User talk:Gilgamesh

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

Talk Archives[edit]

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Active

Romanization of Hebrew, table[edit]

Sorry, for asking you this although I am not sure whether it's your work.

Is there really an official Academia transliteration of dhet, namely d with line below (the same as for dhalet)? I only know the transliteration z with dot below. It is used for the arabic equivalent of ط : ט with a dot: ظ transcribed ẓ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.178.82.215 (talk) 14:44, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, ظ is a dental fricative, not an alveolar one, and is transcribed ẓ for Arabic out of convenience, not out of true description. Since Hebrew doesn't pronounce the emphatic consonants differently, dhalet and dhet are the same. - Gilgamesh (talk) 21:54, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Yes, Hebrew does not pronounce them differently, but both letters are only used for transscriping non-Hebrew words.
And I still would like to know whether this is just a common Israeli transcription or one published by the Academia. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.178.81.148 (talk) 06:10, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I know they're only used for words of non-Hebrew origin. As for its commonness...I honestly don't know. o.o I'm not a native Hebrew speaker. - Gilgamesh (talk) 11:43, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Jumblatt[edit]

Info talk.png

Category:Jumblatt, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Cgingold (talk) 20:00, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Korean list deleted?[edit]

I am only asking one person, I'm not canvassing.

Is this [1] post accurate?

I thought this was an easy delete, but according to wikisource (the wikipedia article about wikisource, since I wanted a 1 minute summary of all its policies and guidelines)--and lo and behold, it says...

Wikisource is an online library of free content textual sources, operated by the Wikimedia Foundation. Its aims are to harbour all forms of free text, in many languages. It also provides translation efforts to this end.

The last sentence is pretty confusing to me, and now I regret my post to jkb's talkpage. I'm confused and I know that discussion will never exist because wikisource has a deletion discussion about once per month, so its not going to get noticed, will just be deleted without any "trial or deliberation" and I already backed his decision, but now I feel its a big mistake.

LeeJaedong (talk) 18:10, 22 February 2009 (UTC) (click on my username for the soon-to-be deleted list)

Exactly what are you talking about? I gave the list maybe one or two edits. They were big edits, but I actually whipped up a quick Java program to generate all the additional readings, and pasted the results to the edit. I'm not heavily involved in that page. - Gilgamesh (talk) 02:09, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Maar volcanoes[edit]

Info talk.png

Category:Maar volcanoes, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Cgingold (talk) 02:16, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Heya ^_^[edit]

I happened to come across your answer to the subject I'd raised on the Hebrew phonology article talk page. Then I came across your userpage, and found you quite interesting. So, mind adding me to your MSNM, if you have one? Mine's seto1@walla.co.il. Thanks =3 Siúnrá (talk) 17:40, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Hiatus[edit]

Hi there, what do you think would be a good way to explicitly point out in IPA that a two vowel string is disyllabic and not a diphthong? Can one use the same underdot diacritic used for syllabic consonants, [u̩i̩]? Dan 11:17, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

The period character is used for syllable breaks of any kind. [u.i]. - Gilgamesh (talk) 18:14, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks! Dan 20:43, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Sure. Though it's common to use "." between every syllable break, I believe it is permissible to use it only where a syllable break would otherwise not be obvious. Also, if the following syllable is stressed primarily or secondarily, you don't use the period, but instead a stress mark, e.g. [uˈi] or [uˌi]. Use [u.i] if [i] isn't stressed. - Gilgamesh (talk) 21:33, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks again! Dan 00:07, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Diamond mines as volcanoes[edit]

Are you just being bold here, or was there a prior discussion somewhere about classifying diamond mines as volcanoes? I can't see any definition of "volcano" on-wiki or off that would include Jagersfontein Mine, the Big Hole, or others you've recently tagged. These are manually-excavated holes, not areas where magma has been expelled. --DeLarge (talk) 15:00, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

No, I wasn't being bold. You see, these particular mines are mostly kimberlite pipes, which are a type of volcanic pipe, which are a type of diatreme, which are a type of volcano. They are very old volcanoes, often a billion years old or older with no modern tendency to erupt. Please read up on the subjects. I didn't include every diamond mine, because some diamond mines are from ancient alluvial (river) deposits—I only included the mines that were specifically mentioned to have mined from a diatreme. In fact, the majority of naturally-occurring diamonds on earth come from diatremes. - Gilgamesh (talk) 20:06, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm aware of how diamonds are formed and delivered to the surface, thanks. My original point remains; that I don't see any on- or off-wiki definition of "volcano" that includes the diamond mines. Prehistoric volcanic activity ≠ volcano. If you want to categorize these mines as diatremes within the larger volcano category that's fine, but categorizing the mines themselves as volcanoes—classifying Jagersfontein Mine as the same as Prince Edward Islands—seems very misleading to me, and not consistent with the rest of Wikipedia's material on the subject. I'm going to post at WP:WikiProject Volcanoes for wider input. Scratch that, someone else already has. --DeLarge (talk) 11:13, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

On a related not, what's with slapping "Volcanoes of the Lake District" on any hill in the area composed of volcanic material? This is just daft. None of these are volcanoes. Yes, the area was an Ordovician island arc and back arc terrane, but the actual volcanic edifices are long gone by now. What you see remaining are glaciated plugs and flows that bear very little relationship to the original volcanic architecture. These are not volcanoes. Vast tracts of Quebec and Ontario are composed of bimodal, arc/back-arc volcanic rocks, so are we going to see Kidd Creek mine (where the terrain is flat and swampy, believe me) classed as a "Volcano of Northern Ontario"? Of course not. Unless you can come up with some pretty robust references for this, in fairly short order, I'll be putting the whole category, and probably its parent categories, up for deletion at CfD. Pyrope 13:46, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

No. This has been discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Volcanoes. It doesn't matter how old a volcanic remnant is or how ground into the crust it is. And yes, we even discussed kimberlite mines and dike swarms. They go in, because they are still volcanoes, no matter how old and extinct. Please take the discussion there. By the way, Kidd Mine is now categorized as a Volcano of Ontario. It's been for several days, at least. It was part of the discussion. So was the Mackenzie Dike Swarm. It's all volcanism and it goes in. We discussed even changing the category names from "Volcanoes of" to "Volcanism of", but "volcanoes" stuck because even if many lay people might not associate them with volcanoes, they are still technically volcanic remnants. A volcano is a volcano, whether it erupted yesterday or two billion years ago. It doesn't matter whether it's a nice cone shape, or if it's been twisted and contorted by tectonic and sedimentary forces and even completely converted to pancake-flat serpentine-like metamorphic rock like with greenstone belts. It doesn't matter. For volcanology studies, it's still important to document and categorize these remnants in a manner that makes them easy to find. - Gilgamesh (talk) 16:04, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Life is far too short to wade through a huge argument like that. Just give me the condensed version of your position. My problem is that you are confusing the terms "volcano" and "volcanic". The dictionary definition, and the widely understood public understanding of the term, is that a volcano is "a mountain or hill, typically conical, having a crater or vent through which lava, rock fragments, hot vapor, and gas are or have been erupted from the earth's crust." (New Oxford Dictionary) It is a noun, an object, a thing. Birker Fell is not a volcano. It is composed of volcanic rocks. This is a very different thing! We are a general interest encyclopedia not a resource for volcanological studies. If you include a hill in a category called "Volcanos of..." a lay person is going to think that that particular object was itself a volcano. The same goes for all of the other fells of the Lake District. If you want to create a category called "Volcanic rocks of the Lake District" then Birker might go into that. Alternatively, if you want to include the whole Lake District in a category "Volcanoes of England" then I wouldn't have a problem. But what you have done is nuts. An individual kimberlite pipe might be classed as a volcano, sure, but a hill formed from the eroded flows of some other volcanic edifice is not a volcano. Similarly Kidd Creek might be included in a category "Volcanogenic massive sulfide deposits of Ontario", it is certainly of volcanic origin, but it isn't a volcano. And you are wrong to include tectonised and metamorphosed materials in your argument. Once they stop being "a mountain or hill, typically conical, having a crater or vent through which lava, rock fragments, hot vapor, and gas are or have been erupted from the earth's crust." they stop being a volcano and are simply volcanic. Your category is misleading and extremely poorly applied. Pyrope 16:21, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Pyrop, your dictionary definiton is false. Sorry. An eroded volcano would likely not have a crater and not a volcanoes are mountains. Calderas and maars are not mountains and volcanoes do exist throughout Eastern Canada. Examples include Sturgeon Lake Caldera and Mount Pleasant Caldera, and ancient volcanoes like Sturgeon are likely not very noticible because of heavy erosion. What remains of this large caldera is lava domes, lava, pyroclastic flows etc. However, I am not familiar with any volcanoes around Kidd Mine. Those volcanic deposits were formed from hydrothermal vents during the Precambrian, not magmatic volcanoes as far as I'm aware of. Black Tusk (talk) 22:48, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
I replied at the WikiProject talk page. Please reply there. - Gilgamesh (talk) 16:29, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Category[edit]

