User talk:Gilgamesh~enwiki/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Greetings

How are you Gilgamesh, I have been away from the Wiki for quite a while, but I just wanted to say hello and thank you for your efforts in the past to present both sides views in the continuing, never ending debates about Israel/Palestine/the Holy land (whatever). I was born in Jerusalem, in 1963, and am a Palestinian by birth.

What interested me was that you are a Mormon. I wanted to tell you that when we left after the 1967 war, a very nice lady (who was Mormon BTW), and knew my father from the tours he used to conduct there, helped us quite a bit in 1967 to the mid-1970's. She witnessed first hand the horrors of the 1967 war, and was one of the first Americans to photograph and document the refugees and their miserable plight. The other day, I noticed that her photos are on the Web, in the university from Utah where she donated them, and that we were in many. Not only that, but many other photos that showed what she had seen and witnessed. I cannot even begin to tell you about all of the work she did to help the poor and suffering. She was a great lady.

We visted her once in Utah as a family, in the mid-1970's, but she came many times to Canada to visit us. One last thing, it was this lady that first introduced me to pancakes and waffles, and she actually bought our first waffle/pancake iron and gave us the recipe so we could make our own.

In any case I just wanted to say hello.

Joseph E. Saad (Palestinian refugee, proud Canadian).````

I am flattered by your kind regards. I am a friend of every innocent and virtuous person, particular those struggling on all sides of the conflict in the Holy Land. As Latter-day Saints believe that the Holy Land was gifted to all of Abraham's seed, whether they be Israelite or Ishmeelite, whether they be Samaritan, Jew, Christian, Muslim, Druze or Baha'i, I hope everyone can find it within themselves to build bridges of peace, siblinghood and equality in all the conflicts, because the Father loves us all as His children. - Gilgamesh 03:16, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Non-uvular R's in Quebec

Nice work on Uvular R, I love it, but I was struck by your note about Quebec French not having it. Do you have some extra info to share? (I'm working on Quebec French right now and, perhaps out of intuition, I wrote that we used uvular trills and fricatives.) --Valmi 04:09, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

It's just something one of my French Canadian friends told me. If I'm wrong, please correct it, by all means! :) I truly thought it is right, and I think it's okay if it's actually wrong. Go ahead and change it. - Gilgamesh 04:29, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Paul Walker

Hi. Please don't add people to categories which aren't mentioned in their articles. RickK 05:42, Aug 28, 2004 (UTC)

Why not? These people are LDS, are they not? I don't understand the conflict. - Gilgamesh 05:43, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I have no idea if they are or not, but the categorization looks odd if there's no mention of their being LDS in the article. RickK 05:45, Aug 28, 2004 (UTC)

They are LDS - it's verified by the list at famousmormons.net/. And I don't think it is at all odd. Unless you have a clearer reason against it, I don't see the problem. - Gilgamesh 05:47, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I know there was a concerted effort to remove people from the category of famous gays unless the article specifically mentioned that they are gay. How about if we take it to the Category talk page for discussion? RickK

Are you treating this as some kind of stigma? This is no where near the same as "famous gays". These people are more well known than most LDS people, and are in a position of unofficially exampling their life and their faith to the world to see. They are very different with very different views on life, but this one thing unites them. - Gilgamesh 05:55, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I am not treating it as anything but trying to standardize the use of categories. Unless the article mentions that someone is gay, they shouldn't be on the category of famous gays. Unless the article mentions that someone is LDS, they shouldn't be mentioned on the category of famous Mormons. Unless the article mentions that someone is American, they shouldn't be listed on the category of famous Americans. Like I suggested, why don't we take it to the category's Talk page so others can discuss it? RickK 05:57, Aug 28, 2004 (UTC)

I don't want a dispute. :( And I'm not really comfortable with the more broad talk pages for some reason. How about, where relevant, I add a mention, and then they can be in the category. If the person's faith does not play a big part or statistic of their life, then we can leave them off the category. - Gilgamesh 06:00, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

