Jump to content

Talk:Ursari: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
No edit summary
rating
Line 1: Line 1:
⚫
{{DYK talk|27 June|2007|entry=...that, in 19th and 20th century [[Romania]], [[Roma minority in Romania|Roma people]] known as '''[[Ursari]]''' trained [[brown bear]]s to step on people's backs, as a [[Home remedy|folk remedy]] for [[back pain]]?}}
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1=
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1=
{{WikiProject Bulgaria|class=B|importance=low|no-todolist=}}
{{WikiProject Bulgaria|class=B|importance=low|no-todolist=}}
{{WikiProject Eastern Europe|class=|importance=}}
{{WikiProject Eastern Europe|class=|importance=}}
{{WikiProject Romani people|class=}}
{{WikiProject Romani people|class=b}}
{{WikiProject Romania}}
{{WikiProject Romania}}
{{WikiProject Occupations|class=|importance=}}
{{WikiProject Occupations|class=b|importance=}}
{{WikiProject Greece|class=|importance=|topic=history|byzantine-task-force=yes}}
{{WikiProject Greece|class=b|importance=|topic=history|byzantine-task-force=yes}}
{{WikiProject European history|class=|importance=}}
{{WikiProject European history|class=b|importance=}}
{{WikiProject Middle Ages|class=|importance=}}
{{WikiProject Middle Ages|class=b|importance=}}
{{WikiProject Animals|class=|importance=}}
{{WikiProject Animals|class=b|importance=}}
{{WikiProject Animal rights|class=|importance=}}
{{WikiProject Animal rights|class=b|importance=}}
{{WikiProject Circus|class=|importance=}}
{{WikiProject Circus|class=b|importance=}}
{{WikiProject Anthropology|class=|importance=}}
{{WikiProject Anthropology|class=b|importance=}}
{{WikiProject Ethnic groups|class=|importance=}}
{{WikiProject Ethnic groups|class=b|importance=low}}
{{WikiProject Linguistics|class=|importance=|applied=Yes|applied-importance=}}
{{WikiProject Linguistics|class=b|importance=low|applied=Yes|applied-importance=}}
}}
}}
⚫
{{DYK talk|27 June|2007|entry=...that, in 19th and 20th century [[Romania]], [[Roma minority in Romania|Roma people]] known as '''[[Ursari]]''' trained [[brown bear]]s to step on people's backs, as a [[Home remedy|folk remedy]] for [[back pain]]?}}


== Header by Anittas ==
== Header by Anittas ==

Revision as of 15:40, 14 January 2019

Header by Anittas

I made a few edits to which Dahn called for "superflous." A few observations from my part:

  1. For the sake of consistency, decide whether you want to use past sentence or present;
  2. For the sake of consistency and clarity, if you translate a part of a poem with "For I shall," then don't translate a similar text from another poem with "And I shall."
  3. I don't think Romania was ever a Principality. Perhaps during the first years of Carol I, who was first proclaimed a prince, but are you sure that officially, the country was not called a Kingdom? Nontheless, if it was a Principality, then don't link it to Kingdom; and if you want to link it to Kingdom of Romania, then don't call it a Principality.
  4. And for the thousand time, please use comma and other punctuation mark inside the quote. It is "like this," and not "like this".

