|
Such drastic rewriting ought to be discussed. — Tamfang ( talk) 08:10, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Has anyone but you ever used this term? ;) — Tamfang ( talk) 18:26, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
No that I know - but Anglophone is a perfectly ordinary word to use instead of English-speaking (much used for example in some parts of North America). There are many Anglophone heraldries: English, Scots, Canadian (though also Francophone), South African (which also uses Afrikaans in its online records, and other languages in its formal work I believe), USA (militarily and coastguardwise and the)Zimbabwe (which seems to function in English), Australia (though without a heraldic authority of its own), New Zealand (ditto).
Among the Anglophone heraldries most folk only talk and write about English heraldry from which the other countries' heraldries (especially those with their own heraldic authorities) are distinct, though not totally different! For example South African heraldry does not depend on a heraldic authority for the legality of arms, while in Scotland arms are illegal, criminally so, if not granted and recorded by its heraldic authority, etc, etc.
I talk about the Anglophone heraldries when I mean all of them and about the separate countries, regions etc when there isd a need to.
It seems to me to be a good term because it notes the commonalities and the differences (by using the plural).
Mich Taylor ( talk) 19:28, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
At least once I've changed something like
to
(note the more precise link). I hope you'll try it sometime. — Tamfang ( talk) 04:44, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Frankly, I'm rather doubtful whether Wikipedia is very interested in your personal opinions as to what is allegedly "very, very rare" etc. in that particular context. AnonMoos ( talk) 14:26, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia article Cross is not the place for you to display your personal attitudes and opinions about the Crusades. In fact, you seem to be confused about several things... AnonMoos ( talk) 17:06, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
The Ankh is not a distinctively-heraldic symbol; it's a non-heraldic symbol "very very rarely"[sic] incorporated into heraldry. It will save everybody a lot of effort all around if you actually start discussing things, instead of trying to unilaterally trying to impose your will on the article. AnonMoos ( talk) 17:19, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Sorry dude, but I don't want my comments here cut-and-pasted onto my own user talk page in that particular semi-mutilated form... AnonMoos ( talk) 18:41, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
I fully understand that you hate Israel with every single bone in your body from the very depths of your being, and would do anything to écraser l'infâme; however, the violence and vehemence of your passions has no place in editing Wikipedia articles, and is especially out of place and useless in the article Cross, which is not remotely about modern middle-eastern politics. Do I really have to spell it out for you in words of one syllable or less??? You could write that the Crusaders "occupied Palestine", and then I might write that the Crusaders "liberated the Levant coasts from 460 years of Muslim oppression" (see above) -- and as long as as it's purely a matter of my personal opinion vs. your personal opinion, then what basis is there to choose between the two wordings?! Maybe you should step back from editing Wikipedia for a while, and learn about the ways things are done here, until you "get it" a little more, before trying to impose major restructurings on lengthy and complicated articles such as Cross. AnonMoos ( talk) 03:53, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
What I do care about is you behaving a little bit less like an asshole, and making a little bit more of a sincere effort to find out how things are done around here. If you don't want to be thought of as an asshole, then don't resurrect material which a user has deleted from his or her own user talk page without a very specific valid reason. AnonMoos ( talk) 16:16, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
It's standard to emphasize terms of art on first mention. It's highly unnecessary to bold the word flaunch every time it appears in the article Flaunch; doing so dilutes the value of boldfacing. — Tamfang ( talk) 02:37, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Those links are totally useless; apparently they are temporary. If from such searches you can extract a permanent link, do so. If the content appears in a frame, right-click on the frame and choose "show only this frame". — Tamfang ( talk) 02:49, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Hm. Seems I'm faced with a dichotomy between "telling off" and leaving you in the dark as to How We Do Things Here. — Tamfang ( talk) 19:03, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
The key job is making good information clear and accessible. If sloppy incoherent style detracts from that, I for one am not prepared to embrace it. Some of the people who contribute to style guides such as the Manual of Style may well be snobs and pedants, or motivated by a wish to keep out the riffraff, but I like to think that some are sincere in having the reader's convenience in mind. — Tamfang ( talk) 20:21, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
(Emphasis added.) This does not say "use external weblinks wherever possible," let alone in preference to internal links. On the contrary, Wikipedia:External links says: "Wikipedia articles may include links to web pages outside Wikipedia, which are external links, but they should not normally be used in the body of an article."