That works for me. Thanks. RickK 06:01, Aug 28, 2004 (UTC)

Goryeomal

Hi, Gilgamesh: I like your choice of using the word "Goryeomal" (고려말) for "Korean" on your user page. You are obviously sensitive to the convoluted and intertwined history of the names 고려/조선/한국.... Should the 2 halves of Korea ever reunite, I hope the new country adopts the neutral (i.e., not politically loaded) name 고려, which of course has the added advantage of being the Korean equivalent of "Korea." -Sewing - talk 16:31, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

...Unless you meant "Goryeomal" to refer to the standard dialect of Korean as spoken during the Goryeo Dynasty (the context in which the word is most frequently used in Korean)...but I assume you meant the modern language! -Sewing - talk 16:35, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Nope, "Goryeomal" is the modern language name. ^_^ - Gilgamesh 23:50, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Large-Scale Images

Hi!

I entered some of your large-scale images in the German wikipedia. Thanks for creating them!

wotan

You are welcome. ^_^ - Gilgamesh 22:45, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Mormon

The overwhelmingly obvious intent of most all searchers on the word Mormon is not the prophet or the land. It is me, a Mormon. I don't think your disambiguation move was wise. Did you consult the Disambiguation article? I think maybe it would have been better (as in section 2 of that article) to leave things as they were. But I won't press the issue. Tom 15:49, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Isn't disambiguation what disambiguation articles are for? I'm a Latter-day Saint, and although I know some people call themselves "Mormon", I find it pejorative and I do not call myself such. When I search Wikipedia for Mormon, I am usually looking for Mormon (prophet). And I'm sure many others are thinking of Mormon (society). Compare the Lehi disambiguation article. This is better. - Gilgamesh 22:11, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I totally agree with Tom and I moved it back. There were hundreds of pages linking to Mormon that intended to go to the group. --mav 03:35, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Well, I don't think it is appropriate. I would much prefer a disambiguation page, especially if it can find what someone is looking for anyway. When there are at least two very important theological associations to the word, then a disambiguation page is appropriate. And what about waters of Mormon? Or Book of Mormon? Or Mormonism? Or Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? It would be terribly disrespectful and pejorative to lay all these associations to waste. If you absolutely insist that Mormon be an article specifically about the social group, then the top of that article should be a full disambiguation section. - Gilgamesh 04:23, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Never mind, I think it's satisfactory now. - Gilgamesh 04:26, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Page move

You've moved British English to British English language - why? It's not a language, after all, but a nebulous set of spellings, dialects, mannerisms, accents, and vocabulary.
Also, you haven't fixed any of ther redirects yet ;-)
James F. (talk) 11:11, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It's just a practice of naming language articles with "language" in the title so that they are clear. In this case, calling it a language just means it's a linguistics articles — it doesn't necessarily make it a different language from those mentioned in other pages. And besides, I have been correcting redirects. I'm still doing so. (I already completely converted American English language and Australian English language, and am going down the list.) This convention makes sure that the article name reflects that it's a language article, and not an ethnonym article (i.e. American people who live in England, Australian people who live in England, etc.) See also Hebrew languages for similar examples of this convention. - Gilgamesh 11:15, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

But it's just wrong - it's unecessary disambiguation, and contrary to standard practice, which is to use the most commonly used term - in this case, most definitely "British English".

James F. (talk) 11:29, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It's the article name. It's like putting "(language)" or "(book)" in titles. It is guaranteed not to confuse anyone. Just don't worry about it, there's nothing wrong with a little crystal clarity in naming articles. - Gilgamesh 11:33, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