Even though Dahn has insulted my edits and my good intentions — and keeps doing that —, I will not make any complains on him. I will also say that I think this article could cover the abuse against the bears a little better. There have been many reports on the issue, yet the section on the matter remains very subtile. --Thus Spake Anittas 13:08, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would be a waste of my time to reply, since some of the issues are complicated, and most just frivolous (including one that rests on what Anittas doesn't know as proof of what he may know). I took the liberty of changing the header, because I'd rather not have you smear me with various allegations whenever you get the chance. Dahn 13:18, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And if you go to compare the history, you can see how Dahn reverted all of my edits without even checking what I had changed; then, when he noticed that I had corrected a simple typo which read "on" instead of "an," he changed it back to "an." The punctuation remarks, however, remain in the wrong place, as Dahn prefers to be wrong rather than admit fault. --Thus Spake Anittas 13:22, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, for Christ:
  • those changes in "grammar" that were not utter synonyms were aberrant: "to blend in Dutch society", "and indicating that the Ursari could choose to purchase other plots" ("could choose"?! - why not "could perhaps opt to choose if they should happen to believe that they may" while you're at it?)
  • among the changes in "grammar": you had replaced "in retaliation" with "came after", which manipulated the data sourced
  • Romania was indeed a principality (no, Anittas, not "officially kingdom") from the time Cuza proclaimed the "Statut dezvoltător" to 1881. The info is best fitted in a first section for the "Kingdom" article, for distinct reasons (most of the info would coincide with the Cuza and Carol article, the single state was not recognized internationally until the 1870s, etc.). There is a common practice of using distinct titles for synonymous articles, especially when chronology imposes it (in fact, hello, why do you think the script allows you use "|"?). As you could have noted from the text, the name was in reference to the times of Cuza. And, if you want to question the style used, perhaps you could explain to the world just what the hell style of linking is [[Kingdom of Romania|Kingdom of Romania]] supposed to be?
  • there is no rule regarding punctuation inside quotes, and it seems to me that featured articles tend to have them outside, and that most established users also prefer them like that. This happens to coincide with my personal preference, especially since many quotes comming after, e.g., a comma, may not have a comma in that place in the quoted text. Dahn 13:40, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is awkward to say "blend into Dutch society" because to me, into in such a context is mostly used when describing something physical or that can be measured. Therefore, I changed it to "in Dutch society." Yes, I changed to "could choose" for redundancy reasons, but those are your own words, not mine. The link to Kingdom of Romania is misleading. At least it mislead me. I changed "actions" to incidents because actions sounds as something that was planned beforehand, whereas "incident" is mostly used when describing something that happened spontaneously, as in this case where the violence was due to a reaction of the people. Finally, many of your commas are best left without, as they reduce the flow. I tried to help, but ended with being insulted and hurt. I will, however, respect your wish and not try to help you in this article anymore. I apologize for making you waste your time on me. --Thus Spake Anittas 13:58, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to interfere in this debate, but let me just add my two cents to the narrow issue of punctuation: Yes, odd as it sounds, in English punctuation marks are supposed to be put inside the quotes, not outside (I think that's unlike most other languages, certainly unlike, say, Romanian or French), though I haven't seen that rule spelled out explicitly somewhere. Now, as for usage — I'm not sure how widely followed that rule is. I personally, though usually a stickler for grammar and punctuation, tend to ignore it now and then, depending on the context, though I use it when it seems really necessary. At any rate, I'd be curious whether there is a WP guideline on this, or an explicit reference in an authoritative source that would settle this issue conclusively. Thanks. Turgidson 14:06, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there is WP:PUNC. Dahn 14:17, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They describe it very well and I was already aware of that, but what of commas and period marks? Which is correct?

A) As I came home, Dahn insulted me by calling my edits for "superfluous."

B) As I came home, Dahn insulted me by calling my edits for "superfluous". --Thus Spake Anittas 14:25, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

