User talk:Ogress/Archive 66

Archive 60

←

Archive 64

Archive 65

Archive 66

Archive 67

Feminists against of transgender and transsexual people

Hi. It's looks like that you are one of the "Feminist views on transgender and transsexual people"'s most active editor. I tried to put Feminists with anti-transsexualism believes that documented in that page in a category but someone accused me of "disparaging categorization that's incompatible with BLP sandards, and removed it from every article where the subject hasn't self-identified". What's Your Idea. Is it inappropriate or BLP violation? P. Pajouhesh (talk) 12:31, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

You should read Wikipedia:Categorization of people#Definitions and scope's section on Sensitive categories. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 12:58, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

@Liz:. I don't find anything that says if someone (i.e a Feminist) insists that someone (i.e. Trans women) is fake, If you categorize her as anti-transsexual is "disparaging categorization". P. Pajouhesh (talk) 13:42, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Categorization#Articles, in particular, "Categorizations should generally be uncontroversial; if the category's topic is likely to spark controversy, then a list article (which can be annotated and referenced) is probably more appropriate." Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 13:54, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

@Liz:. I think categories with topics like "Anti-transsexual feminists" are as controversial as "Category:Anti-prostitution feminists" or "Anti-Semitic politicians". P. Pajouhesh (talk) 14:27, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Well, you can go make that argument at Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion or on the category talk page if you believe the category should be deleted or just nominate the category at WP:CFD. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:48, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Lookit this entire conversation happened when I wasn't here! Ogress 17:03, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

@Liz: I don't think any of them are incompatible with BLP sandards. I think as we have "Category:Anti-prostitution feminists", we can have "Category:Anti-transsexualism feminists", Because both are well documented and populated categories. P. Pajouhesh (talk) 17:39, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

P. Pajouhesh, maybe I was too subtle but I meant to encourage you to start a discussion about your argument and point of view where it could make a difference. At this point, this discussion is out of place on Ogress' talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:52, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

@Liz: Yeah, poor User:Ogress, sorry. I wish I could start this discussion but It's a long time that I'm not an active user in English Wikipedia. Besides, It's look like that I'm alone in this subject and no one care about "Category:Anti-transsexualism feminists". Because when I ask to stop removing it no one even challenged me. It removed without any talk. I'm totally disappointed. P. Pajouhesh (talk) 08:19, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

I am concerned, they call themselves TERFs and they featured prominently in the recent rash of laws passed targeting trans women such as HB2, which included selections from TERF literature when it was argued. But the conversation should be there, not here. Ogress 09:54, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Sukhasiddhi

Could you please take a look at Sukhasiddhi, you were the last editor before the addition of a copyvio [1]. Please correct me if I removed something of encyclopedic value. Thanks JimRenge (talk) 22:33, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi @JimRenge:. I suspect that copyvio was me .... chagrin. @Ogress:, I don't know if you are active, but I'm going to try editing this entry again and any and all support for that is welcome. Thanks. AD64 (talk) 15:00, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

May 2016

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Patriarch of Alexandria may have broken the syntax by modifying 4 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• πάπα ἡμῶν Ἡρακλᾶ παρέλαβον."<ref>Eusebius, Historia Ecclesiastica Book VII, chapter 7.7</ref>}} This is translated, "I received this rule and ordinance from our blessed father/pope, Heraclas."<
• "<ref>"pope, n.1". OED Online. September 2011. Oxford University Press. 21 November 2011</ref>}} In modern English, "At that time, [[Pope Vitalian]] was chief bishop of the apostolic see."

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 04:32, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello, old friend!

