User talk:Cethegus

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive 1

When you bring in an article from English Wikipedia, do you copy the whole article?? -Razorflame 16:27, 27 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I look at the whole article and simplify it (sometimes by altering it extremely, sometimes less) as you can see in any case where I put en:WP. --Cethegus 17:28, 27 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is it alright to just bring over articles from en:WP to here when you are not skilled enough to simplify it, as I have been doing as of late? -Razorflame 17:29, 27 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry, but that makes no sense as anybody could use the en:WP instead. --Cethegus 17:32, 27 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

But, just bringing them over can enable anyone here to help me in the simplification of the articles so that they may become appropriate for this site. -Razorflame 17:33, 27 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It would make work for them more difficult instead of easier. Anybody can look at articles of the en:WP to simplify them if he wants. But complicated articles in the simple:WP have to be avoided. It's the task of the admins to get rid of them as early as possible. --Cethegus 17:38, 27 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am starting to simplify all the articles that I've added here. I am going to move them to my userspace for now. -Razorflame 17:51, 27 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's very good! - I visited you there for a moment. --Cethegus 23:21, 27 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I see you wanted to get it the same as the one out in the mainspace. Thanks, -Razorflame 00:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Swiss Articles[change source]

Hey, check out all of the Swiss related articles that I've created using the en:WP pages as the basis! I think I've done a great job on them! They still need to be simplified a bit, but I still think that they are pretty good! -Razorflame 17:08, 30 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Let me know what you think on my talk page. -Razorflame 17:08, 30 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Recent Edits[change source]

How do you think I have been doing? Do you think that my edits are positive or negative, and do you think that I have written articles that have helped out this site? How do you think my reversions of vandalism have been? Do you think that I have been good here or not? -Razorflame (contributions) Talk 20:27, 4 December 2007 (UTC) Please reply on my user talk page.Reply[reply]

Georg Büchner[change source]

Hi, Cethegus, I've just enjoyed reading your article on Büchner. It is very good but, yes, some of the vocabulary needs to be more simple. I'm happy to have a go at it. I landed up here because I am about to write something about the opera Wozzeck. Except that real life duties call now, so it might be tomorrow. Hikitsurisan 16:19, 15 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You are right, it needs more attention. I was distracted by the VGA-discussion: Wikipedia talk:Proposed very good articles and Wikipedia talk:Requirements for very good articles/New. Have you already looked at it? I think I'll join you at Georg Büchner soon. --Cethegus 16:31, 15 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Barnstar[change source]

Barnstar Congratulations: You have been given a Barnstar!

For your hard work on creating articles.

Razorflame (contributions) Talk 19:59, 23 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you! Not so many at the moment though. --Cethegus 11:48, 24 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dominican Republic Anthem[change source]

You are wrong. The name of the anthem is Himno Nacional. That is the name of the poem given by the writer and the name given by the law. Quisqueyanos valientes is name invented by some kids and it is being used but it is completely incorrect. If you wish, I could connect you with the Comisión Nacional de Efemérides Patrias that is the organization that have to deal with all these issues. I will try to change everything that you did but, please, do not revert my changes. --Jmarcano (talk) 18:15, 6 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You are right. - Himno Nacional was obviously the title of the poem Emilio Prud'homme wrote. - It's rather uncommon that a poet knows that his poem will be the national anthem and therefore calls it like that. In Germany everybody calls the German national anthem Nationalhymne, but the official title is Lied der Deutschen. But I was wrong to suppose that Himno Nacional was a similar case. --Cethegus (talk) 06:15, 7 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I know that the Dominican case is strange but it is so because José Reyes wanted to write a national anthem and then asked to Emilio Prud'homme to write the lyrics (well, that is the short version). From the beginning, they wanted to write the anthem and that is why they named it "Himno Nacional". About Quisqueyanos valientes, somebody has invented that name, which is not correct because you cannot change the name of a poem by law. I have found that term only in Wikipedia and it is a bad thing because people are getting a wrong information. --Jmarcano (talk) 22:10, 7 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It is changed in en:WP though. --Cethegus (talk) 23:08, 7 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

thank you very much for the advice...[change source]

