User talk:Eequor
|
|
Dao De Jing
Too bad about the Dao De Jing. The James Legge translation is in the public domain, but I understand it's inferior. Eclecticology 03:32, 25 May 2004 (UTC)
- Yes, quite. It even hurts my head to try to read.[1] He seems to have abandoned accuracy in favor of some attempt to be poetic. His translation is still better than Aleister Crowley's, though.[2] --[[User:Eequor|ᓛᖁ
ᑐ]] 17:57, 25 May 2004 (UTC)
One has difficulty taking Crowley seriously. Sometimes I even think that he never meant anything that he wrote, but was just having a good laugh at the expense of anybody that would take him seriously. I wouldn't even characterize his Tao Te Ching as a "Translation". I haven't investigated its copyright status. :-) Eclecticology 18:27, 2004 May 25 (UTC)
Projects
I'm totally confused by your recent juggle to Wikipedia:Projects, etc. Why the abolition of the distinction between projects in general and the more structured wikiprojects? Why do this unilaterally with no discussion (or at least none I saw: was it discussed somewhere? I shouldn't presume)? Was any content dropped in the process? (with no written explanation of what you did, I can't tell. -- Jmabel 17:26, Aug 8, 2004 (UTC)
- Short version: Be bold. ^_^v
- Longer:
- Wikipedia:Projects seemed mostly dead, containing a number of ancient redirects which were only linked from that page, most with names that would not be searched for. See Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion. It's amazing that a page with the unlikely name Britannica Public Domain/Status managed to survive for two years.
- Further indication of the page's inactivity is found on the talk page, where Kingturtle posted a comment in February (with no reply). It seems unlikely that there is anybody with whom a discussion might be held.
- The contents of the Projects page I moved to its talk page, and I redirected the page itself to the better organized Wikipedia:WikiProject, as it had apparently no meaningful content. The organized projects were incorporated into the WikiProject hierarchy.
- I found that Wikipedia:WikiProject deserved to be split into smaller sections. It was already beginning to develop page breaks to keep the categories distinct. The largest changes there were from alphabetizing the categories to make them easier to find, and cleaning up the lead section.
- Yes. One of the main things I'm involved in here is Wikipedia:Translation into English. It was linked from Wikipedia:WikiProject. It is not linked from Wikipedia:WikiProject because it is not organized as a WikiProject. I suspect it may not be the only active project for which this is the case. The fact that not many new projects had been recently added does not mean that the projects pointed to are dead.
I guess I will move it under Wikipedia:WikiProject and hope not to get into a fight about the appropriateness of that. -- Jmabel 04:04, Aug 9, 2004 (UTC)
- I moved that to the Wikipedia section, actually. It looks like you found that, though. Sorry for the inconvenience. --[[User:Eequor|ᓛᖁᑐ]] 06:31, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Hi
There is a great deal of foolishness and insinuations going on at talk:Jew. You name has been brought up a few times. It might be good if you stepped in and made a comment, particularly regarding your wording on wikipedia:Pages in need of attention. There seems to be confusion bordering on hysteria, or hysteria bordering on confusion, or some such. Thanks, Sam [Spade] 16:40, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- What an odd discussion y'all are having in there. I can't follow it at all. --[[User:Eequor|ᓛᖁᑐ]] 16:59, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Yes, it annoyed me and so I decided to edit the article instead. Seems to have worked out great for everybody. Nice having you, one of the beauties of the group editing process is the occasional odd person with a level head ;) Cheers, Sam [Spade] 18:02, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
7740s
Eequor, do you intend to write articles on all the numbers from 7740 to 7749? I will be glad to help with those articles in whatever way I can, but you should know that those articles might be hard to defend against deletionists. PrimeFan 18:52, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Hehehe. Sure, why not? Numbot would be far easier to write than Rambot could have been, and much faster to create pages and templates to go with them. Numbot could double Wikipedia's size in a day! And then it'll be banned. It'll be great. XD --[[User:Eequor|ᓛᖁᑐ]] 19:41, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- I'm a strong supporter of the articles on numbers, but if 7744 winds up on VFD, I will most likely be voting "delete." Look at PrimeFan bend over backwards trying to find things to say about 7744. It's a square nialpdrome? That's some desperate reaching. Anton Mravcek 20:45, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)
| Base | Square |
|---|---|
| 88 | 7744 |
| 74162 | 5500002244 |
| 105462 | 11122233444 |
| 2973962 | 8844449977444 |
| 31500088 | 992255544007744 |
- My reason for including 7744 is: it and 88 form a unique pair. There are no other square numbers which are composed of exactly two contiguous groups of multiple equal digits. That is, its digits form the pattern nnn...n mmm...m.
