User talk:Wikiscient/Archive 5

< Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6 >

All Pages:

1 -  2 -  3 -  4 -  5 -  6 -  7 -  ... (up to 100)

Hinduism in Kerala

The edit was done to improve the article only. The particular session is uncalled for in this article. The article is about Hinduism (Hinduism in Kerala) and the section is about a god-woman who status is quite questionable in Kerala. Please check with the author before stamping something as "Vandalism" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.164.105.149 (talk) 12:15, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I reverted your edit because it appeared to remove a lot of information from the article without a very clear explanation as to why. As I mentioned, please discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page, especially if you are removing a large proportion of (sourced) material from an article. I will revert your undo until you can explain further, and according to pertinent WP policies and guidelines, why you feel this material does not belong in the article. Please keep the WP:3RR rule in mind when considering whether or not to re-undo my reversion before discussing it on the article's talk page. Thanks! WikiDao ☯ (talk) 12:25, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

3O

Hello. Could you please provide your final third opinion here. Thanks. --Quantum666 (talk) 12:56, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi Q. I'd rather wait before "opining" further until Kevorkmail responds with his point of view (a third opinion does require, after all, two pre-existing opinions!;). If he continues making unresolved controversial edits without discussing the matter there, that would be a sign of disruptive editing. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 13:05, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

How long should we wait for his opinion? --Quantum666 (talk) 13:28, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, there's nothing requiring him to give it. I realize the status-quo is his version, so I understand your concern; let me look it over again and see if there's anything more I think I can say about it. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 13:35, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

• Hello. I write here to remind you about the case. I think the second party is not going to answer your question (and he won't be able to do it in two weeks). --Quantum666 (talk) 06:04, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that. If when Kevorkmail gets unblocked there are still issues at that article that could use a third opinion, I'd be happy to weigh in again there. For now, just try edit the article as you see fit but, given the presumably still unresolved dispute there, please be sure to do so as conscientiously as possible with regard to all applicable WP policies and guidelines, as you understand them. Happy editing! :) WikiDao ☯ (talk) 06:24, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion. --Quantum666 (talk) 06:29, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Ganesh Chalisa

Hi. Where did the author request deletion of this article? It ought to go, per WP:NOTREPOSITORY - Wikisource is for this sort of thing, and indeed it seems to have been taken from there - but it's not speediable unless the author asked for that. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 18:07, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I think that's what the author is asking for on the article talk page (where I also had previously made the same note about wikisource, and about the large amount of foreign-language text in the article). Also, the author asks at User_talk:Munnanmisra "Is it possible for me to rewrite the entire page?" and I recommend that he consider doing so in his own userspace first. The article was previously nominated for speedy-delete by someone else for the same reason, but that got retracted. There are so many issues with the article right now, it should probably be deleted for any number of reasons. Regards, WikiDao ☯ (talk) 18:18, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Maybe I'll move the content of the page as it is to the editor's userspace for them, and encourage them to rewrite it there. It does look like a potentially promising article, but seemed to be causing a lot of CVU attention with all the large additions and deletions and the content issues with what was being added and deleted. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 18:38, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

No, I think the thing to do, which I will do, is remove all the extended text of the poems, pointing the author to WP:NOFULLTEXT as explanation. There may be articles to be written about the poems. I'm not satisfied that he was actually requesting deletion. Part of them seem to be his own translation into English, which is certainly WP:OR. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 18:58, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay, sounds good to me! Thanks, WikiDao ☯ (talk) 19:00, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I've done that, and left him a note explaining. The texts were already in Wikisource, where it seems original translations are OK, and are linked to from the articles, so there was absolutely no point duplicating them here. One tip - if you userfy an article, you should do it by "move", not by cut and paste, so that the history is preserved if it eventually finds its way back to the main space. The move leaves behind a redirect, which can be tagged {{db-r2}} for deletion. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 19:45, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Ah, ok, good to know, I've wondered about the ins-and-outs of the "moving" process. Thanks again, WikiDao ☯ (talk) 20:03, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Just an unsolicited piece of advice

