stubs, and to provide a separate decision model article, to create a really useful hypertexted Decision Analysis resource here. I hope that is okay.

DA is an area in which I have a professional interest. Additional suggestions and/or contributions would be most welcome!

Many thanks. GJeffery 16:14, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * I'm still worried that the set of articles is too disjointed with the contents spread out over many small stubs. However, if these stubs are an indication of bigger project you're envisioning, that would be Ok by me (not that my opinion matters anyway). --MarkSweep 16:29, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Probability distributions

 * I was wondering if it makes sense to aim for a common structure for all the articles on probability distributions. So far I've tried to imitate to some degree the presentation of normal distribution. What is a good place to discuss issues that are common to a set of articles like this? Category talk:Probability distributions?

There seems to be some respectable opinion or practice in the use of such a common structure, but it's never been something I've been able to get enthusiastic about. For example, for some probability distributions, the expected value may be one of the more important things to know about it; for others, perhaps not.

Maybe the category talk page would be the best place for such a discussion; I'm not sure. Michael Hardy 21:38, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * I'm not in favor of a common structure either; just put whatever seems important for a particular distribution into that article. -- Btw Mark I see that you've been pointing redirects directly to naive Bayes classifier. Thanks for taking on this cleanup job, I appreciate your help a lot. Regards & happy editing, Wile E. Heresiarch 05:45, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

New Zealand Photographers
Would you consider changing your vote on Votes_for_deletion/New_Zealand_Photographers? I have deleted the original non-content and added some proper content. Cheers - Drstuey 12:01, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I've replied on the VfD page. --MarkSweep 13:11, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

copyvios
You could leave a message on their talk page User talk:129.177.44.178. They'd see it there. I would do it.. but I'm not good with that kind of thing.. either that or I'm lazy. I really should do it. I don't know. - Evil saltine 00:25, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Vanity
Vanity isn't a criterion for speedy deletion, you'll have to go through the VfD cycle for vanity alas. See WP:CSD for more info. --fvw * † 00:55, 2004 Dec 2 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing out that blatant vanity is not a sufficient reason for speedy deletion. I read the policy again and noticed that it is a proposed reason. Is there a place to vote on this? --MarkSweep 01:03, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Nope, I'm afraid things haven't gotten that far yet. I suppose you could try a proper vote on talk: (you should announce it at the appropriate places though), but I don't actually think it's a good idea, alluring though it may be. Vanity is too subjective for a single editor to be allowed to decide whether something is or isn't. Deletion is still one of wikipedia's weak points I fear. --fvw * † 01:08, 2004 Dec 2 (UTC)

Mojomonkeycoding
Hey there. I noticed you marked Mojomonkeycoding as a copyvio, but didn't report it at Copyright problems as is the usual practice. I went ahead and did it for you, but figured I should point out the way we usually go about it. Thanks! - Vague | Rant 04:06, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)
 * Ah, great job! And yeah, you have a point about WP:CP being somewhat unnecessary thanks to the category, but I guess it just makes it easier on the sysops to have a link to the source on the page, too. *shrug* - Vague | Rant 07:41, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)

Re: comment on copyright text in images
Copyright text in images Dkroll2 wrote: I put a .jpg of me on my page, User:Dkroll2 and I believe I did the copyright thing properly

 * Yup, it's properly tagged. Thanks. --MarkSweep 16:09, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yup,...Thanks...that's it. No no no. this was your opportunity to praise, so you can yell at me when I do something bad. You lose the right to bitch at someone if you don't praise too. "Yup, thanks." well,..it just didn't make me dance a jig of pride this morning. That copyright stuff is confusing dammit. That darn "mojo" dude above got a "Ah, great job!" from you. I'm a bit hurt being a newbie and all.[[Dkroll2]]

Article Licensing
Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 1000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:
 * Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
 * Multi-Licensing Guide
 * Free the Rambot Articles Project

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the " " template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

 * Option 1
 * I agree to multi-license all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

OR
 * Option 2
 * I agree to multi-license all my contributions to any U.S. state, county, or city article as described below:

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace " " with "  ". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)

I noticed you are busy on Talk:Sollog. Are you aware of the template to mark major edits with? This is a useful "standard" way of asking people to stay out of it for a while. (I haven't seen it used for talk pages yet, but it would work). JRM 01:26, 2004 Dec 11 (UTC)

