User talk:David Parker

Hi all,

My field's modern & mediaeval (this bit's mine, so I can keep the "ae") history, with an emphasis on the economic & demographic. Leisure activities (if you can call them that) include reading, The Fall, old stuff generally (small towns, films, doorknobs, the usual) and good dark beers. Other likes include cats, green, Monty Python, foxes (so long as they don't go too near the cats) & the Missus. Dislikes include sirens, project management, gyratory systems and advertising.

Cheers,

Dave

Hi, Dave and welcome -- WojPob

Hi David -- welcome to the Poland or German (Germanic, ur-German) debate. My advice to you now is to not get depressed when everything you say is contradicted because it doesn't suit certain irredentist arguments. This particular set of debates has been going on for several months, so be warned ;-) Otherwise, very nice work on the maps -- the rest of us looked, but didn't really bother to read because we accept the fact that maps tend to be fairly untrustworthy as sources. It's good to know that the initial citation was less than a proof of the "It's Prussian!" argument. User:JHK

Hello David, I see that you have taken an interest in the places dear to my heart. Thank you so much for your wonderful input . It is such a pleasure to have someone working on the project with a clear understanding and unfuzzy arguments. user:H.J.

Hello again, I have a question or rather a favor to ask. You seem to know Latin. Could you please translate: "Divina Clementia.March.Brandenb. SR Imp.,Camerarius et Nunc Temporis Archigeron Elector VII Obdin. Ducens.DVX Boruss etc " Thank you so much user:H.J.

David -- just so you know, user:H.J. has a book of portraits of famous people that she uses as a source for a lot of her European rulers stuff. The link is on several of the talk pages to which she and I have both contributed. It's a beautiful book, but my take on it is that it is a typical book of exemplary and/or famous people. I've actually done a course in Germany on this type of volume, and one of the things that was very evident was that these books are not always accurate and often are the product of wishful thinking and a bit of sucking up to a patron. THis type of argument (i.e., that the inscription says "duke of Prussia, so he was duke of Prussia") has come up on several occasions -- this is the first time I've actually seen a solicitation for a translation, though. Best of luck -- [[User:JHK]

David, the Jesuit part is written in an over 100 year old encyclopedia. In reference to my ? a few days ago I guess, that you do not know Latin ? user:H.J.

HJ, the 'turned it over to Jesuits' is unforgivably vague. turned over his duchy to be ruled by jesuits? turned over religious instruction in his duchy to jesuits is the likely answer. -- MichaelTinkler

I never saw your earlier note, I'm afraid, but Brandenburg/Prussian history isn't so obscure that it has to be gleaned from selective interpretation of contemporary illustrations (flatly contradicted by their own accompanying text - uncited, of course), obscure references to nominal titles, or unnamed encyclopaedias (which?). Why would Johann Georg, a Lutheran ruler, hand his dominions to the Jesuits? Would this revolutionary transformation in the religious balance of central Europe not have registered more forcefully in the historical record than appears to have been the case?

(With all the ramblings of the professors I almost did not see your note either). The rulers at that time switched back and forth several times.8o percent were protestant. But there were Calvinists and all kinds of other reformers. Under the Habsburgs the Anti-Reformation brought the Catholics back to appr. 50/50 in Germany. Many Hohenzollern were Calvinists and always had to get along with the emperors , who headed the Catholic Anti-Reformation. Albert I of Prussia was Lutheran. Johann Georg and his brother Johann Sigismund took on reformed religion in 1613. The way it is written in wikipedia now is fine, because today it does not make much difference any more.

