The Turkish word burun has several meanings, including 'headland', 'cape', 'point', 'promontory'.[1]. For example, Cape of Good Hope is called Ümit Burnu in Turkish. Literally translated this means 'Hope Cape'; it is ridiculous to state that this means 'Hope Nose'. The English word 'cape' should sometimes be translated into Turkish with pelerin, but it is equally ridiculous to translate 'Cape of Good Hope' as İyi Ümidin Pelerini, as was done on this page, apparently automatically translated from our Little gulper shark article. In translating from one language to another, one should always pick the most appropriate translation of each word, and not just the first one in a dictionary. 'Palace Cape', 'Palace Point', or 'Palace Promontory' are reasonable literal translations of Sarayburnu. The translation 'Palace Nose' is wrong; in an exam points would be taken off for such a bad translation.

If you think that the statement that Sarayburnu is "known in English as the Seraglio Point" is incorrect, then you are mistaken. Whether you approve of this or not, 'Seraglio Point' is a commonly used name for Sarayburnu in English texts.[2][3][4][5][6][7][8] It is true that the origin of the English word 'seraglio' is the Italian word serraglio, just like English 'balcony' comes from Italian balcone, English 'portfolio' comes from Italian portafoglio, and English 'sirocco' comes from Italian scirocco, and so on. These words have become English; they are not Italianized but Anglicized. The 'Seraglio' part in 'Seraglio Point' means Topkapı Palace: the Palace used to be called "the Seraglio" in English; see, for example, the caption of this image.  --Lambiam 08:53, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

There are plenty of Google hits for Sarayburnu meaning "Seraglio Point". There are no sources that support the claim that Sarayburnu means "Palace Nose". Putting that in the article amounts to original research.

You wrote: "Just as we might say 'nose' referring to the front of a plane, it is understood that we are not speaking of a thing with nostrils; likewise, when one refers to the Palace Nose, it is also understood that the meanings are those you ascribe." But because the use of the term 'nose' for a promontory is entirely foreign to native English speakers, the expression 'Palace Nose' does actually evoke a mental image of a literal nose, nostrils and all, and I think that even with the following phrases many English speakers will not see that 'Nose' corresponds to English 'Point' or 'promontory', but will just see some inexplicably quaint name. The fact that you think this "speaks to the flavor of Turkish language" and don't see how ridiculous this sounds, suggests to me that you are not a native English speaker.

In Sarayburnu the component Saray is short for, and means, Topkapı Sarayı, that is, in present-day English, "the Topkapi Palace".
In 'Seraglio Point' the component 'Seraglio' is short for, and means, "the Topkapi Seraglio", that is, in present-day English, "the Topkapi Palace".
In other words, the component Saray in Sarayburnu means the same as the component 'Seraglio' in 'Seraglio Point'. Therefore it is fair to say, in this context, that Saray means "the Seraglio".

'Cape' is not just a connotation of burun. It is one of the possible meanings of that Turkish word. You can't translate English 'foothill' as ayak tepesi, and you can't translate Turkish dağ eteği as 'mountain skirt'. That has nothing to do with these languages employing poetry to name the concepts. In the word 'foothill', 'foot' means etek, and in dağ eteği the word etek means 'foot (of a mountain)'. The meaning of a compound word can in general not be obtained by a literal word-by-word translation of the components without taking account of the context.  --Lambiam 19:38, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually that is not quite correct if I may interject. The book by Fanny Davis. Palace of Topkapi in Istanbul. 1970. ASIN B000NP64Z2 clearly refers to "Palace Point" on at least 11 pages (pgs. 7, 17, 40, 179, 209, 261, etc.) the term "Seraglio Point" however she does not mention once. Since saray means "palace", which used to be also called "seraglio" from Italian but the harem was also called that, I would actually tend to call it "Palace Point" as well, instead of an antiquated Italian (mis)translation. Gryffindor 12:07, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Er... what exactly is it that is not quite correct? I see no contradiction between what you wrote and what I wrote. Further, you may prefer "Palace Point" (a designation about which I have only said that it is a reasonable literal translation of Sarayburnu), but the Google hit counts suggest that "Seraglio Point" is used far more commonly, by a factor of 200 or so.  --Lambiam 23:27, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can get on board with a wording that represents the translation of the Turkish as "Palace Point", independent of any statements regarding the use of "Seraglio"; Thankfully, our standard of quality is not ruled by the most number of hits generated by Google (otherwise, we will need to redefine nauseated and nauseas as well as 'irregardless'). By such a measure of fact and accuracey, you could establish that the child George Washington chopped down a cherry tree, proclaiming, 'I can not tell a lie' -a modern fabrication that has been so broadly propagated that (I hazard to assert) the balance of Americans accept it as fact. Mavigogun (talk) 06:45, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Google hit count was mentioned with one purpose only: to corroborate the statement that "Seraglio Point" is a more common name in English for this neighbourhood of Istanbul than "Palace Point". The Wikipedia naming conventions require that article names prefer what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize, which is not a standard of truth or of quality, but nevertheless a reasonable convention. If the Google hit count is as decisive as it is in this case (200 to 1, unlike the 1 to 186 defeat of "irregardless" against "regardless", so you are equating ratios that are off by four orders of magnitude) it is fair to use it as evidence.  --Lambiam 10:16, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This is something that has been discussed extensively in the talk page archives. Basically, users were edit warring of whether he was Arab or Persian, so we came up with the solution to simply mention that some sources say Arab while others say Persian, as his ethnic background is unclear. I think you are confusing the term "Persian" as a nationality and synonym for "Iranian" as opposed to Persian as the ethno-linguistic group. There is actually a debate about that here if you are interested. I agree with you that ideally we should not mention ethnicity at all but both Arab and Persian are up there as a compromise due to the long-standing conflict on that page. If we remove the ethnicity someone will eventually add back one of the two, and the edit warring would most likely resume. Khoikhoi 06:18, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above posted in response to this:

I appreciate your attempt to find a designation for the ethnicity or national origin of Jabir ibn Hayyan -especially in the current atmosphere surrounding the history of Islamic cultures where editorializing is often based on ıdeology, emotion, and personal preference- however, you are catering to those elements by indicating that Jabir ibn Hayyan was 'Iranian born'; this would be like saying Byzantium was built in Turkey, or that Columbus discovered The United States. I suggest, if you wish to use a modern signifier of region that does not assert ethnicity, that the passage be rephrased to indicate that he was born in an area that is part of modern day Iran. The alternative is to use an accurate name for the area from his time, which will in all likely hood prove derisive to those with conflicting agendas.Mavigogun (talk) 05:57, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was my understanding that, contemporary to Jabir ibn Hayyan, the use of the term "Iranian", as used in his native land, was not a signifier of the political boundary from which one proclaimed allegiance, but a ethnic label for those of Ayran heritage.Mavigogun (talk) 07:10, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't recall ever trying to indicate that if he was born in Iran, he is therefore Persian. It is up to readers to decide, that's what the info is presented in a neutral manner. See WP:V: The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. Let me show you some of the sources cited in the article and what they say:

• William Royall Newman, Gehennical Fire: The Lives of George Starkey, an American Alchemist in the Scientific Revolution, Harvard University Press, 1994. pg 94: "According to traditional bio-bibliography of Muslims, Jabir ibn Hayyan was a Persian alchemist who lived at some time in the eight century and wrote a wealth of books on virtually every aspect of natural philosophy"
• William R. Newman, The Occult and Manifest Among the Alchemist", in F. J. Ragep, Sally P Ragep, Steven John Livesey, "Tradition, Transmission, Transformation: Proceedings of Two Conferences on pre-Modern science held at University of Oklahoma", Brill,1996/1997, pg 178:"This language of extracting the hidden nature formed an important lemma for the extensive corpus associated with the Persian alchemist Jabir ibn Hayyan"
• Neil Kamil,Fortress of the Soul: Violence, Metaphysics, and Material Life in the Huguenots New World, 1517-1751 (Early America: History, Context, Culture), JHU Press, 2005. pg 182: "The ninth-century Persian alchemist Jabir ibn Hay- yan, also known as Geber, is accurately called pseudo-Geber since most of the works published under this name in the West were forgeries"

This is only a handful of the sources on that page. I'm pretty sure that all of them pass WP:RS. The point is that the truth on Wikipedia is irrelevant. What matters is whether information can be backed up with reliable sources or not. It is not our job at Wikipedians to speculate or add original research. We have very good sources for both Arab and Persian. IMO the current form of the introduction goes in accordance with Wikipedia's policies. Khoikhoi 07:15, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is not my aim to engage in speculation or debate as to ethnicity- my query speaks more to whether or not the terminology referred to is anachronistic, and if so, does that anachronism play into feeding derision; to this end, the cited references may be useful -or not- depending on the fashion of the time of origin. References may be cited to bolster several positions, with varying degree of quality; our choices as to which we cite describe our agenda -mine being to favor knowledge over belief. Present the 'facts', let the reader decide on the nature of truth -a practical policy. I am not disputing truth (not in dispute at all, actually). My comments were not directed to the body of the document, but the label of the image, as it's editing brought the mater to my attention. I am dispassionate, regarding this.Mavigogun (talk) 07:51, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Actually, the name Iran/Persia/(Fors/Fars in Arabic) has been used since the Sassanid times as a geographical region before Islam [9]. But you are correct, at that time, the term Iranian was simply used for those of Iranian heritage rather than another heritage (for example Arabic). Geographical citizenship did not exist. As per the background of Jabir, the sources used do not say Iranian-born but rather Persian in the sense of ethnicity. For example this reference is one of them: [10]. On Jabir the issue is very fuzzy, three places of birth has been give. Some have even questioned his existence. But usually the sources (the most recent ones that are of high specialized region) know the difference between Persian and Arab and they use it in a background sense rather than geographic. --Nepaheshgar 11:55, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello. A credible authors' reference is being "overrided" by edit-warring. I recently tried to add to the telescope article but this editor seems to think that his opinion overrides a VERY credible author in Mr. Richard Powers. I've been blocked before for edit-warring recently, so I don't want this to be another incident on my record.

Anyway, the other editor seemed to have asked his friend-type editors to form a consensus, so I will do the same. The Islamic connection here is, Al-Haytham. He is FUNDAMENTAL to the telescope and the FATHER of optics. By definition, the summary can include him since the radio and electro-magnetic telescopes are derogatory to the average person looking at the article; I wanted to add it to the history section since it looked cleaner. Can you help your fellow InternetHero?? InternetHero (talk) 21:02, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will not act as a proxy for anyone in an editing conflict; my only option is to educate myself, read the article, and make edits as necessary after vetting my proposed changes on the appropriate talk page: however, your solicitation and the degree of creditability represented by the repeated warnings to and suspensions of your user account do not meet my motivation threshold. You might enjoy a publishing environment without the conditions imposed on contributers to this utility; a blog might well suit you.Mavigogun (talk) 22:37, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. On this edit, you changed the lead section of the article. I tend to find it good etiquette to let people know before changing the article on such a large scale. Unfortunately, the lead section is almomst always controversial when changing. I think you should take it up in the article's talk-page. Sincerely, InternetHero (talk) 19:42, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From that articles talk page:

as with all Wikipedia documents, it is evolving.

The lead section is not the place to pose or resolve arguments- unless controversy is the very subject of the article. Issues of naming accuracy and national identity of historical figures, such as these, are more appropriately addressed on the talk page. Nor is it a place to summarize common misconceptions- a highly subjective task that is at odds with the purpose of the article: to concisely and succinctly present information pertinent to the subject.

The 'Skrælings' reference is also extraneous to the lead, which would be better were it to find another home; however, I am reticent to remove it. Perhaps it could be worked into the body of the article. As is, it unnecessarily burdens the lead.

Considering that the lead section contained two items of potential contention -Naming Convention and Legacy- discussion here would have been wise considering the personal investment some might have in those positions -regardless of appropriateness to the lead. However, the article must not represent every minority view, and, in the lead, only the pertinent and majority held positions should be represented -lest it not serve it's function.

If the Naming Convention and Legacy issues concern you, develop them in an appropriate section -or article.