- There are also very few squares with no unpaired digits -- there are only seventeen such numbers less than 1 E16. Ten of those numbers are squares containing 7744; except for two, their square roots are all numbers containing 88. The other nine numbers contain 44 and the last two significant digits of their square roots are 62; the square of 62, 3844, is 28 less than half of 7744 and the only other four-digit square ending in 44. Discarding multiples of ten, the number of squares is reduced to five.
- It may be that these numbers have no other particular mathematical significance, but their uniqueness deserves a mention somewhere. --[[User:Eequor|ᓛᖁᑐ]] 22:22, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- It may be that these numbers have no other particular mathematical significance, but their uniqueness deserves a mention somewhere. --[[User:Eequor|ᓛᖁ
- That's a very compelling argument, you have convinced me about the importance of this number. If this article winds up on VFD, my vote will be "keep." I have copied much of what you have said into the article. Anton Mravcek 17:32, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Vandalism
Hi, it would be helpful if you didn't make edit summaries like "vandalize" when you are not vandalising. It is quite misleading. Thanks. Angela. 11:29, Aug 25, 2004 (UTC)
- Others should understand not to take that seriously. =P
- It is sort of maybe vandalism. Mostly I'm using that summary just to indicate to future editors that I meant to wreck the previous content. ^_^v --[[User:Eequor|ᓛᖁᑐ]] 11:35, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Notable integers
At list of movies they got this policy that your not supposed to add a movie unless their's an article for it. I think maybe we should have the same policy for list of numbers. Numerao 19:59, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Mostly I agree, but there are some numbers in the list that really should have an article about them. Why is there no article for 365 or 3,600, two of the most notable integers for humans? Or for 1,024, which is ubiquitous in computing? I think the list should continue to have red links in it, to serve as reminders that something needs to be said about those numbers. --[[User:Eequor|ᓛᖁᑐ]] 22:27, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Maybe there should be an article on 365, but be sure to look at 300 first to see if enough information has been rounded up on the number to write a fleshed-out article. For 3,600, you ought to take a look at 3000. The point of doing things this way is that if you only know one interesting thing about a number but nothing else, you can put it in an article about a rounded off number to see if anyone else can add something.
- Anyway, I'm writing to ask you what does 123 have to do with Douglas Adams's book besides its being a 42-gonal number? Anton Mravcek 20:56, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- It's also the first 42-gonal number of any interest (the first two are 1 and 42, of course), and noted in passing in So Long, and Thanks for All the Fish as one of the 231 types of rain. --[[User:Eequor|ᓛᖁᑐ]] 21:19, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- It's also the first 42-gonal number of any interest (the first two are 1 and 42, of course), and noted in passing in So Long, and Thanks for All the Fish as one of the 231 types of rain. --[[User:Eequor|ᓛᖁ
Toki Pona
toki! sina jan pona. ale li pona. <3 --Sonjaaa 06:17, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)
Olga
Definitely agree on the Olga comment. I didn't even get through the first sentence.
Hello
I finally got intrigued enough by your sig to come ask if it symbolizes anything. Also, I thought I'd note that "First Nations" is a phrase used in Canada to describe the people for whom it seems there is no name which makes everyone happy -- perhaps the plural would be more satisfactory to both Alteripse and yourself? :-) Hard to say, I suppose. Thought I'd mention it though, since as I recall it was you who objected to the monolithic nature of the phrase "First Nation". Have a good one, Jwrosenzweig 21:16, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Ah, First Nations is more sensible. It still isn't terribly accurate, since literally it includes every other ethnicity existing before 10,000 BCE.
- My signature doesn't really symbolize anything in particular; mostly it's just a little less plain than Eequor. ^_^
- Sam, meet Alteripse. :-) Or rather, perhaps don't, since I'm sure you'd like to avoid an argument. Thanks for the reply, Eequor -- perhaps I should think of changing my sig. And I agree that the accuracy is imperfect, but what can one do? First American Nations? Hmmm. Well, I'll see you around -- happy editing! Jwrosenzweig 13:52, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- *grin*
- Take care! ^_^
Hancock's Razor
Hello Eequor, I am Doug Henning and I would like to report that William Langius Delaney is not fictional whatsoever, he is my friend from childhood and the actual inventor of the concept of hancock's razor. Please remove the scabrous assertion of fictionality from the article or I will. I am very pleased to hear that you enjoy our concept. Email me at dougefresh42@yahoo.com if you have any comments on its improvement or suggestions for its popularization.
Update: Sorry, I misread the history of the article. Wetman edited in the fictions. Thank you anyway for rescuing the idea. Please tell your friends.
