User talk:Amlaera

Teahouse

Hello! Amlaera, you are invited to the Teahouse, a forum on Wikipedia for new editors to ask questions about editing Wikipedia, and get support from peers and experienced editors. Please join us! - Camyoung54 ^talk 22:59, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Mohamed Zairi Bibliography for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Mohamed Zairi Bibliography is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mohamed Zairi Bibliography until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Yunshui 雲‍水 09:06, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This bibliography has been on Wikipedia for quite some time now, it is only since I have attempted to edit the page that I have had issues. To delete the page would in my opinion be harsh. Nobody has commented before on problems and clearly we need to sort it out, but I would ask that it not be deleted at this time. (Sara Dawe (talk) 10:11, 16 May 2013 (UTC))[reply]

This isn't about Mohamed Zairi's page. I moved the bibliography of all his books to a seperate page here, and that page is being considered for deletion. If you want to weigh in your opinion, the discussion is being held at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mohamed Zairi Bibliography.

Promotional

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H._James_Harrington - is this page not promotional?

I would say yes, never seen it before. I don't really see what point your trying to make.

A barnstar for you!

	The Civility Barnstar
	I was considering making a Barnstar of Annoyingly Dogged Persistence for you instead - but I've been impressed with your reasoning, politeness and good humour during our recent discussion, so I reckon this one is more appropriate... Yunshui 雲‍水 07:46, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - It put a smile on my face :) I would have given you one for your increasingly (as the debate went on) insurmountable patience, but I don't know how to make one yet.Amlaera (talk) 08:31, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cupid

I don't know why you keep changing this: the point of the tale is that Cupid is a child, and that he cries and runs to his mom, who laughs at him. It's meant in the original to be light and humorous, and to make fun of Cupid's self-centeredness and childlike cluelessness. By changing the language, you lose the point of the characterization. The tale is told in the tone of light erotic mockery often associated with anacreontea. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:27, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I dont know what you mean with "keep changing", only changed once. I haven't read the original story, so I can't say the exact words they used, but "cries and run to mom" sounds very informal to me, not really what I'd expect from an old Greek tale, or from an encyclopedic summary. It may be factually correct, but I'd still prefer a re-phrasal of that sentence.Amlaera (talk) 19:04, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You changed it twice, and I don't want to get in an edit war. "He cries and runs to his mother Venus" seems pretty straightforward: crying is crying ("crying" meaning "wailing" or "producing tears" is not the same as "complaining"), and running is running. Just as Dürer chose to illustrate it: a pudgy little fellow with a woeful expression is running to his mother with his arms stretched up to her, as she stands with a wagging finger and an expression of perhaps bemused censure. The humor lies precisely in treating a couple of gods as if they're just a whining kid and his mom. It's a common misconception that ancient literature sounds like stiff and formal Victorian translations. Greek and Latin literature had as great a range of tone and register of diction as English. Cynwolfe (talk) 20:06, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, I only changed this one time. The only other time I've been at Cupid was to revert vandalism (section blanking) a week ago. And as I said, "cries and runs to mommy" may be factually correct, but I still think it sounds too informal to be phrased that way in an encyclopedia. An analogy: In an article about suicide, I wouldn't write "kicked the bucket" or something similar, because it would be bad taste and informal, even if it would be correct. Amlaera (talk) 06:31, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have found a translation of the original Idylls. It does not say anything about cupid crying. When you summarize a story you can't incorporate elements from other works i.e. a painting of the story. I'll go ahead and change it.Amlaera (talk) 07:52, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a summary of Theocritus (the article says the tale was first told by him), it's a summary of the story as it was used in the classical tradition, based on the secondary sources used to compile the article. Frankly, you don't know what you're talking about. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:00, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies if I sounded curt. I see that you're a fairly new editor with only a couple ~~thousand~~ hundred edits and no articles created. I'm sure you're only trying to be conscientious. I don't mean to discourage new editors! That would be quite contrary to my hopes for the future of Wikipedia. Best wishes, Cynwolfe (talk) 14:06, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, I can take a stabbing. Actually , my edits are just over ~~300~~ 200 (sad face), but who's counting, right? :) On topic: I think I stumbled on to what the problem is. In the source you linked (Hugo Wolf And his Mörike songs by Susan Youens), two poems/story's are told, one by Theocritus and one by Anacreon. The Anacreon one describes Eros as crying, and the other does not. So it seems we are both at least partially right. Maybe the article should reflect this? I leave that up to you since you are clearly the more experienced editor. Amlaera (talk) 14:34, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but people shouldn't have to take a stabbing in order to edit; that's exactly the kind of environment I would hope to discourage. I failed to watch my tone because I was unduly impatient about returning to the topic, for the very reason that I left it in an unsatisfactory state. Youens was summarizing the tale in general, not one version; that is, the general treatment of it as reflected in various art works and little poems, which is what's needed here. I usually make it clear whose summary I'm using, but had pushed the Youens footnote later into the section. (Theocritus's treatment influences the later tradition, but strictly speaking is about Eros in his Greek context, not the Cupid of classical mythology and the billion Valentine greetings he spawned—which is what the articles focuses on, relegating the Roman Cupido to a section.) Each of these sections on a "Cupid" theme could be easily expanded into a spinoff article, and I look forward to doing that for at least some of them at some point. When I was working on Cupid, I was in a rush because it was around Valentine's Day and the article had languished in an execrable state for a long time. It was not a thorough job, and I got distracted by Cupid and Psyche (where footnote 10, for instance, clarifies the sources used for the longer-than-usual plot summary). So my snippiness was entirely uncalled for. Cynwolfe (talk) 18:39, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your explanation(s), I feel that we have reached a tranquil state of enlightenment a.k.a consensus. Amlaera (talk) 07:39, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

December 2014

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at White supremacy, you may be blocked from editing. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:57, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply and WP:3RR warning

A zombie account is one that does not edit for an extended period and suddenly comes "back to life". There is no consensus on the talk page. You are at WP:3RR on that page anyway. Consider this your warning. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:33, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone except you is agreeing that it should be occluded on the talk page. And what, because I stopped editing for a while I am no longer allowed to make edits? And as you see, I didn't edit since the "Undue Weight - discuss" was added, I am fine with it being discussed. And please stop accusing me and being hostile. Amlaera (talk) 05:41, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are you the same person as that Delicious Maple fellah? Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:48, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, of course I am not. Any admin can confirm that. Are you the same person as Evergreen Fir? Amlaera (talk) 05:57, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, we're just lovers. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 06:05, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

White Supremacy

It is a very bad idea for someone who is involved in a dispute with an ongoing RfC to try to implement that RfC themselves without formal closure by an uninvolved administrator. In this particular case it is not clear at all that there is a consensus for your proposal at this time.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:10, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading edit summary

Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit of yours to the page White supremacy has an edit summary that appears to be inaccurate or inappropriate. Please use edit summaries that accurately tell other editors what you did, and feel free to use the sandbox for any tests you may want to do. Thank you. Dave Dial (talk) 23:15, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]