Revision as of 05:09, 14 April 2023 edit.Raven (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users4,459 edits →Magical alphabets: ReplyTag: Reply← Previous edit | Revision as of 10:59, 14 April 2023 edit undoKwamikagami (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Template editors475,426 edits →edit-warring: new sectionTag: New topicNext edit → | ||
Line 152: | Line 152: | ||
:::Do you think it's ready to move into article space? ] (]) 03:48, 14 April 2023 (UTC) | :::Do you think it's ready to move into article space? ] (]) 03:48, 14 April 2023 (UTC) | ||
::::As a stub, maybe. We can probably lengthen the list of examples, and I think we should have some more exposition (though my head is blank right now as to what) ''after'' that list. – ] <sup>]</sup> 05:09, 14 April 2023 (UTC) | ::::As a stub, maybe. We can probably lengthen the list of examples, and I think we should have some more exposition (though my head is blank right now as to what) ''after'' that list. – ] <sup>]</sup> 05:09, 14 April 2023 (UTC) | ||
== edit-warring == | |||
There is an on-going discussion on these articles, which you are engaged in. Wait for them to resolve rather than edit-warring. I attempted to make a compromise; if you don't like it, restore the status quo ante. | |||
{{3RR}} ] (]) 10:59, 14 April 2023 (UTC) |
Revision as of 10:59, 14 April 2023
no problem! 17:29, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Raven?
As in my brother, Cyggfrain Myddrael Joserlin... that Raven? --Orange Mike | Talk 18:30, 22 February 2013 (UTC) (Inali)
- The self-same corvid. Also recently started blogging! Hi, Mike! – •Raven 19:15, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
- (Posted at User talk:Orangemike#Userpage advice:) Mike, in the wake of our "that Raven?" exchange, I've written myself an actual userpage to answer that question from others... but with substantial misgivings, and I'd appreciate your advice as (1) an experienced Wikipedian (2) who knows me, and will take into account I left that page only one line long for six years. I dislike boasting; I detest braggarts; and the whole Essjay affair ought to have left everyone permanently wary of claimed expertise, especially as argument ammo. I've never brought up such things in arguments, only pointed to resources and asked people to go look for themselves (e.g. in Talk:Theban alphabet). To say, now, "Yes, I'm that Raven, the one who did that and that, and that over there, and yes, that too, and yes, who'd have guessed it, the same Raven who did that...." could easily sound as much like a brag as a statement of identity or background or interests. And all the past years I've spent not mentioning such things won't be applied to my credit, once I do mention them. Or so I worry. Please look, reassure me, or suggest improvements in approach. Thanks! – •Raven 22:15, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
- Your userpage looks most exceedingly sound to me: lets the reader know who this guy is and what he's into. Congratulations! My only quibble is that perhaps you should use the Babel boxes to let folks know where they may find an editor who speaks the languages you do, some of which are far more obscure than my own Esperanto and blazon.
- Lazy person that I am, I lean too much on userboxen to disclose my own (strongly-held) positions; and my userpage is perhaps a little autobiographical (though nobody's ever asked me to trim it. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:27, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
- (1) Writing Systems (scripts) interests are quite separate from languages spoken, especially in cases like Khitan, whose last recorded surviving speaker/reader/writer was Genghis Khan's imposing advisor Yeliu Chutsai * — his lineage had been the fallen empire's royal family. The vocabulary we know of is similar to Mongolian; I won't say "amazingly" because the peoples lived in the same area, and I think it likely Khitan as the overlapping older empire's language influenced (≈ "was related to") the younger one's. Talking about Khitan like this is one thing; but putting up a Babel box and claiming I speak it?! pfffft.
- (* Respected, oh yes, but not a hero to this unhappy singer.... "Do-ora Tengri-de, anda-nar, chilugetai unu!")
- (* Respected, oh yes, but not a hero to this unhappy singer.... "Do-ora Tengri-de, anda-nar, chilugetai unu!")