Our editing paths haven't crossed in a long time. I'm glad to have found you again today, mainly because I like you in general, but specifically in the article Khatun: Following on what your userpage says about Library of Congress romanization—my recent edits there were all entered strictly according to ALA-LC. Thank you for linking the words to Wiktionary. For some obscure but unfortunate reason, Wiktionary has chosen a different romanization system. I like to edit Wiktionary too, and I use it heavily every day, but I swear the strange ways they have chosen to do things over there is something I'm still trying to get used to. I'm just going to switch Khatun back to ALA-LC and pipe the links, OK? Johanna-Hypatia (talk) 23:16, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Johanna-Hypatia Hello! I had to look to confirm: marking kh with an underscore for [x] and the two angle marks for alif and ayn? That's pretty obscure these days, though. If you go to the drop menu on Wikipedia the letters for Arabic notation are listed under "Arabic" and they are ʾ, ʿ, etc. I rarely never see the first literally anywhere outside of LOC libraries. It also doesn't match the broad standard used for Persian I see pretty much everywhere either. It seems very archaic. Ogress 23:27, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

The kh for خ only applies to Urdu, to distinguish it from كھ, you know. Hamzah does not get an angle mark (you mean like a prime symbol?), it's ʼ Modifier letter apostrophe, and ʻayn gets the ʻokina. See Romanization of Arabic; it links to the ALA-LC source document. The characters in that drop menu are unfortunate; somehow they got put in there without the requisite discussion by the community of Arabic editors. I would really love to see that menu brought in line with ALA-LC, since that is the Wikipedia standard. Johanna-Hypatia (talk) 01:43, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Johanna-Hypatia Sorry for any delay or confusion on my part I was in the middle of discovering some asshole has been mutilating references for years and I'm taking a snack break because I literally don't know what to do with this information. tl;dr Urdu underscore good. Ogress 02:40, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Encyclopaedia of Islam Thanks! Looks like I caught you on a bad day. Damn, the extent of that is just ridiculous. Let me know if I can help out. Good hearing from you again, sis. :) Johanna-Hypatia (talk) 04:50, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

@Johanna-Hypatia: Yeah I'm pretty annoyed rn because it's a ton of work. I also feel like it should be reported somewhere as a longer-term pattern of IP-hopping socks since it's been at least 2 years in the making. I don't really know how to do that, though.

IP Vandal

Hey there, thanks for the note. I've put a 24h block on the vandal, hopefully they will get the hint. In terms of reverting everything, it's a tricky thing, you can go thru all of their contributions and ensure the changes were reverted - I'm not aware of a one click solution unfortunately. I hope that helps! -- Tawker (talk) 03:21, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Tawker I mean this guy has been IP-hopping; google Muhammad Zeb and you'll see a large number of mutilated cites. He's been using different IPs for years. That's why I don't know what to do. Ogress 03:25, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Any legit edits? Could range block the /22 maybe if it's all vandalism edits.. -- Tawker (talk) 05:01, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

I haven't even had time to look tbh it popped up just as I was making food. Ogress 05:05, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

article Abjad numerals

For most purposes, ا ب ج د are NOT the first four letters of the Arabic alphabet, as discussed in detail in the article itself. Your version makes it seem like Arabic derives from itself... AnonMoos (talk) 22:15, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

@AnonMoos: As the article says immediately after the header, "The name "abjad" (abjad أبجد) is derived from pronouncing the first letters of the Arabic alphabet in order." Your statement is literally untrue. There are alternate alphabetisations, and it's definitely no longer the dominant one, but it's 100% the original alphabetical order. Ogress 22:26, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Is it? None of the orderings on page Abjad numerals can be "original" because the "original" ordering would have been missing anything corresponding to Aramaic semkat, and also would not treat dotted letters separately (consonant dots didn't start to be used systematically until after Muhammad's death, and it's easy to find inscriptions and manuscripts from later periods with minimal dotting). Therefore the "original" ordering would have been of 21 letters. The abjad orderings were created by treating the dotted letters as separate, and comparing them to the Aramaic alphabet. Comparing Arabic to Arabic would not have done anything... AnonMoos (talk) 04:13, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Without dots, the four letters are "alif, ba, jim, dal". This is the form of that abjad comes from, because there is a mnemonic. With the introduction of pointing, the modern (alifba'i) system appears: alif ba (ta tha) jim (7a xa) dal (dhal). In addition, if you go to Arabic alphabet#Alphabetical order, you'll read this:

The original abjadī order (أَبْجَدِي), used for lettering, derives from the order of the Phoenician alphabet, and is therefore similar to the order of other Phoenician-derived alphabets, such as the Hebrew alphabet. In this order, letters are also used as numbers, Abjad numerals, and possess the same alphanumeric code/cipher as Hebrew gematria and Greek isopsephy.

