User talk:Garzo/archive/2005-05-23-2005-11-23

---

Liturgical calendar

If you have a moment, some expert help could be used here. Thanks, if you can. –Hajor 03:29, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, Hajor, I've put in a comment. --Gareth Hughes 11:16, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Matsu's Birthday

Hello, Garzo. I just found out that Holidays in Taiwan also says Matsu's Birthday is on the 23rd day of 3rd lunar month. TakeCare. -- PFHLai 18:49, 2005 May 24 (UTC)

24.20.105.254

I have just seen some of the additions by User Talk:24.20.105.254, who you commended for adding to Wikipedia's egyptian mythology articles. However, many of their additions appear to be copy vio's from http://www.egyptianmyths.net , indeed, some are word for word.

Thank you -Ril- for bringing this to my attention. I thought it was peculiar that someone was adding so much without creating an account or engaging with the community. It does look like there is a copy violation here. My original post on the user's talk page was an attempt to bring them into the fold; I had no idea that the material was possibly copyright. Have you reported this? --Gareth Hughes 22:04, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Latin

Gareth, would you ever call Latin an endangered language? I was talking with someone who wants to keep Latin in Category:Endangered languages. I don't feel like proving that Latin is not, by most people, regarded as an endangered language in the usual sense, but I'd be interested to know your primary reaction to the idea that Latin might be an endangered language. Cheers, — mark ✎ 06:25, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't know about you, Mark, but I actually find the idea of labelling Latin an endangered language offensive. I take language extinction seriously, and I feel that suggesting Latin is an endangered language distracts from the plight of real endangered languages. The obvious problem here is one of definition. I would define a living language as one that has native speakers (it is a mother tongue) and can be used as effective communication between native speakers. An extinct language is a language for which this is no longer the case. An extinct language may still be in extensive use as a literary and liturgical language, but that doesn't make it a living language. An endangered language is a living language on the verge of extinction. This occurs where there are few native speakers remaining, they are all out of necessity fluent in another language, yonger generations are using the lingua franca instead of the native language, and the language is no longer an effective means of communication. This is indeed a sad state. Latin is an extinct language preserved in classical literary and liturgical use. --Gareth Hughes 09:43, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I feel the same about it. I was writing some new articles on endangered languages (Defaka, Terik) when I checked out Category:Endangered languages and found Latin listed there. However, I have no desire of spending time discussing this issue with an anon of the "You removed MY category!"-mindset. Maybe I'll wait a bit. Maybe someone else will come across the miscategorization and will remove it (from Talk:Latin I gather that I wasn't the first to protest). Incidentally, you might want to add your thoughts about the definition to our article Endangered language. — mark ✎ 09:59, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I saw this after adding my arguments below (please read there). I'm in fact hoping to transfer this discussion to the Latin page, but I can say to Mark already that you don't need to prove that Latin is not, by most people, regarded as an endangered language in the usual sense; I'm well aware of that. All I'm saying is that that is a prejudice, and it will have to be changed in some way; because Latin does have a community of speakers (who are not at all the thousands of Latin academics nor the thousands of christian priests, please see below, but are a few hundred of people from all walks of life who use it for regular communication, written and oral, as their own cultural language), and therefore it cannot be labelled as extinct. That would be passing a condemnation on the whole Latin language revival movement, which is well alive. I am very sorry to hear, Gareth, that you feel that calling Latin an endangered language is insulting to other endangered languages. It's not intended in this way. Please think about other language revival movements, about Hebrew, for instance. Once a language revival process starts to affect a language, how can that language continue to be called extinct? Dalmatian may be extinct, or Tocharian, which have no speakers nor language revival movements behind them; but Hebrew, Aragonese, Aramaic, ... they are not extinct, they are endangered. Again, I know I'm challenging prejudices here, but you are very good linguists too and I'm sure you'll be able to see that my points below cannot be denied. Me and about a thousand of Latin speakers around the world have cultural and linguistic rights too to speak our language and even to educate our children in it, as is already being done. I know that we are not a poor and heavily persecuted ethnicity like the ones we are used to try and help; but we have to be fair and objective. We are not talking about the status of the ethnicities (endangered or not), even if we also have a long-standing culture behind us, but about the status of languages. There must be a way to define and differenciate the status of Latin in the middle ages as opposed to the status of Tocharian in historic times; and, once we've done that, the status of Latin in the middle ages, with thousands of speakers, and it's status now, with no more than a few hundred.

I may have a proposal to make. Coulson, in his well known Sanskrit course, has a very interesting classification: dead language v. living language, and natural language v. cultural language (he proposes the term 'learned' for the latter, but that introduces ambiguities. Tocharian is dead, and was natural (I don't think it was ever cultural, meaning 'only spoken by people whe didn't have it as native'); Sanskrit in the time of Kalidasa or Latin in the time of Newton, was living, but cultural, not native (or otherwise said, it was cultural, not native, but living, not dead); Aragonese is living and native. Now there are endangered natural languages, but there are also endangered cultural languages, both of them risking to fall out of USE and to lose any fluent SPEAKERS. Latin is one of these endangered languages (until, that is, it gains the natural status through language revival as Hebrew has done already). Remember that for 'endangered' we use the criteria below (USE, SPEAKERS, FLUENCY). I'm looking into getting an account, so I can't yet put a signature like you, but my name is Avitus.

Quoting Avitus: I can say to Mark already that you don't need to prove that Latin is not, by most people, regarded as an endangered language in the usual sense; I'm well aware of that. All I'm saying is that that is a prejudice, and it will have to be changed in some way. There is one very short answer to that: Wikipedia is not the place to push this campaign of yours. We have a rather clear guideline about that. Please read Wikipedia:No original research#What is excluded from articles and see why Wikipedia is not the proper venue for your ideas. — mark ✎ 12:57, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, I am not a stupid person (at least not always) and I can see that your very short answer is logically impeccable. Mine is not a widely shared view, after all most people are ignorant about minorities (precisely because they are minorities and an active attempt has been made at deleting them). You are therefore completely right in that, and I can also now see that on the grounds of the No Original Research you point me to I stand little chance of correcting this mistaken view through Wikipedia however many Latin speakers I show you or any other readers. Wikipedia seems therefore build up just to reinforce accepted knowledge, however wrong. Fine. It's probably not your fault. Thanks again for your open-mindedness. In the meantime my linguistic rights (http://www.linguistic-declaration.org/decl-gb.htm) and those of my community will continue to be ignored because the prejudice won't allow itself to be challenged. I find it sad that someone like you finds confort in this. Good bye.

Please read through some of my contributions to see why you're wrong about me and my attitude towards linguistic minorities. More importantly, it is indeed the case that Wikipedia cannot be used directly to correct mistaken views. However, citing the No original research policy:

If you have an idea that you think should become part of the corpus of knowledge that is Wikipedia, the best approach is to arrange to have your results published in a peer-reviewed journal or reputable news outlet, and then document your work in an appropriately non-partisan manner.

The fact that we exclude something does not necessarily mean that material is bad – Wikipedia is simply not the proper venue for it. We would have to turn away even Pulitzer-level journalism and Nobel-level science if its authors tried to publish it first on Wikipedia.

In short, you have to take the high road to get your views included here. I hope you can appreciate that the No original research guideline is not there to violate your linguistic rights, but rather to protect this unique project from becoming a paradise for crackpot scientists. — mark ✎ 16:39, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

As I said before, and I also wrote to Mark: in fact I very well see the point of the No original research guideline, and that's why I have now completely given up on my attempt to include that category. You can all rest now and be relieved. But, having said that, you will also realise that it is going to be difficult, under any circumstances, for a group which has been subject to strenuous efforts to be left out of the picture for the last couple of centuries to gain the high road in any way, however legitimate or sensible their plight might be. That's what saddened me: not the No original research guideline, which is very wise in itself, but the complete absence of sympathy from you lot towards the case I was putting forward (independently of whether it could or could not eventually deserve to be published in Wikipedia), simply from an academic/linguistic discussion point of view. None of my points has been rebated, and several of you (see the Latin discussion page) have acknowledged that they did have some validity. Yet, you still refuse to let go of the prejudice. That's what saddens me. You are somewhat right also to point me to some 'peer-reviewed journal or reputable news outlet'. The problem is: what is 'reputable'? Surely the authorites who crush all sorts of minorities consider themselves highly reputable. Is this news outlet reputable in your mind? I thought it was, as several other living Latin publications which are decades old now, but yet they don't seem to look reputable enough to others. As I said, a discriminated minority is going to have big trouble, by definition, to look 'reputable' to outsiders and to find a way to be even mentioned by outside 'reputable' publications. As I said, the level of oposition we suffer is beyond belief. Anyway, I hope you'll understand that I'll now stop coming here, to your own personal discussion page. I might look up now and then the Latin discussion section, so if you want to continue the discussion it would have to be there. Yet, I think I'll probably end up giving up on Wikipedia altogether. Best of luck with endangered language salvage. One day Europeans will realise that the wonderful job they are now doing to put right and revert the awful effects of their colonial past by helping other peoples to keep their ancestral languages and cultures alive is something that Europe itself and the Europeans also deserve. One day, indeed, every human being will have a right to cultivate their millenary language and culture in a humane environment. I'm looking forward to that. I wish you were too. Cura ut valeas optime.

Latin, an endangered and/or extinct language

It’s the fourth time I try to add the ‘endangered language’ category at the bottom of the Latin page.

The first person to delete it said:

       You added the erroneous category:Endangered languages.

The second person argued:

       Rm category. Latin is not endangered. It has no native speakers (no children are brought up in Latin) and is thriving in literature and among second language speakers.)

Now you argue:

       It cannot be both extinct and endangered, and it is the former

To everyone I have had to repeat the same in private and they have all immediately seen my points. I’ll put the argument here once more so that I don’t have to keep repeating it, as it seems that all people approached so far have acknowledged that my arguments are sincerely valid and undeniably substantiated by the facts.

An endangered language is defined in many places (this is just an example) as following (my capitals, with no editing):

       An endangered language is a language with so few surviving SPEAKERS that it is in danger of falling out of USE.

       While there is no definite threshold for identifying a language as endangered, three main criteria are used as guidelines: 
       1.    The number of SPEAKERS currently living. 
       2.    The mean age of native and/or FLUENT speakers. 
       3.    The percentage of the youngest generation acquiring FLUENCY with the language in question. 

Latin complies with this to perfection and IS therefore an endangered language that needs to be helped. If you think of the church, very few priests of even cardinals SPEAK the language anymore as Reginald Foster, official translator at the Vatican has often pointed out. If you think about university, the majority of Latin scholars are NOT speakers of the language: basically they cannot SPEAK it, and do not attempt or wish to USE it as it was once extensively used for academic communication. So, it is not thriving among second language SPEAKERS at all; it has in fact practically disappeared from USE. There ARE surviving speakers of Latin, but they are so few (probably NOT MORE than a thousand worldwide) that the language is in grave danger of completely falling out of USE, according to the definition: There are very few SPEAKERS currently living, most FLUENT speakers are old, and the percentage of the youngest generation acquiring FLUENCY with the language in question is extremely very limited. Latin is an endangered language, and the category I added was not erroneous; I beg you not to remove it again when I restore it.