HJ: Johann Sigismund certainly embraced Calvinism, but he's the only Brandenburg ruler I know of who did so. As far as I'm aware, Johann Georg never strayed from Lutheranism, though his realm welcomed Calvinists fleeing the Spanish Netherlands. Can you direct me to a source to the contrary? User:David Parker

To User:David Parker This Johann Georg Hohenzollern (1525-1598) remained Lutheran. His grandsons Johann Sigismund and Johann Georg , both sons of Joachim Friedrich,were raised at the court of their grandfather under a lutheran teacher. When both brothers went to study at Strassburg, they learned about Calvinism. The grandfather Johan Georg made them sign documents, not to change religion. Both brother changed to Reformed (I guess that is Calvinism ?) in 1613 .(from Kirchenlexikon -church lexicon). (I removed the link to the grandfather.) user:H.J.

HJ: I suspected as much from your wording, but didn't have time to check it out. Yes, Reformed = Calvinist here. It's significant that Johann Sigismund accepted the state's Lutheran orientation, so his change of conscience remained a private affair rather than a matter of state. The confusion of the two Johan Georgs is a timely reminder, though, of the need to take care with statements of fact. User:David Parker

Hi David,

Noticed you're doing a lot of work on Early Mediaeval, as well as the dread Early Modern Germany. I was wondering if I could entice you towards later Mediaeval -- especially post conquest England and 12th and 13th c. france? And maybe the Wars of the Roses? I'm only asking because most of my most recent work has focused on pre-11th c, so I'm really comfortable with Carolingians, Merovingians, and Ottonians. Michael is also an early specialist, plus lots of Byzantine. We both do lots of ecclesiastical stuff,too. No pressure, just trying to spread thin resources in the best way possible, and if you know the stuff, I won't have to do as much research! User:JHK

Sure, always happy to oblige - just point me to anything in urgent need of attention, and I'll try to at least start sorting it out. I'm summoning the courage to start a Hundred Years War outline - and for once I'd be happy if anyone out there beat me to it. I'm still working on FS and M, by the way, and would welcome your or Michael's thoughts on origins and diffusion (I'm similarly more at ease with the 13th-14th centuries there). DP

Have at it on the 100 YW! by the way -- Have you had a chance to weigh in on the history standards page? I have suggested an addition to acceptable nomenclature for article titles... JHK

HI David -- it looks like you've got the redirects to work -- what did you do?? User:JHK

Hi JHK - no, they don't work as redirects to non-pre-existing edit pages at all, so after entering the "#REDIRECT ..." in the old entry I key in the new address in the address bar rather than trying to open the new entry from the old one. The redirect works as soon as you've entered something in the new article, but not before: until then you just get the edit page for the old article with an inoperative "#REDIRECT ..." in it.

Way cool -- thanks! Off to grade papers before the England Holland game (I know -- it's over, but we recorded it!) User:JHK

Hi David -- I have something you might be interested in. If you were to check out the wikipedia-l list, you'd know how to get it! User:JHK

Er... could you give me a clue? (Page address? there are an awful lot of them counting messages!) - DP, way past his bedtime and not at his cleverest - will try again in the morning.

Maybe I did just beat you to it on Budapest, but you wrote a much better article. Congratulations -- user:Derek Ross

To User:David Parker You apparently had some info that Georg Friedrich was not duke of Prussia and filed it under rubbish. A 1588 coin III Gross Ar (Triplex Silver Groschen) clearly identifies Georg Friedrich as Duc and Dvx Prvssiae. I had added this on the Georg Friedrich site. That was removed. I re-inserted it on Talk/Georg riedrich. With the new system it is easy to miss messages. Therefore I am posting it here for you. Do we change it back to duke ? user:H.J.

Howdy, all -- as I'm the person who pulled the coin, I thought I'd weigh in. I've already tried to impress upon some people that coins are not always reliable sources. A concrete example:

in around 267 AD, A beautifully detailed aureus was circulated via the military through much of Gaul. The coin bore the portrait of the Emperor Postumus. The inscription on the obverse, IIRC, read Postumus Augustus, Divi Filius, Pontifex Maximus, Consul. Problem? kinda. Postumus was a usurper. Gallienus was the Emperor at the time.