Wikipedia:Even_more_bad_jokes_and_other_deleted_nonsense#Hancock.27s_Razor
I certainly think that Hancock's razor seems to be used a lot, therefore is worth a wikipedia article. News media seem to frighten people by focusing a lot of attention on new and different ("newsworthy") deaths -- apparently using Hancock's razor to choose which stories are important enough to communicate. I was at the list of the top 10 causes of death in the U.S., a few of which I'd never heard of before. How can we describe the idea in an encyclopediac way ? -- DavidCary 23:55, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- The main problem is that there is a vocal group of Wikipedians who feel the idea is not well-known enough to deserve an article. I see no outstanding errors in the current article, though it is possibly less formal than it should be. It would help if there was more information available. --[[User:Eequor|ᓛᖁᑐ]] 03:08, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
International Tibet Independence Movement
- Article: zh-tw:西藏獨立運動
- Corresponding English-language article: International Tibet Independence Movement.
- Worth doing because: Long article in Chinese; English-language article is a stub
- Originally Requested by: Jmabel on behalf of User:Eequor
- Status: In-Progress, Vina 20:56, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Completed, Vina 06:54, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Other notes: User:Eequor tagged the English-language page as "needing translation", but did not note it here.
- I did the Translation, but I cut quite a bit that was in other articles, and I feel that the actual article doesn't really touch on the movement as an organization, as opposed to the movement as an ideology. Don't know if futher cleanup is appropriate -Vina 06:54, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
FAC nominations
To quote the WP:FAC rules - "If you nominate an article, you will be expected to address objections that are raised, or at least make a good-faith effort." - on your current and previous FAC noms (Sewage treatment and Occam's Razor) you have made no such effort. →Raul654 19:27, Sep 26, 2004 (UTC)
- I'm mostly impartial to them, but considered them to be better than most other articles. I have no further interest in their status, nor in defending them if they are considered by some to be inadequate. I do hope they'll be improved to featured article quality. --[[User:Eequor|ᓛᖁᑐ]] 21:54, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- If you don't have an interest in their status or in defending them, then please don't nominate them. →Raul654 22:01, Sep 26, 2004 (UTC)
- Surely they will be adopted by somebody if they are seen to be deserving of featured article status. This is a community effort, isn't it? No single contributor is responsible for any article, nor should the misunderstanding be made that only one editor is capable of advancing progress on any specific article. Be bold. --[[User:Eequor|ᓛᖁᑐ]] 22:12, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Surely they will be adopted by somebody if they are seen to be deserving of featured article status. This is a community effort, isn't it? No single contributor is responsible for any article, nor should the misunderstanding be made that only one editor is capable of advancing progress on any specific article. Be bold. --[[User:Eequor|ᓛᖁ
- In point of fact - no, most articles *do not* get adopted, as you say. And for the most part, the community is good at finding objections, but not fixing them - that job almost always falls to the nominator. And to put it simply - it's not the job of the community to fix your nominations for you. Now, there is finite space on that page, and there is finite viewership - if you do not intend to fix objections to your nominations, then don't take up space that someone else who *is* interested in fixing objections could otherwise be using. And finally, 'be bold' does not mean break every community rule and standard just because it suits you. →Raul654 22:50, Sep 26, 2004 (UTC)
- Another related page is Ignore all rules. I'm interested in the overall improvement of Wikipedia, and one of the ways I can help is by nominating articles that show promise. Consider the history of sewage treatment. Following my nomination, four other editors became involved in it, with discussion on its talk page, and it is becoming less Americentric. This follows nearly two months of inactivity. Likewise, on Occam's Razor, six others have contributed since my nomination. Clearly strict adherence to the "rules" is a naïve and insular position which, had it been observed, would have prevented these improvements from occurring. Do you have Wikipedia's best interests in mind? Stop interfering. --[[User:Eequor|ᓛᖁᑐ]] 23:12, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Another related page is Ignore all rules. I'm interested in the overall improvement of Wikipedia, and one of the ways I can help is by nominating articles that show promise. Consider the history of sewage treatment. Following my nomination, four other editors became involved in it, with discussion on its talk page, and it is becoming less Americentric. This follows nearly two months of inactivity. Likewise, on Occam's Razor, six others have contributed since my nomination. Clearly strict adherence to the "rules" is a naïve and insular position which, had it been observed, would have prevented these improvements from occurring. Do you have Wikipedia's best interests in mind? Stop interfering. --[[User:Eequor|ᓛᖁ
Religion
I'd like to talk to you about your religion sometime. Is your goddess yourself? I never heard of her before, have other people worshipped her before you? Does she have a pantheon? I have alot of questions on the subject, if you're willing :) Sam [Spade] 00:34, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- ^_^
- I'd be happy to discuss it, though even I don't know enough about it yet. Eequor isn't me but, from what I've been able to tell, she's waiting for something in particular from me. Which I don't know what it is.
