Talk:Ahmed Osman/Archive 1

Orthographic Issues

What is the point in having Aegyptian instead of Egyptian? Shouldn't the more common English usage be used? I changed it but it was reverted and my edit was called 'arbitrary'. Also, what's with the strange character in monotheism? Monotheism is a common English word, and it has a normal 'i' in it. Joey 09:14, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

What you're asking is rather like demanding what is the point of using X English when Y English is available, where X ε {American, British, Canadian, Indian} and Y ε ({American, British, Canadian, Indian} \ X). If you wandered into an article in American English and changed it to some other English, you'd probably not be surprised to see it changed back. And it would be rather restrained for your changes to merely be deemed “arbitrary”.

“Ægypt” is perfectly legitimate English, albeït archaïc. Likewise, while diæreses aren't much used any more (with notable exceptions such as in The Economist and in The New Yorker), they may be properly be used in English to indicate that a vowel does not form a diphthong with the vowel before it. (They can also perform a similar function to that of the grave accent, which indicates that a vowel is not silent though is not stressed.)

If someone comes along and turned this stub into a full-blown article, with different orthographic practices, well, that's one thing. But it is another to come along and do nothing but change orthography that was not wrong.

—Gamahucheur 12:23, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I think your argument is way off. First of all, you have no claim of ownership to this article. Secondly, you've admitted yourself that AT LEAST one of your constructions is archaic, and thus should not be used in this context. I am going to change it back and see if I can't get someone else to look at it since you don't want to compromise on these unnecessary characters. Nobody says 'Aegyptian' - not the article about Egypt, not the articles about Egyptian people. Furthermore, the article about Akenaton uses the more usual 'monotheist' as does every other article on Wikipedia. This isn't an American vs British English thing - this is a silly and overcomplicated archaic characters thing that doesn't belong here. It's fine to put those characters in things like place names or even words that we don't commonly have in the English speaking world, but to use them here just indicates a stylistic POV that is not supported here, or frankly anywhere else that is in the least bit contemporary. Joey 18:19, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

You asked for an explanation, and I made specific points in response. You've simply refused to address those actual points.

The point did not hang on the English being specifically British or specifically American. It hung upon it being specifically correct but not uniquely correct. And just as it would not be appropriate to take an article in Canadian English and make no changes to it other than to convert it to American English, it is not appropriate to change this entry only to change correct spellings into different correct spellings.

In the hypothetical case of someone making changes to Americanize and article written by a Canadian, it would indeed in some sense be correct to say that the Canadian did not “own” the article, but that sense of ownership would be rather beside the point.

Meanwhile, you're absurdly porposing to establish a different sort of ownership when you declare that you'll “see if I can't get someone else to look at it”. You won't come to own the article democratically after a Get Out the Vote drive.

When you write

Secondly, you've admitted yourself that AT LEAST one of your constructions is archaic, and thus should not be used in this context.

you're either incompetent or dishonest. As written, it parses with me as the principal subject after the “and”; whereäs I certainly haven't admitted to your conclusion.

If, in fact, “Nobody says ‘Aegyptian’”, then just what are you doing here? Do you believe yourself to be hallucinating?

In case you hadn't noticed, most Americans regard British or Canadian spellings spellings as “silly and overcomplicated”, and those spellings are most certainly “archaic”.

“POV” is, of course, a term of opprobrium in Wikipedia but your preference for spellings is no less a “stylistic POV” that anyone else's preferences.

The pretense either that the Economist, the New York Times, and even Technology Review are not “in the least bit contemporary”, or that they do not use some of the orthographic conventions that you would here undo, is absurd.

—Gamahucheur 04:30, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Non-productive debate: Propose Citation or Move On

This debate is not helping the encyclopedia to move forward. Gamahucheur, the encyclopedia is not a soapbox to promote your view of language. Your experience is appreciated however, and I respectfully suggest that your talents could be better used by editing articles on archaic language forms — this would be helpful and appreciated. I am reverting your edit, and request that you provide a reference to a current major English dictionary listing the AEgyptian spelling before you change the article in this way again. Here on Wikipedia you do not have ownership over your stub, please read the following: Wikipedia:Ownership of articles; also note the following comment at the bottom of the edit form: If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it.. -- cmh 04:42, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Those remarks are pure hypocrisy. I didn't request debate; I only entered into debate after another sought it. Your offering discussion here is entering into debate. Your orthographic changes are promotion of your view of language. And you are venting here because you know that I can mercilessly edit the article to restore the original spellings.

