User talk:62.73.69.121

Welcome!
Hi 62.73.69.121! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Happy editing!

Useful link
You should bookmark this link. It is a list of most recently active administrators. If you need help, pick one from the list. If there is a wider discussion/more eyes required you could post to WP:ANI. Polygnotus (talk) 10:30, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I bookmarked it. It was nice of you to remove that person's nonsense from my talk page, too - I would have hoped that any future readers would get that I wasn't the troublemaker in that interaction, but I might be too optimistic; perhaps many would just see the fact that I'm an IP with several vandalism messages on their talk page and assume that I must be, indeed, a vandal. Although the previous two messages - the usual 'false positives' from too trigger-happy vandal patrollers - may be enough to give that impression anyway.--62.73.69.121 (talk) 19:23, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Trash belongs in the bin. You are allowed to remove stuff from your talkpage. You are encouraged to make an account, but this is not required. The main advantage is that you are less likely to be the victim of friendly fire. I will be WP:BOLD and replace the messages above with something more appropriate. Polygnotus (talk) 23:10, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
 * If this is not enough to stop the false positives there is another great trick: Editnotice. Polygnotus (talk) 23:19, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that was very helpful! I generally wouldn't remove any messages from other users from my talk page, because it would feel too much as if I were muzzling them and I wouldn't want to look as if I were trying to conceal the evidence of any misdeeds; but since you were the one who made the changes, I'll accept that in this case. :) --62.73.69.121 (talk) 15:41, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

The Mesopotamia Barnstar

 * Wow, thanks! I appreciate your appreciation. That was unexpected. I was almost sure this message would be some 'false positive' vandalism warning for my having deleted some word I'd written myself in the editing process or something like that. :) Of course, my editing wasn't that great, and a lot remains to be improved.--62.73.69.121 (talk) 08:43, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * There's probably a very small number of us with the skillset to recognize your edits are good, rather than inscrutable! I agree with the above poster who suggested making an account, considering the consistency of high quality edits that aren't really possible to cite you're making, but obviously there's no requirement to! Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 09:17, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * After two (or three?) welcomes that encouraged you to register with an account, I won't bother you with it again :) Let me just join in the praise: solid job, as always! –Austronesier (talk) 17:08, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I assure you the welcomes have been far more than three through the years. And we have talked on more than one occasion. :) --62.73.69.121 (talk) 02:57, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I will gold-plate this barnstar if you can consider to use sfn- or harv-templates. It doesn't need much extra-effort for you (ok, there's all the already existing refs -_-), but removes the burden from readers to scroll down for the full citation of the source. An sfn-link will allow to have the reference displayed just by hovering on it, something I (and I assume many other editors too) do very often. –Austronesier (talk) 19:51, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * That was very tempting, but no, I don't feel that this little extra convenience for the readers is really worth this little extra inconvenience for me. Using templates instead of plain text is inconvenient in general - the more special syntax, the more you need to concentrate in order not to make an error, which often has drastic effects - and I believe that it should be minimised. It's hard enough for me to just keep track of the old-fashioned ref brackets, which I keep buggering up, and now you expect me to stay focused on all of these ||| in order to distribute every chunk of text in its right place between them? I just want to type the text that should appear without having to think about it, not be forced to navigate some weird template each time I want to cite a source. Not to mention that learning to use any new template is bothersome. I wouldn't do it just to spare readers the effort of scrolling down, which they should be used to doing anyway, since it is still necessary when reading most texts with bibliographies. In general, I consider the current tendency for proliferation of templates on Wikipedia to be a negative phenomenon. This is volunteer work, not a job, it's supposed to be done 'wikiwiki', so editing should require as little site-specific technical competence, preparations and commitment as possible, not require you to read a fifty-page manual the way people do before playing some RTS/RPG. The fancy templates are an additional barrier for outsiders, however much insiders may appreciate their advantages.--62.73.69.121 (talk) 00:12, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Sumerian language article
Top shelf work. Good for you. That is all. Ploversegg (talk) 19:53, 14 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Thanks!--62.73.69.121 (talk) 22:13, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

A question about Emesal and UD.GAL.NUN
Hello, I was curious if you plan to eventually expand the Emesal section of the Sumerian language article? I think given the plethora of recent studies on the topic (and especially what seems like a gradual shift away from the idea of "woman's tongue" interpretations, ex. Michalowski 2023, Michel 2024) it would be warranted to turn it into a separate article, even (French wikipedia has a separate Emesal article but it's fairly bare bones). I'm mostly asking because I was considering doing that myself, but I don't want to interfere with your ongoing efforts. On a similar note, are you planning to cover UD.GAL.NUN in more detail (I similarly think a separate article might be warranted)? HaniwaEnthusiast (talk) 06:51, 18 June 2024 (UTC)


 * No, I don't plan to add much more about them myself, you wouldn't be interfering. Thanks for asking! If more is added, it should probably be in a separate article. But the information that is currently in the main article should also be kept there, IMO. As for what it was in real life before it was restricted to its attested literary functions, I think it's early to treat either the genderlect view, the regiolect view or any of the others as predominant. And neither the genderlect nor the regiolect view can be considered obsolete. Both of them have been around for quite some time now and a few recent publications don't mean a change in consensus. -62.73.69.121 (talk) 10:20, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't think any of the major interpretations are obsolete, for clarity (especially not in a wiki article), and I think Michel in particular might be going a bit too far (she essentially argues that the genderlect theory is comparably obsolete as scholarship taking Herodotus at face value, which I think is going a bit too far, even if Emesal really wasn't a genuine sociolect but purely a stylistic choice in specific literary genres).
 * In any case, since you also think it would be optimal to cover Emesal and UD.GAL.NUN in separate articles, that's what I'll do (might take a few weeks before the results will show up, for clarity). Thanks for the feedback, and good luck with your own projects. HaniwaEnthusiast (talk) 10:59, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks, the same to you!--62.73.69.121 (talk) 15:18, 21 June 2024 (UTC)