User talk:Anglyn

December 2009[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, adding content without citing a reliable source, as you did with this edit to Aaron Russo, is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources, please take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thejadefalcon ^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 22:58, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Anglyn. You have new messages at Thejadefalcon's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

October 2014[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would ask that you assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not on Hubal (here, referring to an editor's reasoned reversion as "an effacement"). Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. You may also want to read this essay regarding credentials on Wikipedia. Also, that portion really should be in the origins section of the Apollo article (since it's about Apollo's origins), not in the origins of Hubal (since it's about a god with his origins in Hubal, not Hubal's origins). Ian.thomson (talk) 17:07, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Antenor (mythology)[edit]

Back in May 2014 you made an edit to Antenor (mythology) (diff).

It was not a large addition:

According to numerous scholars, Antenor was actually related to Priam. (Lempriere, 1788, p.55)

unfortunately you forgot to include the long citation in the references section to support the short citation. Is it:

Lemprière, John (1788), Bibliotheca_Classica?

--PBS (talk) 11:50, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have fixed it using:

Lemprière, John (1822), "Antënor", A Classical Dictionary: Containing a Copious Account of All Proper Names Mentioned in Ancient Authors, with the Value of Coins, Weights, and Measures Used Among the Greeks and Romans, and a Chronological Table, J. Crissy, p. 86

-- 12:08, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you kindly. (Anglyn)

-- 15:35, 11th of January, 2017 (GMT)

Wikipedia is not the place to promote your book[edit]

Your user page and getting this upset at me calling a certain translation garbage make it pretty obvious you are promoting your book on this site. That is not what Wikipedia is for. You have a conflict of interest with regards to your translation and should not be making edits relating to it. You need to wait until there are independent sources about your translation before adding it: that's why the Way of Hermes translation by Salaman et al is not mentioned.

I'm sorry I didn't know that you were the translator, but Wikipedia does not allow personal attacks. Your argument that I don't speak English because garbage is not an English word frankly raises concerns about your ability to contribute in this language. There are editions of Wikipedia in other languages where you may be more comfortable contributing. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:49, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Thomson. You cast the first stone, you called the translation garbage. Latin is a sine qua non for scholarly credentials. The translation is so new that no articles or reviews have yet to be written about it, and this is no grounds for dismissal. The information is accurate, and stands up to scholarly scrutiny. The translation is in the Queen's English, hence why English Wikipedia is the only place for it. Americanisms are colloquial and not in-fact proper Oxford English. Furthermore, hermetic practitioners are not fluffybunnies. They know a great deal more than you may realise. Anglyn (talk) 23:20, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I'm sorry I didn't realize you were spamming your book with no regard for our policies against promotion. I would not have been blunt about how your translation is stilted and switches tenses around in ways that no other translations do (for a reason), uses idiosyncratic vocabulary that totally obscures the original Greco-Egyptian thought, and is not based on the oldest available sources (something required for a critical text as any academic would know), if I knew you were so vitriolic in opposition to criticism.

Mr. Thomson, when you can learn to translate Classical Latin, retaining the original word order (as far as proper schooling permits...) then come and pass judgement upon my translation of a most sacred text which you have not examined in its ancient language. You are not a scholar, you are an amateur, nothing more. Anglyn (talk) 21:02, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But that's not why your book is being excluded.

Wikipedia doesn't care about how much you pretend to be a scholar. We don't accept original research. Credentials are irrelevant, noone here cares about them, we will ignore them. All we do here is cite, summarize, and paraphrase professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources, without addition, nor commentary. Also, again, for you to claim that garbage is not an English word when it predates Shakespeare (and was even used by the Bard in Hamlet I.v.57) leaves you with less than no room to criticize anyone's English (ġif þu nahest dōn sƿa in eald Ænglisc).

But back to the point: the reason your book is being excluded (as is another translation that I personally enjoy) is a lack of independent reliable sources. The Amazon listing is not an independent source, you need reviews in scholarly journals (as I provided from the Copenhaver translation). If you cannot understand that, you should find the edition of Wikipedia in your native language and edit there instead. If this is your native language, then you just to find something else to do. Ian.thomson (talk) 11:45, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ne Aesopum quidem trivis Anglyn (talk) 18:47, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is not you, Mr. Thomson, that should apologise, but I. I should have known better than to respond to a trashing (to use a nice American word) of what represents the sum total of over a decade hard study at university, with the same negative attitude which you espouse. It was unenlightened of me, and I should apologise, sincerely. I'm sorry. Furthermore, your voting to exclude me from Wikipedia completely as a result of this little... pickle, is ultimately a good thing. I bow out gracefully, and will endeavour to make no further alterations to your website. One thing I will say, though, is that as you are perhaps aware virtually the entire academic community globally discounts Wikipedia on the basis of it being an amateur source and not at all suitable for serious scholarship. Anglyn (talk) 19:06, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Let all here know that to refer to hermetic practitioners as fluffbunnies is sheer folly. As a former editor (now merely a translator) for the Firm, I can assure you, Mr. Thomson, that the infinitesimal modicum of knowledge which you presume to possess, is far surpassed, both by those that understand the language of the intelligentsia (Classical Latin) and indeed hermetic practitioners, who have more wisdom, than you can ever dream of. Anglyn (talk) 20:05, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notice[edit]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Anglyn insisting on adding their unreliable translation. Thank you. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 11:33, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Final warning[edit]

Look, Anglyn, WP:INDEPENDENT isn't really optional. You are not permitted to add non-notable translators (as authoritative or otherwise). That is deemed promotional and, as such, is prohibited. Thank you in advance for your close attention to this matter. El_C 11:42, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite block[edit]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for using Wikipedia for promotion or advertising purposes, coupled with persistent personal attacks. Simply put, you seem to be incompatible with a collaborative project at this time. Sorry it didn't work out.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

El_C 03:23, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]