User talk:Odysseus1479

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Wikipedia This is a Wikipedia user talk page.

This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user to whom this talk page belongs may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia itself. The original talk page is located at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Odysseus1479.

Welcome[edit]

Hello, Odysseus1479! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already loving Wikipedia you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! œ 20:11, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Getting Started
Getting Help
Policies and Guidelines

The Community
Things to do
Miscellaneous


Identifications[edit]

[consolidated from previous locations]

I see that you commented on the talk of sub pages, sorry as this page was not created due to my absence, but If you wish, I can identify them for you. Bugboy52.4 ¦ =-= 23:43, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

[from User talk:Bugboy52.40] Thanks for your offer (several months ago now!) to help identify insect photos. Here are a couple from a suburban environment near the Aegean coast of Turkey: [dead link] (something like a shield-bug, fairly large: about 25 mm long) and [dead link] (a scarabaeus? of similar size). Please advise also whether or not you think they’d be useful (i.e. of adequate quality and not duplicating existing shots) if I were to upload them to Commons. Can you identify arachnids as well?—Odysseus1479 (talk) 02:19, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
I'd be glad to help you, even though I don't remember that I said that (probably because it was such a long time ago). Also, its not to difficult to identify arachnids as I have a few text that include them, and I've written a few articles. Bugboy52.4 ¦ =-= 02:30, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
I finally got around to collecting some of my photos: please look at these images when you get a chance, and let me know if you think any (that you can identify) could be used in articles, or at least would be worth uploading to Commons.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 01:31, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Sorry I didn't pick up on this when I got the chance, but unfortunately it seems whatever pictures were there are no longer. Bugboy52.4 ¦ =-= 17:13, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
No problem; thanks for checking back! The link above should be working now: please try again.–Odysseus1479 07:45, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

Thanks for your message. Yes, best to remain vigilant but not jump to hasty conclusions. I read the guidelines and think I was overreacting on what is only a hunch. Yours ever, Czar Brodie (talk) 07:36, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

MOS:LQ[edit]

Re your comment at Stfg's page "Fowler and, AFAICT, Hart disagree with CMOS":