If you have something more to offer here than “promot[ion of] your view of language”, then by all means present it: Fill out this stub in a substantive way.

—Gamahucheur 04:55, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

An edit conflict trashed my citation of the SOED for “Ægyptian” and for “Aegyptian”, and my remark that I never wrote “AEgyptian”. —Gamahucheur 05:12, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Please repost reference. I find nothing in the OED. -- cmh 05:24, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

When I am again in the room with one, I shall if you should still need it. But see the wikitionary for “Ægypt”; “Ægyptian” is of course merely an adjectival form. —Gamahucheur 05:33, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Googling, I have quickly found it used

• by Charles Darwin in The Origin of Species by means of Natural Selection
• by Bram Stoker in “The Lair of the White Worm”

Another page asserted that it appears in an example cited in the OED under “inundation”.

—Gamahucheur 06:54, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Wow, great job using 150 year old sources to justify your own weird obsession with bizarre characters that are not consistently used in English. You are mutilating English words to make yourself feel smarter, and really, I am done dealing with you. I will check back daily and make these changes. As a note - your implication that I am either ignorant or dishonest is grossly offencive, and a violation of more than one policy/guideline here. I've seen by your talk page that you've had many problems with anti-social behaviour here before. Please don't make a spectacle of yourself. If you want to be the sole authority here, make your own wiki and put this article on it. As it stands now, I am going to change these silly little marks every day that I see them here. Joey 15:25, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Joey, you're simply engaged in a sort of snobbishness which simply reverses whom it would offer as an elite. The first of the sources that I cited is just a few years old. In any event, I provided sources when they were demanded of me. What have you provided besides insults, hypocrisy, and still-born arguments? What you find from my Talk page is that I don't yield to bad arguments, and do yield (almost immediately) to good arguments. Draw what perverse pleasure you may from you assaults; I understand that people such as you just come along with the wikiterritory. —Gamahucheur 16:42, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

You are simply offensive and terribly rude, and I refuse to deal with you any longer. If you treated others with at least the barest hint of civility, you might not find yourself mired in wiki-drama all the time. I am content with the fact that the majority seems against you, and thus you will not prevail in the end. You are probably used to that, however. Joey 18:08, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Joey— I made point-by-point replies to each of your substantive arguments. (Eg: “The first of the sources that I cited is just a few years old.”) Instead of addressing what I actually said, you've flailed around hoping that vehemence will be sufficient. In the case of this dispute, it is impossible for either side to prevail in the end, because it is exactly and only about the state of the stub, and the stub will not prevail in the end; it will be replaced by a longer article, and I'm not likely to write that article. So you will simply attack me until someone writes the article. (Whether you then start a new fight, attacking that next writer, remains to be seen.) —Gamahucheur 18:36, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Request for Comments

As an editor who found this article while doing RC patrolling, I think we need many more comments on this debate in order to move forward. I encourage other editors to post their opinion to help obtain consensus on the question of the archaic spellings that were a part of the stub as created. Accordingly I've listed this article at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Media, art and literature. -- cmh 05:05, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I rather wish that you'd make up your mind on whether there should or should not be debate, without regard to whether debate or lack thereöf will produce the specific outcome that you advocate. —Gamahucheur 05:12, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Precison of Characterization

The issue isn't whether the archaïc spellings should in all cases prevail. It is whether-and-when in this (or any other) article, changes should be made which are no more than replacing archaïc spellings. If a person who fills out this stub with a full article does so using modern British spellings or 1930s Canadian spellings or any such, that should be just fine. But I intend to revert pure impositions of dialect. —Gamahucheur 05:24, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Your equation of this with spelling differences from different English-speaking countries is both confused AND confusing. This is completely incorrect, and I would further note that there is NO policy on Wikipedia saying I can't make minor CORRECTIONS (and that's what they are, corrections) to a stub. That's why we have the minor-changes check box. Joey 15:30, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

PS, it also seems you've violated 3RR from yesterday, though I admit I am pretty new here and still have a hard time reading things like that. If it is true, please obey policies and don't do it again. Joey 15:34, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

No, Joey. You are confused exactly and only to the extent that you don't want to see the point: I don't care what the final dialect of the article is; I do care about changes that are exactly and only imposition of a different dialect. Your point about your being allowed to make minor changes is perfectly hypocritical: We each are allowed to make changes.