I'm still totally unclear about your objection; your repeated statement that I'm suggesting "Arabic comes from itself" is utterly confusing. Can you try to explain what you mean about that? I'm not trying to be difficult, I literally am having trouble understanding your argument so I can't really reply to it. I'd like to reply to it since you keep repeating it and it's clearly important and I'm obviously missing something obvious. Semkat's absence is discussed on the Arabic alphabet page (it was replaced when sin and shin split). Ogress 04:37, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

No ordering of the Arabic alphabet in use or attested today simply preserves the ordering of the 22 letters of the Phoenician (Hebrew, Aramaic etc.) alphabet without significant reordering. The only ordering that might have done that was of a pre-dotting 21-letter alphabet that we don't absolutely know 100% for sure existed (though it's a natural and very plausible conjecture that it did). The abjad orderings as we have them today were derived by semi-convoluted processes, which involved taking the old 21 Arabic letters in a form which had been expanded to 28 by dotting, and matching these with Aramaic's 22, resulting in 6 letters left over. And semkat was NOT "replaced when sin and shin split" -- rather, in the inscriptions in the Nabatean alphabet (Arabic-influenced Aramaic as written by Arabic-speakers) the Aramaic letters ס and ש were often confused or substituted for each other, and ס was dropped when developments of the Nabatean script were used to write Arabic. س and ش were not distinguished until centuries later, with the introduction of dotting.

The bottom line is that there's not really a simple uncomplicated development between the Phoenician-Aramaic 22-letter ordering and any Arabic alphabet ordering attested or in use today, and to imply otherwise gives a misleading impression... AnonMoos (talk) 00:47, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Question about google book coding, etc

Hello, Ogress. I have a couple of questions about your modification of a couple of my edits in the article Cezve.

1. You advised me to use reftag.appspot.com in place of "raw google book links", and I understand the virtue of minimizing the coding, but I had used the link as I'd written it (my link to google book ref) in order to feature the highlighting of the word in question which is "rakwa". Do you happen to know what code I can use after the "&pg=PT46" in order to highlight the word? I tried "&pg=PT46&q=rakwa", but that resulted in a sort of "snippet" view and didn't give the full page.

P.S. I just figured out how to highlight the word in question (rakwa) AND get a full single page view: after the googlebooks id (in this case, "id=bjczeMMMn1YC") just add "&q=rakwa#v=onepage&q=rakwa" (without quotes). It seems to me that this would be a nice feature to incorporate into the "reftag" utility you recommended.--Akhooha (talk) 15:09, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

2. As far as the reference to the Steingass dictionary entry goes, I realize I shouldn't have given the reference directly to the book, as it really went to the online version of it. Your new link just links to the google books and doesn't show the information about the word "ibriq". With your permission, may I change the citation to something like Online database for Steingass's A Comprehensive Persian-English Dictionary -- "ibrīk" in order show the information about the word? Thank you for your attention and your help.--Akhooha (talk) 02:20, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

1. We don't generally highlight - if it's got a page number it should be easy enough to find, and if it's controversial we should add an actual quote. I know of no way to highlight, but it seems overkill. I also think that's not the best cite; there's no sense of what the spelling "rakwa" means. Is he romanising raqwa, the "MSA" spelling for raʾwa? Qaf to k is specifically Palestinian; qaf to hamza is typically Levantine (except q > g in Jordan). 2. That's not a good reference. We have an actual dictionary, a book, that's been in print for 40 years. You can add another ref after - but not an appspot.com one. I'm not even clear that is legal. Find one at a persiological studies site or the like for a second cite. Ogress 17:00, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

(1) No, he's not romanizing raqwa (I'm aware of the qāf to hamza change in Levantine Arabic, but this is not the case. It is rakwa in MSA. See page 416 in Hans Wehr's Dictionary of MSA: rakwa. It's at the bottom of the page where he defines ركوة: "rakwa pl. rakawāt (syr.) small coffee pot of copper, having a long handle". There is no entry in his dictionary for raqwa with a qāf. Since this gives, as you say, a sense of what the spelling rakwa means, perhaps it will be a good ideea for me to add the Wehr citation.