Unless you would categorize all countries to "homophobia" or "homofilia" categories, I see no reason to make a single country an exception. Renata (talk) 12:11, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

And I guess with exception of 7 countries that recognize same-sex marriage, everybody else would end up in "homophobia" category. Or what would be the threshold? Renata (talk) 12:16, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, I didn't think that deeply. I was thinking of countries where it is considered particularly problematic—you know, where gay people live under particularly great misery and/or fear or death. But I suppose you're right that a more concretely objective threshold may be necessary. - Gilgamesh (talk) 13:22, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Mt Fuji[edit]

Please see talk page discussion -- diff. --Tenmei (talk) 15:44, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Cut and paste category moves[edit]

I see you're busy changing the "Volcanoes of <period>" categories to volcanism ones. I have no objection to moving them, and I admire your industriousness, but I think the way you moved them (through cut and paste moves) leaves us with a problem. It loses their edit history, which we need to retain to comply with the GFDL. I'll list them at the cut and paste move repair holding pen for admin attention. In the meantime, I'd suggest not editing the new or old ones further (except perhaps to remove the {{empty}} tag), so that the repair job is kept as simple as possible. -- Avenue (talk) 02:02, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

It's not that simple. There is no "Move" button for categories. If there was, I would have done that in the first place. - Gilgamesh (talk) 02:04, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
If you check WP:REPAIR, you'll see that there's a technical limitation that categories cannot be moved. The only option left is to the cut-and-paste. - Gilgamesh (talk) 02:20, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes, there's no "Move" button for categories, but didn't you wonder why? The usual approach is to suggest the move at WP:CFD. I think this move is uncontroversial, so I am suggesting a simple repair rather than reversal/listing at CFD. -- Avenue (talk) 02:20, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
But how does that even work? - Gilgamesh (talk) 02:21, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
So, let me get this straight... I have to go through a bureaucratic request process for each and every category? I have a great deal of categories to move (no, I can't compile a great big list right now), and a lot of new ones to create. I work in bursts. If I have to constantly interrupt my work, it's going to feel like stop-and-go editing and it's going to take forever and I might burn out. I already almost quit over this daunting task ahead of me before it began. But I created most of these categories to begin with. If I can take care of them, then I should. But it helps to keep up a steady pace. - Gilgamesh (talk) 02:28, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry you've felt overwhelmed by this. I don't think it needs to be a demanding process, although it may require some patience - discussions run for a week, and perhaps a few days backlog for attention. You can suggest several related moves in the same request. -- Avenue (talk) 02:32, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Okay, but meanwhile I won't necessarily stop recategorizing articles, even if the equivilent categories don't exist just yet. If this kind of notification is important, I'll leave that detail to you. I need to focus on this the best that I can. I'll try to make it simpler—I'll try to link the categories in the edit descriptions and they'll appear neatly in my user contributions list. As of this writing, Category:Volcanoes by geochronology and all its subcategories are currently affected by the cut-and-paste I already did. - Gilgamesh (talk) 02:40, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Routine recategorising after a CFD decision is usually handled by a bot, so I don't think you'll need to do all this manually. But you can if you really want to. -- Avenue (talk) 02:49, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict) (copied from my talk page) If you check WP:REPAIR, you'll see that there's a technical limitation that categories cannot be moved. The only option left is to the cut-and-paste. - Gilgamesh (talk) 02:20, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
On reflection, you're probably right that that's not the best place to ask for help. I think admins can rename categories, but the people at WP:REPAIR are less likely to be comfortable doing this. Somewhere at CFD is probably better. I'll ask about the best approach. -- Avenue (talk) 02:41, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Ah, thank you for handling the category business. When the moving is complete, those geochronological volcanism categories that have Category:Extinct volcanoes will have to be switched to Category:Extinct volcanism. (Extinct volcanoes is a subcategory is Extinct volcanism.) I can do that—I just need to know when to do it. - Gilgamesh (talk) 04:00, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Well, it will take as least a week. That's assuming it gathers a consensus at CFD, of course. Thanks for holding off on further changes for now. -- Avenue (talk) 04:40, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Stop tagging inappropriate categories[edit]

Do not continue to tag Jamaican singers as homophobic. The topic has been more than extensively covered in their talk pages and appropriate articles (and far overblown). Are you going to tag every person on Wikipedia with strict religious morals as homophobic? No - do not stereotype Jamaican musicians. smooth0707 (talk) 01:49, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

We've had another discussion, at Category talk:Homophobia. Since the Stop Murder Music campaign, these artists have become visibly highlighted for their homophobic lyrics, including those lyrics which call for the killing of LGBT people. And we've come to a fairly good consensus at Category:Homophobia over what can be categorized as such as. And yes, it includes many religious people who use religious excuses to justify this. And yes, it even includes Leviticus 18 as it's one of the most widely invoked justifications for homophobia. Category:Homophobia has a FAQ in the works of what constitutes homophobia, based on the consensus principles of two independent sources—the European Union and the Yogyakarta Principles. - Gilgamesh (talk) 03:35, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
One thing that was reviewed extensively in the discussion, is that virtually no one applicable as homophobic or associated with homophobic violence wants to be thought of as such. Even the Ku Klux Klan denies being racist or homophobic. Homophobia is measured not only in ones words and works, but also in ones effects and visibility. Anita Bryant may claim she's not homophobic (at least anymore), but she's still heavily associated with homophobia. There are some major world religious leaders and politicians in the category as well. - Gilgamesh (talk) 03:44, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't care for things like revert wars. I strongly suggest you discuss the topic in Category talk:Homophobia where we've been discussing this in depth for quite some time. A consensus decision can deal with this. I'm trying to edit in good faith of what I understand to be the consensus rules-of-thumb formed there. Care to join the discussion? - Gilgamesh (talk) 03:52, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Wait, a "consensus" was reached over at Category:Homophobia by members of WP:LGBT? Wow, big surpise there {sarcasm}. Not one of these artists exhibits what I deem an "irrational fear," that is the point you seem to be missing. Quite rational IMO. I can't speak to the other bios b/c I am not involved in editing them. smooth0707 (talk) 13:46, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
I have reservations about your tone. We discussed the effects of homophobia, and came to a consensus that it doesn't have to be irrational to be homophobic in association, especially when the effects can be so destructive to rights and dignity of LGBT people. And I don't know if any of us were members of WP:LGBT or not. I'm not a member of it. We were discussing the applicability of the category. Please involve yourself in the discussion and the consensus process there, and without assailing the backgrounds and associations of the other editors and without dismissing the credentials of the category out of hand. I do concede that, as a gay man, I cannot reach a full POV on the issue by myself, which is part of why we have the Wikipedia consensus process. It's better to contrast different editors together than to approach everything alone. - Gilgamesh (talk) 21:28, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

great start for the BYU jerusalem center article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ninja247 (talkcontribs) 20:40, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

pataħ gadol[edit]

What's that? Cheers, Dan 11:51, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

