User talk:Omnipaedista/Archive 2

Global financial system lead

Hi Omnipaedista, thanks for recognizing the lead's current length and removing the tag. As a side note, the longintro tag was added by another editor when the lead was substantially longer (about +2,000 characters). I'd been waiting for feedback on the reduced lead, so thank you. John Shandy` • talk 15:32, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome! --Omnipaedista (talk) 15:34, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Corinth

If you have time, could you review the latest edits to Corinth by an IP editor? The edits may be all right, but since I don't know the subject matter really well, I would like to defer judgment to you. If they're good edits, perhaps the editor should be welcomed, too. CorinneSD (talk) 12:55, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Apart from some minor violations of MOS:QUOTE, this editor has not made any bad edits. In fact, they have contributed significantly to many articles. --Omnipaedista (talk) 17:07, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Great! Thanks for looking at it. CorinneSD (talk) 19:03, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Khorasan

I can't figure out what's going on at Khorasan (the disambiguation page). Can you take a look at the latest series of edits? Thanks. CorinneSD (talk) 12:59, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

The entry contains accurate information as it stands now. --Omnipaedista (talk) 14:14, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

O.K. Good. CorinneSD (talk) 19:03, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Comparative advantage

Hi,

Thanks for fixing the wikilink for Heckscher-Ohlin model in Comparative advantage with this edit . Piping that link was unnecessary; Your way is much better. However, I am not sure how your edit is related to WP:ALSO. Help:Magic#Suffix trick seems to be what you did. Doesn't WP:ALSO only apply to "See also" sections? Not a complaint; just curious. Thanks in advance. - Marchjuly (talk) 04:34, 26 August 2014 (UTC).

Hello. Yes, that's a suffix trick. My edit summary referred to my removing 'Heckscher-Ohlin model' from the 'see also' section as per WP:ALSO: "the "See also" section should not repeat links that appear in the article's body or its navigation boxes." --Omnipaedista (talk) 04:49, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I didn't pick up that "Line 125" was in "See also" so mistakenly assumed WP:ALSO just had to do with the wikilink. My bad. - Marchjuly (talk) 05:03, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Khorasan 2

Would you mind looking at the latest edit to Khorasan? It's a disambiguation page. An editor changed "Iran" to "Afghanistan" with an edit summary saying it was correcting a typo. I looked at the map in the article on Greater Khorasan, and it seems that it was part of Persia. CorinneSD (talk) 14:32, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Parthenon

What do you think of the latest edit to Parthenon, and the suggestion in the edit summary and on the Talk page? CorinneSD (talk) 15:15, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

This editor's modifications reflect what citation 26 of the said article says. --Omnipaedista (talk) 15:23, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

O.K. I'm glad you were able to confirm that, but the editor suggested deleting the entire paragraph. See Talk:Parthenon#Connelly's book, and I wondered if you agreed. CorinneSD (talk) 15:40, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Ferdinand Magellan

There have been a few edits to Ferdinand Magellan. Though I can't judge the last one (but wonder if it was necessary), I wondered about the one before that, changing Magellan's place of death from Mactan Island to Kingdom of Mactan. There is no WP article on "Kingdom of Mactan", and in the article Battle of Mactan, it says that

"The warriors of Lapu-Lapu, a native chieftain of Mactan Island, defeated Spanish forces under the command of Ferdinand Magellan, who was killed in the battle."

The article only mentions "Visayan Kingdom of Mactan Island" in the infobox. I think an actual location makes more sense as a place of death than the name of a kingdom. CorinneSD (talk) 21:48, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Interesting user name: Strength is truth. Hmm. CorinneSD (talk) 21:50, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Hilda Rix Nicholas

I've commented on the edit dispute around the heading hierarchy here, if you want to contribute. Cheers, hamiltonstone (talk) 09:02, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 3

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Jurgen Verstrepen, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Deurne. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:39, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Countable set: Apostol.1969

Thanks for the link. - I'm not sure whether this book is meant by "Apostol 1969", are you? If not, should we add a note to the article? - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 09:15, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

I am not sure either. I just added the link. In any case, having short citations included in the "citation footnotes" section, and the respective full citations included in the "references" section is common Wikipedia practice. --Omnipaedista (talk) 10:30, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Laodicea on the Lycus

I believe you may have Laodicea on the Lycus on your watch list, but just in case you don't, would you review all the edits just made by an IP editor? I'm sure you will be able to evaluate them better than I can. I just wonder about changing "families" to "family members"; that's a big difference in numbers. CorinneSD (talk) 15:40, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Link to Xenophon quote

What is the problem with the link to the Xenophon quote in Laconic phrase? On every combination of OS and browser I've tested (Windows 7, Mac OS 10.9, Safari, Explorer, Firefox, Chrome), the link goes directly to the line quoted. What are you using? Or are you concerned that the linked source line is not exactly the same as the quote in the article? WolfmanSF (talk) 17:20, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Are you not aware that there exist probably dozens of English versions of any quotation from Ancient Greek? WolfmanSF (talk) 17:25, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

When I first opened the link it redirected me to a deleted page. Unfortunately, I cannot find it now. In any case, it works now. Regarding your second question: please read WP:INTEGRITY. --Omnipaedista (talk) 17:27, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

We are not supposed to provide our own translations as editors (especially when authoritative translations already exist). In case we link to a translation we are supposed to keep it unmodified. --Omnipaedista (talk) 17:29, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Regards to MOS:DASH

When you change the dashes used in templates, like you did in Template:Reign of Otto (1832–1862), please make sure that you move the page to the new name as well. Otherwise when you look at the template, the "v" and the "t" appear red and send you to pages that do not exist. Thank you. -- Kndimov (talk) 18:45, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up! --Omnipaedista (talk) 19:45, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Hyssopus officinalis