(2) In lieu of finding another ref other than appspot, in the meantime I will add "page 8" to your citation for Steingass's dictionary ---- if one wants to, one can click forward and actually see that page on the google books display. Thank you for your reply and for your help.

P.S. A question about the one page view in google books: why is it that when you include "PT46" you will view page 24? If you substitute "PT24", you get a blank page .... how did you figure out to use 46 to get page 24? Thanks again.--Akhooha (talk) 17:34, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Ah, my bad. Sorry, Arabic is far from my native language. As for the link: different pages are visible in different countries. I didn't do anything more significant than plug in the original link to reftag.appspot.com - it was already pointing to page 24. I do not know the code google books uses. Ogress 17:55, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

I will add the Hans Wehr citation; I hope you don't mind, but I will also remove the word ra'wa as there is no evidence of that pronunciation in Levantine (or any other dialect as far as I know). As for the coding on the google books, I'm pretty sure I can figure out how to ensure the single page view. Thanks again for all your help.--Akhooha (talk) 19:41, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Advice

Thanks for the advice, but I know a lot more about wikipedia than an average troll and vandal like yourself.DEUTSCHBLUT (talk) 23:22, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

@DEUTSCHBLUT: so you are a sock avoiding a block? Ogress 23:24, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Sorry troll, I only respond to English.DEUTSCHBLUT (talk) 22:23, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

@DEUTSCHBLUT: What kind of editor named "DEUTSCHBLUT" only speaks English? Ogress 22:24, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ogress#Advice" is the url of this page. The "en" before "wikipedia" denotes the English language. DEUTSCHBLUT (talk) 22:43, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Okay, buddy. Ogress 23:11, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 31

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Aramaic language, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Aram (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) 09:52, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

2016 Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Community Survey

The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has appointed a committee to lead the search for the foundation’s next Executive Director. One of our first tasks is to write the job description of the executive director position, and we are asking for input from the Wikimedia community. Please take a few minutes and complete this survey to help us better understand community and staff expectations for the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director.

• Survey, (hosted by Qualtrics)

Thank you, The Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Steering Committee via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:48, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Revert on Derzalas

I have appended a discussion of the merits of my expansion of Derzelas with ethnographical associations and related visual materials see Talk:Derzelas. The Twinkle revert seems overly cautious

"Anti-vandalism tools, such as Twinkle, Huggle, and rollback, should not be used to undo good-faith changes unless an appropriate edit summary is used."

What facts, as added, do you dispute as Uncited, WP:FRINGE, bad cites since all are linked to other Wikipedia pages where possible, or supported by good faith "ref" tags to GoogleBooks cites and other suitable resources available online? The semiosography of attributes of ancient deities is perhaps contested in academic circles, with controversial implications for contemporary religious observations, however as a non-academic I simply wish to make the case that the figure of Derzalas has a fascinating provenance with many rich cultural ramifications for contemporary affairs, in particular the heritage of interactions along the Silk road with protoIndoIranian languages and Aramaic monotheism as evidenced in the Russian ethnographer's famous account of his native Manchurian guide. Pls advise how to proceed to retain as much as feasible of the new material added MrsKrishan (talk) 08:20, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

discussion continued over at User_talk:Maunus#Problem_editor MrsKrishan (talk) 14:27, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Problem editor's response re: misattributed CITE critique (misread time codes, separated by at least 3 years) appended to Talk:Derzelas#Invitation_to_discussion_re:_factual_accuracy.2C_June_2106

re: WP:FRINGE tag: respectfully, an ignorance of history just doesn't warrant the epithet "fringe" applied to those more widely read. May I draw your attention to the ancient roots of veneration associated with Baetylus, such as that of the temple in Rome associated with SyroRoman Emporor Elgobalus the center of a controversial religious cult

The deity Elagabalus was initially venerated at Emesa. This form of the god's name is a Latinized version of the Syrian Ilāh hag-Gabal, which derives from Ilāh (a Semitic word for "god") and gabal (an Aramaic word for "mountain"), resulting in "the God of the Mountain," the Emesene manifestation of the deity.