It's a niqqud. - Gilgamesh (talk) 11:57, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 :-) yes I know that, what I'm not familiar with is the distintion between pataħ gadol and pataħ qatan: at school I learned that pataħ was a "tnu'a qtana", no variants. If I remember correctly. Dan 12:02, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Today pataħ never contrasts, that's true. But in the Middle Ages, in stressed or most open syllables, pataħ was long /ɐː/ (קין /qɐːjin/, בעל /bɐːʕɐl/, נחום /nɐːħuːm/, etc.). On the other hand, ħataf pataħ was short /ɐ/ no matter where it was. Since both long and short pataħ became /a/, the distinction between gadol, qatan and ħataf is pretty moot now. Though this wasn't the case with qamats, where qamats gadol usually evolved into /a/ and qamats qatan usually evolved into /o/. But the vowels ħiriq /i(ː)/, seggol /ɛ(ː)/, pataħ /ɐ(ː)/, qamats /ɔ(ː)/ and qubbuts/shuruq /u(ː)/ all could be either long or short historically. (Tsere /eː/ and ħolam /oː/ were always long.) - Gilgamesh (talk) 12:12, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
It's funny you should mention this, by the way. I've been working on a linguistics project over at Wiktionary where I transliterate Tiberian Hebrew in Latin script by only specifying which vowels are long or short. The word's stress pretty much always came on the last long vowel, wherever it was. This way, the long vowels are ī ē ẹ ạ ā ọ ō ū, and the short vowels (including the ħatafim) are i e a å o u. (In Tiberian vocalization, ā/ọ is /ɔː/ and å/o is /ɔ/. But and å are both much rarer than either ā or o, limited to a few situations like the name אוהליבמה Ọholībhāmā or final unstressed -å.) I transcribe shva na /ə/ as simply e because there is no context it can exist where seggol qatan or ħataf seggol can, and vice versa. - Gilgamesh (talk) 12:27, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Cool. So the last vowels in each of the words דָּבָר and גָּבַר were distinct, but both long? In school they taught us they were both /a/, one "big" and one "small", with the pataħ comprising an exception to the "closed stressed syllable → 'big' vowel"-rule. How they lied to us! ;-) Could you explain what distinction is made by the different diacritics in your transliteration: the underdot, the overdot and the macron? And by the way, is there any evidence at all that shva was ever pronounced ə in Hebrew? Dan 13:55, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
I'll level with you about shva. Probably not unanimously. In Tiberian vocalization, it was probably /ɐ/. The older Septuagint (which was translated by Hellenized Jews in some centuries B.C.E.) almost routinely uses α for shva. But in some later medieval traditions it was certainly /ə/. Anyway, by later medieval times, there were virtually no cases where a shva na/ħataf after a non-guttural wasn't pronounced shva, or where a shva na/ħataf after a guttural wasn't pronounced ħataf or defaulted to ħataf pataħ. Afterall, it's Mordekhay and Yoqne'am (not Mordokhay or Yoqno'am as they were written in niqqud), and it's Ħalaħ (not Ħelaħ as it was written in niqqud). Though I have a column based on medieval vocalization, it can actually be thought of more as high medieval where the vowels are concerned. As for the diacritics, underdotted vowels are for seggol gadol, pataħ gadol, or the very rare o-grade qamats gadol. Macron is for "normal" long vowels—ħiriq gadol, tsere, qamats gadol, ħolam, and qubbuts/shuruq gadol. As for an overdot...what overdot? Oh, and they didn't necessarily lie to you—pataħ could have very well been always-short for some centuries, as all vowels are short in several modern traditional varieties of Hebrew. But in a mora-timed language with long and short vowels and single and double consonants, you couldn't really get away with shortening vowels like that without changing a word's stress, unless the language had a Greek-style tonal accent. We know the Tanakh is sung (with the cantillation marks), but as for the old language having tone accents? I wouldn't know to venture. - Gilgamesh (talk) 22:18, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Well, I suppose that's not entirely true about changing a vowel's length without altering stress. It's possible in quite a few languages to be mora-timed and have strong stress accent that isn't necessarily tonal. I suppose you could consider some of the long vowels as being tonal vowels. But the biblical cantillation frequently used cantillation marks to show that a syllable vowel was long rather than otherwise predictably short. A few of them (like the meteg and accent marks) are still sometimes used for this purpose when teaching Masoretic Hebrew to students (like in one of the books I learned from, "Teach Yourself Biblical Hebrew"). - Gilgamesh (talk) 22:27, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Huh, on this screen, in bold, the little o over the å looks like a dot. Interesting, are there any theories as to what the phonetic realizations of all of these phonemes was? Does this mean there were actually more than two phonologically distinct vowel lengths? Are we talking about several geographically remote dialects? Is there an article here in Wikipedia talking about all this? Dan 18:04, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
My study is mostly Tiberian vocalization (which, last time I checked, describes the phonology), but I study bits and pieces of others. As for more than two vowel lengths...I actually kinda doubt it. The Tanakh treats matres lectionis almost like window dressing in some places, excluding it heavily from some books, and using it much more frequently in others. There are even a few places where vav is used for qubbuts qatan in an unstressed vowel before a doubled consonant (= shuruq qatan—I've seen both בֻּנִּי֫ and בּוּנִּי֫ for the common early Second Temple Period name Bunnī). I noticed that qubbuts and shuruq especially seem widely interchangeable in some places, with instances of qubbuts very clearly receiving cantillation emphasis and with instances of shuruq appearing no differently than ordinary qubbuts. Anyway, if there are more than two vowel lengths in the mora-timed language, it seems implausible to think that longer lengths are anything but allophonic with long vowels. And even if they are indeed phonemic, they seem wholly predictable in rhythm (which is practically allophony) - Gilgamesh (talk) 20:06, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the article. In classifying Hebrew vowels and their niqqud symbols, how commonplace in published work is the terminology "big – small – furtive / fleeting" as opposed to "long – short – ultrashort / very short"? I think maybe there would be a single set of terms here and personally I like "big – small – furtive / fleeting" better, since "long – short – ultrashort / very short" explicitly implies three (phonologically) distinctive vowel lengths, doesn't it? Dan 21:25, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm not fully convinced there is a meaningful difference between short and ultra-short other than context. (I didn't write most of that article.) There are two kinds of single morae—consonant-vowel, and just consonant. Short vowels are only longer in that they are followed immediately by a consonant—they are shut vowels. A shva or ħataf is one pure mora in length. A long/open vowel is two morae in length, which can be stretched to three or more as needed. For example, Yisrāʼēl is seven morae long, if you split it up as Yi-s-ra-a-ʼe-e-l. The word shəwā is three: shə-wa-a. Notice that shva na and shva naħ are of equal meter length, as they are with ħatafim and every short vowel. So, rather than saying "short" and "ultra-short", it might be better to say "short shut" and "short open", as that's the only real meaningful difference between them, with long or stressed vowels almost always being open. Long vowels could be shut at times, but Tiberian Hebrew was such that it was extremely rare to have a long vowel followed by more than one consonant, so adding a shva na (or an unstressed short segolate vowel) was practically routine. ʼĀsənạth, Nācərạth, gōren, bạyith, yạʻar, etc. Having a shva na was more predictable than not, so it's easier to learn the exceptions where this does not happen, like in certain words with penultimate stress like Miçrạymå (= "unto Egypt") ʼArtaħshạstå (Artaxerxes), and in names like Gērshōm, Yədhīdhyāh, ʼẠrd, etc. Tiberian Hebrew (with few exceptions) seemed to be allergic to clustering too many consonants at once or more than one consonant at the beginning of a word (even שתיים was ʼeshtạyim before it became later shtáyim—compare Arabic ʼithnān). Hm...I appear to have rambled a tad. - Gilgamesh (talk) 08:23, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Ancient history[edit]

Hi. A long time ago you contributed to Talk:Cow (disambiguation); the topic of that discussion has come up again. --Una Smith (talk) 14:23, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Disco[edit]

Sorry, my bad. Not having access to the referenced books I can't check for myself, but anyway, I guess it just looked like vandalism. But FYI, "rvav" is "revert apparent vandalism" ... but be careful, as I've also been known occasionally to use it to mean "revert accumulated vandalism". -- Smjg (talk) 19:50, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, the references are at least referenced, with the quoted text. They're verifiable. But yeah, disco has always been pretty gay at times. - Gilgamesh (talk) 19:55, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Templates for deletion nomination of Template:Arabiyyah[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svgTemplate:Arabiyyah has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Locos epraix ~ Beastepraix 15:52, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Re: Deletion[edit]

I quite agree, I've seen that term (Party of No) here and there as well. As it stood, though, it was an unsourced redirect to a non-obvious target, and some large portion of the population could easily take offense. If independent sources verify that the term is a valid nickname for the Republican Party, and if the Republican Party article discusses it in neutral fashion, then a redirect specifically to that section might be worthwhile - but not as it stood. Best, UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 13:39, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Affricates and Verner's Law[edit]

Hi, you seem to have been the one to add the section that proposes original affricates. This claim is on the extraordinary side (especially wrt. PIE *s) and really needs to be referenced. --Trɔpʏliʊmblah 16:28, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't have a reference on me, sorry. Do whatever you believe is necessary. - Gilgamesh (talk) 17:48, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Ivrit[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svgTemplate:Ivrit has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. RL0919 (talk) 01:50, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

WP Volcanoes[edit]

Hello. If you haven't noticed, I've started a structural reorganization of WikiProject Volcanoes. So far, I've beutified the head page and moved a lot of the stuff to subpages of the project, so as not to bulk the main page. As an active member of the project, this is just a notice about what's going on. Comments go on the talk page. Happy holidays, ResMar 14:08, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs[edit]

Information.svg Hello Gilgamesh! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 3 of the articles that you created are tagged as Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. Please note that all biographies of living persons must be sourced. If you were to add reliable, secondary sources to these articles, it would greatly help us with the current 1,943 article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the list:

  1. Sara (artist) - Find sources: "Sara (artist)" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images
  2. Marvin Goldstein - Find sources: "Marvin Goldstein" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images
  3. Ryuji Sasai - Find sources: "Ryuji Sasai" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 23:40, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Oyaji[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

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

Tagged with {{notability}} for over a year, seems to consist mainly of WP:OR and external links

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. — flamingspinach | (talk) 11:58, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Autoreviewer[edit]