I wonder if you could answer the question I posed to Sminthopsis84 at User talk:Sminthopsis84#Hyssopus officinalis. CorinneSD (talk) 00:41, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Sminthopsis84's edit follows WP:IMAGELOCATION: "avoid sandwiching text between two images that face each other, or between an image and infobox, navigation template, or similar." --Omnipaedista (talk) 03:31, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry -- I guess I wasn't clear. I meant the edits before Sminthopsis84's edits. Sminthopsis84 took care of some things, but there was one question neither of us had an answer to. It's on Sminth's talk page at the link, above. It's something I thought you might be able to answer. CorinneSD (talk) 15:58, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

This edit is OK, as well. --Omnipaedista (talk) 18:35, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry again. I didn't realize that there were two sections with that plant's name, and my link led to the first one. I've changed the heading so that this link will lead to the right one: User talk:Sminthopsis84#Hyssopus officinalis 2. CorinneSD (talk) 22:44, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Please include specific edit summaries. You were referring to this edit which is OK as well. --Omnipaedista (talk) 07:18, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Porphyry writes "For it is said, that hyssop very much purifies the power of bread." I added the relevant external link to the article. --Omnipaedista (talk) 07:21, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

I thought, after fixing the link to my comment on Sminthopsis84's talk page, and reading that and Sminthopsis' reply, and my comment above that it was about the edit prior to Sminth's edits, that you would find it. I'll try to be more specific in the future. I guess I hadn't even known how to create a link to a specific edit, either. I see the link to that edit just above. Is there a quick way to create it other than typing all of that out in full? I wasn't questioning the accuracy of that edit. I was just wondering about the phrase "this type of food" when the only food that was mentioned was bread. What else besides bread would be meant? CorinneSD (talk) 14:40, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

(1) You will have to go to "View history", then select the versions you want to compare, then click "Compare selected versions", then copy the URL of the page, then paste it wherever you want to. (2) "This type of food" refers to bread. --Omnipaedista (talk) 14:53, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

O.K. Thank you. CorinneSD (talk) 15:10, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Golden Rule/Universal Ethics

Hi Omnipaedista, why did you delete the paragraph “Universal Ethics” in the Golden Rule article (Edition Sept.13, 2014) ? The modification of the Golden Rule it contains is fundamental since it is avoiding the contradictions and flaws of the other forms of the Golden Rule cited and criticized in the article (e.g. empathy as a prerequisite). Moreover, whereas the Golden Rule is explained in Global Ethics, Bahá'í Ethics, Buddhism Ethics etc. etc., the Universal Ethics concept is entirely absent. Please think about. Thanks! Arenwi (talk) 21:44, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

This paragraph does not merit inclusion in Wikipedia per WP:RS and WP:UNDUE. --Omnipaedista (talk) 21:48, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but I disagree. In the listing of the different ethics which contain the golden rule a paragraph on Universal Ethics is missing. Universal Ethics is an important and current topic of discussion (e.g. http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20090520_legge-naturale_en.html). Perhaps you or another Wikipedia philosophy editor can fill the gap. Arenwi (talk) 23:04, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

The Vatican link says nothing about Winkler's ideas. This is not a matter of personal disagreement. Wikipedia policies are very clear about matters of notability. If no source talks about Winkler's ideas except Winkler himself, then Winkler's ideas are not notable and they do not merit inclusion in Wikipedia. I also reverted this edit per WP:RS and WP:UNDUE. --Omnipaedista (talk) 23:24, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Pronunciation of Toch

I think you're right about uvular ch, but people are bound to become confused if Help:IPA for German says differently. Will you follow up at Help talk:IPA for German please? Sparafucil (talk) 09:10, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, I did. Please read Help:IPA for German#cite ref-3. --Omnipaedista (talk) 09:28, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

"editors may use any section title that they choose"...

... "and therefore may editwar to have their own choice of section title"? Nope—no, it doesn't say that, does it? Make your case and build a consensus. Until then, we retain the status quo. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 06:58, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Please be civil. I did not edit war. I just applied what WP:APPENDIX says: "optional standard appendix sections are used, they should appear at the bottom of an article, with ==level 2 headings==". --Omnipaedista (talk) 07:04, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

"Please be civil"? Seriously, what are you trying to provoke? Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 08:31, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I have kindly tried to explain my edits here. Instead of commenting on that you falsely accused me of edit warring. --Omnipaedista (talk) 08:34, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I pointed out where you were wrong, and you aggressively went ahead and did it again, with the "explanation" in this subsection header---blatantly telling us all that you simply choose to arbitrarily change the section titles. Now drop the head games. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 08:45, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I did not "do it again". In my second edit I did not change the section title as I did in my first edit; this is why I did not edit war. In my second edit summary, I merely explained why I did it the first time. In my second edit, I applied another policy regarding level 3 headings ("When appendix sections are used, they should appear at the bottom of an article, with ==level 2 headings==. In the rare cases when it is useful to sub-divide these sections (for example, to separate a list of magazine articles from a list of books), most editors prefer to use either definition list headings (;Books) or bold-faced text ("Books") instead of level 3 headings (===Books===)."). When common practices and policies contradict each other (in this case, common practice vs. WP:APPENDIX regarding level 3 headings), a dialogue should ensue; this is why I started the thread on your talk page. I do not understand where your undeniably combative tone is coming from. In any case, I find this discussion counterproductive; consider it closed. --Omnipaedista (talk) 08:55, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry accusations

Thank you for informing me about the accusation of sockpuppetry. I think I can explain what is going on, but I need the Ip address of the other user. Could you please provide me with it on my talk page? Please let me know as soon as you can whether or not you can do this. Thanks again! Toolen (talk) 01:14, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Please read WP:CHK. --Omnipaedista (talk) 05:32, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Pronunciations

Can you please not add IPA to articles where the pronunciation is intuitive? There's no point to it and it disrupts the flow of the article. Wereon (talk) 11:56, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

There is no such thing as "intuitive" pronunciation in English. Collins English Dictionary and Random House Webster's Unabridged Dictionary give IPA transcriptions for all kinds of notable surnames. I only omit transcription in cases where surnames are common nouns. --Omnipaedista (talk) 12:13, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

"Where surnames are common nouns": Actually, there is no predictability even then: [1]. --Omnipaedista (talk) 17:48, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Revamp of Outline of thought underway

I saw that you edited this outline recently. Please take a look and comment on how it can be further improved, or jump in and improve it directly.