I'd take it easy with the Nazi references here, particularly in this discussion. In my personal opinion, part of this whole mess of animosities can be traced back to someone calling someone else a grammar nazi. Offense was taken. I know you meant it as a joke, but sometimes this kind of joke doesn't lighten the mood, but just escalates things. ---Sluzzelin talk 16:13, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the input, Sluzzelin. I happen to take the Shoah very seriously myself, and not least because of reasons like those Cuddlyable3 mentioned in fact. I certainly did not intend to escalate anything, but just to try to put things in perspective in a way that I hoped might help motivate letting go and moving on by parties more closely involved in the CA3 "grammar Nazi" issue than I. In fact, I did not even know that the rhetoric had previously escalated to the "nazi" level already! I certainly had no malicious intent (I respect and like CA3, but think this issue is just absurd) – but do you think, given the history of the issue about which I know very little, I should alter or amend my comments there now, or would trying to do so just make things worse at this point in your view...? WikiDao ☯ (talk) 16:29, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I removed your link to arbeit macht frei. That precise usage was brought to AN/I recently, I'm sure you'd rather not see your name there. ;) I understand your approach of dark humour, but it's best used very sparingly. As you've seen, the Internet is not a good place to convey subtle nuance... Franamax (talk) 17:24, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay. Point taken. Thanks, Franamax. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 17:28, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.

What he said.

Thanks for the note on my page. "That page" is marked "intended as humor", I took it as such, and an admin removing your latest ghoulish humour should not hide the fact that you know your history. The guy in the picture (who?) said why that's important. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 18:09, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Let us hope to remember from here on out not to fight the wrong fight. Because there are better fights to be fought, for one thing. Anyway: memory, of course, always fails. What is required is eternal vigilance. :) WikiDao ☯ (talk) 04:27, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Professionalism

Thread moved here from my Talk psge. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 13:22, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

WikiDao ☯ (talk) has frowned at you! Frowns promote WikiWar and hopefully you will take this as a WikiWarning. Spread the WikiWar by frowning at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and Happy editing!
Frown at others by adding {{subst:WikiFrown}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

3:23 when you worry your face will frown, and that will bring everybody down. Don't worry, be happy. (Video) Cuddlyable3 (talk) 13:22, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

We're good, Cuddly. :) What goes on (Picture w/ Music) (and that's me on the far left there ;)) WikiDao ☯ (talk) 18:53, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Do you mean you played in the Velvet Underground in 1969 ? And were you there too ? Cuddlyable3 (talk) 22:08, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, weren't you? WikiDao ☯ (talk) 23:39, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually I was there at the time, and came close enough to Jimi for the shadow of the God of the Upturned Strat to fall on me. Those were awesome days. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 10:58, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes. And here's to taking a sad song and making it better. :) Cheers, WikiDao ☯ (talk) 17:42, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Jimi didn't do sing-a-longs. He cut through the air, just raw. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 20:53, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't know, I could even see Jimi doing a little free-lance Wikipedia contributing from time to time (had he survived to retirement;). And, of course, every sing-a-long needs a singer – even if it's just Barney! :) x-now-playing: Trigger Hippie, Morcheeba, 1996 WikiDao ☯ (talk) 22:03, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