Hi there, Gilgamesh.
I just thought I'd let you know, you have now made 296 articles on EnWiki. Would you like to apply for becoming an autoreviewer? Autoreviewer carries no obligation whatsoever, it simply reduces the workload of new page patrollers. You can apply here if you like. Autoreviewers usually have to have created 75 articles to get this feature, and you have nearly four times that number. Please consider. Thank you. --The High Fin Sperm Whale (TalkContribs) 21:41, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure. I've been editing since 2003, so it's been over a long period of time. I'm not entirely sure I have the time or discipline to be an autoreviewer... - Gilgamesh (talk) 01:42, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Autoreviewer does not take any work. It simply marks all your edits as patrolled. You don't need to do anything. --The High Fin Sperm Whale (TalkContribs) 02:01, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Would you like me to nominate you for you? Once you're an autoreviewer, you won't have to do anything. --The High Fin Sperm Whale (TalkContribs) 17:28, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
I read the description. I'm not certain, even after these years, that I have the most flawless grasp of notability. Several of the articles I've created have since been deleted as non-notable. Am I still a good candidate for this? - Gilgamesh (talk) 20:19, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I believe you do, because it's obvious that you are not going to put spam or pure vandalism pages up. Even if you don't qualify, you can still ask, they will just turn you down, and you will be no worse off then when you applied. I think you should go ahead. --The High Fin Sperm Whale (TalkContribs) 23:17, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Well, okay, you can nominate me. The worst I can do is go on one of my editing frenzies (mass-categorization of volcano articles, etc.). - Gilgamesh (talk) 00:05, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done Yep, I nominated you. Now we just have to wait until they decide... --The High Fin Sperm Whale (TalkContribs) 01:57, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Congratulations, Gilgamesh! You are now an autoreviewer. Just remember to add {{Autoreviewer}} and/or {{User wikipedia/autoreviewer}} to your userpage. --The High Fin Sperm Whale (TalkContribs) 02:41, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Semxlit[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svgTemplate:Semxlit has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)TCM☯ 07:15, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Miki Higashino[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Miki Higashino. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miki Higashino. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:09, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Nea Kameni[edit]

If I'm not mistaken, you added Nea Kameni to Category:Extinct volcanoes. I removed it, because Nea Kameni only erupted 60 years ago, and I don't think it is monogenetic, because it has had eruptions before the 1950 one. If you have any disagreement, feel free to inform me. Thanks --Guanlong wucaii 13:43, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Fine, okay. - Gilgamesh (talk) 20:17, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


Mount Lebanon Genocide[edit]

While I am appreciative of your interest in Lebanese history, I have to inform you of your mistaken belief that there was a Mount Lebanon Genocide. The Ottomans did not have naval forces blockading the area or intentionally starve the Mount Lebanese Christians. While the Ottoman province was blockaded, it was done so by the Allies as was much of the empire. Furthermore, while there was famines in the area, it wasn't an intentional thing but merely a consquence of the war. Also, the sources you provided to the page about the genocides, several don't work and two don't directly mention the Ottomans being responsible for the blockade, which make them very unreliable as sources if you plan to keep it up. :) I can state this with some authority as a Lebanese citizen who's family hails partially from Mount Lebanon (but mostly Balbak) and extensivly studies Lebanese and Middle Eastern history.

Besides that, you're a Liberal Mormon? Cool, I studied it a bit when I found out an American friend of mine was one. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by MrHashasheen (talkcontribs) 15:57, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

It was my Lebanese friend Joumana Medlej who told me about this years ago. When we realized there was no mention of it at the Mount Lebanon article, I dug for the information, and added the section and its sources. The two dead link sources could probably be recovered as links at the Wayback Machine. - Gilgamesh (talk) 16:09, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
I found the link for the first one.[2]. The other dead link is not on the Wayback Machine because it had a robots.txt exclusion and so was never archived while it was up. - Gilgamesh (talk) 16:13, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Oyaji[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg

I have nominated Oyaji, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oyaji. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. G-Flex (talk) 13:19, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Volcanoes_by_Volcanic_Explosivity_Index[edit]

Hi Gilgamesh,

I see that you have an interest in Volcanic Explosivity Index. You may be interested in contributing at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_April_22#Category:Volcanoes_by_Volcanic_Explosivity_Index. Could you comment on this? It is User:94.196.237.72 idea, his only contribution :s --Chris.urs-o (talk) 10:26, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Mt Eden, Auckland2.jpg[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg

A tag has been placed on File:Mt Eden, Auckland2.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:41, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:One Tree Hill, Auckland.jpg[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg

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

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:41, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

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

Ambox warning pn.svg

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

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

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

Ambox warning pn.svg

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

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

Iceland, categories[edit]

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

I apologize, I was going by this map. Could you assist me? - Gilgamesh (talk) 10:26, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Ohhhhhhhhhhh...I see my error. I'll change South to East. - Gilgamesh (talk) 10:29, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

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

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

Right, I think it is the bar that connects WVZ to the NVZ/EVZ line. Well, I "translated" the map from the french version. The french version of the map was drawn based on ("Surtsey Nomination Report 2007". Surtsey, Island. Retrieved 2010-03-30. , page 12), the map on the Surtsey Report is very similar to this one (T. Thordarson and G. Larsen (January 2007). "Volcanism in Iceland in historical time: Volcano types, eruption styles and eruptive history". Journal of Geodynamics 43 (1): 118–152. doi:10.1016/j.jog.2006.09.005. ). Thordarson (2007)'s map is based on (Jóhannesson, H.; Sæmundsson, K. (1998). Geologic Map of Iceland, 1:500,000. Bedrock Geology. Icelandic Institute of Natural History and Iceland Geodetic Survey, Reykjavík. ) as well. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 11:27, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I have this list (List of volcanoes in Iceland; Volcanic Zone, Volcanic System and Name of central volcano, Thordarson (2007)):
  1. RVZ, Reykjanes/Svartisengi, void
  2. RVZ, Krýsuvík, void
  3. RVZ, Brennisteinsfjöll, void
  4. WVZ, Hengill, Hengill
  5. WVZ, Hrómundartindur, void
  6. WVZ, Grímsnes, void
  7. WVZ, Geysir, void
  8. WVZ, Prestahnúkur, Prestahnúkur
  9. WVZ, Hveravellir, Hveravellir
  10. MIB, Hofsjökull, Hofsjökull/Kerlingarfjöll
  11. MIB, Tungnafellsjökull, Tungnafellsjökull/Hágöngur
  12. EVZ, Vestmannaeyjar (Westman Islands), void
  13. EVZ, Eyjafjallajökull, Eyjafjallajökull
  14. EVZ, Katla, Mýrdalsjökull
  15. EVZ, Tindfjöll, Tindfjöll
  16. EVZ, Hekla-Vatnafjöll, Hekla
  17. EVZ, Torfajökull, Torfajökull
  18. EVZ, Bárðarbunga-Veidivötn, Bárðarbunga/Hamarinn
  19. EVZ, Grímsvötn, Grímsvötn/Thórdarhyrna
  20. NVZ, Kverkfjöll, Kverkfjöll
  21. NVZ, Askja, Askja
  22. NVZ, Fremrinámur, void
  23. NVZ, Krafla, Krafla
  24. NVZ, Theistareykir, void
  25. ÖVB, Öræfajökull, Öræfajökull
  26. ÖVB, Esjufjöll, Snæhetta
  27. ÖVB, Snæfell, Snæfell
  28. SVB, Ljósufjöll, void
  29. SVB, Helgrindur (Lýsuskard), void
  30. SVB, Snæfellsjökull, Snæfellsjökull

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

Speedy deletion nomination of Yosha[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg

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

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

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

"Whoever" vs. "whomever"[edit]

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

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

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

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

You are now a Reviewer[edit]

Redaktor Wikipedia 600px.png

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

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

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

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

Categories Ketoy & Ekarma[edit]

Info talk.png

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

Kupaianaha[edit]

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

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

Samogitian language#Writing system[edit]

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


Nomination for deletion of Template:0ws

Ambox warning pn.svgTemplate:0ws has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)TCM☯ 08:38, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Abhiram[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

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

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

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

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

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

Joseph Smith and Communism[edit]