Any and all feedback is appreciated. The Transhumanist 01:01, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Ionian school (philosophy)

In case you haven't seen them, could you check the latest edit to Ionian school (philosophy) changing a Greek word from Aristotle to another word? Thanks. CorinneSD (talk) 03:50, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

The edit was unconstructive. Thanks for notifying me. --Omnipaedista (talk) 17:52, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Paideia

If you have time, could you review the latest sets of edits to Paideia? Thanks. CorinneSD (talk) 04:10, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Nastaʿlīq script

Shouldn't the latest edit to Nastaʿlīq script be reverted? I believe all headings in WP articles should be in English, right? CorinneSD (talk) 00:49, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Culture of Hungary

An editor with a red user name (does that mean he is unregistered?) made a few edits to Culture of Hungary. It is possible that this editor is knowledgeable, and I would hate to discourage a potentially helpful new editor, but the edits appear to be unsourced. I tried to extend a welcome on the user page, but didn't find the option on my Twinkle menu as I used to. What is the best course of action: revert the edits as unsourced, add a "citation needed" tag, at least to the last edit, or leave a note on the editor's user or talk page? Do you want to do one of those? CorinneSD (talk) 01:31, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Sulawesi

An IP editor added "Celebes" to the etymology section of Sulawesi. Now the verb ("comes") is in the wrong form. The etymology ("sula" and "besi") seems to refer more to "Sulawesi" than "Celebes", but I'm wondering if the editor may perhaps be right that both "Sulawesi" and "Celebes" derive from "sula" and "besi". What do you think? CorinneSD (talk) 22:11, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

The English word pilot comes from Italian piloto from Old Italian pedoto from Ancient Greek πέδον pedon. Yes, it is technically correct to say that "pilot" comes from "πέδον"; however, this is not common lexicographic practice. The article says explicitly that "Celebes" comes from "Sulawesi." Repeating this piece of information when providing the etymology of "Sulawesi" is redundant and against common lexicographic practice. --Omnipaedista (talk) 16:39, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

O.K. Thanks for the explanation. CorinneSD (talk) 19:48, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

D. S. Senanyake

I saw an edit to D. S. Senanayake, and realized that, besides mentioning the source in the text, it was not sourced properly. I decided to offer a welcome to the IP editor. Then I left a short note on the editor's talk page that the edit appeared to be appropriate but needed to be referenced properly. Then I went back to the article and realized that the quote was two paragraphs long, which I hadn't noticed earlier. I'm wondering whether the quote is not too long. Perhaps just the first paragraph would be enough, or even just part of the first paragraph. I don't want to discourage this new editor. What do you recommend? CorinneSD (talk) 22:32, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Silk

I have just finished reading the article on Silk. I made a number of copy-edits to fix punctuation, improve sentence flow, insert missing words, etc. I have a few questions. Perhaps when you're not too busy you might be able to answer them:

1) In the Silk#Etymology section, I wonder if the formatting is correct. (I left a note about this on Florian Blaschke's talk page about this, but I'll leave one here, too.) The Old English and Greek words are in regular font, and the English word "silken" is in italics. Is that correct?

Fixed it per MOS:Ety. I employed quotation marks for glosses per standard Wikipedia practice.

2) In the section on Silk#India, I wonder why there is reference to China in the middle of the first paragraph. If it is to show competing claims to the earliest production, I think that could be expressed more clearly, don't you?

I find it quite clear as it is, to be honest.

3) In the section Silk#Medieval and modern Europe, I think some of the paragraphs were written by a non-native speaker of English. I fixed some of the sentences, but there is one that doesn't sound quite right, but I'm not sure how best to fix it. It's the third paragraph. Does the silk exchange "dramatically illustrate the power and wealth of one of the great Mediterranean mercantile cities"? Also, why the mention of the trading of percale in one single year?

I made some minor punctuation corrections.

4) In the gallery at the end of that same section, the caption under the fourth picture, of a men's tie, doesn't sound right. Can you fix it?

Done.

5) There is a photo of a woman wearing a traditional Vietnamese silk bra. In my screen, it is next to the section Silk#North America. (a) Why is it next to the section on North America, and (b) do you think it is an appropriate or helpful image for the article?

Everything's fine with this photo.

6) In the section Silk#Properties, in the sub-section Silk#Physical properties, do you think the first two sentences are a little too technical for a WP article?

Nope, not really.

7) In the section Silk#North American, I saw two uses of "US" as an adjective. I changed one to "in the United States". I changed the other to "U.S.". I don't know if you are from the U.S. or not, but in the U.S., the abbreviation for "United States" always has periods after the "U" and the "S". Also, it is not very often used as an adjective. We almost always use "American" -- as in "American manufacturing". Is it Wikipedia policy not to use "American" as an adjective? Is it for fear of offending residents of the other North American countries (Mexico and Canada) and residents of Central and South America? As far as I know, they do not use "American" or "Americana/o" as an adjective to describe much of anything except things from, and citizens of, the United States. So why not use "American" to describe things from the United States? I don't get it.

Some writers use the phrase "U.S.-American" for fear of offending residents of the other North American countries. On Wikipedia we just say "American." Indeed, the abbreviation for "United States" always has periods after the "U" and the "S".