The lead was a contorted ramble; its function has been improved by the edits.Mavigogun (talk) 05:18, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

You're english is good but you use the weird button for the dashes. You can use whatever you want, but most people use the 'insert' button found below. InternetHero (talk) 10:30, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, users are allowed to clear their user talk page, without archiving. Some consider it rude to archive current discussions (but not against policy), but deleting a message is also a sign that the user has received the message. - DigitalC (talk) 05:35, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Noted and appreciated.Mavigogun (talk) 05:40, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Delete this if you want, but I noticed that you're getting a little upset. Try and stay cool. Wikipedia is all about trying to contribute with a form of modern-day literature—which is Wikipedia—and if you can't expect respect from other editors, then some of that fun is ruined. I'm not here to ruin that for you. InternetHero (talk) 10:49, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an opportunity to reflect on your 13-year-old self. Mavigogun (talk) 19:24, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This edit was productive. InternetHero (talk) 10:55, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This edit accuses us of racism, and I have posted a Wikiquette alert to request an outside analysis. It seems a little bit silly given that I arrived at that page to resolve a dispute, but hope that I am socially savvy enough to recognize when all of my words are being binned in a fight rather than being read in a discussion. - Eldereft (cont.) 13:41, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is his habit to delete unflattering feed back -whether or not it is merely to pander to his ego, or as a concerted effort to obfuscate his history of discord, I could only speculate. There are only so many hands you can offer to a drowning man, and I begin to tire from putting down my load to offer this troubled youth assistance. Still, problems don't go away when we close our eyes- I'll contribute where you indicated.Mavigogun (talk) 05:25, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A request for comment on user conduct has been filed regarding this issue at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/InternetHero. Your participation there would be appreciated. - DigitalC (talk) 07:41, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed that nobody had given you a welcome template yet, so here ya' go. The links provide a useful reference guide with the most important stuff near the top layer. You seem so far to be a positive force for the encyclopedia (from what I have seen; obviously, this includes nothing before last week), but there is always help if you ever feel muddled. You should of course feel free to move or delete this table (or anything else) if you do not want it cluttering up your usertalk page. - Eldereft (cont.) 21:52, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks much; it would have been a bit more help, as you said, earlier -I've had to swim through streams of links to find tools that are easy to access from the template. Thanks again for the consideration.Mavigogun (talk) 22:08, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

====Transplanted in toto to user page.====Mavigogun (talk) 08:21, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You may not know all of the recent history. Over the past few weeks one editor has been making changes to articles on gliding against the opinions of the leader of the Aviation Wikiproject, two members of the Royal Air Force and an author of a book on gliding. He first made the changes without consultation, and after these changes were reverted with the agreement of everyone else, he continued. He has even changed Wikipedia guidelines to suit his case. I think that a statement that this is unacceptable and that he may not be susceptible to reason is mild in the circumstances. JMcC (talk) 09:15, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Without regard to how arduous the task might seem, articles are not served by directing comments to the integrity or merit of individual users on the related article talk; address user issues at their talk page or the appropriate mediation venue. Frankly, while I find the guideline editing and subsequent referencing ill-conceived and naive, I can separate the message from the messenger; likewise, the bureaucratic standing or military service of those contributing to an article are likewise parsed from their ideas- which I consider on their own merit.--Mavigogun (talk) 11:18, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are quite right. I apologise. I was frustrated in my wish for the opinion of experts to be respected and for information to be conveyed clearly in standard English. JMcC (talk) 11:52, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I sympathize with you; I've been there, too. The inane, the passionately misguided, and -worst of all- the disingenuous: they can tax our ability to stay cool. The greatest challenge for me is to see past their disposition and assess ideas without prejudiced.

My perspective of English has gained some flexibility with exposure to non-native speakers, and use as a Lingua Franca- in many ways, I relate to earlier and later generations in much the same way; however, my disdain for the use of 'goes', 'went', and 'like' in place of 'said' is unlessened by an egalitarian acceptance of change. In my brain, it's just WRONG. The list goes on. I feel as though we are sliding toward an era with thousands of nouns, a handful of verbs- and little else. It's not so, though: the syntax used in some parts of Black America adheres to a coherent standard with little apparent connection to what I recognize as English- but is complex and rich and capable of sensitivity and nuance. When it comes to language, the only real test of validity is: does it function well? Does it facilitate communication as circumstances demand? Nostalgia and tradition are at odds with the nature of language -and within the long history of English, have lost time and time again. Witness the diverse contributers to English- from Greek and Latin to French and Norse. Perhaps the language of The Bard will return as need presents itself- but history causes me to doubt it. Mavigogun (talk) 15:42, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also quite right, but an encyclopedia article written in anything but conventional English will just lack credibility. Any other sort of English implies that the user doesn't know any better and so the perception of the information is correspondingly degraded. JMcC (talk) 18:08, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For Sure. I didn't tie those thoughts together clearly. I'm suggesting that within the scope of academic or formal language usage there is just as surely an evolution of form- and whether one views those changes as subtle or extreme is largely a function of relative cultural distance. Eventually time imposes that distance on us all. Regarding nominating aircraft, the specificity of the language is peculiar to our subculture; surely the general public has a preconception of what the disputed language means- and we would do well to take that into account when constructing articles -without editing to conform to those expectations.Mavigogun (talk) 18:48, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am particularly grateful for your message on 31 December pointing out that the futility of derisive comments. I have accepted this entirely. I was therefore disappointed that you of all people have suggested that I was being disingenuous. I understand that we have to assume good faith. You have to believe me that I did not notice the inconsistency in the table that I later corrected. I was also puzzled that you thought my correction of the heading was "showy; looking good at first sight; plausible, but wrong or inaccurate in reality". Is that really what you meant to say? JMcC 14:13, 9 January 2009 (UTC) (now signed. One tilde too few)[reply]