- (2) Again, post-Essjay, it goes against the grain to make any such claim about any language, script, or topic at all. Either what I'm saying (writing) demonstrates some discernible degree of fluency / familiarity / genuine research, in which case the claim is unnecessary, or else not, in which case the claim is foolish. Besides, if I were here all the time for people to find me, hanging out my shingle might make sense (if people could trust shingles). But I'm only intermittently here; people shouldn't wait around for me. What I do is show up where I feel I have something to contribute, and contribute it (as at Talk:Theban alphabet)... and you'll notice even that has been met with dead silence — I'm sure it's simply because, like me, all those other people simply aren't on all the time; the next time they get on, *I* will be on hiatus, and so forth... the debates will simply take place at a far more glacial pace than the Internet usually affords. – •Raven 06:36, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
- (3) Ah! The bell rang! I remembered what your phrase reminded me of! "... use the Babel boxes to let folks know where they may find an editor..." — Did you ever read Barry Hughart's Bridge of Birds, set in mythical China? The village's children have fallen ill, strong young man Number Ten Ox is sent into the city to find a detective, and in the Street of Detectives he sees sign after sign after sign advertising the symbol of the Open Eye, all of them equally all-seeing, how is he to choose? But then he sees one sign with a Half-Open Eye: some things I see, it seems to say, some things I don't. And this is the detective he chooses. Wisely, as it turns out. – •Raven 07:00, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
- (* Until I linked and read the article for the novel, I didn't know there were sequels! Hurray! And already, just from a quote in the first sequel's article, I believe I've spotted a bilingual pun against post-modernism! Hurray!) – •Raven 19:56, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
- (1) Writing Systems (scripts) interests are quite separate from languages spoken, especially in cases like Khitan, whose last recorded surviving speaker/reader/writer was Genghis Khan's imposing advisor Yeliu Chutsai * — his lineage had been the fallen empire's royal family. The vocabulary we know of is similar to Mongolian; I won't say "amazingly" because the peoples lived in the same area, and I think it likely Khitan as the overlapping older empire's language influenced (≈ "was related to") the younger one's. Talking about Khitan like this is one thing; but putting up a Babel box and claiming I speak it?! pfffft.
Sorry to see you inactive
I notice that you've ceased editing here, and that your blog too is inactive. I hope you are well. --Orange Mike | Talk 03:52, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
My inactivity...
'Twas brillig, and a slithy tove / Did grind my hard drive's gyre and gimble;
Whereafter all my data-trove / Had access not so very nimble.
Alas, a borrowed 'board I use / Until my own is fix'd aright;
'Till then I hope I may amuse / Whene'er I briefly here alight. – •Raven 17:02, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:The Untold Tales of Little Crowbone.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:The Untold Tales of Little Crowbone.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:52, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
Theban alphabet
I found another printing of the original Latin Polygraphia at the Library of Congress website: https://www.loc.gov/item/32017914/. It includes a chart of the Theban alphabet which clearly shows the final character as W, not an ampersand or end-of-sentence mark. The W is even in a different color ink, so clearly not part of the Theban character (as interpreted by Barrett, Fuzzypeg, and others). It looks like the ampersand interpretation comes from a 1561 French translation by Gabriel de Collange. The letter W wasn't used at the time in French, so it makes sense that he would have misread it as an old-style ampersand (see figure 4 in File:Historical_ampersand_evolution.svg). The W had only recently been added to the Latin alphabet (initially in English and Germanic areas), so it didn't yet have a standard position in the alphabet. Thus it makes sense that Trithemius would have tacked it onto the end of the chart. The chart that we are currently using in the article has unclear provenance, as the book it was taken from has been mysteriously removed from the Internet Archive. If you manage to find it anywhere else, let me know. Nosferattus (talk) 05:34, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
- It looks like the chart we are using in the article comes from this 1600 reprinting: https://www.google.com/books/edition/Polygraphiae_libri_VI/mrZzmb0fMhoC?hl=en&gbpv=1&pg=PA597. That's actually the exact copy of the book our chart comes from with the same stains and marks. So I think the chart above from the Library of Congress's copy is actually the original original chart (and perhaps best reflects Trithemius's original letter shapes). It's too bad it's such a messy printing with all that bleedthru, though. I actually prefer the 1600 version for the article. Nosferattus (talk) 06:00, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
- @Nosferattus: I think I have enough GIMP-fu to produce a bleedthru-free version of this pic. Would that be acceptable for use in an article? – •Raven 21:39, 5 March 2023 (UTC) (PS: Good detective work!)