You give wild links but I dig. The first is for the warrior whose strength is not to fight and I'm a friendly dinosaur but a trigger-happy hippie. I'm not ashamed of my involvement in progressive rock in the 60s but these days my music is victorian. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 10:11, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Clarification of perhaps misleading allusion: "Barney" is a "psyops warrior" who helps our guests in Cuba to understand that we love them!!! :D And Barney loves you, too, Cuddles! WikiDao ☯ (talk) 18:00, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I am uneasy about receiving the attention of a dinosaur. What happens when they get cross? Cuddlyable3 (talk) 07:33, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Eventually, they will get blocked I should expect. But professional dinosaurs don't get cross on the job very often. When they do... well, no need to dwell on that thought, Cuddles! Don't worry; be happy! :) Btw, there's tea at the RD talk page, you know.. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 18:55, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I think I was basically trying to tie this back in to the thread-topic here: professionalism. Not now in precisely the same sense as the question the RD visitor asked about it originally, but "professionalism" of behavior in being a contributor to WP generally and an RD desk respondent in particular. Now, I freely admit that I am still in the process of getting a better sense of that myself, and am happy to hear the opinions on that of more experienced Wikipedians (including yourself). On the other hand, I distinctly thought your response had the potential to seriously confuse the OP in this instance. I wondered if perhaps your intention was to "talk over the head" of the OP at your fellow respondents for some purpose? Because that would be simply rude. I mean, "habitual offender", Cuddles...? What's up with that? WikiDao ☯ (talk) 16:21, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I posted "....The only factor in common is that all these[previously listed] people claim to be professionals with a foundation of human respect, whether that is credible or not. Wikipedia has a link for the so-called Professional criminal. That last sentence was to demonstrate that Wikipedia recognizes another possible meaning of "Professional" in which human respect is not credible at all. (Possibly you also frowned at the link I gave later to Prostitute.) In retrospect, I think Karenjc's post gave as objective an answer as the OP could expect. Most of the later posts tried to be helpful to the OP in their dilemma, about which we could only speculate. I saw your 4 posts in which you stated that "professional" means control or moderation of emotion and striving to do what's "right", and you relate that to the OP being in an emotionally-charged dispute with an employer. But we don't know that to be the case, and we don't know whether a boss is asking the OP to accept something sly or even criminal as being "professional". In that case it does not help the OP to insist that "professional" only means "ethical" or "stoic". Cuddlyable3 (talk) 20:48, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay. I think this is about as far as we need to take it with this one. And I do not mean to suggest that I've often felt as if you were only confusing the visitor with what I've thought was rather an "indirect" answer somewhat peripheral to the question (I've only noticed you doing that once before, really), nor that I think that I've got "RD conduct" down perfectly (yet;) myself, nor that I presume to believe that I have any idea what the OP really wanted to know in this case. Let's try to just let it all come to some acceptable equilibrium, shall we? :) Cheers, WikiDao ☯ (talk) 21:45, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay too. Happy editing! Cuddlyable3 (talk) 07:33, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi

Hello, WikiDao ! Can you tell something about this?  Jon Ascton  (talk) 02:50, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Jon! No, I have no idea! Maybe they were just "putting you on"...? No clue, but will be interested to hear if you find out. Good luck! :) WikiDao ☯ (talk) 03:09, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Comment from the RD

I just wanted to say I think you're cool. You answered some of my questions before, and I thought the answers were cool. Thanks for being so zen, man. :)

(I hope its ok I posted here.) :/ AdbMonkey (talk) 05:11, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi Monkey – np lol! :)

I wish we could have helped out further with your question at the RD about songs; it doesn't sound like you ended up (so far) getting an answer you're happy with on that. (Did you look at that article I linked to for that "song" 4'33", though? Now that's Zen! ;)

Happy editing! WikiDao ☯ (talk) 05:36, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I think we may have arrived at an answer for you:

"So, if we do have an upper bound on song length (say it is the length of the longest song so far to have existed), and if we say that there is some non-infinitesimal granularity to whatever we care to count as "song-elements", then "the number of possible songs that can be created" is indeed finite, right?"

Does that work for you as an answer to your question, AdbMonkey? WikiDao ☯ (talk) 19:35, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

• Quirks brow* I guess that will work as an answer. *Looks at nails*

Ha ha ha, no, of course I'm not disappointed and yes that will do. I didn't specify any parameters for the song, so considering all the factors i failed to mention, I think it was great that I got an an answer. I think, even if there is a finite amount, it's beyond human comprehension. This question was prompted by a lecture I heard, in which a depressed poet realized that there must only be so many combinations for a song, and with that realization he continued to be depressed because it mean that song production was limited. I was just wondering if that was true, if that was a reason to get depressed, but when you realize that it's a hard feat as it is to compose thousands of songs, I don't see how knowing that millions of song possibilities still exist would still be a cause to be sad. But, I didn't want to mention what caused me to ask the q, because I thought it would detract from the answer. I will read the 4 33" and see if there's a definitive answer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AdbMonkey (talk • contribs) 07:58, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

lol, glad to help! ;) WikiDao ☯ (talk) 12:34, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Also from the RD

I was happy to see your comment (and edit summary) about the Brothers Karamazov; good to know someone else appreciates this masterpiece. I think it's just stunning, and someone looking for an "uplifting" book might be surprised at just how wonderful it is. :) All the best, Antandrus (talk) 13:39, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it's definitely a great recommendation, and I hope the OP will want to actually read it.