and no, I don't think you're unintelligent, what makes you say that? Oo IamARe 16:56, 8 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think you know the answer by now. But let us suppose you don't know yet: I gave you the answer on this wiki. Can you find out where? --Cethegus (talk) 19:38, 8 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
er... are you referring to the fact that English is not your first language? because I don't think that has anything to do with your intelligence. And in any case, youre english seems great, so you must be damn clever anyway ;) IamAre 20:02, 8 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Do you think the riddle is too difficult? A little help wanted? - I wrote something directly after you had written something on a talk page. --Cethegus (talk) 21:01, 8 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You told me that I'm not allowed to ask questions on the advice for '3 days'... do I come back in another 3 days and re-ask you? i cant think what else the answer would be... IamAre 21:41, 8 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't want to make the riddle too difficult because then it cannot be interesting any more. But I hoped you might try to read talk pages a lot and test what it means to read and not to write. If I would give you an explanation why I think that might be good advice then you had less chance to find out yourself. And I think you are old and intelligent enough to find out yourself.
Concerning the riddle it's something else, because the interesting point is in the end and there is no use if you give up at the starting point. Therefore I tell you: it was on the Simple talk. But what I tried to express there, you have to search for on other pages, if you cannot find out on that page. For my advice continues to be: Try to find out yourself by reading user pages instead of writing on them. Don't give up too early. It is of much more use for you if you find it yourself. --Cethegus (talk) 23:10, 8 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The first time I encountered you was on 'simple talk'... when you said that 'you do like these sorts of discussions', on reply to me saying that we should discuss making a default layout for 'see also', 'other websites', and 'references'... that is the only thing that I think could lead to something from what I can see... And you state that English is not your native language on your page, but it seems that you understand its terminology perfectly fine... Oo IamAre 15:08, 9 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You've got just the words I meant. - If you cannot find out what this meant use]][Wikipedia:Simple_talk#concern_over_simple_english_namings|please try here.] But do not write any more here, as I am no admin. I watch your talk page and can answer your questions you ask there. --Cethegus (talk) 15:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Its ok, tygrrr has given me permission to continue my discussion here, since we had already started talking.

Hmmm... you didn't write anything in that thread. This gives me a couple of ideas.

Both that thread, and the one I met you on, were things that I had posted about major changes in order to 'uniform-ize' wikipedia... maybe you mean that I should try not to focus on such big changes?

Or, maybe you are talking about the change of my signature that has gradually happened, and the real significance behind this?

Well either way, I still don't understand how this links with the fact that you told me that you thought you were not intelligent... Oo IamR 17:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I had hoped you could read for some time how others talk and how you talk without always being involved, because I am convinced what you find out is more helpful for you than that what I could tell you. For the time being you seem always to be involved. - But both your ideas sound interesting though I did not think of that. --Cethegus (talk) 18:15, 11 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The talk page is hard to monitor using Watchlist, so I thought it would be a good idea to remind you that I've replied to your post here: Wikipedia_talk:Requirements_for_very_good_articles/New#Point_3:_length_of_articles. Cheers, - Huji reply 20:10, 14 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for the hint! I reacted there. --Cethegus (talk) 22:46, 14 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Adminship?[change source]

Hello Cethegus, do you mind if I nominate you for adminship? If you wish to accept or decline, please reply at my talk page. Thanx and happy editing;) --§ Snake311 (T + C) 08:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would also like to nominate you for adminship. If you would not mind me asking you a few days after Snake, please respond to my request on your talk page. Razorflame 23:01, 26 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you very much for asking me. But I like to work at my own pace and am rather busy at other places e.g. wikia search. --Cethegus (talk) 14:27, 27 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My request to nominate you still stands. If you would like, I would be willing to nominate you...if not, then that's alright; but it's been like 2 months since I last asked you and I wanted to ask you again to see if you might've changed your mind. You definitely are a good user. Cheers, Razorflame 15:42, 8 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you very much! It's still the same with me. This month I'll need even more freedom of decision if I want to be active or not. - I always like it, but it is not always possible. --Cethegus (talk) 18:29, 8 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Cethegus, for simplicity, I will reply in German, there is a short English summary below.