Give it a second read with this in mind: I was not suggesting that you knowingly mislabeled with the intention to manipulate; rather, that you 'refused to get the point' when reading my words- which were, to summarize, that your initial labeling of the heading was 'natural, accurate, and succinct', and that your choice of those words were testament to the problems with the article's name- not the section heading. To clarify: what looks like a direct quote above (by Jmcc150, unsigned) of myself is both not a quote and inaccurate in summation, attributing several value judgments that were not asserted or implied. See Talk:Unpowered_aircraft, with attention to Illustration of Misnaming Convention. As to good faith: I may very well have been regrettably reactionary to what I believed were clearly articulated questions of merit; it seems that they were anything but clear. My apologies, and appreciation for your feedback. --Mavigogun (talk) 10:54, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mavigogun, I have a new suggestion up at Talk:Glider#Arbitrary_beak. All suggestions and comments are very welcome. Regards, AKAF (talk) 12:53, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please study the above. The edit summary of your edit to Michael Dickinson, is incorrect: "nationality of topic irrelevant to spelling convention".[11] Nationality of subject determines spelling convention. You should also not change the spelling convention already established in an article without very good reason, and usually obtaining consensus. Ty 13:42, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

True- it should read, "Nationality of topic irrelevant in this case". I believed, erroneously, that the spelling had been recently changed from that previously used -'American' English- the edit was intended as a reversion. After assessing the many previous edits, it is clear that British English was used in the article from an earlier date than the American. It was not my intent to step into an edit war focused around language preference- quite the contrary.

My reading of the MOS interprets the assertion that articles must be written in the language used by the subject as fallacious. One need not use diction native to California when speaking about residence of that state, nor style words to suit the land whence any other subject originates from. When it is germane to the content or the audience, preference is given to the least discordant varient- such as when the quoted work of an author is distractingly different from that of the article about said work or author, or when it is disruptive due to cultural context. Neither are the case here. Mavigogun (talk) 09:34, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per Wikipedia:ENGVAR#Strong_national_ties_to_a_topic: "An article on a topic that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation uses the appropriate variety of English for that nation." An English person has a very strong tie to a particular English-speaking nation, namely England, and the article should use UK English. An article about a native Californian should use US English. This is widely accepted and practised. It would be quite inappropriate for an article on the US president, for example, to use UK spelling throughout, even if the article had been started with UK spelling. It would need to be changed. Ty 14:38, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

However, that is not always the case- and most certainly not with the article in question. While it is of no consequence (as there is no sound argument for revision of convention), the focus of the article is not on nationality- but notoriety in a third country (namely, Turkey). As such, the subject is no different than many other artists in the public sphere, such as actors, who attain fame outside of their birth country; I submit the 'American' English penned pages for Mel Gibson and Anthony Hopkins as two of many, many examples.

The point of California was one of dialect, which varies greatly from the Eastern or Southern portion of the United States- or Brittan. The use of common formal idiomatic language or regionally common collocations -or spelling- of California would be no more appropriate for an article springing from that region when its topic had non-regional readership- such as, say, the industrial rise of Silicon Vally.Mavigogun (talk) 06:00, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The edit placed by the anon editor before you is somewhat more correct. So, in turn, his reversion of your edit to change the dashes is also correct [12]. The "em dash" is used to help readers distinguish between hyphenated words, and whole phrases that are set off from the rest of the sentence. Thanks! Piano non troppo (talk) 16:59, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mavigogun, I should go for work for the moment, we can have a debate in the evening. Happy editing. --Chapultepec (talk) 06:06, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Or maybe just illumination and mutual adjustment of perspective? I look forward to hearing from you.Mavigogun (talk) 06:11, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I should have mentioned to you earlier my appreciation for your efforts on Antalya. My edits have mostly, in the past few months, attempted to keep the article free from spam, never mind encyclopedic! What a relief to have a "heavy hitter" on the job! Thanks. Student7 (talk) 21:19, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I agree that some items will have to be in the article because there is no "greater Antalya" article. It would be nice to distinguish where that is possible which I think has been done. There are items that would seem to enhance the Antalya Province article that seemed peculiar here, like the dependence on agriculture. But the wholesale market definitely should be there. Hope they can find a reference. (And it's in English!  :) I read that you may concur with the tourist info. I've placed these under economy in most articles I'm working on. It seems less promotional and more reporting. The cultural items and landmarks appear everywhere. They are a bit touristy, but handled objectively, they don't seem too much out of place. Student7 (talk) 21:27, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, The reason I did the reference that way is that I'm expecting to end up with a dozen or more different page references from Huata's book (something that Wikipedia really sucks at). dramatic (talk) 06:32, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I left some discussion on your reversion of my hatnote on the article's discussion page. Thanks.Dave (talk) 00:36, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd shortened this addition a bit since it was already discussed in the third paragraph of Influenza#Transmission. All the best Tim Vickers (talk) 19:04, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is redundant- the only reason for retention might be for those who are scanning the article for specific information using the section headers; However, it's already a fairly heavily weighted article- I'll omit the addition.Mavigogun (talk) 19:11, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're right though that it makes sense to remind the reader that influenza isn't just transmitted by aerosols at the beginning of that section, to make the reason for handwashing being so surprisingly effective immediately clear. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:13, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not accuse me of vandalism, such as you did here: [13] This accusation is wrong, as was your claim of my motivation. I was just trying to highlight a confusing sentence, and this confusion remains. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.224.61.154 (talk) 06:31, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There was nothing to find confusing- except your omitting the last closing character in the reference mark-up; you refuse to use the talk page, 'you' have no identity (zero accountability/responsibility), you don't seek to fix- only to sing out when you perceive a problem; in this case, a fabricated problem. Worse than useless, the behavior is destructive. Try contributing- it's vastly more rewarding.Mavigogun (talk) 17:19, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I have already noted that I only noted that clarification was needed of why this sentence is in the article. This is legitmate: it is not vandalism.
• A typographical error is just that: it is not vandalism.

Anonymous edits that leave a page broken- vandalism isn't such an inexpiable conclusion, is it?Mavigogun (talk) 03:40, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• isn't such an inexpiable conclusion, is it? No it is not. A typographical error is not vandalism.

• You have only just noted on the edit summary about a discussion, here: [14]so where is my refusal.

Attempts to engage your concerns on the talk page started with the 12 September 2009 edit.Mavigogun (talk) 03:40, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Prior to my very recent comments I can find nothing on the discussion page about the relevance of a modern, Belgian glider to an Ottoman of the C17th.