Coins and inscriptions do not always tell the truth. User:JHK

HJ: My regnal information, which you share, states that Albert Frederick was duke of Prussia from 1568 until his death in 1618, when the title passed to the Brandenburg line. Clearly, a land can have only one duke. George Frederick's position was in fact regent. Albert Frederick remained the duke throughout.

David, the title of duke was not taken from Albert Frederick, but in his place other dukes of Prussia and electors of Brandenburg etc ruled. I added that info on the Hohenzollern site. I have some question on the next duke of Prussia, between 1608 and 1618. Was it the son of Joachim Friedrich or it may have been Maximilian (III) ,brother of emperor Mathias and son of emperor Maximilian II Habsburg. I see on Maximilian (III)'s coins the statement : Mag: Prvss:Ad Comes and Prvss :Admi( That may pertain to the western Prussia part of Prussia ?).All the Habsburg were at that time grand masters of the Teutonic Knights, also the grand masters of the Order of the Golden Fleece.

The coins and the records, maps etc of that time, in my view, show more the realities of what really was at that time. 20th century interpretations or political correctness has often not shown many facts. Oftentimes there were not only one officeholder, but sometimes 2 kings, even 3 popes at the same time. So naturally there are different regions, that tell different histories from the same time. user:H.J.

HJ: Again, there cannot be "other dukes": the title is unique to one individual, who must be qualified by the rules of succession or by specific bequest to possess it. This, George Frederick was not, and neither was John Sigismund while Albert Frederick lived. Between 1603 and his death in 1618 Albert Frederick was duke of Prussia, and the only duke of Prussia, as he had been for the previous 35 years.

Now, at least one margrave of Ansbach governed (may we use that hopefully neutral term, please, rather than the ambiguous "ruled"?") the dukedom in his place during his illness: I am not aware of any other margrave of that state, still less of Brandenburg proper, having fulfilled that role subsequently. You seem to suggest that John Sigismund acted as regent between 1603 and his succession to the dukedom 15 years later: I would be interested to see evidence for this, as I am aware of none.

One thing of which I can assure you is that Prussia in this period did not fall under Imperial administration: this was indeed the very reason why it was subsequently to become the seat of Hohenzollern kingship. There is simply no question as to sovereignty over western Prussia at this time: it was Polish, as contemporaries recognised perfectly explicitly at the time (see the text to the 1598 map which you invoked in this discussion).

This is not a question of 20th-century interpretation: others might well claim some ill-defined jurisdiction over the territory, but their decrees were of no consequence (note for comparison the ludicrous English claim to the crown of France - enshrined in a fundamental law of the realm as late as 1701). It also explains why Prussia only acquired western/Royal Prussia by participating in the first partition of Poland in 1772.

I sincerely hope that we are not reduced to arguing on the basis that a particular sixteenth-century matter of sovereignty is an issue of "political correctness", as I have extremely little patience with such evasion of questions of historical fact. User:David Parker

Hello again David, Thanks for your opinion on the dukes. What are your ideas on that unanswered puzzle:Mag: Prvss:Ad Comes and Prvss :Admi double Taler coins of Maximilian (III ,brother of emperor Mathias and son of emperor Maximilian II Habsburg). Since you tell me ,there can only be one duke,which was Albert Friedrich, till 1618, the Maximilian coins from ca 1613, 1617 are really a puzzle. Also , another question, do you have a book or what is the sorce that states, that there can only be one duke? I was of the impression, that the first son of a duke is born a duke. Thanks for your info user:H.J.

The coin isn't really a puzzle at all: Maximilian's title of Administrator des Hochmeistertums in Preussen (Administrator of the Grand Masterdom in Prussia) was simply one of those attached to his office of Master of the Teutonic Order, which had held east Prussia until 1525. Again, the Anglo-French example is illustrative of how such residual claims can limp on meaninglessly for decades or even centuries after they have ceased to have any practical effect.

