User talk:Gawaon/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:Gawaon. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 |
Welcome!
|
The Moon shines bright
Hello, and am posting because I see you have no talk page messages so wanted to join in. Thanks for your discussion at my talk page, and hopefully when we get past that we can sometime join up in an editing project of some kind. Anyone interested in history has the full support of others of that irk. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:25, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks! Gawaon (talk) 10:40, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
- Please do not add to or try to "explain" long standing language in the MOS, thanks. There is no contradiction at all, proper names are proper names throughout the English language and have been since the beginning of time (when English was first used in the caves). The first paragraph is just making clear that words like "sunshine", or the common use of "earth" for soil, or that the moon hits your eye like a big pizza pie, are not uppercased for editors who may not understand the concept of proper names. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:32, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
- Please let's keep the discussion on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Clarification request: capitalization of "the sun" etc.?, where others can get involved too. Gawaon (talk) 11:29, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
- Please do not add to or try to "explain" long standing language in the MOS, thanks. There is no contradiction at all, proper names are proper names throughout the English language and have been since the beginning of time (when English was first used in the caves). The first paragraph is just making clear that words like "sunshine", or the common use of "earth" for soil, or that the moon hits your eye like a big pizza pie, are not uppercased for editors who may not understand the concept of proper names. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:32, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
Wish I could unsee your edit history
Strangest WP:SPA I've seen. I'm sure we have plenty of "true crime" SPA editors but this one is pretty unique. Every topic needs competent scrutiny of course. —DIYeditor (talk) 10:52, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
Oops
Sorry, I meant to say "Users must have not a history being convicted with sex crime(s)." I am referring to the edit on Facebook. It was an accident. I forgot to put the word "not." Cwater1 (talk) 22:58, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
- Ah, I see, that makes more sense ("must not have a history"). But in any case such details don't belong in the lead, maybe somewhere later in the article body. Gawaon (talk) 06:29, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
- I feel that the part about being and 13 and up might be in the later part of article. I get it now. I'll be careful in the future. Cwater1 (talk) 16:14, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Talk:2023 Israel–Hamas war on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 14:30, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.
Should've done it a while ago. MartjnMap (talk) 16:31, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed 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 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:38, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 06:33, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
Yabluchne gorod
Sure I agree with you in the strictest sense, and I'd welcome being proven wrong, but do you think realistically a Ukrainian village has a realistic chance of having an English language Wiki. article created? Regards. Kieronoldham (talk) 04:32, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
- Kieronoldham: It doesn't seem all that likely, and I don't know whether it would fulfil our relevance criteria. What would you think of the following solution: Yabluchne [uk] ? So like the output of Template:Ill, but without the red link. That would avoid the surprise link to the Ukrainian Wikipedia, and still be more useful to those who speak Ukrainian than no link at all. Gawaon (talk) 06:11, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
- Sounds like a good idea. Be my guest. Sorry, I just wanted to avoid red links with, probably at best, a 5% chance of ever having an article created in this language. Regards, --Kieronoldham (talk) 23:25, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Talk:James Veitch (comedian) on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 20:30, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Starbucks unions on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 15:31, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Streetcars on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 20:31, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Houthi involvement in the 2023 Israel–Hamas war on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 17:30, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
Hi, I undid your edit
I saw your edit on List of incidents of cannibalism and O9A page, that you had removed the incident in Karelia. Multiple articles covered the cannibalism aspect of it, I am fairly sure I used one of them, but I might have not, so I added a source that definitely did. Just wanted to inform you. Have fun editing! RKT7789 (talk) 16:47, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
- No worries, thanks for adding the link! Gawaon (talk) 18:25, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
Feedback requests from the Feedback Request Service
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Tone (linguistics) and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football on "All RFCs" request for comments. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 07:36, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
Infoboxes
I saw your comment at the infobox discussion. The topic of infoboxes on certain featured article biography articles can be highly contentious. The editors who have spent significant time editing those articles are sometimes very passionately opposed (as you can see from the discussion) to adding infoboxes. Many of them are arguing against the use of links in infoboxes. It's a bit of battleground so it requires finding consensus from editors who haven't been arguing about it for decades. Rossini will likely eventually get an infobox, but it will be fiercely opposed like many other articles that eventually found consensus for inclusion. Nemov (talk) 17:22, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
- I see, and I'm not particularly surprised. I have nothing to do with the Rossini article and don't want to get involved there. I'm just somewhat astonished that he (and many other composers?) don't seem to have an infobox when nearly any other article about a person beyond stub length has one. Hope it'll get sorted out over time! Gawaon (talk) 18:29, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
