User talk:Dante Alighieri

Archived talk: Clovis et al., Archive 1

---

Okay, if the place decsribed by Milton is Pandæmonium (with ligature), and the film is Pandaemonium (without ligature), why can't Pandaemonium be about the film? I don't see the point of giving the page about the film a more complex title when the simpler title is free (i.e. is only a redirect). -- Oliver P. 23:28 6 Jun 2003 (UTC)

For a few reasons. First of all, people searching for the Pandæmonium of Milton are unlikely to use the ligature spelling in the search bar, so Pandaemonium should probably not be an article just on the film. Second of all, it seems to be common practice to append (movie) or (film) to a movie title when there exists an article at the same name (even if it's a variant "spelling). Lastly, I'm not sure it's a policy, but it seems to me to be a generally unwise idea to have two articles that differ only by "punctuation" (ligature, umlauts, accent marks, etc.) be about different things. --Dante Alighieri 00:39 7 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Hmmm... I did think of that, but... well... Oh, all right, you've convinced me. -- Oliver P. 00:47 7 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Hi Dante,

Have you voted yet on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (years in titles)?. I am afraid that wiki is about to make a major captioning error. It seems to be voting to putting the year first when naming elections, sports events, etc. While people often do so in spoken english, in titles and captions it doesn't do so, because to do so makes the year the central fact, whereas in reality what the event is is central, the year the disambigulation point. For example, media outlets caption election coverage as Election 2000, General Election 2000, Presidential Election 2000 etc because the the fact that it is an election is the main fact to know, that it is a general/presidential/local/state/congressional election central. We have been following this rule for ages on wiki, so we have everything from UK general election, 1970 to U.S. presidential election, 1932 to Irish general election, 2002, etc. Moving to [[1932 US presidential election]] goes against standard media caption style and would involve the wholescale renaming of pages covering elections and all sorts of events from all over the globe. You are talking about hundreds if not thousands of pages having to be renamed and go against standard caption style, which is often called the where what, when rule. After all, people if they are searching for a page on an election will use the name of the election as their entry point for a list (particularly if they don't know the year). Typing in a search for U.S. presidential election throws up a clear orderly list of US presidential elections, with the disambigulation year at the end uniformly.

As you may guess, I do think wiki's proposed to system would amount to a pointless waste of energy in remaining vast numbers of pages, especially when it is to a format that is generally not used in titles and captions but only in speech. And this debate is all about titles. So I am canvassing support to vote down what I think is a flawed, ill thought through and pointless that originated initially with our mosrt infamous troll Adam Rinkleff (in the Susan Mason persona) some months ago and survived as an idea after SM was banned. FearÉIREANN 01:53 18 Jun 2003 (UTC)

My pleasure, DA. Not a very good article, I don't know much about them - never seen one. But a whole lot better than none at all, I guess. Maybe I can find a picture on the web somewhere that we can use. Tannin 11:23 18

 Jun 2003 (UTC)

--- Hallo Dante! we love your motto

"The darkest places in hell are reserved for those who maintain their neutrality in times of great moral crisis."

we try to operate always according to these fine words

on of the upper sailor 13:40 18 Jun 2003 (UTC)

---

I agree that it would've been much better if PP had mentioned his concerns in a comment before removing the vote, and I agree that it would've been better if PP had said explicitly in his edit summary what he was doing, but if anybody disagrees with the removal, it's a simple matter to put it back (if he then removes it again, then that's a more serious matter). I do think there needs to be some sort of policy on who can and can't vote if voting is to work, but of course, that doesn't forgive PP's actions (assuming they need forgival). --Camembert

My actions are forgivable because they are not problematic. The edit history remains, and everything can be restored. It's a simple matter to put it back. If I were to unilaterally remove it again; then, there might be a problem. Pizza Puzzle

Thank you for volunteering a part of the information I requested on the photo posted by User:Jtdirl. However, I woasked for the FULL adress and the press officer name who gave User:Jtdirl the photo. Thank you. ChuckM 03:09 27 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Heh heh. DW is one prize prat! Next thing he'll want Ann's fingerprints! :-) What a nutcase. FearÉIREANN 03:18 27 Jun 2003 (UTC)

---

I like to think the best of people. It'll probably get me stabbed or raped one of these days. -- goatasaur 05:48 27 Jun 2003 (UTC)

---

Sorry - I just wanted to deprive him of the interaction with normal people he obviously thrives on, but I'll stop now. jimfbleak

---

You've blocked some IPs for a month or so...

• 20:13 21 May 2003, Dante Alighieri blocked 192.139.27.18 (contribs) (unblock) (User has made 5 edits since Feb 21 2003, all were vandalism)
• 00:17 28 May 2003, Dante Alighieri blocked 200.168.118.100 (contribs) (unblock) (continually putting nonsense at Gyuricza[?])
• 07:13 28 May 2003, Dante Alighieri blocked 66.81.139.91 (contribs) (unblock) (more random vandalism from this IP range)
• 08:12 28 May 2003, Dante Alighieri blocked 65.219.41.104 (contribs) (unblock) (garden variety vandalism, more of the same)
• 22:20 28 May 2003, Dante Alighieri blocked 217.33.151.148 (contribs) (unblock) (made junk article at Dates, twice)
• 02:12 29 May 2003, Dante Alighieri blocked 24.45.148.244 (contribs) (unblock) (3 vandalizations of 1950)

You may consider that:

1. a 30 days ban is a little excessive for (for eg) five edits.
2. in any case, with only five edits, a ban isn't really in tune with soft security.
3. they're probably dynamic IPs anyway (if you checked, and you know they're static IPs, say so in the ban comment so folks like me will know - thanks)

So I'm going to unblock them. :) Martin 20:13 28 Jun 2003 (UTC)

By all means go ahead... I had assumed they would be unblocked in short order, I certainly didn't intend the blocks to last forever. I could have sworn that there was some conversation about someone unblocking them... but I guess we never did... Good catch on that, by the way. --Dante Alighieri 20:17 28 Jun 2003 (UTC)

---

Funny stuff. Michael's vandalized my page a few times, but nothing compared to what he does to Zoe's and Hephaestos' pages. Koyaanis Qatsi 05:25 29 Jun 2003 (UTC)

---

thanks alot. Anthere