User talk:Mootros/Archives/2009/November

Should Persecution of Falun Gong be renamed into something else?
That is the question that is repeated again here: Talk:Persecution of Falun Gong. Since you are not an involved editor, would it be possible for you to provide an input? Thank you in advance for your time! --HappyInGeneral (talk) 17:18, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅! Thanks for letting me know :) Mootros (talk) 16:39, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Your welcome and thank you for your time! --HappyInGeneral (talk) 00:38, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Re: Murder_of_Marwa_El-Sherbini
[Dear Graham87, thank you kindly for copy-editing. Much appreciated! :) Yours, Mootros (talk) 00:58, 13 November 2009 (UTC)]

You're most welcome. The murder was a horrible tragedy, but the article is a great read. Graham 87 01:02, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the positive feedback. The article is currently nominated for review as a good article. See here. There is always quite a demand for reviewers. Yours, Mootros (talk) 01:07, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Quotation characters
Hi, regarding this edit, MOS dictates: "Grave and acute accents or backticks (`text´) are neither quotation marks nor apostrophes, and must not be used in their place." --BorgQueen (talk) 04:13, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Dear BorgQueen, thank you for contacting me about this. This article is written in British English. It therefore uses single quotation marks (like 'I ate the apple'). For details please see here: American_and_British_English_differences. I am not sure why the MOS says the following: 'Search engines may not find quotations within single quotes... ' If this is true, it mean that this technical issues de facto does not allow to write articles in British English. What do you think? Yours, Mootros (talk) 05:59, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * According to American_and_British_English_differences: "Americans begin their quotations with double quotation marks (") and use single quotation marks (') for quotations within quotations. BrE usage varies, with some authoritative sources such as The Economist and The Times recommending the same usage as in the U.S." Am I missing something? --BorgQueen (talk) 06:04, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * No! 'BrE usage varies' That means that single quotation marks are perfectly acceptable as long as done consistently. Btw, what is the technical issue that should not allow this? Mootros (talk) 06:09, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Even if single quotation marks are acceptable in BrE usage, what you used was "grave and acute accents or backticks (`text´)" that are "neither quotation marks nor apostrophes, and must not be used in their place". Please use proper single quotation marks('), if you must. --BorgQueen (talk) 06:15, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * OK. I will leave the double quotation marks, as it is possible in British English to have this. However, I would like to have the MOS changed. I strikes me as non-sense this technical issues. Again thanks for pointing this out. Yours Mootros (talk) 06:22, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Please feel free to start a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style, if you think some changes should be made to the guidelines. I suppose single quotation marks are fine as long as they are "proper/straight" ones ('), not "improper/curly" (`´,‘’) ones. --BorgQueen (talk) 06:31, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Murder of Marwa El-Sherbini
Hi there,

I noticed that in this edit, you placed a strike tag through some of my comment (specifically, a quote from a comment above.) Was my comment in violation of a Wikipedia guidelines? I've not edited wiki in a while and unfortunately forget the protocol when it comes to talk pages. Note, this isn't in any way a complaint, just asking for clarification so I don't make the same mistake in future. Cheers. ElijahOmega (talk) 12:29, 14 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi ElijahOmega, no I don't think it was a "violation". I've done this because sometimes slight off-topic/ general discussions (i.e. beyond the article) can to trigger further random comments and total off-topic discussions. This would  of course than would miss the point that wikipedia is not a forum. Generally I think broader discussion can very useful to think about the article and writting issues, but unfortunately in some cases it can just result in a stream of disconnected talking. Mootros (talk) 16:29, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Move of Jäger (military)
I see you moved Jäger (military) to Jäger (German-speaking military). I wonder why. I think the latter is awkward and misleading (as e.g. Finnish jääkäri is of the German tradition but not German-speaking) and I find no preceding discussion. --LPfi (talk) 16:01, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi LPfi, thanks for contacting me about this. There is an article called Rifleman that deals wit the topic in general for each country. There for instance is a section that deals with Finland, which could be expanded into its own article. This for instance could exaplain the histrocial link to German troops. Jäger (German-speaking military) is only dealing with German speaking military units past and present, as a stand-alone article. Mootros (talk) 14:36, 16 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I think it is funny to divide the troops depending on language, what about the Swiss? But anyway, the article states in the first paragraph:
 * Jäger (plural also Jäger, German pronunciation: [ˈjɛːɡɐ]; was adopted in the Enlightenment era in German-speaking states and others influenced by German military practice to describe a kind of light infantry, and it has continued in that use since then.[1]
 * The "and others influenced by German ..." gives me the impression that also Finnish jääkäri would be included. Also later on in the article e.g. (Imperial Germany):
 * By the early twentieth century Jäger units were part of the Imperial German, Austro-Hungarian, Swedish, Dutch and Norwegian armies.


 * The term "rifleman" doesn't sound right for me for describing the jääkärit. As in the end of the "origins"-section and the beginning of "Modern tactics" of the article:


 * The term 'rifleman', once used solely as a mark of distinction and pride, became a commonplace description of all soldiers, no matter what their actual status was.
 * Riflemen are the basic modern soldiers from which all other soldierly functions stem. Though by tradition certain infantry units are based on the rifleman, they employ a variety of other specialized soldiers in conjunction with the rifleman.


 * Isn't this referring to ordinary infantry? The section about Finland could of course be extended, but equally easy in either of the articles.


 * Even if the German speaking jägers are to have their own article I think the "German-speaking" is superfluous. As Jäger is a German word it is unlikely that there is unrelated military known by the same name – do you know some article that needs the name Jäger_(military)?


 * --LPfi (talk) 16:42, 16 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree! You've nicely pointed to the crux of the problem. Rifleman and Jaeger originally meant the same. But nowadays they are not an exact match. About the "German speaking" qualification of the title: this is meant geo-politically, because terms such as Germany, Austria, or what not are histrionically incorrect. But I agree it's superfluous as it is about Jaeger . So finally, whether jääkärit should feature in this article. I would say no, or only in a small note explaining that Jaeger has influenced the development of jääkärit. The rest should be here Jääkärit (millitary), or elsewhere. I'll revert the title back. Again, thank kindly for your sharp observation and helpful comments. Mootros (talk) 17:03, 16 November 2009 (UTC)


 * You are welcome. I think it is enough to mention the Finnish jääkärit as a minor note in the jäger article, with the main substance in articles specific for Finland. A section in Rifleman is of course ok. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LPfi (talk • contribs) 12:58, 17 November 2009 (UTC)