- I volunteer time on RFC discussions and I wasn't aware this was a thing until a year or so ago when infoboxes kept popping up in RFC notices. I was astonished as well, specifically at how nasty some editors were about the topic. It does appear to be getting sorted out over time. There's hope yet! Nemov (talk) 12:54, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
March music
 | |
| story · music · places |
|---|
Thank you for your support for a MoS change, saying: " The current wording "The use of infoboxes is neither required nor prohibited for any article" is thus clearly outdated and does not reflect reality." - Bach music for Easter! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:52, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you 😊 Gawaon (talk) 22:21, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
- I like to see Appalachian Spring on the Main page today (not by me, just interested and reviewed, and a bit proud that I brought the woman's pic to lead and Main page), and I also made it my story. - How do you like the compromise in the composer's infobox? - How do you like the statue (see places)? I was undecided so show three versions ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:30, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
- Congratulations on helping to bring that work and picture to the main page! So Aaron Copland's infobox is a compromise? It looks pretty good to me, in any case. Gawaon (talk) 09:07, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- I like to see Appalachian Spring on the Main page today (not by me, just interested and reviewed, and a bit proud that I brought the woman's pic to lead and Main page), and I also made it my story. - How do you like the compromise in the composer's infobox? - How do you like the statue (see places)? I was undecided so show three versions ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:30, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Foreign Secretary on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 20:32, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 19:30, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Talk:LiveJasmin on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 22:30, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
"Comparable values nearby one another should be all spelled out or all in figures, even if one of the numbers would normally be written differently." Holy (talk) 18:35, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
- I'm pretty sure that's not meant to apply in cases where one number includes a fractional part and the other doesn't. These are, due to their different natures, not really comparable. Gawaon (talk) 19:00, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
Holodomor
Considering the recently undone change. The point of adding the comment about Lemkin on top is to show that there are three things researchers disagree upon: - it is not a genocide - it is a genocide, but it targeted only a group of farmers and Ukrainian population was mainly farmers - it is a genocide, and it targeted Ukrainian nation as a whole, not just the farmers.
To me it's unclear, why should the first two points should be discussed in the top and the third point be presented separately in the body text, instead of belonging together. Krispe13 (talk) 14:07, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
- To be more specific: the difference, between the second and third claim is that they differ not only by the scope of the target group, but also on the understanding of what Holodomor actually was in its essence: one focuses on collectivisation - directly and clearly targeting farmers, the other - on targeting the nation in terms of their religion/church, language/national intellectual elite, forcefully changing the self-identification of the group etc. Krispe13 (talk) 14:22, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
- Eventually, depending on the point of view - if Holodmor is a genocide of the farmers in the Soviet Union (not only Ukrainian), one would consider the famine in Kazakhstan a "Kazakh Holodomor" (or a part of Holodomor), while those who see Holodomor as a a genocide of Ukrainian nation, would then refer to the famine in Kazakhstan by its own unique name - Aşarşılıq, particularly considering that both had similarity as well as differences. Thus, would appreciate if you could help reflect that in the title or would agree that I would make an adjustment myself (maybe with better phrasing this time). Krispe13 (talk) 14:44, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
- I have now moved the text into the "Genocide question" section where it fits better. Keep in mind that the lead (the text before the first section header) is only for summaries of the article body (the rest of the text). Adding something there that's not also (in more detail) explained in the body is always wrong. If you disagree (but that's just a very basic and very general policy, not a matter of debate), let's continue the discussion on Talk:Holodomor, not here. Gawaon (talk) 15:43, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Israel–Hamas war on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 13:30, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
Igbo people and cannibalism
Hello Gawaon, I am writing to ask about the inclusion of the cannibalism link on the Igbo people page. While I understand that it's just a link and readers are not obligated to click on it, its presence implies relevance and will attract attention. Your repeated addition of this link suggests you consider it crucial information about the Igbo people. Could you please explain why you believe this is essential? Part of why I am asking is that the trope of igbos being cannibals was used as a justification for hatred on social media in the last Nigerian elections. Also i acknowledge your point that cannibalism has been documented globally, including in Europe. However, articles about other ethnic groups, such as white people, white Americans, Cantonese people, Qizilbash, and other African groups like Yoruba, Ijaw people, and Zulu people, do not include links or mentions of cannibalism, even though there are historical instances in these cultures. This raises the question of why it is particularly important to include it in the Igbo article. Could you clarify your reasoning? Thank you. Bernadine okoro (talk) 22:28, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
- Well, there will no doubt always be gaps in Wikipedia's coverage, but hopefully these gaps will become smaller over time, so that's not a good argument for making even more gaps. Some articles don't mention cannibalism as a historical custom when, no doubt, they could. Others already do, like those about the Attacotti in Britain, the Aztecs in Mesoamerica, and the Zappo Zap and Azande people in Central Africa. The article on Māori people also mentions it, if in a somewhat dismissive way. And so on. If you see gaps where such historically relevant customs could be mentioned, but aren't, I suggest you fill them. I do the same when I have the time. Wikipedia is not censored and readers should have the chance to learn about historical customs and practices, even if we today consider them unacceptable.
