Tolkien Gateway

User talk:Akhorahil

Revision as of 18:18, 27 February 2021 by Mith (Talk | contribs)

Contents

Welcome!

Hello , and welcome to Tolkien Gateway! I hope you like the place and choose to join our work. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and we look forward to your future edits. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the Council forums or ask me on my talk page. Keep up the great work!

-- Mith (Talk/Contribs/Edits) 12:47, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Talk pages

It is admirable your commitment to recognising the need for consensus in the community, but I think you need to be a little bolder. Talk pages primarily exist to raise questions with other editors or to resolve issues. Talk pages aren't for:

  • Declaring whether you don't object to an edit
  • Feeling you need to comment on other people's edits to your edits
  • Gaining permission from others

You will find that when you edit an article that will bring it to the attention of everyone else, and therefore the are themselves much more likely to edit it. I would encourage you to simply accept this rather than commenting every time. --Mith (Talk/Contribs/Edits) 22:09, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Maps

Hello, I am happy for your positive comments about my edits. As for the things you asked me, I am presently using Reader's Companion for sources, and I don't have any knowledge about the maps you are referring to, and don't have any information that I could add about them. Sage 06:06, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Criticism of Lalaith

Hello, thank you for correcting my old edits. I used to follow Lalaith in his forum and website posts and I admired his wide knowledge and ability to connect and combine information from various sources. It is obvious that 10 years ago it seemed to me a good idea to use some of his work as sources to improve the articles here. I was shocked when I read in one of your posts that you compare Lalaith to notorious David Day. It is great that you can point out mistakes and misunderstandings in his articles, and correct some "damage" we might have done. Feel free to correct any "Lalaithisms" from my past edits.

I notice that you often mention that his commercially-published articles can be read for free in the internet archive, but I am not sure how much it is legal or ethical to point it out. Any creator can publish their work for free, and then has the liberty to unpublish it and/or change its license at any point later and commercialise it. The fact that it once had been free, or that its formerly free version has been backedup somewhere, doesn't give us the right to behave as if it's always free. The operation of the IA itself raises such legal copyright and privacy issues. I don't know if Lalaith would have the legal right to sue anyone who points out (or encourages reading) the free online versions of his articles, or ask the IA to remove them from its archives. What do you think? Sage 08:17, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

British English

Medieavalism is an acceptable spelling (particularly in British English). I take the point on the second mistake; the first spelling was not a mistake and I expect an apology from you for your rude and inaccurate edit summary. --Mith (Talk/Contribs/Edits) 15:18, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

I accept the fact that mediaevalism is an alternative spelling of medievalism that is included in the dictionaries that you just cited. Before I made my edit I looked up mediaevalism in the Merriam Webster dictionary and the entry for mediaevalism says that "The word you've entered isn't in the dictionary" and it shows medievalism as a spelling suggestion. I also clicked on the medievalism spelling suggestion and the page in this dictionary does not show mediaevalism as an alternative spelling. I assumed in good faith, but in retrospect in error, that mediaevalism was not a correct spelling. This leaves the question why you invested your time to change medievalism, which is the primary spelling in the dictionaries that you cited, to mediaevalism, which is only an alternative spelling? As you admitted, the second point in your edit was a mistake, and it is a fact and not rude to state that introducing a mistake is not tidying up, when the person that introduced the mistake expressly claimed to have tidied it up. I perceive your frequent edits with extremely brief comments in the summary box without discussing your intent to make changes to edits on which other users have spent time and effort on the talk page of the page that is edited as rude. Several other users who frequently make changes first propose to make changes and discuss them if the changes are not restricted to correcting spelling mistakes, grammar mistakes, adding missing references or correcting wrong references. I perceive the behaviour of those other users as polite and respectful of the time and effort that other users have made to edit those pages. If I find errors in your edits, I will correct them and provide a reference to prove that they were errors. --Akhorahil 16:45, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Mucho texto. As both words are correct, we should use "Medievalism", as it is the spell most widely used in the wiki. Akhorahil, be more polite: Mith is the only active admin, and his revisions may seem rush, but without that this wiki would be a mess. --LorenzoCB 18:08, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
You say you acted in good faith, but continue to assume I acted in bad faith. You conflate "tidied up" (which I did do) with "fixing"/"correcting a mistake" (it isn't); we're all human and mistakes can be introduced when tidying up. You also refuse to apologise and instead proceed with a type of "whataboutery" with regards to talk pages when I have explained to you above what talk pages are not for. I'm disappointed in you, and I will shall remember this for our future interactions. --Mith (Talk/Contribs/Edits) 18:18, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

I notice that you haven't responded to the above. What you are doing instead is attempting to embarrass me, or insult me, via edit summaries, implying that I am somehow accountable for every American spelling you find on this wiki on a page I have edited. This is not friendly behaviour and if you persist I will take further action. --Mith (Talk/Contribs/Edits) 18:26, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

In fact, looking at the histories of the articles, some are plain wrong (such as Causeway Forts where the error was inserted after I edited it) and others are basically slanderous (like on Beleg where the wiki software was older and different back then and I did was move the content, see the content of the article Beleg Strongbow). As you cannot change an edit summary, you will apologise to me or I shall take further action. --Mith (Talk/Contribs/Edits) 18:33, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
As you have edited a couple of articles, you surely must have seen the above messages. Do you wish to apologise? --Mith (Talk/Contribs/Edits) 18:18, 27 February 2021 (UTC)