To analyse the claim that Latin is thriving because many people around the world still study it (to what a poor extent, alas), let me put some comparative examples. The pre-Columbian cultures are also widely known and studied from school age all through the American continent and elsewhere, they are even celebrated by the authorities of the respective countries (I know the case of Mexico better) as a core element of national identity and museums are raised to their glorious past ... yet the modern real and living native communities dwelling in the forests ... no one would agree they are not endangered. But let’s discuss the languages themselves. We can still say exactly the same. There are wonderful manuscript codices in Nahuatl which are studied at many universities all over the world, just like the Latin manuscripts from Roman times. Books on Aztec hieroglyphs can even be found in different bookshops here in London, where I live, exactly those few bookshops where books in Latin can also be found. No one will deny that this academic survival of the glorious past of these languages is stably assured in the ‘thriving’ (being extremely optimistic) way that has been mentioned, but does that mean that the living usage of the languages is not endangered? Similarly, Aramaic is studied by many biblical scholars all over the world, yet it is considered an endangered language in most classifications I have seen, as it's surely not the number of people who study it that has to be looked at, but the number of users (speakers). When we consider the status of Latin and the condition of its SPEAKERS, we can’t therefore consider the classical scholars, who are only too happy to see Latin as a dead language for them to dissect in their departments, just as the Maya speakers in Chiapas are not the pre-Columbian scholars who work at the University of Mexico City. Classical scholars, by the way, who are for the most part completely unable to speak the language they claim to love.

I am also aware of what is said about the 'native' criterion; but other classifications, like the one I use as an example above don't consider this essential ('native and/or fluent' they say), so it would be a mere question of personal opinion to say that only the ‘native’ alternative is to be had in mind, and not the ‘fluent’ one. Of course, in an endangered language, the existence of native speakers is bound to be precarious. Many people who consider themselves as belonging to a cultural and historical community won't speak the language as natives since their parents and even grandparents adopted the majority language (that's, by definition, the reason for many languages becoming endangered). These people will have to revive the language in themselves by learning it as a second language. Such process (language revival it's called, if I'm not wrong) is essential to endangered language survival, and has proved extremely beneficial in many cases. This is the case, for instance, with Aragonese, a language spoken in the area where I was born and which seems to be mentioned in all endangered languages lists. Many Aragonese people are learning the language and adopting it as their own, even though their ancestors for several generations hadn't spoken it. This is the case with many Catalan or Welsh speakers also. These people feel that they belong to a historical and cultural community, and adopt the language that best conveys it, even if they are not native speakers. The same is the case with Latin among Latin speakers. That's why, precisely because of its endangered status, I know of no Latin-only native speakers, unfortunately; although there certainly ARE bilingual native speakers, that is people who have been educated in a household where Latin and another language was used, as is the case with many other endangered languages.

Latin, as a spoken language, is an endangered language, and this in an undeniable fact.

The first person who deleted my link subsequently wrote:

Thank you for the explanation, and I'm sorry I reverted your work so hastily—Charles P. (Mirv) 13:22, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

The second person wrote:

I don't want to continue this discussion. I'm glad that you have noted the 'native' criterion. If you don't feel it is important, I don't feel like removing the category again. Keep it. — mark ✎ 06:17, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You are still to reply, but I hope you will also respect the link. I can see your point that it looks awkward to have it as both extinct and endangered; but, if so, then the existence of speakers who use it to communicate on a regular basis means that it’s not actually extinct, as it was not throughout the middle ages or the renaissance. Only, during those periods it was not endangered because of the high number of speakers, whereas now it actually is due to the extremely small number of them, as shown above. Please consider my arguments carefully and do not delete the category when I try once more to put it there.

If you have any further comments to make, please do so through the discussion section of the Latin page itself. Thanks ever so much in advance.

I really cannot take your argument seriously. Wikipedia works by consensus, and the consensus is against you. If you want to be taken seriously, create an account and prove yourself by making positive contributions to Wikipedia. I am competent in Latin and both Mark and I are linguists: we know what the status of Latin is, and we know what an endangered language is. --Gareth Hughes 14:45, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That's an easy way out, 'I really cannot take your argument seriously', therefore no discussion. Well, is any of what I said false? Anyway, you are completely right. Wikipedia works by consensus, and the consensus is against me, so there is not much I can do here. It's pointless to try 'to be taken seriously' as the Wikipedia policy on research (see above) impedes me, by definition, to share the knowledge I want to share. I have indeed been trying to make contributions to Wikipedia, but they have been constantly deleted, so I feel I'm frustratingly wasting my time here. I'm also competent in Latin and also a linguist, moreover I am a member of the Latin speaking community, so I also know very well what the status of it is, and I know its sadly endangered. You refuse to argue, so it's your stubbornness against mine, or, better put, your (lack of) experience against my living evidence. What a shame. Lingua vero Latina, lingua mea quaque utor in conversatione cum aliis hominibus, sicut majores mei fecerunt per saecula, magno est in discrimine ... at tibi dico: non tacebit! Vale.

This is not a case of your word against mine, this is your word against a number of committed editors on the Wikipedia project. You appear to be a Latin revivalist, but your passion for reviving the language seems to have clouded your judgement about the meaning of language extinction, endangerment and revival. I have come across Cornish revivalists who, likewise, claim that their language is/was not effectively extinct. In 1998, Ibrahim Hanna of Qamishli died, and with him Mlahso became extinct. He was the last know person for whom Mlahso was their native tongue. We could try and revive it again, but it wouldn't be the same language, there would be something artificial about it. Yes, I have taken the easy of option of not taking you seriously. You cannot be bothered to create an account, you refuse to work with the community and you seem to have a single-minded agenda. So, I cannot be bothered. If you want to contribute, you have to play by the rules. --Gareth Hughes 16:00, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have replied to this elsewhere, but you refuse to face up to those arguments, so I don't know whose judgement is more clouded by prejudice. In fact, I can very well see the difference between native/natural languages and learned/cutural ones, as I have repeated elsewhere. Unlike your Cornish friends, I have no problem to admit that learned Latin 'will never be [exactly] the same', in a romantic manner of speaking that doesn't bother me at all, as native Latin was to ancient Romans. And it doesn't bother me because that 'artificiality' is a very well assumed part of learned Latin and it still doesn't mean that learned Latin doesn't exist or that it has not been in active and very living use for centuries or that it is not still precariously (endangeredly) living today. I've never said that native Latin didn't become extinct in ancient times, I'm saying that learned Latin lived on as a language for centuries and is nowadays endangered. If you cannot cope with these facts within your present labels for languages, that should make 'you' think. I for one am not going to deny history or to say that 'there is not something [slightly] artificial about it' as your Cornish friends seem to have difficulty to admit about their language (as if there was not a lot of 'artificial' and 'learned' about the English you speak in any case, hello!). Also, have you stopped to think that 'my' English is about as artificial as my Latin (since I learnt both from non-native speakers and through books?). Does that make my English illegitimate or so radically different from yours? It is of course different, but is that difference so important? Not to me (I can very well communicate with any other English speakers, and read any books written in the language, so my English is fully operational and well alive). Well, my Latin is no more illegitimate or radically different from native Latin despite the fact that I also learnt it from non-native speakers and through books. I'm not bothered by my non-native English and neither am I by my non-native Latin (I can very well communicate with other Latin speakers, and read any books written in the language, so my Latin is fully operational and well alive). Garzo, if the reason no to enter a scientific discussion is that I havent' got a wikipedia account (and why should I become a member of your 'community' (I thought Wikipedia was an encyclopedia, not a community) when you cannot even recognise mine?), I won't deprive you of such a poor excuse. Cura ut valeas. Avitus.

Wikifun

Hi! A new Wikifun round has been posted by me. Seeing as you played the 5th round that was created by me, I'd thought you might want to try another crack at it. -- AllyUnion (talk) 06:57, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Semitic languages

Hi Gareth. I've just been reworking Semitic languages, and was wondering if you'd be interested in having a look/editing... - Mustafaa 22:28, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I had noticed a few edits, but it obviously seemed like you were in the middle of something. I'll have a look. Thanks. --Gareth Hughes 09:43, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Bishop

Hi...I was curious why you placed a picture of Bishop Bickerton on the Bishop page (under the United Methodism section) as opposed to a picture of Thomas Coke or Francis Asbury? I'm not complaining, mind you, I'm just curious about the choice. Thanks. KHM03 12:34, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hallo there. I was busy yesterday with a bit of sprucing up of the bishop article. I thought some pictures would be good, and the first United Methodist bishop I came across was the smiling face Bishop Bickerton. That just describes the entirity of my deliberation on the matter. So, if you feel that a picture of a different bishop would be more appropriate, then please change it. As I am not a United Methodist I plead ignorance! Have fun --Gareth Hughes 18:12, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

AMiA entry edited

Gareth, noticing your neutrality contention of the "Anglican Mission in America" entry I made some edits. Notably, the original entry had been copied verbatim from the AMiA website.

Roylee

Hi Gareth. I notice that you've been working over at the Reference desk lately. It looks like a nice job, I have to check that out sometime. But I'm coming here with a question. If you have any time lying around, would you like to do some Roylee watching? (See above.) At User:Mark Dingemanse/Roylee there is a list of articles affected by Roylee. It would be cool if you could pick some articles that have your interest and then check them, clear them up, and watch them. Only if you have the time, of course... Kind regards, — mark ✎ 29 June 2005 13:59 (UTC)

I'll try my best to keep my eye on a few of these. What is this user's status at the moment, is he an out-and-out vandal? Gareth Hughes 29 June 2005 14:11 (UTC)

Thanks. He is definitely a very disruptive user, but I don't think he meets the definition of 'vandal'. (Accordingly, I've never reverted him using the rollback button, always leaving a explanation of my action in the edit summary instead.) He has been warned quite a few times at User talk:Roylee though (check out the history, he had blanked many polite requests, explanations of policies and guidelines, and warnings), and one might call him a vandal for knowingly violatiing these guidelines. — mark ✎ 29 June 2005 14:45 (UTC)

Naming conventions

Maybe you want to drop in over at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (languages)#Proposed addition? Regards, — mark ✎ 30 June 2005 12:15 (UTC)

Thanks. BTW, that was a nice exchange you were having at Talk:Edward Said :P — mark ✎ 30 June 2005 12:53 (UTC)

Category:UK Wikipedians

Hi, just to let you know that the list of UK participants at the UK notice board was getting rather long, so I have replaced it with the above category which I have added to your user page. -- Francs2000 | Talk 30 June 2005 19:27 (UTC)

Thanks For the Welcome

Gareth (I've always loved that name),

Thanks for the warm welcome!

