| Revision as of 07:13, 23 January 2018 editJimfbleak (talk | contribs)Administrators174,709 edits no edit summary either← Previous edit | Revision as of 01:54, 11 November 2019 edit undoHijiri88 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users37,390 edits →Please be a bit more careful: new sectionNext edit → | ||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
| Please stop changing the spelling in articles to your preferred version, as you did in the Candaules article and others, which I've reverted. Candaules is an article about a British artist written in British English, and that's how it stays. In general you should always leave an article in the spelling style in which it was originally written. See ] ] - ] 07:06, 23 January 2018 (UTC) | Please stop changing the spelling in articles to your preferred version, as you did in the Candaules article and others, which I've reverted. Candaules is an article about a British artist written in British English, and that's how it stays. In general you should always leave an article in the spelling style in which it was originally written. See ] ] - ] 07:06, 23 January 2018 (UTC) | ||
| :Also please leave an edit summary when you make changes so we can see what changes you claim to have made ] - ] 07:13, 23 January 2018 (UTC) | :Also please leave an edit summary when you make changes so we can see what changes you claim to have made ] - ] 07:13, 23 January 2018 (UTC) | ||
| == Please be a bit more careful == | |||
| In your recent edit to ] you not only restored text (and an article structure) that was ], but also restored text that was added and was directly lifted from , without restoring the citation. "Mottainai is an old Buddhist word" may be too short for ] to be an issue. it is, however, "creative" (and therefore theoretically copyrightable) in that ''] ]'' actually can't be "an old Buddhist" in that it is actually two words, the latter of which is the modern form of '']''. Even if it were technically accurate or theoretically defensible (in modern colloquial usage ''mottai'' is essentially a dead word -- it appears in ] but the first three pages of GNews hits brought up only two instances of its being used without ''na(i)'', both instead using '']'' -- and so it could be argued that that makes ''mottainai'' a standalone word, which is why I'm not culling uses of the word "word" from the article), it's original source is clearly unreliable for claims about Japanese religion and historical linguistics. ] (<small>]]</small>) 01:54, 11 November 2019 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 01:54, 11 November 2019
Spelling
Please stop changing the spelling in articles to your preferred version, as you did in the Candaules article and others, which I've reverted. Candaules is an article about a British artist written in British English, and that's how it stays. In general you should always leave an article in the spelling style in which it was originally written. See Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style#National varieties of English Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:06, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
- Also please leave an edit summary when you make changes so we can see what changes you claim to have made Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:13, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
Please be a bit more careful
In your recent edit to Mottainai you not only restored text (and an article structure) that was inappropriate for an encyclopedia article, but also restored text that was added six years ago and was directly lifted from this source, without restoring the citation. "Mottainai is an old Buddhist word" may be too short for WP:CLOSEPARAPHRASE to be an issue. it is, however, "creative" (and therefore theoretically copyrightable) in that mottai nai actually can't be "an old Buddhist" in that it is actually two words, the latter of which is the modern form of nashi. Even if it were technically accurate or theoretically defensible (in modern colloquial usage mottai is essentially a dead word -- it appears in Kojien but the first three pages of GNews hits brought up only two instances of its being used without na(i), both instead using tsuke(ru) -- and so it could be argued that that makes mottainai a standalone word, which is why I'm not culling uses of the word "word" from the article), it's original source is clearly unreliable for claims about Japanese religion and historical linguistics. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:54, 11 November 2019 (UTC)