Well, thanks in advance for any time you spend on this. CorinneSD (talk) 01:10, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the notification. --Omnipaedista (talk) 01:38, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for getting to these questions so quickly, and thank you for your edits. CorinneSD (talk) 01:50, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

(outdent) I don't understand why an editor (with a red user name) deleted some information about the traditional method of processing silk and the method used in making "peace silk" from the article on Silk. Would you revert with an edit summary saying "Unexplained removal of content"? CorinneSD (talk) 18:57, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

I see this has been taken care of by another editor. (Sorry about having created a new section; I had forgotten there was already a section entitled "Silk".) CorinneSD (talk) 01:17, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation page for Khorasan

Do you agree with the latest edits to the disambiguation page for Khorasan? CorinneSD (talk) 00:26, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes. Please see this. --Omnipaedista (talk) 00:41, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

O.K. Thanks. CorinneSD (talk) 01:15, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Of your user page (if you are not a comittee [remarked of Nicholas Rescher])

Well! --Thomasmeeks (talk) 11:06, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Cynocephaly

Do you agree with the latest edit to Cynocephaly, removing material with an edit summary saying, "Removing nonsense"? CorinneSD (talk) 16:03, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it should have been removed. --Omnipaedista (talk) 16:19, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm just curious how you knew to remove it. Was the source not a reliable one? (I have no interest in it either way. I just want to learn from you.) CorinneSD (talk) 16:36, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

It was unreliably sourced and slightly irrelevant. --Omnipaedista (talk) 16:51, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

O.K. Thanks. CorinneSD (talk) 17:29, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Westmorland

Do you agree with the change to the pronunciation guide in Westmorland? CorinneSD (talk) 00:05, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Recently an IP editor made an edit that violated Wikipedia conventions about English pronunciation transcriptions. I reverted it. Thanks for notifying me! --Omnipaedista (talk) 07:13, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Dante Alighieri

An IP editor just added what seems like a source in place of a "citation needed" tag at Dante Alighieri, but I'm not sure it's in the right format. CorinneSD (talk) 15:55, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Copyeditor's Barnstar
	You're doing a great job Editor2020, Talk 06:39, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Agathon

Why did you revert my adding (properly sourced) the subject’s most famous quotes (paraphrasing each other)? I’m close to incredulous as this doesn’t seem to be remotely controversial and regards such a relatively esoteric subject. These quotes are properly sourced and perhaps the only ones known to have been made and remembered by the subject; certainly far and away the best known. Don’t you think at the very least a note on the talk page would have been in order? Please advise. Thank youHistoryBuff14 (talk) 16:23, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

P.S., I just noticed that towards the bottom of the Agathon article there is an external source referenced to Wikiquotes which includes the quotation in question which is derived from Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics. It also includes a couple of others that I hadn’t been familiar with and are not as well known as the “Even God cannot change the past” quotation. Is that why you reverted my edit? Perhaps you thought it was redundant? If so, I believe the quotations (again, paraphrases of each other) deserve to be explicitly mentioned in the article (in a famous quotes section) because they are far and away the most familiar of the subject’s utterances.HistoryBuff14 (talk) 16:48, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

It is usually not a good idea to include a 'famous quotes' section in Wikipedia articles. Quotes should be reliably sourced (http://publicquotes.com/ is not a reliable source) and accompanied by commentary which should be itself reliably sourced. "Bare" quotes are Wikiquote material. --Omnipaedista (talk) 17:46, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Okay. I’ve never been involved in an edit war, and I certainly don’t feel strongly enough about this article to start now! It’s hardly the Israel-Palestine conflict or global warming. Nevertheless, I feel as though this addition is of value because this is one of those seemingly ubiquitous quotations that many people use without having the faintest idea of its derivation. (In fact, I used it myself in a short story I wrote and had no idea at the time who first said it.) Therefore, I thought it might be an epiphany moment for any who might stumble upon the article and think: “Oh, so that’s where it comes from!” I wasn’t aware that I used the seemingly somewhat bizarre source you link to in your reply. I had thought I used the Gutenberg Project. If you type in the quote on a search engine, you will find myriad sources for the quote beyond Wikiquote.

Just on the very off chance that the quote itself might offend your religious sensibilities (and if so, no disrespect intended), Thomas Aquinas wrote: “It’s a sin to state that God is not omnipotent because he cannot do the impossible."

Thanks for the reply and best regards.HistoryBuff14 (talk) 19:19, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I know it is a genuine quote. I added it myself on Wikiquote. [2] My objection was that you did not provide a reliable source. I will re-add it though; it is indeed a notable quote. --Omnipaedista (talk) 02:08, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. That’s uncommonly reasonable and thoughtful of you. Best regards.HistoryBuff14 (talk) 15:01, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Glosses

Please let me understand what you mean by "glosses", putting quotation marks for something that looks like simply a translation to me, nothing that would need a quotation, example Tamerlano. - I will not understand why you would unbold the original title of a work, such as Die Zauberflöte. Learning, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:17, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello. "Gloss" is a technical term in linguistics meaning "meaning." If a work of art is primarily known by its foreign name in English then its translation is not exactly a synonym (hence not covered by MOS:BOLDSYN) of the title of the work, it is just a translation. Translations are usually given in quotation marks. Regarding Die Zauberflöte: in practice MOS:FORLANG supercedes WP:R#PLA wikiwide. --Omnipaedista (talk) 11:22, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I am dealing with translations all the time, without quotation marks. I would probably have to add hundreds of them if I followed that. Why would I? Isn't it clear from the context that what follows a phrase in a foreign language might be the attempt of a translation? I thought quotation marks are there to mark a quotation. What is quoted in a translation? - For the Brockes Passion, I would like to know where the translation comes from because there's no equivalent for "story" in the German title. - Die Zauberflöte: if there are rules which don't permit to show the original title bold, then the rules should be changed or the article moved, for respect of the work's creators, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:51, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Regarding quotations marks see Gloss (annotation)#In linguistics; printed publications employ single quotations marks but Wikipedia prefers double quotations marks. What is ambiguous is whether an English title is merely a translation or a widely used English synonym of the title (not necessarily a translation) used in English-language publications. In order to make the difference explicit we usually mark translations by giving them in quotations marks, while we mark widely used English synonyms by bolding them. Regarding Brockes Passion: you are right; the English title is an English synonym. Regarding Die Zauberflöte: it is complicated. The MOS:FORLANG guideline is well-established and applied wikiwide. There seems to exist a debate in some articles though (especialy articles about works of art) concerning the relative priority of MOS:FORLANG on the one hand and WP:R#PLA/MOS:BOLDSYN on the other. The article should probably not be moved per WP:COMMONNAME. I would insist on the appropriateness of my edit. --Omnipaedista (talk) 22:28, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Of course The Magic Flute can't be moved from an all too common name to a name the creators gave the piece without a formal request. I won't do it, remembering Der fliegende Hölländer, the one and only stage work by Wagner under an English name. Così fan tutte here, The Magic Flute there, seems rather arbitrary and inconsistent, but changes take more time than I would afford, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:49, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I see that what was employed in The Flying Dutchman is satisfying. The lead section starts with the German title in boldface and gives in parentheses the English title also in boldface. This could be done also in the Zauberflöte article. --Omnipaedista (talk) 22:56, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