So far I'm feeling pretty much at home here at Wikipedia (I'm no stranger to wikis). I really enjoy the articles you've put together thusfar, and I hope that you'll have use of my input. Since I'm somewhat of an "Aramaic freak" myself, you'll probably see me around here quite a bit. ;-)

Just to give you a bit of background, I'm working towards a double-major in Informatics and Religion at Rutgers University, and in my spare time I've studied the Aramaic language for nearly 6 years. I have also worked on AramaicNT.org, a site dedicated to the scholarly study of Aramaic Primacy, for about 5. I started out over on the Peshitta.org messageboards and learned from Paul Younan and Andrew Gabriel Roth and added to their theories (I'm the one who coined the phrase "split word"), but after a while moved out on my own, working on my own theories away from Peshitta Primacy.

A few years ago, I teamed up with Dr. Geroge Kiraz to put together the Beta for eBethArké: The Syriac Digital Library, and presented it at the 4th North American Syriac Symposium. However, since then, I was dropped from the project without being told, which I'm still a bit sore over.

I've studied under Dr. Mahlon H. Smith (of the Jesus Seminar, and one of the foremost authorities on the Gospel of John in the US) over at Rutgers University for the past three years, and for two of those years I worked on my theories concerning an Aramaic layer of various parts of the New Testament. My colleague Daniel Gaztambide and I are trying to extend his work, Dan working on the Psychological side of things, and myself working on the linguistics. Our goal is to try and construct psycho-linguistic "thumbprints" of the Signs Gospel, Dialogues Source, and 4th Gospel Redactor's material. Dan and I have also recently teamed up on AramaicNT.org to put together articles on modern textual theory.

Just recently, I've started to work a bit with Dr. Bruce Chilton (author of Rabbi Jesus, Rabbi Paul, A Galilean Rabbi and his Bible, etc.) over at Bard, writing software for his research into the Aramaic sources of Mark. I'm also working with Steve Kaufman from Hebrew Union College to encode the SEDRAIII database and Syriac Peshitta New Testament into the Comprehensive Aramaic Lexicon.

Overall, however, my biggest project is AramaicNT.org. I'm currently working on a brand-new backend that will hopefully be a big step for the study of Relgion. It'll soon include a system of tools designed for both scholars and laymen alike, and sport some very unique features for processing Biblical languages, citing and tracking sources, information from the Jesus Seminar, as well as discussion.

Anywho, I'm rambling when I just wanted to say "hi," so let me close this up by saying that I'll be looking forward to contributing to Wikipedia in the future.

שלמא,

-The Thadman 1 July 2005 14:28 (UTC)

Yeshua

shlama llox! You might be interested in the etymological discussion at Yeshua. - Mustafaa 4 July 2005 21:56 (UTC)

Bsheyno, O Mustafaa! As you've probably seen, I've waded in... --Gareth Hughes 8 July 2005 21:09 (UTC)

Good work! I thought Alqosh dialect had "Eesho", or is that just in the name "Odisho"? - Mustafaa 19:33, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

The main problem with the article seems to be from assumptions taken from biblical Hebrew. The name `Awdisho` comes from the classical `Abd-Yeshu`. It has the characteristic 'softening' of beth, and the loss of yudh's consonantal character due to the preceeding vowelless consonant. Eastern Neo-Aramaic often has interchange between yudh and alaph, especially at the beginning of a word. This is also seen in d-Ishu` < d-Yeshu`, of Jesus, but this is context specific. Seeing as the earliest Eastern Neo-Syriac is from Alqosh, any Eastern Neo-Syriac can end up being labelled as Alqoshi. --Gareth Hughes 20:31, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

Qatar

Thanks for your answer at WP:RD about Qatar. I am grateful. PedanticallySpeaking July 8, 2005 20:46 (UTC)

Maa lesh, yaa ustaaz! --Gareth Hughes 8 July 2005 21:15 (UTC)

Invitation

Hi Garzo, you made a very nice timeline some time ago. I would like to invite you to read and comment on my project proposal for a Grand Unified Timeline of Human History. Erik Zachte 8 July 2005 23:20 (UTC)

damascus / arabic literature

Hi there

thanks for the quick answer on al-Jazira. I see you expressed some interest in Damascus some time ago, and I've been messing around with it since. Are you still interested? I'm a bit scared by it, it's a rather big topic.

I'm even more scared, though, by Arabic Literature, which is possibly one of my biggest interests but a massive topic and one that I'd hardly know where to start on. Do you think it would be an idea to start a wikiportal or regional project page on the Arab world or the Mashriq in order to try and get some material up at least on individual writers? There are already Palestine and Algeria portals, but what about one for the whole Mashriq or wider yet? Arabic literature is badly underserved and the various Arabic language articles are a bit of a mess too (though one I don;t really consider myself competent to deal with).

If you think this idea has potential, I might stick a note on the Palestine page anyway. Cheers, Palmiro 19:46, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, thank you for all you've done for these pages. There is always far more to do than there is time. I looked at Arabic literature not so long ago, and I put together a little bit of information that could be moulded into a framework for the article, but I can't remember what I've done with it. I don't know how valuable a wikiportal would be: it's only as good as the people who use it. I would recommend chatting with Yuber about Damascus, and the virtually infallible Mustafaa about Arabic language. --Gareth Hughes 20:07, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Reference desk

Is there any particular reason that non-questions should remain on the already ridiculously large Reference desk? James 15:45, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

Carleton did make his statement into a question when he was asked to do so. Even though his grasp of English and theology doesn't seem to be all that brilliant, he did want to talk to someone about a question: that's what the Reference desk is for. Please read the policies Please do not bite the newcomers and Assume good faith, and be aware that blanking is only appropriate on the Referrence desk in the case of vandalism or offensive content. --Gareth Hughes 16:03, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm not going to remove it, now that you've answered a question, even if it may not be one he asked. I still don't see where the question is in: "I'm just saying thatIslam is claiming Jesus is God in light of the Bible, which is correct." James 16:05, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

It might not have a question mark, but which is correct is a question. The user wanted to know about the roots of similar phraseology in Islam and Christianity, and wanted to know if anything was meant by this similarity. The fact that it's not a very good question, poorly asked, doesn' stop it from being a question. Perhaps you could ask on wikipedia talk:Reference desk if we hould be deleting new posts that don't look like questions — there have been a few who have posted a title heading and nothing else. --Gareth Hughes 16:17, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

re: Wikipedia:WikiProject Christian liturgical year

Perhaps this project should be a more general Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity? This project is considered inactive at the moment as far as the header shows, and there are projects for other religions, but not Christianity... so I believe that this project would be more effective as one for the whole of Christianity or at least moved into a subproject. I will give this message to all the present membership list of this WikiProject. -- EmperorBMA|話す 20:35, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured sound candidates

Please have a look at this proposal and comment on its talk page. Thanks.--Pharos 05:16, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Fivefold Titulary Template

Hello there! Earlier in the month I put in a request for a variant of Heiro template to be able to properly cover the ancient Egyptian Fivefold Titulary. Didn't hear back, so I invested the time to tackle it myself. Results can now be seen at: Template_talk:Hiero. Just wanted to get your thoughts on it.

Am also wondering whether or not it is worthwhile altering some of the other entries, (such as Template:Hiero/serekh) by adding the standard "prefixes" to them -- in the case of Serekh, adding the Horus glyph prior to it. Captmondo 01:53, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Some prefixes were in the original design, but the consensus was to remove them from the template because it was too easy for them to be applied anachronously. Gareth Hughes 14:43, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

A fair and reasoned response. I will not tamper with any of the other templates then. Cheers, and thanks for the response! Captmondo 15:11, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for warm welcome

Hi Gareth, Thanks for your warm welcome. I’m also fascinated by languages, scripts and language families and also by all things Turkic. I’d like do more research on the Orkhon script and hopefully add it to Wiki.

Best Regards and Thanks again,

--Son of the Tundra 13:03, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Nafaanra

Hi Gareth,

I'm writing this message to you because you are one of the editors who supported Nafaanra language on its way to become a Featured Article. Back in February, quite a few of you asked for sound recordings. I am really excited to let you know that User:Alafo, who came across Wikipedia when googling for Nafaanra, the native language of his wife, has provided us with some fine recordings of the language. I have just added them to the article so that all of us can enjoy the sounds of Nafaanra from Ghana. Kind regards, — mark ✎ 10:45, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Native Latin speakers?

Greetings, fellow Latinist. If you have second, please cast your two cents in on the discussion of a category for native Latin speakers who are also Wikipedians. --Flex 13:08, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Christian emigration

Hi there

I've been playing around with this article, do you feel like taking another quick glance at it? Palmiro | Talk 15:26, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Take a look at this!

I am so shocked by this person remarks that I had to show them to you. Here is the link and the text is below: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Macedonia_%28region%29/archive

And, when you already got a part in this conversation, explain why Greece runned away 300000 Macedonians and 100000 Bulgarians from Greece during the last 50 years, people that are still not alowed to enter Greece? Why did you burn my grandfathers house and shoot at him? --I sterbinski 17:23, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Because I didn't like his face. What are you gonna do about it?--Theathenae 18:31, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

What??? Theathenae? Is that a response??? I am calling the admin to react on this. --Ivica83 19:15, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Please people, give attention to this this comment of Theathenae above. This is how we are treated by the Greeks. This is happening for centuries and it seems that no one cares. Nationalist like Theathenae and VMORO are the ones that are responsible of the assimilation texts here on Wikipedia and want to keep them....--I sterbinski 00:48, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't see how wiki can maintain any credibility whilst such people have a free hand. --Son of the Tundra 23:27, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

What makes Wikipedia very special indeed is that it is risky and vulnerable. It allows anyone to edit, and is quite reluctant to ban anyone. If you look for hatred and animosity, you will find it here too. It is far too easy to forget the humanity behind our computer monitors. If you work on articles like Macedonia (region) or the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, you will encounter things like this: these are topics that arouse very strong feelings. When you encounter such things take a deep breath and be patient. Find the Wikipedia poliies and guidelines that the editor has infringed, and kindly point out that they are breaking the agreed ground-rules. If they ignore you and continue in their horrid way, find a friendly administrator and ask them to help. They will want to talk to the other party first, and will not ban someone outright. Banning is left as a last resort. In moments of clarity, I can see that the free and open way in which Wikipedia is run does not just open a floodgate to vandals, quacks and misfits, but also and moreso becomes a haven of humanity, wisdom, knowledge and insight. --Gareth Hughes 23:56, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you so much for taking the time to reply to my post. Your advice is very much appreciated. I hope your optimistic views on Wikipedia turn out to be correct. Wikipedia has the potential to be a truly amazing resource. Anyway, I’m hooked and hopefully will be able to make some more contributions. Now I’m off to do some reading: Wikipedia:Policies_and_guidelines and the Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style. Thats just for starters :) Thanks again.--Son of the Tundra 11:10, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Assyrian Neo-Aramaic

About the Assyrian Neo-Aramaic article..I quote: Assyrian Neo-Aramaic is a modern Eastern Aramaic or Syriac language. Assyrian Neo Aramaic is not to be confused with Assyrian Akkadian, or the Old Aramaic dialect that was adopted as a lingua franca in Assyria in the 8th century BC. Originally, Assyrian Neo-Aramaic was spoken in the area between Lake Urmia, north-western Iran, and Siirt, south-eastern Turkey, but it is now the language of a worldwide diaspora. Most speakers are members of the Assyrian Church of the East.