  • From New Hart's Rules (Oxford University Press, 2005): "In US practice, commas and full points are set inside the closing quotation mark regardless of whether they are part of the quoted material ... This style is also followed in much of British fiction and journalism."(p.155) GabeMc (talk|contribs) 01:15, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
  • From Fowler's Modern English Usage (Oxford University Press, 2004): "All signs of punctuation used with words in quotation marks must be placed according to sense. If an extract ends with a point ... let that point be included before the closing quotation mark; but not otherwise."(p.646) GabeMc (talk|contribs) 01:15, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
I’m pretty sure the original Hart's Rules did not address “US practice“ at all, because its first publication was intended for use by the OUP. I agree, however, that your quote from the modern version indicates agreement with CMOS. OTOH Fowler’s “according to sense” and “but not otherwise” directly contradict them both.—Odysseus1479 02:29, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
That's a very good point about the contradiction. From my reading, it seems that the full entry on quotation marks in Fowler's advocates a situational approach, rather than a one-size fits all rule, i.e. Fowler's seems to contradict itself. Cheers! GabeMc (talk|contribs) 03:03, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
Despite the way he’s sometimes caricatured, as a rulebook-wielding prescriptivist, Fowler’s positions are usually quite nuanced, albeit opinionated. BTW quite a lot of the recent “Fowler‘s“, including the QUOTATION MARKS article, is actually by Burchfield; it’s become something of a franchise like the various “Webster’s” dictionaries (or the “Roget’s” thesaurus that’s ordered alphabetically instead of conceptually, missing the entire point IMO). I’ve seen Fowler fans on Usenet refer to the third edition of MEU in such terms as “the Burchfield abomination” (but not because of this particular issue AFAICT). Anyway, where do you see a contradiction?—Odysseus1479 03:35, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
I see a contradiction between what reads like an unequivocal prescription: "If an extract ends with a point ... let that point be included before the closing quotation mark", and what seems like a situational editor discretion advisement: "If the quotation is intermediate between a single word and a complete sentence, or it is not clear whether it is a complete sentence or not, judgement must be used in placing the final point." GabeMc (talk|contribs) 03:49, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
I think that can be resolved by interpreting that “extract” in the introductory section as the portion of the original text you wish to quote; the matter of judgement in case (ii) is whether or not to include the terminal punctuation in said portion. But I may be reading too much into the choice of words.
FWIW Fowler himself covers the question in much less detail; aside from discussion of examples, and the summary recommendation I quoted on Stfg’s page, his description of LQ is pretty well covered by “put [stops] outside except when they actually form part of the quotation.“ He doesn’t address the ‘corner case’ where a quoted fragment ends with (or, depending on how you look at it, is followed by) a stop. My own inclination, as you might infer from my comment at WT:MOS, would be to put a period inside the marks either where the quotation could stand as a complete sentence or when I let it finish my own sentence for me, so to speak, but outside the marks otherwise.—Odysseus1479 05:38, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
I tend to agree with you regarding Fowler's ambiguous use of the term extract. However, if by extract he exclusively means a complete sentence, then the statement is embarrassingly redundant with the whole of the entry, which explains in detail that a quoted complete sentence should include the full stop within the quote marks (perhaps this speaks to your above point regarding Fowler's recent move towards the Webster/Roget business model), but who would even argue that a full complete sentence quotation should not include the full stop where the original source had placed it; isn't that one of the more obvious editorial choices? Also, Fowler elaborates to some length that the issue is not resolved in the sense that editorial inconsistency and variation are common amongst publishers. My main issue is that he is obviously in the minority in that regard if you look at the multitude of style guides that outright disagree with him. Nice chatting with you, BTW. Cheers! GabeMc (talk|contribs) 06:00, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
Likewise! But no, I don‘t think Burchfield’s “extract” is necessarily a complete sentence; it could be anything from a word to several sentences. And terminal punctuation is left out in the middle of a framing sentence: “I shall return” was MacArthur’s slogan. LQ in general, whether Hart‘s, Fowler’s, or Burchfield’s version, is at odds with most current style guides, as many discussions at WT:MOS will show—including some recent agitation for its restriction to articles that otherwise use British English. I don‘t think it’s a matter of national English varieties myself, but we‘ll see what happens …—Odysseus1479 06:32, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
I fully agree that this is not really a WP:ENGVAR issue per se and I also agree that it will most likely boil down to that for most. I am all for globalization and respect for national writing styles, but in the end the Wikipedia servers are in Florida, not London. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 07:24, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you![edit]

Compass barnstar.png The Guidance Barnstar
Thank you so much for the help you so freely give others. Your input on my talk page has been tremendously appreciated. :) Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:32, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Axial precession[edit]

Thanks for trying to provide a citation in the Axial precession article. However, in an article chock full of numbers, a meaningful citation would have to give the exact page number, and probably the equation number, to lead a reader to the part of the source that actually supports the claim. This is particularly the case in an article where an editor has been inserting small numerical changes with no comments. It is necessary to have in black and white that Capitaine et al. say the period of precession is 25,772 years, not 25,770 or 25780. Thus this citation is not really adequate. Jc3s5h (talk) 05:12, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

After looking through both the Wikipedia article and the cited article more, I've found the relevant expression and modified the citation to point to it. Jc3s5h (talk) 05:39, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

This should probably take place on the article’s Talk page, but briefly:
  • The detailed citation should probably go with the calculation under Values, not in the general discussion. It‘s on page 581, equation 39 (first coefficient of pA). Sorry, I don’t know how to make a specific page-number & equation citation, without implying that all the other refs using the source are for the same point; if you do, I’d appreciate it if you could update it for me.
  • The sentence in question need not give a high- (or medium-) precision figure IMO: the 26,000-year approximation, as in the lead would probably be fine.
  • This is all about varying levels of precision: for two figures we have not only the aforementioned 26,000 a, but the ‘traditional’ 50″/a → 25,920 a being pushed by the IP; for three figures my RASC Observer’s Handbook gives 25,800 a (50.29″/a); for four figures [Wolfram] has 25,770 a (citing Beatty et al. 1990) … take your pick.
  • Finding an explicit, precise presentation of this value in astronomical literature is unlikely, because it has no physical significance except as the inverse of the instantaneous rate at J2000.0. Even by now the rate will have changed slightly; with a little WP:OR on my pocket calculator I make the period 25,770.0 a, for the epoch of J2013.8. This is one of those cases where a less precise figure is actually more accurate.—Odysseus1479 06:24, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
  • I have adopted your suggestion to use the approximate value for the sentence in question. I moved the article citation to the bibliography (which didn't have its own section until I created one) and placed footnotes that refer to the exact page and expression. This way the exact page and expression are given in the footnote, while the page range for the entire article is in the bibliography. Jc3s5h (talk) 13:17, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, @Jc3s5h: looks good.—Odysseus1479 01:37, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Your rollback request[edit]