I'm not aware of reigning dukes' sons also holding the rank of duke during their father's reign. This would indeed make a nonsense of the ducal list at Hohenzollern. Clearly, it is reigning dukes that we are interested in. We already have too many articles on real past emperors, kings, dukes and margraves that say absolutely nothing about their historical role: don't let's start dragging in titles which existed only among their courtiers and minters. User:David Parker

That sounds plausible. Thanks HJ

David,

Hi, and a belated welcome. I see you have become embroiled in the great Prussia debate from which I have managed to extricate Norse mythology, the history of Hedeby, etc, etc, etc. Nice to see another mediaevalist on-board. sjc

Hi David,

A belated welcome from me as well. Thanks for helping to keep our Prussian enthusiasts in line. :-) Sorry I've not been on hand to help things along lately. --Larry Sanger

Since you're a mediaevalist, would you take a look at Richard I of England? The text ends suddenly several years before his death, after being fairly detailed until then. That's not my period, so I've noted the gap in my "to do" and then not done the necessary research. Vicki Rosenzweig

I'm flattered, Vicki, but I'm not really that much of a mediaevalist, more a modernist-cum-mediaevalist who doesn't really believe in the distinction: the article looks fine to me, and I'm sure you know far more about him than I do: perhaps you should call on User:JHK and Michael T for this. It looks well worth finishing, and I hope you get around to it: I couldn't really do it justice in such detail. User:David Parker

Sorry, I should clarify. The article isn't my work--I just did a bit of copyediting, and then suddenly hit the end of the article. I don't even know if what's there now is correct.

But the reason I dropped in was to remind you to be careful of self-links: the article on Emma of Normandy began with a link to her name, rather than having it in triple quotes for bold. Vicki Rosenzweig

Yes, I noticed it as soon as I came out of edit, but you'd already beaten me to it! Still, less typos than usual - but give me a chance after the first edit! On Richard, I'd like to tighten it up a bit (you'll notice I go for short articles - I think that's what most of us need initially) if that's OK - there's just no way I could cover the rest of his reign in such depth. User:David Parker

Subject: Ras Tafari

Well, David let us better drink one good dark ale and let us stop already in the beginning to blab of what kind of encyclopedia this is. I am participating herein for a good week and I am very glad to read and add to articles. My intentions are similar as of Mr. Jospeh Hill and of Mr. Winston Rodney and that means not to hurt no one mon, to teach no one. In the end what are we trying to describe here? Facts, a truth, ((some) personal) thoughts? I haven't found yet what is the whole set of topics and the ways of their representations here in this free, as it is mentioned to be, encyclopedia. I can serve some external references, I can copy some facts from outside, give something from my memory and what remains after all. It should be a good and very informative article, right. And one firm fact is that we must describe such articles as for example Rastafarians is with somehow nonstandard approach. Shurely we must allege some believes direct from original and true Rastafarians, don't we?

                      She's got some wild, wild life... inna real,

                        real life, ahah, hah. Checking in, checking out... User:David Byrne

XJamRastafire 4 Wednesday [2002.02.28] (0)

Subject: Ras Tafari

Well, David as ya wish man. But I must say you're insulting the name of one great and still unknown leader with your childhod corrections a lot. I don't mind that. Readability restored. I won't be calling if you would be so kind to correct my grammar and such as I am a non - English user of this project. Please let me someone say about putting resources inhere. But I won't argue no more cause I am a living man and I have some better things to do. I wonder if you have a soul if once being in Ethiopia Zion land to kiss its holly ground. Today I watched Mr. Rodney's and Mr. Hill's concerts at Red's Rock and I stand behind everything I have written. And who can tell who the original Rastafarians are. I won't tell no more until above is corrected in more proper way. With respect. Egziabeher:LJbP.

XJamRastafire 6 Saturday [2002.03.02] (0)

"Readability" was a reference not to anyone's mastery of English but rather to the revised first paragraph's former overloading with excessive text formatting and translation: the problem would have been the same in Slovene or any other language. I don't criticise people's English (usually) as long as they're making a reasonable effort: I try to improve it where I think it's helpful, but in this case the language wasn't the main issue.