- There is a very similar goddess named Yemaja worshipped in Central America and West Africa, a loving goddess of the ocean and patron deity of women, often referred to as the Blue Lady. A particular legend among homeless street children in Florida and nearby areas holds that Yemaja is trapped under a powerful curse which prevents her from exerting any of her power in the world. The nature of the curse allows her to help only those who know her true name; i.e., someone could call out to her and become temporarily immune from danger. [3]
- She does have a pantheon, but she is only distantly part of it, and obscure. Michael Moorcock mentions her, once, in very little detail. If Eequor is Yemaja, then she shares the Yorùbá pantheon as well as Moorcock's Chaos pantheon. --[[User:Eequor|ᓛᖁᑐ]] 02:28, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- I see! A creative and complex interweaving of folk religion, traditional mythology, and science fiction / fantasy, as best I can tell? Reminds me of neopaganism or Wicca. I have ALOT of friends and family who are involved in such (and new age variants thereof). I?m glad to hear that your goddess isn?t solely yourself, as that would be more left hand path than I am comfortable with. Sam [Spade] 14:42, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- *nod*
- I wouldn't align it with either the left-hand path or the right-hand path, though it shares more with the left than with the right. Let's see...
- Right-Hand Path religions share the following property:
- Belief in a higher power, such as a deity.
- whereas
- Left-Hand Path religions share the following properties:
- My worldview is very inclusive of such concepts actually, since I believe that everything exists (even our imagination is real, perhaps even having a material reality of sorts). That said, I personally avoid anything reminiscent of worship (although politeness is vital) regarding entities other than my one God of All, the ultimate ātman, absolute infinite, immanent, imminent, breath of existence, universal (sub/super)consciousness, etc?. Of course it is important to understand that I am a monist, which means everything is my God, and we are all one ;) I just worship the sum total, rather than the incarnations, aspects or parts (depending on how you like to look at it). Glad to learn more about your faith, learning about world religions is a lifelong hobby of mine :) Sam [Spade] 14:42, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- The monist viewpoint is fundamental to Taoism and Buddhism, really. Their understanding is that everything is inextricably part of the same continuous whole, and thus wholly interconnected. Naturally, karma follows directly from that. Taoism prefers to let things be as they may, while Buddhism and especially Mahayana aspires to bring about cosmic improvement from that foundation.
- I'm likewise very interested in other religions and comparative religion in general. The Abrahamic religions strike me as dreadfully dull and uninspired, however, and their unsurpassed cruelty leads me to believe the world would have been much better off without them. There are any number of religions that would serve better.
- Probably the closest the world ever came to an alternative to the Abrahamic religions occurred with Elagabalus, who made a very strong effort to convert the Roman Empire to sen religion, centered around sen namesake Sol Invictus. Of course, the Romans came to loathe Elagabalus for sen extreme tastes, so se had only a brief effect. [4]
- By the way, what is your opinion of Immanuel Kant? --[[User:Eequor|ᓛᖁᑐ]] 16:19, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- By the way, what is your opinion of Immanuel Kant? --[[User:Eequor|ᓛᖁ
Why arn't eastern religions an alternative to western ones? And what culture or religion is without horrors? I would argue that the only reason abrahamic religions have been so noticably cruel is their technological advantage. Is Christ any less of an altruist than Krishna, or Buddha? Sam [Spade] 16:48, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Some of the Eastern religions would have made very good alternatives. My point is that they have been much more confined (e.g. Hinduism) and have had much less influence globally. This is similar to the difference between the Chinese language and English.
- Jesus flaunted traditions through his civil disobedience to such an extent that the traditionalists killed him. Early Christianity was gravely threatened by the public perception of Jesus, and the veracity of the New Testament is dubious due to subsequent religious persecution and efforts to regain public support.
- On the other hand, Siddhartha Gautama initially despaired of being understood by anyone, but eventually tried anyway and continued to teach people of all classes until he died of old age forty-five years later. Despite passing through oral tradition for much longer, the veracity of the central teachings is certain, and the survival of Buddhism past its early years was never threatened.
- The Qur'an is also not in doubt, though it developed in a political climate opposite that experienced by Buddhism. Muhammed, of course, was quite violent, and he was vilified by his own tribe, who killed his followers and unsuccessfully attacked him, but by the time of his death Islam was well established, with protections for Christianity and Judaism. From the followers' points of view, who was least altruistic? --[[User:Eequor|ᓛᖁᑐ]] 18:34, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Least eh? I'd say Muhammed, hands down. Altho the inquisition had some wild ideas about WWJD, I'd say ;) Sam [Spade] 18:49, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
As far as Elagabalus, he strikes me as a demented maniac on the level of caligula. I admit roman culture in general horrifies and disgusts me, but him much more so than average.