Other websites – however authoritative – may vanish without warning; Wikipedia can be counted on to exist as long as Wikipedia exists. ;)
If my list of blazons led you to the article Bassecourt and that in turn led you to [1], why not suppose that the reader can also find the municipal site (whose front page is rather less informative than our article) from the article? — Tamfang ( talk) 06:21, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
I guess that means you'll only link to articles that you have rewritten. — Tamfang ( talk) 06:46, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Obviously you think so. I think they're pointlessly cluttered, sloppy, and harder to read. — Tamfang ( talk) 17:17, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
About the chevron éclaté: My first instinct would be to remove it, and write on Talk:Chevron "I've never heard of such a thing, and I reckon the reader can do without that knowledge." And then as an afterthought I'd write, "...but if someone can document it I guess it can go back in." ;) — But you bring up this very marginal example to defend your habit of dragging in external links – contrary to policy as I keep telling you – in preference to abundant WP illustrations (many of which probably are not hoaxes). If you think the definition of chevron needs explicit independent support, the appropriate thing is a link at the bottom of the page (perhaps in footnote form) to a dictionary, not a blazon within the text of some ugly piece of English civic armory. — Tamfang ( talk) 17:35, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
You seem to be conflating erroneous with unsupported, resulting in a policy of infinite regress: you won't use links within Wikipedia heraldry articles until nothing in Wikipedia heraldry articles links to Wikipedia! — Tamfang ( talk) 17:46, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Did you consider the lead paragraph of Variations of ordinaries unreliable, or is the deletion another expression of your love for freedom of style? — Tamfang ( talk) 06:49, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
It's the first thing I noticed. I'm cleaning up after you (as usual) on Ordinary (heraldry), and haven't yet had an opportunity to look at "Variations" any more than that (I had to glance at it in order to make a proper link to the Cotise section). — Tamfang ( talk) 07:31, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to
talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should
sign your posts by typing four
tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button
located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --
SineBot (
talk)
09:54, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
I wish you wouldn't write "Smith, Canada"; that looks like a place-name. It's no great crime against brevity to write "John J. Smith ( CHA)", or "Town of Moose Ridge, Alberta". (And please do link place-names to their WP articles.)
Also – I haven't noticed if you've done this recently – to anyone who hasn't been weaned from the Your Name's Crest marketing myth, "the Canadian arms of Smith" would mean the arms used in Canada by everyone named Smith. — Tamfang ( talk) 18:24, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Incidentally, if you're immersed in the Scots tradition, maybe you can provide some more detail about the Stodart cadency scheme? One sees a sample tree endlessly repeated but nothing more, and it's not much of a guide. — Tamfang ( talk) 20:47, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Hey there Mich Taylor, thank you for your contributions. I am a
bot, alerting you that
non-free files are
not allowed in user or talk space. I
removed some files I found on
User:Mich Taylor. In the future, please refrain from adding fair-use files to your
user-space drafts or your
talk page.
Thank you, -- DASHBot ( talk) 05:01, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Here you go; note definition no. 1. Please, if you are questioning a usage, do so on the Talk page. Don't put strange marks in the article itself. Kelisi ( talk) 14:22, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
I refer to this edit, or more specifically the last part of it (I see others took issue with some of your, in parts POV statements and reverted the whole edit but for this bit). Kelisi ( talk) 21:16, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
"I was not questioning a usage but publicly condemning it." -- Well, you don't do that. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. That was my point. You also have to maintain a neutral point of view. Your personal point of view (=POV) is of no interest and has no place here. You may not characterize anything as "ridiculous", for instance. Kelisi ( talk) 00:35, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
How did "racism" come into this? Kelisi ( talk) 15:50, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
How did that crest come into it? What are you on about? I'll tell you something, though: "Proper" in heraldry, for some charges, at least, refers to a "standard" tincture for that charge, whether or not the charge is really so coloured in real life, or whether or not the charge is even a real object (what would you make of "a dragon proper"?). Kelisi ( talk) 00:03, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Mich, what is all this garbage about? Who cares how which heraldic authority emblazoned whatever? Big deal! Just learn your English please. We see now evidence that your reading comprehension could use work. This was a discussion about the word "exotic", I seem to remember. "Racism" and one heraldic authority's supposed misdeed putting your nose out of joint simply don't enter into it. Please do not deposit further garbage on my talk page. I'm really not interested in the bee you have in your bonnet about the colour in which flesh is rendered in heraldry. For Pete's sake.