 * Thanks, that's exactly what I needed to put on that page. --MarkSweep 01:31, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Sollog
I'm way uncomfortable with any comments (mine or anyone else's) having been removed from the talk page, and in principle don't agree with the idea of reorganizing the flow of posts on such a page. However positive the motive, aside from offering an opportunity to snip commentary according to standards others might not really agree with, most of the writing has been removed from its original context. Yes, if someone's really curious, they can browse the page history, but most people won't bother. Of course I could have reverted the page, but felt that would be rude. Wyss 04:45, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * I know what you mean. I was extremely hesitant to edit someone else's comments.  In fact, I first started creating a proposal for a refactored page over at Talk:Sollog/Refactored, but then decided that that would be an unnecessary distraction: everybody would be forced to compare the proposed page to the original page, a lot of discussion would ensue, meanwhile Sollog's followers would continue editing the main talk page, etc.  I thought it would be a nightmare to keep these two versions consistent.  So I decided to "be bold" and just make the changes at the main talk page.  Yes, it chops up individual comments, but I've tried to thread them back together.  I realize that coherence was lost in the process and apologize for that.  However, I would claim that in the end it was an improvement over the preceding discussion, which was heavily fragmented -- not your fault, it's just some people decided to add comments all over the place.  Now, what should be done? If you think your comments have been misrepresented, or there are some that I forgot, why not merge in some changes from the snapshot before the refactoring?  Keep in mind that I'm not saying that only the comments I copied during the refactoring should be present.  If you think some strands of the conversation were lost, please do restore them.  If you think the situation cannot be salvaged at all -- and especially if others agree -- I'm not opposed to reverting.  Also, keep in mind that there was precedent for such a refactoring, e.g., User:Rlandmann had already done a (much less radical) reorganization before. Cheers, --MarkSweep 04:56, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Sollog's followers? He has no followers, it's all Ennis. He buys domains and spams his way across the internet hoping to attract enough attention to at least generate some hits on his websites so he can sell stuff. Anything will do, e-books, CDs, various flavours of porn (he'll say that's his publisher's doing, not his, but it's all him), anything he can think of. His forums are a wasteland of scattered posts to himself... the "timestamped" USENET avalanche is all Ennis as well. I could go on, but I'm sure you get the idea. There's no notability here, no followers, nothing even approaching an acceptable publisher, positive review or sponsor, no art, no substance. Someone on Tim MacVeigh's legal team dismissed him, in effect, as a complete nut. A wiki article on this topic is about as appropriate as a separate feature on a Rolex watch spammer. All the best, Wyss 05:28, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * I only speak of "Sollog's followers" for the sake of NPOV. I did some lookups of domain records and traceroutes on the IP addresses that the various anonymous posts came from, and most of them point to southern Florida, and northeastern Broward county in particular. He may deny these things all he wants -- I fully agree with you that it's most likely one or two people and their various sock puppets posting here. However, for the sake of not providing him with more fodder for his repetitive comments, I decided to stop calling him on this after every single of his anonymous posts on the talk page.  Still, I'm keeping track of who our special friends are here.  Call me naive, but I also share User:JRM and User:Rlandmann's hope that perhaps this could be made into a decent NPOV article that provides sufficient information for readers to make up their own minds. You have to admit that there is some entertainment value here: the guy has spammed himself into some dubious notoriety, posts an advertising/vanity page, vigorously defends it against deletion, then changes his mind once he realizes that he won't get the publicity he wants. --MarkSweep 06:21, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * I think you should indeed keep calling him on it. This isn't one or two people... it's one. The writing's the same. Ennis owns hundreds of domain names, so I'm sure he knows how to keep more than one ISP account handy for serial logons. As I do more reading up on this person, I have yet to find one positive comment (or a hint of any fan existing other than himself). Even the psychic sites I've seen openly call him a fraud and a sockpuppet (and worse). Wyss 07:24, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * MarkSweep, while I might quibble with some details, I think that if the article is worth inclusion it was a much needed job admirably done. What I fear is that Ennis is going to continue more or less the same behavior patterns, so the whole talk page is either going to become chaotic again or need another radical reworking every week or so -- which seems to me to be vastly more work than is warranted by a soi-disant deity beneath the attention of either www.rickross.com/sg_alpha.html or Skepdic. What a pain. Yet I'm with Wyss -- I voted against inclusion of any article on Ennis and I'd do so again if the question were to come up again (and I don't immediately see how it could). -- Hoary 05:46, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Thanks. If Ennis continues as before, I'd be in favor of taking a more active role in shaping the discussion.  The name calling, the profanity, the various threats, the UPPER CASE writing style, the invitations to "shut up" (a dead giveaway, by the way), the vandalism, the childish retorts, etc. all have to stop. --MarkSweep 06:21, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Barnstars are awarded on the "Be bold!" principle... Wikipedia:Barnstars on Wikipedia ...I gave Rlandmann, JRM, Hoary and Jimbo Wales barnstars too, I was way impressed with how this was handled, having voted to delete the article and then watching the process (along with the offline personal attacks- ghastly) produce an article even I thought reflected the facts and, amazingly, without once having made an edit to the article myself. I learned something about the wiki way. Wyss 05:40, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind words. I'm so glad we don't have to be NPOV in edit summaries -- it helps to blow off a little steam now and then. JamesMLane 21:52, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Image:Texas state capitol.jpg
Image:Texas state capitol.jpg is not a thumb of itself, as you write as reason for speedy delete :). Thue | talk 12:03, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Ah, but isn't any picture this small necessarily a thumb of itself? Seriously, my mistake. I also replied on your talk page. --MarkSweep 19:01, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * You are of course right that the picture is a thumb of itself :P. I have deleted it. Thue | talk 21:49, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