The linguistic connections are no mere tenuous supposition on my part: Edessa in Syria is derived from Odessa in Macedonia, Perso-Hellenized cultic practices replacing more ancient Semitic cults associated with Abrahamic montheism in Muslim tradition, see present day Sanliurfa. I appreciate you making time for discussion and working to keep Wikipedia the great resource for advancing human understanding and promoting peace.

Odessa was founded in 1794, Ἔδεσσα is an Ancient Greek name dating back to classical antiquity. What do you mean "Edessa in Syria is derived from Odessa in Macedonia"? Ogress 22:01, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

References

Racist terminology?

What the hell are you talking about? I based the wording off of Lebanese people's infobox. Was it really necessary to revert the entire edit and not just whatever "racist" term you mean?--Monochrome_Monitor 06:03, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

@Monochrome Monitor: You restored Semitic people... Also, it's not a "crusade" to want to fix mistaken ethnic issues. Also, you forgot to add "peoples" to one of them, I fixed that but I don't think you will object. Ogress 06:36, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Your vandalizing the "Rojava" article

There have now formal requests for comment be placed on the talk page of the Rojava article. I strongly recommend that you abstain from further vandalizing the article with POV agenda. All the issues you brought up will be most formally resolved in due process, and no further changes should be made until then. If you wish to express yourself on the issue, just do it in the talk page of the article. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 14:37, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 20 June

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Śrauta page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:29, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Nathan Hale

See my talk. Are you serious? It said "two" other places and listed THREE. I merely changed it to "THREE", fixing an obvious error. And you people wonder why wiki can't keep editors around. GEEZ. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8805:5805:A00:9C9D:6AB3:CBF8:A317 (talk) 12:33, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

@2600:8805:5805:A00:9C9D:6AB3:CBF8:A317: You also replaced a date with the character ĩ and did not use an edit summary, so you'll forgive me if I reverted you. Ogress 15:16, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Moors

Thanks, that was copyvio.[2]. Doug Weller talk 05:36, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

- I thought the dictionary link was a useful. It is on the top of the list when searching google for 'tigrinya'. Please check. Sorry if I am not interacting the right way. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.145.61.214 (talk) 16:36, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Buddhaghoṣa

Hi, title: Buddhaghoṣa or Buddhaghosa [3]? JimRenge (talk) 20:10, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, the correct spelling is Buddhaghoṣa; I therefore vote Buddhaghoṣa. The correctly-romanised alternative is Buddhaghosha, which I'm pretty sure I've not even seen. I'm unclear why people hate diacritics since we use them for other languages. Ogress 22:44, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

What can be done about troublemakers?

Hi. That Rasta Rabbit really lost it today. You did some great work on Sheba, hope he doesn't come back and remove parts of it. I'm not a big fan of committees and boards, but some people can't even read a simple text and they should be kept off editing anything other than their own blog. Just getting it off my soul. If it comes to it and I'm not far away in the real world, you can count on my backing. Cheers, Arminden (talk) 18:50, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

After looking at your tidy page a bit, I don't think you need anyone's backing for anything having to do with WP. Nonetheless, all the best to youArminden (talk) 18:53, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Sheba

Looks like B'er Rabbit was a long dormant Til Eulenspiegel sock. Doug Weller talk 18:30, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

I used to find Till Eulenspiegel very amusing (for a German), but B'er Rabbit... not a bit, just stupid.Arminden (talk) 15:55, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 3

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Æsir, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Anselm, Osred and Osmund (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) 11:14, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't know if this interests you

Naia (skeleton) - which really needs renaming. I've had to ask for semi-protection but hopefully I'll get it. Doug Weller talk 19:17, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Mamluk edit

You added text regarding 'chivalry' and Mamluks. One added paragraph I believe claimed too much in regard to fertilisation.