Yes, that message of yours is "insulting". Quite right. Son, would you just please go somewhere and prattle about your "rights" with your shaven-headed friends. Keep off my page. All further garbage will be deleted. Kelisi ( talk) 21:18, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Your recent edits are in much better style than before. — Tamfang ( talk) 05:56, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Now that it's linked to something that shows a C.fess, I have no reason to delete it, though I probably will combine it: a Spanish or Canadian fess... — Tamfang ( talk) 21:12, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk)
16:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello, Mich Taylor. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
|
Such drastic rewriting ought to be discussed. — Tamfang ( talk) 08:10, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Has anyone but you ever used this term? ;) — Tamfang ( talk) 18:26, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
No that I know - but Anglophone is a perfectly ordinary word to use instead of English-speaking (much used for example in some parts of North America). There are many Anglophone heraldries: English, Scots, Canadian (though also Francophone), South African (which also uses Afrikaans in its online records, and other languages in its formal work I believe), USA (militarily and coastguardwise and the)Zimbabwe (which seems to function in English), Australia (though without a heraldic authority of its own), New Zealand (ditto).
Among the Anglophone heraldries most folk only talk and write about English heraldry from which the other countries' heraldries (especially those with their own heraldic authorities) are distinct, though not totally different! For example South African heraldry does not depend on a heraldic authority for the legality of arms, while in Scotland arms are illegal, criminally so, if not granted and recorded by its heraldic authority, etc, etc.
I talk about the Anglophone heraldries when I mean all of them and about the separate countries, regions etc when there isd a need to.
It seems to me to be a good term because it notes the commonalities and the differences (by using the plural).
Mich Taylor ( talk) 19:28, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
At least once I've changed something like
to
(note the more precise link). I hope you'll try it sometime. — Tamfang ( talk) 04:44, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Frankly, I'm rather doubtful whether Wikipedia is very interested in your personal opinions as to what is allegedly "very, very rare" etc. in that particular context. AnonMoos ( talk) 14:26, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia article Cross is not the place for you to display your personal attitudes and opinions about the Crusades. In fact, you seem to be confused about several things... AnonMoos ( talk) 17:06, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
The Ankh is not a distinctively-heraldic symbol; it's a non-heraldic symbol "very very rarely"[sic] incorporated into heraldry. It will save everybody a lot of effort all around if you actually start discussing things, instead of trying to unilaterally trying to impose your will on the article. AnonMoos ( talk) 17:19, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Sorry dude, but I don't want my comments here cut-and-pasted onto my own user talk page in that particular semi-mutilated form... AnonMoos ( talk) 18:41, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
I fully understand that you hate Israel with every single bone in your body from the very depths of your being, and would do anything to écraser l'infâme; however, the violence and vehemence of your passions has no place in editing Wikipedia articles, and is especially out of place and useless in the article Cross, which is not remotely about modern middle-eastern politics. Do I really have to spell it out for you in words of one syllable or less??? You could write that the Crusaders "occupied Palestine", and then I might write that the Crusaders "liberated the Levant coasts from 460 years of Muslim oppression" (see above) -- and as long as as it's purely a matter of my personal opinion vs. your personal opinion, then what basis is there to choose between the two wordings?! Maybe you should step back from editing Wikipedia for a while, and learn about the ways things are done here, until you "get it" a little more, before trying to impose major restructurings on lengthy and complicated articles such as Cross. AnonMoos ( talk) 03:53, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
What I do care about is you behaving a little bit less like an asshole, and making a little bit more of a sincere effort to find out how things are done around here. If you don't want to be thought of as an asshole, then don't resurrect material which a user has deleted from his or her own user talk page without a very specific valid reason. AnonMoos ( talk) 16:16, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
It's standard to emphasize terms of art on first mention. It's highly unnecessary to bold the word flaunch every time it appears in the article Flaunch; doing so dilutes the value of boldfacing. — Tamfang ( talk) 02:37, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Those links are totally useless; apparently they are temporary. If from such searches you can extract a permanent link, do so. If the content appears in a frame, right-click on the frame and choose "show only this frame". — Tamfang ( talk) 02:49, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Hm. Seems I'm faced with a dichotomy between "telling off" and leaving you in the dark as to How We Do Things Here. — Tamfang ( talk) 19:03, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
The key job is making good information clear and accessible. If sloppy incoherent style detracts from that, I for one am not prepared to embrace it. Some of the people who contribute to style guides such as the Manual of Style may well be snobs and pedants, or motivated by a wish to keep out the riffraff, but I like to think that some are sincere in having the reader's convenience in mind. — Tamfang ( talk) 20:21, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
(Emphasis added.) This does not say "use external weblinks wherever possible," let alone in preference to internal links. On the contrary, Wikipedia:External links says: "Wikipedia articles may include links to web pages outside Wikipedia, which are external links, but they should not normally be used in the body of an article."
