User talk:Bornyesterday

This user may have left Wikipedia. Bornyesterday has not edited Wikipedia since 5 February 2019. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.

Welcome to the Wikipedia

I noticed you were new, and wanted to share some links I thought useful:

For more information click here. You can sign your name by typing 4 tildes, like this: ~~~~.

Be bold!

User:Sam Spade

UMD

Hey there. I contacted an admin about the problem with the Gary pic.-PhattyFatt 18:22, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Myriokephalon

Can I ask what specifically is wrong with the tone of the article? It's hard to fix if you don't say what's wrong with it. Adam Bishop 20:15, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ah yeah. I meant to get to that, but was at work, with too little time to effectively edit the text and got distracted before I could comment. Reading the article, it felt that it was a bit off in the way some of the events were phrased. Some of the statements were a too "intimate" (for lack of a better word) or were made with information that ought to have been provided in the article. Case in point for both of those qualities is the statement: At this point Manuel had about 25 000 men, although he may have had as many as 50 000. It would be more appropriate to say something along the lines of: "Manuel had an army that has been reported at being anywhere from 25k to 50k men."

Also, things like "Manuel gathered an army, supposedly so large that it spread across ten miles" and "Both routes lay on a heavily wooded route, where the Turks could easily hide and set up ambushes; the army moving towards Amasia was destroyed in one such ambush, and Turkish envoys brought Manuel Andronicus' head" are informative, yes, but they are poorly worded with regard to what you are trying to get across. For the latter, I think that the weakness is in the section after the semicolon. Better to make it into two separate sentences. One saying that the army led by Andronicus was destroyed by ambush. The second saying that Andronicus was slain and that his head was sent to Manuel. And saying "brought Manuel Andronicus' head" was confusing to read because "Manuel Andronicus" reads as if it is a single name. Bornyesterday 21:52, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Oh, okay...well, wouldn't it be easier to fix it yourself, when you have time? If you can phrase something better, please do! Adam Bishop 03:18, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yea, that "when you have time" part is the big kicker. Bornyesterday 13:06, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

AFW for letters?

I'm not familiar with any Alpha Phi Omega chapter which uses the latin letters AFW for their group. As far as I can tell, the only standard use of AFW to refer to the fraternity is simply that the standard Windows Word Symbols Font uses those letters to generate the greek letters Alpha Phi Omega. Please respond to let me know which chapters use that publicly.

Thank You Naraht 02:38, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC) Alpha Phi Omega alumni volunteer.

I don't know of any chapters as a whole that use it, but I remember at the convention in 2002 that one of the surveys in the daily newsletter was about how people referred to the fraternity. And AFW was one of the choices. Because Phi is an F and Omega is a W, not P and O (Pi and Omicron). Bornyesterday 07:34, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you that Phi is an F, but Omega and are both "leftovers". They (The people who made the symbols code) had to match up letters in the Roman Alphabet with no greek equivalent with those in the Greek Alphabet that don't have one. Omega is matched with W, mostly because of the shape of the Lower Case Omega, which turns out to be just chance it looks like a w. Some of the other matchups are worse: Q with Theta? And Eta with H is the fact that they look alike in Capital. But Eta is a vowel.

Omicron and Omega *both* match with the roman O. Omicron *always* has the short O sound like both Os in the roman writeout of the name of the letter or "cot" where Omega has a long O sound like the O in the name of the letter or Coat. So as long as we keep saying A Phi Ooooh, we *are* abbreviating it correctly. :)

Good to see other brothers on Wiki!

Naraht 16:53, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Re: HT alt histories

I think the key alternate histories of the Civil War ought to be included into the list of related novels. In The Guns of the South (while probably not the best of the alt-hists, a good one), Turtledove looks at the many different issues about the cause of the war and does so quite well. Simply because he changes the outcome of the war and includes timetraveling south african nazis doesn't mean it is of any less value when reading other fictional stories about the war. Some of the well-known stories don't even deal with the war except as a background for story lines that don't deal with the issues of the war at all. The Red Badge of Courage is a story that could be told in any war, not just the American Civil War. But the topics that HT covers in Guns could only all be covered in a story about the Civil War. What makes Red Badge fit there better than Guns when the latter is much more relevant to THE war itself as opposed to war in general? -- Bornyesterday 21:37, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

I happen to be a big A-H fan, so I can partially sympathize with your points. But: (1) This article is way too long and I try to resist additions to the booklists, if only because it will inspire other additions and spiral out of control. (2) The focus of this Novels section, which is rather uncommon in Wiki history articles, is to highlight famous works. RBoC is a piece of classic American literature, along with Killer Angels. (Yes, you may quibble with some of the ones in the list, but I'd rather see you delete some than add more.) Turtledove is not classic and mentioning his Guns book to any serious CW person will get you a big laugh. Guns isn't even his most serious A-H of the CW--see Timeline-191. I could possibly tolerate one entry of the all-time classic A-H novel, but there isn't one. There are dozens of equally obscure works, some semi-serious analyses, others pure science-fantasy.

I think it would be legitimate for you to write an article Alternate histories of the American Civil War and point to it in the See Also, but I'd prefer to keep such books out of the main article so they don't proliferate. Hal Jespersen 23:12, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alpha Phi Omega brothers on Wikipedia.

There is now a Category set up for Alpha Phi Omega wikipedians at[1]. See the page for how to add yourself into this category.

Congrats

Congratulations on your graduation!

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:04, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]