Its says there that the Assyrian neo-Aramaic is not to be confused with the old aramaic dialact.Now lets think that over again..In both the Assyrian Neo-Aramaic and the Turoyo languge it remains words from the Aramaic adopted in Assyria in the 8th century BC.The Aramaic in Assyria in the 8th century BC has developed to the modern Aramaic dialects.The original Aramaic is alive in the Churchs but is not spoken by the nation so isnt it wrong to say that Assyrian neo-aramaic is not to be confused with the aramaic spoken in assyria in the 8th century bc?--Sargon 16:14, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

No, it's not wrong. Think of the history of the Aramaic language as a number of river channels: occassionally, a channel splits away, and sometimes one joins. The history of Aramaic coverd thousnds of years and a large geographical area. If a speaker of Assyrian Suret was transported back to 8th-century-BC Nineveh, they would not be understood. How, you may ask, do we know this? We have sufficient documentary evidence for the 'official' Aramaic of ancient Assyria, and it is sufficiently different to render communication very difficult. Granted, there are many words of ancient Aramaic that are still used today, but that doesn't make them mutually comprehensible. Research into comparative linguistics is often divided between splitters and lumpers. The former desire to catagorize each and every different varation of dialect as an object of study in and of itself. The latter desire to make connexions between dalects and languages, forming them into big diverse groups. We actually need a bit of both. On one level, Imperial Aramaic and Assyrian Suret are the same language, but we should not their similarities and common heritage blind us from their huge difference. Also, it is important to make the distinction between these two and Assyrian Akkadian. This is even more different than the other two. We could, and people do, label them all as Assyrian. However, Akkadian is very definitely a different language to Aramaic. As with all other scholars of Semitic languages, I need to use precise words to describe the very complex language map of Mesopotamia. As this is an encyclopaedia, it, too, should use precise, scholarly language in its articles. Now, the article you quoted warns the reader that the label Assyrian is applied to one very old and different language (Akkadian), the Aramaic of the Assyrian Empire and is used by modern Assyrians to describe classical Syriac and colloquial Suret. It would be misleading to suggest that any one of these are exactly the same as any other one. For example, Dutch, Old English, and Modern English are all related languages. In fact, the last two are both varieties of English. but it would be very misleading to say they are one and the same. Neither you nor I could understand Old English without first learning it as a foreign language. The differences between these three languages is less than between the group called Assyrian. --Gareth Hughes 17:33, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes your right but when racists to the Assyrians see what it says in that article that the aramaic in assyria in the 8th century bc is not to be confused with modern assyrian they can easily attack assyrians since it says there that that their not even relative so if the old aramaic in assyria

wasnt related to our modern assyrian aramaic we would be nothing so im asking you to try to change the sentence so people will see that the both languages are relative or so on but still have your facts there? your choice...--Sargon 17:54, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

I've edited the article. However, to be fair, if we emphasize that Imperial Aramaic and Neo-Aramaic are related, we also have to say that they are not mutually comprehensible. 8th century BC is a very long time ago. --Gareth Hughes 20:02, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Hallo again and thanks for editing the assyrian neo aramaic article..Ive been thinking about something.Chaldean neo aramaic and assyrian neo aramaic are principally the same language..The chaldean dialect just has some more borrowed words from arabic etc. Well im not sure but shouldnt they be seen as one language since they both talk sureth and see it as one language?--Sargon 18:59, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I think both articles do point out that there is dialect continuum from Alqosh, through Hakkari to Urmia. However, they also point out that the Alqosh dialect is the prestige dialect of Chaldeans, whereas th Urmian dialect is the Assyrian prestige dialect. I think that is quite clear. Anyone reading the article will realise that the two articles are about the same language, but based around the prestige dialects at opposite ends of the dialect continuum. The existence of separate articles does not in any way suggest that these are unrelated languages. The naming conventions for languages mosty follow Ethnologue. There are problems with using Ethnologue — it's a splitter rather than a lumper, and, therefore, naturally goes against your own tastes — but it does provide a very detailed organisational structure for the world's languages. --Gareth Hughes 13:19, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Would you accept to nominated?

I'd very much like to nominate you at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship. If you accept you should be prepared to answer the standard questions there:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? (Please read the page about administrators and the administrators' reading list.)
2. Of your articles or contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

Pjacobi 21:55, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Flattered, but why? --Gareth Hughes 22:00, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Why can have different meanings here, hoping that I at least partially answer the right one.

You are doing good work. Mainly I've noticed your work on the Aramaic complex (and you even bothered to answer silly questions by laymen like me). So, you are a good content contributor, no question.

Are you in need of the sysops' extra buttons? Hard to tell, that one you must answer for yourself. Of course you shouldn't do recent changed patrol, when you can use your Wikipedia time for more productive things.

But perhaps it eases vandalism defense on articles you observe anyway? Deletion/Undeletion buttons are handy to move, merge and split articles which already have been moved, merged or split beyond recognition.

Pjacobi 22:15, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, I suppose a rollback button would be handy, and all those article moving and repairing tools would be handy. So, yes: I'll give it a try. --Gareth Hughes 22:48, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Fine! Please sign at the I accept line at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Garzo and answer the standard questions there. --Pjacobi 23:22, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Please make sure to add {{Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Garzo}} to the WP:RfA page once you have accepted and answered the question. I removed your nomination per the new policy because the questions had not been answered yet and you had not accepted on there. Once you do, change the time/date and place it back on the WP:RfA page. Thank you. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | W_S 23:31, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Celtic literature

WP:CSB or no, I'm not sure Celtic literature is such a good idea, since there are already articles on Irish, Scottish, Welsh, Cornish, and Breton literature. All that's missing is Manx literature, but then, Manx literature is missing, if you see what I mean. Are there articles on Romance literature, Germanic literature, Baltic literature, Slavic literature or Indo-Aryan literature? No, each language is treated separately in this regard, not grouped together with its closest linguistic cousins. I say, inform whoever requested Celtic literature that there isn't just one Celtic literature, and point them to the five existing articles. Finally, if you or someone else does want to start an article on Celtic literature, I'll have to excuse myself from participating, because I'm a linguist and don't know diddly about literature in any language! (P.S. Glad to see you in Category:Anglican and Episcopalian Wikipedians, which I created when I didn't feel right about including myself in Category:Protestant Wikipedians and wanted to be more specific than just Category:Christian Wikipedians.) (P.P.S. I just voted in favor of your RfA!) --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 16:58, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

OK. I must admit that halfway through posting the question to you I realised that there was already a lot written in each of those articles. I'll remove the request from the CSB list. Thanks for the vote, by the way! --Gareth Hughes 17:06, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank You Garzo!

Thank you for the warm welcome and helpful suggestions. My friend Randy showed me this place when I was doing research for school. I sent him a powerpoint later on about Biosteel, a subject that he said he had never heard of outside of science fiction, and he urged me to post it here, however small the contribution, and I did so. I hope someone can enlarge upon it since it looks woefully inadequate, but I will try to add more as I get more information. Thank you again for your kindness and advice. (preceding unsigned comment by Arundhati bakshi (talk · contribs) 18:56, 14 October 2005)

I am honoured

It is a long time since I have had such a beautiful compliment. Thank you. RachelBrown 13:44, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

old gtr-2 template

Hi Gareth, i was just looking at the "nifty little guitar playing ability WikiBabel box thingys" and noticed that you are still using the old gtr-2 template. The new system uses "guitar" instead of "gtr". I've nominated the obsolete template for deletion & fixed up your page (^diff) (Hope that's OK, btw – I decided to be italicised and fix it for you) . So you don't really need to do anything :-) (unless you wanna vote for or against it's deletion here. (You are the only person still using the old template ^{as per here}, so there is no one else to worry about)

P.S. Good luck with the admin nomination. I've had a bit of a geezer at some of your articles and they speak for themselves. While this is my first 'encounter' with you, I think you deserve it :-). All the best, —deanos {_p^t_a^a_*^l_g^k_e} 15:57, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I didn't realise the status of the template, and don't mind y user page being corrected in this way. Thanks for this and your interest in the election. --Gareth Hughes 17:09, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Lutheranism

May I divert you from your usual Wikipedia interests, to perhaps giving your opinion at Talk:Lutheranism? I'm rather confused about the discussion there, whether Lutheranism is part of Protestantism. In German obviously (to me as German living in protestant Hamburg), Lutheranism is the archetypical Protestantism. So perhaps it's a issue of different meanings in German and English? Or a U.S. specific thing? --Pjacobi 21:43, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi, Peter. I'm not sure how much I would be able to add to that conversation: it's somewhat at an impasse. As far as language goes, German and English both use the same word for the same reasons: it designates the Protest against the unreformed Roman church. However, the usual denomitor in modern Germany is evangelisch, and most Lutherans would describe themselves as such. I suppose I could draw an anology with my own Anglican tradition: I would not like to have myself described as Protestant. I imagine my reasons for this must be somewhat similar to that of German Lutherans. I could understand if a North-American Lutheran disliked the term Protestant: in that culture, it would be to distance onself from the 'Bible-belt' religion. However, as Luther first formulated the Protest, it would seem slightly perverse to deny that Lutheranism could in no way be described as Protestant. I think it would be safest to state upfront that Lutheranism is Protestant, and then state that some Lutherans silike that label because they wish to emphasize the pre-Reformation heritage of their church. I don't know if that helps. --Gareth Hughes 22:02, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. Perhaps the article Protestantism should make the problems using the label Protestantism more clear. But that article doesn't look like brilliant prose anyway, with all those short sections either labelled main article at xyz or this section is a stub. Sigh. But neither my writing skills nor my knowledge will help improving it. The overview articles are the most difficult ones. --Pjacobi 20:18, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

---

BioCOTW Project

You voted for Suleiman the Magnificent, this weeks' Biography Collaboration of the weeks. Please come and help them become a featured-standard article.--Falphin 19:44, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Concerning my 'overenthusiasm'

I organised User_talk:204.39.49.200 using this formatting guide, but you reverted it with the edit summary "rv overenthusiasm by Pathoschild". I can understand your response, as the formatted page is roughly thrice the size of the single comment. However, the idea is to prevent future disorganisation, as various well-meaning users haphazardly pile warnings at the top or bottom in a jumbled mess, or post non-warning messages amongst the warnings. The formatting guide is meant to give a quick overview of past transgressions. A good example of the formatting guide in full use is User_talk:152.163.100.132. Notice that under the heading August 2005, the user is given four low-level warnings after having recieved a {{test4}}, because the warnings were so disorganised previously that users didn't bother looking for recent precedents. With the formatting guides, it's immediately apparent how recent or how distributed past warnings are. // Pathoschild 16:36, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

OK, I can see what you're doing now. I thought you were complaining that a subst: tag hadn't been used when it had. I think the problem is mainly due to the use of these higher-level templates without any central reporting. I would have thought it would be easier to put something on the Mediawiki namespace than adding this by hand. --Gareth Hughes 16:59, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting back to my version ^-^. I doubt that adding a subst note to Mediwiki would help, since most editors tend to ignore the text from the software when editing. By placing it above the first month, editors who've come to add a new warning will see it immediately upon going through the list for precedents. // Pathoschild 17:57, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I was glad to see your corrections to the transliteration on the Jamil al-Banna and Bisher al-Rawi

I was Glad to see your corrections to the transliteration on the Jamil al-Banna and Bisher al-Rawi. I started about four dozen other article on other Guantanamo Bay detainees. They were all listed in List of Guantanamo Bay detainees, but a very abrupt and uncoperative user froze the list by invoking the copyright violation procedure on it.