By the way, in the articles about Haydn's operas translations are indicated by italic face (see, e.g., L'anima del filosofo; but see also Der krumme Teufel). Italic face is an alternative way (though much less popular and more ambiguous, since all titles of works of art are written in italic face) to denote a gloss. Regarding Bach's cantatas, it would be unnecessary, I suppose, to mark glosses since it is well-known that Bach's cantatas have no synonyms in English, so the English titles are always mere translations. --Omnipaedista (talk) 23:11, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Flying Dutchman: you probably mean The Flying Dutchman (opera). What you call satisfying seems strange to me: to start the article with something different than the article name, almost admitting that something is wrong with the article name. I usually don't touch opera articles (any more) if I don't have to ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:11, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Dari language

I'm just curious why the long quote in the History section of the article on Dari language is in italics. Aren't block quotes usually in regular font? Also, do you think the quote itself is a bit long, or is it all right? CorinneSD (talk) 18:31, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Italic face is an alternative way (though much less popular) to denote a quote. Wikipedia prefers quotation marks (see also this essay: WP:QUOTE). Yes, the quote is a bit long, but I would not trim it down. --Omnipaedista (talk) 01:19, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Tyre, Lebanon

Is the category added yesterday to Tyre, Lebanon appropriate? CorinneSD (talk) 19:15, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Reverted it. --Omnipaedista (talk) 11:36, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

John Forbes Nash, Jr.

See recent edit at John Forbes Nash, Jr. that has been undone. Shouldn't that editor be warned? CorinneSD (talk) 18:36, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Kafka

The various pronunciations of Franz (and other given name variants) Kafka are in a footnote, intentionally so. What in my edit summary saying that did you not understand? If something might be added, in that footnote, please. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:29, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

You removed sourced information from the footnote and I restored it (the second time I put the source inline). --Omnipaedista (talk) 13:32, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, not intentionally, I missed seeing that it WAS in the footnote, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:42, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

No worries :) --Omnipaedista (talk) 13:43, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Need help

I just spent two hours reading and editing today's featured article, Murder of Leigh Leigh. Please read a comment I left a few minutes ago at User talk:Magioladitis#Murder of Leigh Leigh. As I've been waiting for a reply, there have been a few additional edits. Can you suggest any way for me to save all my work so it is not lost? CorinneSD (talk) 00:19, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

It has been pointed out to me that I must have been looking at a different article. M did not make edits to that article. But the issue I'm having is still there. CorinneSD (talk) 00:29, 19 December 2014 (UTC

It's been sorted out. Sorry to bother you. CorinneSD (talk) 17:36, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Macedonian cuisine

What do you think of the latest edit to Macedonian cuisine? CorinneSD (talk) 17:36, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Robert Grosseteste

I was looking at the latest edit to Robert Grosseteste in which an editor replaced quotation marks with square brackets. If the entire paragraph is indeed a quote, then I suppose double quotation marks around a phrase within it are not correct, but if the square brackets are not in the original material, then the are not correct, either. I tried to find the quoted paragraph in a source but was not able to. You're better than this than I am. I wonder if you feel like checking this. CorinneSD (talk) 19:06, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Words between square brackets are words that have been included or modified by the writer of the Wikipedia article. --Omnipaedista (talk) 23:30, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Seasonal Greets!

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2015 !!!

Hello Omnipaedista, May you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New year 2015. Happy editing, JudeccaXIII (talk) 21:52, 19 December 2014 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

Zuiderzee

Hello,Omnipaedista -- First, I'd like to wish you a happy holiday and a happy New Year. I'm reading the article on Zuiderzee. At the end of the first paragraph in Zuiderzee#History and disasters, there is a sentence that reads:

• The even more massive St. Lucia's flood occurred 14 December 1287, when the seawalls broke during a storm, killing approximately 50,000 to 80,000 people in the fifth largest flood in recorded history.

Just out of curiosity I clicked on the link at St. Lucia's flood and read the very first sentence in the article:

• St. Lucia's flood (Sint-Luciavloed) was a storm tide that affected the Netherlands and Northern Germany on 14 December 1287 (the day after St. Lucia Day) when a dike broke during a storm, killing approximately 50,000 to 80,000 people in the sixth largest flood in recorded history.

There is clearly a discrepancy there. Do you feel like looking into this and discovering which is correct? CorinneSD (talk) 19:02, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't have time to look further into this. --Omnipaedista (talk) 00:05, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Frisii

1) The last two sentences of the first paragraph in Frisii#Description are:

• Sea level rise and storm surges destroyed 900 000 hectares. 500 000 hectares were reclaimed since the year 1200.

Even though the figure of 2000 years is given two sentences before these, I still think a time frame should be given for these statements, don't you? The second sentence does say "since the year 1200", but does that mean right up to the present?