As far as Kant, my opinion of him is similar to Buddhism. As far as I can tell his writtings (as well as Buddhist doctrines) contain few if any factual errors, but they come from such completely divergent premises, with such dissimilar goals to my own that they are nearly incomprehensible / objectionable to me. For philosophy I like Carl Jung and Niccolo Machiavelli, and for religion I prefer Christ or Krishna to Buddha. That said, I can't say either Kant or Buddhism are wrong exactly, only that they think about everything very differently from how I do, and seek different outcomes. Also, I don't like that Kant never married, I don't trust a man who doesn't marry ;) Sam [Spade] 16:48, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- On a largely unrelated subject, have you read Nazi mysticism? Thats some pretty wacky stuff ;) Sam [Spade] 18:08, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- No, they were much worse than that! They believed conscience was a pseudoscience, and an invention of the Jews! --[[User:Eequor|ᓛᖁᑐ]] 19:02, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- No, they were much worse than that! They believed conscience was a pseudoscience, and an invention of the Jews! --[[User:Eequor|ᓛᖁ
IM
You are a nice conversationalist, do you IM? Mine is @ User:Sam_Spade/Info. Cheers Sam [Spade]
- Why, thank you! I don't use IM programs, though; I've never had a particular interest in them. --[[User:Eequor|ᓛᖁᑐ]] 22:27, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Tactical Muse
[[User:Eequor|ᓛᖁ.gif?lang=en){kind=small}
ᑐ]] of the Wikipedians, I hearby promote you to the rank of Tactical Muse, with all the privileges and responsibilities it entails. :)
These are your ASCII chevrons: <<<<+++>>>
P.S. Please try not to give too many orders to Catherine... she might be upset when she finds out she has been out-ranked. ;-)
func(talk) 04:47, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Borges & The Glass Bead Game
Why did you interlink Jorge Luis Borges and The Glass Bead Game? It doesn't seem unimaginable to draw some kind of connection between the two, but just putting them in each other's "see also" list seems useless. I'd be comfortable saying that I'm pretty expert on Borges, and I read "The Glass Bead Game" some 30 years ago, and while I can see a certain intuitive connection, it seems more the type that is made by categories than by "see also".
Anyway, I'm inclined to delete this from the Borges article (which I have on my watchlist), but thought I'd ask you first in case there is a good explanation I'm missing. -- Jmabel | Talk 20:57, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)
- I might point out that this sort of interconnection is entirely in line with the game. Doesn't it sound a lot like sth Borges would have written? It isn't a particularly surprising connection if one knows Borges translated some of Hermann Hesse's work, most likely including The Glass Bead Game, but it's a striking similarity that may be of interest to people who are familiar with Borges or with Hesse but not both.
- It's difficult to think of a categorization that would capture the similarities between works analagous to The Glass Bead Game. What would appear natural and convey the subtle differences between these and other works? --[[User:Eequor|ᓛᖁᑐ]] 00:20, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Gaps in the Borges article are not as urgent as are the surpluses...be that as it may, if there is reason to believe B. translated it, there's a place for that in the article (International Themes table). That information is probably in Efraín Kristal's book on Borges & translation, which I don't have. Otherwise, the meta-category seems to be intertextuality. To oversimply only a little, literature about literature. Borges and koans are both "natural" references for that stub. I'd say Hesse normally is not but the Glass Bead Game (which I recently reread) is a clear exception. -user:munge 27 Nov 2004
iu.wikipedia
Hi Eequor,
Doing cleanup activities on the Inuktitut Wikipedia is ultimately a good thing, but I don't think it's constructive to post large hunks of text in English as new articles - new articles should be reserved for fluent speakers, or at least should be attempts at good Inuktitut with no English.
--Node 04:31, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Yes, I know. It's at least some sort of starting point. My feeling is that English should be okay for essential articles, if nothing else is available. It's common among the Inuit, and unfortunately it's becoming more common. So at least there's familiarity.
- On the other hand, certainly no article titles should be in English, and probably should be in ᑎᑎᕋᐅᓯᖅ ᓄᑖᖅ, with inuujingajut only for redirects. Snail and Postal will both have to go.
- I'm hoping the two Canadians who have visited iu: might be more than occasional visitors. Somebody is more familiar with Inuktitut than I am; the main page had a few words already. History and music, if I recall correctly.
- In any event, somebody ought to appreciate the irony in the decay from "default" English to Inuktitut. ^_^ --[[User:Eequor|ᓛᖁᑐ]] 05:10, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
You know that there is an encyclopedia in Inuktitut? ᓯᕗᓕᑦᑕ ᐱᐅᓯᑐᖃᖏᑦ - Sivulitta piusituqangit, edited by ᑖᒧᓯ ᖁᒪᖅ Taamusi Qumaq. It was published in 1988 and is currently out of print. I saw a copy a couple years ago, but didn't buy it. I wish I had - it's a bear to get.