Hi Odysseus1479, I have granted rollback rights to your account in accordance with your request. Please be aware that rollback should be used to revert vandalism/spam/blatantly unconstructive edits, and that using it to revert any other type of edit - such as by revert-warring or reverting edits you disagree with - can lead to it being removed from your account...sometimes without any warning depending on the admin who becomes aware of any misuse. If you think an edit should require a reason for reverting, use a manual edit summary instead of using the rollback tool. For practice, you may wish to see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback. Good luck. Acalamari 09:06, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Hafiz Muhammad Fazal Azim Taha[edit]

You are doing a fine job, but its not intentionally you are making a mistake by deleting the edits on Hafiz Muhammad Fazal Azim Taha. He is truly a famous and loving poet so, give me and to my nation a favor in the form of this poet. Please undo your changes. I hope you will consider my explanation. Further will be provide if needed. Umar Taha (talk) 09:38, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I believe you have mistaken me for someone else: I have neither edited that article nor participated in any discussions about it.—Odysseus1479 01:44, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Requesting deletion of private informaton[edit]

Apologies, I got as far as the emergency stuff before skipping over that box. Will read more carefully in future. --Jameboy (talk) 18:34, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

What part of Writkeeper's view on me do you most agree with?[edit]

Hi, Odysseus. It is good to get the participation of newcomers at my RFC/U. It would not be obvious to you, but the vast majority of those commenting there have tracked me for months saying "block, block, block" all the way. They don't come to the RFC/U because they normally participate in RFC/Us. Rathe, they've watchlisted my talkpage over my protests and follow me to a new place where they can say "block him" some more. In my opinion that's a strange way to participate in Wikipedia. Anyhow, I'm interested in which part of Writkeeper's view you most agree with. Is it that I've done a minority of my block evading for things other than seeking unblock? If so, you have to consider that I was an avid editor, almost completely a content editor, who once made several hundreds of edits a year. So to just turn that off is not that easy. I've made maybe 24 non-unblock-seeking edits over like 18 months. Well maybe at some of those occurrences I revert flash reverts so it might be literally more than 24 edits, but it was about 24 distinct editing occurrences or groupings. If there is anything I can do to assist you in understanding my actions enough to support my unblock, then let me know. This is Colt on Co5mic. 14:18, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Splitting the article?[edit]

Should there be another article about Oannes, because basically it would be hard to developpe on the Oannes side which interest me (and not Adapa), if there is disagreements on Adapa and Oannes relationship. The relationship exist on the fact that Adapa is a half God, that means that he has a half perishable (Adapa side), and an unperishable side Oannes. But the unperishable side is common to all other Gods in history, and there lies my interest on the article. I don't care much of the Adapa side. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.229.212.159 (talk) 23:08, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

On reading the article (which I confess not having done before commenting on Dougweller’s page), it appears that modern scholarship has demonstrated the identity of the Babylonian Uanna and the Sumerian Adapa in the context of the original mythos. I think your area of interest does belong in another article, but its title should make clear it’s not so much about the character in the Mesopotamian texts as it is about the meaning of his myth in a psychological or theological context. How do your sources tend to introduce or encapsulate the topic? It might start as a section in an existing article about archetypes, individuation, or the like, but I‘m not well acquainted with what may exist in those areas. You might ask for suggestions at WT:WikiProject Mythology, although it doesn’t seem very active.—Odysseus1479 23:23, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
It's because he is compared with the fisher King in the legend of the Holy Grail, and Christ is called both the fish and the fisher. What the Jungians consider as both the unconscious (under water) and the conscious (above sea levels). Regarding the Armenian name, I agree with you, but note that an Armenian varient was already in the article, which I had replaced with the more original Armenian (my edit was reverted though) version which was closer with the Oannes name. The reason is that it is the only varient of the name John which still match the original. I did find Oiannes, another varient, but don't know the language. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.229.212.159 (talk) 04:01, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