Hallo Cethegus,

wie bereits ausgeführt hab ich eine Zweibändige Weltgeschichte (ca. 3000 Seiten) im Regal stehen. Da isis und ich schon ziempilch viel Arbeit (Wochen bis Monate) in den Artikel gesteckt haben, wäre eine Löschung meines Erachtens unsinnig. Ich habe gestern Hallstatt/La Tene kulturen (deckt ca. 1200 v.Chr. bis 100 n.Christus) und über die Hökenmalereien von Lascaux/Altamira geschrieben. Die La Tène Kultur, ist das was Cäsar als "Gallier" bezeichnet. Das umfassendste Werk dazu ist seine Schilderung des Gallischen Krieges (ca. 60-50 v Christus). Andere Autoren, wie Herodot, haben auch darüber geschrieben. Der Grund, warum die beiden dort sind wo sie sind ist darin zu sehen, das zumindest La Tène stark von den Völkern im Mittelmeerraum (also Griechen und Römer beeinflusst waren); Stonehenge und GHölenmalereien sind allerdings klar der Steinzeit zuzuordnen.

Meines erachtens ist es durchaus möglich, diesem artikel ein GA tag zu verpassen; allerdings:

  • Renaissance und später muss (stark) erweitert werden
  • Wir brauchen zumindest ansatzweise China und Japan (v.a. Mittelalter- die Schogunzeit, kann man evtl unter Feudalismus (fehlt auch) erwähnen).

Wie bereits angedeuitet wäre das allerdings als Community-projekt zu sehen; wenn interessiete Regulars ihre Zeit darauf verwenden, haben wir das evtl. in eimem Monat (immer mit Sicht darauf, dass das nicht vollständig sein kann).

Schöne Grüsse


Summary for English speakers: My world history is about 3000 pages, in 2 volumes. As there was a lot of time and work put into the article, I'd hate to see it repaced by a "summary" much like EnWP; When extending/taking the decision we must be aware that it is not possible to completely cover the subject; we must thetrefore clearly state what our focus in the article is; as to ordering the different entries, this can either be done geographically, or by time; as both Stonehenge and Cave paintings are considerably older, I moved Hallstatt/La Tène to the other section. Personally, I thinnk it could be done in about a month, if most of the reguilars focused on it. For it to be reasonably complete we need to at least mention China Japan (esp. Middle Ages -Shogun era) briefly; also everything from Renaissance onwards needs to be extended a lot/rewritten. --Eptalon (talk) 13:36, 25 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My problem: If it means world history then cultures that influenced each other should be seen in context. That means Hallstatt before Ancient Rome, La Tène in Context with Ancient Rome and so on. Additionally China, India and Japan have to be looked at in ancient times as well, not only starting with the European Middle Ages. In en:History of the World the latter is done, but they write about the 13th-century Mongolian Empire before the Shang Dynasty. I could not accept that as good. And they have the advantage that they are allowed to write a rather complex and abstract text. - That does not mean that you should not try to do it. But as long as no other language section of wikipedia that I know succeded with it, I think it is too difficult for our community at the moment. But I like the subject and I'll try to help, even if I don't see any chance to reach the goal of a good article at the moment. --Cethegus (talk) 17:25, 25 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Some notes that are more concrete I put invisible in the article. --Cethegus (talk) 17:56, 25 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have added a section to the talk page of the article; there we can discuss how to proceed. One of the problems we have though is that those that bulit the stone circles seem to be 3000-1000 BC; those that did the cave paintings, were like 12.000 years earlier. Something that is true for history especially is that the farther you go back the less likely you are find something. And again, don't be afraid to change things. --Eptalon (talk) 20:33, 25 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

World War I[change source]

Why did you revert my deletions? The subheading was "World War I" therefore should only contain information about WWI. You restored:

"The same period also raised questions about the end of human history because of unmanaged global dangers: nuclear weapons, greenhouse effect and other problems in the environment."

