User talk:Mwidunn

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Mwidunn, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! IZAK 10:19, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unexplained removals of content

I have reverted you at Corpus Aristotelicum (removing the link to an online translation of Aristotle's Physics) and at Stobaeus (removing the English pronunciation of the name). These removals seemed clearly inappropriate to me. Sampling some of your other recent edits that remove content, I can sometimes see the rationale (for example, removing a dead link or a link to a 2012 translation that appears probably self-promotional). However, because you have not used edit summaries, it is unnecessarily difficult to evaluate whether these edits improve the encyclopedia or not. So may I respectfully ask that you provide clear edit summaries for your work here, taking especial care to justify anything that removes content from the encyclopedia. P.S. Also see WP:ERA, a guideline you may not have followed at Philo. Wareh (talk) 14:46, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On the pronunciation of Stobaeus, see e.g. pp. 580 and 588 here. Lots of very learned people pronounce Greek and Roman names at random, but there is nothing traditional about "Sto-BAY-us," "Ti-MAY-us," etc., and these won't be found in careful speech/sources. Wareh (talk) 01:08, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your IPA rendering of "Ioannes Stobaeus" is not correct, either by the standards of Classical (Academic) pronunciation of Latin or the Ecclesiastical pronunciation (currently in use, for example, amongst Christian theologians): see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_pronunciation#Ecclesiastical_pronunciation. "Lots of very learned people" in Classics, Philosophy, etc. do NOT pronounce his name as: "Joe-A-neez STO-bee-uhs," rather they respect the conventions of either Classical or Ecclesiastical Latin. Nevertheless, I recognize that there may be a common way of pronouncing the name according to the standards of English pronunciation. Fine -- I accept that; and, hence, left your (incorrect, I believe) IPA rendering alone and supplemented it.Mwidunn (talk) 05:03, 23 July 2012 (UTC)mwidunn[reply]

Thanks for the tolerant attitude and the benefit of the doubt. I only want to note that your informal representation "Joe-A-neez STO-bee-uhs" does not correspond at all to the IPA given at the Stobaeus article, which would be more like "Joe-ANN-iss Sto-BEE-uhs." The point I'd like to insist on is that what we have now is the English pronunciation, and I've provided a footnote to a WP:RS confirming this. If you want to add, carefully, Classical Latin and Ecclesiastical Latin pronunciations, that'd be fine with me (though really Ancient Greek would be more relevant than either of these). Wareh (talk) 02:23, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response. My IPA transcription conformed to the following pronunciation: yoh-AH-nayz stoh-BAY-uhs. That is how the pronunciation would conform to the standards of Ecclesiastical Latin. I guess, I should have also given the IPA for Classical pronunciation (which hardly differs much): yoh-AH-nayz stoh-BY-uhs. Still, the IPA representation given for the Stobaeus article is technically wrong, both as to pronunciation—there was/is no "j"-sound in Latin—and as to accent—the combination "ae" actually represents a single letter in Latin, which is always long accented. As for your comment about Ancient Greek: (1) his name is already listed in Greek; (2) your comment is irrelevant as Stobaeus lived in the 400's A.D., which is well beyond the time of the Ancient Greek language; (3) the frontmatter to all of Stobaeus' work was written in Latin. Hence, that is why his name is conventionally known that way.Mwidunn (talk) 19:26, 31 July 2012 (UTC)mwidunn[reply]

Unexplained removal of content

Please do not remove content without sufficient justification. Thanks Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:56, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 6

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Diedrich Bader, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Innkeepers (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) 11:25, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

December 2012

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did at Johnny Cash, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you. The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 14:09, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There has been no vandalism. Johnny Cash was an American singer/songwriter. The fact that he researched his ancestry (which happened to include Scottish ancestry) is no more relevant than your mentioning his concern for the plight of Native Americans. You do not show that he ever self-identified as a "Scotch-American." Hence, the removal of the content. I have the feeling that you're trying to include extraneous information that is only of interest to you, and not generally relevant to the matter at hand (hence, "Jacobite" in your handle). If you can find a sourcer which asserts Cash's affinity for his mixed Scottish roots, then -- by all means -- provide it. And, I will have no more problems. Cheers! Mwidunn (talk) 06:43, 12 July 2013 (UTC)mwidunn[reply]

July 2013

This is your only warning; if you remove or blank page contents or templates from Wikipedia again, as you did at Johnny Cash, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 14:47, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If I'm editing the page INCORRECTLY (like, I should be opening a Discuss section on your comments -- which I don't yet know how to do), then please direct me to the page which explains what I should do properly. But, please, stop threatening people. Wikipedia isn't your own personal "bully pulpit." I think, my edit is justifiable. If you block me, then you'll force me to bring this to a Moderator's attention as per Wikipedia's guidelines. Mwidunn (talk) 05:34, 13 July 2013 (UTC)mwidunn[reply]

Didache

I'm suspicious about your additional changes. You didn't place a reason for your edit. I don't know what you've added is true or not, so I decided not to risk it even though it was just a minor add. Also, It's not really necessary to have an alternative. What is wrong with the one already inserted? There has to be something wrong if you have an alternative. -- ♣Jerm♣729 17:47, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

January 2014

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed your recent edit to Altar does not have an edit summary. Please provide one before saving your changes to an article, as the summaries are quite helpful to people browsing an article's history.

The edit summary appears in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. Thanks! Elizium23 (talk) 18:14, 15 January 2014 (UTC) Elizium23 (talk) 18:14, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

January 2014

Welcome to Wikipedia. At least one of your recent edits, such as the edit you made to Didache, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at the welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make some test edits, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you. Your edit was not explained, nor have you replied yet for your reasons about adding an alternative Academic pronunciation in Didache. ♣Jerm♣729 20:07, 15 January 2014 (UTC) Mwidunn (talk) 04:47, 12 December 2016 (UTC)mwidunn My edit was entirely constructive: "DI-duh-kee" is not the only pronunciation of the Greek word. It can also be pronounced: "DI-duh-kay." Instead of deleting your own idiosyncratic pronunciation choice, I added another equally-acceptable one.[reply]

Important Notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Doug Weller talk 13:14, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:30, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:10, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Important Notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in gender-related disputes or controversies or in people associated with them. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Doug Weller talk 20:19, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:36, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]