HETHERINGTON[edit]

can you please stop giving out false information about Hetherington. The structure of the name isn't corrected as its not English. The name is of hundreds of branches of Hetherington. not just English, there is Scottish, Irish, Northern Irish and Norwegian origins as well. The most common is either Irish or Scottish. so please leave it alone or not give non exact information. please. Plus not vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.135.216.139 (talk) 23:23, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

I don’t think it’s vandalism, just non-compliance with policy. The problem is that we have reliable sources for the statements in the article, and we can’t accept unsourced claims. As it happens, the only Hetheringtons I know personally immigrated here from Lanarkshire—but my own anecdotal experience, like yours, carries no weight against the cited reference works. Moreover, even if there were very few Hetheringtons left in England nowadays (in fact several of the notable people listed appear to be English), that has nothing to do with the origin or etymology of the name.
This discussion, being about content, should probably take place on the article’s discussion page. I would be happy to continue it there.—Odysseus1479 23:57, 18 May 2014 (UTC) P.S.: I’ve started a topic there now, with a few of my own thoughts on the question. 01:53, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Opinion[edit]

Hi, i would like to have your opinion about a discussion which i started here, thank.Kingroyos (talk) 23:28, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

In re PP edit controversy[edit]

…see interspersed italic comments, and final proposal at [1]. Written at the time, and just discovered as not posted. Cheers, and respect your involvement. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 20:17, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Books & Bytes, Issue 6[edit]

Wikipedia Library owl.svg The Wikipedia Library

Bookshelf.jpg

Books & Bytes
Issue 6, April-May 2014
by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs)

  • New donations from Oxford University Press and Royal Society (UK)
  • TWL does Vegas: American Library Association Annual plans
  • TWL welcomes a new coordinator, resources for library students and interns
  • New portal on Meta, resources for starting TWL branches, donor call blitzes, Wikipedia Visiting Scholar news, and more

Read the full newsletter

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:59, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

GOCE June 2014 newsletter[edit]

Guild of Copy Editors May 2014 backlog elimination drive wrap-up
Writing Magnifying.PNG

Participation: Thanks to all who participated! Out of 51 people who signed up this drive, 33 copy edited at least one article. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here.

Progress report: We reduced our article backlog from 2,987 articles to 2,236 articles in May, the lowest backlog total since we began keeping records in 2009! Since at least 300 new articles were tagged during May, that means we copy edited over 1,000 articles in a single month. Amazing work, everyone!

Blitz: The June blitz will run from June 15–21. This blitz's theme is Politics. Sign up here.

Election: You can nominate yourself or others for the role of Coordinator for the second half of 2014 here. Nominations will be accepted until June 14. Voting will begin on June 15 and will conclude on June 28.

Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Jonesey95, Baffle gab1978, and Miniapolis.

To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:27, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library: New Account Coordinators Needed[edit]

Hi Books & Bytes recipients: The Wikipedia Library has been expanding rapidly and we need some help! We currently have 10 signups for free account access open and several more in the works... In order to help with those signups, distribute access codes, and manage accounts we'll need 2-3 more Account Coordinators.

It takes about an hour to get up and running and then only takes a couple hours per week, flexible depending upon your schedule and routine. If you're interested in helping out, please drop a note in the next week at my talk page or shoot me an email at: jorlowitz@gmail.com. Thanks and cheers, Jake Ocaasi via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:41, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

GOCE July 2014 newsletter[edit]

Guild of Copy Editors July 2014 newsletter is now ready for review. Highlights:

– Your project coordinators: Jonesey95, Baffle gab1978 and Miniapolis.

To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:27, 29 June 2014 (UTC)