User talk:Gilgamesh~enwiki/Archive 14

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

→

Archive 20

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Big King from Mt Roskill.jpg

A tag has been placed on File:Big King from Mt Roskill.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:42, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Iceland, categories

Iceland has four volcanic zones: Reykjanes (Mid-Atlantic Ridge), West and North Volcanic Zones (RVZ, WVZ, NVZ) and the East Volcanic Zone (EVZ), (Westman Islands). The Mid-Iceland Belt (MIB) connects them across central Iceland. There are two intraplate belts too (Öræfajökull (ÖVB) and Snæfellsnes (SVB)). There is no South Volcanic Zone !!! ;) --Chris.urs-o (talk) 10:25, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I apologize, I was going by this map. Could you assist me? - Gilgamesh (talk) 10:26, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Ohhhhhhhhhhh...I see my error. I'll change South to East. - Gilgamesh (talk) 10:29, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

. :) lol --Chris.urs-o (talk) 10:30, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

You mentioned a Mid-Iceland Belt, but it isn't indicated on the map. How is it delineated? What entries in Category:Iceland West Volcanic Zone, Category:Iceland East Volcanic Zone and Category:Iceland North Volcanic Zone should be considered Mid-Iceland instead? And...is it a triple junction? - Gilgamesh (talk) 11:14, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Right, I think it is the bar that connects WVZ to the NVZ/EVZ line. Well, I "translated" the map from the french version. The french version of the map was drawn based on ("Surtsey Nomination Report 2007" (PDF). Surtsey, Island. Retrieved 2010-03-30., page 12), the map on the Surtsey Report is very similar to this one ("Volcanism in Iceland in historical time: Volcano types, eruption styles and eruptive history". Journal of Geodynamics. 43 (1): 118–152. January 2007. doi:10.1016/j.jog.2006.09.005. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |authors= ignored (help)). Thordarson (2007)'s map is based on (Jóhannesson, H.; Sæmundsson, K. (1998). Geologic Map of Iceland, 1:500,000. Bedrock Geology. Icelandic Institute of Natural History and Iceland Geodetic Survey, Reykjavík.) as well. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 11:27, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I have this list (List of volcanoes in Iceland; Volcanic Zone, Volcanic System and Name of central volcano, Thordarson (2007)):

1. RVZ, Reykjanes/Svartisengi, void
2. RVZ, Krýsuvík, void
3. RVZ, Brennisteinsfjöll, void
4. WVZ, Hengill, Hengill
5. WVZ, Hrómundartindur, void
6. WVZ, Grímsnes, void
7. WVZ, Geysir, void
8. WVZ, Prestahnúkur, Prestahnúkur
9. WVZ, Hveravellir, Hveravellir
10. MIB, Hofsjökull, Hofsjökull/Kerlingarfjöll
11. MIB, Tungnafellsjökull, Tungnafellsjökull/Hágöngur
12. EVZ, Vestmannaeyjar (Westman Islands), void
13. EVZ, Eyjafjallajökull, Eyjafjallajökull
14. EVZ, Katla, Mýrdalsjökull
15. EVZ, Tindfjöll, Tindfjöll
16. EVZ, Hekla-Vatnafjöll, Hekla
17. EVZ, Torfajökull, Torfajökull
18. EVZ, Bárðarbunga-Veidivötn, Bárðarbunga/Hamarinn
19. EVZ, Grímsvötn, Grímsvötn/Thórdarhyrna
20. NVZ, Kverkfjöll, Kverkfjöll
21. NVZ, Askja, Askja
22. NVZ, Fremrinámur, void
23. NVZ, Krafla, Krafla
24. NVZ, Theistareykir, void
25. ÖVB, Öræfajökull, Öræfajökull
26. ÖVB, Esjufjöll, Snæhetta
27. ÖVB, Snæfell, Snæfell
28. SVB, Ljósufjöll, void
29. SVB, Helgrindur (Lýsuskard), void
30. SVB, Snæfellsjökull, Snæfellsjökull

--Chris.urs-o (talk) 11:53, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Yosha

A tag has been placed on Yosha requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a clear copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Bluemask (talk) 23:47, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

"Whoever" vs. "whomever"

Hi, Gilgamesh. I noticed you undid my edit to Wikipedia:WikiProject Volcanoes in which I changed "whomever" to "whoever," stating that "whomever" is appropriate after prepositions. This isn't quite the correct rule. The choice between "whoever" and "whomever" has to do with whether the word is being used in a subjective or an objective setting—"whoever" is the subjective form, and "whomever" is the objective form. If the sentence had just been "Barnstar goes to whomever," then you would be correct—"whomever" is in the objective case there, because it is the object of the preposition "to." But the full sentence is "Barnstar goes to whoever can FA the current collab before it runs out!" In this sentence, the word "whoever" functions as the subject of the dependent clause "whoever can FA the current collab before it runs out" (and it is this clause that is the object of the preposition "to"). Since "whoever" is a subject of this clause it should be the subjective "whoever" rather than the objective "whomever." I've changed it back to "whoever." —Bkell (talk) 05:20, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Alright... - Gilgamesh (talk) 07:27, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi, would you be so kind as to give us support!

