User talk:Prosfilaes/Archive2

Archive: Do not edit

i-mutation

Your question about i-mutation in Chinese is very interesting. But I can't answer your question, because my level of linguistic knowledge is too low.

In the reconstructed pronunciations, the i vowels occur in front of, not following, other vowels. According to the description of the i-mutation article, the i occurs in the wrong place, so there is absolutely no chance it is an i-mutation.

But is what I wrote above meaningful? Probably not, since quite truly I don't know what I am writing here.

(Whether I trust the i-mutation article is another matter. I don't. Not truly because of the diaeresis argument, but because of the sans serif–gothic argument a year ago. But this is irrelevant. Because I don't object to it, since I don't know anything about i-mutations.)

But you might want to answer my question posed to FelipeS in his talk page. I would be interested in knowing how you answer my question.

See you in 3 week's time (or more).—Gniw (Wing) 04:10, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about the midget stuff, I think I need to move on. Again, sorry.

Your edits at Nineteen Eighty-Four

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Nineteen Eighty-Four. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. Please try to engage User:In1984 on the talk page rather than in edit summaries. Stannered 17:23, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Pseudoscience

Hello - your point on the quaternion page is, of course, very valid. Removal of that quote was indeed the right thing to do, thanks for your patience with me. Pseudoscience is on the rise, and the internet provides a platform with unprecedented detail and visibility. Blunt, personal, offending, and even intimidating statements are only part of what's used at times in order to create a false impression of hostility of the scientific community against "new ideas" or "out-of-the-box thinking".

Turning (pseudo-)scientific debates into political (or even religious) controversy is a big concern for me, and I'm not really sure how to react to it best. Neutral, factual information appears to be a good tool to restore reason. I hope that someone picks up on the strenuous task of sifting through tons and tons of Bearden's material, to isolate his key points, what works, and what doesn't.

Personally, I've done this extremely time consuming deed to the public once, now at Musean hypernumber, and out the hundreds of pages of Muses' more mathematical published material, I was able to extract about a page worth of actually working ideas (it's all in the wiki page). Out of his many, many statements I've been able to prove one (only one) to be true; though it was rather technical and low on the "grandiousity" scale (expressing the Dirac equation on split-octonions). While this did help me personally, for which I'm very thankful, I'm not planning on doing something similar anytime soon, e.g. for Bearden, due to the bare amount of time it consumes.

Hope I didn't bore you in sharing my background. Thanks again, Jens Koeplinger 01:56, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Saki

Thanks for stepping in with the recent dispute. I have a feeling we haven't heard the last yet. BrainyBabe 15:16, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Your edit to Minor Ravenclaws

I've reverted it: Wikipedia has far too much cruft and non-notable information. Wikipedia is not going to be a guide to every Harry Potter character. There is a Harry Potter wiki for all of that. This type of fancruft needs to be brought to an end. These minor character lists shouldn't be dumping grounds for everyone minor that people think are notable. RobJ1981 15:17, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Clearly ignoring Wikipedia guidelines, because you think Wikipedia should list all characters, isn't helpful. This encyclopedia's goal isn't to become a complete character guide to anything. There is one subject Wiki's for a reason: so it can be more detailed. If you can't realize that, I don't know what else to tell you. A popular subject doesn't explain or justify all these minor characters that have brief mentions in the book and/or brief appearances in the movies. Popular subject doesn't mean every character is popular and notable as well. RobJ1981 16:47, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Not trying to get involved, but just because a topic has it's own wiki, it doesn't mean the infomation should be watered down or decreased here. Dalejenkins | The Apprentice (UK)'s FA plea-please have your say! 21:32, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Prosfilaes, I found your recent talk page post on my talk page, pretty rude. Removing a little content isn't controversial. It's called cleaning up the article. I waste your time by using your talk page? Get over it. Discussing things and commenting is what all talk pages are about. If you don't like it, that's not my problem. In response to Dale's comment: Wikipedia isn't a cruft guide. Very brief characters don't need mentions in articles. People featured on wizard cards (and that's it): non-notable. A person mentioned as part of the quidditch team one time (then never used again): non-notable. There is plenty of other examples as well. But frankly, I think people refuse to listen to reason and think how they want, dispite Wikipedia's notability guides. As I've said before: a popular/notable subject doesn't justify everything in it, is notable or worth mentioning at all. RobJ1981 23:28, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Get over yourself. One little section being removed isn't a big deal, and it is indeed a minor edit. RobJ1981 19:17, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Your advocacy for Esperanto on Talk:Esperanto

I've just read your advocation for Esperanto on the respective talk page and was deeply impressed by your style and your arguments. I am really happy to meet people who are devoid of the common prejudice about Esperanto being a "failed project of a jewish oculist". Hats off!! Alaudo 21:59, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Wow, talk about being appreciated! I came to lay a comment on this page about how well you defended Esperanto on the discussion page, but someone already beat me to it, so I'm reduced simply adding to this small mound of well-deserved congratulations. To quote Alaudo's rather outdated statement, 'Hats off!!" -ExNoctem 04:33, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

umlauts and tremata

Hej Prosfilaes,

on blogs.msdn.com I have found some statements on the use of tremata and umlauts that might interrest you, especially the proposal made in 1993 by DIN. Just for entertainment - I have not incorporated sections of that blog in Umlaut (nor do I intent to do so).