"As the 20th century ended, the European Union began to rise. States in Asia, Africa and South America tried to copy the European Union." and

"People began to live longer because of better medicine and medical technology." among other unrelated things. --Gwib -(talk)- 16:36, 29 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Whoops, just saw you put it under a new header. Sorry about that! --Gwib -(talk)- 16:39, 29 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The article is about World History. WWI is much too long now. We'll have quite a job to get this to proportion again. --Cethegus (talk) 17:36, 29 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What do you think of it now? Is it still a bit too long? --Isis(talk) 18:15, 29 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Merged the two World Wars, should tidy the article up a tad. --Gwib -(talk)- 18:21, 29 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your changes[change source]

Hello Cethegus, the main reason I do very little on Wikipedia at the moment (and in particluar World history) is that I have a prety full real life at the moment; I did less than 10 articles yesterday, for example. And I am grateful for anyone working on "World History". This is not "my project", it belongs ot all, I just happen to have worked on it probably the most. One thing that s different peraps between us two as editors, is that I try to find more sources (that can later be found as footnotes); but again this is easy to do. As already started, it is a big project and there is quite a bit of work left. --Eptalon (talk) 10:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reply[change source]

Hello. I'm sorry for my lack of edits. This has nothing to do with your edits. I've actually been trying to find books and such to cite as references ( luck). But I will continue looking. These things take time. --Isis(talk) 21:45, 7 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you both! Now I feel better. - My problem concerning literature is that my titles are German. Not useful for Simple English, but if we don't find anything else better than nothing. --Cethegus (talk) 15:39, 8 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Any published book can be cited; though of course English books would be preferred here. --Eptalon (talk) 22:46, 9 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would add some references from Ploetz "Auszug aus der Weltgeschichte", if we don't find others. But that can wait till we have more of the main structure. --Cethegus (talk) 05:45, 10 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Barnstar[change source]

Barnstar of Diligence.png The Barnstar of Diligence
You deserve this for your massive amounts of help to the World History article. You've definitely earned it! Razorflame 14:34, 11 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you! You really have your eyes everywhere. No wonder your talk page is the busiest of whole SEWP. It's true, it takes some new articles to get along with world history (History of North America, Creation, Creation myth, Tarantula, Hunter-gatherer, Tocharians, History of Asia, Periphery, Universal History, Neanderthal, ‎Homo erectus, Paleolithic, Biface, Bolas, ‎Cord, Mesolithic, Epipaleolithic, ‎Neolithic Revolution), but I am grateful that Eptalon and Isis have started the article. I never would have dared to do it. --Cethegus (talk) 02:56, 12 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I, also, would have never even dared to do that huge monstrosity of an article. I usually prefer to write shorter articles, like Funnel cloud and Winter waterspout. Most of the pages I've created have been shorter than 3 Kbs, with a few going higher than that (Gravitation is the only one that comes to mind). I've been trying to write longer articles, but it is really hard. By the way, can you look over Funnel cloud and Winter waterspout and tell me what you think of my simplification? Cheers, Razorflame 20:04, 25 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Very good. I think that your changes to Funnel cloud helped make it more easily understandable, so I thank you for that. Cheers, Razorflame 14:52, 28 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You're welcome! --Cethegus (talk) 20:27, 28 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article you made, Society of Jesus, has lots of external (outside) links, compared to the size of the article. Please either: a) expand the article or b)cut down on the number of external links.

Thankyou, Microchip 08Sign! 17:05, 17 April 2008 (UTC) Reply[reply]

James I[change source]

Hey, thanks for your note. I'll be sure to use the template you've pointed me to in the future, I appreciate the gentle nudge! All the best, The Rambling Man (talk) 06:56, 22 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Epic of Gilgamesh[change source]

"Passages from one of the world's oldest literary works, The Epic of Gilgamesh, were written during this time." - that is the best I can come up with. I think that's a bit too long and confusing. I think your suggestion works better. :) --Isis(talk) 21:14, 2 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Understanding that as a permission, I changed back to my earlier wording. But I am happy if you change it to a simpler one. --Cethegus (talk) 15:30, 4 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You may or may not know who I am, but Razorflame referred me to you. Can you help me simplify/copy editing this article. It is close to a "good article". Cheers -- AmericanEagle 03:08, 11 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I started a bit, but I am rather busy in real life at the moment. You may remind me though. --Cethegus (talk) 03:26, 11 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That is fine, I'm in no hurry. -- AmericanEagle 03:30, 11 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Shrug... I just wrote out a long message... and it got messed up... irritating. Anyway, thanks for all the work you did, you have a gift. I see why Razorflame referred you. I agreed with the hidden comments you put, one of which I had sort of noticed. Thanks for all the work out of your busy life and I will add you to the list of good editors I have on my page. Thanks again -- AmericanEagle 05:52, 12 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
BTW ("By the way", lol ("lots of love")), I removed the hidden comments you put right after I read them. Cheers -- AmericanEagle 05:54, 12 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