Qumaq also single-handedly wrote a dictionary in Inuktitut. He was an elder in Puvirnituq who died in 1993. I don't think he spoke either English or French, but he was remarkably politically active nonetheless. He wrote extensively about Inuit traditional culture. I imagine the Avataq Cultural Institute must hold the copyright on his works. It would be a real boon if, since they aren't publishing them anyway, we might induce them to GFDL Qumaq's encyclopedia.
I'm doing a slow - but hopefully thorough - rewrite of all the articles pertaining to Canadian aboriginal languages that I know something about. Inuktitut and Inuktitut syllabics are next after I finish with Cree language and Cree syllabics. If you need to know something about Inuktitut as a language, I'm glad to help. But, I haven't spoken the language in 15 years and have only limited text resources. ᑏᑎᕉ 13:13, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Qumaq's dictionary sounds impressive! It would be wonderful if Wikipedia could get permission to use both the dictionary and the encyclopedia.... Do you think the publisher would be inclined to give permission in the interest of preservation?
- Any help you can offer is appreciated; I doubt I'll be able to add much. I was more hopeful that I might be able to contribute sth before I found out my English - Inuit dictionary wasn't Inuktitut. At least it's a polysynthetic language; I'm really hazy on the grammar and inflection rules though.
- I see you've started an account on iu:; good! Would you be interested in adminship? --[[User:Eequor|ᓛᖁᑐ]] 16:50, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Plurality
By the way, how are the dual and plural forms constructed from the singular? --[[User:Eequor|ᓛᖁᑐ]] 17:01, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- The most regular way:
- inuk (sing) = a person or the person
- inuuk (dual) = two people
- inuit (plural) = more than two people
- For raw nouns without other derivational or inflectional morphology, the dual is formed by dropping the final consonant, doubling the vowel before it, and then adding "-k". The plural is formed by deleting the final consonant and adding "-it".
- However, nothing is that simple in Inuktitut.
- First complication: Inuktitut has a rule that forbids triple length vowels. Thus, if a word already has two vowels or a double vowel before its final consonant, one of the two vowels has to go. For the dual, you just make the last vowel a single vowel. But for the plural, the "i" in "-it" disappears:
- tui = shoulder; dual: tuik; plural: tuit
- puuq = bag; dual: puuk; plural: puut
- Also certain words have a hidden "i" at the end:
- qukiut = gun; dual: qukiutiik; plural: qukiutiit
- But then, there are problems of morphology:
| Case | Singular | Dual | Plural |
|---|---|---|---|
| Absolutive | delete consonant + double vowel + k | delete consonant + it | |
| Genitive-ergative | delete consonant + up | delete consonant + double vowel + k | delete consonant + it |
| Accusative | nasalises consonant + mik | delete consonant + double vowel + ngnit (or +rnik after q) | nasalises consonant + nik |
| Locative | nasalises consonant + mi | delete consonant + double vowel + ngni (or +rni after q) | nasalises consonant + ni |
| Ablative | nasalises consonant + mit | delete consonant + double vowel + ngnit (or +rnit after q) | nasalises consonant + nit |
| Dative | nasalises consonant + mut | delete consonant + double vowel + ngnut (or +rnut after q) | nasalises consonant + nut |
| Vialis (prosecutive?) |
delete consonant + kkut | delete consonant + double vowel + kkut | +tigut |
| Similaris (essive(-modal?)) |
+tut | delete consonant + double vowel + ktut | +titut |
- Those are the most common ways of handling number and case. Now remember that there is significant dialectical variation. This table reflects the conservative Kitikmeot dialects better than the south Baffin, Nunvik, Labrador and Greenland dialects.
- Hope that helps.
- ᑏᑎᕉ 19:49, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Thanks! The last case there sounds like the essive case. Apparently, the one before it is called prosecutive case or vialis case. [5] [6]
- There is no consistently used terminology for the morphosyntactic components of Inuktitut. Spalding's categories are as standard as they get in Canada. If the Oqaasileriffik has a set of official names, those would be as good as any. Diderot 05:57, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Chemicals wikiproject
Hi, I thought I should introduce myself, as your name is the only one listed as a participant for this Wikiproject. I am interested in making a contribution to this project if I can. I put a piece on the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemicals, mainly to try getting things started. I am pretty new to Wikipedia- can you tell me how I sign up as a participant in this? Or am I ineligible, being so new? I really like the job people have done with the elements, it would be nice to start extending that to compounds too.
Thanks for your help, Martin A. Walker Walkerma 22:28, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Hi! It's good to see someone else with an interest in this. Anyone is welcome to join the project; there isn't any reason to prefer veterans over new users, especially when the new user is an expert in the field. Any help you could give would be appreciated.