I thought it was a difficult RD question to answer very specifically, though – it almost seems like to be a "classic" a novel must be in some way, even in a very round-a-bout or paradoxical way, "uplifting". So I agree with the rest of what you were saying, too. I started but never finished "Confederacy of Dunces", though – I guess it just didn't strike me the right way at the time, I've heard others say they liked it...:) Regards, WikiDao ☯ (talk) 18:05, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

More on Ganesh Chalisa

You seem to have a fair amount of input on Ganesh Chalisa. This article appears to be about a poem written by Munindra Misra (a name that bears a startling resemblance to the username (Munnanmisra) of the article's creator. Do you have any idea whether this poem meets the notability criteria for inclusion? I'm no expert in Hinduism -- I'm hoping you might have more information than I do. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:56, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

No, sorry, I don't really know much about it at all. I had noticed the article had a number of issues, and actually nominated it for deletion at one point, but it seemed to be ok the last time I looked at it. Not sure at all on notability issues, but will also try to look into that soon if I get a chance. Regards, WikiDao ☯ (talk) 16:39, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I see that the wikisource pages that our article links to have been removed. This may be our editor Munnanmisra, but it is not clear whether that "knol" was actually authored by him or just "posted" there.

Google turns up a few hits on "Ganesh Chalisa" that confirm my original impression that the "chalisa" is a sort of formal stylized prayer or hymn (the admin who looked into my deletion request suggested a comparison with Christ the Lord Is Risen Today, for example).

In any case, the article still definitely has a number of issues; it would be nice to have a clearer sense of notability before much more work gets put into that. One thing I can do is ask another editor, who's Indian, to maybe provide a little context on what a chalisa is exactly and how notable this one might be (in India, at least). WikiDao ☯ (talk) 20:45, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

clear up on the whole visuals thing

please review the rules at my talk page, they clearly state that i am blind, so the whole visual and fancy font stuff is impossible for me. My screen reader (jaws), does not pick up that stuff. Thanks for telling me, Inna was most likely in episode 203 of biz kid$ and please don't bring this up again. Any comments, feel free to leave on my talk page. Please review what i have at the top, ok? nothing negative, just letting you know. thanks. 204.112.104.172 (talk) 00:06, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I removed the image from your talk page, and hope that helps (I have never used a screen reader, so don't know what problems may arise for you with that for some content).

If you have a reliable source for your edit to the Inna article, I'd be happy to help you put that information in the article appropriately, if you want, just let me know! (If so, please let me know on your talk page – and I will copy this comment over there, too.) Regards, WikiDao ☯ (talk) 02:25, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I put a message on my talk page, it's how i recognize Inna from biz kid$, and it will be clear. Hope it helps. 204.112.104.172 (talk) 07:02, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

be a biz kid

Is this a good item for my talk page? Hey, be a biz kid. Now i know people out there may see something in the store that they really wanna buy, (groan) "that's soooo tempting!" but you just can't afford it. Don't just buy it anyway. If you budget your money and save some, eventualy you'll be able to get that item. If you get lots of money, don't just spend spend spend, buy this buy that, oo! that's a good item to buy. use your money wizely and be a biz kid! 204.112.104.172 (talk) 02:20, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

This seems to be about comments you have made to yourself on your talk page. Usually, though I am not sure there is any policy against it, but usually it is not a good idea to make comments to yourself on your talk page and then "sign" them as if they are from someone else. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 12:32, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