Nor may one find any discussion started by you to address any of your concerns, prior to that indicated above; of course you have concerns that go beyond the narrow subject of the contemporary glider reference- to pretend otherwise is obtuse. Mavigogun (talk) 12:18, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• If you do not like an editor not having a non de plume then campaign for an appropriate change in rules: Wikipedia has always and continues to accept contributions without non de plumes.

I gladly accord you all respect due your choices.Mavigogun (talk) 03:40, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• ?

• There is no fabricated problems. I have expressed concern about confusing, irrelevant and unreferenced content: this is not vandalism, this is highlighting where improvements are needed.
• I not not wish to resort to name calling. However, it is your behaviour that is destructive: you insert semmingly confusing and irrelevant. You do not include appropriate, if any, references. When these issues are highly you then resort to false accusation of vandalism.

This editing vehicle features collaboration as a central element; your refusal to use the talk page to that end accurately reflects the assessment- without discourse, there is only discord. 'Important' issues -such as dealing with OR elements- would be greatly served by engaging rather than pontificating in edit summaries or acting unilaterally. Instead of spending energy where it would be productive, you wast it here -quibbling over characterizations of your (anonymous) performance. Mavigogun (talk) 04:29, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I have repeatedly noted the need for proper references. Whereas you insert: unreferenced content; what appears to be original research; dead links claiming to be references; seemingly irrelevant content, and false accusations of vandalism.

Again context: your lack of constructive contribution to fix the minor breaks in links you took issue with, quickly changing the issue to clarification once references are provided, and zero constructive input on the talk page to resolve any issue- references, OR, or otherwise. So, what exactly are you doing to improve the article besides indicating what you think others should do? Put your nose in a book yet? Mavigogun (talk) 12:18, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• You have also removed the tags from author editors: such as [15] That is not constructive.
• You suggest Try contributing: firstly you should try contributing meaningful and referenced content

No small bit of sophistry, this: first you campaign to remove the material that this 'confusing' material relates directly to (the glide ratio of the flight), then you endeavor to remove this material for lack of citation; given citation, you move on to 'confusion'- which you would have started with if you felt it a legitimate position. Mavigogun (talk) 03:17, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Again, please contribute meaningful and referenced content. Also, whereas I have previously requested you do not make false accusations of vandalism I now I ask that you also do not presume my motivations as you do with which you would have started with if you felt it a legitimate position: just as I have noted on a number of occassions I have mearly sought to highlight where improvments are needed to avoid original research, ensure relevant content and have proper references.

I will express and speculate freely on my talk page; your desire to not be judged by your actions is understandable, but will not be accommodated. If you wish to guard against the appearance of vandal, then check the page after you submit an edit, forgo the cloak of anonymity, and, most importantly, contribute more than playing the part of rules lawyer (it looks like tag sniping for the sake of advocating a particular POV). Meaningless is your obtuse refusal to get the point- before your own edits, there was nothing confusing about the content. You have been accorded all the consideration your actions and disposition have warranted; would that you choose to address your concerns at the article talk page, you may find that some of your concerns are shared and met with sympathy.Mavigogun (talk) 12:18, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mavigogun,
could you take a look here. --Túrelio (talk) 06:30, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,nice to meet you, I have a question at its talk page, which you've edited. Thank You. Peaceworld111 (talk) 19:56, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

would you collaborate in kurdistan talk page, please?--Marmzok (talk) 22:02, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no evidence to suggest that the mosque of Rome is larger than Baitul Futuh. I searched on the internet and the max capacity claimed is about 10000 although it says 12000 on its Wiki page. Secondly Western Europe, although a loose term is clearly defined on its page with Italy included. Baitul Futuh is possibly larger than most of European countries' mosques, so it is pretty safe to say Western Europe. Thirdly you erased 'Western Europe' to just Europe, forgetting that there are pretty large mosques in the eastern part of Europe.Peaceworld111 (talk) 12:14, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Several sources indicate the mosque has an area in excess of 30,000 m²- how this relates to the actual size of the structure is unclear; it also found on quick search assertions that the internal capacity is 5,000 people, with an additional 5000 outside; still, the assertion that there is 'no evidence to suggest that the mosque of Rom is larger' is clearly inaccurate. The ill defined 21,000 m² of the Baitul Futuh is equally meaningless without clarification.

The issue of just where is Italy is addressed at talk: Baitul Futuh; the page you cite lists several sources and variations for describing the location of Italy. The utility of the description is also discussed on the talk page.

Before removing the ambiguous Western Europe description, I compared size claims of other mosques in Europe - which brought to light the lack of consistency in defining just what is to be counted when considering the size of a mosque. Again, see the relevant talk pages. Your speculative assertion above that I forgot the existence of other European mosques is plainly false. --Mavigogun (talk) 13:33, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Mavigogun. You've misunderstood my sentence.

"Some Bulgarian subsidiaries of international food and drinks companies, like Danone, produce, and others, like McDonald's,[5] sell Ayran."

What I meant was that international companies trade Ayran - some, like Danone, produce it; Others - like McDonalds - sell it; Danone IS the international company - an example of such, not part of a list of sellers.

I am reverting your edit until we come to an agreement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mishobg12 (talk • contribs) 17:55, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Take up this mater on the articles talk page.--Mavigogun (talk) 18:37, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thanks for your work in keeping track of and reverting vandalism in cuisine related pages. All the best. --Davo88 (talk) 05:22, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback. Partisan sectarian and ethnicity-based editing seems like an ever present scourge harrying even the most seemingly unrelated articles. --Mavigogun (talk) 09:18, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your insight. I'll keep the deciding factor of "precedence" in mind. I don't want to sent to the principle's office, or in detention in the libary. Président (talk) 04:34, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, users are allowed to clear their user talk page, without archiving. Some consider it rude to archive current discussions (but not against policy), but deleting a message is also a sign that the user has received the message