- To join the project, all you have to do is list yourself (using ~~~) at Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemicals#Participants. Welcome, and be bold! --[[User:Eequor|ᓛᖁᑐ]] 22:39, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
greetings, fellow fundamentalist!
I have had the recent pleasure to discover not only that you are a fundamentalist, but also my fellow cabali, as well as my personal proxy! Quite the familial relationship we have been cast in. I suspect we ought conspire, co-ordinating our plan of action. My thought is that we start by merging Economic Calculation Debate into Economic calculation problem. Mwahahahahahahahaaaaa....
[[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 11:44, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Hahahaha, it's so strange to find such suggestions. Maybe we should organize swh... by the way, have you considered joining the Association of Mergist Wikipedians? ^_^ --[[User:Eequor|ᓛᖁᑐ]] 16:14, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- I joined. As far as anything more, feel free to contact me @ my email, since you don't IM. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 16:47, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Causal-final case
Hi,
Could you give me your reasons why you inserted "Causal case" and "Final case" separately into the chart at List of grammatical cases, mentioning Hungarian, even though they co-exist in Hungarian as "Causal-final case"?
Here is a short review of them from Practical Hungarian Grammar (ISBN 9634720374):
- The causal-final (-ért) can express
- a) cause with verbs or adjectives referring to state of mind, eg. worry about sth., value sb. for sth., be excited about sth., be enthusiastic about sth., rave about sth., suffer for sth., praise for sth., be offended for sth., responsible for sth. etc.
- b) goal: He goes to the shop for bread. * My friends have come for me. * He fights for freedom and his homeland.
- c) with verbs expressing paying, selling, buying (generally exchange) it expresses price or value: He paid twenty-five forints for the bread. * The article is not sold dirt cheap. I bought the shoes for 8000 forints.
So in meaning (a), as arguments of verbs & adjectives, it expresses cause or reason, in (b) it means goal/purpose, and in (c) it refers to price or value. Its name, causal-final, seemingly comes from meaning (a) and (b). And again, it is one singular suffix.
Are you sure it should be separated?
Adam78 16:56, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Interesting. I don't know much about Hungarian; I was just going by what Wikipedia says about causal-final case (which is not much). All the intermediate cases mentioned after the main list should be merged into the chart, I suppose. --[[User:Eequor|ᓛᖁᑐ]] 18:51, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Article licensing
Hi, I've started the Free the Rambot Articles Project which has the goals of getting users to multi-license all of their contributions.... I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. So far over 90% of people who have responded have done this.
Nutshell: Wikipedia articles can be shared with any other GFDL project but open/free projects using the incompatible Creative Commons Licenses (e.g. WikiTravel) can't use our stuff and we can't use theirs. It is important to us that other free projects can use our stuff. So we use their licenses too. --Ram-Man 14:37, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)
- Hi, controversial bot-writing person!
- I don't much care for copyright. Consider me recused from the whole silly licensing mess. --[[User:Eequor|ᓛᖁᑐ]] 15:06, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Template/Category interaction
When you edited Template:R_from_misspelling, and changed the category name (to "misspellings"), the old category was (somewhat confusingly) left with lots of entries; redirects which were last edited before your change still link to the old category. Not sure what (if anything) to do, but someething to remember when changing category names in a template. Noel (talk) 22:46, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Yes, I know. I had meant to repopulate the categories, but there's a strange bug which deletes anything on lines following #redirect. Until the bug is fixed, {{R from misspelling}} can't be used at all. --[[User:Eequor|ᓛᖁᑐ]] 22:58, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Bureaucrat
You are now a bureaucrat at iu:. You can make sysops using the Special:makesysop page. There are instructions on using this at m:Bureaucrat. If you have any problems, let me know on my talk page, or leave a note on m:Requests for permissions. Good luck. Angela. 15:50, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)
Article on Acid
Hiya. A while ago, you left a message saying the article on acids was unintelligible. Someone recently made some changes, could you go back and see what you think? EagleFalconn 23:26, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- That is better; the ordering might still be a bit off, but it is more clear now. --[[User:Eequor|‣ᓛᖁᑐ]] 18:14, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Hello!
It's been about a month since there was a flurry of activity on that page. Despite some editorial conflict, the page does appear (at least to me) to have improved considerably. I think the introductory paragraphs are readable. Much of the page is still technical, or at least has a high degree technical discussion in it; I would strongly oppose any effort to reduce its technical accuracy. However, I would hope the article is still useful to a large number of people, so if you have any comments I would appreciate hearing from you.
Thanks!