I am pretty confident that the list will be unfrozen. If you would like, I'll let you know when and if it is available. Or, alternatively, if you are willing, and if you would prefer, I could give you a list of the names of the six dozen or so detainees who have articles written about him.

I noticed that you replaced all the places where Jamil al-Banna was referred to by "al-Banna" with "Jamil". Is that the style in Arabic?

I will make on change to the edits you made. I am going to change one instance of "Abu Qatada" back to plain "Qatada" -- because it is a direct quote from the tribunal documents.

Can you recommend a guide to Arabic names? I have a few more questions. But I don't want to pester you. Your page is on my watch list now. If you respond here, I will see your reply.

Thanks! -- Geo Swan 23:41, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for this. It is general practice to address someone in Arabic by either their personal name or their honorific. This is because what appears to westerners as a family name often isn't: it can be a patronym, a place name or a tribal name. The most well-know example is Saddam Hussein: Hussein is his father's name. Some Arabs do have a western-style surname, but, even so, would still be addressed by their personal name. I think the UK Guardian and the BBC usually get this right, so it's always worth checking which name they use. As for Qatada, it probably comes from the word Qatād, meaning thornbush. The Abu part is integral to the name: it is not a stand-alone name. Abu means father of, and is often followed by the name of man's firstborn son, and used as a honorific name instead of the father's personal name. However, these types of names are often used as pseudonyms, noms de plume or noms de guerre: Yasser Arafat was known as Abu `Ammar. Thus, Abu Qatada is a single name. However, if that's what the transcript says, it is written, but it's wrong. I'll have a look at the other articles when I've got a moment. --Gareth Hughes 00:10, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your changes on Jamil al-Banna. The article now looks NPOV and encyclopedic. Would you mind looking at some of the other pages? Thanks so much Joaquin Murietta 14:39, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

I've responded below to Geo Swan's question: I'll have a look through the articles, but I won't be able to do anything too systematic. --Gareth Hughes 22:50, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

---

Thanks for your work in the Arabic versions, and the correct transliterations, the various Guantanamo detainees.

And thanks for offering your opinion of how to make some of those articles neutral .

Here is a partial list of Guantanamo Bay detainees User:Geo Swan/gbay/detainees1 who already have articles. There are another dozen or so I've lost track of. I will give you a link to them when I have it. Of course you are a volunteer, doing this in your spare time. So feel free to put it on your backburner.

You questioned whether some of the Guantanamo detainees, for whom there is little public information, merit articles of their own. It is an excellent question.

Can I discuss this with you? -- Geo Swan 20:42, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Sure! I'm not sure I'll have the time to go through the lot systematically, but I'll have a look through them. I do think that this is an important subject, and not something that should be left as a footnote. It's a general guideline to split the sections of longer articles off into more manageable articles, and to merge short articles into a combined 'effort'. It would seem a bit odd to have a page about less well-known detainees, but it would be appropriate to have an article about the detainees which linked to longer articles about those whom we can write more about. Then, many of them would each have their own section. It's a possibility, but this is a guideline, and it might not be the best treatment. I mentioned it only as an alternative to dealing with the issues surrounding a lot of little articles. --Gareth Hughes 22:33, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Attic calendar copyedit

Thanks again for copy editing the entry. I thought I would raise some issues too longwinded for the review page.

The changes you made to the headings do not seem to me to be helpful. Is there some rule that headings may not contain definite and indefinite articles? Removing them sometimes reduces clarity. For instance, the heading "The festival calendar" followed by a subheading "A lunisolar calendar" indicates that the subheading is something predicated of the festival calendar, that it is lunisolar. This is much less clear where you just rely on the relation heading/subheading. Similarly with your change of the first heading to "Local calendar system" in place of the original "An exclusively local system" (or "A local calendar system") where a reader is directed at once towards the point of the section, that an ancient calendar does not share the global reach of the Gregorian calendar. (That may be implicit in the phrase Attic calendar, but it seems important that the reader get to contemplate how truly parochial the sytem was. I had earlier thought of a section entitled "What the Attic calendar is not" to separate off some of the implications of the word calendar that are not relevant to the Athenian context.)

The WP calendar articles listed under obsolete calendars seem mostly short notes listing month names and maybe going on to give a background in the astronomical mechanics. I thought this was inadequate for an entry on an ancient calendar. The interest of a long defunct calendar lies in the ways it was used to order lived experience, in its peculiarness in relation to modern systems. That is clearly the focus of modern work on the Attic calendar. On that score I don't feel like emulating the WP calendar articles. They have set themselves a too narrow compass.

I am grateful for your assistance, but I was irked by your tone. In particular that opening blanket statement "...are bad" which sounds like something used by a theatre critic or a practitioner of the odium philologicum. I am sure there are many points where the text needs work, but there are also changes you made which are largely a matter of taste or of a differing sense of what is correct. Since recently turning up here, I have been by struck by the gentleness of tone used by many WP editors in voicing criticism. It's probable that when I've come across things that are incorrect or poorly written I haven't always lived up to that standard.Flounderer 03:09, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

The changes to headings were in compliance with Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), and it is usual for articles at peer review to be asked to follow the house style. There is no good reason not to do so here: the removal of an indefinite article shouldn't make the phrase less definite. It is general good style to use adverbs with economy: An exclusively local system is poor style for a section heading. There are a good few words that could be used to emphasize what you mean. I do apologize for my tone, my intent was not to upset you, but to emphasize that the article needs a lot of work. As peer review is often used as a step before FAC, it is usual to deal with articles that are almost there. Have a read throught the helpful material in the Guide to writing better articles, and check your text against the Readability test. Keep up the good work. --Gareth Hughes 11:47, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for that helpful reply. Flounderer 00:01, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Asadullah Rahman

If you have time, would you please take a look at Asadullah Rahman. Thanks so much.Joaquin Murietta 14:49, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

I've expanded this article a little bit. I think that some hack saw that the boy's name is Asadullah and his father is Abdul Rahman and came up with Asdullah Rahman. I've moved the article to Asadullah Abdul Rahman, which is a more likely name. --Gareth Hughes 00:10, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Oops

Gareth, sorry, the (?????????? ????????) did not display correctly on my screen, as you said. Thank you for correcting my mistake, and for welcoming me as a contributor to Wikipedia. I appreciate you taking the time to look and see that I was new, and for not being angry at me (though I hope people on Wikipedia are more intelligent than that). Thanks,

--G_O_T_R 23:38, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Welcome again! I've added a template over the text, which might make it display properly, but that's the best I can do. --Gareth Hughes 00:05, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Keffiyeh

My apologies if it seemed rude of me to have changed your additions to keffiyeh so quickly. It seems we were both editing it at the same time. I compared your version against mine, and it seems that we were both on the same wavelength, though I sectioned it off a bit more. --Daniel 22:35, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, Daniel for letting me know. Edit conflicts are tricky. It's good that we were both working along the same lines. I'll try to add in the bits that you deleted. --Gareth Hughes 23:09, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Admin

Due to a minor mix-up you weren't actually promoted when your RFA was closed. I've taken care of it, my standard advice to new admins follows: You may wish to read the reading list and how-to guide at your convenience. Most sysop actions are reversible, the exceptions being history merges and deleting pages (but it's a good idea to be careful with all of them). Again, congrats on becoming an admin. -- Pakaran 01:50, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Congratulations

congratulations on your promotion from a beautiful Arctic morning. CambridgeBayWeather 10:28, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

• Congratulations and you're quite welcome! Also, good job on Aramaic language; I can only hope to follow in your footsteps as a good linguist. --Merovingian (t) (c) (e) 11:14, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Congrats, and thanks for the thanks message. I'm sure you'll do a superb job. –Hajor 12:54, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Congrats also Dlyons493 Talk 17:08, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

It may be a little late but:

Let me add my congrats on your successful RFA. I trust that you will carryout your extra responsibilities diligently. Good luck! Oran e (t) (c) (@) 20:13, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi Gareth. Congratulations on the administratorship. I wish you the best luck :) Regards, --Gramaic | Talk 04:11, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you all for your support. --Gareth Hughes 20:31, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Religious Pluralism - Article Improvement Drive

Hi Garzo,

I wanted to inform you that we have worked out a new outline for Religious_pluralism, which you support for the Wikipedia:Article Improvement Drive; you are invited to take a look at that new structure, propose changes and participate in implementing it. Your expert knowledge on religion would be most welcome. --Robin.rueth 13:33, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Llongyfarchiadau!

Hi, congrats on becoming admin, and yes, I too look forward to working on things Anglican and linguistic together! --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 19:48, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

P.S. Just a heads-up in case it's not on your watchlist: I changed Tense (linguistics) from a redirect to Grammatical tense to a disambig pointing to Grammatical tense and Tenseness. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 19:52, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Ah, yes, a while back Mark Dingemanse suggested that, instead of all these gramatical something-or-other articles, we move them to something-or-other (linguistics). I actually think that that might be a better title, but I did think about the issue of tenseness here too. We could use tense (grammar), but I'm not so sure it's worth it. --Gareth Hughes 20:00, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, in general you're right, but there are some terms like "tense" that are ambiguous even within linguistics. Another is "accent"; Accent (linguistics) should actually be a disambig page pointing to Accent (sociolinguistics) versus Accent (prosody), which should explain the difference between Pitch accent and Stress accent. Instead we just have Stress (linguistics). --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 23:17, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Third Watch broadcasters

Hi, you concluded this as a 'merge and delete'. Unfortunately, if the article is merged, then it should be left as a redirect to the target. We need to do that so the edit history attributes the material to the correct editor for copyright reasons. The article has now been listed in WP:VfU - which is unfortunate, as you should have been given a chance to correct your mistake first. I'm going to take the liberty of undeleting the article and making it redirect, so as to shortcircuit the need for an VfU discussion - I hope you don't mind. --Doc (?) 22:14, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know. The thought did pass through my head as I pressed delete, but I concluded that the edit history was minor and not worth keeping. Thanks again for letting me know. --Gareth Hughes 22:19, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Congratulations

I extend my congratulations on your elevation as an administrator. I am sure that we shall have more inter-action in weeks to come. --Bhadani 08:25, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks, Gareth, for your help and support in Cheese's PR and FA. It's Featured now! Yay! (My first one.) I hope our paths cross again.

