User talk:Ken Mondschein

Hello, Mr. Mondschein! Welcome to Wikipedia. We hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you ever need editing help, visit the editing help page, or for fomatting advice, visit our manual of style. You can do random experiments in the sandbox. If you need pointers on how we title pages visit Wikipedia:Naming conventions. If you have any other questions about the project then check out Wikipedia:Help or add a question to the village pump. And if you ever feel like releasing any of your articles on fencing (or on anything else, for that matter) under the GNU Free Documentation License, that would be cool. :) -- Oliver P. 13:02 15 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Page: Ken Mondschein

Please see the reasons I re-established the page on that article's talk page.

Mr. Mondschein, please understand that I'm not an admin and I have no say in whether the page stays or is deleted. But as it stands, it is worthy of speedy deletion and I have tagged for administrator attention as such. I strongly suggest you take up this request either with our OTRS support system or with any admin who visits the talk page and sees your rationale, which they will. But don't delete the tag again. It's out of process and considered vandalism. Bullzeye^{(Ring for Service)} 05:54, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What tag?

Looking for articles to work on?

Hello, Ken Mondschein. I'm SuggestBot, a Wikipedia bot that helps new members contribute to Wikipedia. Based on your previous edits, I have made a list of articles you might like to work on. I hope you find this useful. -- SuggestBot 02:06, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Corporate Mofo

First of all let me tell you I appreciate your recent edits to Camillo Agrippa. He is a very obscure historical figure and it took me several diggings through biographical databases to get this article up to scratch. Again, thank you!

However, I noticed that the article on your e-zine is more about yourself than about the website. I'm not the one to start a witch hunt here, but disguising your bio in such way may not be well regarded by other editors. I know nothing about your website either, so I'm not able to judge whether your e-zine deserves an article at all. However we do have guidelines that help us establish notability of websites at WP:WEB.

I would thus invite you to expand on the Corporate Mofo in order to avoid any misunderstandings, preferably trying to mention independent sources (e.g. mentions in the media). Also I want to note that we also have guidelines for inclusion of biographies of living people, which are located at WP:BIO, and if you satisfy the criteria we may be able to include a separate entry about you. However I must stress that actively editing one's own biographical entry tends to be frowned upon by the community. On the other hand pointing out independent, verifiable sources to fellow editors is encouraged in order to keep the entry updated.

Please note that if you fail to assert the notability of this entry, according to guidelines, the article may be subject to deletion. An explanation of this process may be found at WP:AfD.

Thank you for your understanding (and your contributions, of course!). If you have any questions please don't hesitate to leave them in my talk page.

Regards. -- Run e Welsh | ταλκ 05:49, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

I sincerely hope that you are still active in Wikipedia, at least in checking this page. Over at the Talk:Jousting page, you made mention of several sources. I was wondering if you could provide a little more information aside from just the author's last name (there are a lot of "Barkers"). I would like to rewrite the article from its current (rather disgusting) state, and would like any assistance you have to offer. Thank you. -- Xiliquiern 15:11, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quadrivium

What's your source for "the quadrivium could be considered as the study of number: arithmetic was pure number, geometry was number in space, music number in time, and astronomy number in space and time."? It strikes me as a particular elegant characterization, and I'd like to trace it back to the original formulation. Ken Mondschein 04:31, 8 March 2007 (UTC) (contact me by e-mailing mondschein-at-fordham.edu)[reply]

I can't remember where I originally heard this, but it is discussed at Talk:Quadrivium. A search such as [1] turns up various other people making the same point (in addition to various Wikipedia mirrors). --Henrygb 13:38, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]