Can you check the timing of evolution of 'chivalry' within the Mamluks vis-a-vis within the Europeans? For instance, if the Crusades were the most significant encounter between these two warrior classes, but didn't happen until near 12th century, how did the Mamluks influence the development of chivalry in the immediately preceding years? Even if the encounter might foster transfer of ideas, such ideas are not usually adopted wholesale in the homeland in near real-time.

I think these are parallel developments, not sequential. Though I do note the section Medieval literature and the influence of the Moors and Romans makes arguments for 'influence' on the background of chivalry. But connecting the supposed influence through Spain, with the Mamluks seems to be a stretch of a couple thousand miles and compression of many decades? Shenme (talk) 01:07, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Invitation to Asian Women Month

Hi there! As you may know, this November is Asian Women Month, hosted by Wikipedia Asian Month and WikiWomen In Red. Our goal is to encourage coverage of Asian women in order to help overcome the Asian content gender gap. Asian Women Month observes the rules of Wikipedia Asian Month. You will receive a special Asian Women Month barnstar if you create four articles in accordance with the rules for the event, as well as a postcard sent from an Asian community! Thanks for your consideration. Read more here! -Rimmel.Edits Talk 01:34, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

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

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

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

"Why did you necro a year-old thread?"

I added something in the talk of an article, and from you received a response "Why did you necro a year-old thread? Do not do that." 'Fraid I have no idea of what you mean by "necro" or what I did that was / is wrong. I'm not schooled in the fine point of Wikitalk, just thought I was making a reasonable point. Please explain. GeeBee60 (talk) 17:17, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

@GeeBee60:, you replied to a thread in which the last post was almost 16 months old. That's called "necroing" (meaning "necromancy") because you are metaphorically raising the dead. Don't do that, it's bad wikiquette (in most cases). Basically, at that point make a new section and raise the issue you are concerned about, linking to the previous section and noting that there was, for example, a discussion about this that ended 16 months ago but you think it deserves revisiting. Ogress 17:38, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. Is this bit of wikiquette revealed anywhere (other than in your note)? I'm a relatively new editor and I've never read that, only the very pithy "Put new text under old text." To be more certain I just reread the couple of different articles on TALK and I see things that I c/should have done differently over the past year or so. But I did not find anything that says that each talk section is a time-limited discussion, such as is clearly stated by you; if that is the case, maybe it could be stated more clearly in a TALK overview. I just thought that you had a good point in the talk section, was trying to indicate support for it if it could be expanded upon in a different part of the article. Maybe not. But, thanks for the advice. GeeBee60 (talk) 02:09, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

@GeeBee60: It's common web etiquette, so it shouldn't entirely be surprising that it's wikiquette. I meant no reprimand; I didn't use a warning or anything, just commented for your information.

I actually have been on Wikipedia so damn long I couldn't for the life of me point out the right guide without significant searching. However, if a topic is no longer current, don't necro: make a new section if you feel there is a solid reason to weigh in on a subject. Rule of thumb I use is that about three months, barring multiple ongoing topic below the topic in question, is necroing. If there's nothing (or nothing significant) on a page I'll comment in a section; if the page is very active, I adjust accordingly because if it's too far back no one will see it. Ogress 20:56, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

OK thanks. I'll keep your advice in mind. GeeBee60 (talk) 05:51, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Heteropatriarchy

Hi! They are trying to delete again the article about heteropatriarchy. Could you help to improve the article or to take part in the discussion? Thanks a lot! DaddyCell (talk) 13:35, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

A problem

Hi, I'm a new wikipedia editor just starting out. I wish to make you aware of the fact that "Allah" itself in arabic means "God" and it's also what the muslims say when referring to their god. Please don't change "Allah" to "God" in wikipedia pages with islamic topics. I don't mean to be rude or something, but please don't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DarkSpartan (talk • contribs) 15:22, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

I think it's such an epic statement to be mentioned specially concerned from Bhuddhist(Mahayana) perspective. Asauchi (talk) 23:00, 14 April 2017 (UTC)