Misplaced Pages

User talk:Ebizur: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 06:31, 20 January 2007 editHalfOfElement29 (talk | contribs)259 edits Additional personal attacks and incivility: reply← Previous edit Revision as of 19:55, 20 January 2007 edit undoJohn Broughton (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers35,691 edits Playing by the rules (and thanks for your contributions)Next edit →
Line 152: Line 152:


Yet again, your statement "your pretention to be a Misplaced Pages administrator. Please quit evading the point." is a lie and a personal attack. I ''have'' addressed your criticisms. Anyway, it is apparant by your persistent incivility and personal attacks that you have no regard for wikipedia policy. ] 06:31, 20 January 2007 (UTC) Yet again, your statement "your pretention to be a Misplaced Pages administrator. Please quit evading the point." is a lie and a personal attack. I ''have'' addressed your criticisms. Anyway, it is apparant by your persistent incivility and personal attacks that you have no regard for wikipedia policy. ] 06:31, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

== Playing by the rules (and thanks for your contributions) ==

Ebizur - it's clear from your edits that you are a very knowledgable person in a very technical area, and, as such, an extremely valuable contributor to the encylopedia. Having said that, may I ask you to "play a bit nicer" with the other editors, even the anonymous ones? For example, instead of saying "You must be stupid", perhaps just "That's wrong." Similarly, instead of "you obviously don't have the knowledge necessary to be making edits to this sort of page", perhaps "I question if you have the knowledge necessary ... "

Another suggestion: per ], discussions about the content of the article should be on the article's talk page, not on a user page. That's because discussions of content that appear on a user page, such as most of what you posted at ], are essentially unavailable to future editors or readers of the ] article, since such editors and readers will have no idea which user talk pages (if any) are relevant to the article. (In short, user talk pages should be about behavior, article talk pages about content, and it's ideal of these boundaries aren't crossed in either direction.)

I'm going to let HalfofElement29 know that he/she should be a bit more thick-skinned; every ''minor'' transgression of Misplaced Pages rules (and there are a lot of rules) does ''not'' merit something resembling a warning on a user talk page. And I really hope the two of you can cooperate - despite your doubts over his expertise, I think he brings something valuable to the article (you certainly do), and I it would be great if both of you continued to contribute there and elsewhere.

If I can be of any assistance to you, please let me know. Thanks. -- ''] '' | <sup>]</sup> 19:55, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Revision as of 19:55, 20 January 2007

Hello Ebizur! Welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some recommended guidelines to facilitate your involvement. Happy Editing! —Khoikhoi 00:17, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Getting Started
Getting your info out there
Getting more Misplaced Pages rules
Getting Help
Getting along
Getting technical


hello

hello and welcome. I have a few requests:

  • please use edit summaries, so people watching pages can judge what you are up to
  • please cite your sources when adding claims to articles
  • please do not mark edits as "minor" when they change an article's content. "minor" editors are formatting changes, spelling corrections or stylistic edits. this edit for example isn't "minor"
  • try to use the preview button a little bit, so your changes will not be scattered over lots of little edits.

thank you, dab () 12:14, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

no, please, by all means do fix these articles; I was just asking you to do so in a way that makes it less tedious to figure out what you are doing. dab () 13:27, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello

Nice to meet you. I see you edit in Jurchen about Jomon and Manchu. By the way, are you Japanese?--Hairwizard91 03:17, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello! Nice to meet you, too. I have edited several of the articles related to the Manchu people and their traditional language, but I don't recall having edited any articles about the Jōmon Era of the prehistory of the Japanese Archipelago. Perhaps you were referring to my occasional postings to the talk page for Ainu people. I would like to remind you that the Ainu people are only one of the modern peoples who derive some of their ancestry from the Jōmon Era populations of the Japanese Archipelago, and therefore the Ainu should not be implicitly equated with the Jōmon people.