IFD
FYI, AFAIK, IFD's should be listed by hand on Images and media for deletion ...cf. . --Tagishsimon (talk)

 * Right, I meant to list a whole batch that I flagged in one go, but got sidetracked. It's just too inconvenient to list every IFD candidate individually (on the other hand, longer additions usually result in edit conflicts). --MarkSweep 06:14, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Diff two articles
(From Votes for deletion/List of words having different meanings in British and American English, including minority usages)

 * Is there a way to diff two distinct articles, short of pasting one into the other, diffing the two revisions, and then reverting?) --MarkSweep 09:35, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I never thought of this before, but most likely there's a webdiff program for comparing two web pages, which could be adapted for the purpose. Just give it two URLs and it'll diff them. If not, you could easily write a suitable script in perl. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 09:42, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I guess the other solution would have been to save the wiki code for both pages in text files and then simply run diff on those files. Though it's simple, it's still too much work. --MarkSweep 09:47, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Template:NASA
(moved from Template messages)
 * Template:NASA duplicates Template:PD-USGov-NASA. One should be substituted for the other, preferrably by a robot, and the unused templated deleted. --MarkSweep 04:12, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I have NetBot running to make this switch on the images. I moved your request to Template talk:NASA, so follow-up there.  Basically, the Template messages section you added to is only for handling templates after they've been voted on.  Since this didn't go through a vote (that I saw), I thought it better to move the discussion. -- Netoholic @ 06:05, 2004 Dec 20 (UTC)
 * Thanks. That's exactly what I meant, replacing the template on the image pages.  Sorry for posting the request on the wrong page. --MarkSweep 05:15, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Changing 20 December to December 20 in Sollog
Hi MarkSweep,

I noticed you changed dates like 20 December to December 20. I just wanted to point out that the change has no effect whatsoever on the output, since your date order is set as a preference.

--Dbenbenn 19:59, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * I knew about the user preferences, but I was under the impression that it's either December 20, 2004 or 20 December 2004 (no comma in the latter form). --MarkSweep 20:10, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

User:MarkSweep/thumb
My apologies, I deleted this template because it was on the Category:Candidates for speedy deletion page. I've restored it; no harm done, I hope.-gadfium (talk) 02:45, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I'm using it to quickly list image thumbnails on CAT:CSD. How do I stop the template page from showing up there? --MarkSweep 02:56, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Place a message at Category:Candidates for speedy deletion asking for it to stay or, preferably, create a completely new template in Temaple: namespace (rather than your user namespace) so other people can use it too. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 03:05, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Can we do something with this user page now, because it's still showing up on csd (obviously) and may get deleted again at any time by another unsuspecting admin. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 03:41, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I made a new Template:isd that replaces the user page. However, if you delete the user page before deleting all of the images that I used it on, you might risk delisting those images from CSD.  If you clear out all image files currently listed on CAT:CSD, I'll blank the user template and list it on CSD for good. --MarkSweep 03:44, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Er... I'll do it tomorrow (just saw the amount of images - it's 3.49am here!) -- Graham ☺ | Talk 03:46, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

ISD
Hi there,

I love the images for speedy deletion template you made. Could you also link to a category especially for images? Category:Candidates for speedy deletion always gets swamped with images and it would be nice to have them apart. Mgm|(talk) 12:04, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)

 * I created Category:Redundant images as a subcategory of CAT:CSD. Don't know if that's a good idea.  I guess I'll find out soon enough. --MarkSweep 12:27, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

User:MarkSweep/thumb
I've turned this into a redirect to Template:Isd; this appears to work as normal and it won't then appear in CAT:CSD. Dunc|☺ 11:27, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Thanks, good idea. --MarkSweep 12:13, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Vandelism on Admin page Dkroll2 not true
Whilst sufing about I found an unsigned accusation of vandalism. Please explain.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:List_of_administrators#Vandalism --[[Dkroll2]] 17:30, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC) On Christmas, no less.