- That said, while I think that former occurrences of cannibalism among Igbo are sufficiently well documented (including by oral history) to deserve mention, how best to do so if of course open to debate. I realize that the link in the "See also" section could give readers (especially those that don't follow) it the impression that cannibalism is still practised today, which would of course be nonsense. It's a historical practice, so a short mention somewhere in the "History" section may be better to reduce the risk of confusion. Maybe one or two sentences in the "Traditional society" section, with a "further" link to the relevant Cannibalism in Africa section for more information. What would you think of that? Gawaon (talk) 09:10, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- Honestly, I still do not understand why the article needs the link, but I think the link is enough for the page. And I honestly don't believe that the page requires an in-depth description, especially considering that the Igbo people have multiple different facts that are important information about them that are not part of the article cannibalism is definitely, not a key important fact that needs to be included in the article so the article is okay as is. Bernadine okoro (talk) 22:33, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- Okay, then let's stick with the link. Gawaon (talk) 04:27, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
- Honestly, I still do not understand why the article needs the link, but I think the link is enough for the page. And I honestly don't believe that the page requires an in-depth description, especially considering that the Igbo people have multiple different facts that are important information about them that are not part of the article cannibalism is definitely, not a key important fact that needs to be included in the article so the article is okay as is. Bernadine okoro (talk) 22:33, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Breach of 1R restriction.
Kindly self revert. Thank you. Selfstudier (talk) 07:01, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
Also please read WP:HEADLINES. Selfstudier (talk) 07:04, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
Introduction to contentious topics
You have recently edited a page related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.
A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.
Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:
- adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
- comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
- follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
- comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
- refrain from gaming the system.
Additionally, you must be logged-in, have 500 edits and an account age of 30 days, and are not allowed to make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on a page within this topic.
Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.
Selfstudier (talk) 07:25, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Talk:FCSB on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 18:31, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Alexander the Great on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 16:33, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers
Just a heads up, I don't actually really care if you want to tweak the wording here. However, my strong position remains that we should use the local date format regardless of the language spoken. See Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#MOS on date format by country. GiantSnowman 18:00, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
- All right. I hadn't done any tweaking BTW, but I think that using DATERET to argue against retaining the currently used date style is obviously against the spirit of what's very clearly the intent. Gawaon (talk) 18:16, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
Third-party ANI visit
Good luck with this one— There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Remsense诉 15:16, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
Keep up the great work
i really appreciate your neutrality, keep up the good work man, i love them Alexanderia3524 (talk) 11:43, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
- Wow, thanks a lot 😊 Gawaon (talk) 17:06, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
Road
Hello, I removed “virtually” since it wasn’t present in the plants section. Firekong1 (talk) 21:09, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
- I have now looked into the cited source, and it says "an unnamed cataclysm has obliterated all trappings of civilization and society from the face of the earth, and virtually all life". I have now tried to find a wording that stays fairly close to that – no distinction between plants and animals is made, but it's clear that society was destroyed too and most people seem to be dead, so one cannot just speak about "non-human life". Gawaon (talk) 21:39, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