—Bunchofgrapes (talk) 02:02, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm really glad this article got through. It's quite an achievement to get a featured article. It's been a while since the article I helped get featured status, Aramaic language, joined that club. I'm finding it a lot more difficult to work a second aticle up to that standard. Anyway, congratulations to you. Let me know if you would like help with anything in the future. --Gareth Hughes 11:53, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Ubeda & user:Kolokol

I've indefinitely blocked the string of sockpuppets that he created, and I've blocked him for 48 hours for his behaviour (that might be a little lenient in the circumstances). He seems generally to be a reasonable editor; he just seems to have become obsessed by this article. I don't know whether you feel that this allows you to unprotect the article (I suppose that that might be premature), but I thought I'd let you know what I'd done. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:16, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for that. However, as I understand it, these blocks also block the IP address behind them. The fact that this user can keep on creating accounts to evade blocks suggests that they have a number of IP addresses available. My user was vandalised twice yesterday, but the first IP shows up as being in Perth, Australia, and the second in Vancouver. I really don't like having the Úbeda article protected, but it seemed the only way to stop this silly, little war. --Gareth Hughes 09:49, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

FYI, I've unprotected & moved it. Please keep an eye open–Hajor 14:06, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, Hajor, I'll keep an eye open. I imagine this user simply got obsessed and impatient with a single issue, but has reasonable edits elsewhere. We should certainly not try to wind them up, just let be. However, as soon as this user gets obsessed again, we'll have to protect a page, or they'll waltz through the blocks. I think we should ask for checkuser straight away if this happens again. Hopefully, a range block will do the trick. On a lighter note, your Mexican retreat looks very un-Mexican to me (I usually think of cactuses!) and rather refreshing. Have fun. --Gareth Hughes 14:17, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Plenty of cactuses, actually, but you're right -- they don't seem to boast about them in their publicity materials. Re our anagram-spinning user: I'm afraid I don't share your optimism. I take it you don't have Schnorrer (and related pages) on your watchlist? Same user-name anagrams, same tactics, the article manages to stay unprotected for two or three days a month. And all over an utterly petty issue I can't even force myself to reach a opinion on. –Hajor 14:27, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Ah, a picture is emerging! We have so many accounts for this user that I think we should ask for checkuser now, and block the whole lot. It's probably a university or college computer suite. We can unblock them if they ask, and block them again as soon as this silliness appears. Are there any other pages that have vandalised in this way? --Gareth Hughes 14:49, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any similar situations on other articles, but who can keep track of everything that goes on in this enormous place? But if he can keep evading blocks under new names, doesn't that mean he's using a (mumbled tech-speak) anonymous proxy thing? In any case, a look at the history of Schnorrer would seem to indicate, to a suspicious mind, the possibility of his being a returning banned user. –Hajor 15:47, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

The block currently on Úbeda favours the unreasonable behaviour of the name-spammer. Please revert it to the last edit not by that user and then put the block in place.

The first name used to edit this page in such a way was User:NoPuzzleStranger which it says on that user page was a sockpupet for user:Wik. The User wik page has a recent edit (5 October 2005) by user:Netoholic, looking at recent edit by Netoholic throws up this page and section: Talk:Iraqi insurgency#User:Neolithic really User:Wik?, and this edit [1] -- Philip Baird Shearer 09:09, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't believe there was anything wrong with the edit, it simply reverted your contentious edit. I think we're all agreed that a 'checkuser' is needed to deal with this vandal. However, we need to have a case before ArbCom before we can request checkuser. The information about Wik is useful, but without confirmation, there's little that can be done. --Gareth Hughes 10:21, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

I think it is beyond reasonable doubt that this is Wik. See also Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Anagram_vandal. Kosebamse 10:17, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Arabic Case Endings Table

Good evening Gareth,

I have proposed an expansion of the article about section on Arabic case endings. I created a table and included a few examples with the case endings in red for the nonspecialists. I have uploaded it to my talk page. Would you mind taking a look at it and telling me what you think when you get some free time? How can it be improved? Also, what are your opinions/comments/suggestions about both the presentation of the transliterated Arabic and the English translation? Should I have also included the Arabic, or is that overkill? Please feel free to edit the examples to include more or change the existing ones. I really trust your opinion :)

I also have another question: I am having problems viewing some characters, particularly IPA, as well as various ways of representing "ayn" in various transliteration systems appearing in my browser. I just see those "infamous" boxes. Otherwise, the Arabic letters appear perfectly and from right to left. I realize all computer systems are different, but do you have any advice on how to fix this issue? My computer is a PC with the most current version of Windows and MIE installed on it. I would very much like to see the correct characters!!

Thanks so much,

--Carmen 02:07, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Hello there. Thank you for your message. I think that what you have written is good. You could add the Arabic to the transliteration, but this might make the table a bit unwieldy. Your problems with IPA are due to MIE. It is notoriously bad at auto-detecting appropriate fonts for webpages. There are two workarounds for this. You could use Template:IPA (or Template:Unicode if you're not dealing strictly with IPA) in the wikitext. The other alternative, if that doesn't work, would be to use Firefox (its free, has no problem with Unicode, works fine on Windows, and has better security and more features than MIE). I hope either way you'll be able to see what you're writing. --Gareth Hughes 12:58, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

From Gibraltarian

I have no idea what you are on about. I am in "danger" of nothing. Ecemaml is already abusing his position as Admin on .es and blocking all access from Gibraltar. He is obsessively following me around WP and reverting almost everything I do. I have had enough of his ridiculous obsessive persecution of me, and will not tolerate it any further. Tell Ecemaml to back off, not me.--Gibraltarian 07:31, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for posting a message on my talk page. The comment I made was not in regard to the content of your edits or your sense of persecution. At the moment in question, you had appeared to have made four successive reversions of the Spain article. I posted a message on your talk page to draw your attention to WP:3RR. The wording of the message is from a standard template. I posted the message to draw your attention to the rule. It was a warning, and if you had reverted the article again while I was still logged on, I would have blocked you for 24h: I'm glad that I didn't have to. This is in complete accord with WP policy. My stance does not reflect any viewpoint on the content of your edits: 3RR is there to stop an article being filled with angry reverts. You should be careful not to get angry as you edit WP, and to remain civil. Otherwise, it becomes far too easy fo things to get out of control. Ecemaml has posted a remark further down the page, and I shall inform them that you feel persecuted, and suggest that they don't go looking for a fight. If you have real concerns about an article or another user, you might try WP:RFC. --Gareth Hughes 10:38, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

My RFA

Thank you for your support! If you should ever have any concerns about my actions as an administrator, please be sure to tell me! Kirill Lokshin 13:24, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Congratulations for getting there. --Gareth Hughes 13:02, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Gibraltarian

Hi Garzo. What can I do to request an arbitration with regard to what I consider a continious vandalism by Gibraltarian in Spain, History of Gibraltar and Disputed status of Gibraltar? I don't pretend to impose Spain's POV. I just want to show it besides the Gibraltar's POV. It's what I understand as NPOV. But Gibraltar simply removes factual information dismissing it as "untrue", "incorrect & irrelevant". None denies it's Spanish government's POV, but showing both versions is supposedly NPOV. Can you help me? Best regards --Ecemaml 18:36, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Gibraltarian has been in contact with me. This user has expressed concern that you are hounding them. It seems that you have reached the stage where you cannot work with this user: this is lamentable, but sometimes unavoidable. Your interpretation of WP:NPOV is correct, but is impossible to achieve without cooperation. Use the article talk pages to reach a consensus with other users. If you want to draw the communty's attention to the article, put up a WP:RFC. --Gareth Hughes 11:20, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Assyrian people

About the assyrians in ancient times and today..I see no copyright violation in http://www.auf.nu/cafe/pdf/parpola_eng.pdf nor www.nineveh.com/parpola....?--Sargon 09:11, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

If you copy something without permission, you are violating copyright. There are a few cases where this might not be the case. If you believe that any of your copying was not violation of copyright, you should make a remark on the talk page of that article or image, or at the entry on the page for copyright problems. --Gareth Hughes 10:25, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Úbeda

It would be very helpful if you left the article Úbeda alone. I don't want to protect it again, but if you continue to revert I shall have to. You have not done anything wrong, but your actions fuel the vandal. --Gareth Hughes 16:19, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't quite understand how we got the current edit history. I thought my two edits had been consecutive and I didn't get an edit conflict. Presumably I just didn't notice I was editing Kolokol's version. In any case the two edits I've made today didn't revert anything - I just reworded the parenthetical remark a bit and added information about who those notable people were. But I understand your concerns and I'll keep them in mind. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 16:29, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

The edits of Coptic Christianity

I wonder why you reverted my edit to an earlier version (also mine). If you would like to read more about Chalcedon and the current OO-OE dialogue status please go to: http://www.zeitun-eg.net/ and click the links: Coptic interpretations of the Fourth Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon (PDF - 1.06 MB) http://www.zeitun-eg.net/Coptic_interpretations_of_the_Fourth_Ecumenical_Council_(Chalcedon).pdf (Related extra notes: [1] http://www.zeitun-eg.net/Coptic_Chalcedon_ExtraNotes2.pdf and audio clips: [2] http://www.zeitun-eg.net/members_contrib/EcumenicalPatriarchBartholomewIOnE-OUnion.mp3 , [3] http://www.zeitun-eg.net/members_contrib/RevDrMiltonBEfthimiouOnChalcedon.mp3 )

Also visit: http://www.orthodoxunity.org and http://www.geocities.com/mfignatius/others/byzantine.html

By the way, the melchite (EO) patriarch is never called EO Patriarch but rather the Greek ("Roum") Orthodox Patriarch. He is a native of Greece and their congregation in Egypt is negligible (in numbers). And here is their Web site before you revert again my edits: http://www.greekorthodox-alexandria.org/ (reads: Greek not EO!)

History requires careful study and faireness/neutrality (very difficult to achieve).

God Bless

Two Thousand Years of Coptic Christianity by Dr. Otto F. A. Meinardus (368 pages - Cairo: AUC Press, 2002) http://aucpress.com/cgi-aucpress/auc02/pager.cgi?catno=757_4

The Popes of Egypt (a three-volume study, Cairo: AUC Press, 2004 (English)) http://www.aucpress.com/cgi-aucpress/auc02/pager.cgi?catno=830_9

and then decide for yourself... -Ephrem2006 00:00, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

I reverted your edits because they were unencyclopaedic. You removed material representing Greek Orthodox point of view. You insert the honorific Saint before the names of individuals discussed in a historic context. You change the word died to departed to the Lord. This is not how one writes an encyclopaedia. Your style is non-neutral to the extent of ranting. I take exception to you, an annonymous editor, making snide comments about my church: that is an abuse of my honesty and openness. --Gareth Hughes 00:06, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

List of Assyrian people

Hi Gareth, I made the addition of "Religious Figures" to the List of Assyrians page and added one entry to the "Singers" section (someone added a couple more).

I was wondering whether names like Jacob of Nisibis, Jacob of Serugh, Bar Hebraeus and other famous Syriac writers could be added to the list (some of the names of articles needing improvement, according to yourself!).

