This is an archive of past discussions with User:Gilgamesh~enwiki. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
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
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)
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"(PDF). Surtsey, Island. Retrieved 2010-03-30., page 12), the map on the Surtsey Report is very similar to this one ("Volcanism in Iceland in historical time: Volcano types, eruption styles and eruptive history". Journal of Geodynamics. 43 (1): 118–152. January 2007. doi:10.1016/j.jog.2006.09.005. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |authors= ignored (help)). 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)):
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"
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)
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
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.
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)
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)
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,[1] 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 BugsWhat'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 BugsWhat'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 BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 20:49, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
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)
Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Hawai'i-related articles not in Hawaiian English
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)
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.
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.
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
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. WMO05:19, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