- Well, I was not the one who added it prior. I just wanted to remove confusion from the sentence. Firekong1 (talk) 02:28, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- Sure, I hadn't added it either. Thanks for your rewording. I had to add one more word (not all life on Earth went extinct, obviously) and think it should be fine now. Gawaon (talk) 08:24, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- You’re welcome. But can we agree on a proper rewording? I still feel the sentence needs a bit more. Firekong1 (talk) 11:19, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- What do you think is missing? Gawaon (talk) 14:18, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- Since the article doesn’t go in depth, can we remove “virtually” or “most”? Life on earth in the story isn’t even the focus anyway. Firekong1 (talk) 18:25, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- But, uh, the man and his son are part of life on Earth, right? And there are other people still alive. Not sure about animals, but plants too. If you have further tweaks to suggest, I'd suggest we discuss them here first, but obviously we cannot spread falsehoods about the story. Gawaon (talk) 19:17, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- I’m referring to non-human life such as animals, none are mentioned in the book except in the context of the story, and even then it is regarding the extinction of non human life on earth. Firekong1 (talk) 23:01, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- "Life on Earth" includes the human variety too, of course. Also at least a dog is mentioned as still alive, and once the man thinks about cows, supposing them to be extinct, but also realizing that he doesn't know for sure. We can't claim things that aren't clearly stated in the story itself, of course. Anyway, I can live with the wording as it currently stands. Gawaon (talk) 13:55, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
- I still don’t think it’s sufficient enough, the book mentioned that life is extinct except for humanity. Firekong1 (talk) 18:15, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
- Does it? I don't really think so. But anyway, the wording you have found now seems fine. Thank you. Gawaon (talk) 19:06, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
- I think so. But I wanted to reach an agreement. You’re welcome. Firekong1 (talk) 18:22, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- Does it? I don't really think so. But anyway, the wording you have found now seems fine. Thank you. Gawaon (talk) 19:06, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
- I still don’t think it’s sufficient enough, the book mentioned that life is extinct except for humanity. Firekong1 (talk) 18:15, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
- "Life on Earth" includes the human variety too, of course. Also at least a dog is mentioned as still alive, and once the man thinks about cows, supposing them to be extinct, but also realizing that he doesn't know for sure. We can't claim things that aren't clearly stated in the story itself, of course. Anyway, I can live with the wording as it currently stands. Gawaon (talk) 13:55, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
- I’m referring to non-human life such as animals, none are mentioned in the book except in the context of the story, and even then it is regarding the extinction of non human life on earth. Firekong1 (talk) 23:01, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- But, uh, the man and his son are part of life on Earth, right? And there are other people still alive. Not sure about animals, but plants too. If you have further tweaks to suggest, I'd suggest we discuss them here first, but obviously we cannot spread falsehoods about the story. Gawaon (talk) 19:17, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- Since the article doesn’t go in depth, can we remove “virtually” or “most”? Life on earth in the story isn’t even the focus anyway. Firekong1 (talk) 18:25, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- What do you think is missing? Gawaon (talk) 14:18, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- You’re welcome. But can we agree on a proper rewording? I still feel the sentence needs a bit more. Firekong1 (talk) 11:19, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- Sure, I hadn't added it either. Thanks for your rewording. I had to add one more word (not all life on Earth went extinct, obviously) and think it should be fine now. Gawaon (talk) 08:24, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- Well, I was not the one who added it prior. I just wanted to remove confusion from the sentence. Firekong1 (talk) 02:28, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
Auto archive
I removed the auto archive period on the Taiping Rebellion talk page because I thought 180 days was too short, not too long. The previous two talk page messages had not been addressed yet and were archived. Did you realize that the previous auto archive period was 180 days? Alexysun (talk) 20:57, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
- Ah, I see, but frankly, any discussion that hasn't seen updates for 3 months is stale and unlikely to ever be resolved, so it can as well be archived. Though personally, I like keeping at least the newest discussion around no matter its age, so the talk page won't appear totally unused. Accordingly, I now have set
minthreadsleft = 1on that page – somebody had set it to 0 for some reason. Gawaon (talk) 11:01, 30 June 2024 (UTC)- @Gawaon Okay, I agree. Thank you. Alexysun (talk) 09:59, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
July 2024
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Capital letters. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Points to note:
- Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
- Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. The proposed language was discussed, more editors supported with stronger arguments, and crucially, after it was implemented it gained implicit consensus per WP:EDITCON by not being touched for 1.5 years. I suggest you disengage from the edit war. Pinchme123 (talk) 17:19, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
- The same, uh, could be said about you? EDITCON by itself it not an argument, otherwise Wikipedia pages could never be improved. Gawaon (talk) 18:00, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
