Rdsmith4 is misrepresenting and libelling me, and abusing his joke-of-a-power again by blocking me again after I had insisted and enforced that an article be put in an accurate grammatic mood to fit the context, which was not real but ideal. A short exchange is at <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk: Lysdexia#Grammar_at_Black_Body>. There, I pointed out that his and others' calling my edits only "trolling and disruption" was a fraud, as every edit I've ever made to Wikipedia was, in this order: cleanup, fact checking, factual disputes, linking, added or alternate explanations, expansions. I checked the block policy page and saw that nothing I've done calls for blocking me; in deed, every incident that I was in was caused by someone ignorant, irrational, and uncouth reporting me to the administrators because I had done something to correct or improve a space that /they/ /did not/ /understand/. Every mistake that they claimed I'd made elsewhere was /their/ mistake of being an ignorant fool.
Lately I've been bringing out my contentions to the Talk pages before editing over the articles, and I hadn't even broken the three-revert rule when I was reverting when I found that I was blocked after trying to fix some numbers in an Order of magnitude article. Here's the note that's related to my work then: http://egroups.com/group/message/free_energy/20090. I was logged in then, and found that the block was for a day; but the next time I found that my cookies expired, for Yahoo! and Wikipedia, so I had to log in again. But before I did, I saw what happened when I tried with the numeric IP. The same block screen came up, so I logged in and found that the block was advanced another day! I seem to recall this happening before, and I didn't deserve it then either. Note that every time this rogue took abusive action against me, he gave no warning before so that I could reply instead of doing whatever he was told that I shouldn't, against policy, and that he calls my edits of fake value, also against policy. This person has no clue what he's doing, and I really need to update my article, as I have a life outside edit or dispute wars.
-Aut
On 11/8/05, Autymn D. C. lysdexia@sbcglobal.net wrote:
Rdsmith4 is misrepresenting and libelling me, and abusing his joke-of-a-power again by blocking me again after I had insisted and enforced that an article be put in an accurate grammatic mood to fit the context, which was not real but ideal.
It looks to me like you were insisting that the phrase "The sun emits power" to "the sun emit power" . etc.You were told by numerous people that this is wrong yet you continued to revert. BTW he is not libelling you. Please don't use legal terms like this.
A short exchange is at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk: Lysdexia#Grammar_at_Black_Body. There, I pointed out that his and others' calling my edits only "trolling and disruption" was a fraud, as every edit I've ever made to Wikipedia was, in this order: cleanup, fact checking, factual disputes, linking, added or alternate explanations, expansions. I checked the block policy page and saw that nothing I've done calls for blocking me; in deed, every incident that I was in was caused by someone ignorant, irrational, and uncouth reporting me to the administrators because I had done something to correct or improve a space that /they/ /did not/ /understand/.
When everyone disagrees with you, you should at the very least _consider_ the possibility that they are right and you are wrong don't you think? By insisting on your wording even though it plainy reads wrong and sounds silly you are opening up yourself to accusations of trolling.
Every
mistake that they claimed I'd made elsewhere was /their/ mistake of being an ignorant fool.
Personal attacks are not allowed on wikipedia. Please don't call people names.
Lately I've been bringing out my contentions to the Talk pages before editing over the articles,
Did you do that in this case before you reverted and called someone a vandal for correcting your bad grammar?
and I hadn't even broken the three-revert
rule when I was reverting when I found that I was blocked after trying to fix some numbers in an Order of magnitude article. Here's the note that's related to my work then: http://egroups.com/group/message/free_energy/20090. I was logged in then, and found that the block was for a day; but the next time I found that my cookies expired, for Yahoo! and Wikipedia, so I had to log in again. But before I did, I saw what happened when I tried with the numeric IP. The same block screen came up, so I logged in and found that the block was advanced another day!
This is the autoblocker. You need to not edit at all either logged in or not. Then the block will expire.
I seem to recall this happening before, and I didn't deserve it then either. Note that every time this rogue took abusive action against me, he gave no warning before so that I could reply instead of doing whatever he was told that I shouldn't, against policy, and that he calls my edits of fake value, also against policy. This person has no clue what he's doing, and I really need to update my article, as I have a life outside edit or dispute wars.