It is actually specifically forbidden to sign your comments as if made by anyone other than yourself. → ROUX ₪ 21:59, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Roux. WP:SIGEDITORIMPERSONATE did not seem to me clearly to apply here, because it looked to me (at the time, haven't looked into it since) that the user was "signing" using some other name but not some other editor's username. I've noticed that people can customize their signatures to read something other than their username, as long as it is not someone else's username, and that seems okay. I thought something similar might be going on here, so didn't throw the book at 'em – was that right? WikiDao ☯ (talk) 23:58, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I prefer to be more concerned with the spirit/intention of policies. The point of that one is: don't pretend to be someone you're not. → ROUX ₪ 01:14, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

That is very wise of you, Roux, I'm sure. Have you notified the IP in question of your concerns? WikiDao ☯ (talk) 01:50, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

No. can't be bothered interacting with the obvious troll. → ROUX ₪ 01:56, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Same here lol! :D Peace, Roux, and hope you are having a pleasant evening... WikiDao ☯ (talk) 01:59, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I have a new friend

Hello, and thank you deleting the vandilisum towards The cars article, if i would of saw it i might of exploded, take care. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MajorHawke (talk • contribs) 20:31, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Hey there!

Hi! Nice to see you settling in to the desks a bit. Just a bit of guidance: if you look at the question about the person who didn't want to live any more, which has now been archived and dealt with by a member of the Wikimedia Foundation, you will notice that you are the only registered user _{well, nearly...} who commented. That's because the general feeling amongst most of us who've been around this project for a long time is that you do not touch something like this: you look for help. Sure, there are probably a lot of people who just troll with this stuff, but there are also a good chunk of people who really mean it, and we don't want to be part of something that tipped someone over, or didn't help someone who needed it. And it does happen. On top of that, certain sorts of discussions of it can be triggering to other people on the edge too, and are frequently hugely disruptive, but these are side issues compared to the person reaching out for help.

As I'm sure you've realised by now, some areas of discussion and tactics have evolved to relative extremes because other approaches didn't work. While we'd like to think we could find a nuanced middle-ground, we find it gets taken advantage of by individuals who want to reach as far over the line as they can get, without apparently understanding what the spirit is everyone else is trying to follow. In this case, leaving the message up and providing calm words while trying to help them only works if everyone else stops leaving 'hilarious' messages egging them on, and any form of rules that allows these people to continue to answer will inevitably lead to them finding loopholes and inserting 'hilarious' messages egging someone on to take their own life. So we learn never to touch these things, to lock the thread down to prevent other answers, and to take certain appropriate action.

We've all been new, and I know when I first got here I never imagined that some of the people posting messages on the internet would be communicating their very real mental distress and very real plans. Some of the anonymous IPs who replied to the message are probably experienced enough that they should know better. But you only learn by getting out there and making occasional mistakes. Have a look through Wikipedia:Responding to threats of harm, which you can find quickly with WP:SUICIDE or WP:VIOLENCE (we like to keep the shortcuts intuitive and easy to find in an emergency!), so you're better equipped next time. Happy editing! 86.166.42.171 (talk) 01:17, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your comments, and for the links, which I will read through to try to get a better sense of how cases like this one are best responded to. Happy editing to you, too! :) WikiDao ☯ (talk) 02:01, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

• Note: the following is in response to this comment. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 16:39, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

With respect to the stalking: if it were only WP:wiki-stalking, then I could indeed have sought help from various people here, and probably have dealt with it through administrators. As it was, this was a broader, more real-world-based stalking, and I abandoned most of my online identities in the wake of it. Some communities, I established new identities: in this case, anon editing with rotating IPs was the only safe option that worked. I don't consider it a problem to be 'just an IP', although it does make me sad to miss out on the collegial 'nods' you can give an editor you know. But I've always wanted my edits to be judged on their own basis: I joined the project in about 2003/4, when an identity brought basically nothing except a reputation, my first edits were all anon, and I always made a fair proportion of my contribs anon anyway, because I couldn't always be bothered to log in and often was moving from computer to computer. Mostly, I used my account for comments and discussions (so that people knew it was the same person), and for the watchlist. But that was fairly normal back then, when loads of people edited anon even when very committed to the project. It's only more recently that opinion (and some functions) has shifted to being more hostile towards IPs, and you can often estimate when someone joined the project by their attitude towards anon users. But I guess the project had to change as it grew, so I try not to feel too sad about it :)

Anyway, I digress. If someone is hounding you by following your history and harrassing you here on the wiki, you should certainly contact an administrator and ask for help. Sadly, that wasn't an option for me, since mine was more actual stalking. I'd rather not go into more detail, as it makes me feel a bit sick to think about it too much.