World history[change source]


I added a section on the development of the human race, in general to World History. I tried to be simple, but I am sure it can still be simplified. On another note; the Vikings are still missing (Put them into Middle ages/Europe section?) - Any help would be welcome. --Eptalon (talk) 19:43, 12 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To be honest I am not happy about that. From my understandig history starts with mankind and the development of human race is not part of it. Besides, there is so much of world history missing (Vikings is only one of the less important cases) and most of it (e.g. Ancient China) too short that the article is very much in danger to get too long before it we have fit in everything that is essential. Therefore I would ask you to take it out. - It's very nice though as an article on its own. --Cethegus (talk) 20:41, 12 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Shortened, with ref to main article. --Eptalon (talk) 21:09, 12 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also started the discussion on world history talk page. --Eptalon (talk) 21:42, 12 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have replied to your comment on my talk page. --Eptalon (talk) 11:35, 13 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've replied to your email that you sent me yesterday. Cheers, Razorflame 20:30, 12 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've got it. I agree with you with all except the last sentence but one. --Cethegus (talk) 20:44, 12 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Which sentence?? Razorflame 21:10, 12 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just saying thanks[change source]

Tireless Contributor Barnstar.gif The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
Thank you for your never ending and constant contribution of new articles. -- Creol(talk) 13:30, 15 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is it ready? Or what is there to do? It has been staying at proposed for longer then it should have been, so is there anything I can still do? Cheers -- AmericanEagle 00:51, 18 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You should ask Gwib if he is prepared to take the complex-label out (and ask him for reasons if he is not). As long as it is there nobody can vote for the article. --Cethegus (talk) 11:45, 18 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Barnstar![change source]

CopyeditorStar7.PNG The Copyeditor's Barnstar
This is for all your work copyediting Billy Graham. Thanks -- AmericanEagle 01:18, 20 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Barnstars![change source]

Barnstar-stone2-noback.png The Epic Barnstar
For all your contributions to the History section of this Wikipedia, I hereby award you this barnstar! Razorflame 02:38, 4 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tireless Contributor Barnstar.gif The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
For all the articles you have created in the past and present, I hereby award you this barnstar! Razorflame 02:38, 4 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I like those tireless stars. They seem to work while I am not there. --Cethegus (talk) 13:24, 4 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Copyediting[change source]

How did I do copyediting Charles Spurgeon? Thanks -- ApEtSIG 21:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Looks nice. But I'm rather busy at the moment. So I have no time for a close look. - The sentence "While he was in the church, he converted to Christianity" is not really clear to me. When he writes "God opened his heart" I know that is is something what only he knew. "converted to Christianity" sounds for me like: He told others that now he wanted to be Christian. so at that point en:WP is clearer to me. --Cethegus (talk) 21:44, 12 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I replied to your email a few days ago. I just forgot that I did that, so I am posting this to your userpage now. Cheers, Razorflame 21:48, 12 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Inactivity[change source]

I wasn't very active here since 9th of June for several reasons. That will continue till end of August. Enjoy your time here! --Cethegus (talk) 11:51, 18 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for popping by to discuss the voting mechanism at PVGA. I've responded to your comments there. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:22, 16 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Me too :-) - tholly --Turnip-- 19:51, 16 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Once again, thanks for you thoughtful insight into the specific issues of one oppose securing a support. I would urge you to contribute constructively rather than cynically. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:03, 20 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The reason for change of rules for VGAs was that there were too few looking at the VGA-page. Therefore we had very unsufficent ones promoted. There was even a tendency of having a lot of hurricanes, each as a seperate VGA (that was my comparison with tennis stars). We had a months long discussion with the result, that there should be at least 6 who had seen the article and that there should be at least 80% in favour. - 6 who had seen the article meant at that time that the crew of VGA producers could not continue like that on their own. Now it means, the likelyhood that - in case an unsufficient article should be promoted - is greater that the community hears about it. Then others can be asked for help to look at the articcle as well to prevent a senseless promotion. A rule like in en:WP makes sense only if a lot of people look at the page (as it's there). --Cethegus (talk) 10:08, 21 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A breath of fresh air[change source]