Signature not working on Dkroll2
Does this work?

--[[Dkroll2]] 00:41, Dec 26, 2004 (UTC)

crap, I just checked. it doesn't. yeah, I picked the button at the top, second from the right. ~ Waz up? I'm a mess.

Why does mine have all the [ [ ] ] around it too?

Here's the difference betwween yours and mine:

MarkSweep 02:56, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

--[[Dkroll2]] 00:41, Dec 26, 2004 (UTC)

I found it! it was some brackets in my prefs page--Dkroll2 01:08, Dec 26, 2004 (UTC)

I need your support
This is the fastest manner I found to get to a apage...the URL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Subtractive_color_space

I cannot write the article until I get this crazy man who keeps destroying my work away. I tried rediret, then he did too and on and on. He followed my every move for days and messed up every word I wrote. I wish his info was correct but it was wrong and just bad. I emailed him with references. No reply.

Please vote.--Dkroll2 07:46, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)

 * Done. And by the way, you could have also linked to the vote page like this: Votes for deletion/Subtractive color space. --MarkSweep 00:18, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Speedily deletions
Thanks for tagging all those thumbs for speedy delete! I'm hoping we'll soon be rid of them. – Quadell (talk) (help) 21:41, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)

 * No problem. Unfortunately, there are plenty more left. --MarkSweep 00:19, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Also, remember to check Category:Redundant images from now on. --MarkSweep 09:03, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Where did the extra
come from? ==

Could it be you used the new section (+) link at the top of the page, and put the =='s in the subject/headline box out of habit? Happens to me all the time. --fvw *  09:36, 2004 Dec 28 (UTC)
 * You're right. Thanks. --MarkSweep 19:55, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Image discussion at User_talk:Tillea
After discussion with you I updated my talk page at commons in this way that I removed mages I uploaded in a quality which I considered fine. I left other images on the talk page if I was unsure whether they should be fixed in one or the other way. Just have a look if you will find the time.

Moreover I wonder how the WikiPedia project should cope with all these funny images for instance if you look at collections like Alopex lagopus. I uploaded "" but I think half of these images should be removed again - but who decides which one without making the uploader angry?

Tillea 06:36, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

commons:Image:HausdorffSpace.png
I've reverted what you did here, but you may want to re-revert somewhat. There are two separate points: -- Toby Bartels 01:46, 2005 Jan 11 (UTC)
 * Regarding the image itself, the circles are grey (not black), to indicate the boundary of an open set.
 * Regarding the description, my work is not (usually) public domain; there's a lot about this on User talk:Toby Bartels.

 * OK, I made the circles sRGB 50% gray and added a CopyrightedFreeUse tag, as well as tags for compatible free licenses. Maybe you could consider using  in addition to your own license text, which would place the image into an appropriate category. Cheers, --MarkSweep 05:20, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

That looks fine; thanks for your care. (Well, I don't know why the image needs to be so big; but since it can be made smaller again when I use it, then who am I to complain if you want it? ^_^) (And I don't really like the form of the CopyrightedFreeUse tag, but that just means that I need to design a better version! ^_^) Also, I added you to the list of modifiers in the credits. -- Toby Bartels 22:28, 2005 Jan 24 (UTC)

Re: Instant revert
Thanks for the note. Wikipedia was loading very slowly for me this morning, and by the time I got the final version in I'd realised my comments were somewhat out of date in letter, if not in spirit. I had also already decided by that point not to engage with him any longer (I have enough evidence now to be relatively sure of his pattern), but rather to address my comments to the other editors. To avoid any more rounds of defensiveness, I will continue to operate that way for now. Regards, Fire Star 23:25, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Image:Alabamastateseal.png
Hi Mark,

I guess you have either WP:PUI or Image:Alabamastateseal.png on your watchlist! After listing it at PUI, I found a PD version, uploaded it to commons:Image:Alabama state seal.png, and orphaned the CV version. By the time I was done, you had replaced that version with the same PD seal I had used! Anyway, I've listed Alabamastateseal.png at WP:IFD, because 1) it's orphaned, and 2) it still has the CV version in the history.

