User talk:Antifinnugor

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hi, and thank you for registering. I had to revert Finno-Ugric languages to the previous version since your version did not mention any academic sources. Furthermore, I must say I have some trouble with the way you are participating in the ongoing discussion on the Talk page. Please adress the serious doubts that are raised, instead of repeating the same questions. — mark ✎ 20:55, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think, your reverting is absolutely not correct. My serious doubts in the existence of the group are compressed in those two simple questions. Our brain is there, that we use it. I repeat the simple questions, because they are the absolutely key thing for the existence or non-existence of this artificial mini-group. Please think about this. As soon as anybody can satisfactory answer them I will stop asking them. So simple is that. Does it irritate you so much, that the emperor is naked, that you call other "trolls" for not thinking the false way? Thanks, Antifinnugor 20:12, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Dear Antifinnugor, your questions have to come in the second place. First you have to understand and appreciate how Wikipedia works. To produce articles of encyclopedic quality, contributors have to provide reliable sources. To be honest, the matter does not irritate me. I am not a Finno-Ugricist. I'm am just a linguist and a Wikipedian concerned with the quality of Wikipedia.
Well, assuming, somebody writes, the earth is a round tray, and an other person proves it is not, you then revert to the plan tray article? That's what you are doing here. Antifinnugor 18:57, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

On a sidenote, I do not think your assertions are correct: your simple questions are not 'the absolutely key thing' for the existence or non-existence or this grouping.

Dear Mark, you simply negate what I state, without any argumentation. This is really senseless. Those two questions show the unjustifiedness of this artificial group. No common features, no common vocabulary, and the single common feature, agglutination characterizes a lot of other languages. This is absolutely a key thing. Antifinnugor 18:57, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

But it is better to continue that discussion on Talk:Finno-Ugric languages. — mark ✎ 10:14, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Dear Mark, you revert cold blooded my additions, even thought you cannot prove, that they are not correct. That is an incorrect behaviur. Antifinnugor 18:57, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)


Dear Antifinnugor, affirmanti incumbit probatio — in other words, do NOT shift the burden of proof to someone else.

dear Mark, I do not shift anything. I just want to illustrate, that ANYBODY, who uses his head to think, will very soon see, that these mini, unatural groups are non existing. It is that simple. ~~

It is ridiculous to expect me or any other Wikipedian to prove that your unsubstantiated additions to Wikipedia articles are not correct.

They are not unsubstantiated. If they were, you could answer the 2 simple questions. ~~

As repeatedly stated, you should back up your claims by reliable, academic sources.

I named one source, Dr. Maracz article, and another,professor Angela Marcantonio's one. I also cite it long. Did you read them and understand them? Antifinnugor 22:53, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You refuse to do that, resulting in others 'cold bloodedly reverting your additions'. You might call it incorrect behavior; but in fact, it is simply how Wikipedia works. You should look out for another place to ventilate your personal opinion if you do not like it that way. No hard feelings. This is not a personal matter. I just happen to like the quality of Wikipedia. — mark ✎ 21:48, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Dear Mark, please see above. Thanks, Antifinnugor

Contents

[edit] No personal attacks

Hi Antifinnugor. I first reverted your last changes to the Talk:Uralic languages page since they were personal attacks and as such completely irrelevant to the discussion. Then I changed my mind and un-reverted, since I think it was not correct to delete your statements which were directed to Nyenyec. I am sorry for the possible confusion.

well, if you did not write, I have never noticed it. Do you understand, why Nyenyec requires a linguist for Hungarian grammar, when he states on his page, he is a Hungarian? Endings are teached in the 6-th class. If we stop thinking, forget what we learned, and simply reduce us to waiting for opinions of others, this leads to a very low level. Antifinnugor 17:40, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
And to use your incorrect grammar again, I am about to make sure that you are teached a lesson. Don't mess with the Hungarians. --PistolPower 00:29, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Regardless, I must urge you to stop from making personal attacks. Please refer to the Wikipedia:Policies_and_guidelines and in particular to Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Wikipedia is a better place if we try to cooperate in peace, whatever differences there are between our views.