C) Anittas asks "what of commas and period marks?" because he presumably was unable to read the WP:PUNC guideline "Punctuation marks are placed inside the quote marks only if the sense of the punctuation is part of the quotation", or is not aware that commas and "period marks" are punctuation marks. Dahn 14:30, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You and your 1001 Wiki rules. I have read one rule only: Ignore all Rules. And I obey it. I think there may be a difference between commas and period marks; and question marks and the like. Perhaps someone else could clarify it for us. I think I know who. --Thus Spake Anittas 14:37, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I suggest you read a second rule and memorize it: WP:POINT. In addition, it seems that the two specific examples referring to the full stop outlined in WP:PUNC failed to catch your eye (if you think that "commas are different", I guess I could only stress again that it cannot begin to contradict the notion that commas are punctuation marks, and are therefore covered by the rule without the need to exemplify - just as all punctuation marks are). It seems that, despite your apology above, you are still bent on wasting my time - just as you were bent on making racist comments the other day. Dahn 14:39, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a rule for relevancy? If there is, you should be the first to read it. As always, you make the most irrelevant comments. The rule in which you point out to is not relevant to what has transcribed here. If, for instance, I would try to prove you wrong by editing articles to resemble your style of writing—and if I would do it in a mischievous way in order to prove you wrong, then you could have directed me to that rule; but so far, no such incident has occurred that could fall under that directive. But thank you for your effort. --Thus Spake Anittas 14:44, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Anittas, I could perhaps trust that you have expertise in grammar if you would actually use grammar to compose your messages. Dahn 14:47, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I claim no such thing, but I think that you are overrating your skills in the English language. Many times have you made mistakes--mistakes which a 5-level speaker, as you claim yourself to be, would not make. Perhaps it is time to revise your skills? I don't see how you contribute on Wiki with a professional level of English. How about reducing the number to 3, or at least 4? You know, to make it more realistic. --Thus Spake Anittas 14:58, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What the hell is it to you how I rate my skills and why? Really, Anittas, you are in no position to judge me, and using a talk page as a tribune for whatever issues you think you may have with me is in bad taste. So, Anittas, go and harass someone new - if anything, this is getting really old, really fast. Dahn 15:16, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I did not judge you. You do not judge someone's skill, you assess them. I made some personal observations in reaction to your own observations to my writing skills. I think it is poor taste to insult people based on their writing skills if their intentions are good, but if that happens, then I reserve the right to retaliate with the same means and I say to you that I do not believe that you are able to write in a professional matter. --Thus Spake Anittas 15:31, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll let you know when I care. In the meantime, I'm quite done taking part in this festival of yours - you obviously have no tenable argument, and you're just reshuffling various otiose and ad hominem comments to fill this page with something. Bye. Dahn 15:44, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Dahn, for pointing out WP:PUNC to me. I glanced at that page at some point, but my eyes must have glazed over (M.E.G.O., as they say) the section about quotation marks. That's quite informative, allright. But still, take a look at the very first sentence: "We use “double quotes”, and ‘single quotes’ for quotations within quotations." I think many people would argue that the correct way to write this would be "We use “double quotes,” and ...". I've had quite a heated debate about this issue once in real life — I was arguing for the comma outside in such a situation, but alas, I lost the argument to a good friend of mine, who was more tenacious and determined arguing about this momentous issue.  :) Turgidson 16:44, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, that particular example reminds me of the one hand clapping :).¹ On the other hand (pun intended), commas in the text placed within the quotes have always caught my attention for being odd in the Anglo-Saxon texts I had to deal with - most of the latter applied what WP:PUNC defines as "logical quotation". I'm not saying that I hold the truth beyond what WP:PUNC recommends on wiki, nor that texts I had to deal with were necessarily representative for the culture at large - just that we seem to have different experiences. Dahn 17:12, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

¹To clarify what I meant: if the rule indicates the comma should be used when present in quotes, is it actually present in the text, even though the quoted text was never written? :)

At the risk of beating a dead horse, here is another discussion of this hot topic. Mister Micawber there makes the case that, "Yes, commas should go inside of quotation marks for quoted speech (and also a comma after the reporting verb), but periods needn't-- it depends on which side of the Atlantic you reside." Oh, lordy -- now it's also a case of British English vs. American English? Aw, jeez!  :) Turgidson 19:00, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One could avoid such complications by avoiding all the situations where this arises (not quoting before commas). I found a fuller explanation here: "Now, keep in mind that this comma and period inside the quotation marks business is strictly American usage. The British don't do it that way. They are inclined to place commas and periods logically rather than conventionally, depending on whether the punctuation belongs to the quotation or to the sentence that contains the quotation, just as we do with question marks and exclamation points." Presumably, this is what WP:PUNC is all about. Dahn 19:21, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"When it comes to commas and periods, though, logic doesn't enter into the equation, at least not in the United States." Ouchhh! You gotta love the Brits! I can't really argue with that, though: logic should take precedence over conventions — like rock over scissors. Turgidson 19:33, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I guess so. Since we're on the subject: one of my pet peeves is the extended space many Anglo-Saxons place at the end of the sentence (" " instead of " " - you have to view it in the edit window, as it will not show in the edited text). What is that all about? Dahn 19:54, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For some reason, it's called French spacing, though indeed the practice originated in the United States! Actually, I like it, and use it all the time (but only after a period, never after a colon or semicolon). I think it gives more of a sense of a full stop at the end of a sentence. Turgidson 20:41, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have actually noticed you were using it (in fact, I see you're using it in the post above), but I thought that it was your keyboard setting (I have a friend whose keyboard does it by default). Though I find it distracting, I tend not to replace it unless it clashes with other significant sections. Dahn 20:48, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I enjoyed reading your chat while drinking my lemon tea and dinning on my After Eight mint chocolate. So, when will the commas be moved inside the quotes? --Thus Spake Anittas 00:50, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Make yourself another cup or two. Dahn 00:53, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Ursari. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:09, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ursari&oldid=878390719"