Cheers, dbenbenn | talk 03:58, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * Actually I was going through every single state seal via Special:File list, searching for "stateseal". I just left a related message on your talk page. --MarkSweep 04:05, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I tried using "pngcrush" on the first version of Image:Alabama state seal.png, but I couldn't get it as small as your version. I'm just curious; could you indicate what you did exactly, and what options you used? Thanks, dbenbenn | talk 01:37, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * I used the  option – a brute-force search for the optimal compression setting. "When in doubt, use brute force." (commonly attributed to Ken Thompson)  Cheers, --MarkSweep 01:43, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * Yeah, I tried
 * pngcrush -reduce -cc -brute -l 9 Alabama_state_seal.png Alabama_state_seal2.png
 * It went from 16321 to 16269 bytes (whereas your version is 15099), only saved 52. I'm using pngcrush version 1.5.10 with libpng 1.2.7 and zlib 1.2.2. dbenbenn | talk 02:00, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * Strange, that's the same version I was using (whatever is the latest version on Debian unstable), though it's linked against libpng 1.2.8. Are you sure we both started with the exact same unoptimized image? --MarkSweep 02:04, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * I started with the original version of Image:Alabama state seal.png, of size 16321 bytes. What did you start with?  dbenbenn | talk 03:12, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * I started by downloading what was indicated as the source image on one of the pages and converted that from GIF to PNG. It turns out that the two resulting images are different. (*smack*) --MarkSweep 04:59, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * I used gif2png to convert that same image. How did you convert it?  dbenbenn | talk 18:21, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * The Gimp. --MarkSweep 05:31, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Houbara
I’m no expert on images, so I don’t know how to change the compression – it may be that the compression problems occurred prior to download, and this is, of course, a painting, not a photo, so I don’t know if that has any relevance.

The source is 1905 German encyclopedia, so you may want to try yourself. It has been confirmed that the use of the images from this site are still in the PD, although in practice many of them are too poor a representation of the species concerned to use in articles. jimfbleak 07:46, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yosemite Valley photo as featured picture candidate
Do you have any info on the better resolution photo from pdphoto.org for consideration at Featured picture candidates/Yosemite Valley ? - Bevo 22:58, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * I sent you a reply. --MarkSweep 23:45, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * I don't see it, yet. - Bevo 01:32, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * Using the "E-mail this user" link. It took forever to send, but when the page finally loaded it did say "message sent". Ping me here in a couple of hours if haven't received it. --MarkSweep 01:59, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * I still don't see it. I checked my preferences and the correct email address is there.  I'll try emailing you to see if that works. - Bevo 16:04, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I finally received a high-rez version of the image voted on a while ago. It's now on the Commons as Commons:Image:Yosemite meadows 2004-09-04.jpg. The composition is actually a bit different from Image:Yosemite 2 bg 090404.jpg. Do you think it's worth renominating it as an FPC here? Alternatively, I could nominate it on the Commons. --MarkSweep 06:57, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

 * Yes, I feel it should be nominated on its own merits for FPC status (since it is a different image). The image quality of the new one is fantastic, although I do like the exact camera position of the original better.  If you do nominate it, I'm voting support!  - Bevo 19:36, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Image sleuthing
There's a new project in town called Image sleuthing, and you are hereby invited to become an official image sleuth. – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 00:47, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)

 * Thanks for the pointer. I've added my name to the list of contributors (even though I haven't contributed anything yet). --MarkSweep 05:09, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

ROC map
Hi Mark: sorry, but I don't have any information on the copyright status of the image. I added the English names, that's all. I think you'll have to ask the original uploader about this.

Cheers! -- ran (talk) 06:47, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you
Thanks, Mark! dbenbenn | talk 06:19, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Nickel metal hydride battery photo
Thanks for the image! It looks like everybody's happy with it. Are you still planning on uploading a higher-quality version to the Commons, or can I close the request on Image sleuthing? – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 18:53, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

 * Go ahead and close the request. I won't get around to it during the next couple of days. If everyone is happy with the current version, there is no strong incentive to do another version right away. --MarkSweep 23:13, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Message to Mark
Please delete as required....

I have tried to put your policy into effect on the Talk Sollog page but I fear the bemused Editors will simply delete my message and thus ignore what you wrote. This message here is simply posted as a matter of record in that I have tried to bring the attention of the unruly to the rules.

Thank you

The Number 23:23, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Urban Legend
Now that you mention it, it was one of those voluminous forwards everyone always gets, with no clear provenance. I could read your rearranged version, but that could be because I knew the text already. I guess I'll have to edit it! Cheers, Fire Star 14:32, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It's just...
... that I saw them in the English Wikipedia. Should they be deleted from there too?--Fito 07:33, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)

title: User talk:MarkSweep/archive1