User talk:Umofomia/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

This is archive consists of older conversations I've had with other users (including those that appear on their talk pages) from February 2005 to March 2005. Entries are ordered by the date of the last comment.

Contents

[edit] Cangjie

Originally posted on User talk:Stevertigo:

I've been hoping to make some improvements upon the Cangjie article that you created but it's protected for some reason. Since you're the only one who has touched it, I assume you might have something to do with it. Why is it protected and what is the procedure for getting it unprotected? The page really needs to be fixed up since it's mostly an incomprehensible machine translation. Please reply in the Talk:Cangjie page. Thanks! -- Umofomia 00:36, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome to the Wikipedia

Welcome, newcomer!

Here are some useful tips to ease you into the Wikipedia experience:


Also, here are some odds and ends that I find useful from time to time:

Feel free to ask me anything the links and talk pages don't answer. You can most easily reach me by posting on my talk page.

You can sign your name on any page by typing 4 tildes, likes this: ~~~~.

Best of luck, and have fun!

ClockworkSoul 04:14, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] rime and final

Originally posted on User talk:Chamaeleon:

Hi Chamaeleon... sorry I had to revert many of your edits that changed rime to final. Rime is the correct term that is used in general linguistic terminology. Final is typically used only when describing Chinese. I've reverted those changes that affected general linguistic articles but kept final in the Chinese articles where they made sense. -- Umofomia 23:53, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Originally posted on User talk:Felix Wan:

It was good working with you in getting the issues with syllable rime ironed out. BTW, I notice you frequent Adam's Cantonese forums as well. You can find me there as Claw. -- Umofomia 05:27, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Talk to Umofomia

Thanks for working on this bit with me. I highly regard anyone willing to step in and make necessary changes, rather than merely sit on the talk page and grouse. It's a big world, I don't think I know everything, and I respect your contributions. Xiong 18:55, 2005 Mar 10 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Originally posted on User talk:CesarB:

Thanks for removing that disgusting piece of vandalism from my talk page. --Umofomia 01:05, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pinyin

Thanks for making me aware of Wikipedia:Manual of Style (China-related articles). Re [1]: Is there a difference between wényán and wényán? Am I really only the third person who talked to you even though you have been so prolific? Sebastian 01:41, 2005 Mar 19 (UTC)

There's no real difference between wényán and wényán, I'm just a stickler for consistency. :) It's also slightly easier to read too. And yes, you really are the third person to talk to me (not counting that other guy who vandalized my page yesterday)... the reason is probably because I'm relatively new here, and only started contributing last month. I edited one article and then I was hooked. :) --Umofomia 07:41, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
BTW, I like the new tables you've added to the Vernacular Chinese and Classical Chinese pages. Are you going to start placing them in other Chinese related articles? Perhaps you should bring up their usage in Wikipedia_talk:Manual of Style (China-related_articles) and get everyone else to start doing it. It seems so much cleaner than having the characters and romanization in parentheses. --Umofomia 08:01, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Thank you for your encouragement! I'll do that! Sebastian 19:55, 2005 Mar 19 (UTC)

[edit] Verb serializing

Hi, thanks for expanding Serial verb construction — the Chinese example is nice! I've always been wondering if it wouldn't be better to call the article Verb serializing or just plain Serial verb. What do you think? Regards, — mark ✎ 10:01, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

No problem. I bumped into the article when I decided to link Serial verb construction in the Chinese grammar and Coverb articles. I didn't even know someone had created it already. It's good to see Wikipedia at work. :)
Anyway, I think the article title is better left as Serial verb construction since that is the standard linguistic terminology. Doing a quick Google check, "serial verb construction" returns 662 results while "verb serializing" only returns 13. "verb serialization" does come close at 532 results though. Also, the top results of a "serial verb" search all use it within the context of serial verb construction. A better solution would probably be to make redirects from those terms to serial verb construction. --Umofomia 10:19, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Hey I very much like your way of linking to your reply and to my question (though my own practice is to keep the conversation in one place). Haven't seen it before; might consider trying it myself.
Anyway, thanks for your quick answer. Your suggestion of 'Verb serialization' is better, I think — to my ears, it sounds more general. Shall I move it?
PS I like your contributions in the area of linguistics. It's good to have more linguists around, especially because much of our linguistic articles need serious work... — mark ✎ 10:40, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I think it's better to leave the article as Serial verb construction rather than moving it to Verb serialization. All the references I've seen on it refer to it as serial verb construction, though I don't know if you have encountered differently. We can instead make verb serialization a redirect to serial verb construction.
BTW, thanks for the link to the linguistic articles in need of work. I might make some contributions to them when I get the chance. --Umofomia 10:57, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Agree; and in any case, different terms are precisely what redirects are for. So I made some redirects. Incidentally, in African linguistics, 'serial verb construction' is also the most common term (which is why I created it under that title). Thanks for your thoughts! — mark ✎ 11:09, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Transport in Hong Kong

Originally posted on User talk:Instantnood:

Hi Instantnood,

Thanks first for inviting me to paricipate in various HK related editing works.