Alan. --81.79.84.193 18:39, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi, Alan. None of these people described themselves as Assyrian, although some, but not all, modern Assyrians would call them Assyrian. The problem is that the list is based around a disputed ethnic label. I tend to prefer using a more easily definable cultural label: the main connexions between these people are their language and their religion. I would suggest that the easiest thing to do would be to limit the list to modern Assyrians who use that label for themselves. I would find it more useful to have a list of Syriac speakers. This list would be able to have all the modern Assyrians (unless they've lost their language) and their cultural ancestors. --Gareth Hughes 14:40, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi Gareth, thanks for the answer. Very interesting.

Considering which, did the three religious figures I put under "Religious Figures" describe themselves as Assyrian?

Thanks,

Alan. --81.79.84.193 22:07, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Holy Pimoly

http://www.holypimoly.com -Ephrem2006 22:00, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

I really don't have much interest visiting your Sunday School website. You probably didn't have much time for Sunday School as you were edit warring over my talk page yesterday. I think it's really sweet that an American kid tries to instruct me on church history. --Gareth Hughes 14:29, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

MS Works

Really interesting stuff you're involved in Gareth! Re your file on the Reference Desk, what version of Open Office are you using? If you can't get this straight, you can email me the file and I can convert it for you. Trollderella 19:00, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, Trollderella. I managed to convert the files to plain text and yank out all of the meaningful content (I think!). The files don't really need any formatting: most of us just dive into a word processor, I suppose. I'm still using the old Open Office platform with documents in .sxw format. I have used the .odt file format on the newer Open Office, but I'm not tekkie enough to install it with proper privileges. I've asked that the files be distributed in another format in the future, so I hope it shouldn't happen again. Thanks for the offer though. --Gareth Hughes 18:12, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

BioCOTW Project

You voted for Pope Shenouda III of Alexandria, this weeks' Biography Collaboration of the weeks. Please come and help them become a featured-standard article.--Falphin 00:23, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Income tax

I will not revert the vandalism to Income tax again. But I would have appreciated it if you took a few seconds of your time to review the "content dispute". Adding patently false statements to an article is vandalism. The income tax does exist in the United States and people do pay taxes on their wages—the user's claims to the contrary are simply false. I have been dealing with this user for over a week trying to get him to see reason. I and other users have reasoned with him, posted notes on WP:VIP, posted requests with administrators, and nothing has been done. And even if you think that dispute is a "content dispute", the user's actions in deleting valid text are vandalism. Please take a few seconds to review this and consider how this user is disrupting Wikipedia. If you can provide me proof that the income tax does not exist in the United States, or that income is not income, I would appreciate it. — Mateo SA | talk 17:46, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Simple vandalism this is not. The 3RR exists so that no one editor may impose their will on the article. This applies equally to you as to the other editor. If an editor is adding inappropriate content to an article, but it isn't simple vandalism, it is a content dispute. The dispute should be talked over, and community consensus enforced by numerous editors so that no one breaks the 3RR. You have broken the 3RR today, as have those whom you have been reverting. None of you are blocked, but all of you have been warned. --Gareth Hughes 18:03, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

• Would you at least block that user for violating the 3RR after you warned him?
• As to "imposing my will" on an article, if someone edited Anglicanism to say that all Anglican priests are Satanists, murderers, and pedophiles—I can't revert that as vandalism? What dispute is it that you're referring to? Do we really have to argue whether the income tax exists in the United States? What use is this "encyclopedia" if one can insert patently false nonsense at will? — Mateo SA | talk 18:41, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

• No, the block would only follow after a user knowingly contravenes policy. It would be unfair to block users who may be unaware of the policy.
• In this hypothetical case, I would revert and warn, but not break the rule. I would be assured that others would also revert, and the editor be blocked. However, it seems that the real editor in question here does not simply want to deface the article, but to have their say. The talk page is where the consensus is arrived. If someone is disruptive, before long they will get blocked. The thing is to let the community do it, and not to go down with them. I have been involved in disputes with editors who seem to be defacing articles, but have found that antagonizing them drives them from cooperation rather than towards it. The message of 3RR is always 'cool it down'. --Gareth Hughes 18:57, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

The editor has been here for a long time, has been repeatedly reverted by multiple editors, and still is not blocked. I have tried discussing the subject with him, and DESiegel in particular has tried to reason with him, and nothing has worked. Only after repeated tries did I "antagonize" him. He has not stopped and there is no sign he will stop. What do you expect me to do? If you'll look at the history of income tax, you'll see it is an almost continual history of "edit warring" over the "content dispute" of whether the income tax exists. When can we end this? When can anyone make reasonable edits to income tax? How will this encyclopedia ever be useful if it simply becomes a forum for lunatic fringe arguments?

By the way, you ignored my mention that the user deleted valid information, after repeatedly being warned not to. Will you do anything about that?

But since I see no hope of anything getting done, I am going to leave Wikipedia again for at least a week. If something hasn't happened by then, I'll just give up permanently. — Mateo SA | talk 19:22, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Gareth, the changes being proposed by User:BB69 (and the anon IPs) have been thoroughly discussed on the talk page and clearly have no basis in fact. To quote a part of his response just posted [2]:

• Feel free to state the fact that the U.S. income tax is unconstitutional, and state the fact that the courts have rejected the law and constitution illegally.

In other words, he wants to add - as a "fact" - that the "U.S. income tax is unconstitutional" despite 85 years of that position being roundly rejected by the U.S. courts at every possible level. It is simply untrue and should not be in the article. This is not a real content dispute, it is a POV position pure and simple. It should not be allowed to corrupt the article by being stated as a "fact" rather than, at best, being labeled as an opinion held by a very small minority of people that continue to stridently push their POV after 85 years of failure. And BB69 should be blocked if he continues to put his "fact" in the article after it has been rejected on the talk page. -- DS1953 ^talk 20:55, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Default template parameters

In {{language}} I noticed you mentioned that a parameter must be defined. There was an unannounced change, now mentioned in the Template help page, that allows a default value for a template parameter. For a parameter with an empty default value: {{{iso3|}}} (SEWilco 15:01, 10 November 2005 (UTC))

Thank you for pointing out this change. It is certainly useful to be able to define defaults for templates. However, I think there is a content issue here as well. Ethnologue's SIL codes have been made the official ISO 639-3 codes. Therefore, there is good reason to rename the SIL codes, rather than providing a new row for what are mostly identical codes. However, I do not how much variance there is between the old SIL codes and the new ISO 639-3 codes. --Gareth Hughes 15:44, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm not involved with most of the {{language}} activities and don't know the issues. However, I did notice your asking to test something. I point out the template sandboxes such as {{X3}} for testing, or just create a User:Garzo/Sandbox page as a workspace. (SEWilco 19:39, 11 November 2005 (UTC))

Thank you once again. It really is helpful to know that parameter default strings can be defined. I've already tested my first take on the latest idea, which involves automatic external links in some parameters and not others. The first test was a failure: I have not thought of a way to have the parameter feed into an external link when required, but to expunge the link from the template when that is required. I would like to return to the idea of a 'modular' template for {{language}}, something that was discussed earlier in the year on its talk page. However, the initial plan required parameters to be able to call complete modular templates into the main template. If you have any idea how three or four similar templates can be combined into one, I would be glad to hear it. --Gareth Hughes 22:39, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

You might look at the code for {{book_reference}}. (SEWilco 07:15, 12 November 2005 (UTC))

You have just opened to me a whole new world of template design. I've incorporated a simple use of {{if}} in {{language}}. Now, if I can get parameters to void or call entire sections of an infobox into existence, I shall have cracked the modularity problem. Thanks. --Gareth Hughes 20:50, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

What would be the most effective way of setting up the {{{family}}} parameter in {{language}}? The parameter is designed to enter the genetic descent of a language in steps from the broadest language family, down through increasingly more specific sub-families to the language itself. At the moment, the entire classification is entered with its formatting through the single parameter. Would it possible to have a variable number of parameters (within a set limit), each defining one step on the ladder, so that the information can be plugged into formatting in the template? --Gareth Hughes 00:05, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Changing attribution of an edit

Thanks for the greeting and the house-warming advice. I've actually been on anonymously for a while now. Signing on was just a method of avoiding a looming exegesis and a long paper about theological anthropology. Is there any way you know of to "claim" entries that you made as a somewhat more pedestrian user?MerricMaker 23:49, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

You're very welcome. Have fun with that paper! There is a section here on changing attribution for an edit, but such a procedure requires greater powers than mine. If you edited from a static IP address, you could put a link from that address's page to your user page. If none of this looks hopeful, then I'm afraid you'll have to be reconciled to the fact that you have a cleanish slate! --Gareth Hughes 02:05, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Template reverted

Hi, I reverted the template change not because I am opposed to having uniformity in templates but because the new one knocks the symbol out of the template itself and is less informative than the old one. I think the template was first created by someone to get the symbol within the template but I'm not sure who did it. Mithridates 03:22, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

I'll set up a sub-template that can handle this. --Gareth Hughes 11:25, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you! It looks fine now. Mithridates 13:26, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Kirby move

There was no discussion, evidence, anything, on what should go on Kirby. You are making a decision that disregards an important process of Wikipedia - discussion. Please do not continue reverting until there has been some actual discussion. Thank you. - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:15, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

I have replied at talk:Kirby (Nintendo). The move was requested at WP:RM, and discussed at talk:Kirby#Requested move. The discussion was handled properly, and was open for longer than usual, due to a backlog. Your objection was made after the vote was closed: it was unanimous. Your page move after the fact is actually the one which disregards guidelines: I moved the pages in full accord with the guidelines. The pages will stay as they are until a vote saying otherwise passes through WP:RM again. --Gareth Hughes 02:25, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Observe this link: [3]. Polls should not take precedence over discussion. That was no discussion, there was not even anyone arguing against the move. Wikipedia is not set in stone, and facts should take precedence to a single poll containing five votes! Am I to understand you believe the lack of discussion is okay? Polls should be a last resort, if no decision can be made through discussion. - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:30, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

This had been on WP:RM for a fortnight. Most move requests don't get many votes or discussion. This move went exactly like most others. If there had to be a certain minimum number of votes to get a page moved, or a so many characters of discussion, most pages would not get moved. I look at the request, and evaluate it on face value. I believe that there was necessary time and notice about the move, and that all guidelines were followed. Because of this, you should try to get another vote and discussion going: badgering me will not get the pages moved back. --Gareth Hughes 02:47, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Jèrriais

I am curious where you got the code "fra-GB-JSY". There was no such ISO 639-2 code a year or so ago when I checked (and, indeed, that format does not seem to be an ISO 639-2 format). In addition, I feel that the placement is poor—Jèrriais should, under such a system, be placed under "roa", not under "fra". "Fra-GB-JSY", were it used, would necessarily intend Jersey (Legal) French, the official dialect of French spoken on the island (which is different, in certain regards, from Parisian French). The Jade Knight 06:34, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