- As long as the cleaned-up version is clearly stated as such, and you do a copyright waver of the altered document when you upload it to the Commons. --Orange Mike | Talk 03:38, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
- @Nosferattus: I think I have enough GIMP-fu to produce a bleedthru-free version of this pic. Would that be acceptable for use in an article? – •Raven 21:39, 5 March 2023 (UTC) (PS: Good detective work!)
- @Nosferattus:, @Orangemike: Will this do? ... BTW, note the stylistic differences between this 1518 version and the 1613 reprint currently shown on Theban alphabet, e.g. in the small mark distinguishing "e" from "a", or the disappearance of the left-hook on "w"; numerous loops are open in 1518, closed in 1613 — by serifs, it would seem, so that may not have counted to the writers (just as our joining a double-t, "tt", with one cross-stroke does not make them a single letter). – •Raven 07:45, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
- @Nosferattus: The chart you mention being used in the article seems actually to come from this 1613 reprint — https://www.google.com/books/edition/Libri_polygraphiae_VI/aN-uEaXeZN0C?hl=en&gbpv=1&pg=PA597 — but it appears identical in text to the 1600 version, though the latter's page background is lighter. Should we use the 1600 version itself in the article, just for the date's sake? or for the lighter background's sake? – •Raven 12:10, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
- Nice work! Yeah, I switched out the 1600 reprint for the 1613 one a few days ago just because the 1613 reprint was a lot sharper, but otherwise identical. Nosferattus (talk) 15:41, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
- Excellent, Raven! You did us proud, bro. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:11, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
- Nice work! Yeah, I switched out the 1600 reprint for the 1613 one a few days ago just because the 1613 reprint was a lot sharper, but otherwise identical. Nosferattus (talk) 15:41, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
- @Nosferattus: The chart you mention being used in the article seems actually to come from this 1613 reprint — https://www.google.com/books/edition/Libri_polygraphiae_VI/aN-uEaXeZN0C?hl=en&gbpv=1&pg=PA597 — but it appears identical in text to the 1600 version, though the latter's page background is lighter. Should we use the 1600 version itself in the article, just for the date's sake? or for the lighter background's sake? – •Raven 12:10, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
March 2023
Your edit to Draft:William E. Pomeranz has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Misplaced Pages without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Misplaced Pages:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Misplaced Pages. For legal reasons, Misplaced Pages cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Misplaced Pages takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Misplaced Pages:Copying text from other sources for more information. — Diannaa (talk) 13:58, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
- @Diannaa:: (1) I had in fact invited help screening this draft for copyvio, so the above threat was utterly unnecessary.
- (2) I am not able to see which text you removed for which reason because all those diffs have been removed/made invisible.
- (3) I had never seen the Amazon item you indicated. I had rephrased (and cited) Wilson Center articles and Pomeranz's own book, e.g. regarding his on-news-media commentary and analysis. The Amazon item apparently quoted Pomeranz's "About the author" verbatim (without citation).
- Cited Pomeranz book "About the author": He is a frequent commentator on current developments in Russia, providing analysis for and other media outlets.
- Wilson1: Pomeranz is frequently interviewed on TV and radio, and his analysis has appeared....
- Wilson2: He also has provided commentary and conducted numerous press interviews with and other media outlets.
- My edit: He frequently provides analysis and commentary on current events in Russia for and other media.
- Amazon.ca: He is a frequent commentator on current developments in Russia, providing analysis for and other media outlets.
- When anyone lists the media he's been on, necessarily it covers the same ground; that list cannot have been copyrighted by Amazon, especially since theirs was a verbatim quote. (Cf. "facts that were discovered", rather than the result of a creative expression or judgment, in copyright law — see Feist v. Rural regarding phonebook info.) If there's any fact you removed due to the Amazon item that isn't in the Pomeranz book or the Wilson Center articles, then please tell me.
- (4) I now feel unsafe covering any of the removed facts, because someone somewhere may also have reported them using similar rephrasing — or merely quoted the same source verbatim — and this will be marked "copyvio" with the above-threatened penalty. I do not think this was the intent of our copyvio policy; am I wrong? "Columbus discovered the New World in 1492"; only so many ways to say that, and doubtless they've been used already; yet we still need to be able to say that.