Who attacks whom? I just ask him, to use his Hungarian grammar. I do not think, he treats this as an attack, and if he does, there is something very problematic with him. Would you? If yes, why? Anyway, your incorrect behaviour by reverting my correct remarks on the finnougric page is really wrong behaviour. I hope, you read the policies and guidelines. Antifinnugor 17:40, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Kind regards — mark ✎ 17:17, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

What do you think about the blank hatred in Pasquale's articles on the finnugor page? No arguments any kind, especially nothing about linguistic, just reverting (or he tries it all the time) and hate remarks. Antifinnugor 17:40, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Marcantonio

I urge you to look again, and this time very closely, at the version of Finno-Ugric languages you just reverted. You can find it in the history of that page, or for your convenience, here is a link: Finno-Ugric languages, version before revert.

Now look at the Bibliography section. What does it read? Marcantonio, three times, and one of them has a link to an 'online version'. Yes, that's right. I added them for you. And I updated the 'External links' section to reflect that. In other words, I moved the reference to the Marcantonio (2001) article up a section since is was no longer only an 'external link'. In other words, I not only provided you with sources but I also spent time thinking how to present them in the best way.

Now, your distrust and your bad faith disappoint me very, very much. Good bye. — mark ✎ 18:30, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

PS. Don't forget to read something about Wikilove. And maybe taste some. And maybe spread some.

Now professor Marcantonio is really on both pages. Since you reverted me so many times, and treat my person instead of the subject, which I find disguisting, also your permanent teachings about wikipedia and other general things don't please me at all, please do not wonder, and do not be disappointed, that I do not trust you. You cannot expect better treatment from others, than as you treat others. I also find it strange and unacceptable, that you refuse to think yourself about two such simple questions.
However, in this case, thank you for your work.
Some explanations. Probably we are (or we were) not on the same knowledge level in this subject. I think and research about these strange language groups for years, and probably you see this all for the first time. Dr Marácz-s article also assumes, that the reader knows other linguists works, like professor Marcantonio's one and others. For you all this is new, and you needed the level of Marcantonio, while for me Marácz level is perfectly enough, since I have the background for that. I hope, I could explain you a little bit the way I am thinking. I now understand you a bit better. Not your revertings and personal art, but your way of thinking. Thanks, Antifinnugor 19:12, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
You must start to try to convince other Wikipedians, and realize that unless you have success in that task you will — unfortunately — not acheive anything of lasting value here. /Tuomas 20:10, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
That's why I am asking simple questions. People will think about them- hopefully. And nothing convinces more than things you found yourself. Antifinnugor 18:52, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)


[edit] Swadesh

You are right, I am sorry. Your list is appropriate on the Talk page. It does make sense, that such-and-such a percentage of the 200 Swadesh words in Finnish and Hungarian are not cognages. It is also true that the relationship between the two languages is rather remote, and you can point this out, no problem. I also encourage you to create a "criticisms" section where you can list povs of researchers who dispute the theory. It will not do to say that the theory is "nonsense", though, because the majority of experts thinks it is at least probable. dab 16:45, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

There are no 200 similar words. That is a main point in the critic. There are maximum 10, that are slightly similar. That is the achilles angle of the theory. I do not doubt the similarity of Hu-Fi languages grammatically, but I doubt the existence of this artificial group, since it is nonsense, no matter, how many "experts" think, it is right. It is wrong.
I once created a critic page, but it was (full hate, like pasquale) voted to be deleted. Now mustafa and pasquale delete all critic. How to achieve normal way of working? Antifinnugor 09:04, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I will support the creation of an article, or a section, on criticisms of the FU-hypothesis. However, let me say that I am not surprised that your effort met with little success, because your approach is very unscientific. You say you know the theory is nonsense, and discredit the serious linguists (yes, experts) who support it, evidently on political, not linguistic grounds. If you want your criticism to be heard, I suggest you study the critical references Markus has collected for you, and try to summarize those (just their arguments, without interjections of "alien nonsense" or similar). dab 10:56, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Replacing ín with ér in list of cognates