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

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

I think this is a misunderstanding based on confusion of the political system called Communism with the largely 19th-century phenomenon of Christian communism. See especially the pre-Marx section in Christian communism. Routerone, the academic community classifies the LDS historical practice of the law of consecration as a (lowercase c) communist system, so that's the applicable terminology even though it obviously makes a lot of LDS people uncomfortable because of the church's 20th-century teachings against (capital C) Communism. Hope this helps, alanyst /talk/ 17:31, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
I don't think anyone implied here that this form of Christian communism has anything to do with Karl Marx. Marx did not invent socialism—he just codified a certain atheistic form of it. There were all sorts of flavors of socialism in the 19th century and before, and many survive in various democratic forms (such as social democracy). Please read the relevant details at the articles for United Order, Christian communism#The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and so forth. As a personal note, I was raised LDS myself, and I've known about socialism in the history of the church for years. I am, in actuality, a socialist of the social democracy flavor. - Gilgamesh (talk) 19:16, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
According to EO,[3] the term "socialism" was invented in France in the mid-1830s, and if you look up "communism", you'll see it was also a French term dating to the 1840s. If you're going to call community-focused groups as "communist" or "socialist", you need to make it clear that it's historical retrofitting, and that those terms hadn't been invented yet. It would be a bit like claiming that Julius Caesar was Catholic. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:28, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
True, but...there are all sorts of terms today that didn't exist as such in the past, and lots of terms used in the past that are scarce or extinct in usage today. My orthodox understanding of the United Order is that it's a socialist system. This is the normal way it is described by my LDS family members. In a broad sense, socialism is a kind of communal structure with many flavors all over the world in many different time periods. It's where a society manages the community's welfare in a holistic collective manner, providing a safety net in lean times. That's exactly how the bishop's storehouse was conceived. - Gilgamesh (talk) 19:43, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Lots of early American communities were that way, as a matter of survival. The Amish still operate that way, i.e. working together and "looking out for each other". A better term for that is probably "communalism", since terms like socialism and communism have acquired much more narrow and specific meanings, and the careless use of those terms in articles could be a problem. To head out into left field for a comparison of language evolution, the term "gay" used to mean flamboyant, showy, effeminate, etc., and gradually came to mean specifically homosexual. Another term is "intercourse", which used to be simply a near-synonym for "interaction", but has since acquired a very specific meaning; but the general usage explains the existence of the town of Intercourse, PA... which, appropriately enough, is in or near the Amish region. So we have to be careful about terminology, as the average reader might not understand the subtleties. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:23, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
And obviously historians retrofit lots of things, except often (though not always) with less politically-charged terminology. The Battle of Hastings is part of the Norman Conquest, but I doubt very much that William I called it that. And World War I wasn't called World War I until World War II came along. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:49, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

ʻIolani Palace[edit]

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

List of landslides[edit]

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

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

Info talk.png

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

if you have the time, could you clarify if by "Hawaiian English" you really meant Hawaiian Pidgin (Hawaiian Creole English) which is where Hawaiian English goes, or as I suspect you meant "typography of Hawaiian language inteneded for English speakers" (e.g. with 'okina and kahko? Thanks. W Nowicki (talk) 00:03, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
The latter — typography. - Gilgamesh (talk) 17:11, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Nomination of Brock Samson for deletion[edit]

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

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

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

Merge discussion[edit]

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

Nomination for deletion of Template:Sindot[edit]

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

Nomination for deletion of Template:Hbrhemappiq[edit]

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

Nomination for deletion of Template:Hbrkhafs[edit]

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

Nomination for deletion of Template:Hbrzeremale[edit]

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

ga'ya → gaya[edit]

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

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

Yes, but isn't this more a transliteration than a pronunciation transcription? And on the other hand, the modern Hebrew pronunciation of the ayin in this case actually isn't silent, but an /a/, phonemically I'd transcribe the word /ˌga.aˈja/. Just "gaya" seems unsatisfying both ways. Dan 14:11, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Then "ga'ya" was inaccurate. If it's actually three syllables, it's "ga'aya". - Gilgamesh (talk) 19:43, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
It's all in the twilight zone between linguistic prescription, speakers' perception induced by it, and reality. Ayin and alef are often realized as syllabic vowels without consonants like /ʔ/ or /ʕ/. Some words are prescribed as standard with /ʔ/ or /ʕ/ followed by no vowel, sometimes because a subsequent vowel would cause contradictions in prescribed rules, e.g.
prescription reality subsequent vowel would necessitate
/maʕbaˈrot/ [4] מַעְבָּרוֹת /ma.abaˈrot/ מַעֲבָּרוֹת /maʕavaˈrot/ מַעֲבָרוֹת*
/heʕˈpil/ [5] הֶעְפִּיל /he.eˈpil/ הֶעֱפִּיל /heʕeˈfil/ הֶעֱפִיל*
/riʔˈjen/ [6] רִאְיֵן /ri.aˈjen/ רִאֲיֵן I don't even know
Dan 21:55, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Oh and yes, although /ˌga.aˈja/ is the way most Israelis pronounce the word, "ga'aya" is how most would transliterate it, just as /ma.abaˈrot/ is transliterated "Ma'abarot" here. The apostrophe transliterates the graphemes alef and ayin but phonetically (in reality) usually signifies the null onset of a syllable. The standard vowel pointing of our word is "גַּעְיָא", so:
  • "gaʿyá" transliterates the (prescribed) standard /ˌgaʕˈja/ most accurately, whereas
  • "ga'aya" is the way most Israelis would describe their (non standard) pronunciation (/ˌga.aˈja/) in English letters.
So what's your choice? Dan 23:16, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

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

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

Discussion at Family Research Council[edit]

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

Atolls etc[edit]

Hi, I have been fixing a lot of problems caused by your edits over the last couple of days to various atolls, including but not limited to:

The total number of articles involved has (so far) been about double this. They have been appearing in the category of Pages_with_missing_references_list because the articles do not have a {{reflist}} or <references/> tag. Would it be possible for you to ensure that this detail is included before you move on to the next page? Also, please could you cite correctly as the barelink citation format you have used is susceptible to linkrot and pretty meaningless - WP:CITE has more information. Thanks - Sitush (talk) 06:52, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I have some communications deficits when it comes to switching between my savant ability (such as linguistics entries) and actually forming meaningful thoughts and sentences. I can see if I can add reflists to some of them, but I thought the links to dictionary pages were sufficient. - Gilgamesh (talk) 07:01, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
I think that I understand. However, adding the link is not sufficient if nobody can see it (which they cannot without a reflist etc). And adding a link that appears as a [1] even when a reflist is present is both meaningless &, as I said, liable to linkrot, hence the policies/guidelines on the subject. Since you are at present referencing one particular dictionary, perhaps you could just cut-and-paste the relevant link into your edits. This would save you - and everyone else - some work. I can provide you with the cut-and-paste cite if you need it, and it will be better than the one on the pages because I used a tool to generate those. - Sitush (talk) 07:20, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Gilgamesh. Sitush asked me to provide my input on these matters. Let me start by saying that there are basically 2 different issues here, one of which is really important, the other of which isn't.

  • Adding the "reflist". What Sitush is referring to is that whoever adds the first reference to an article has to add a thing called a "reflist" to the bottom of that article. If you don't, then reference you added isn't visible. To see what I mean, take a look at the page for Namdrik Atoll right after you added the dictionary reference: [7]. In the first paragraph, you can see the superscript 1 indicating the reference you added. However, if you scroll down to the very bottom of the page, you'll see a big red message saying "Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{Reflist}} template or a <references /> tag; see the help page.". So, even though the reference is on the page, no one can actually see it. Next, take a look at the next revision, after Sitush added the "reflist": [8]. Now, right in between the "History" section and the "External Links" section is a "References section", which includes a link to the dictionary site you added. Now readers can easily click through to the dictionary website. So, as an editor, what you need to do is this: if you add the very first reference to a page, you need to add two lines. These lines go after the last body section of the article, above any External Links or categories that are on the page. When you type them, they should look exactly like this:

==References==
{{reflist}}

This will add the that new section at the bottom, and make your reference visible. Note that you only need to do this if you're adding the very first reference to a page.
  • The second point Sitush is making is about providing a "full" reference, instead of just a URL link. That one isn't nearly as important. The advantage of providing a full citation is that it makes it easier to keep it updated and shows the reader clearly what the source is. However, that one isn't really necessary, as the link is "enough" for a first pass. There's a way to add full references by hand, but it's a pain, and requires memorizing a bunch of different templates and their parameters. Instead, if you would like, I can tell you how to turn on the advanced editing tools that make it easy to add common citations, by giving you a pop-up window with the most commonly needed fields. You can let me know here if you'd like assistance getting that started. But, if not, it's alright to use the URLs by themselves. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:54, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Alright, I already finished all that earlier. Reflists and link titles included. - Gilgamesh (talk) 03:39, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

That's great. Sorry if you thought that I was being a pain. I wrote the messages above before reading your user page, which was not the cleverest thing I've done in the last 24 hours. My linguistic abilities, by the way, rarely extend beyond gibberish: I wouldn't have a clue where to start with what you're doing. - Sitush (talk) 03:51, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
That's alright. Your comments weren't bad. - Gilgamesh (talk) 06:48, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Project Cafe[edit]

Hi, AfDs are not votes, but discussions. The most powerful argument wins. Thus, your comment does nothing to help the situation. Please insert some sort of reason for keeping it. Thanks, Blake (Talk·Edits) 22:04, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Marshallese[edit]