Hello, I hope you're doing fine and I sincerely apologize for this intrusion. I've just read your profile and you seemed a very humanitarian person to me so maybe you won't be mad at me and help us... I'm part of an association "Amical de la Viquipèdia" which is trying to get some recognition as a Catalan Chapter but this hasn't been approved up to that moment. We would appreciate your support, visible if you stick this on your first page: Wikimedia CAT. Thanks again, wishing you a great summer, take care! Capsot (talk) 12:06, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 01:37, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Categories Ketoy & Ekarma

Category:Ketoy and Category:Ekarma, which you created, have been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the categories' entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Cgingold (talk) 07:48, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Kupaianaha

Do you have a reference for the diacritics in Kupaianaha? The Hawaiian dictionary at wehewehe.org lists it with none. KarlM (talk) 18:59, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Hawaiʻi (The Big Island) map. James A. Bier, cartographer. Published by University of Hawaiʻi Press. The spelling Kūpaʻianahā is clearly indicated along with nearby Puʻu ʻŌʻō. - Gilgamesh (talk) 13:32, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Samogitian language#Writing system

Hi, I see you flagged the Samogitian language writing system was contradictory. I've made a small change to the article, fixing the only contradiction I could notice and removed the tag. If you feel it is still contradictory, feel free to replace the tag, and place a comment explaining the contradiction on the article talk page. Cheers -- WORMMЯOW  13:15, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:0ws

Template:0ws has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:38, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Abhiram

The article Abhiram has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and this has no sources.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:49, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Joseph Smith and Communism

Consider this, even if his ideas had some kind of comparison with Communism, Smith was not a direct Communist. No matter what commentary an article writer gives, it is fundamentally important to remember that the Communist Manifesto had not even been written yet (Smith lived about 20 years prior to it), Communist ideas did not even exist largely in the east at this point nevermind the U.S.A. Also communist ideas were somewhat obsecure until long after Marx's death.

So no I dont accept that he was a communist at all. Religious Philosophy and Political Philosophy are distinctly different (I study both), they should not be mistook for each other. Smith's religious philosophy may have been similar to Communism, but, it was by no means political. Routerone (See here!) 16:35, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I think this is a misunderstanding based on confusion of the political system called Communism with the largely 19th-century phenomenon of Christian communism. See especially the pre-Marx section in Christian communism. Routerone, the academic community classifies the LDS historical practice of the law of consecration as a (lowercase c) communist system, so that's the applicable terminology even though it obviously makes a lot of LDS people uncomfortable because of the church's 20th-century teachings against (capital C) Communism. Hope this helps, alanyst ^/talk/ 17:31, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't think anyone implied here that this form of Christian communism has anything to do with Karl Marx. Marx did not invent socialism—he just codified a certain atheistic form of it. There were all sorts of flavors of socialism in the 19th century and before, and many survive in various democratic forms (such as social democracy). Please read the relevant details at the articles for United Order, Christian communism#The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and so forth. As a personal note, I was raised LDS myself, and I've known about socialism in the history of the church for years. I am, in actuality, a socialist of the social democracy flavor. - Gilgamesh (talk) 19:16, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

According to EO,[1] the term "socialism" was invented in France in the mid-1830s, and if you look up "communism", you'll see it was also a French term dating to the 1840s. If you're going to call community-focused groups as "communist" or "socialist", you need to make it clear that it's historical retrofitting, and that those terms hadn't been invented yet. It would be a bit like claiming that Julius Caesar was Catholic. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:28, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

True, but...there are all sorts of terms today that didn't exist as such in the past, and lots of terms used in the past that are scarce or extinct in usage today. My orthodox understanding of the United Order is that it's a socialist system. This is the normal way it is described by my LDS family members. In a broad sense, socialism is a kind of communal structure with many flavors all over the world in many different time periods. It's where a society manages the community's welfare in a holistic collective manner, providing a safety net in lean times. That's exactly how the bishop's storehouse was conceived. - Gilgamesh (talk) 19:43, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Lots of early American communities were that way, as a matter of survival. The Amish still operate that way, i.e. working together and "looking out for each other". A better term for that is probably "communalism", since terms like socialism and communism have acquired much more narrow and specific meanings, and the careless use of those terms in articles could be a problem. To head out into left field for a comparison of language evolution, the term "gay" used to mean flamboyant, showy, effeminate, etc., and gradually came to mean specifically homosexual. Another term is "intercourse", which used to be simply a near-synonym for "interaction", but has since acquired a very specific meaning; but the general usage explains the existence of the town of Intercourse, PA... which, appropriately enough, is in or near the Amish region. So we have to be careful about terminology, as the average reader might not understand the subtleties. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:23, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