I'm glad to hear that. Come back after a day, but please do not correct any more grammar, as you appear not to understand it.
Theresa
On 11/8/05, Theresa Knott theresaknott@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/8/05, Autymn D. C. lysdexia@sbcglobal.net wrote:
Rdsmith4 is misrepresenting and libelling me, and abusing his joke-of-a-power again by blocking me again after I had insisted and enforced that an article be put in an accurate grammatic mood to fit the context, which was not real but ideal.
[...]
I'm glad to hear that. Come back after a day, but please do not correct any more grammar, as you appear not to understand it.
I rather suspect Lysdexia will disagree with you there. He/she seems to
have some very original ideas about spelling, grammar, and physics. While a lot of his/her edits are fine, the physics-related ones at least stand checking over, and I've noticed a few non-standard spellings in there too ("cinetic").
Anyway, currently the user seems to be blocked indefinitely. This may be too harsh, though I can't say I'm really cut up about it.
--Bob Mellish
On 8 Nov 2005, at 08.21, Theresa Knott wrote:
It looks to me like you were insisting that the phrase "The sun emits power" to "the sun emit power" . etc.You were told by numerous people that this is wrong yet you continued to revert. BTW he is not libelling you. Please don't use legal terms like this.
I told them that they were wrong. And no, this is /not/ wrong. It is that this be wrong. If you cannot tell the difference between truth and tale, you may not even speak about knowing how to speak or write. I checked the meaning of libel on Dictionary.com just now, and see that you are wrong again. He is, openly and flatly. Stop speaking about what you don't or can't grasp.
When everyone disagrees with you, you should at the very least _consider_ the possibility that they are right and you are wrong don't you think? By insisting on your wording even though it plainy reads wrong and sounds silly you are opening up yourself to accusations of trolling.
I consider many possibilities beforehand. They were and are provably wrong. "plainy"? Now, I would make the distinction between the words "plainy" and "plainly", and would not claim that either was not a word or agrammatic if it were in a grammatic context; however, most people, like you, wouldn't have the mind to know how to deal with constructive and expansive semiotics because no one told them about these, even if they could be understood by thinking about the parts as they are seldomly used yet kept together, again by thinking, so that the whole language is not corrupted as is done by the common person.
Anyway, I've already proven my cases in the talk pages.
Every
mistake that they claimed I'd made elsewhere was /their/ mistake of being an ignorant fool.
Personal attacks are not allowed on wikipedia. Please don't call people names.
Calling people what they are is not attacking. Censorship, obscurantism, and prejudice are the greatest ills ever foisted on this world; they spawn all other ills; they make liars and fools with power punish the undeserving without power. Every thing and one must be known for what they are, so they can be made into what they should. Wherever one may be called an asset, wrongly, and not found to be attacked, yet called an ass, rihtly, and found to be attacked, is run by the deluded and unqualified. Truth and ethics have no bias between positive and negative treatment. I use Wikipedia like a Wiki, and I expect it to be a Wiki. Punishing and blocking users like me for editing like they should is not of a Wiki. Ganging up on me, wrongly mocking my edits, and violating a bunch of policies to keep me from writing /is/ a personal attack. Most people prefer customs over the truth and, when confronted with the truth that they're wrong, they will hate the truth and scourge the person who shows them so that they don't have to listen or think about themselves. I did say "person" here, and not "persons".
Wikipedia now is a kangaroo court. Many people have left for that reason. Some users and admins may violate policies--as I've posted on RfC, talk pages, and here, done against me--so that they can enforce some other surface policy that they prefer, because it doesn't involve what /they/ were doing wrong that the latter policy is meant to cover up, for the sake of not "disrupting" Wikipedia. They think that there's any truth to the least-action principle--to hell with principles for themselves.
Lately I've been bringing out my contentions to the Talk pages before editing over the articles,
Did you do that in this case before you reverted and called someone a vandal for correcting your bad grammar?