Oh, and if you want to contact me to ask more questions, it might be more reliable to ask them here: I'm a bit surprised my IP has stayed the same for so long this time, and I might have missed your message. I'll skim your talk page fairly regularly, if that's okay, so I can give you a hand. If you'd rather I didn't, I won't. 86.166.42.171 (talk) 15:38, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, best to just drop it in this context I imagine, so I will, but very interesting. Sorry to hear that, though! Especially as it forces an editing handicap on you in a number of ways. But by all means I'd appreciate any comment you may have to make about anything that goes on on this page, feel free to do so any time. See ya around, and have a nice day! :) WikiDao ☯ (talk) 16:46, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Three strikes, and you're ...

Heh heh. To be honest, statements such as "this doesn't exist" do sometimes help me overcome my research inertia, but in both of these cases I wasn't prompted by your comments. In fact, I see you as a very positive force at the desks. Keep up the good work! ---Sluzzelin talk 00:50, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Likewise. Cheers! WikiDao ☯ (talk) 01:02, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Lollipop

Hey! Thanks for the lollipop. It brightened up my day, and I was happy to play along! See you on the RD. schyler (talk) 22:46, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome, schyler! :) Yes, see you at the RD, happy editing, and have a nice day! WikiDao ☯ (talk) 22:50, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Third Opinion listing removal

Hey, WikiDao (great username, BTW) if you've not seen them already, can I direct your attention to the new changes at Wikipedia:3O#Declining_requests_for_third_opinions? I think that your deletion of the Talk:Barack Obama#Poll data listing was okay on a snowish basis, but I just wanted to make sure that you were aware of the changes there. Best regards and thanks for the help at the project, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 16:47, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Ah, okay, I hadn't been aware of the seven-day rule. And I should have suggested an alternate means of seeking resolution, too. Thanks for pointing that out, man! :) WikiDao ☯ (talk) 16:54, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I have been busy translating a page from Swedish

... not reading some discussions related to my earlier work.

I do not object to the sorting capability; I will re-add that.

So what's the trouble?

Varlaam (talk) 03:12, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

(We were typing simultaneously.)

I'm sorry, but I am not terribly interested in the opinions of that racist who thinks the Jews didn't write the Old Testament, or that the Arabian Nights were not compiled in Baghdad, something that I have known since I first read that fact 40 years ago.

Varlaam (talk) 03:20, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Cool, I like the sort, though I still have not got it to sort-by-date correctly.

The problem is with the flags. They are not in the cited sources, nor are the modern country names. Not only aren't the modern names and flags in the source(s), they are misleading, and so should not appear in this article. This is discussed further on the talk page. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 03:18, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I am happy to have a discussion with you, not that other guy.

The entire list is modern.

Kafka was a German-speaking Austrian who lived in Prague. He was never in the Czech Republic.

Goethe was in the Holy Roman Empire, not Germany.

Dante died centuries before Garibaldi created Italy.

Shakespeare wouldn't have a clue what "UK" means.

We don't care precisely which proto-Indian principality Valmiki lived in. He was Indian in a modern cultural sense.

Varlaam (talk) 03:23, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

It's dinner time for me. Just got home.

I'm tired, hungry, maybe a little cranky, maybe a little short-tempered.

If you happen to respond, I will not be answering right away.

Cheers, Varlaam (talk) 03:26, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

It needs a little "nationality" clean-up, preferably keeping strictly to what's in the sources for that. Have a nice dinner! :) WikiDao ☯ (talk) 16:27, 19 November 2010 (UTC)