User talk:Dronkle/Archives/2010/July

MMR vaccine controversy
Hi.

I made an edit in the referenced article based on what I believed to be a WP:BLP violation. When you undid the edit, you noted that the controversial material was indeed referenced later in the article. However, per WP:LEADCITE, statements of this sort need to be cited every time. I'm just letting you know that I will probably make the same change again, and want to avoid an edit war. Thanks. 69.207.151.63 (talk) 19:02, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Pending Changes
Usage of Pending Changes on that article might not address the problem. I perceive that the supporters of that group were actually taking satisfaction from the revert war on the article and the talk page arguments. PC doesn't stop revert wars. EdJohnston (talk) 14:59, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
Image of vase 1858,0301.1 Fæ (talk) 22:31, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

wagner
Hi, Peter, I'm not tinkering with the article now :-} --Smerus (talk) 19:25, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Peter Brewis
Hello. In February you added a citation to a book from the "Webster's Quotations" series published by Icon Group International to this article. Unfortunately, Icon Group International is not a reliable source - their books are computer-generated, with most of the text copied from Wikipedia (most entries have [WP] by them to indicate this). I'm removing a lot of similar references; many other editors have also been deceived by these sources. Another publisher that reuses Wikipedia articles is Alphascript Publishing. Fences &amp;  Windows  23:19, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Ifeelawful because I don't think Ifeel lawful editing Falafal
Won't edit there since the article clearly has been shaped into an I/P type conflict, with WP:Undue everywhere. But the etymology section's Sanskrit should be scrapped. One shouldn't clip and paste Sanskrit from unreliable sites, as has been done. Mine's thoroughly scrappy from long desuetude, but I think पिप्पल refers to the Bo Tree, not to the 'long pepper'. To say that the Arabic is from Sanskrit is technically incorrect, since we don't know. The Sanskrit term pippalī drifted through trading stations, where it was understood not as 'long pepper' but 'a grain of pepper' (Chantraine 1968:2,p.883 col.2) via intermediaries, to give us Greek πἐπερι and Latin piper, but for all we know, filfil may have come into Arabic from such an intermediate source. A nice, perhaps pedantic, distinction, but since the article seems in part to try and undercut one nation's traditional claim to have developed a food (Egypt), it does very much look like inserting the Sanskrit( wrong word to boot) then works to undercut the larger 'Arab' belief that this is something proper to their culinary tradition (the function of the 'Copts' idem). These subtextual drifts always escape wiki surveillance, and for good reasons. Additionally, two of the three sources (don't know about the American Heritage Dict) don't bear out the statement. Words have a cosmopolitan-nomadic indifference to frontiers. A pity we, as editors, are hamstrung by tight definitions of borders, and rivalries! Cheers Nishidani (talk) 11:51, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, the mouton analogy was spot on the chop! I'm bewildered by these drifts. Such a pity. Still, it is best to think long term, and never rush things round here.Nishidani (talk) 12:23, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Opinion request
Would you please weigh in at the Examples discussion at Talk:Fringe theory? Thank you. Tom Reedy (talk) 20:52, 30 July 2010 (UTC)