- Thankfully in this case this isn't just an example of implicit consensus only. Discussion took place over proposed language and after a week of near-unanimous agreement (with only one comment of concern and not outright objection), the consensus-derived language was inserted. When others came to later object, their arguments were weak and the implemented language wasn't challenged via further editing. This is in actuality a rather strong case of consensus-building, which has now only been challenged a year and a half later. Hardly convincing of a lack of consensus. --Pinchme123 (talk) 18:23, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
- Except that no consensus was reached? But anyway, let's take it to the relevant talk page, here is not the place for it. Gawaon (talk) 19:10, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
- Thankfully in this case this isn't just an example of implicit consensus only. Discussion took place over proposed language and after a week of near-unanimous agreement (with only one comment of concern and not outright objection), the consensus-derived language was inserted. When others came to later object, their arguments were weak and the implemented language wasn't challenged via further editing. This is in actuality a rather strong case of consensus-building, which has now only been challenged a year and a half later. Hardly convincing of a lack of consensus. --Pinchme123 (talk) 18:23, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
Your edits to the page re Francis Spaight Ship
Hi Gawaon. thanks for fixing up my additions and referencing on this page. It is the only page I have edited in a decade! There is one thing I would like you to undo. There are, in fact, two separate references to A.W. Simpson. The existing one is to a lecture delivered in 1918 called Cannibals at common law, and that was correctly referenced by someone in the past. My additional reference is to an extensive book. While on the same subject, it was published by Chicago Uni in 1984, then later in 1994, per my reference, by an English publisher. The information there about the ship is considerably more extensive, but in any case it is a separate source, albeit by the same author. The reference for that is: Cannabilism and the common law - A Victorian Yachting Tragedy A.W. Brian Simpson The Hambledon Press London and Rio Grande. Published by the Hambledon Press 1994 IBSN 1 85285 200 3
As it stands, there is no reference to that book on the page now, when there should. Could you edit appropriately?
Many thanks, Alexander Alexanderstollznow (talk) 10:45, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
- To emphasise, as the only reference to Simpson is to a lecture, the subsequent references are now incorrect, as there is no page 130! Alexanderstollznow (talk) 10:48, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
- Ah! I get it. The book I mentioned is listed at the bottom of the page in "Sources". Alexanderstollznow (talk) 10:51, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah, it was already there, so I just merged the references. Thanks for your edits! Gawaon (talk) 11:12, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
Wikiproject
Hi, I see you've contributed a lot to Igbo people, would you be interested in a taskforce on oral tradition? Kowal2701 (talk) 19:57, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for the invitation! I'll check it out, but I'm afraid I might be too busy with other stuff and obligations outside of Wikipedia to get involved. Gawaon (talk) 09:02, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks, no worries Kowal2701 (talk) 10:15, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Cronus as "Harvest Deity"
I think that this is wrong. As I mentioned, it was only the Athenian tradition within the Greek Pantheon that largely even worshipped Cronus as a harvest deity; his established role recognized in literature was the leader of the Titans in the Greek pantheon.
To further the reasoning behind this point, I once again point to the hypothetical example of Cronus being referred to as a "time deity" because of the cult of Orphic religion. I mean, you can't just call Cronus a "time deity" because of the actions of a single Hellenic cult through the context of their writings in the Orphic theogonies and Hymns.
Likewise, I just don't think it's possible to describe Cronus as a "harvest deity" in the context of the entire Greek Pantheon, simply because of the traditions of a single Hellenistic city state.
In conclusion, I believe that the introduction to this entire article needs to be rewritten in order to accommodate a nuanced overview of the worship of both of these examples of both local cults and traditions, while mentioning that Cronus was indeed worshipped as a harvest deity in Athens and parts of Ionia, while at the same time mentioning that he was also worshipped as a time deity in the Orphic cult.
This also plays into the broader problem of how Cronus' entire status as a time deity and the nuance surrounding it is presented as nothing but a "mistake" in post-classical antiquity throughout the start of this article without being explained, which I think feels slightly dubious.
However, even if this article's introduction is not re-written (for some reason) it is clearly inaccurate to state that the entire Greek Pantheon worshipped Cronus as a "harvest deity" through the use of such a heading in the introduction for this article.
For the time being, for all of these reasons, I am going to suggest to remove the heading referring to Cronus as a "harvest deity", as it is simply an inaccurate representation of his overall role in the Greek Pantheon.
Furthermore, I am going to suggest to change the heading "Member of the Titans" to "Leader of the Titans", to better reflect the main role that Cronus held throughout the Titanomachy and the greater Greek Pantheon.
A copy of this message is going to be left on the "Talk" page for Cronus. I certainly welcome any discussion or opinion helping to justify why this heading change would not be wise.
Best Regards, Ghost1824 (talk) 13:13, 9 August 2024 (UTC)