There is no need for "British English" to be changed, it's only ever used for the language, not as an "ethnonym" (I understand what you mean but that's not actually a word). Simon Arlott 11:50, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I don't understand what's necessarily wrong with ending the names of language articles with "language". English language convention often omits "language" by referring to the name of a language in context, such as "speaks English" and "in English". But in Wikipedia, this is ambiguous, so the vast majority of language and dialect articles end with "language". I'm simply making sure this convention is naming convention is uniform. And yes, "ethnonym" is a word, I've encountered one or two people who use it — it just doesn't have a Wikipedia article. It's a Greek language adaptation for techy/scientific use, and means "ethnic name". - Gilgamesh 11:58, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I don't like this myself either; putting 'language' at the end of, for example, "Hiberno-English language" suggests that Hiberno-English is a language independent of English, which is not the case. Same goes for all the other English dialects. "Hiberno-English dialect" would be better. Blorg 12:47, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I suppose I could live with "... dialect", but I don't see why it is necessary in the first place - no-one is "American English" ("American British", perhaps, at a pinch, though I think that that's rather an odd thing to say). Ethnic Englishness is very much a dead thing, and doesn't really apply any more.

James F. (talk) 12:55, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

These page moves are unnecessary and, in NPOV terms, a bad call. You're elevating relatively minor regional differences (US vs. UK vs. India; Brazil vs. Portugal) to the status of separate languages. Plus we will never be able to link to them without pipelinking. Please put them back. –Hajor 12:53, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I completely agree with James F., I don't think the terms need dialect either, it was just an off-the-cuff compromise if something *had* to be put in to make them clearer. I'd also question that putting 'language' after dialect is standard in Wikipedia; to me it just seems to be something Gilgamesh has done with Hebrew variants. See for example all the Arabic language dialects - no 'language' after Egyptian Arabic, Sudanese Arabic etc. Putting language after suggests that these are seperate languages when they are not. While I'm not sure that 'British' has completely supplanted 'English' in terms of identity (this is particularly clear during football tournaments), it is also the case that the ethnic designations are in any case ordered in the other direction, e.g. African-American, Irish-American, "English-American" *not* "American English" etc. - so there is hardly any room for confusion Blorg 13:03, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

There's nothing "ambiguous" about British English or Hiberno-English. Please restore these. They are not separate languages. zoney ▓   ▒ talk 13:07, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I do struggle with the English language, and tend to look at it as an algorithm without a cultural context. As such, some things (like what "English" means in any given context) are not always obvious and clear to me (although in this context I can usually guess). I also have never been able to understand why "language" denote difference.

For instance, I don't see why — even though "American English" and "British English" are both languages — they can't be called "language". Aren't they both languages? Not different languages, but languages nonetheless? I don't see how "the language" in any case, using a definite article, should necessarily imply that a language is unique and that none other exist.

Honestly, I think I will never understand all the kinks of this difficult English language. It is like living on proverbial Mars, and I long to return to my proverbial Earth where every streamlined phrase is as transparent as crystal.

However, as there seems to be so much resounding concensus on this issue, I won't dispute the pages being restored to their previous states. But I can't restore them now, because I must sleep. If no one restores them by the time I am awake Tuesday evening (North American time zones — my circadian rhythms are unstable and typically inverted), I'll try to remember to restore them myself.

(What I did is, I more or less went down Template:English dialects by continent, moved the page names, then changed all their redirects, then edited the template itself.) - Gilgamesh 13:46, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

East Maui Volcano ?

Gilgamesh, what gives. No one (local or tourist) knows what "East Maui Volcano" is? The name is Haleakala. What prompted you to make that move? Seems out of character for you to use a mainland geology name for a Hawaiian mountain. - Marshman 04:10, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

My source is the Hawaiian Volcano Observatory. [1] As they are the most authoritative observers in the field, I would tend to think they are most authoritative. Besides, I added to East Maui Volcano that the whole volcano is frequently colloquially called Haleakalā, though this is technically only the name of the summit caldera. - Gilgamesh 04:12, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