I have currently noticed that you have renamed (or redirected?) the Category:Transportation in Hong Kong into Category:Transport in Hong Kong. However, for nearly all of the similar categories, they have adopted the use of transportation rather than transport (See: Category:Transportation by country).

Any opinion? - Spring Dennis 05:20, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

I was wondering the same thing... "Transport in Hong Kong" sounds slightly awkward. --Umofomia 05:28, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I guess to a certain extent British spellings are still prevalent in Hong Kong. If you take a quick glance at category:Transportation by country you can tell most countries using Commonwealth English have their categories titled "Transport in" rather than "Transportation in". The manual of style and manual of style (spelling) do not govern which spelling should be preferred, but they do according to where the content is about.
The reason why most countries are titled "Transportation in" was because nearly all of these categories were created by a bot. The article "Transport in Hong Kong" is already titled in that way, and I guess the same should be done to its corresponding category. — Instantnood 08:07, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Your vote is needed!

Hello Umofomia. Despite the ongoing discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese) over the use of the terms "mainland China" and "People's Republic of China", SchmuckyTheCat and Huaiwei have listed category:Cities in mainland China, category:Companies of mainland China and category:Laws of mainland China onto Wikipedia:Categories for deletion.

Your vote is now essential and vital for the survival of these categories, and to avoid attempts to bar the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese) from truly enforced. — Instantnood 20:42, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

Update: there's also a poll at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese). — Instantnood 01:03, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)

Hey Instantnood... I've been away for the past several days so I haven't had a chance to catch up on everything. I'll try to post something if I get the chance. Hopefully I'm not too late put provide some input. --Umofomia 09:14, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
:-D — Instantnood 13:51, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
Referring to this edit correcting the misspelling of his name:
That's not my real name anyways. :-) Don't forget to cast your vote at WP:CFD by the way, and please join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese). — Instantnood 16:20, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitration

Hello Umofomia. I've got listed onto requests for arbitration by SchmuckyTheCat. Could you have a look? Thanks. — Instantnood 04:30, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Please don't start a Revert War!

After our nice talk (above and on my talk page) I studied Manual of Style (China-related articles) and found it impenetrable for anybody who hasn't participated in the discussions before. As usual, when I find a page incomprehensible, I fixed the problem, which took me about an hour. You reverted it with the remark:

don't do that... this is a talk page, and topics are presented chronological order with the latest topics at the end, otherwise you will have confusion as to where the latest posts are

I am very disappointed, because you and I just proved that we can solve discrepancies with reasonable, respectful discussion. I find your reversion and the remark out of place for the following reasons:

  1. The main objective of a talk page should not be to inform about where the latest posts are, but to inform about:
    • Which decisions were made and
    • Why were they made;
    • Whic issues remain.
  2. The page was not in chronological order to begin with. It contained lots of text that was inserted into people's comments.
  3. Unchronological text is not a problem. It is in fact common standard that talk pages contain inserted text.
  4. As you probably know, there are already several ways in place to find out the sequence of contributions: History and dated signatures.

If you feel it is important to preserve the old structure for historical reasons then the sensible thing to do would have been to archive it. Revert wars are for vandals! Please therefore return the page to my last revision. Sebastian 01:23, 2005 Mar 20 (UTC)

Hi... please don't take that last revert as an offense, as that was surely not my intent. I performed the revert because I felt it was justified and stated the reason I did so. Reverting is not just for vandals and I don't think anyone should be afraid of performing a revert if they feel it is sufficiently justified by Wikipedia standards. One revert does not make a revert war and am glad you approached me about it rather than reverting it back yourself.
Anyway, I was under the impression that Wikipedia talk pages should proceed vertically, as that is one of the guidelines listed on Wikipedia:Talk page. However, after re-reading that page again, I now see that it does give reasons under which talk page refactoring can occur and I now agree with you and will revert my revert. I do hope you understand my true intent when I did that first revert because I find it difficult to follow conversations when new posts are buried in the middle of talk pages. However, since many of those conversations are now dead, it's probably safe to do the refactoring now.
No hard feelings? --Umofomia 01:47, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Originally posted on User talk:SebastianHelm:
Thanks for your nice reply! It's one of the beauties of wiki wiki webs that no harm is permanent. I agree that no one should be afraid to perform well-intended edits, but I think this goes both ways. If someone tried to fix one problem by introducing another, I talk to them first, and suddenly both problems become our common enemy. Anyway – absolutely no hard feelings remaining! I'm looking forward to more collaboration with you in the future! Sebastian 02:50, 2005 Mar 20 (UTC)
Originally posted on User talk:Umofomia:
Thanks for your nice reply! No hard feelings remaining! I replied directly under your reply, but I only now realized that you may not have been watching it. Please take a look at my reply. How about if we consolidate the thread on your or my talk page? — Sebastian 21:50, 2005 Mar 26 (UTC)
[Regarding the note you left on my talk page]: Yep, I saw your reply. I've been away for the past several days so I haven't had the chance to reply to everyone. If you want, feel free to consolidate the thread on your own talk page, though I like to keep the version on my talk page the way it is currently. --Umofomia 07:23, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../u/m/o/User_talk%7EUmofomia_Archive_1_c146.html"