And obviously historians retrofit lots of things, except often (though not always) with less politically-charged terminology. The Battle of Hastings is part of the Norman Conquest, but I doubt very much that William I called it that. And World War I wasn't called World War I until World War II came along. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:49, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

ʻIolani Palace

Do you agree with the recent moves that replace the ʻokina with an apostrophe? Your opinion would be appreciated at the Talk:'Iolani Palace page. Thanks. W Nowicki (talk) 18:52, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

List of landslides

Gilgamesh - please look at the discussion I started at Talk:List of landslides and join in. Thanks, Argyriou (talk) 18:43, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Nomination of Brock Samson for deletion

The article Brock Samson is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brock Samson until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. JJ98 (Talk) 06:33, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Hawai'i-related articles not in Hawaiian English

Category:Hawai'i-related articles not in Hawaiian English, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:05, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

if you have the time, could you clarify if by "Hawaiian English" you really meant Hawaiian Pidgin (Hawaiian Creole English) which is where Hawaiian English goes, or as I suspect you meant "typography of Hawaiian language inteneded for English speakers" (e.g. with 'okina and kahko? Thanks. W Nowicki (talk) 00:03, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

The latter — typography. - Gilgamesh (talk) 17:11, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Merge discussion

As the creator of one or more or the article involved in this merge discussion I thought you should be informed about the discussion.--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 16:03, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Sindot

Template:Sindot has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Mhiji 21:55, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Hbrhemappiq

Template:Hbrhemappiq has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Mhiji 23:35, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Hbrkhafs

Template:Hbrkhafs has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Mhiji 23:36, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Hbrzeremale

Template:Hbrzeremale has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Mhiji 23:36, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

ga'ya → gaya

why? Dan ☺ 01:04, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, I had this discussion awhile back when it comes to Hebrew romanization. If you're transcribing the ayin as a voiced pharyngeal fricative, you use ʻ rather than a normal apostrophe. But it's already silent in Modern Hebrew, and only written before vowels as a syllable break — before consonants or at the beginnings or ends of words, you don't romanize it at all. ...it seems logical. - Gilgamesh (talk) 21:10, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but isn't this more a transliteration than a pronunciation transcription? And on the other hand, the modern Hebrew pronunciation of the ayin in this case actually isn't silent, but an /a/, phonemically I'd transcribe the word /ˌga.aˈja/. Just "gaya" seems unsatisfying both ways. Dan ☺ 14:11, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Then "ga'ya" was inaccurate. If it's actually three syllables, it's "ga'aya". - Gilgamesh (talk) 19:43, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

It's all in the twilight zone between linguistic prescription, speakers' perception induced by it, and reality. Ayin and alef are often realized as syllabic vowels without consonants like /ʔ/ or /ʕ/. Some words are prescribed as standard with /ʔ/ or /ʕ/ followed by no vowel, sometimes because a subsequent vowel would cause contradictions in prescribed rules, e.g.

prescription		reality		subsequent vowel would necessitate
/maʕbaˈrot/ [2]	מַעְבָּרוֹת	/ma.abaˈrot/	מַעֲבָּרוֹת	/maʕavaˈrot/	מַעֲבָרוֹת*
/heʕˈpil/ [3]	הֶעְפִּיל	/he.eˈpil/	הֶעֱפִּיל	/heʕeˈfil/	הֶעֱפִיל*
/riʔˈjen/ [4]	רִאְיֵן	/ri.aˈjen/	רִאֲיֵן	I don't even know

Dan ☺ 21:55, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh and yes, although /ˌga.aˈja/ is the way most Israelis pronounce the word, "ga'aya" is how most would transliterate it, just as /ma.abaˈrot/ is transliterated "Ma'abarot" here. The apostrophe transliterates the graphemes alef and ayin but phonetically (in reality) usually signifies the null onset of a syllable. The standard vowel pointing of our word is "גַּעְיָא", so:

• "gaʿyá" transliterates the (prescribed) standard /ˌgaʕˈja/ most accurately, whereas
• "ga'aya" is the way most Israelis would describe their (non standard) pronunciation (/ˌga.aˈja/) in English letters.

So what's your choice? Dan ☺ 23:16, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

My choice would be the less convoluted option. - Gilgamesh (talk) 02:03, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Well since modern pronunciation isn't central here, I'd choose "ga'ya", a crude but sufficient graphemic transliteration which also alludes to the word's prescribed pronunciation. Or "gaʿyá", for more precision. Dan ☺ 22:32, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Discussion at Family Research Council

Someone restarted the straw poll re: including the SPLC's characterization in the lead. You are getting this because you participated in the last poll. Please see Talk:Family Research Council to give your input on its inclusion. _WM^O 05:19, 9 February 2011 (UTC)