- (5) Is it even safe to say "He frequently provides analysis and commentary on current events in Russia for news media." (Citing Pomeranz, William E. (2018). "About the author". Law and the Russian State: Russia’s Legal Evolution from Peter the Great to Vladimir Putin. Bloomsbury Academic. ISBN 978-1-4742-2422-2.), without Amazon having a claim to that? – •Raven 16:03, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
- Hello .Raven.
- I did see your post at Eran's talk page, but he is unlikely to help you re-write the content, as he is mostly active on the Hebrew Misplaced Pages.
- I did revision deletion of the edits that contain the copyright content; that's why you can't see them any more.
- Regarding the material I found at Amazon ("He frequently provides analysis and commentary on current developments in Russia for CNN, NBC, NPR, Reuters, Bloomberg, and other media"): The question is not where Amazon got the content; instead I need to ask, where did you get that unsourced detail?
- There's no need to rephrase job titles, names of schools, or the like. In fact the current version of your draft still has quite a bit of overlap with the Wilson Center webpage, as you can see by this report.
- No, you should not add that, as it's nearly identical to content already published in at least two places. Just say he's a political analyst. Cite your source. — Diannaa (talk) 19:48, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
- @Diannaa: 1. That was also the (redirected) talk page for User:EranBot, which does copyvio screening, and I'd noticed it was frequented by human users who do likewise. IOW, a good place to ask.
- 2. Yes, but as a result I still don't know which text you removed for which reason, as you are not telling me.
- 3. I told you in my prior reply, quoted each source (three different phrasings), even linked the "About the author" section on Pomeranz's book page for ease of finding it. My phrasing was a different, fourth, way to communicate the same factual information. Amazon merely quoted that original section verbatim, which gives it no copyright on that quote.
- 4. The red-highlighted marks on that report are job and book and article titles, journal and organization names, and wikilinked wikiarticle topics like "Russian history" and "Russian law" — precisely the sort of thing you just said there's no need to rephrase. Please make up your mind.
- 5. "... it's nearly identical to content already published in at least two places. ... Cite your source."
(a) It is rephrased. The basic fact is not copyrightable. I welcome other rephrases.
(b) I had cited the book already, then in my last reply I specified and linked the site's section. Here it is again: Pomeranz, William E. (2018). "About the author". Law and the Russian State: Russia’s Legal Evolution from Peter the Great to Vladimir Putin. Bloomsbury Academic. ISBN 978-1-4742-2422-2. — How is that NOT "citing a source"? - 6 (new). What we are down to is the names of news media, and of academic journals, where he or his work has appeared. Each of them has wikiarticles, which is why they can be wikilinked. How did lists of such things become copyrighted to the extent that I cannot name them in an article? – •Raven 13:07, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
- Under current copyright law, literary works are subject to copyright whether they are tagged as such or not. No registration is required, and no copyright notice is required. So please always assume that all material you find online or in a book is copyright. You added the content "He frequently provides analysis and commentary on current developments in Russia for CNN, NBC, NPR, Reuters, Bloomberg, and other media" to the article without citing a source. You've now stated that you copied it from a book. That's not okay, as you've made no effort to paraphrase or re-order the content to comply with our copyright rules. If you're copying lists from your sources, please make an effort to paraphrase or at the very minimum alphabetize or re-order the list so that the content is not identical to your source, and leave out or alter the surrounding prose. — Diannaa (talk) 14:15, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
- @Diannaa: "You've now stated that you copied it from a book. That's not okay, as you've made no effort to paraphrase..."