I had no bad grammar, so this question is meaningless. I still left a note.
http://egroups.com/group/message/free_energy/20090. I was logged in
This should be http://egroups.com/message/free_energy/20090.
then, and found that the block was for a day; but the next time I found that my cookies expired, for Yahoo! and Wikipedia, so I had to log in again. But before I did, I saw what happened when I tried with the numeric IP. The same block screen came up, so I logged in and found that the block was advanced another day!
This is the autoblocker. You need to not edit at all either logged in or not. Then the block will expire.
These are also meaningless. Where does it say that? Now the log says "indefinite"!
I'm glad to hear that. Come back after a day, but please do not correct any more grammar, as you appear not to understand it.
You appear not to understand anything. What you should be glad to hear is only if the users and admins make up for libelling and abusing me, and take off the block so I can fix some pages. How they treat me is sickening.
On 8 Nov 2005, at 09.16, Sean Barrett wrote:
I really need to update my article....
No, you don't. Not only do you not /have/ an article, but you also don't /need/ to update any article.
I didn't say it was about myself, only that it was mine. I /do/ need to update/fix an article because it has outstanding tabulated data that were mistaken from the wrong calculations and premises. It's urgent.
On 8 Nov 2005, at 08.55, Bob Mellish wrote:
I rather suspect Lysdexia will disagree with you there. He/she seems to
have some very original ideas about spelling, grammar, and physics. While a lot of his/her edits are fine, the physics-related ones at least stand checking over, and I've noticed a few non-standard spellings in there too ("cinetic").
I'm assuming you're DrBob. My spelling of cinetic is riht, and it looks like you've changed it. If anyone is thinking about taking actions against me if I see to make it "cinetic", as it should be, I will call up the guideline to not discriminate by the editor's dialect, and to stop changing words to fit another. "cinetic" is written for accuracy.
Anyway, I do have the last new numbers for that table, but you already know that I can't enter them because I've been blindly blocked, indefinitely.
-Aut
On 08/11/05, Autymn D. C. lysdexia@sbcglobal.net wrote:
On 8 Nov 2005, at 09.16, Sean Barrett wrote:
I really need to update my article....
No, you don't. Not only do you not /have/ an article, but you also don't /need/ to update any article.
I didn't say it was about myself, only that it was mine.
Nobody said anything about it being about yourself; what was being alluded to here is that there is no article ownership on Wikipedia, so there is no such thing as "your article", only "an article you have contributed to". That doesn't mean you can't be proud of your work, but it does mean you have no more claim to or rights over a particular article than anyone else.
[...] My spelling of cinetic is riht, and it looks like you've changed it.
The question is, right (or "riht"; was that deliberate?) according to what authority, other than yourself? More generally, can it really be true that 100% (or 99.9999%) of English speakers are using English "wrong"? Or are they simply mistaken in thinking they speak English - in which case the argument becomes one over who gets to choose what the word "English" means, the millions of people who communicate in what they call "English" every day, or the minority of "experts" who call something else "English" instead.
-- Rowan Collins BSc [IMSoP]
On 11/8/05, Autymn D. C. lysdexia@sbcglobal.net wrote:
I consider many possibilities beforehand. They were and are provably wrong.
Then PROVE them wrong. You don't do so - instead, you merely state that you are right and others wrong, and insist that everyone else is too stupid to understand the right anyway.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. You insist that your grammatical usage is correct and everyone else's wrong - not just the Wikipedia editors you are personally dealing with, but the overwhelming majority of users of the English language. That is, to my mind, an extraordinary claim.
Anyway, I've already proven my cases in the talk pages.
I cannot see such a proof, merely, again, an assertion, and insults.
I had no bad grammar, so this question is meaningless. I still left a
note.
Once more, assertion, not proof.
-Matt (User:Morven)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Autymn D.C. stated for the record:
I really need to update my article....
No, you don't. Not only do you not /have/ an article, but you also don't /need/ to update any article.
- -- Sean Barrett sean@epoptic.org
On 08/11/05, Autymn D. C. lysdexia@sbcglobal.net wrote:
Rdsmith4 is misrepresenting and libelling me, and abusing his joke-of-a-power again by blocking me again after I had insisted and enforced that an article be put in an accurate grammatic mood to fit the context, which was not real but ideal.
