User talk:Dara

Khmer

Thank you very much :) WhisperToMe (talk) 17:40, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you!

Can you add the Khmer to Fédération Indochinoise des Associations du Scoutisme?--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 11:11, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't know the Khmer name for this organization. --Dara (talk) 18:01, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

No problem! Does Girl Guides Association of Cambodia also need corrected?--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 00:00, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I fixed it. Keep in mind, there is no official romanization system employed in Cambodia. So it can be romanized different ways. Neary, for example could also be Neari, Nieree, etc. But Neary is the most common way it is romanized. And for Khemarak, this version with the <k> at the end (as opposed to 'Khemara') is properly romanized as Khemarak rather than Khamarak as the first vowel is an allophone of <e> not <a>. It sounds more like <ai> or <ae> in pronunciation but is most commonly romanized as <e> just as in the word 'Khmer'. --Dara (talk) 01:04, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Unsolicited, but worth sharing

Hi Dara, I suspect you are a natural-born researcher; and you may know about this already, but in case you didn't: an excellent resource on all plants and animals can be found at the Biodiversity Heritage Library. It is a library of all (or as many as they can get their hands on) original works on natural history. There you can search for, say, Magnolia × alba; Michelia × alba; or any other scientific name for a plant or animal, and they will list all the PDFs, of old and new publications that are no longer under copyright (some lists are huge), that mention that name. Each PDF is available for download, and, once done, the text is actually copyable (highlight, copy and paste) to a word processing or text program (word docs, notepad, etc.), though the OCR program is not always completely accurate (e.g.: the character "æ", common in scientific names of species, especially 50+ years ago, comes out as "se", "•e", or any number of other flubs) so it has to be examined in detail for errors. And yes, they do have the original Species Plantarum (to be found here). Just thought I would share this, in case you didn't already know about it. Hope it proves useful. Hamamelis (talk) 22:56, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

PS: Since Magnolia × alba is on my watchlist, your latest edit to it reminded me of something I'd forgotten. -- H.

Thanks very much Hamamelis. I had no idea there was such a resource treasure trove out there. I mean, I was just using Google Books, lol. This will come in handy. And I hope to see if the name Mitrella mesnyi is actually a synonym for Melodorum fruticosum. I suspect that the country of Cambodia refers to an oudated taxonomic name for the national flower. Also, I'm not sure if it's wise to rename all Michelia species articles to Magnolia but it seems wrong to have Magnolia × alba and then it's parent under Michelia champaca. --Dara (talk) 07:31, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Glad to pass it on (wish everyone knew about it).

Regarding the two species you mentioned above; according to ThePlantList.org, they might be synonyms of different Unona species (see here and here). The Plant List is another, newer resource that is especially good on plant species synonymy. Hamamelis (talk) 09:33, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi, re Mitrella mesnyi and Melodorum fruticosum, I have replied to your request at Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request#Mitrella_mesnyi. Dr pda (talk) 03:25, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Buppha Devi

Hi, are you referring to my edit to put her article under "Wikiproject Ballet"? If you have any other more suitable Wikiproject that you wish to reclassify under, feel free to go ahead. But I think, putting under "arts and entertainment work group" should not be an issue, since this encompasses a larger umbrella. Anyway, I am more concerned with mainstream article content as of now... Mr Tan (talk) 15:22, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

I have changed it to "Wikiproject Dance" for the above page. Agreed. Mr Tan (talk) 09:26, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Emerald Buddha

Hi Navarrro, I reverted your edit regarding the Emerald Buddha. It was indeed produced in the 17th century and is not ancient like the one in Bangkok. National Geographic refers to it as being Baccarat-crystal. --Dara (talk) 00:15, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Dara,

That's not possible, never mind what National Geographic says (source please?). Baccarat Crystal didn't exists until 1764, 18th century. You can check the own Wikipedia article or the Official website. So either the Emerald Buddha is not from 17th century or it's not done from Baccarat Crystal. --Navarrro (talk) 05:29, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

I think you may be right. But this is what is purported by National Geographic (and I assume many other publications, especially tourist guides, followed suit with this information). See National Geographic Traveler Cambodia By Trevor Ranges. This tidbit on Baccarat goes far back to an old NG issue from the 1960s or 1970s. Perhaps this is a misreported information in an old French book. --Dara (talk) 09:04, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Dara,

I don't have the book but I've tried to find out a bit more and now I'm more thinking about the misreported information is in the century not in what's made of. You're right, most of other publications can use National Geographic as a source, but that doesn't mean that the mistake must be reproduced if it's false. I've found this website saying that the statue was made in the 19th century what also fits with the book Pol Pot, Anatomy of a Nightmare of Philip Short (2004) where it's said (page 22) that the statue was done by Lalique a glass designer who lived in 19th-20th century. That also fits with the time of the construction of the Royal Palace in the second half of 19th century. At least from the 15th century the original Emerald Buddha (in BKK) was never in Cambodia so I don't see why they were going to copy it in 17th century, I think it's more probable that the statue was copied in the 19th century for the new Royal Palace and new Capital. In any case the article must be modified to show that misinformation and to not continue broadcasting it. Maybe somebody with more resources can then solve the issue. --Navarrro (talk) 20:58, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Would it be fair to say that some sources state it is of Baccarat and point out whats wrong with that claim and also mention the Lalique claim as well? Of course present in a way that is neutral if there seems to be conflicting information. I think a more definitive source would be Julio Jeldres but I can't get ahold of his book. I will try to find if Judith M. Jacob has mentioned anything about the statue. --Dara (talk) 05:39, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Dara, I completelly agree with that. Take a look to the new sentence I've written please. Regarding Julio Jeldres, I've found this other extract in other book. Notice what the author says: that Julio Jeldres book is "unreliable in some of the information it provides, particularly in relation to dates." So I'm afraid the mistake of dates comes precisely from his book. By the way, Bangkok temple was indeed the model of Phnom Penh temple, so it also makes sense the copy of the Emerald Buddha is done in that time, 19th century.Navarrro (talk) 08:48, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:48, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Dara. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. Mdann52 (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Dara. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

October 2017

Your recent editing history at Hủ tiếu shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:01, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Please take a look at my edits in the talk pages. It is other users making quick assumptions and not engaging in talks regarding my edits. --Dara (talk) 17:16, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

My recent edits are in good faith and other editors are reverting my edit without giving thorough input. They are just making assumptions, but if they did the research they would see why hủ tiếu deserves it's own article and should not be conflated with kuy teav. --Dara (talk) 17:19, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Portmanteau

Somebody just answered a comment you made on Talk:Portmanteau back in 2005! I've never seen a comment that has sat unanswered for 12 years before getting its first response. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 21:16, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Wow! Thanks for letting me know David. I'm one myself to answer a decade or more old question. :) --Dara (talk) 22:35, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Dara. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Dara. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Dara. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Royal Palace in PPenh

Hello Dara. I've started editing the article on the palace with some sources I have, but there's a lot I don't know. In particular, do you know anything about the influences on the architecture? I keep reading that it was designed by French architects, but it doesn't look in the least French. It looks Siamese. Do you have any sources on this?PiCo (talk) 02:05, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't have any sources. I have a lot of theories but they are of no use here. Dara (talk) 05:30, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Khmername

Template:Khmername has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 08:22, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Nomination of Apsara Dance for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Apsara Dance is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Apsara Dance until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-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 notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 14:30, 7 April 2024 (UTC)