I like you staying out of fights. I've always liked you. Thank you. ;) -- American Eagle (talk) 21:02, 19 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you! - It's a question of energy. I need it for my articles. But a community would not work if all members would behave like me. --10:25, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

On the SWP[change source]

On the Short Wikipedia, after some research, I found that the easiest way to make it work is to join or form local projects focusing on the first paragraphs of the articles, and making stubs wherever they are needed. This way a reader may have some understanding of the subject without reading the rest of the articles. After reviewing your message in my talk page, I thought you may want to join or form such a project in this wikipedia. What do you think? Lwyx (talk) 17:50, 11 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

At the moment I'm busy at wikisource and de:Wikipedia and - astonishing enough - at real life. Therefore I steal my time for a bit of editing here. Therefore at the moment I cannot join in.

Did you look at the minis at wikiasearch already? Many of them are pretty near to your purpose. (Look at these examples: - But there are thousands now.) --Cethegus (talk) 19:55, 11 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Organizational Debate at History of the United States[change source]

Hey, there's an organizational debate going on at Talk:History of the United States regarding sectioning of Post-World War II content. Since you have contributed to the article, you might want to take a look at it Purplebackpack89 04:53, 31 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Service Award[change source]

This editor is a Senior Editor I and is entitled to display this Book of Knowledge.

Fo more than four years service, and 6000 edits, please accept this book (or you can have a medal); congratulations, Peterdownunder (talk) 10:36, 15 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you. But I'm not active here any more. This article is no proof of the opposite. --Cethegus (talk) 16:51, 7 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

But I havn't given up either: St Bartholomew's Church, Themar. --Cethegus (talk) 21:19, 22 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RfD nomination of Kalam[change source]

Ambox warning pn.svg

An editor has requested deletion of Kalam, an article you created. We appreciate your changes, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Please comment on the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2011/Kalam and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also change the article during the discussion to address the nominator's concerns. But you should not remove the requests for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you very much.

Quick deletion of Template:Books of the New Testament[change source]

Ambox warning pn.svg

The page you wrote, Template:Books of the New Testament, has been selected for quick deletion. This is because the page was deprecated or replaced by a newer template and are completely unused and not linked to. If you think this page should be kept, please add {{wait}} below the line {{QD}} and say why on the talk page. If the page is already gone, but you think this was an error, you can ask for it to be undeleted. Auntof6 (talk) 14:30, 12 September 2011 (UTC) Reply[reply]

Improvements are always welcome. --Cethegus (talk) 17:51, 17 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Quick deletion of Crest (physics)[change source]

Ambox warning pn.svg

The page you wrote, Crest (physics), has been selected for quick deletion. If you think this page should be kept, please add {{wait}} below the line {{QD}} and say why on the talk page. If the page is already gone, but you think this was an error, you can ask for it to be undeleted. You can find more information about the reason here. Auntof6 (talk) 04:05, 21 April 2013 (UTC) Reply[reply]

Quick deletion of Mesolithic[change source]

Ambox warning pn.svg

The page you wrote, Mesolithic, has been selected for quick deletion. If you think this page should be kept, please add {{wait}} below the line {{QD}} and say why on the talk page. If the page is already gone, but you think this was an error, you can ask for it to be undeleted. You can find more information about the reason here. Reception123/Receptie123 (talk) 18:15, 20 September 2013 (UTC) Reply[reply]

Concerning my articles in SEWP[change source]

Ich worked in the SEWP from 2006 to 2008, afterwards I added only very few articles. Now I am no longer used to write in English. Therefore I won't correct any of my articles older than those of 2010. - My congratulations for the remarkable progress of the SEWP since 2008. --Cethegus (talk) 13:37, 13 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Chembox Template[change source]

Hi there. I noticed you copied/created this template at simple English Wikipedia and there is a bug in it. The discussion can be found here:

Any input you have would be wonderful Thanks, PotsdamLamb (talk) 05:08, 24 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]