Hi Gilgamesh,

Just came across your nice Marshallese phonology article. Good to have; I've wondered about this language for some time. However, it, and the IPAc-mh templates you've set up, present the phonetic difference between p and b as one of primary articulation, whereas the refs seem pretty clear it's a matter of secondary articulation. Is there any RS for the phonetic details? Or do the advanced and retracted diacritics maybe need to be replaced with ATR and RTR diacritics? — kwami (talk) 01:28, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

See "Practical Marshallese", which describes it better than any resource I've found. Voice is not phonemic, and habits can vary between speech, song, chanting, etc. But in common speech practice, obstruents are voiceless at the beginnings and ends of words and when geminated, and voiced word-internally. The distinction between "p" and "b" in orthography is purely one of appearance, and the insistence of phonemic voice in all positions is apocryphal. Also, "Practical Marshallese" specifically describes the tongue root being relatively advanced and retracted, which is verified by listening to spoken Marshallese. For vowels, the most descriptive resource is at the Marshallese-English Online Dictionary, on the page describing the sounds of Marshallese — the page uses IPA symbols. I cannot ascertain why that source and "A Brief Introduction to Marshallese Phonology" differ on the vowel heights of the allophones, but I also noticed that the latter source's word examples actually inappropriately blur the mid-open and mid-close vowels as phonemically transcribed in the dictionary. However, I have no reason to believe that Brief Introduction's description of phonotactics laws is apocryphal, as it is very specific on the details.
I mean, Marshallese is not an endangered language and it has vigorous use, but it has the disadvantage of being scarce on the Internet (many Marshallese people have more immediate poverty-associated concerns), and of accredited linguistics materials being sparse especially online. And the MED is also the only complete Marshallese dictionary in existence. But on a strictly personal note, the language is rather important to me, since I grew up in the Marshall Islands. I never learned much of the language, but I respect it, and it deserves better treatment on Wikipedia and Wiktionary than it currently gets.
By the way, I've also been expanding Marshallese entries at Wiktionary, and in porting the pronunciation templates, I greatly streamlined them. I'm thinking of revising the template code here to match, which will take significantly less work than it did to deploy at Wiktionary. The current problem with the templates here is that the phonemic and articulate templates use different and mutually incompatible code formats. The one I ported to Wiktionary uses the same code format for both systems. I know it would ultimately be neater to use a single phonetic transcription, but Marshallese has an unusual vertical vowel system and an orthography that does not line up with it, and it's as important to understand the morphophonemic structure of a word as it is to understand how it's articulated to Western ears. - Gilgamesh (talk) 02:24, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Okay, so it is ±ATR then. We can fix up the IPA for that. That was my main concern. (The 'more rounded' diacritic is also a bit odd, since [ʷ] is the standard way of transcribing that.) — kwami (talk) 02:32, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
That was for brevity. In the articulate transcription, the vowels already provide cues of how the consonants are pronounced. Using superscript secondary articulations like [ʲˠʷ] actually made it harder to read. - Gilgamesh (talk) 03:01, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
I can see that. But it's going to make it very obscure for most readers. Esp. if the rounding diacritic looks like the RTR diacritic at the reader's screen resolution. — kwami (talk) 03:09, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I tried some adjustments on c-mh. (Since it's centralized, it will be easy to revert any mistakes.) First, the ±ATR diacritics are ◌̘ and ◌̙. (What you had were advance vs retracted, which are modifications of the primary articulation. [p̠] would presumably be labiodental.) But ◌̘ and ◌̙ can be difficult to distinguish, and PM suggests that it's a contrast between neutral vs. RTR, so that's how I put it. (Perhaps they shouldn't be on the velars, and maybe there should be a plus on the /rʲ/, but that's minor.) Also, I didn't understand what you meant with the 'more rounded' diacritic; AFAICT, [ʷ] captures what PM describes. And the short sign on the glides: they're already short, so I didn't get that either. For the high values [j ɰ w], maybe we should have [i̯ ɯ̯ u̯], by analogy with the other heights? — kwami (talk) 03:07, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Ah, the dictionary also says "The term LIGHT is used to describe consonants that are pronounced with the body of the tongue in an "at rest" position for such consonants; the term HEAVY is used for consonants that have the back of the tongue raised (velarized) and the root of the tongue retracted (pharyngealized) so as to elongate the oral cavity, thereby giving the consonant a "heavier" or "darker" sound", suggesting it is RTR which is distinctive. — kwami (talk) 03:23, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Hm, it the article, you have some phonemic non-syllabic vowels, sometimes between consonants. It that an oversight or typo? — kwami (talk) 03:39, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Well, in analogy to IPA transcription of Romanian phonology, it only seemed logical to use [j ɰ w] instead of [i̯ ɯ̯ u̯], since they are equivalent. In fact, see the corresponding table on Wiktionary, where the unified template code format is described in detail. I realized that [ʕ] (as an approximant) is equivalent to [ɑ̯] too. (I use [j̆ ɰ̆ w̆] as the heightless phonemes, though I still wonder whether [ɦʲ ɦˠ ɦˠʷ] would be more appropriate.) Since I want to overhaul the template system here to be unified like on Wiktionary, perhaps we can see what we can do to fix that first? Are you on Wiktionary?
The asyllabic vowels between the approximants is not a typo. The first vowel in io̧kwe /j̆ɨ̯j̆akʷɜj̆/ [jæɒɡɔɛɛ̯] is asyllabic, but has a close vowel height, not an open one we would expect from eo̧kwe /j̆akʷɜj̆/ [æ̯æɒɡɔɛɛ̯]. - Gilgamesh (talk) 05:25, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
By the way, it's redundant to labialize labial consonants. To velarize them gives them a labiovelar flavor, which already rounds them. Also, the plain approximant phonemes are heightless, and the standard approximant symbols [j ɰ w] are strictly equivalent to semivowels at close height [i̯ ɯ̯ u̯]. Unfortunately, I haven't thought of an adequate way to transcribe heightless approximants. What do you think: [j̆ ɰ̆ w̆] or [ɦʲ ɦˠ ɦˠʷ]? I considered [ɦ] because it has no place of articulation by itself, and whereas the plain approximant symbols are specifically close height, the palatalization/velarization/labialization superscripts do not specify vowel height. [j̆ ɰ̆ w̆] is very ad hoc, and I only later realized that using the breve diacritic will make many people believe they are flaps, not approximants. - Gilgamesh (talk) 12:14, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Re: PTSD article edit - addition of "sortable" parameter to table...[edit]

Thanks! Very nice addition - aside from the increase in presentation possibilities this edit engenders, the increase in the interactivity of the table is VERY cool. Much appreciated. Tom Cloyd (talk) 17:08, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

File:Wikipedia xenogears ethos.png listed for deletion[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Wikipedia xenogears ethos.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:19, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

  • No contest, as creator. - Gilgamesh (talk) 23:43, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

File:Wikipedia xenogears kislev.png listed for deletion[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Wikipedia xenogears kislev.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:19, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

File:Wikipedia xenogears nisan.png listed for deletion[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Wikipedia xenogears nisan.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:19, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

File:Wikipedia xenogears yggdrasil.png listed for deletion[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Wikipedia xenogears yggdrasil.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:20, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Volcanoes of Zimbabwe[edit]

Category:Volcanoes of Zimbabwe, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Babakathy (talk) 11:16, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

New Page Patrol survey[edit]

NPPbarnstar.jpg

New page patrol – Survey Invitation


Hello Gilgamesh! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you.

  • If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only.
  • If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it.

Please click HERE to take part.
Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback.


You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey

Nomination for deletion of Template:Sema:'[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svgTemplate:Sema:' has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. — This, that, and the other (talk) 01:11, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Transliteration of Arabic[edit]

I'm puzzled by your recent edit to Arabic grammar in which you replaced the modifier letter left and right half rings, transliteration for the hamza and ʿayn, with left and right single quotes as a more scientifically accurate transliteration. But the half rings are correct for DIN and apostrophes for ALA-LC, and it's DIN that's used in the article, so why change transliteration to apostrophes? — Eru·tuon 03:16, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I was mainly correcting the letters rather than the half rings. But I thought the half rings vs. apostrophes were mainly a matter of taste. Half rings don't display well in a lot of fonts at smaller sizes, even those that actually support the glyphs. The apostrophes I used (which are specifically the apostrophe letter code points and not the punctuation code points) display better. Really, I thought they were interchangeable with the half rings. - Gilgamesh (talk) 04:05, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Well, I guess in actual Wikipedia practice the apostrophes and half-rings are interchangeable, so it doesn't really matter which is used. But I was puzzled mainly because I only noticed the half ring → apostrophe change and nothing else, so I assumed that was the change to "scientific transliteration" that you meant. If changing letters was your transliteration correction and the apostrophe change was an addition, the confusion is cleared away. — Eru·tuon 15:24, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I changed quite a lot of letters. ð -> ḏ. ð̣ -> ẓ. j -> ǧ. x -> ḫ. θ -> ṯ. Stuff like that. - Gilgamesh (talk) 06:05, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification[edit]

