User talk:Lambiam/Archive 19

Quotations
Don't forget to use quotation marks when making a direct quotation. Lady of  Shalott  23:25, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Alabama HB 56
The DYK project (nominate) 12:23, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

CERN Neutrinos to Gran Sasso
Hi there, Regarding your comments on the CNGS AFD, I fully agree with your wording (except for the two projects in the first sentence). I've amended what was written to reflect your example though added belonging to CERN, as CNGS is actually in France at SPS BA4, so didn't want readers to get confused thinking CNGS was in Geneva. I wrote the article in a hurry when the Opera results came out, as it was a red link on the CERN template. I keep meaning to write the articles for the rest at somepoint but I'm admittedly pretty poor at it. Regards Khu  kri  13:19, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Just seen you've already done it, but added my version though please feel free to revert to your version if you wish. Regards Khu  kri  13:23, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

The authority of administrators
I just wanted to tell that Admins have more experience than other users because they are around here for years long,and have done several thousand edits.Dipankan001 (talk) 15:13, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Cohen Cruse Ruse
Thanks for getting involved in this! I am really heartened to see so many people dive in, and all I really had to do was kick it off. No other purpose in writing, really, except to say thanks! Vivisel (talk) 17:20, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Fano plane with nimber labels
Hi. I've asked you a question here: commons:File talk:Fano plane with nimber labels.svg Greetings, Lipedia (talk) 14:24, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

ERCIM
I think we did some duplicate work here: Category:Members of the European Research Consortium for Informatics and Mathematics and Category:ERCIM. —Ruud 17:28, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Image tagging for File:Pontet-Canet 1970.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Pontet-Canet 1970.jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from or who created it. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 12:05, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Non-ferrous metal
PanydThe muffin is not subtle 08:03, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Signpost "In the news" report
Hullo Lambian, and thanks for the correction! I wonder if you're not too busy if you wouldn't mind looking over the rest of the page for similar errors? We are running a little late with publication so assistance would be most appreciated! Thank you,  Skomorokh   22:37, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you
Dear Lambiam, I didn't make undo. I just extended the text with more details and added more sources down. And thank you very much for your edits and contributions. Republic2011 (talk) 06:18, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Noilly Prat Page Help
Dear Lambiam, we are trying to change Noilly Prat page with updated information provided Noilly Prat but you revarted back to orignal. same is happening with Images as well, which Noilly Prat officially allowed. can you please help? Rizwanchand (talk) 19:55, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Istanbul Modern page move to İstanbul Modern
It is my understanding that the English language Wikipedia favors using English language characters in the article title, and generally, in the body of the article (or when the argument for favoring one over the other is dubious, primacy dictates). Was this move discussed on the articles talk page? -I seem to have missed it, if it was. What is the rational for using non-English language characters in the title of this article (here the 'İ')? Do you plan to rename other pages using the same convention? Will you change the page "Istanbul" to "İstanbul"? Will the page name for Hong Kong be changed to Mandarin characters? Mavigogun (talk) 14:05, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

_______________

The Turkish "İ" is not a letter modified with a diacritic- rather, it is a letter containing a diacritic, distinct and independent from "I". Whether non-English origin sources prefer using non-English spelling when crafting English text isn't relevant to our choice, is it? The vast propensity of English usage spells the name of the city "Istanbul". By the rational given, all other place name spellings favored by Turks when crafting English text should likewise be transformed; however, this ignores that the primarily English speaking world already has a convention in place for the spelling. For example, the word "yoğurt", with the vowel extending "ğ", in English has universally been transformed to "g", as in the English "go".

While I personally prefer "Istanbul Museum of Modern Art", "Istanbul Modern Art Museum" derived from the museum's use of "Istanbul Modern" as a title- necessitating its use when titling- not as sub-title or descriptor. For example "The United States Armed Forces", commonly used when those so named are the object, as apposed to "The Armed Forces of the United States", commonly used as subject, modifying action carried out by those so named. Regardless, common usage nominally favors "Istanbul Modern Art Museum", contrary to your assertion- though, as you say, the museum itself seems to prefer "İstanbul Museum of Modern Art".

Regardless, it's normal for page moves to be predicated on talk page consensus. The talk page and document history have been discarded.Mavigogun (talk) 07:22, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

_________________

You wrote: "Obviously, the shape of the Turkish letter 'İ' was obtained by modifying the usual shape of the letter 'I' by putting a diacritic dot on top. To maintain that the 'İ' cannot be called a modified letter 'I' so that WP:DIACRITIC does not apply, is pure sophistry."

This seems to indicate a fundamental misapprehension of what I wrote. For the issue elucidated, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diacritic#Languages_with_letters_containing_diacritics The point is that the glyph represents, phonically, not a modified version of another letter, but a distinct letter. Although the glyphs used in the Turkish alphabet were borrowed from existing Latin alphabets, they don't have a one-to-one correspondence. On point: while some letter might retain a phonic link to the alphabetical traditions from which they were derived, others don't- that is to say, cosmetic similarity to English does not make a word English. "İstanbul" is a Turkish word- not an English word. While the Turks may favor including Turkish words with English, that is not our standard here.

Your use of 'sophistry' is needlessly provocative, pejorative. I perpetrated no deception. We have a conceptual difference in opinion. The suggestion of deceit is offensive. For what audience would I have been plotting to trick? -your intellect? If you find a contention bothersome, address it rather than dismiss it through contriving offense. Presume that I want to collaborate- seek clarification or better illuminate what you deem pertinent, important.

"The spelling 'Istanbul' is already found in English sources at least from the 19th century (see e.g. here), predating the introduction of the Turkish Latin alphabet, and this is the spelling also most common today in English reliable sources – also, generally, when the publisher is Turkish, and there is no reason to prefer the current Turkish spelling for the name of the city. Likewise, the English spelling 'yoghurt' predates the Turkish spelling 'yoğurt'. But I do indeed prefer Ödemiş over Odemis, just like I prefer Ödeshög over Odeshog. I don't see what is wrong with that; in neither case can you say that the version without diacritics represents the 'general usage' in English sources."

You have made the case for English sources using "Istanbul" - I would only disagree with the characterization of "generally": "almost exclusively" would be more accurate. The example of "yoğurt" is apt- the word is of Turkish origin, but has a distinctively different English spelling (and pronunciation). (Naturally, with the inception of modern Turkish and its Latinized alphabet in 1928, English spellings predate- but isn't relevant to our consideration of use, here/now, is it?)  I suppose I would like to hear your argument for NOT favoring a page name change for "Istanbul" or "Istanbul Province", as that might better convey your rational, thinking, and appropriateness.Mavigogun (talk) 11:35, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

__________________

You wrote: While the word sophistry refers to a specious and therefore deceptive argument, it does not imply an intentional attempt at deceit.

"Specious" and "sophistry" have critically different meanings; a specious argument is enticing-yet-false - malintent is not explicit, as the proponent may genuinely misapprehend; a sophistic argument is deceptive by design. You may have meant one and said the other- no big deal. Still, a degree of semantic distinction without which words lose meaning, me thinks...Mavigogun (talk) 17:43, 27 December 2011 (UTC)