As for my personal background, I am a citizen of the United States of America with primarily English, Jewish, and German ancestry. None of my recent ancestors were Japanese, as far as I know. =)

I guess you are probably Korean. Am I right? 한국사람이겠어요? 저는 한국말을 좀 할 수 있는데 한국말로 메시지를 해 주어도 좋겠습니다. もしくは日本人でしたら、日本語で返事を書いてくれても構いません。中文也可以。Anyway, I'm waiting to hear back from you. Ebizur 05:54, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Your sources

Hi, I noticed you have been adding info to Korean language-related articles. Could you cite your sources, please? Some of it is difficult to believe or fact-check. --Kjoonlee 02:16, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Are you talking about the information about Korean dialectal diversity? I'm just trying to correct a common misperception that the Korean language and people are somehow less diverse than those of the other countries of the region. The truth is that the Korean language is many, many times more diverse than other so-called "language families" in Asia, such as the Turkic languages or the Japonic languages. The internal diversity of Turkic and Japonic is all very recently derived (except for perhaps the Chuvash language among Turkic languages, although even Chuvash vocabulary is readily relatable to forms in other dialects of Turkic through the application of a few simple sound changes), like the diversity of, say, modern dialects of the French language. French is really just one branch of Vulgar Latin, and it should not be given the status of a "language family" just because it has mutated and diversified into a plethora of weird-sounding dialects over the course of the past millennium. The Korean "language," on the other hand, subsumes many dialects that possess vocabulary that cannot be easily derived from any etymon attested in the Standard Korean dialects of Seoul or Pyeongyang, and much of the rest of the basic vocabulary of these dialects, despite being apparently related to that of Standard Korean, reflects a phonological form that must be extremely ancient, perhaps having diverged from the ancestral form of the word found in Standard Korean as many as 2000 years ago. This means that the Korean language is at least as diverse as the entire Romance language family, and probably more so. Ebizur 02:38, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Well you're not trying hard enough, I think. ;) The examples of Mongolian loanwords that you had added earlier were entirely unfamiliar to normal speakers of Korean Standard South Korean (unlike 송골매 or 보라매), which got me suspicious. Now you've added another bit about Korean that's unsourced, and it's made me more suspicious. Please add your sources, or I'll have to delete the bit. --Kjoonlee 02:48, 18 November 2006 (UTC) --Kjoonlee 02:50, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Are you claiming that 오늬 onŭy and 난추니 nānchuni are not loanwords from Mongolian? As far as I know, onŭy is the only word in common use in Korea to indicate specifically the notch of an arrow. Those words are very good examples of loanwords from Mongolian because they are traceable back to the time of the earliest Hangeul documents (in which nānchuni appeared as 나친 nachin, which is even closer to the standard Khalkha form) and their Mongolian origin seems to be certain. 송골매, on the other hand, is probably not even a direct loan from Mongolian; from what I have seen, it appears to have been borrowed into Korean through Chinese. Ebizur 03:20, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
No, I'm claiming that they're not good examples unless you cite sources. --Kjoonlee 03:31, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
This is nothing more than what one could find in any dictionary of the Korean language, such as the Yahoo! online dictionary. There has to be a limit to what we require citation of sources for, or else we will have people adding links to dictionary entries. Such citations are really unnecessary; anyone could go and look up the word in a dictionary for themselves if they wanted to confirm the definition of the word, its etymology, and its history of attestation. Ebizur 03:47, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
You must have read it somewhere, no? You didn't find it out in a dictionary.. --Kjoonlee 03:49, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

But that's been deleted. In many other cases, the basic vocabulary of various dialects appears to be cognate to words found also in Standard Korean, but with highly divergent phonological form this still remains, and this needs to be cited. --Kjoonlee 03:50, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

You are really ridiculous. I've got to go see what you've put in its place. Ebizur 03:58, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Citing sources is part of the Misplaced Pages:Verifiability policy and the Misplaced Pages:Citing sources guideline. There's also the Misplaced Pages:No original research policy for excluding previously unpublished material from Misplaced Pages. If your edits can't be justified to stay, they will be challenged and/or deleted. --Kjoonlee 04:00, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
I hope I don't have to remind you about Misplaced Pages:No personal attacks. --Kjoonlee 04:00, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, it looks like you just reverted it and left the single sentence, "Words have also occasionally been borrowed from Mongolian, Sanskrit, and other languages." That's really informative.

As for adding citations for 돌, 독, 珍惡, etc., I would have to go back and find the original text in various books that I have read on the subject (e.g. The History of the Korean Language by 李基文 선생님) in the past, but I have just memorized the information itself and I don't have the necessary citation data on hand. You could either wait a while until I have found the book again, or you could revert the page back to its earlier, "lighter" form. I don't really care either way. Ebizur 04:17, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Transcription

I noticed you wrote “… Standard Korean /to:r/ ‘stone’ …” in Korean language. Single slashes are used for phonemic transcription, which I guess would use /l/ instead of /r/ for the final consonant in 돌.