Also, what do you think of the format of "Note:...." just before this? Is that an appropriate way to express the information? CorinneSD (talk) 19:39, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

2) I'm confused about something in Frisii#The Frisiavones. In the last paragraph it mentions Theodor Mommsen's theory that the Frisiavones were the same as the Frisii. However, in the middle of the paragraph, his conclusions are indirectly questioned by saying, "However, his reasoning parsed the accounts of Tacitus and Pliny selectively:..." followed by specific examples of this selective reading. It is not clear to me who is stating that Mommsen's "reasoning parsed the accounts of Tacitus and Pliny selectively". The reference shows Mommsen's work was translated "with the author's sanction and additions" by William P. Dickson. Would it be the translator, Dickson, who would say that about Mommsen? CorinneSD (talk) 20:16, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

I fixed it. --Omnipaedista (talk) 00:05, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Saxons

I'm reading the article on Saxons and I have a question for you: in the last paragraph in the sub-section Saxons#Paganism (in the Religion section), it says:

• The Translatio S. Liborii remarks on their obstinacy in pagan ritus et superstitio (usage and superstition).

I'm just wondering whether "usage" is the best translation of ritus here. I thought perhaps "rites" or "religious customs" might work better. What do you think? CorinneSD (talk) 00:30, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

"Usage" is an alternative meaning of ritus. It seems to be a sourced translation. --Omnipaedista (talk) 00:05, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Thessaly

Hello, Omnipaedista -- I just wondered if you feel like moderating between the last two editors at Thessaly, or, if the IP editor is wrong, letting him/her know why. CorinneSD (talk) 21:01, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

I am sure that Alexikoua will eventually sort this out. --Omnipaedista (talk) 00:05, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

moving flag on Bitcoin

Hi Omnipaedista, I dont understand why you moved the flag for the lede on Bitcoin per WP:APPENDIX.--Wuerzele (talk) 06:35, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, wrong edit summary. I meant "per WP:LEAD". --Omnipaedista (talk) 10:44, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

T. E. Lawrence

Yesterday I read the article on T. E. Lawrence and made a few copy-edits yesterday and another one today. Today, I read the article on Dahoum, who is mentioned in the T. E. Lawrence article. I noticed that in the fifth paragraph in the section T. E. Lawrence#Middle East archaeology, it says:

• In 1913 Lawrence and Woolley brought Dahoum and the foreman Hamoudi back to Oxford for a trip.

But in the article on Dahoum it doesn't mention this. I'm wondering, since it appears to be sourced, if it can be added to the article on Dahoum. CorinneSD (talk) 17:56, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Also, I notice that the spelling of the location of Lawrence's archaeological work is consistently "Carchemish", including in that same paragraph I just mentioned, but also in that same paragraph it is spelled "Karkemish" once, perhaps because that is the Turkish spelling. Is that discrepancy in spelling all right, or should they all be "Carchemish"? CorinneSD (talk) 17:59, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

It appeared to be sourced but the source was a primary one (see WP:RS) and no page number was given (see WP:V). I removed the claim. --Omnipaedista (talk) 19:21, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

O.K. Thanks. CorinneSD (talk) 21:00, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome. --Omnipaedista (talk) 21:02, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

I hope you still have this article on your watchlist... CorinneSD (talk) 23:58, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Seleucid Empire

I was looking at the latest edit to Seleucid Empire in which an editor undid a revision by another editor who had changed "dynast" to "dynasty" thinking it was a typographical error. This undo was accompanied by an edit summary saying that "dynast" was correct even though archaic. I had never seen the word "dynast" so looked it up in Wiktionary. I see that it refers to a person (unlike "dynasty"), so it does fit there. The definition does not indicate that the word is archaic. I wonder, though, whether the word "dynast" is not too unusual for a Wikipedia article. WP articles are meant to be understood by the average reader, which includes young people, and I wonder whether the article would suffer if "dynast" where changed to "ruler" or something similar. CorinneSD (talk) 16:30, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I think that "dynast" (from Greek δυνάστης) is the most appropriate term here. --Omnipaedista (talk) 21:41, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Ahmad Hasan Dani

Hello, Omnipaedista! Happy New Year! Would you mind checking the latest edit to Ahmad Hasan Dani? An editor added what seems to be unnecessary repetition in some links. I would have simply reverted, but I wasn't sure about the link to the university. CorinneSD (talk) 00:11, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Kafka 2

Sister projects has Wikisource, English, which has German on the left. I don't think that is obvious enough to the general reader. You seem to disagree? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:19, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

(1) Usually, one can access the German Wikisource page via the English one. If you insist that the German Wikisource link should be included as especially notable I have no objections. (2) The link should be relocated to the external links section per WP:APPENDIX. --Omnipaedista (talk) 19:02, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Cherub

I was just looking at the latest edit to Cherub. I thought the following sentence did not sound right:

• There were no cherubim in the Herodian reconstruction of the Temple, but according to some authorities, its walls were painted with figures of cherubim.

...There were no cherubim in the Herodian reconstruction of the Temple, but...its walls were painted with figures of cherubim.

Perhaps the second half of the sentence refers to an earlier version of the temple, before it was reconstructed. If this is correct, then the verb needs to be changed to "had been"

• There were no cherubim in the Herodian reconstruction of the Temple, but according to some authorities, its walls had been painted with figures of cherubim.