Richard 14:42, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

TSR bankruptcy

Good call on removing the uncited TSR bankruptcy explanations. --GentlemanGhost 01:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Crime against foreigners in India

Hi, I have expanded the article Crime against foreigners in India significantly. I hope you will like the present version. You know, rape incidents on foreigners is increasing in India? I have added much information about that on the article. I edited the information on the scam incidents. Thank and regards. Otolemur crassicaudatus 16:11, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Henrik Ibsen

I noticed you reverted my edit removing the redundant flag icon from the infobox. While I agree with your edit summary, that redundancy can be useful in communication, experience and consensus in the community seem to think the strengths of having flags is outweighed by their weaknesses. Briefly: Flags used like this tend to

• overemphasise and oversimplify nationality
• cause difficulties over which historical flag to use in a particular case, and which flag (Scotland versus UK is a common example)
• because of the above, lead to sterile edit wars which do not bring forward the project and are difficult to defuse

Because of this, the essay WP:FLAGS has been adopted as part of the Manual of Style (see WP:MOSFLAG). There is a lot more explanations there. It may be that if you have any solid encyclopedic reasons why " Norwegian" is an improvement on "Norwegian" in an infobox on a writer who lived almost his entire life before Norway became an independent country, you will want to raise them at the MoS or the article talk page. Alternatively, you may wish to self-revert. Best wishes to you, --John (talk) 03:53, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Artificial scripts and alphabetic scripts

Why did you move alphabetic scripts under artificial scripts? Was there a discussion somewhere? It's not logically true; there are artificial scripts that are ideographic and syllabic.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:36, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

And there's nothing stopping Category:Artificial scripts from also being categorized under other types of scripts. Nevertheless, many artificial scripts are alphabetic. FilipeS (talk) 18:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

If a page is in a category that's in another category, it should logically be in the first category. Otherwise there's no reason to remove it from the first category. Category Alphabetic scripts should contain all of the alphabetic scripts (including under subcategories) and only alphabetic scripts. Many men are black, but that doesn't mean that the category men should be a subcategory of black people.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:45, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Is that an official Wikipedia rule, or just your opinion? FilipeS (talk) 18:48, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm letting the Shavian issue drop; Category:English spelling reforms is more or less properly a subset of Category:Latin scripts.

Wikipedia:Categorization says that "Categories help users navigate through Wikipedia via multiple taxonomies"; if Category:Artificial scripts does not contain only alphabetic scripts, it's not forming a proper taxonomy.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:12, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that everyone would interpret the sentence you quoted that way. Speaking as a user/navigator, I prefer to be given broad choices, with possibly a little irrelevant information along the way, than to have relevant information hidden from me just because it happens to have been placed in a category that only overlaps with the one I'm currently browsing... FilipeS (talk) 19:17, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense Books

Hi, dvdeug-- I think I've interacted with you a bit on dp in the past. Just writing to say thanks for taking off that link to the re-working of the lear nonsense books (I made the original one at dp). The HTML version I made was for the public domain, so they're free to use it, but I thought it looked kind of crappy with the ads all over it and squeezed into some arbitrary design template. I also like how they messed up the character set for the copyright symbol so that it's just a ?. Does that mean it's not copyrighted after all?Bencoland (talk) 12:41, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Pilotbob must be bored on Christmas vacation

Rod of Seven Parts is up for AFD again! BOZ (talk) 15:48, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Removing OTRS templates

Hi, It is not necessary to remove an OTRS template if you have a query about whether it will cause libel issues. OTRS is specifically designed to *not* cause libel issues, and as a statement of fact the template is meant to settle rumours or other libel type issues. Cheers, Ansell 21:45, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

If Mr. Randi felt bothered enough to contact us directly, then it is serious enough to warrant a tag. -- Avi (talk) 02:15, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Hopiakuta discussion at the admins notice board

You may like to know that this discussion has now been marked as resolved, requiring no further action. -- Roleplayer (talk) 01:04, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

It has now been automatically archived by the archive bot. -- Roleplayer (talk) 16:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Randy Richards Article

Not trying to promote myself. And Randy Richards is being promoted only inasmuch as anyone else on Wikipedia. But this is all irrelevant - the article contained nearly 20 citations, and at least 2 meaningful secondary sources WITH independent verification for notability. What more could anyone want? Malakai Joe (talk) 01:02, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about that. The opposition is even more rabid, so I may be a bit shellshocked - plus there is limited time to make one's arguments - and since Randy Richards is so notable, there is a lot of ground to cover due to the mountains of citations. In addition, I wanted to make sure everyone who voted had read the original article. According to another editor, only admins can see it, which is confusing since voting is occurring. I am trying to dot all my i's and cross all my t's. Thanks! Malakai Joe (talk) 14:18, 9 February 2008 (UTC)