CSTAR 15:11, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
eis
In regards to "eis", AFAIK it is not a formal gender neutral pronoun, but I assumed that it would be sufficiently clear, as it appears it was. As for other tenses, I would probably use "eir" (or "e") for "he or she" and "eim" for "him or her", but those are just off the top of my head. It saves typing, and allows for clear greater accuracy of speech - if I don't care about someone's gender, it lets me say that. Thanks for asking. JesseW 00:17, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- I see; sounds much like my use of se, sen, and itse. I find the "standard" gender-neutral pronouns all... wanting, for various reasons. Especially things like hir — the portmanteau is degrading to everyone, and how is one to pronounce it distinctly? — and zie is little better. Spivak pronouns aren't bad, though; eis reminds me of that system. ^_^ ‣ᓛᖁᑐ 01:16, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- I also like the Spivak system- that was what was probably in my mind. JesseW 05:38, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Toward fairness
Indeed, it is true that I can be quirky, eccentric, and occasionally flat-out wrong; but, as I am fond of asserting, the vast majority of the complaints against me step entirely from trumped-up charges, propaganda, and a egotistic effort on the part of the cabal to avoid admitting that it might be wrong about some things. I was banned for arguing too much; but in a lot of cases, I was right (for instance, Columbus did work as a slave-trader, it is POV to state Wilhelm I was stupid, and DNA is a nucleic acid). Lirath Q. Pynnor
- What is most distressing in all this is not that Wikipedia tolerates trolls and other "problem users", but that it is even more willing to tolerate rude admins who consider themselves to be somewhat beyond the laws of Wikipedia — users who do not share the vast tolerance of the community, especially not when they are criticized (and far be it from them to be critical of their own actions).
- You got it right there, the issue here is not whether or not my actions are appropriate or not (i admit, sometimes they are deliberately inappropriate); the issue is that admins can get away with far worse behavior. Lirath Q. Pynnor
Yah, thats why I made my own wiki. Lirath Q. Pynnor
- ...Heh, I just noticed every page in it is protected. That's intentional? ‣ᓛᖁᑐ 05:12, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Yes, unlike Jimbo Wales, I am not the head of a massive porn empire, as a result, I cannot afford to host servers for 10,000 users. I figure if people want to join, they can ask me. Lirath Q. Pynnor
- Im a "Unkie" on Lirpedia, you may join us :)--[[User:Plato|Comrade Nick ]] 18:59, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Clique?
Since I watch User talk:Jimbo Wales, I noticed that you wrote:
- There does seem to be a clique, though, consisting of a group of admins and a number of other users. The more visible among them seem to be Neutrality, Raul654, Eloquence, RickK, Mirv, Hephaestos, Snowspinner, and Blankfaze. [. . .] they all seem to support each other in general, making things difficult for many well-intentioned users who happen to annoy one of them in some way.
I respect all of the other users you named, but I have had minimal interaction with three of them and strong (though generally civil) differences of opinion with the other four, so I wonder why you believe that we form some sort of clique. I don't believe I support any of these users (or any user, for that matter) unless I sincerely believe they're right, and I don't always believe that; neither have I ever felt that any of these users always agree with and support me. We might all agree on a goal—make Wikipedia better—but we all have different, and sometimes conflicting, approaches to that goal. —Charles P. (Mirv) 14:55, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- I see. When I wrote that, I was expecting at least one to object; it's reassuring to see I was right about that. You're also not the one I was expecting — which is positive as well. ‣ᓛᖁᑐ 17:29, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Well, I expect that more than one would object if they knew about it;
it's quite possible that I'm the only one to have read the accusationBlankfaze and Neutrality have seen it and don't seem to care, but has anyone else? Had you sent each a message saying "I think you're in a clique with this, that, and the other user; I think you all support each other in general, making things difficult for many well-intentioned users. . .", then others might have objected. I still wonder what made you pick those names specifically, and why mine was included. —Charles P. (Mirv) 17:48, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Well, I expect that more than one would object if they knew about it;
- Does that mean you're not going to explain your reasons in public, or you're not going to explain them at all? If the former, then I'd welcome an explanation via a less public channel (e-mail, say), since I'm still curious; if the latter, I wonder why it is that you'd be willing to publicly impugn others' good faith and honesty, but unwilling to explain why. —Charles P. (Mirv) 19:44, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Further, you wrote:
- I believe the Red Faction developed specifically in response to this group.
Again, I can only speak for myself, but I think you're mistaken about the origins of the Red Faction. If you were to ask Plato about his reasons for creating it, I don't think I would be named.
A puzzled Charles P. (Mirv) 14:55, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- ^_^
- Yes, perhaps not. The Faction did arise in response to some particular group, though; it's more important to be aware of that group than to precisely identify its members. Is there anyone you see as more likely to have inspired the Red Faction? ‣ᓛᖁᑐ 17:29, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)