As to 3RR, I regard what you're doing as having become vandalism (though begun as something else); but, to avoid challenges, I'll be sure to watch the clock, and ask friends to do reversions when need be. —Gamahucheur 17:09, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

The two novels you mentioned are from the 19th century. As for the Aegypt article - it is mentioned as an alternative spelling - Ægypt, in fact, has its own wikipedia article that has nothing to do with the way you are using it. Surely this would be confusing to many people who are not so attached to the funny inseperable AE I only see in words like vitae, and then only among a certain type enamored with all things Victorian.

Before you throw the charge of vandalism around any more, please read the policy on vandalism. We don't take kindly to people mislabeling legimate edits as vandalism. -- Donald Albury^(Talk) 16:59, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd already read it. I reïterate that I regard what he did as vandalism. —Gamahucheur 06:47, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

As for the monotheist thing, you haven't offered a single example of that in use, have you? Too much time is spend battering, and not enough is spent considering or supporting. Joey 19:11, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

He didn't claim that "Aegypt" wasn't an alternate spelling. What do you thing "alternate" means? He linked to the article on dieresises (which would include his "monotheism") way back. Darwin's book isn't a novel. The novel "Ægypt" is named for Egypt. CriticAtLarge 20:28, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Please be aware that I have no real desire to stick to your archaic conventions, and so won't paste Æ every time I want to refer to this. I will type AE or Ae, and you will please interpret it however you want. But I think it would be reasonable for you to assume what I meant. It can't have been that hard to make the logical jump. Since you are such a fan of semantics, you should probably have realized and noted that Ægypt is not a novel, but a series of such. Joey 05:55, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Whether one uses the ligature or writes “Aegypt” is perfectly beside the point. The point is that for “Aegypt” to be an alternate spelling doesn't mysteriously make it a wrong spelling. cmh got a contemporary citation from me on “Ægypt”; I'd earlier given you one for diæreses, and didn't read him as requesting one. I met his demand. Sad but true: Contrary to the wishes of the author, a publisher of the novel The Solitudes gave it the title “Ægypt”; so it Ægypt is a novel, though it ought not to be by that name. —Gamahucheur 06:41, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Understandability

I think one of the issues here is understandability (if that's a word...). Will the average user, when coming across this stub article, read "Ægypt" and think that it is a different place than "Egypt?" While I agree that the stub should be filled out, in the short-term we should still look at the bigger picture and make the right spelling, diction, and language choices that will be the easiest to understand for the largest cross-section of Wikipedia users possible. I would think that "Egypt" would be the better choice in that respect. Tony_{(blah blah blah)}^{(look what I can do!)} 15:32, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually there is an alternative version of Wikipedia which aims to “be the easiest to understand for the largest cross-section of Wikipedia users possible”, Simple English Wikipedia, for which this stub obviously was not written. I won't say that ease of understanding is something to be ignored in the regular Wikipedia; but there would be a balance to be struck in any event, and the balance point was reset by the creation of SEW. (Perhaps Joey could be satisfied by copying his version of the stub to a SEW entry for Ahmed Osman.)

Oh, and “understandability” is certainly a perfectly good word.