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Modern Hebrew verb conjugation (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Alef, Tav, Vav and Yod

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:23, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification[edit]

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

English-language vowel changes before historic l (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Al, Cal, Hal, Powell and Val
English-language vowel changes before historic r (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Morgan and Jeremy

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:36, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Inclusion or exclusion of ancient languages in phonetics articles[edit]

Given your interest in historical phonology, I wonder if you would be able to contribute a perspective (whether it agrees with mine or not) to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Linguistics#Dead_languages_in_phone_tables. It's not very productive to have so few participants in a discussion, and I'm sure I'm missing part of the perspective that you may possess. Cheers, Wareh (talk) 20:34, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

AfD for Chronology_of_diplomatic_recognitions_and_relations_of_South_Sudan[edit]

You participated in a related discussion before. The current one is here. Japinderum (talk) 11:47, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited Carlo Rambaldi, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Localization and Lombardi (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 10:24, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Ichthus: January 2012[edit]

Ichthus dark yellow.png

ICHTHUS

January 2012

Ichthus is the newsletter of Christianity on Wikipedia • It is published by WikiProject Christianity
For submissions contact the Newsroom • To unsubscribe add yourself to the list here

Marshallese phonology[edit]

Hi Gilgamesh. I came across your article on Marshallese phonology and I have some concerns about possible OR in the article. See the talk-page comments. I gather you know a good deal about this language; but the analyses presented are very unusual from a cross-linguistic perspective, and I'd like to see sources that back this up. Otherwise we are clearly venturing into OR territory. As for the approximants, IMO you should just use /j/ /w/ /ɰ/ unless you find good sources that suggest otherwise. It is extremely hard to read the transcriptions you present with the strange /ɦʲ/ and such forms, and your narrow transcription needs to correspond to what is actually spoken -- if a long vowel appears on the surface, the transcription needs to include that. If you need to present three separate levels (deep analysis, less deep analysis, surface analysis), then by all means do that. Benwing (talk) 22:56, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 28[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited Rhotic and non-rhotic accents, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Tuttle and Lena (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 10:41, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Shinar[edit]

In the Shinar article, you recently changed the single left-quote mark to a single straight-quote mark in the transliteration of the name (Šin`ar »» Šin'ar). I have been mulling the change in my head for several days. It does not sit well with me as the single left-quote is often used for ע while the single straight-quote is often used for א, and there are still people who make a distinction between the two. Would the use of Šinˁar work with you, or would you have issues with that as well? The use of the pharyngeal ˁ mark would seem to be the best choice as it is frequently employed in ANE and Semitics journals. Your thoughts??? — al-Shimoni (talk) 00:07, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

The standard convention is ʼ for aleph/glottal stop, and ʻ for ayin/pharyngeal fricative. There are special dedicated Unicode characters for these. Though, as I understand, they may not display very distinctly in certain fonts at certain small sizes (including Tahoma). Try zooming in on your browser with Ctrl + until they are large enough to tell apart. But the answer to that is fixing the site, not fixing the Unicode. Me, I use custom user stylesheets. - Gilgamesh (talk) 07:39, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
I see now that it's an okina. Zoomed it until I could see the curve, but still wasn't certain, so stuck it through a string-to-hex converter. :P Thanks for the clarification. I'm using whatever the default font for the Vector skin is (although I made a custom CSS file to go with Vector, I didn't override the font). — al-Shimoni (talk) 08:20, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
I tend to use a list of fonts that attempt display for each letter. Palatino Linotype is my favorite, but it doesn't have those two letters. Times New Roman does though (and distinguishes them very clearly), and it's further down the list. - Gilgamesh (talk) 09:20, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 28[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited Tocharians, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Uyghur (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 14:06, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 21[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited Sápmi (area), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Suomi (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 11:01, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Inverness[edit]

Any particular reason that you feel that Inverness "IS NOT" the capital of the Scottish Highlands? Hypertone (talk) 16:11, 18 August 2012

I had no idea what you were talking about, so I checked Inverness' edit history. I did not make such an edit — another user reverted someone else's edit to a previous version of the article last edited by me. See the edit history entry. I believe your complaint is with Ben MacDui. - Gilgamesh (talk) 17:03, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I've checked and apologies, you're absolutely right. Sorry for that. Hypertone (talk) 21:58, 18 August 2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.3.237.24 (talk)

Everyone makes mistakes. :) - Gilgamesh (talk) 02:41, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Invitation to workshops on Wikipedia editing[edit]

Dear Gilgamesh,

We are a team of researchers at the University of Oxford and AU Sharjah, researching the experiences of editors of content about the Arab world on Wikipedia. We are interested in your experiences of editing Wikipedia and are organising two events that we think you would be an excellent contributor to.

First, we are hosting an online wiki focus group about contributing to Wikipedia in Arabic and to articles about the Middle East and North Africa. We are interested in what barriers you perceive to exist in Wikipedia, how articles can be made better and generally what can be done to expand and improve Arabic Wikipedia and Wikipedia articles about the Arab world. This discussion will take place on a MediaWiki hosted at our institution and be available in English and Arabic. We will allow users to create their own discussion pages in addition to our discussions.

Second, we are hosting face-to-face workshops in Cairo from 21st-22nd October 2012. If you are interested in this we should be able to pay travel and accommodation costs for up to twenty participants. This workshop will cover similar themes to the online discussion but will allow participants to meet one another and benefit from being together.

We will take care of the organization and planning and all you have to do is show up and be ready to discuss. But if you would like to help shape some of the discussion themes in advance, please let us know. We have booked time in the workshops for Wikipedian-led discussions.

More details can be found by expanding our “Frequently Asked Questions” below.

We would be delighted to welcome you to either (or both) event. Please let us know (wikiproject@oii.ox.ac.uk) if you would like the opportunity to participate and we can send you more details.

Sincerely,

Mark, Bernie, Ilhem, Ali, Ahmed, and Heather

Dr. Mark Graham, Oxford Internet Institute, University of Oxford; Dr. Bernie Hogan, Oxford Internet Institute, University of Oxford; Dr. Ilhem Allagui, Department of Mass Communication, American University of Sharjah; Dr. Ali Frihida, National Engineering School of Tunis; Heather Ford, Oxford Internet Institute, University of Oxford; Ahmed Medhat, Oxford Internet Institute, University of Oxford;

OIIOxford (talk) 10:36, 21 August 2012 (UTC), tidied 10:13, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

IPA[edit]

Actually, [ɰʷ] would just be [w] (labialized velar approximant). The Japanese /w/ is different. — kwami (talk) 08:57, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

[ʷ] is the only standard symbol for labialization. [ᵝ] is not standard IPA usage. Why not use [w̺] and [u̺]? - Gilgamesh (talk) 17:03, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikify notice[edit]

Just to let you know that Template:Wikify has been deprecated. Please use Template:Underlinked, Template:Dead end or Template:Cleanup etc. instead. Cheers Delsion23 (talk) 20:22, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Marshallese transcriptions[edit]

I'm coming here, since it seems you are the author of the manner in which Marshallese words are transcribed at Wikipedia. I believe the situation to be a mess. The transcriptions are not only incredibly narrow, but Help:IPA for Marshallese does a poor job of explaining the transcriptions to non-experts. Here is how I see improving the situation

  • Stop distinguishing between /broad/ and [narrow] transcriptions in Wikipedia articles. Stick to one transcription between brackets, since users aren't expected to know the difference between phonemes and allophones.
  • Do away with the IPAc template(s). The input for these is so obscure that you are the only one who can do it. A simpler {{IPA-mh}} would be better for other editors (see, e.g. {{IPA-es}} for a comparison).
  • Simplify the transcription. While academic tradition is an important factor, don't feel confined to strictly adhere to how sources transcribe Marshallese in IPA; there is a profound precedent of what would be original research if it were in article space. One way to approach the matter is to start with a phonemic notation system and add only the allophones that are necessary. The fewer diacritics the better. This is why, for example, Help:IPA for Spanish encodes for lenition of voiced obstruents but without undertacks. This should help achieve an appropriate balance between too much and too little detail.
  • Bring the format of Help:IPA for Marshallese in line with the other IPA for X pages. — Ƶ§œš¹ [ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ] 16:24, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Marshallese is infamously complicated in this regard. I've already been discussing in Talk:Marshallese language about this. The problem is, Marshallese phonemes don't map well to IPA articulation, which is why the dual broad/narrow transcription exists. The narrow articulations are quite real. The diphthongs are quite real. The consonants' secondary articulations are quite real. We have been discussing how best to handle it, but Marshallese is far removed from European languages and simple assumptions of how to transcribe them in such a eurocentric system like IPA. - Gilgamesh (talk) 02:09, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Oh, I understand the issue about allophones in Marshallese, but I don't think we need to carry that nuance to every article that we make transcriptions in. I'll try to participate in the discussion you're having at Talk:Marshallese language. — Ƶ§œš¹ [ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ] 15:14, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Kemono for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Kemono 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/Kemono 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 template from the top of the article. —Ryulong (琉竜) 17:01, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Marshallese anthems[edit]

Gilgamesh, I've noticed that you have contributed a lot to the Marshallese anthems on Wikipedia (Ij Io̧kwe Ļo̧k Aelōn̄ Eo Aō and Forever Marshall Islands) I thought you might be a good person to bring some questions I have regarding the anthems and their pages:

  • First off, I noticed that the Ij Io̧kwe Ļo̧k Aelōn̄ Eo Aō is written in the new orthography, but the anthem was replaced in 1991. The Marshallese language article isn't clear on it, but I get the impression that the new orthography didn't take affect until after the anthem stopped being used in 1991, so might it not be better to have the lyrics in the old orthography (and mention that it's the old orthography)?
  • And, conversely, the current anthem seems to be in the old orthography (there doesn't seem to be a single ļ, m̧, ņ, or o̧ in it, although they may not be in the words used in the anthem, I don't know enough about the language to verify that). Should it not be in the new orthography?
  • Does the current anthem have a Marshallese title? (Is it referred to as whatever "Forever Marshall Islands" is in Marshallese in Marshallese?)