Once more, I did not state that I "copied" article text from a book; I said I had rephrased a cited source (and actually phrased it differently from the three cited sources stating the same fact). Where I did copy text was above in my first reply to you: the parallel texts, each truncated to be less than a full sentence and show the differences in phrasing... or the non-difference, where Amazon quoted verbatim from the Pomeranz book's "About the author" section. All that makes two of your claims quoted above flatly false to fact; misrepresentations. As I previously had to correct you on (mis)reading both my text and the copyvios.toolforge report, and you persisted in attributing copyright to Amazon after being shown they had merely quoted verbatim my cited source, I am now in doubt whether you do, can, or are willing to read carefully for understanding. My trust is gone. I am willing to merge list items from the Wilson articles in this case, but honest-to-goodness such a policy is stretching things. Many things are listed in a logical order for the context (alphabetical, numeric, chronological, geographical — like cities one passes traveling east-to-west on a highway); and re-ordering such lists gives false information. Note that predominantly real-world news agencies with online aspects "CNN, NBC, NPR, Reuters" are listed first and already in alphabetical order; chiefly online medium "Bloomberg" comes after that, alone. This is a logical order; putting "Bloomberg" ahead of any of the others would understate their footing. NOT using alphabetical order for the real-world group would raise the question of my basis for choosing a different order, i.e. was I expressing an opinion about their importance or market share, or...? – •Raven 19:21, 18 March 2023 (UTC)- I don't see how we can hold a conversation if we can't even agree on the definition of "alphabetical". I won't be responding here any further. If you have any questions about copyright and how it applies to Misplaced Pages, please consider one of the other people on this list. — Diannaa (talk) 21:53, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
- @Diannaa: *sigh* Sorting is not in itself a "copyright" issue; it is an information-organizing issue. Here we have two sublists, separated by media type, alphabetical within sublist.
- If I were to list US states and cities with particular issues, would it make more sense to alphabetize them all together, or as two sublists separately alphabetized?
- Alabama, Boston, California, Delaware, Evansville, Florida, Galveston?
- ...or...
- Alabama, California, Delaware, Florida; Boston, Evansville, Galveston?
- Alabama, Boston, California, Delaware, Evansville, Florida, Galveston?
- – •Raven 23:45, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
- I don't see how we can hold a conversation if we can't even agree on the definition of "alphabetical". I won't be responding here any further. If you have any questions about copyright and how it applies to Misplaced Pages, please consider one of the other people on this list. — Diannaa (talk) 21:53, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
- @Diannaa: "You've now stated that you copied it from a book. That's not okay, as you've made no effort to paraphrase..."
- Under current copyright law, literary works are subject to copyright whether they are tagged as such or not. No registration is required, and no copyright notice is required. So please always assume that all material you find online or in a book is copyright. You added the content "He frequently provides analysis and commentary on current developments in Russia for CNN, NBC, NPR, Reuters, Bloomberg, and other media" to the article without citing a source. You've now stated that you copied it from a book. That's not okay, as you've made no effort to paraphrase or re-order the content to comply with our copyright rules. If you're copying lists from your sources, please make an effort to paraphrase or at the very minimum alphabetize or re-order the list so that the content is not identical to your source, and leave out or alter the surrounding prose. — Diannaa (talk) 14:15, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
- Hello .Raven.
Disambiguation link notification for March 21
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Shade Rupe, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Funeral party.
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:02, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
- Yep, because the publication has no article. But added a brief-description line of that publication TO the disambiguation page, and wikilinked the editor (Shade Rupe)'s name there because I had at least one other place to link Funeral Party. – •Raven 07:51, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
Racist use of "tribe" to mean "primitive"
Your last couple sources are not RS. They reflect exactly the kind of inherited racist trope -- that primitive nations are "tribes" (even if they're not tribal) -- that I'm fighting against. If the Asmat are a tribe, as per that source, then so are the Germans. (I don't know offhand if the Asmat are tribal, but if they are they consist of multiple tribes. The nation is not the tribe.) — kwami (talk) 02:18, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- @Kwamikagami: 1) A people or nation that consists of multiple tribes would still qualify for 'Category:Tribes ', as then the constituent tribes would be the "tribes " of the category name.
- 2) You are simply projecting a "racist use of 'tribe' to mean 'primitive'". The word "tribe" has an article explaining its meaning; so does tribe (Native American); read them, then tell me where that's part of either definition.
- 3) Apparently you find *any* source that uses the word "tribe" to be therefore racist and not an RS. You must really have a quarrel with the *referents* of "Absentee Shawnee Tribe of Indians", "Big Pine Paiute Tribe of the Owens Valley", "Coquille Indian Tribe", "Delaware Tribe of Indians", "Eastern Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma", "Flandreau Santee Sioux Tribe", "Iowa Tribe of Kansas and Nebraska", "Hoh Indian Tribe of the Hoh Indian Reservation", "Iowa Tribe of Oklahoma", "Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe of Washington", "Karuk Tribe", "Lovelock Paiute Tribe of the Lovelock Indian Colony", and "Mohegan Tribe" (by no means a complete list, see "List of federally recognized tribes in the contiguous United States"). Also see State-recognized tribes in the United States — "Accohannock Indian Tribe", "Beaver Creek Indian Tribe", "Cheroenhaka (Nottoway) Indian Tribe", etc. Your work of renaming should begin with them.