Hi Antifinnugor,

Why do you keep replacing ín with ér in the list of cognates at Finno-Ugric languages? Although ín doesn't mean vein, as you've pointed out, it's still cognate to the other words on that line, whereas ér is not. Do you understand what cognate means? --Dbenbenn 20:59, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hi,
Probably you have heard the anecdotes showing that translating a text twice or more time can change the meaning of the whole.
What happens here? The english word vein means ér in Hungarian. There is also a word véna for that. This is the tube, where blood flows. ín means sinew/tendon, that is the intermuscular connecting organ. Wikipedia is going to be erroneous with wrong words, don't you think?
The other cheat word is father, it is clearly apa in Hungarian, ős means ancestor, which could be also listed, but as a different word. The level of the word list is goung more and more lower, if we put in wrong or incorrect words on the wrong or incorrect place. What do you think? Antifinnugor 09:33, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I'll ask again, do you understand what cognate means? Please go read that article. ín is cognate to Finnish suoni, and ér is not. The fact that ín doesn't mean the same thing as suoni is irrelevant. Do you understand what I mean? The same goes for ős, which is cognate to Finnish isä, while apa is not. --Dbenbenn 18:12, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Cognate means relative. Ín has nothing to do with the english word vein. Ős has little to do with father. Therefore the table is wrong. Do you understand? Antifinnugor 18:37, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Right, two words are cognate if they derive from the same original word. Did you see the examples at cognate about how two cognates don't necessarily have the same meaning?
I read the article cognate, you mean probably starve (English) and sterben (German). They are tightly related words, while ín has absolutely nothing to do with vein. Besides that suoni and ín do not sound too similar, either.
Anyway, the claim made at Finno-Ugric languages is that the Hungarian word "ín" derives historically from a word that meant (approximately) "vein", but that its meaning changed since then. If you want to claim that ín and suoni aren't cognate, you'll have to cite a reliable source.
In this case he, who says they are cognates, should prove, doesn't he? Antifinnugor 20:10, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
By the way, do you also claim that suoni and ér are cognate?
Of course, not. They sound different, they mean complete different things. Antifinnugor 20:10, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Again, you'll have to provide trustworthy evidence of that. Just because they have the same meaning doesn't mean they have the same origin. --Dbenbenn 19:11, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
So think I, too. Antifinnugor 20:10, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Hi, Antifinnugor. Speaking of the Hungarian word 'ős', I'd like to point out that both 'father' in English and 'isä' in Finnish can be used in the meaning of 'ancestor'. Liffey 12:04, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

French lait and Greek galaktos are cognates, as are the English words cow and beef. These are examples of cognates that don't look at all similar.

As you don't claim that suoni and ér are cognate, I think you should not put ér into the table of cognates. It doesn't help to replace one mistake with another.

"who says they are cognates, should prove": You're right that Finno-Ugric languages should attribute the list of cognates to a source. Citing sources is one of the biggest problems with Wikipedia. I've mentioned that problem on the talk page.

I'm sorry to say it, but you have to hold to a higher standard here. If you aren't very careful about backing up your changes, they are likely to get reverted, simply because most people involved have concluded that your changes aren't trustworthy. I know it's frustrating, but that's just the way it is.

Here's what I suggest: Concentrate on one particular change, for example the "ín" cognate issue. Find a trustworthy, mainstream souce that justifies your change. Then put it on the talk page for review. Wait a few days, then put it in the article. I think if you do that you'll have better success.

Also, you have to be honest about what a trustworthy source is. This is a difficult issue, since evaluating whether a source is trustworthy is very subjective. But here's an example: Angela Marcantonio is not, to most people here, a trustworthy source, since the Linguistic Shadow-Boxing article by Johanna Laakso says that Marcantonio "shows several fatal misunderstandings that finally leave [her] central claims completely unfounded." When you cite a source, you have to convince everyone else that your source is valid. Try to find sources you aren't already aware of. Try to find sources that don't (appear to everyone else to) have political agendas. Again, that's unfair, but that's just how it is.

By the way, another possibility would be for you to add a Criticisms section, as dab has suggested. I think this strategy is a lot more likely to be successful. If you decide to do that, I'd be willing to help out. --Dbenbenn 21:26, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hi Antifinnugor. I responded to your accusations on my talk page. --Dbenbenn 21:46, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)


[edit] unfriendly

and militant. Antifinnugor

I will not explain the ín case to you again. Several people have tried, you didn't get it.