I took out the Slovene links because they're of very limited use in an English-language encyclopedia: the facts as presented are matters of common record and don't need references. Cheers. User:David Parker

I've lost previous text and I can't paste it back so I have to write this again. OK, then David. You had calmed my feelings. Let me add just one thing. First Ras Tafari, as we all know, had ruled to a state where Amharic language had (sometimes forced) dominion over all languages of Ethiopian nations. I tryed to explain a bit those (for us westeners) strange words in Amharic not to complicate a text. I haven't put those references in the article to, in any kind, emphasize sourceing in Slovene language but just to show them as a reliabe direct sources from the scene as both Dr. Ernest Petrič and Danilo Jelenc had spent in Ethiopia over 20 years. Petrič as an expert on international relations and Jelenc as an expert on industrial mining. In his very informative book Jelenc gave many authentic aspects of Ras Tafari's nature. As a miner he knows Tafari was conserned only on gold. What real (selfclaiming) Rastafarians would say about it? Don't force me to allege some more views on Tafari's dark sides. I am not called to reason around. Let this be a subject elsewhere and some other time. His divinity was written in Ethiopian "usurpated" constitution and was "legal". I am tracking similar approach as Rastafarians stand for. They respect him and so I respect him too. But we know nothing about him perhaps. I am relying on Burning Spear's words that every man can be a Babylon. My dad once said he was a big dictator. When 1975 army officer came to arrest him he was crying. This is a natural order, Lion's dominion was wanishing and so (as you say we "must" bury this man. DO WE REALLY HAVE TO?). I have no mathematical proof for what lies inside me. And who knows. Perhaps hatse is watching and reading our conversations from somewhere. Sarcophagus under sackcloth had 1988 still been waiting for his body when Petrič had desribed this in his book. And since then things had changed a bit in world's one and only elected land and among its poorest one - revolution had eaten her children and the future is written - so what Rastafarians are trying to say to us (I am definitely excluded - Who feels it knows its Lord - I say, I feel it and I know it [Rita Marley]) who do not believe? Hill's Armaghedeon war had begun. Rescue he who can... Jah Jah See dem a come, but I and I conquerors - Watch them - They are coming to accuse I for things I know not about, They are coming to lock I down, right yeah, ta dam, ej, eej. Mesiah Garvey and they gave him away... [Joseph Hill] No one remebers this old man... [Winston Rodney] (Watch attention on drums) And finally Slovene had much with Ethiopian destiny in 1930'ies, because many Slovenes fought with Abesinian forces against Italian's aggressive divisions and that's why probably Haile Selassie visited Slovenia and distrustful Burning Spear played in Ljubljana 1987. [Ark of the covenant can not be taken away from Menelik's Addis Abbaba. Respect. The great truth of Axum of Zion ]

David, I am sorry, but you are wrong. Jadwiga was technically king, she was crowned as KING of Poland. It was described in article. szopen

David, of all the things of which user:H.J. could be accused, I have to defend her on this -- She does sign her talk stuff. I think she either hasn't figured out how to log in or hasn't set her browser for cookies and thuse doesn't automatically log in. While she has in the past tried to edit in stealth mode, she appears to be very proud of her contributions. So...i think accusing her of trying to be anonymous may not be very fair -- after all, we've all know her IP address quite well since she appeared! ;-) JHK

PS -- Welcome to my "busibody little group" LOL

Perhaps, but it's very convenient not having one's name highlighted on the "Recent Changes" page or in revision histories when producing such an astonishing proportion of utter crap that others are likely to want to check for the inevitable errors. User:David Parker

I agree completely -- but she seems to be very proud of her contributions. I just utilize some of the more convenient new features!JHK

To David. About your comment of user:H.J.'s page - point taken! Space Cadet.