Wow! A quick glance through some of the disputes involved here reveals a whole level of linguistic conservatism I had not previously encountered. Some of the assertions made ('Temporisation, French Latin for "timesening"', "English infinitives [...] end in -an") suggest a view of the language as not only set in stone, but defined by rigid, complex rules. Thus, "loan words" are simply "foreign" (as also argued re. the plural of "virus"), and usages not conforming to grammatical rules "incorrect", however common and accepted they may be.
Now, I freely admit that I hold a strongly descriptivist view, so it seems to me fairly obvious that language is a dynamic, constantly evolving, construct, and that "correctness", "grammar", etc, are all constructs created *after the fact* to better describe and understand it. And it follows, in my mind, that rules which are *never* (not even rarely) applied are simply erroneous, however logical or historically accurate.
I know that mine is, in its way, an extreme position, and there is some grounds for arguing that a "correct form" must exist at any time, and by definition cannot change arbitrarily; in which case there must be a lag between changes occurring and becoming "acceptable" and "correct". But even so, it is self-evident that language *does* change, and that English *has* changed, so that the "rules" do have to be updated *sometimes*.
In my opinion, the language this user seems to be advocating is a kind of grammatically-defined "pure" Anglo-Saxon, which is not what most of us would recognise as "contemporary English" (i.e. "early 21st-century Modern English") at all. So, given that the edits were on the "English Wikipedia", I'd say they were, at best, misplaced.
I know this is all fairly tangential to anything, but it just intrigued me to think about it a little...
-- Rowan Collins BSc [IMSoP]
On 8 Nov 2005, at 11.59, Rowan Collins wrote:
Wow! A quick glance through some of the disputes involved here reveals a whole level of linguistic conservatism I had not previously
It's literalism and discretism, not conservatism.
encountered. Some of the assertions made ('Temporisation, French Latin for "timesening"', "English infinitives [...] end in -an") suggest a view of the language as not only set in stone, but defined by rigid, complex rules. Thus, "loan words" are simply "foreign" (as also argued re. the plural of "virus"), and usages not conforming to grammatical rules "incorrect", however common and accepted they may be.
I've been writing up a Rosetta stone between Latin, Greek (It pains me to write that--it's either Graic or Hellenic in elided Latin, or graEc or hAllAnEc in elided English.), and English combining forms for people (everyone) who are ignorant that English can be used as a scientific or logic language.
Now, I freely admit that I hold a strongly descriptivist view, so it seems to me fairly obvious that language is a dynamic, constantly evolving, construct, and that "correctness", "grammar", etc, are all constructs created *after the fact* to better describe and understand it. And it follows, in my mind, that rules which are *never* (not even rarely) applied are simply erroneous, however logical or historically accurate.
Since "erroneous" means nothing more than "straysome" or "strayish", you are trivially riht. Original languages do not overwrite themselves: They are /forgotten/. They are not changed because speakers are making conscious choices that their words are better, but because they are too lazy or ignorant to learn or use the older words which are more diverse, full, and accurate than theirs. So they wrongfully claim that "English is easy." or "There's no perfect translation in English." or "There's no such word, particle, part of speech, mood, case, conjugation, declension, expression, slang, or whatever in English." Then they, foreigners muchly, belittle English because of /their/ ignorance of its threads.
I know that mine is, in its way, an extreme position, and there is some grounds for arguing that a "correct form" must exist at any time, and by definition cannot change arbitrarily; in which case there must be a lag between changes occurring and becoming "acceptable" and "correct". But even so, it is self-evident that language *does* change, and that English *has* changed, so that the "rules" do have to be updated *sometimes*.
The rules should if the changes should, not if the changes do. And only if there is something /wrong/ with the earlier rules. Otherwise, the language should grow like any person or nation would and not, like a cancer, grow everywhich way so that it eats and poops itself and eats that.
In my opinion, the language this user seems to be advocating is a kind of grammatically-defined "pure" Anglo-Saxon, which is not what most of us would recognise as "contemporary English" (i.e. "early 21st-century Modern English") at all. So, given that the edits were on the "English Wikipedia", I'd say they were, at best, misplaced.