- 4) What do "tribal governments" govern? E.g. "Hopi#Tribal_government", "Resighini Rancheria#Tribal Government", "Zuni_Indian_Reservation#Tribal_government". How do they have tribal sovereignty in the United States? (By your "primitive brain" claim, they wouldn't have the capacity of self-rule.)
- You really are at odds with the real-world occurrence of the term. Fight your "fight" in the real-world; don't make Misplaced Pages your battleground. WP:SOAPBOX, WP:BATTLE. – •Raven 03:46, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
Deleted by Kwamikagami
- What "simple statements" do you feel I misunderstood? – •Raven 06:04, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- That I said the word 'tribe' was racist, and that it was a racist trope to note that a modern people dated to before 476. You're clearly not processing what I wrote. — kwami (talk) 06:07, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- I quoted you verbatim (word-for-word): "So, for example, do you have any evidence that the Khoekhoe or Ket as a distinct people date to before 476? If so, please share. Otherwise you're just buying in to racist tropes." Now THAT has to refer to the word "ancient", because 476 has nothing to do with "tribe"; so "ancient" is a "racist trope"?!
- And earlier you'd insisted that the "Swagap people" article's only footnote was not just non-RS but racist ("Your last couple sources are not RS. They reflect exactly the kind of inherited racist trope...."), when all it had done was use the word "tribe". (How did it get used, and survive until now?) So "tribe" is a "racist trope"?
- You've argued "I do have a problem calling nations "tribes" just because we judge them to be primitive...." — when there's no indication the term was used for that reason. You've repeated the accusation of "racist" without warrant. How can I assume your good will when you neither assume that nor show it? – •Raven 07:43, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- ______________________________
- Yes, the Navajo article is in error. Not uncommon on WP. Which is why we don't self-ref WP and call it a RS. Please read WP:RS. — kwami (talk) 07:23, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- YOU made the assertion that "... WP capitalizes 'Tribe' only for the US...." — so I pointed to WP articles obviously NOT doing that. Direct, relevant evidence, not for an article but for this talkpage discussion. Now you want to disallow WP as a class of evidence, when that was exactly what you'd made the (false) claim of fact about. How disingenuous.
- '"Yes, the Navajo article is in error." And all the other WP pages also not capitalizing the common noun "tribe" other than at the start of a sentence, or in a name/title? They're all in error, for not doing what YOU said they'd done? YOUR own claim was not in error, despite being visibly false to fact?
- Oh, I see you want to close the thread now. No wonder. – •Raven 07:56, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
Discussion on disallowing use of the ʻokina in Chinese romanized article titles
There is currently a discussion that may interest you. Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style#Disallowing use of the ʻokina in Chinese romanized article titles proposes that the ʻokina gennerally be prohibited from article titles derived from Chinese whenever it does not adhere to the English Misplaced Pages policy to use commonly recognizable names. Plese join the discussion. Thank you. Peaceray (talk) 17:12, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
- @Peaceray: Thank you. Should I say more there? – •Raven 17:47, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
- Let's let others weigh in. Peaceray (talk) 18:02, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
National Academy of Legal Sciences of Ukraine moved to draftspace
An article you recently created, National Academy of Legal Sciences of Ukraine, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more in-depth coverage about the subject itself, with citations from reliable, independent sources in order to show it meets WP:GNG. It should have at least three, to be safe. And please remember that interviews, as primary sources, do not count towards GNG.(?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Misplaced Pages). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:
" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Misplaced Pages's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page.Onel5969 11:30, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Script vs alphabet
Per our naming conventions, a set of written symbols is a script. The application of a script to a particular language is an alphabet (or whatever). Cf. Latin script and Latin alphabet, Arabic script and Arabic alphabet, Cyrillic script and Russian alphabet. If you wish to be precise, you could say "alphabetic script".