—Gamahucheur 17:25, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

When you get older, you might realize that the best way to make your point is NOT to insult every single person that comes across this talk page. Cheers! Joey 18:14, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

D'you want to show me where I insulted Tony? Do you think that you can convince him that he was insulted by saying that he was insulted? What I did was to disagree with him, and not even to completely disagree with him. (His argument is actually decent, unlike yours. The reason that he doesn't persuade me and that I surely don't persuade him is that we have different senses of where the balance point is.) Of course, with your inverted snobbery, you might genuinely think that decent attempts at reasoned argument against your position are themselves insulting. It would be nice if, when you get older, you really grasp the whole business of well-reasoned arguments. (As it is, you don't even produce effective sophistry.) —Gamahucheur

BTW, in case you didn't get it: My final remark to Tony on “understandability” was a confirmation that his word choice (about which he'd expressed doubt) was fine. —Gamahucheur 19:02, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I have nothing more to say to you, because of the way you have been addressing me and others, except to ask: are you willing to accept moderation of this petty dispute? Joey 19:04, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

PS, I am enough of an adult to admit that I thought your confirmation was a barb, as that seems to have been your style in previous instances of assault. I therefore apologize for this misunderstanding, but nothing else. You are still offensive and rude to 2/3rds and patronizing at least to Tony, by suggesting that we should frequent the "Wiki for Dummies" equivalent. Joey 19:06, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

And where did I suggest that either you or Tony should frequent anything other than regular Wiki? Tony didn't claim that he couldn't understand the entry; he expressed concern that “the average user” and “the largest cross-section of Wikipedia users possible” would have trouble understanding it. His expression of concern for them doesn't amount to an inclusion of himself in that category (nor in a category of Dummies). Nor does suggesting that you sometimes write for Simple English Wikipedia suggest that you confine your reading to it. Now, will you be adult enough to recognize that here again you've processed what I've written in an utterly illogical manner? Will you be adult enough to consider that perhaps you've done this earlier? —Gamahucheur 19:37, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I think that there is a difference between Simple English (or Basic English) and choosing different spellings for clarity. Basic English is a variant of the English language that is intended to be easier to learn for someone who is a non-native speaker. Choosing "Ægypt" over "Egypt" invites a measure of confusion into reading and understanding the stub, no matter what dialect or version of English one speaks and reads. Searching on Google, "Ægypt" appears about 280 000 times vs. "Egypt" at 411 000 000. It seems rather apparent that "Egypt" is the preferred version in current English usage.

Further, it seems to me that you, Gamahucheur, are trying to get people riled up over something that, in the grand scheme of things, is a rather small issue. Why this one thing in this one small stub? What's the larger issue here? Tony_{(blah blah blah)}^{(look what I can do!)} 19:27, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

The only real difference between what Simple English Wikipedia is trying to do and what you want regular Wikipedia to do is where the balance point is seen. I noted the existence of SEW partly to draw your attention to its effect on where the balance point for the regular Wikipedia was to be found, but partly to have you consciously note that there is a balance point. Evenw without SEW, you surely don't want Wikipedia to sacrifice as much as would literally be necessary to reach “the largest cross-section of Wikipedia users possible”; that would truly be a Wikipedia for Dummies.

If Google hits are to determine spelling choice, then in most or all cases typical American spelling will prevail over British spelling.

Well, you should know that there are risks in speculating about motives. I didn't set out to rile anyone. Had I been out to rile people, it would have been I who went elsewhere to solicit comment. And you need to ask Joey why he simultaneously declares the dispute to be petty and yet continues participating, logomachically.

I think that I've really expressed what is the larger issue for me, though I may not have labelled it as such. The changes were driven by an inverted snobbishness, and then defended by lousy arguments. If, instead, someone had come along and offered your argument ab initio, then I probably wouldn't have been much concerned about the changes.

—Gamahucheur 06:27, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

You just admitted to being a troll. The idea that you are changing this over and over without actually feeling it is appropriate for the encyclopedia is a violation of policy: Wikipedia should not be disrupted to make a point. The idea that you are trolling to teach me a lesson is patently absurd. Understand that YOU will never teach me anything, and stop the petty games. Joey 15:42, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Again, you are being utterly illogical. There is a huge difference between thinking that something is not uniquely appropriate and thinking that it is inappropriate. What I am convinced is ianppropriate are changes to any entry which are just to impose one dialect over another; that's what I've resisted here. I had no more desire to teach you a lesson than to get a cat to dance on its hind legs. —Gamahucheur 06:42, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