Please stop reverting other people's edits, as you are doing in [[:User talk:K84m97]]. You are in danger of violating the three-revert rule. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. If you revert again, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia without further notice. Please discuss any disputed changes on the talk page. Thank you. Maybe you didn't read the wiki rules: users are allowed to clear their user talk page, without archiving. It's not against the policy!!k84m97 (talk) 23:50, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nice cut-and-paste- aside from referring to yourself in 3rd person... and the markup error with your user name... AND citing a rule that has no baring on making a single comment to your user talk page. Quoting previous comments to your page was an expedient - why waste time duplicating work others have done when providing feed back regarding edit problems? Consider it punctuation: you were told repeatedly.Mavigogun (talk) 11:21, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As you may saw I signed my post. You vandalized my userpage, this is against wiki rules. Don't be arrogant if you can't cooperate with others. Although I think you are way arrogant, if you want we can cooperate on the Amstaff article.k84m97 (talk) 21:25, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A review of my edit of K84m97's talk page will reveal topical and appropriate feed-back; the assertion of vandalism is fallacious; given K84m97's refusal to use the article talk page to resolve edit issues (and the above inflammatory rhetoric), the offer to cooperate is clearly equally insincere - and precludes any assumption of good faith. Mavigogun (talk) 16:10, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I offered my cooperation which you clearly refused. As I can see on your talkpage other people have the same issue with you as me. You vandalized my talk page, refused to cooperate with me, and now you are continuing your attack on me. Non of these reflects the spirit of Wikipedia.k84m97 (talk) 18:43, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What EXACTLY did you deem 'vandalism'? You have made no attempt at cooperation -you only extended your hand after spitting in it- only pontification HERE. Again: address INDIVIDUAL edit concerns on the article talk page. You aren't being 'attacked' - you're getting feedback appropriate to your actions. You want feedback you can feel good about? -change your behavior.Mavigogun (talk) 23:11, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Right above I asked you to cooperate with me as the article was mostly written by me, I having read all the bibliography about Amstaffs. You committed vandalism when you edited my talkpage against my will and as I read your talk page others have the same issue with you. About what you stated on my talk page is false, as I got the approval of the FCI (Fédération Cynologique Internationale) to publish the breed standard here. Reading your talk page, it is you who should change his behavior.k84m97 (talk) 01:41, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have not attempted to collaborate - or cooperate in any fashion: You refuse to use the article talk page to review and improve material through consensus. You refuse to address individual edits. Large sections of the article were a direct replication of material authored elsewhere, not limited to a single section describing breed characteristics (as you suggest above); again, what exactly was referred to would have been clear to you had you elucidated specific edit issues on the article's talk page. Early edits are not accorded special deference or above reproach - nor is the work of self proclaimed experts. Blanket redaction of several hundred edits with an edit summary stating that you 'like this version better' is necessarily going to result in conflict - no one is going to embrace such a lazy, autocratic proclamation. Your apprehension of what constitutes vandalism is far different from mine; I suggest you seek censure from an administrator to resolve the mater for you - if you have been egregiously wronged, I'm sure they will act on your behalf.Mavigogun (talk) 11:07, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They are Ottomans. According Category:Turkish people, This category includes Turkish citizens of Turkish ethnicity or descent. The claim must be WP:SOURCED in the article or the category will be removed. Now we cannot say Hezârfen Ahmed Çelebi and Lagâri Hasan Çelebi are Turkish. If you have sources about their ethnicity, you can add sources. Thank you. Takabeg (talk) 04:14, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And do you claim that they were not Ottoman aviator ? Takabeg (talk) 04:23, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have made no assertion as to association or ethnicity. However, others, such yourself, have made both: Turkic ethnicity AND subject of the Ottoman Empire; these labels are not mutually exclusive. An examination of that portion of the translated source material available to me is explicit in neither detail- but contextually implicit in both.Mavigogun (talk) 04:32, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As you can read at WP:DIACRITICS, the use of modified letters (such as accents or other diacritics) in article titles is neither encouraged nor discouraged. The rationale for choosing the page title İstanbul Modern is that this is the version the museum itself uses most, not only in Turkish, but also in English-language texts. By the way, I did not move the page to its new title from Istanbul Modern; the latter page was and remains a redirect. The old page title was Istanbul Modern Art Museum, which is not commonly used to translate the Turkish full name İstanbul Modern Sanat Müzesi; instead, the appropriate English translation is Istanbul Museum of Modern Art.  --Lambiam 16:07, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with almost everything you wrote.

1. Obviously, the shape of the Turkish letter "İ" was obtained by modifying the usual shape of the letter "I" by putting a diacritic dot on top. To maintain that the "İ" cannot be called a modified letter "I" so that WP:DIACRITIC does not apply, is pure sophistry.
2. For the purpose of applying WP:TITLE, what counts is the usage in reliable English-language sources. It is totally irrelevant whether the publisher of these sources is of English origin. There can be no doubt that the most authoritative source is the museum itself.
3. The spelling "Istanbul" is already found in English sources at least from the 19th century (see e.g. here), predating the introduction of the Turkish Latin alphabet, and this is the spelling also most common today in English reliable sources – also, generally, when the publisher is Turkish, and there is no reason to prefer the current Turkish spelling for the name of the city. Likewise, the English spelling "yoghurt" predates the Turkish spelling "yoğurt". But I do indeed prefer Ödemiş over Odemis, just like I prefer Ödeshög over Odeshog. I don't see what is wrong with that; in neither case can you say that the version without diacritics represents the "general usage" in English sources.
4. If it needs to be made clear that "Istanbul Modern" refers to an art museum, then a style guide will tell you that the recommended English usage is "the Istanbul Modern art museum" with lowercase "a" and "m", like you see here, just like you would write "a Guggenheim exhibition" (and not "Exhibition"), since the words "art museum" are not part of the name of the museum.
5. I don't know what gave you the impression that it is normal for page moves to be "predicated on talk page consensus", assuming you mean that the consensus needs to be established prior to the move. There is nothing in WP:MOVE that suggests anything of the sort, and as far as I can see WP:BOLD also applies – within reason – to page moves. I certainly had not expected this page move to be controversial. No one discussed the earlier moves of this page before (or after) the move.
6. The page history has not been discarded; it was moved with the page and can be found here.