And as for "mainland geology name", I think that's unfair. :P I know that Haleakalā is only the name of the caldera, and not of the volcano. What is the indigenous name of the whole volcano? I don't know. Do you? If you do, you can choose the proper name for the article. :P - Gilgamesh 04:14, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Wow you were right there at your computer. Now I see. I went back and read what you had added, and I guess I do agree the correct name would be East Maui Volcano, although few would accept that, as Haleakala is so widely know as the name. Nontheless, I accept your explanation. If there is a name (Hawaiian) for the rest of the mountasin, I'm unaware of it. Sorry, hope I did not add to your stress level 8^). - Marshman

Nah, you aren't confrontational. But my lowest default stress level (because of arguing with too many trolls) is permanently yellow. :P - Gilgamesh 04:20, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Boy I hear you. I left for a month and half because of the trolls. I got back and immediately fell into a controversy on Monoecious vs Dioecious and related terms. But the guys turned out to be really cool and knowledgeable. We worked out our confusion and now have a good article - Marshman

^_^ - Gilgamesh 04:36, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Aloha. I'm not following your justification for moving a colloquial name to a discipline-specific definition. AFAIK, the standard is to do the exact opposite - redirect the specific designation to the colloquial, depending on usage. Your source, Hawaiian Volcano Observatory, states both names on its page, and in fact, explicitly states, The Hawaiian name Hale-a-ka-la (lit., house of the sun), is now nearly synonymous with the entire shield of East Maui volcano. As a resident of Maui, I feel that I can safely that say that nobody, neither a layman nor a geologist or an astronomer, refers to Haleakala as "East Maui volcano". The term exists to differentiate that region from the west, not to describe Haleakala. You claimed that Haleakala only refers to the summit, but apparently NASA and UH call it Haleakala Volcano, as do UH Botanists, Geochemists, Volcanologists, and conservationists. The facts are clear. Nobody calls Haleakala volcano , "East Maui Volcano" Before I undo your changes, I would like to understand your position. --Viriditas 10:45, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I am going by two sources: proper naming standards and volcanic naming standards. By both, the name is technically East Maui Volcano. It is a mountain, and Haleakala refers specifically to the summit caldera. To use the common name, as common as it may be, is vulgar and inaccurate. I named the article the proper name, and Haleakala redirects to it, and I mentioned naming habits of "Haleakala" as they exist in colloquial language. I'm sorry, but "East Maui Volcano" is standard and correct, and correct scientific and linguistic information is of absolute importance to an encyclopedia. Not only that, but to persist to an inaccurate name is disrespectful to Hawai‘i. (By chance, are you a haole?) Please do not undo my changes, or I will revert them. Aloha. - Gilgamesh 12:27, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I suggest we research this a bit more for the true Hawaiian reference to Haleakala. While I follow the reasoning provided by Gilgimesh, I also understand that a lot of mis-informed haoles have been bastardizing Hawaiian names for over a century; and to then claim some kind of "colloquial" standard as a reason to keep misinformation afloat is not particularly encyclopedic. It seems also possible, given the ease with which articles, redirects, and links work around here, that we could create two articles: 1) Haleakala about the summit area and 2) East Maui Volcano about the volcano, the mountain, and its formation. This might be a compromise that helps teach the (I think more correct) restrictive meaning of Haleakala to strangers and residents alike. - Marshman 17:29, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I've already researched this subject, and Gilgamesh's position, including his personal attack, is not supported by the facts:

• Proper Wikipedia naming standars state, article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, which in fact, is Haleakala. The same naming standards make it clear that the convention is to use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things.
• According to the Hawaiian Volcano Observatory, the two names are synonomous. Contrary to what Gilgamesh claims, that source makes it clear that Haleakala refers to the entire shield of East Maui volcano.
• Correct scientific and linguistic information is of absolute importance to an encyclopedia, and a perusal of the relevant scientific literature demonstrates that published, peer-reviewed journals that study the volcano, do not call it "East Maui Volcano". The researchers call it by its common name, Haleakala volcano. I have already posted links to those studies and the researchers from disparate fields. Science World also uses the common name, as do geologists at the University of Illinois, and the Journal of Petrology and many geophysicists. When the term is used in context, the volcano is specified as Haleakala Volcano, East Maui.
• Your argument that "mis-informed haoles have been bastardizing Hawaiian names for over a century" does not apply here. Hawaiians do not use the term, "East Maui Volcano". Gilgamesh's argument that calling a Hawaiian volcano by its Hawaiian name is somehow "disrespectful" is not only absurd, it's irrational. Yes, in early Hawaiian history the name only applied to the summit, but that is no longer true.
• Gilgamesh's "standard and corrrect" redirect violates Wikipedia naming standards, and does not represent the standard name of the Volcano. Haleakala volcano is referred to as "East Maui volcano" to differentiate it when discussing the West Maui volcano". Gilgamesh's redirect is aking to someone redirecting the towns of San Jose, Oakland, Sacramento, and San Francisco to the article on Northern California. It wouldn't make sense. The East Maui volcano designation is more of a regional, geographic designation, whereas Haleakala refers to the volcano as it is commonly known. Wikipedia standard is to refer to common names. --Viriditas 21:56, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Finally, I would like to point you to further citations:

• Beginning ca. A.D. 1400, Polynesian farmers established permanent settlements along the arid southern flank of Haleakala Volcano, Maui, Hawaiian Islands... Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2004 Jun 29;101(26):9936-41. Epub 2004 Ju
• Visible to infrared reflectance spectra are presented here for the fine-grained fractions of altered tephra/lava from the Haleakala summit basin on Maui... the dry climate at the top of Haleakala is more consistent with the current Martian environment.J Geophys Res. 1998 Dec 25;103(E13):31457-76.
• Kitayama, K., and D. Mueller-Dombois. 1992. Vegetation of the wet windward slope of Mr. Haleakala, Maui, Hawaii. Pacific Science 46:197-220. [2]
• These islands are mostly composed of lowland and mid-elevation forest, with the barren and fantastically beautiful Haleakala Volcano jutting abruptly out of the eastern end of Maui. Ohio University, field course, Island Biology
• These rodents, particularly Mus musculus, exert strong predation pressure on populations of arthropod species, including locally endemic species on upper Haleakala Volcano.UH Pacific Science Journal [3]
• Biking the Haleakala Volcano in Hawaii National Geographic
• Experimental study of volcanic rocks from the Mount Erebus Volcano, Antarctica; field and theoretical study of the alkalic rocks of the Haleakala volcano, Maui Volcanology, Dept of Geology, McMicken College
• The Maui-Kilauea project is chiefly a mapping project that enhances our understanding of the volcanic history of Haleakala volcano (East Maui) and the southwest rift zone of Kilauea (Hawaii). Hawaiian Volcano Observatory

For one thing, promising a revert was not a personal attack, it was a promise to reverse what I think is a mistake. For another thing, asking if you were a haole was also not a personal attack, it was a query as to whether you have native knowledge or not. Third, I really don't want to argue too much about this topic. If you want to perpetuate the bastardization of Hawaiian names, then go ahead. But at least use the ‘okina and kahakō where needed at all times, and retain a reference to "East Maui Volcano" somewhere. - Gilgamesh 00:37, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I will say, that is a lot of evidence, although not much of what I was looking for (what did the Hawaiians mean by Haleakalā?). Nonethless, it certainly would appear that we would well be swimming hard upstream to ignore the obvious synonomy accepted today. And as I first indicated, few really even know the name "East Maui Volcano". I suggest we move this discussion to the article (I'll do so; Gilgamesh can delete here if you wish). While pointing out the Hawaiian reference to just the summit seems enough for me, there remains the option of having separate pages, although I do not support that at present. - Marshman 02:25, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Message

Thanks for your kind message. I must have been treading on the wrong toes :-). It is a reason for admin pride to have your userpage vandalised; User:Hephaestos is a frequent target (or has been)... JFW | T@lk 10:25, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Yeah...though I don't care for vandalized user pages. :P You seemed to thoroughly deserve moral support. - Gilgamesh 10:26, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)