Even with this, it's not clear to what "its walls" refers to: the Herodian reconstruction or an earlier temple (presuming there was an earlier version) -- perhaps "the walls of the original temple...." Since I don't know the history very well, I'll defer to your judgment. CorinneSD (talk) 00:56, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

The source is Talmud - Mas. Yoma 54a: "it had painted Cherubim, as it is written". --Omnipaedista (talk) 13:10, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, it's much clearer now. Thank you. CorinneSD (talk) 17:28, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Psalm 32

OK, you are being bold and delete a lot of stuff from this entry. But why don't you just tell the REASONS why you feel that you have to be so bold? Is it rubbish, evangelical nonsense, or what? That would be more civil than just throwing a few W guidelines as justification. Yours, Super48paul (talk) 20:22, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I have already commented on the relevant talk page. I will make further comments soon. One problem—among others—with the version I reverted is that it was basically copypasted from a slanted and unscholarly source—James Luther Mays (1994), Psalms, Westminster John Knox Press (part of Presbyterian Publishing Corporation), pp. 145–7. A reliable source would be, e.g., The Oxford Bible Commentary, ed. John Barton, John Muddiman, Oxford University Press, 2001, p. 377. --Omnipaedista (talk) 20:55, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

OK, you have good reasons - that is all I want to be sure of! Yours, Super48paul (talk) 07:18, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Das Schloss

Let me understand why you removed bolding the redirect from the original title, please. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 00:11, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

MOS:FORLANG supercedes WP:R#PLA wikiwide. --Omnipaedista (talk) 07:24, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Landscape

A few of us have been discussing a re-working of the article Landscape. See Talk:Landscape#Discussion from my talk. One, User:Zaereth, has begun the trimming that was discussed, which I applaud. I'm wondering whether you would like to write a section or two such as "Landscape in (or and) geography", "Landscape in (or and) history", or "Landscape in (or and) military history". If you have any other ideas for creating a better article, please feel free to add them to the discussion. CorinneSD (talk) 00:23, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Not my forte, sorry. --Omnipaedista (talk) 07:24, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Paideia 2

I was looking at the latest edit to Paideia in which an editor changed the word "idea" to "concept" in this sentence:

• Greek paideia is the concept of perfection, of excellence.

I don't know which word is better, but I noticed that the heading of that section is The idea of Paideia. The phrase "idea of paideia" is not found in the article. I don't know what you think about that. Perhaps there should be some consistency.

Two further concerns:

1) In that heading, "Paideia" is capitalized. Do you think it needs to be capitalized? It's not capitalized in the text.

2) The first sentence in that section is:

• The Greeks considered paideia to be carried out by the aristocratic class, who were said to have intellectualized their culture and their ideas; the culture and the youth are then "moulded" to the ideal of kalos kagathos, "beautiful and good".

I don't think that is a good way to start off the section. I think that what paideia is (or was), or what Greeks thought it was, even if just in summary, should come first, then the information that it was "carried out by the aristocratic class" (I'm not sure that is the best way to express even that) can follow. I also think "who were said to have..." is rather impersonal and vague. Who said (or thought) this, and when? That part of the sentence is in past tense. The second half of the sentence switches without explanation to present tense. I think it is not a well-worded sentence. Since you know the subject matter, perhaps you can improve it. CorinneSD (talk) 21:13, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Rothorpe has taken care of the first issues. I put a "2" after "Paideia" in this section heading because, as Rothorpe discovered, there is an earlier "Paideia" section farther up. CorinneSD (talk) 23:51, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I have made an attempt at improving the wording. At some point, this section should be rewritten all over again. --Omnipaedista (talk) 00:14, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Order of St. Benedict

An editor has made a number of edits to Order of St. Benedict. Most look all right, but I wonder about the punctuation for the year of birth for a person who is still living. I don't know what the proper punctuation is, but I thought I had seen it like this: (1966- with no close parenthesis, and this editor has added the close parenthesis, so that it is now: (1966-). I wondered if that were correct. CorinneSD (talk) 19:06, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Please see MOS:DOB. --Omnipaedista (talk) 17:01, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

I read MOS:DOB but didn't seen an example of the year of birth of someone who is still living. CorinneSD (talk) 18:59, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

"For a person still living: Serena Williams (born September 26, 1981) is a ..., not (September 26, 1981–) or (born on September 26, 1981)". --Omnipaedista (talk) 15:41, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I guess I should have supplied a link to the specific edit. I was referring to this: [3] and the one following it. CorinneSD (talk) 18:45, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Mount Circeo

I was reading the article on Mount Circeo and I made a few minor copy-edits. I came across a sentence that puzzled me. It's in the middle of the last paragraph in the section Mount Circeo#Ancient Roman times. Here it is:

• The beetroot and oysters of Peirce had a certain reputation.

I searched both "Peirce" and "Pierce" on WP and found nothing. Does this sentence belong here? If so, what is "Peirce"? CorinneSD (talk) 00:10, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Age of Enlightenment

I was reading the article Age of Enlightenment. I came across a sentence that looks like a quote, but there are no introductory words indicating who said it. I tried to find it in the book in the reference but couldn't access it. I wonder even if the open quotation marks are in the right place. If you have time, could you check this? It's in the fifth paragraph in the section Age of Enlightenment#Use of the term. Here is the sentence:

• "For Kant, Enlightenment was mankind's final coming of age, the emancipation of the human consciousness from an immature state of ignorance."

- CorinneSD (talk) 19:25, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

The quote is sourced. --Omnipaedista (talk) 15:53, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Etruscan civilization

Hello, Omnipaedista -- I was just looking at Etruscan civilization, and I came across a sentence that I was thinking about re-wording to improve clarity and conciseness, when I realized that something didn't sound right. It is this sentence, which appears in the middle of the Etruscan civilization#Military section (one paragraph):

• Like many ancient societies, the Etruscans conducted campaigns during summer months, raiding neighboring areas, attempting to gain territory and combating piracy as a means of acquiring valuable resources, such as land, prestige, goods, and slaves.

1) I paused at "and combating piracy". Wouldn't "and committing piracy" make more sense?

2) "attempting to gain territory" is presented as one of three participial phrases, but it sounds an awful lot like "combating/committing piracy as a means of acquiring...land". Isn't there a bit of repetition there?

I was thinking of breaking this long sentence up into two clauses:

• Like many ancient societies, the Etruscans conducted campaigns during summer months: they raided neighboring areas in an attempt to gain territory and combated/committed piracy as a means of acquiring valuable resources such as land, prestige, goods, and slaves.