Anglo-Saxon? No, it's English. What people speak today is a mutt of English, Latin-French-English, and Greek-Latin-English. And I'd write "pure" as "sheer". A lone language has only one word for the same meaning. Other words with the same meaning are from other languages, by space or time. But none of writing this is making me feel better for being wrongfully kicked off Wikipedia by a liar for doing what I hold is riht.
Nobody said anything about it being about yourself; what was being alluded to here is that there is no article ownership on Wikipedia, so there is no such thing as "your article", only "an article you have contributed to". That doesn't mean you can't be proud of your work, but it does mean you have no more claim to or rights over a particular article than anyone else.
I didn't say that it /wasn't/ others' article. I said it was my article. Logic goes over most people's head.
The question is, right (or "riht"; was that deliberate?) according to what authority, other than yourself? More generally, can it really be true that 100% (or 99.9999%) of English speakers are using English "wrong"? Or are they simply mistaken in thinking they speak English - in which case the argument becomes one over who gets to choose what the word "English" means, the millions of people who communicate in what they call "English" every day, or the minority of "experts" who call something else "English" instead.
Were we talking about English? I was using a Greek word.
On 9 Nov 2005, at 11.20, Matt Brown wrote: On 11/8/05, Autymn D. C. lysdexia@sbcglobal.net wrote:
I consider many possibilities beforehand. They were and are provably wrong.
Then PROVE them wrong. You don't do so - instead, you merely state that you are right and others wrong, and insist that everyone else is too stupid to understand the right anyway.
I proved them wrong, with explanations, in the user and article talk pages. They can look up the references I told.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. You insist that your grammatical usage is correct and everyone else's wrong - not just the Wikipedia editors you are personally dealing with, but the overwhelming majority of users of the English language. That is, to my mind, an extraordinary claim.
What in specific haven't I proven?
-Aut 1^2 = -1^2 (1^2)^.5 =^.5 (-1^2)^.5 ±1 :: ±-1 ±1 = ±1; ±-1 = ±-1
Autymn D.C. wrote: <snip screed about english being polluted>
What in specific haven't I proven?
-Aut 1^2 = -1^2 (1^2)^.5 =^.5 (-1^2)^.5 ±1 :: ±-1 ±1 = ±1; ±-1 = ±-1
Since you've just tried to prove that +1 = -1, I think we can safely assume that your banning was in good order. If you want to write in some language that isn't english, go do it somewhere other than the English Wikipedia.
On 10/11/05, Autymn D. C. lysdexia@sbcglobal.net wrote:
On 8 Nov 2005, at 11.59, Rowan Collins wrote:
Since "erroneous" means nothing more than "straysome" or "strayish", you are trivially riht. Original languages do not overwrite themselves: They are /forgotten/. They are not changed because speakers are making conscious choices that their words are better, but because they are too lazy or ignorant to learn or use the older words which are more diverse, full, and accurate than theirs.
So do you see language change as a constant decline away from some historical perfection? I admit that there are changes which leave languages "poorer", but there are plenty which - however accidental - make them far more powerful and useful at their purpose of communication and expression. And I am very firmly of the conviction that there is not some historical point at which language in general, or any "separate" language in particular, attained some state of "completeness" deserving of preservation.
The rules should if the changes should, not if the changes do. And only if there is something /wrong/ with the earlier rules. Otherwise, the language should grow like any person or nation would and not, like a cancer, grow everywhich way so that it eats and poops itself and eats that.
I would argue that the above is, in a subtle way, contradictory: people, nations (and, the underlying metaphor, plants) do not grow "only if there is something wrong". They grow dynamically, complexly, by trial and error, and with natural checks and balances. Essentially, the process is one of evolution, as currently understood by mainstream science: random changes occur, and may or may not die out; those which are harmful are *more likely* to die out, and those which are beneficial *more likely* to spread, but it all comes down to chance, not certainty. What's more, there's no outside definition of "better" or "beneficial" which governs these chances, because that depends on the circumstances. Still, *in general*, life evolves to be better at passing on its genes, and language evolves to be better at allowing communication.