 --Lambiam 20:45, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While the word sophistry refers to a specious and therefore deceptive argument, it does not imply an intentional attempt at deceit. I can't follow your prose and don't understand what you are trying to get at. What you wrote about the letter "İ" in Turkish ("the glyph represents, phonically, not a modified version of another letter, but a distinct letter") holds equally for the letters "Ä" and "Ö" in Finnish orthography. So are you then claiming that WP:DIACRITIC somehow does not apply to the article title Öllölä? If so, I'm afraid your understanding of this guideline is misguided. If not, then how exactly is the application of the WP:DIACRITIC guideline supposed to depend on the phonic character of what is represented by the glyph? As to not changing the article title Istanbul to İstanbul, I already wrote above: "The spelling 'Istanbul' [...] is the spelling also most common today in English reliable sources". And per WP:TITLE, if there is a common English-language form of the name, that form is to be used for the article title.  --Lambiam 12:49, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know it's natural for native speakers. But using it twice in one sentence? That's poor English. Qwerasdfzxcv1234 (talk) 21:43, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Usage appropriateness is contextually subjective- and requires more discretion to assess than afforded by a mere number.Mavigogun (talk) 22:11, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I noticed that you placed a Proposed deletion tag on List of inventions in the medieval Islamic world, and when another user removed the tag, you restored it with a comment saying that the proposed deletion requires discussion. I think you are confused about what the proposed deletion process is. The whole point of the proposed deletion process is that it is for articles that you think do not require discussion before being deleted. If you think a discussion is warrented, you should not be using the proposed deletion process. Instead, you should start a discussion at WP:AFD. Furthermore, once a proposed deletion tag is removed, or if an article has been previously discussed at AFD (which is the case in this instance), the article can never be deleted using the proposed deletion process. Again, you need to start a discussion at WP:AFD if you think that article should be deleted. Calathan (talk) 15:55, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feed back. The process you pointed to (AFD) was both more appropriate and closer to my intention.

So, the tag exists only to... what, draw the attention of another editor to perform an act that I could do myself? Is the tag intended for use by those with restricted editing powers? The edict on the tag that it remain for 7 days seems at odds with your assertion: I read that to mean the tag should remain for a week, then could be deleted and subsequently should not be replaced. If that is not the case, the tag should be edited to reflect your reading- of course, that would be its own issue.Mavigogun (talk) 04:58, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀} 04:04, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The link I created is not broken, it was meant to be red because there's no article about that particular piece of headgear (yet). Compare the results you get from googling Turban and Türban (kadın başörtüsü).--eh bien mon prince (talk) 06:25, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, about the 'fiction of omission' of mine, I have missed the part that supports this statement: "resurgent political support since then has seen usage trending upward". Could you provide a direct quote to prove that?--eh bien mon prince (talk) 06:28, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

By all means, the statement requires qualification with appropriate reference. I suggest the statement be citation tagged and remain for a period- perhaps a month. Really, this dialogue would best be had on that document's talk page.Mavigogun (talk) 06:35, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

'demonstrably false: women are most definitely seen on the streets in those places.' The source says otherwise, and I hope you won't be offended if I'll trust that over your personal experience.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 06:37, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, let's move the discussion to Talk:Women in Turkey.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 06:43, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, The original language translates to mean servant, not slave. This is a common mistake made by many translators from Arabic, Persian and Turkish to English. Slave would be a literal translation that does not carry the essence of the original word. Servant is what is meant in the original language.

That may well be- in which case, we'll need a reference that supports it. Considering the brevity and antiquity, the essence of the original might require more than common contemporary discretion to apprehend. Wikipedia favours references to "truth"- especial when truth is open to interpretation.Mavigogun (talk) 10:40, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there,

You have been reverted. Now, per WP:BRD, the reason is that we have a reputable source for invention in the region rather than mere first use. More discussion is on the talkpage. If you can prove otherwise, we can discuss and amend appropriately. Cheers, Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 07:10, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Asena may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on .

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• Ashina becomes their leader and instaures the [[Ashina (clan)|Ashina clan]], which ruled over the [[[Göktürk]] and other [[Turkic peoples|Turkic]] [[nomadic empire]]s.<ref>Findley, Carter Vaughin. ''

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 10:26, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think you just hit the mark on WP:3RR here. 1, 2, 3, 4 in less than 24 hours. Moreover, your are warring with 3 different users (plus the IP). So I'm warning you: do not revert again without discuss or I'll ask for a block. Ok? José Luiz ^talk 11:51, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Mavigogun, I'm the fellow who initially put in the note regarding Jesus' silence on the question of homosexuality, into the article on Paul. Further discussion about the appropriateness of that comment is now going on at that article's talk page. You would certainly be most welcome to join in on the conversation there. Thanks, Scott P. (talk) 19:49, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Mancala may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on .

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• Kalah]] – a modern game played mostly in the USA- where it is simply known as "Mancala" -and Europe)

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 13:42, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I actually edited only the names of the days in Old Portuguese, sorry but I can't remember any other changes; if you see them, please point them precisely.

The reason I changed that was because those names were in fact wrong, as they were in Spanish and not Old Portuguese. I have explained that in the discussion page as you suggested for avoiding more controversies. - Eduardo Sellan III (talk) 14:26, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:46, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I undid your GF edit to this page, since Jobling, the gospel for binomial etymologies, says Apus is from the Latin name, (as the word ending suggests), not directly from the Greek, which he gives to explain the origin of the Latin word. If you disagree, please supply a ref of equivalent weight. I want to get this sorted because I'm going to give the binomial etymology of four more Apus swifts shortly. Cheers, Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:11, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent WP:BOLD edit has been reverted. Per WP:BRD, after a bold edit is reverted, the WP:STATUSQUO should remain while a discussion is started instead of edit-warring per WP:EW, and it should be resolved before reinstating the edit, after a needed WP:CONSENSUS is formed to keep it. -- Alex^TW 16:40, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You were invideted to address the issue on the related talk page- rejecting that convention in favor of repeated redactions and this redundent missive. Obviously you have strong feelings- expresses them in the appropriate venue. Mavigogun (talk) 16:44, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have addressed the issue on the related talk page. You now need to conform to the respective guidelines and policies that every other must conform to when there is a content dispute. -- Alex^TW 16:45, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia also relys on good faith effort and due diligence- rather than redacting edits that have readily available references, such edits should be tagged with a need for such references. The tact taken here by AlexTheWhovian has the appearance of leveraging guidelines to support a preference rather than application in good faith.Mavigogun (talk) 16:52, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're copying the same discussion in two places. Gotchya. -- Alex^TW 16:53, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Text offered here for continuity perposes is for the benefit of readers of this, my talk page, who I choose not to tax with attempting to follow comments made across pages. If "gotchya" means "understoond", the comment was appreciated- if intend to suggest some imagined motive, I ask that you presume good faith.Mavigogun (talk) 17:01, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I ask that you presume what you preach. I see you've been warned for edit-warring before. Cheers. -- Alex^TW 17:02, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A discerning reader free from disperaging motive will recognize the "warning" in question is sourced directly to a contesting editor who sought to besmirch here rather than engage on the appropriate article talk page. Again, AlexTheWhovian, I encourage you to spend your energies on the talk page in a collaborate effort; what has been offered here has mostly distracted from anything productive.Mavigogun (talk) 17:20, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I encourage you to practice what you preach. Thank you. -- Alex^TW 02:33, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