Or something like this. (How would committing piracy yield land?) CorinneSD (talk) 00:47, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

The article seems fine to me as it is. --Omnipaedista (talk) 15:53, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Tyre, Lebanon

I was just looking at the latest edits to Tyre, Lebanon. I don't know about the last one, but the one before it, [4], looked odd: "...the antique stoic school of thought". Antique? CorinneSD (talk) 01:17, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I fixed the sentence. --Omnipaedista (talk) 15:53, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Yazata

I just wondered if you consider these edits [5] to Yazata an improvement. CorinneSD (talk) 20:58, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it is an improvement. I will look into the other articles you mentioned above as soon as I can. --Omnipaedista (talk) 14:54, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Pronunciation

Hi, just noticed that some of your edits are coming under attack by ‎87.7.117.61 (and also some abuse). Regards Denisarona (talk) 07:15, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up! ----Omnipaedista (talk) 18:55, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Tirgil34 SPI

This message has been sent to you to inform you that a case involving Tirgil34 has been filed at SPI, and it has come to my knowledge that you may have prior history with this user. As such, your input may assist with the case. That case can be found at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tirgil34.

Tacitus

I'd appreciate your opinion on recent edits to Tacitus. Please see User talk:Rothorpe#Tacitus. CorinneSD (talk) 23:06, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Forget this. It bloomed into a long discussion on the talk page, and now seems to have been resolved. CorinneSD (talk) 21:30, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Carrara marble

I was looking at the article on Carrara marble when I came across a sentence that didn't sound right, but I don't know how to fix it. It is in the middle of the Carrara marble#History section:

• The city of Massa, in particular, saw much of its plan redesigned (new roads, plazas, intersections, pavings) in order to make it worthy of an Italian country's capital.

It's the last part that sounds wrong: "worthy of an Italian country's capital". Can you figure out what it is supposed to say, and fix it? CorinneSD (talk) 21:09, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Transylvanian Saxons

Hello, Omnipaedista -- If you have time, would you review this edit to Transylvanian Saxons, as well as the subsequent edit? [6] I don't know if the added material is appropriate, but I saw some problems such as uncapitalized "catholic" and "daco-romanian", and the second of these two edits seemed to contain a personal point of view. CorinneSD (talk) 17:59, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

P.S. I notice you have not been very active on WP recently. I hope you're doing all right, and that you will return to editing soon. Best regards, CorinneSD (talk) 18:01, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	Thank you for adding pronunciation (IPA) guides to so many articles. Many people will use these. Thank you for all your hard work! Hello! This is my userpage, this is my talk page. Got it? 19:25, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Divine Comedy

I thought you might be interested in this well-written comment at Talk:Divine Comedy#Title in opening sentence. After I read it, I saw in the recent Revision History that there has been a lot of back-and-forth on this between User:Deor and an IP editor beginning with this edit: [7]. I wonder what you think and whether Deor could use some support. CorinneSD (talk) 17:13, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Life Is Real Only Then, When 'I Am'#Consensus check

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Life Is Real Only Then, When 'I Am'#Consensus check. Thanks. - MrX 22:44, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Precious again

cleanup
Thank you, editor who loves singing and knows languages and alphabets, for your tireless service cleaning up after me/us everywhere internationally as the good spirit of the MOS, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:22, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

A year ago, you were the 820th recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:40, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Invite

A Barnstar!

Please participate There's a voting going on here. It needs to close, but consensus is not certain. We need more participation. The issues can't remain without a resolution. Please, check it out. Closure of the discussion has started. (refresh) Please, hurry. 78.149.193.255 (talk) 16:25, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Joshua Hoffman for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Joshua Hoffman 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/Joshua Hoffman 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 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. Edcolins (talk)

Bold on quotation marks

Thanks for removing bold from quotations marks in the lead per WP:OPENPARA (I didn't know). SLBedit (talk) 12:21, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Van

Did you realize that you directed me to a page that contradicts your argument as does tussenvoegsels? When the first name is omitted the tussenvoegsel is capitalized. Rmhermen (talk) 20:03, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

You are referring to this, I assume. I shouldn't have directed you there. But I insist on the appropriateness of my edit. The 'van (Dutch)' article mentions the capitalization rules of the Dutch language. Those capitalization rules do not apply in English as far as I know. --Omnipaedista (talk) 14:36, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

I just discovered Capitalization#Special cases. I reverted my edit. Thanks for pointing this out. --Omnipaedista (talk) 17:12, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Various Authors

Yes, I know the link was to the Various Artists deletion discussion. I should have spelled it out in more detail that I think Various Authors is a less significant concept with no good article to redirect to. Can I reprod with more information or would you oppose any prod? If the latter, I'll start an AfD. -- Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 20:23, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

I would oppose prodding this page. Please start an AfD. --Omnipaedista (talk) 15:05, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Glossary of Operations Research

A tag has been placed on Glossary of Operations Research requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section R2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect from the article namespace to a different namespace except the Category, Template, Wikipedia, Help, or Portal namespaces.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Stefan2 (talk) 15:51, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Content Dispute, Please take a look

Hello,

Your neutral opinion on the content dispute currently on-going at Hadith and Criticism of Hadith will be appreciated. The discussion thread is at: Talk:Hadith#Recent_cleanup_of_huge_chunks. The main issue is the material sourced from Wael Hallaq's paper, sourced from JSTOR, but is also available at: http://www.globalwebpost.com/farooqm/study_res/islam/fiqh/hallaq_hadith.html

Thanks. cӨde1+6 ^LogicBomb! 15:52, 21 November 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) 13:51, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

I missed it

What precisely did you change in this edit? Debresser (talk) 18:37, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

The standard Wikipedia style is this: (1) the foreign language term transliterated to the Latin alphabet, (2) the name of the language from which the term originates, (3) the term written in the original foreign language script, (4) the gloss of the term in quotation marks. –Omnipaedista (talk) 19:00, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Oh, now I got it. Debresser (talk) 21:30, 6 December 2015 (UTC)