Anglo-Saxon? No, it's English. What people speak today is a mutt of English, Latin-French-English, and Greek-Latin-English. And I'd write "pure" as "sheer".
So, like I say, the argument comes down to different definitions of "English": what I call "English", you would call "Greek-Latin-French-English" or somesuch; what you call "English", I would call something like "artificial Anglo-Saxon". However, when the average person who considers themselves an "English speaker" says "English", their meaning will be a lot closer to mine than to yours. And, crucially, when en.wikipedia.org calls itself "the English Wikipedia", it is using "English" in this popular sense, which is why your edits are being rejected as inappropriate.
A lone language has only one word for the same meaning.
Well, I've never heard of a "lone language" before, but I can't imagine this claim has ever been true for any natural language.
But none of writing this is making me feel better for being wrongfully kicked off Wikipedia by a liar for doing what I hold is riht.
Just because you hold it to be "riht" doesn't mean that it is in the interests of the Wikipedia project, or that other contributors to that project are somehow compelled to agree with you. Your input is welcome, but only if you are willing to co-operate, compromise, and welcome the input of others.
I didn't say that it /wasn't/ others' article. I said it was my article. Logic goes over most people's head.
Well, "my" certainly implies some sort of ownership or possession; I suppose you could argue that there is a sense in which all Wikipedia articles "belong to" everybody, but that would seem to render the "my" logically true, but somewhat redundant. The problem is not that logic goes over our heads, but that it is not logic we use to communicate in every day situations, it is expressive, sometimes ambiguous, language.
Were we talking about English? I was using a Greek word.
Yes, we were talking about content on the English Wikipedia, which is (except when specifically discussing foreign languages) in English. Specifically, the English word "kinetic", which is based on a Greek word only ever spelled in a different alphabet, is *not* generally spelled "cinetic". Once again, I'm using "English" to mean the language spoken by millions of people the world over, which is inherently *not* logical, and does *not* conform to historical or logic rules. You can argue that it *should* (though I would disagree), and demonstrate how it might look if it did, but the English Wikipedia is not the place to do so; maybe you should join the community around artificial languages like "Lojban"?
-- Rowan Collins BSc [IMSoP]
On 14 Nov 2005, at 05.00, Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:
By your own admission: YHBT. YHL. HAND.
Informing people is not losing. If the law worked here as it did on Wp, then some admin could've banned you indefinitely for trolling. I still want back on. Why is no one doing anything for me?
On 12 Nov 2005, at 08.35, Rowan Collins wrote:
So do you see language change as a constant decline away from some historical perfection? I admit that there are changes which leave languages "poorer", but there are plenty which - however accidental - make them far more powerful and useful at their purpose of communication and expression. And I am very firmly of the conviction that there is not some historical point at which language in general, or any "separate" language in particular, attained some state of "completeness" deserving of preservation.
If the changes don't rob the language, then it isn't made less perfect. I should know: I wrote most of [[Elision]] before some linguists took out the goods. I've been dealing with lowly authorities all of my life; this is why I'm against them having any power not backed up by their mind.
What would you know?
The rules should if the changes should, not if the changes do. And only if there is something /wrong/ with the earlier rules. Otherwise, the language should grow like any person or nation would and not, like a cancer, grow everywhich way so that it eats and poops itself and eats that.
I would argue that the above is, in a subtle way, contradictory: people, nations (and, the underlying metaphor, plants) do not grow "only if there is something wrong". They grow dynamically, complexly,
Your understanding is contradictory because you cannot read. I did not say that; I even said the opposite.
by trial and error, and with natural checks and balances. Essentially, the process is one of evolution, as currently understood by mainstream science: random changes occur, and may or may not die out; those which are harmful are *more likely* to die out, and those which are beneficial *more likely* to spread, but it all comes down to chance, not certainty. What's more, there's no outside definition of "better" or "beneficial" which governs these chances, because that depends on the circumstances. Still, *in general*, life evolves to be better at passing on its genes, and language evolves to be better at allowing communication.
Harm and health in the growth of choice go on ease--convenience--and don't directly care about consistency or accuracy or precision. "Better" is objective: quality (howness, suchhood) and quantity (whitness, muchhood).
