User talk:83.190.41.53

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Latin declension

Please stop blanking content on this page, as it is considered vandalism and has been reverted. If you feel there is a legitimate reason for it, please discuss on the article's talk page. Tbone762 14:02, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


I am removing something that does not exist in the latin language

Res deleo quas omnino sibi incognitas lingua latina nequaquam amplectitur. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.190.41.53 (talk • contribs) 14:10, 20 May 2007).

In which case, please discuss it on the article's talk page and wait for a consensus before removing other editors' hard work. Tbone762 14:12, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Socordia non est ceu labor ducenda. Quocirco hanc pergam rem. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.190.41.53 (talk • contribs) 14:15, 20 May 2007.

I have decided to step back from editing this page for a while. However, this is pending a resolution on the inclusion of the 'locative', otherwise the page will be reverted. Also, please do not post talk page comments solely in Latin. This is not helpful to Wikipedia, since it excludes those who do not speak Latin, and a wiki is an inclusive exercise, not an exclusive one. Please post in English, since this is the English language Wikipedia. Tbone762 14:42, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

If you cannot understand basic Latin, than you have no right editing an article on Latin declensions. This should be obvious but in wikiality-land the obvious often becomes obscure. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.190.41.53 (talk • contribs) 16:39, 20 May 2007.

In fact that is a misconception. Please read the page on ownership of articles. In short, there is no such thing as a more qualified Wikipedia editor, and everyone has the right to edit any article. I saw an IP account blanking information that appeared to have been written in good faith, and found no consensus on the talk page for it to be removed. If you truly believe it should be removed, please participate in a non-excluding way in the discussion on the article's talk page. However, without that consensus, or at the very least, a discussion, in English, your actions constitute vandalism. Tbone762 17:50, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

The truth is this: If you do not have satisfactory knowledge of the latin language, by adding to the article you be undermining the veracity of the article. And yes saying that all latin nouns have a locative case is the kind of thing that makes wikipedia look like a grand exercise of idiocy. But luckily for you, and unluckily for all those who have taken this article at face value, the language articles are not subjected to the same level of public scrutiny as are the scientific articles. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.190.41.53 (talk • contribs) 18:49, 20 May 2007.

I see you feel very strongly about this issue, and that you have a greater knowledge of Latin than I, but your actions have made it clear that you would make a more efficient editor if you familiarise yourself with Wikipedia policy, and particularly the Five Pillars of Wikipedia. I do not feel your comments against Wikipedia are helpful here. After all, it is only when people refuse to find a consensus for contentious issues that Wikipedia becomes truly inaccurate. The beauty of the project is when editors discuss contentious issues, and together find solutions and sources. When a compromise is best, this will be reached. When one side is clearly right, and one clearly wrong, then it is from discussion that proof is found. Please, continue discussion on the article's talk page, find references, and prove your point of view. Otherwise, you have simply erased apparently valid information. If it is not valid, finding references will prove beyond doubt that it is not. Tbone762 21:58, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Let me put it like this: This locative thing is the latin equicalent of saying that the plural of "moose" is "mooses" or the plural of "child" is "childs". Do you realy want that kind of stuuf in your Encyclopedia if you do, then wikipedia has justly earned its reputation. And actually, part of me would prefer to see wikipedia make a fool out of itself (again).

"When one side is clearly right, and one clearly wrong, then it is from discussion that proof is found." Your doctrine has failed in this case as, due probably to the general ignorance of the Latin language that triumphs here, this OBVIOUS (to anyone who knows Latin at least) error has not been weeded out through the discussion for some months now. We have one fellow who insists that the falsehoods be maintained for sake of consistency. Well sometimes languages aren't consistent. Example, English is said to have a plural but that does not imply that all nouns have a plural. English is said to have a passive voice but does that imply that all verbs have such a voice (eg. 'shall' 'may')?