I updated {{language}} recently, and have been implementing the new style in numerous articles. I am a linguist, but I have little knowlege of Jèrriais, so please excuse any ignorance. I, too, was unhappy with that code. SIL has been made the Regestering Authority for the draft ISO 639-3 codes. They do not seem to have a code for Jèrriais, and their entry for fra seems to suggest that a lot of Oïl languages have been lumped into this code (which, if you know SIL, is rather against the usual regime of splitting everything into sub-dialects). The Ethnologue information for roa and fra seem to support this. I'm not happy with the documentation presented here, but the Registering Authority seems to suggest that many Oïl languages are lumped with the same code. Let me know if you find any more specific documentation on language codes for Jèrriais. --Gareth Hughes 17:20, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

The Linguasphere separates Norman and French in its categorization. In addition, Jèrriais is recognized as a "Minority [or] Lesser-Used Language" by the British-Irish council, which seems to clearly indicate its separation from French (after all, the Northern and Southern dialects of Welsh are certainly not given separate statuses as "languages"). Were you to ask a Jerseyman what language he spoke (were it Jèrriais), he would say he spoke Jèrriais, not French. Furthermore, (Jersey) Norman has been perceptively distinct from French for over 800 years. The Ethnologue has come under sharp criticism from many linguists lately for its categorization schemes, and I feel that they sorely misplace Jèrriais (which is arguably closer to Franco-Provençal than to French). It may be also noted that (French) Cajun (in addition to Franco-Provençal) has been listed under the "roa" code. I feel then, that considering that Jèrriais has not yet been issued an official code, if a provisional code must be used, it is important that the more accurate "roa" code be used in place of "fra." I am not entirely sure why you appended "GB-JSY", or if "roa-GB-JSY" would be preferable to "roa-jer" (or "roa-je"; "je" is Jersey's TLD). If you need further evidence as regards to Jèrriais' status, work is currently underway for a GCSE to be available in Jèrriais on Jersey (to be used side-by-side with one for French). In addition, your suggested code would make it impossible to distinguish between Jèrriais and Jersey Legal French.

I do not suggest that Jèrriais is anything less than all you say. The problem I have is that there does not seem to be a code assigned to the language. I am still searching for one. Ethnologue usually has the problem of being a splitter rather than a lumper. The problem is not that I refuse to recognise the status of Jèrriais; it is that the Regestering Authority does not have a code for it. There are many linguists who would have preferred Linguasphere as the RA. Before ISO 639-3 draft came into use, we used a mixture of SIL codes and extended ISO 639-2 codes. The geographical code extensions to ISO 639-2 are based on ISO 3166 country codes (not the ccTLDs, which are mostly based on 3166, but not entirely). Although. the ccTLD for Jersey is .je, its ISO 3166 code is GB-JSY. You are exactly right in saying that such a code would make Jèrriais and Jersey Legal. If I don't get any joy, I'll write to SIL as RA for ISO 639-3 to ask them for the code. --Gareth Hughes 12:34, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

I wrote to SIL about the lack of code, and here is their reply:

In the ISO 639-3 Draft Standard, Jèrriais is considered a dialect of French that is spoken in the United Kingdom, as you noted in the Ethnologue entry for French as it is spoken in the UK. Thus, the correct code element to apply would still be [fra], which would encompass numerous recognized dialects of French spoken not only in France but also elsewhere in the world. Whether Jèrriais is sufficiently distinct to warrant a distinct code element is open to discussion. There will be a formal process for proposal and consideration of changes to the code set after the final adoption of the ISO 639-3 standard. After formal adoption occurs, there will be more information given on the ISO 639-3/Registration Authority website about how a formal proposal for a new code or code change can be made.

I'm sorry: it doesn't help much at all. I think the only thing possible is that all Jersey-folk make their voice heard when the draft is adopted as standard. I think I'll write yet to be coded in the article. --Gareth Hughes 15:50, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

I feel that, due to the fact that a) "fra-GB-JSY" makes the automatic (and quite incorrect, regardless of what the SIL claims—Jèrriais is phonologically, grammatically, idiomatically, historically, and politically different from French) implication that Jèrriais is "French", that b) the code makes it impossible to distinguish between Jèrriais and Jersey Legal French (an important distinction, considering that there will soon be a GCSE exam for Jèrriais, but not for Jersey Legal French, and that Jersey Legal French is an official language on the island, but Jèrriais, currently, is not), and that c) the code, for these reasons, must necessarily change at some point in the not-so-distant future, it would therefore be preferable to not list any code than to list "fra-GB-JSY" as the language code for Jèrriais. The Jade Knight 06:29, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm disappointed with SIL: I'm sure they'll get inundated with many requests for codes as soon as ISO 639-3 leaves its draft stage. I've changed the ISO 639-2 for Jèrriais to 'roa', as you have suggested. Are you involved with any group promoting Jèrriais? If you are, or know of such a group, you might want to get ready to lobby SIL for an ISO 639-3 code for the language. --Gareth Hughes 11:57, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm the moderator for a YahooGroup for Jèrriais, but that's about it. Man vyi teaches Jèrriais on Jersey, however, and is a very active member of the Section de la langue Jèrriaise de la Société Jersiaise (an organisation devoted to Jèrriais). I plan on encouraging the Société to obtain an ISO 639-2 code for the language, but the problem may be that such a code may only be acceptable for Norman, as opposed to Jèrriais (which is merely one dialect), which may lead to complications, as continental Norman is not politically distinct from French any more, and uses a different orthography from Jèrriais. Furthermore, Jèrriais speakers generally consider Jèrriais and Norman to be two distinct, but closely related, languages. The Jade Knight 01:29, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the help

Thank you for helping me at the Help Desk on {{if}}. It worked! Thanks again! --AySz88^-^ 04:23, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

It took me ages to realise that 'pipe trick' with {{if}}. It sets the default string for the first parameter ({{{align}}} in your case) as blank. If it's not there the default is the parameter name with all those curly brackets around it, which, when transposed into {{show1}}, returns that same default. Therfore, your template was getting the line align={{{align}}} when the parameter was not set. I hope this helps. --Gareth Hughes 12:01, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Template:language

Hi, Gareth. I know that in proposing this I run the risk of just having made a lot of edits for nothing, but isn't it a better idea to let {{{fam1}}} do the work that {{{familycolor}}} is doing now? It doesn't matter anything for the results, but it seems more semantically correct to me to let fam1 define the color than to let familycolor define fam1. — mark ✎ 15:57, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree that that would make far more sense. However, as we are not writing the template from scratch, we have to build in some legacy support. {{{familcolor}}} is lot easier to deal with in array than {{{fam1}}} because the choice of possible, reasonable contents is more limited. I was originally going to introduce a new parameter to do the job of two, but was persuaded to keep to what we've got. At the moment, {{{familycolor}}} can make replacement strings for {{{fam1}}} by using {{language/genetic}}. It only does so if {{{fam1}}} isn't defined. It would be possible to build another array that would interpret the various possible inputs to {{{fam1}}} into colours. Then I would be tempted to build a further array that centrally supplied the colour definitions to the other arrays, rather than having definitions in two places. In the end, the presentation looks exactly the same. --Gareth Hughes 16:18, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

I understand. At present, you frequently find non-wikilinked, wikilinked, and piped versions of fam1 (Afro-Asiatic, [[Afro-Asiatic]] and [[Afro-Asiatic languages|Afro-Asiatic]]), and I agree that's a problem. OK, glad that I didn't make those edits in vain! The template is working great, thanks for all of your work! — mark ✎ 16:22, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

You're right that the contents of {{{fam1}}} is usually one of those three, but as soon as there's anything unexpected in that parameter, any array would just return a null result. I have seen comments like disputed and areal classification, and I think I would prefer to keep that flexibility. The other option would be to write every deviation into the array as it occurs. In a way, {{{familycolor}}} is a display decision rather than a purely scientific one: its choice is based on linguistic evidence. In the end, pink is just colour coding, rather than a linguistics statement: Sino-Tibetan carries much more meaning. If you like, I could sit down with my next cup of coffee to draw up the syntax to allow {{{fam1}}} to provide default colours. I've managed to get quite used to the workings of {{if}} (which probably occurs about 50 times in {{language}}). One of the most difficult developments was {{language/arraysort}}: it's very short and simple, but makes arrays work. --Gareth Hughes 16:38, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

translation from Latin

Do you think you can do a translation of the following text? We need this for Talk:Ancient Greek phonology#De recte grece loquando. We have already two translations who contradict each other. The question is what Glareanus told Erasmus about the native Greeks he met in Paris; did they pronounce beta as Beta or as Vita? We would appreaciate an expert opinion. Thank you. Andreas 01:48, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Ac Erasmus quidem quâ occasione ad scribendum de rectâ pronunciatione fuerit impulsus, paucis cognitum arbitror. Itaque visum hâc de adjicere, quod in schedâ quadam habeo, scriptâ olim manu Henrici Coracopetræi, viri egregiè docti, doctisque perfamiliaris. Ea ita habet: ‘Audivi M. Rutgerum Reschium, professorem Linguæ Græcæ in Collegio Buslidiano apud Lovanienses, meum piæ memoriæ præceptorem, narrantem, se habitâsse in Liliensi pædagogio unà cum Erasmo, plus minus biennio eo superius, se inferius cubiculum obtinente: Henricum autem Glareanum Parisiis Lovanium venisse, atque ab Erasmo in collegium vocatum fuisse ad prandium: quò cùm venisset, quid novi adferret interrogatum, dixisse (quod in itinere commentus erat, quòd sciret Erasmum plus satis rerum novarum studiosum, ac mirè credulum) quosdam in Græciâ natos Lutetiam venisse, viros ad miraculum doctos; qui longè aliam Græci sermonis pronunciationem usurparent, quàm quæ vulgò in hisce partibus recepta esset. Eos nempe sonare pro B vita, BETA: pro H ita, ETA: pro ai æ, AI: pro OI I, OI: & sic in cæteris. Quo audito, Erasmum paulò pòst conscripsisse Dialogum de rectâ Latini Græcique sermonis pronunciatione, ut videretur hujus rei ipse inventor, & obtulisse Petro Alostensi, typographo, imprimendum: qui cùm, fortè aliis occupatus, renueret; aut certè se tam citò excudere, quàm ipse volebat, non posse diceret; misisse libellum Basileam ad Frobenium, a quo mox impressus in lucem prodiit. Verùm Erasmum, cognitâ fraude, nunquam eâ pronunciandi ratione postea usum; nec amicis, quibuscum familiariter vivebat, ut eam observarent, præcepisse. In ejus rei fidem exhibuit M. Rutgerus ipsius Erasmi manuscriptam in gratiam Damiani à Goes Hispani pronunciationis formulam (cujus exemplar adhuc apud me est) in nullo diversam ab eâ, quâ passim docti & indocti in hac linguâ utuntur’. Henricus Coracopetræus Cuccensis. Neomagi. CI I LXIX. pridie Simonis & Iudæ.

We have now a good translation, so if you wish you could check it and see if you agree with it. Andreas 01:07, 26 November 2005 (UTC)