Thanks for any advice you can give on that. --Canuckguy (talk) 01:13, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, it's not so simple. I only had lyrics for the old anthem in the new orthography. Also, the old anthem is not just a former anthem, but a Marshallese folk song that has commanded cultural respect since before it became an anthem and since after it was no longer an anthem, and it has not lost this significance or practice as a folk song. As for the new anthem, I know very little about it, as I moved away from the Marshall Islands shortly after it was adopted, and I never learnt its melody, much less memorized its lyrics. My frank opinion is that the new orthography supercedes the old orthography in all cases; but if both remain in notable use, then articles like these should include both. But I only ever learnt the new orthography, and all I know about the old ones are some occasional notes about how it differs from the new one, and I otherwise have no practice in it. In studying Marshallese, I have relied greatly on the Marshallese-English Dictionary, which since 1976 has been the only complete Marshallese dictionary in existence, and it exclusively uses the new orthography. And this is the problem — the old orthography may be widespread, but never had quite as much formal lexical work as the new orthography has enjoyed. Lacking a dictionary, the old orthography is learnt by example and analogy with a lot of idiosyncratic spellings that can differ from person to person. In this respect it resembles the relative chaos of scribal English before the adoption of standardized spellings starting with the Chancery Standard.
If you can find old orthography lyrics for the old anthem, be my guest. I am still searching for new orthography lyrics for the new anthem. And I don't have the slightest clue whether or not the new anthem has a Marshallese name. - Gilgamesh (talk) 01:38, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Talkback from Technical 13[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Gilgamesh. You have new messages at Talk:Beersheba.
Message added 12:52, 8 May 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Another move request for this page. Technical 13 (talk) 12:52, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Recent addition to bikini re. "design violates the traditional female modesty customs of Marshallese culture in its exposure of bare thighs"[edit]

Hi. Saw your recent addition to the bikini article re. "design violates the traditional female modesty customs of Marshallese culture in its exposure of bare thighs". This is interesting, and I've no reason to doubt the info you've included, but I've marked it as needing a valid source/citation. Would you please be so kind as to return to the article and provide at least the minimum in verifiable sources? Thanks! Azx2 18:28, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I was a tad afraid of this...I knew there was a possibility someone would demand a reference. At this time, I have none, though I suppose it's possible I could find a hard reference if I dove through my bookshelf of Micronesian culture books. My immediate reference is having grown up in the Marshall Islands, which though in good faith, is something I suppose makes this the epitome of original research. Empirically, pending a harder reference, I cannot defend the unreferenced material, but I thought it at least worth mentioning because it is very true in Marshallese culture, and therefore contextually fascinating. For now, I suppose I could Google cultural websites to find some harder corroboration. - Gilgamesh (talk) 19:10, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
No worries, I'm sure you'll ultimately arrive at whatever the best scenario would be for how to include this fascinating material. Cheers! Azx2 20:03, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Cedilla#Cedilla shape in Marshallese[edit]

Hi Gilgamesh. You've contributed information about the cedilla in Marshallese. I've asked for reference concerning the shape of the cedilla in Marshallese in Cedilla#Marshallese and Talk:Cedilla#Cedilla_shape_in_Marshallese. Thanks in advance. --Moyogo/ (talk) 12:18, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

tempête[edit]

Hello, this pronunciation is [tãpeɪ̯t], [tãpaɪ̯t] or [tãpɐɪ̯t] ? Because it's difficult to hear. 198.105.121.83 (talk) 01:46, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, if you want my opinion, of the three, it sounds closest to [tãpɐɪ̯t]. - Gilgamesh (talk) 03:52, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
Maybe. 198.105.121.83 (talk) 13:47, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

This one is also different to hear. It's [ivæːχ] or [ivaɛ̯χ] ? 198.105.121.83 (talk) 15:51, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Hard to tell. The audio sample sounds almost as if it's speech-synthesized. - Gilgamesh (talk) 16:02, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Do you think it's [ivæɛ̯χ] ? 198.105.121.83 (talk) 19:34, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

neige[edit]

This pronunciation is [nɛːʒ] or [naɪ̯ʒ] ? 198.105.102.93 (talk) 20:09, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

The latter is closer. - Gilgamesh (talk) 04:19, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

tête[edit]

[tɛɪ̯t], [tɐɪ̯t] or [tæɪ̯t] ? 198.105.113.238 (talk) 15:12, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

The second one sounds closest.
By the way, you keep asking me these random pronunciation questions. All my answers are original research at best. What is all this actually for? And is there no one else you ask? - Gilgamesh (talk) 23:08, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
Because I want to know which one is the closest pronunciation. 198.105.107.6 (talk) 01:54, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

secondaire[edit]

This one is difficult to guess it's [sœɡõdæːʁ] or [sœɡõdaɛ̯ʁ] ? 198.105.122.239 (talk) 12:49, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

I can't really tell. - Gilgamesh (talk) 05:27, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of List of liturgical Hebrew cognates for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of liturgical Hebrew cognates 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/List of liturgical Hebrew cognates 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. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 22:11, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

tard[edit]

This pronunciation is [tɑɔ̯χ], [tɒɔ̯χ] or [tɒːχ] ? 166.48.173.32 (talk) 01:45, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Please register a Wikipedia account and interact with the user community at large (such as through an article talk page) to find a better way of seeking these answers than to just ask me every several days. This haphazard anonymous-to-user approach is inefficient and yields only subjective answers at best. - Gilgamesh (talk) 10:08, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Out with the old...[edit]

For 2014: Wishing you a Healthy, Happy and Fulfilling NEW YEAR! Shir-El too 19:35, 23 December 2013 (UTC) (image: NASA Mars Rover, sunset)

Category:Kamchatka[edit]

Category:Kamchatka, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Tim! (talk) 21:40, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Category:Tea Party movement[edit]

Just in case you weren't aware of it, Category:Tea Party movement is under discretionary sanctions - see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tea Party movement. StAnselm (talk) 23:17, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Oh, thank you, I wasn't aware of any of this. - Gilgamesh (talk) 23:19, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
You're welcome. I figured you mustn't have realised. I think you've dodged a bullet here - you were setting yourself up for a long block. StAnselm (talk) 23:22, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
Ouch. To be honest, I wasn't entirely sure what the right thing to do was. I examined some of the guideline pages I knew of, and even asked other editors for counsel and advice. I only decided to act boldly when I thought my actions were permissible according to policy. - Gilgamesh (talk) 23:24, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Ukrajina listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

Information.svg

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Ukrajina. Since you had some involvement with the Ukrajina redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. TheChampionMan1234 10:25, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Phonological history of English low back vowels[edit]

Hi Gilgamesh, I'm sorry but this edit has introduced an inconsistency into the article that spurred a complaint on talk years ago which was still unaddressed, so I had to undo your changes. When reliable sources contradict each other, the obvious solution – also usually followed on Wikipedia – is to relate their accounts side by side and acknowledge the differences. Attempts to force harmonisation between conflicting accounts artificially only result in confusion and fall foul of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, that's why we don't do it. Stemmler (the chart in Great Vowel Shift), Wheeler (the table in that same article), Barber (the running text in Phonological history of English low back vowels) and Wells (the table in that same article) are all different authors, so it's not that surprising that they don't quite agree. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 04:12, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Category:Volcanoes of Bougainville[edit]

Category:Volcanoes of Bougainville, which you created, has been nominated for renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. -- Black Falcon (talk) 21:45, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

A question[edit]

Are you Gilgamesh from the Hebrew Wikipedia? Lior (talk) 10:49, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

No. - Gilgamesh (talk) 11:21, 5 September 2014 (UTC)