Hi David; just wondered where did you get the idea that in Polish Tzars are called Czars. They are not. In Polish it is Car, not Czar (Czar in Poland is Char, with Ch like in chalk, and means either charm or spell). And my Polish-English dictionary in entry Car gaves: tsar, tzar, czar. szopen

Hmm, interesting: yes, "czar" would of course come out like our "char", so where did it come from? Not current English transliteration of Russian, that's for sure. Can we all stick to Tsar, please? DP

Of course, i don't care that much, and besides you know better than I how should rulers of Russia called in English. I was just curious why people think Czar is Polish szopen

One more thing: just make quick search on Czar in wikipedia. I bet my own head that most of those entries were not made by Poles :) szopen

Indian rather than Sepoy? I've always heard it Sepoy, even in Flashman, I think. Maybe it's a US/British terminology thing? I'm confused (but probably not because of evil influences) JHK -- who's just curious and implying no criticism at all because David usually knows this stuff

Both are quite legitimate, JHK, but "Sepoy Mutiny" is I think rather dated, and "Indian Mutiny" is certainly the better-known in the UK. I think it could be a UK/US thing - perhaps "Indian" has a slightly different ring over there... User:David Parker

Duh -- hadn't even thought of that...you're probably right. ;-)JHK

I am especially grateful for the change from Famous Germans Born in Danzig to Famous People Born in Gdansk. And who could have expected a Slovene attempting to write in Jamaican patois? You get credit towards Purgatory for all this, DP. MichaelTinkler

Hey Michael what did you mean with that Slovene attempt? Do I have anything to do with all of this? Accidentally I am pure Slovene and I wonder, ha, ha. Can you say some more words on this? Russian Tzars are called in Slovene as in Polish car. --XJam [2002.03.20] 3 Wednesday (0)

Thanks for the help on Russo-Japanese War -- I suspected that the problem was Old Style/New Style, but who was usinig what was not at all clear in the few web based resources I was using this morning to rough out an extended stub. I will probably push things around for a bit in note form before trying a narrative. User:ClaudeMuncey

Please have a look at Turkic peoples. I know that you did a lot of work on it in th past and wonder what you think of its present form. In particular I am keen to remove eventually the "disputed" notice, so I gave some work to altering/removing the pan-turkic bias Refdoc 11:46, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Article Licensing[edit]

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 2000 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 "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" 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 [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

OR

Option 2

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|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 "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". 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)

rastafarians[edit]

Why did you rename this article rastafarianism? I know it is going back 3 years, but the subject has been debated recently, and I am curious to know. --SqueakBox 00:38, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)

Votes requested on cfr Tudor and Plantagenet[edit]

Hi! I note your input on the Anjou page, I would greatly appreciate your voting on the proposed renaming of Category:Tudor to Category:House of Tudor, and Category:Plantagenet to Category:House of Plantagenet it seems the vote was suggested by obsessed with uniformity, however renaming the categories would be a mistake in my opinion, due to the fact that Tudor people is a sub category of Tudor, and having it as a sub category of House of Tudor would make no sense. Also, in my opinion House of Anjou is the more normally used phrase for the descendants of Geoffrey of Anjou rather than House of Plantagenet. please vote here Thanks, Arnie587 21:50, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Départements of France[edit]

Hello Dave- I made a proposal regarding the above page that may be of interest to you: Wikipedia:Requested_moves#13_October_2006. -Eric ^(talk) 18:28, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your user and talk pages[edit]

Hi Dave, I found your user and talk pages while doing some wikiarchaeology. . I have restored all of their earliest surviving revisions from old copies of the Wikipedia database, so they are available to everyone now. I've restored the user page to its regular title, but the user talk page is at User talk:David Parker/old. Hope you don't mind. Graham87 09:22, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Feudal society listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Feudal society. Since you had some involvement with the Feudal society redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 19:12, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

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) 08:51, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to join the Fifteen Year Society[edit]

Dear David Parker,

I'd like to extend a cordial invitation to you to join the Fifteen Year Society, an informal group for editors who've been participating in the Wikipedia project for fifteen years or more.

Best regards, Urhixidur (talk) 16:50, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]