Anglo-Saxon? No, it's English. What people speak today is a mutt of English, Latin-French-English, and Greek-Latin-English. And I'd write "pure" as "sheer".
So, like I say, the argument comes down to different definitions of "English": what I call "English", you would call "Greek-Latin-French-English" or somesuch; what you call "English", I would call something like "artificial Anglo-Saxon". However, when the average person who considers themselves an "English speaker" says "English", their meaning will be a lot closer to mine than to yours. And, crucially, when en.wikipedia.org calls itself "the English Wikipedia", it is using "English" in this popular sense, which is why your edits are being rejected as inappropriate.
What do /you/ know about English anyway? Anglo-Saxon looks and sounds nothing like English. Those edits were truer to English than anything else, and weren't as controversial as "riht" is. If we were talking about popular (vulgar) English, then maybe I should change all instances of "its" in Wikipedia to "it's"?, seeing that most people are illiterate? They're innumerate too, as they think that someone is a "they" rather than a "one". They're ineducate too, as they think that the sky is blue, when the sea is blue, and it's nearer to cuan (cyan). They're incorrigate too, as whenever I correct them they often get hostile and defend their stupidity; many discussion group owners have banned me for correcting people's spelling /offlist/. Such people must be taken down.
A lone language has only one word for the same meaning.
Well, I've never heard of a "lone language" before, but I can't imagine this claim has ever been true for any natural language.
as opposed to many languages. Can you prove that? Different words in the same language have different meanings.
But none of writing this is making me feel better for being wrongfully kicked off Wikipedia by a liar for doing what I hold is riht.
Just because you hold it to be "riht" doesn't mean that it is in the interests of the Wikipedia project, or that other contributors to that project are somehow compelled to agree with you. Your input is welcome, but only if you are willing to co-operate, compromise, and welcome the input of others.
They are not willing to do it for me, immediately dismissing my reasons and ignoring my explanations, thinking that they know better. They give wrong reasons that I had already dealt with. They ban me because I am and do controversial and dispopular.
I didn't say that it /wasn't/ others' article. I said it was my article. Logic goes over most people's head.
Well, "my" certainly implies some sort of ownership or possession; I suppose you could argue that there is a sense in which all Wikipedia articles "belong to" everybody, but that would seem to render the "my" logically true, but somewhat redundant. The problem is not that logic goes over our heads, but that it is not logic we use to communicate in every day situations, it is expressive, sometimes ambiguous, language.
It implies relation too--as in "my kind" or "my child". Shutting down my use of "my" when I was talking about an article I wrote is lame and mindless.
Were we talking about English? I was using a Greek word.
Yes, we were talking about content on the English Wikipedia, which is (except when specifically discussing foreign languages) in English. Specifically, the English word "kinetic", which is based on a Greek word only ever spelled in a different alphabet, is *not* generally spelled "cinetic". Once again, I'm using "English" to mean the language spoken by millions of people the world over, which is inherently *not* logical, and does *not* conform to historical or logic rules. You can argue that it *should* (though I would disagree), and demonstrate how it might look if it did, but the English Wikipedia is not the place to do so; maybe you should join the community around artificial languages like "Lojban"?
You disagree why? Corrupting languages is harmful to readers. The illiterate have criticized my use of "lige" and "lyging" instead of "lie" and "lying". Yet, if I used the latter, the meaning is ambiguous and could not be drawn from the context in most cases. Many speakers complain about the inconsistent spelling and pronunciation in English because of such corruption; much of it's not even English. I defy you to find a source that says that "kinetic" is an English word, rather than a word that's used with English. What, are you afraid that if I write "cinetic", that a bunch of other people will also? That's a Good Thing. They already write cinema, cinematic, and cinematics.
-Aut
Autymn D.C. wrote:
On 14 Nov 2005, at 05.00, Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:
By your own admission: YHBT. YHL. HAND.
Informing people is not losing. If the law worked here as it did on Wp, then some admin could've banned you indefinitely for trolling. I still want back on. Why is no one doing anything for me?
There are plenty of admins that *could have* unblocked you. The fact that none of them have says something about your behaviour and suggests that the block was warranted.