And no, the standard abbreviation for century in English is "c.", not "C". — kwami (talk) 23:54, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
- > "... a set of written symbols is a script." - Yes, but that applies both to alphabets and non-alphabetic scripts, e.g. ideographic (such as written Chinese), syllabaries (Japanese kana), abjads (Hebrew, Arabic), and abugidas (Ethiopian Ge'ez). "Alphabet" is the more specific term; it refers to the type of sounds represented by the symbols, not any specific language or set of languages. The Old English Latin alphabet was a different alphabet due to having letters not in either the ancient or the modern Latin alphabet (Wynn Ƿƿ, Eth Ðð, Thorn Þþ, and the AE ligature Ææ), although there was massive overlap and the Old English language can be transcribed in both; cf. Middle-English's Yogh Ȝȝ. Likewise Theban had massive overlap in sound-values with the "Old" Latin alphabet... but had the W not found there and not familiar to the French (which is why the French translation took it for an ampersand)... yet is still missing the J and V of the modern alphabet. It completely corresponds to neither the old nor the new Latin (English) alphabet; it is different from both (as the Welsh and Esperanto alphabets differ from the English alphabet, not merely because different languages use them, but because they have different sets of letters). Encrypting English in Theban requires letting I also represent J, and letting U also represent V. (These two you may say were also true of the Old-Latin alphabet, but then what of the W?) This is its own discrete set of letters; its own alphabet. – •Raven 01:03, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
- > "... The standard abbreviation for century in English is 'c.', not 'C'." - If you insist on using "c.", then also use the ordinal number: "16th c.", not "16 c.". The shorter cardinal number is used with capital "C" and no space: "16C". – •Raven 01:27, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
- I see you reverted my reversion two minutes before you posted here. It's supposed to be Bold, Revert, Discuss — not Bold, Revert, Counter-revert, Discuss. Autoconfirmed editors may move a page without discussion if all of the following apply: • No article exists at the new target title; • There has been no discussion (especially no recent discussion) about the title of the page that expressed any objection to a new title; and • It seems unlikely that anyone would reasonably disagree with the move. / If you disagree with such a move, and the new title has not been in place for a long time, you may revert the move. If you cannot revert the move for technical reasons, then you may request a technical move. / Move wars are disruptive, so if you make a bold move and it is reverted, do not make the move again. Instead, follow the procedures laid out in § Requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves. – •Raven 02:51, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
- Let's continue the discussion at Talk:Theban script#Requested move 3 April 2023. Raven: You may want to make an official vote there so that your opinion is counted by whoever closes the discussion. Nosferattus (talk) 21:22, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
Magical alphabets
Would you be interested in working on an article about magical alphabets? There are several books on this topic: . I think having such an article would boost our chances of being able to classify these writing systems as "alphabets", but more importantly it would fill a void in Misplaced Pages's coverage of occult topics. Nosferattus (talk) 07:05, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
- I'd be delighted. Some of the taller and wider-paged books on magic(k) use those large pages for such charts – I'm thinking of the late Raymond Buckland's Complete Book of Witchcraft (1986) (figure 3.9, "Theban alphabet", is the Francis Barrett version), and Oberon Zell-Ravenheart's Grimoire for the Apprentice Wizard (2004) (Magickal alphabets on pp. 144–146) — though he calls Theban both "the Theban runes" and "the Witches' alphabet", he refers to both the "Ogham alphabet" and a "Celtic Tree alphabet". – •Raven 14:52, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
- Awesome! I created a draft in userspace. Feel free to edit it boldly! Nosferattus (talk) 15:19, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
- Do you think it's ready to move into article space? Nosferattus (talk) 03:48, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
- As a stub, maybe. We can probably lengthen the list of examples, and I think we should have some more exposition (though my head is blank right now as to what) after that list. – .Raven 05:09, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
- Do you think it's ready to move into article space? Nosferattus (talk) 03:48, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
- Awesome! I created a draft in userspace. Feel free to edit it boldly! Nosferattus (talk) 15:19, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
edit-warring
There is an on-going discussion on these articles, which you are engaged in. Wait for them to resolve rather than edit-warring. I attempted to make a compromise; if you don't like it, restore the status quo ante.
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. — kwami (talk) 10:59, 14 April 2023 (UTC)