This must surely qualify for WP:LAME, Egyptian is clearly the prefered spelling. --Eivind^t@c 00:09, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, yeah, so is “color”, “aluminum”, &c. You bet. —06:42, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I didn't know such wonders existed! I just added this one to the list. Tony(blah blah blah)(look what I can do!) 15:01, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Insane

It looks like not only will we have to deal with 3RR violations and general trollic behaviour, but apparently there's now the issue of puppets (either sock- or meat-, but my guess is sock-). Joey 20:20, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

So you're going to start insulting me for agreeing with him then? Fine, I won't try to argue with you. CriticAtLarge 20:30, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I am trying to find a way to get someone to Checkuser you, because I am quite convinced that you are the same person as he. Joey 21:00, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Your calling her a “meat puppet” in the event that she is not a sock puppet is an attempt to insult a real person for agreeing with me. And if you hadn't wigged out (over what you call a petty dispute), then you'd have sought a checkuser before any accusations of sock puppetry. The insanity here isn't mine.

I told you before, when you were aseerting that you'd win by wearing me down with reverts and a pile on that I'd counter your drawing people into this by drawing other people into this.

It would be better, of course, to have had an honest, point-by-point discussion, but you wouldn't do that.

—Gamahucheur 06:33, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Right. Because anyone can see by reading this talk page that I am the unreasonable one. Hah. The person (and I STILL think it is you and only you) was lured here by you, has never used Wikipedia before, and does edits at your bidding. The very definition of a meat puppet if it is an actual person (with your same styles of insult and silliness), and of a sock puppet if it is you (which I think). The point is that you are completely unreasonable and completely in the wrong, and you know it. You're most likely just being a troll. So suffice it to say that I have addressed all of your points, meaningful and meaningless, and you have offered absolutely nothing but insults and derision to anyone that happens to talk to you.

As for claiming that I was going to 'wear you down' or 'pile on' is ridiculous and absurd, even from someone like you. You are the only one, the ONLY one, who has recruited someone (if it is even a real person) to do your bidding because you were not in the majority. That is YOUR flaw and your problem, don't project it on me. The other people that came here are all reasonable strangers to me, and I did not recruit anyone to come here. I, unlike you, do not have the time to entreaty people to add silly irrelevant characters to a stub just because.

Perhaps you should find another hobby. This one -clearly- is not for you. Joey 15:38, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Joey, you're flailing. After telling me that I was being immature when you mistakenly thought that I was insulting someone for disagreeing with me (and that was indeed point-by-point shown to be a mistake), you did exactly that to someone else. If you'll read the 3RR entry, you'll find that it specifically suggests recruiting co-reverters. That may sound weird to you, but it's perfectly in keeping with the Wikipedia philosophy. Your assertion that you were going to revert to your limit, and your references here and elsewhere to things like majorities was exactly about piling-on and wearing down. And, while I don't know that you engaged in recruitment, some else certainly did. —Gamahucheur 06:24, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Message

I've wasted too much time on this talk page already. I am not going to be adding anything else except to give votes or opinions asked by interested parties, and not by trolls or puppets. Do not expect to lure me into your wikidrama again, G. Joey 15:50, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, you'd made similar assertions before. I hope that this one holds. —Gamahucheur 06:44, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Citations

I'm not that interested in getting into a long and drawn out point by point analysis of what's gone before. However, I want to respond to your statement that you've satisfied my request for citations. I asked for a "current major English dictionary listing the AEgyptian spelling". You misinterpreted my request when you posted a modern dictionary which quotes archaic usages for the purpose of illustrating history or etymology. You told me you'd get back to me when you were in the room with an OED, but so far all we have are examples from Stoker and Darwin. I am looking for a reference to a modern edition of a major (in the academic sense) dictionary which lists Ægypt, Ægyptian and monotheïstic as in current usage, not as an example. That really means I'm looking for an entry on these terms. Short of that I believe this article and debate is being used to push your personal agenda, and I'm starting to feel like you're intentionally wasting my time. -- cmh 15:56, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I didn't misinterpret the request; it seems, rather, that you didn't make the request that you intended to make. It also seems that you feel entitled to move the goal post as many times as you'd like, but to insist that I am the one wasting time. —Gamahucheur 06:36, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Due to curiosity reasons, I checked the OED online (I have access through North Carolina State University's online library catalogue) for the word "Ægypt" and did not find it or any word that uses "Ægypt" as its root. If it were in the OED, it would fall between the words "ægrotat" and "aeipathy." (As a note "Egypt" was not included, but words like "Egyptian" and "Egyptize" were.)

