User talk:Gawaon

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers

Just a heads up, I don't actually really care if you want to tweak the wording here. However, my strong position remains that we should use the local date format regardless of the language spoken. See Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)‎#MOS on date format by country. GiantSnowman 18:00, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

All right. I hadn't done any tweaking BTW, but I think that using DATERET to argue against retaining the currently used date style is obviously against the spirit of what's very clearly the intent. Gawaon (talk) 18:16, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Third-party ANI visit

Good luck with this one— There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Remsense诉 15:16, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Auto archive

I removed the auto archive period on the Taiping Rebellion talk page because I thought 180 days was too short, not too long. The previous two talk page messages had not been addressed yet and were archived. Did you realize that the previous auto archive period was 180 days? Alexysun (talk) 20:57, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Ah, I see, but frankly, any discussion that hasn't seen updates for 3 months is stale and unlikely to ever be resolved, so it can as well be archived. Though personally, I like keeping at least the newest discussion around no matter its age, so the talk page won't appear totally unused. Accordingly, I now have set minthreadsleft = 1 on that page – somebody had set it to 0 for some reason. Gawaon (talk) 11:01, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

@Gawaon Okay, I agree. Thank you. Alexysun (talk) 09:59, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Keep up the great work

i really appreciate your neutrality, keep up the good work man, i love them Alexanderia3524 (talk) 11:43, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Wow, thanks a lot 😊 Gawaon (talk) 17:06, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Road

Hello, I removed “virtually” since it wasn’t present in the plants section. Firekong1 (talk) 21:09, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

I have now looked into the cited source, and it says "an unnamed cataclysm has obliterated all trappings of civilization and society from the face of the earth, and virtually all life". I have now tried to find a wording that stays fairly close to that – no distinction between plants and animals is made, but it's clear that society was destroyed too and most people seem to be dead, so one cannot just speak about "non-human life". Gawaon (talk) 21:39, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Well, I was not the one who added it prior. I just wanted to remove confusion from the sentence. Firekong1 (talk) 02:28, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Sure, I hadn't added it either. Thanks for your rewording. I had to add one more word (not all life on Earth went extinct, obviously) and think it should be fine now. Gawaon (talk) 08:24, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

You’re welcome. But can we agree on a proper rewording? I still feel the sentence needs a bit more. Firekong1 (talk) 11:19, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

What do you think is missing? Gawaon (talk) 14:18, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Since the article doesn’t go in depth, can we remove “virtually” or “most”? Life on earth in the story isn’t even the focus anyway. Firekong1 (talk) 18:25, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

But, uh, the man and his son are part of life on Earth, right? And there are other people still alive. Not sure about animals, but plants too. If you have further tweaks to suggest, I'd suggest we discuss them here first, but obviously we cannot spread falsehoods about the story. Gawaon (talk) 19:17, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

I’m referring to non-human life such as animals, none are mentioned in the book except in the context of the story, and even then it is regarding the extinction of non human life on earth. Firekong1 (talk) 23:01, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

"Life on Earth" includes the human variety too, of course. Also at least a dog is mentioned as still alive, and once the man thinks about cows, supposing them to be extinct, but also realizing that he doesn't know for sure. We can't claim things that aren't clearly stated in the story itself, of course. Anyway, I can live with the wording as it currently stands. Gawaon (talk) 13:55, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

I still don’t think it’s sufficient enough, the book mentioned that life is extinct except for humanity. Firekong1 (talk) 18:15, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Does it? I don't really think so. But anyway, the wording you have found now seems fine. Thank you. Gawaon (talk) 19:06, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

I think so. But I wanted to reach an agreement. You’re welcome. Firekong1 (talk) 18:22, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

July 2024

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Capital letters. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. The proposed language was discussed, more editors supported with stronger arguments, and crucially, after it was implemented it gained implicit consensus per WP:EDITCON by not being touched for 1.5 years. I suggest you disengage from the edit war. Pinchme123 (talk) 17:19, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