AlexTheWhovian, I will not indulge your "I-know-I-am-but-what-are-you" repetition juvenility here. Desist. Any constructive comment you care to contribute at the article talk page will be appreciated and given due consideration.Mavigogun (talk) 17:22, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your edit, not quite in the Vandal style, of the Li Hongzhi article, where reference to Chinese medical use of oxytocics was removed, wouldn't it have been better to improve, rather than simply remove? I wrote that snippet, and first, I should have made clear that, in the kind of patient records one finds in the region, around that time, it's not possible to distinguish 'oxytocin' and 'oxytocic'. Funnily, the same is true today. So you see, if I write that my patient had arrived reporting having been administered oxytocin by some country doctor, I'd write '催产药'. If, on the other hand, I write that my patient has been administered something by a quack which I believe may be some form of old fashioned imperial oxytocic, I'd say it was '催产药'. 催产药 vs 催产药. Spot the difference? Hopefully this now becomes obvious. The FG lot can't stake any kind of claim of proof either way, from the fact that a clinical record mentions oxytocin before first synthesis, because what would have been written would have been, for decades before the actual discovery of oxytocin as we know it in the West (late 1900s BTW). I didn't even bother to go into the fact that oxytocin was in routine use all over the world well before artificial synthesis in 1954. I don't give a fig about FG, like most I'm sympathetic, but that claim to challenge the old midwife, as if oxytocin was only_discovered_the year after that fellow was presumably born, well, that shouldn't stand. First, the midwife could very easily have had access to stocks of oxytocin (any hospital lab with a technician who can handle animals can produce it - don't ask anyone with a PETA bumpersticker to do it) decades before Mr Li was conceived, and if she didn't, the range of available therapies which fall into the category we with Western training call oxytocics, and which have been in use since imperial times, would be extensive in Jilin, which has a rather proud history of effective ancient medicines. The FG claim that Mr Li's midwife was part of some conspiracy of misinformation may be true, but the claim they try to rest it on is grammar-school gossip-level nonsense. If you can still edit a semi-protected page, do the right thing, fix it up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.98.207.182 (talk) 06:39, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Credible references are more compelling than argument, assertion-without-citation, supposition, and rationalization- matter-o-fact, it's our standard here. Create an account, build a demonstrable record of adhering to the standards of Wikipedia, identify credible sources, and make the edit yourself. Wikipedia is open for anyone to use- I'll not be employed as agent. The apparent anachronism of "I believe may be some form of old fashioned imperial oxytocic" isn't the primary fault of the statement- it's the "I believe". Mavigogun (talk) 13:03, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, I'm not asking you to act as my agent, I'm suggesting you tidy your mistake. Regarding the 'apparent anachronism..', I can only guess at how my illustrating how I would record information about a patient, when I'm told they've been prescribed some kind of natural remedy of uncertain origin, as translating into any kind of matter of personal belief regarding the subject matter of the article under discussion, could come to pass. The point is, FG sought to cast doubt on a midwife's account, because she mentioned oxytocin, on the basis oxytocin wasn't known until after the purported use, when in fact oxytocin was discovered decades before FG imply it was discovered (they got a date right, but for first lab synthesis, not the much earlier discovery). Further, if you and I were speaking or reading any of the dialects of Jilin, she would have said words to the effect that she had used oxytocin_before_it's discovery, because to the ear, and on the page, the therapeutic class from since imperial China looks and sounds like 'oxytocin'. Conditions were rough in China at the time, but not barbaric, there were many good doctors and nurses/midwives, and oxytocin was available (easy hospital lab diy). I'm unsure why the bib cited lacks credibility, but I can only guess at the limits of your knowledge and perspicacity, and I'm humbled, deeply by your example. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.98.207.182 (talk) 13:08, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Again, if you believe there are credible references to support a particular edit, supply them with the edit. What you pose here is an argument of misinterpretation- if it is so, document it. By-the-way: I'm not motivated by snark- while I endeavor to not reflexively dismiss good ideas co-located with pettiness, I'm only human. Something to consider moving forward. Mavigogun (talk) 17:05, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Evliya Çelebi shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Dartslilly (talk) 18:18, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your participation in that exchange and disregard of extensive preceding discussion at the talk page on the area of dispute betray a defensive motive behind this reproach. It’s easy to disregard the work that precedes your contribution, cite a best practice that seems to affirm your choices- but policy tools must be wed to judgement to be constructive, Dartslilly. Mavigogun (talk) 00:42, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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) 01:40, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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) 00:25, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 16:29, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

At 9:50-ish I posted feedback for your tact at Talk:Vladimir Putin- a couple hours later, you... deposit ...this generic notice tasting of retaliatory bluster- a non specific attempt to intimidate. Tell me: what utility was your post here? What was exactly the product you hoped to achieve?Mavigogun (talk) 19:03, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is a standard notice ought to be posted on talk pages of the users who have edited Eastern-European related namespace just like you have. If you read the note carefully, you will find that it explicitly says that "It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date." Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 20:19, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of the notice is clear. However, it is not an auto-generated notice- you took it upon yourself to post it to my talk page. What was YOUR purpose in doing so? Please be specific.

Mavigogun (talk) 20:29, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]