So, Gamahucheur and/or CriticAtLarge, what are your sources again? Tony_{(blah blah blah)}^{(look what I can do!)} 18:28, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I realize now that I wasn't completely thorough. In the "Egyptian" entry in the OED lists plenty of archaic spellings for the word, e.g. "Egypcyan" from 1398 and "Egipcien" from ca. 1400. However, none of them start with an 'Æ' or an 'Ae'. Tony_{(blah blah blah)}^{(look what I can do!)}

Sources cited above include Wikitionary, Darwin's Origin of Species, Stoker's “Lair of the White Worm”, and the OED entry for “inundation”. cmh has since moved the goal post. I'm not sure that I should play the new game (nor, of course, is it clear that you are asking me to do so). —Gamahucheur 06:36, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

The closest I can find to Ægypt in Wiktionary ([1]) is the Latin Aegyptus, the German Ägypten and the Greek Αίγυπτος (Aígyptos). Sorry, but those are not English spellings, and it is disengenuous for you to claim that Wiktionary supports Ægypt as an alternative spelling for Egypt. Moreover, I have the entry for inundation in the 1971 compact edition (the full text in small print) of the OED open in front of me, and I see no mention of Ægypt or any other spelling of Egypt. -- Donald Albury^(Talk) 10:10, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Also drawn here from the RfC. I have a feeling that our "Aegyptian" champion is very emotionally invested in not being "proven wrong". It's not about being right or wrong, it's about a huge group effort to create an encyclopedia that is clear, accessible and understandable. Deliberately warping the spelling of "Egypt" to weird archaic and unused forms of the word contributes nothing to the encyclopedia. I find myself admiring the patience and tenacity of those editors that have passed before. Dude, 99% of the English-speakers in the world say, spell, and understand the word "Egyptian." A further 99% of that 99% will look at "Aegyptian" and think either "Is that a province or something?" or "what pretentious prat wrote this?" Neither outcome helps the encylopedia be clear, accessible and understandable. Honest. --MattShepherd 20:21, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

It is rather perverse to make inferences about my emotional state. I've been chugging along logically in Talk, while wild accusations that cannot be substantiated have been made my the other side. Why in the world, then, would you be cincerned with my emotional investment? —Gamahucheur 06:36, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Request for comment

It is fairly clear that Wiki should make information accessible and use commonly expected forms, which are not archaic or unusual spellings. The normal spelling is "Egypt" and this should be used in the main text. However, it may be viable to address variants and etymology in a separate section in the article, or elsewhere. This article is very poor on content, and I suggest editors spend their time on adding content to this article, rather than commenting on each other. I do not consider it appropriate for involved editors to make counter-arguments in this section of talk. It is for third party outside editors to make comments, as requested. Tyrenius 04:21, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm in complete agreement with this comment. — ceejayoz ^talk 00:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

This debate is ridiculous. Egypt is the common usage. This isn't a matter of favoring American English over U.K. English; it's a matter of favoring current-day English over centuries-old English. Would there be a debate if someone had come into the article and replaced "aftirward" (Middle English) with "afterward" (modern English)? This is a waste of time. blahpers 23:15, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, what argument have you provided against changing Ægyptian to Egyptian, other than what many perceived to be your aversion to being edited? Others have provided reasonable arguments for making the change. What argument have you for keeping it as Ægyptian that outweighs the arguments for changing it? blahpers 23:22, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that Gamahucheur is merely a troll. A clever one at that too. Hasn't anyone thought that his use of archaic english is trying to point out the pun in his user name? Gamahucheur is an obsolete word for a person who performs cunnilingus. Oy Vey. pierrerosen 15:45, 28 August 2006 (UTC)