Morphophonemic transcription, by contrast, is usually done in either of the following ways:

  • |rad|
  • //rad//

Wikipeditor 15:32, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, /r/ is widely accepted as the phonemic transcription of the Korean phoneme that is written in Hangeul as ㄹ (rieul). Some linguists have insisted that this phoneme is "underlyingly" an alveolar tap and should therefore be written as /ɾ/ in phonemic transcription; however, even people who agree with the identification of the alveolar tap as the underlying phoneme in this case generally see no reason to go to the trouble of transcribing it with an /ɾ/ all the time, because there is no other phoneme in the Korean language that reasonably should be transcribed with /r/, which is a much more easily typed and widely recognized glyph.
I have never seen anyone, and I mean anyone, postulate */l/ as the underlying form of the phoneme represented by ㄹ in Korean. Transcribing that jamo as "l" when it occurs in the coda of a syllable is merely a convention of romanization that reflects the allophonic variation expressed in Korean pronunciation. Ebizur 22:04, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Redirects

Hello, and thank you for your edit to Japanese people. It makes the article a little better. However, this type of edit is generally frowned upon. Please see WP:Redirects#Don't fix links to redirects that aren't broken for details. Thanks. Dekimasu 05:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Europe

hi, i inserted a citation for your addition of material on albanian in southern italy to the Europe article. in future it would be fantastic if you could add material with verifiable sources and proper citations. it goes a long way to improving wikipedia's accuracy and reputation! -- frymaster 17:16, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Warning/ your personal attack on User:207.202.227.125

This edit summary of yours contains a personal attack. Personal attacks are not allowed on wikipedia. See WP:NPA. HalfOfElement29 04:00, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Additional personal attacks and incivility

Your statement on my talk page: "I don't know who you think you are, but you obviously don't have the knowledge necessary to be making edits to this sort of page on Misplaced Pages." is uncivil, threatening, and a personal attack. I and others have already warned you to cease such behavior. If you continue such behavior, you may be blocked from editting wikipedia. HalfOfElement29 05:59, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

It would be more constructive for you to respond to my valid criticisms of your edits to the wiki:haplogroup page rather than complaining about my disgust for your pretention to be a Misplaced Pages administrator. Please quit evading the point. Ebizur 06:07, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Yet again, your statement "your pretention to be a Misplaced Pages administrator. Please quit evading the point." is a lie and a personal attack. I have addressed your criticisms. Anyway, it is apparant by your persistent incivility and personal attacks that you have no regard for wikipedia policy. HalfOfElement29 06:31, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Playing by the rules (and thanks for your contributions)

Ebizur - it's clear from your edits that you are a very knowledgable person in a very technical area, and, as such, an extremely valuable contributor to the encylopedia. Having said that, may I ask you to "play a bit nicer" with the other editors, even the anonymous ones? For example, instead of saying "You must be stupid", perhaps just "That's wrong." Similarly, instead of "you obviously don't have the knowledge necessary to be making edits to this sort of page", perhaps "I question if you have the knowledge necessary ... "

Another suggestion: per Misplaced Pages:Talk page, discussions about the content of the article should be on the article's talk page, not on a user page. That's because discussions of content that appear on a user page, such as most of what you posted at User talk:HalfOfElement29, are essentially unavailable to future editors or readers of the Haplogroup article, since such editors and readers will have no idea which user talk pages (if any) are relevant to the article. (In short, user talk pages should be about behavior, article talk pages about content, and it's ideal of these boundaries aren't crossed in either direction.)

I'm going to let HalfofElement29 know that he/she should be a bit more thick-skinned; every minor transgression of Misplaced Pages rules (and there are a lot of rules) does not merit something resembling a warning on a user talk page. And I really hope the two of you can cooperate - despite your doubts over his expertise, I think he brings something valuable to the article (you certainly do), and I it would be great if both of you continued to contribute there and elsewhere.

If I can be of any assistance to you, please let me know. Thanks. -- John Broughton | 19:55, 20 January 2007 (UTC)