Other websites – however authoritative – may vanish without warning; Wikipedia can be counted on to exist as long as Wikipedia exists. ;)
If my list of blazons led you to the article Bassecourt and that in turn led you to [1], why not suppose that the reader can also find the municipal site (whose front page is rather less informative than our article) from the article? — Tamfang ( talk) 06:21, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
I guess that means you'll only link to articles that you have rewritten. — Tamfang ( talk) 06:46, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Obviously you think so. I think they're pointlessly cluttered, sloppy, and harder to read. — Tamfang ( talk) 17:17, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
About the chevron éclaté: My first instinct would be to remove it, and write on Talk:Chevron "I've never heard of such a thing, and I reckon the reader can do without that knowledge." And then as an afterthought I'd write, "...but if someone can document it I guess it can go back in." ;) — But you bring up this very marginal example to defend your habit of dragging in external links – contrary to policy as I keep telling you – in preference to abundant WP illustrations (many of which probably are not hoaxes). If you think the definition of chevron needs explicit independent support, the appropriate thing is a link at the bottom of the page (perhaps in footnote form) to a dictionary, not a blazon within the text of some ugly piece of English civic armory. — Tamfang ( talk) 17:35, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
You seem to be conflating erroneous with unsupported, resulting in a policy of infinite regress: you won't use links within Wikipedia heraldry articles until nothing in Wikipedia heraldry articles links to Wikipedia! — Tamfang ( talk) 17:46, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Did you consider the lead paragraph of Variations of ordinaries unreliable, or is the deletion another expression of your love for freedom of style? — Tamfang ( talk) 06:49, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
It's the first thing I noticed. I'm cleaning up after you (as usual) on Ordinary (heraldry), and haven't yet had an opportunity to look at "Variations" any more than that (I had to glance at it in order to make a proper link to the Cotise section). — Tamfang ( talk) 07:31, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to
talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should
sign your posts by typing four
tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button
located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --
SineBot (
talk)
09:54, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
I wish you wouldn't write "Smith, Canada"; that looks like a place-name. It's no great crime against brevity to write "John J. Smith ( CHA)", or "Town of Moose Ridge, Alberta". (And please do link place-names to their WP articles.)
Also – I haven't noticed if you've done this recently – to anyone who hasn't been weaned from the Your Name's Crest marketing myth, "the Canadian arms of Smith" would mean the arms used in Canada by everyone named Smith. — Tamfang ( talk) 18:24, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Incidentally, if you're immersed in the Scots tradition, maybe you can provide some more detail about the Stodart cadency scheme? One sees a sample tree endlessly repeated but nothing more, and it's not much of a guide. — Tamfang ( talk) 20:47, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Hey there Mich Taylor, thank you for your contributions. I am a
bot, alerting you that
non-free files are
not allowed in user or talk space. I
removed some files I found on
User:Mich Taylor. In the future, please refrain from adding fair-use files to your
user-space drafts or your
talk page.
Thank you, -- DASHBot ( talk) 05:01, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Here you go; note definition no. 1. Please, if you are questioning a usage, do so on the Talk page. Don't put strange marks in the article itself. Kelisi ( talk) 14:22, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
I refer to this edit, or more specifically the last part of it (I see others took issue with some of your, in parts POV statements and reverted the whole edit but for this bit). Kelisi ( talk) 21:16, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
"I was not questioning a usage but publicly condemning it." -- Well, you don't do that. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. That was my point. You also have to maintain a neutral point of view. Your personal point of view (=POV) is of no interest and has no place here. You may not characterize anything as "ridiculous", for instance. Kelisi ( talk) 00:35, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
How did "racism" come into this? Kelisi ( talk) 15:50, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
How did that crest come into it? What are you on about? I'll tell you something, though: "Proper" in heraldry, for some charges, at least, refers to a "standard" tincture for that charge, whether or not the charge is really so coloured in real life, or whether or not the charge is even a real object (what would you make of "a dragon proper"?). Kelisi ( talk) 00:03, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Mich, what is all this garbage about? Who cares how which heraldic authority emblazoned whatever? Big deal! Just learn your English please. We see now evidence that your reading comprehension could use work. This was a discussion about the word "exotic", I seem to remember. "Racism" and one heraldic authority's supposed misdeed putting your nose out of joint simply don't enter into it. Please do not deposit further garbage on my talk page. I'm really not interested in the bee you have in your bonnet about the colour in which flesh is rendered in heraldry. For Pete's sake.
Yes, that message of yours is "insulting". Quite right. Son, would you just please go somewhere and prattle about your "rights" with your shaven-headed friends. Keep off my page. All further garbage will be deleted. Kelisi ( talk) 21:18, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Your recent edits are in much better style than before. — Tamfang ( talk) 05:56, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Now that it's linked to something that shows a C.fess, I have no reason to delete it, though I probably will combine it: a Spanish or Canadian fess... — Tamfang ( talk) 21:12, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk)
16:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello, Mich Taylor. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)