The same, uh, could be said about you? EDITCON by itself it not an argument, otherwise Wikipedia pages could never be improved. Gawaon (talk) 18:00, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Thankfully in this case this isn't just an example of implicit consensus only. Discussion took place over proposed language and after a week of near-unanimous agreement (with only one comment of concern and not outright objection), the consensus-derived language was inserted. When others came to later object, their arguments were weak and the implemented language wasn't challenged via further editing. This is in actuality a rather strong case of consensus-building, which has now only been challenged a year and a half later. Hardly convincing of a lack of consensus. --Pinchme123 (talk) 18:23, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Except that no consensus was reached? But anyway, let's take it to the relevant talk page, here is not the place for it. Gawaon (talk) 19:10, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Your edits to the page re Francis Spaight Ship

Hi Gawaon. thanks for fixing up my additions and referencing on this page. It is the only page I have edited in a decade! There is one thing I would like you to undo. There are, in fact, two separate references to A.W. Simpson. The existing one is to a lecture delivered in 1918 called Cannibals at common law, and that was correctly referenced by someone in the past. My additional reference is to an extensive book. While on the same subject, it was published by Chicago Uni in 1984, then later in 1994, per my reference, by an English publisher. The information there about the ship is considerably more extensive, but in any case it is a separate source, albeit by the same author. The reference for that is: Cannabilism and the common law - A Victorian Yachting Tragedy A.W. Brian Simpson The Hambledon Press London and Rio Grande. Published by the Hambledon Press 1994 IBSN 1 85285 200 3

As it stands, there is no reference to that book on the page now, when there should. Could you edit appropriately?

Many thanks, Alexander Alexanderstollznow (talk) 10:45, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

To emphasise, as the only reference to Simpson is to a lecture, the subsequent references are now incorrect, as there is no page 130! Alexanderstollznow (talk) 10:48, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Ah! I get it. The book I mentioned is listed at the bottom of the page in "Sources". Alexanderstollznow (talk) 10:51, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, it was already there, so I just merged the references. Thanks for your edits! Gawaon (talk) 11:12, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Wikiproject

Hi, I see you've contributed a lot to Igbo people, would you be interested in a taskforce on oral tradition? Kowal2701 (talk) 19:57, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the invitation! I'll check it out, but I'm afraid I might be too busy with other stuff and obligations outside of Wikipedia to get involved. Gawaon (talk) 09:02, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, no worries Kowal2701 (talk) 10:15, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Cronus as "Harvest Deity"

I think that this is wrong. As I mentioned, it was only the Athenian tradition within the Greek Pantheon that largely even worshipped Cronus as a harvest deity; his established role recognized in literature was the leader of the Titans in the Greek pantheon.

To further the reasoning behind this point, I once again point to the hypothetical example of Cronus being referred to as a "time deity" because of the cult of Orphic religion. I mean, you can't just call Cronus a "time deity" because of the actions of a single Hellenic cult through the context of their writings in the Orphic theogonies and Hymns.

Likewise, I just don't think it's possible to describe Cronus as a "harvest deity" in the context of the entire Greek Pantheon, simply because of the traditions of a single Hellenistic city state.

In conclusion, I believe that the introduction to this entire article needs to be rewritten in order to accommodate a nuanced overview of the worship of both of these examples of both local cults and traditions, while mentioning that Cronus was indeed worshipped as a harvest deity in Athens and parts of Ionia, while at the same time mentioning that he was also worshipped as a time deity in the Orphic cult.

This also plays into the broader problem of how Cronus' entire status as a time deity and the nuance surrounding it is presented as nothing but a "mistake" in post-classical antiquity throughout the start of this article without being explained, which I think feels slightly dubious.

However, even if this article's introduction is not re-written (for some reason) it is clearly inaccurate to state that the entire Greek Pantheon worshipped Cronus as a "harvest deity" through the use of such a heading in the introduction for this article.

For the time being, for all of these reasons, I am going to suggest to remove the heading referring to Cronus as a "harvest deity", as it is simply an inaccurate representation of his overall role in the Greek Pantheon.

Furthermore, I am going to suggest to change the heading "Member of the Titans" to "Leader of the Titans", to better reflect the main role that Cronus held throughout the Titanomachy and the greater Greek Pantheon.

A copy of this message is going to be left on the "Talk" page for Cronus. I certainly welcome any discussion or opinion helping to justify why this heading change would not be wise.

Best Regards, Ghost1824 (talk) 13:13, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Question

What' wrong with curve apostrophes? N32756377 (talk) 14:38, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

They aren't used according to our Manual of Style, see MOS:APOSTROPHE and MOS:STRAIGHT. Gawaon (talk) 15:34, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 12:51, 29 August 2024 (UTC)