Because the english word vein is NOT the same, than the Hungarian word ín. The table is wrong, why don't you understand that? Antifinnugor 14:20, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Nobody can force you to become a linguist, and you don't seem very anxious to become one. If I was unfriendly, it was because you overstepped a line by calling Hippo primitive, "wild", and "unable to think".

What does he do? simply unscrupulously delete without ever argumenting.Antifinnugor 14:20, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This was a personal attack, and is frowned upon on Wikipedia. As for your link, as I told you before, I support the creation of an in-depth article about FU criticisms. Only, your edit not only inserted the link, you also reverted ín again, as well as changing a paragraph back to your pov wording.

Try to understand, ín is wrong!!!Antifinnugor 14:20, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Because of that, the revert was justified. As for "Critic of Finno Ugric and Uralic language Groups": The existence of the article is warrented (as I will say on VfD), but it isn't even spelled correctly.

The title is: Critics of the Finno-Ugric and Uralic Language Groups. What is wrong on that? Antifinnugor 14:20, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It should be "Critique". Because of that, it will have to be deleted and recreated. Also, you will not be able to be assertive about your criticism on this page, either.

Assertive is the wildly deleting hipo, not me. Antifinnugor 14:20, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It will just get more room for explanation, but it will still be characterized as a minority position. dab (ᛏ) 13:33, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Then please request to rename it, but not to delete it. Thanks. Antifinnugor 14:20, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
YOU fail to state why exactly you consider 'ín' to be wrong. Can you find a single dictionary or any other authoratative source that doesn't translate it into English as 'vein'? Surely you aren't confusing 'ín' with ligaments, are you? --PistolPower 00:33, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comments for Dbachmann on my talk page

Hi Antifinnugor, I removed the comments you left for Dbachmann on my talk page. If you have something to say to him, you should say it at User talk:Dbachmann. --Dbenbenn 22:04, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I am not militant at all. I am trying to give a fair representation to FU criticism, but all of any notability that has turned up so far can be summarized in two sentences. If you would follow my suggestions rather than edit warring (i.e. reversing things that are in the article by consensus), you would have a better chance of advocating your views. You are militant. That is fair enough, but accusing people patiently trying to keep your militant edits at bay is also paranoid. We are all ready to give informed linguistic criticism a place. Since you are not a linguist, it is your job to find linguists who criticize the theory. Angela Marcantonio has been harshly criticized by her peers, and yet we cite her views in the article. Find more linguists like her, and we will include them, it's as simple as that. dab (ᛏ) 13:50, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
um, AFU, you didn't understand me as saying I wanted to "butcher" you, did you? That would have been crudely ad hominem indeed. Rather, to "butcher" a writeup is metaphorical for an aggressive rewrite, and not a threat of physical violence. dab (ᛏ) 10:13, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Cranky is jargon for Not Peer-Reviewed

Antifinnugor, I voted to delete because the article appears to be original research without sufficient peer-review. The references seem circular, the discussion doesn't appear to be linguistically rigorous or detached and there seems to be some sort of political agenda hidden between the lines. I'd need to see more scholarly references on this before voting to keep it. Please remember that my opinion is just one vote. If sufficient wikipedians think the article should stay, it will! Don't hesitate to ask me more questions if you like. Wyss 21:56, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The references are not convincing. Also, your characterization of any relationship as nonsense is generally problematic, and your strong remark affirming that there is a political agenda confirms that the motives behind this article are not really related to linguistic science. Wiki is not a political forum. Wyss 13:57, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Antifunnugor, please see my latest reply on my talk page, thanks. Wyss 20:06, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

AFU, you accuse me of hate and what not. I am not reversing your edits, but I explained why people who do are correct.

bachman, the reversing orgies are incorrect to the bones.

Have you read the article on cognate? Have you understood that a cognate is not the same as a translation? Then you understand that nobody thinks that ín means vein.

bachman, if ín is in the row where the corresponding English word is vein, then people think, that ín means vein. Understood?

We know, ok? It means sinew. We are talking about cognates. Linguists think that the words suoni and ín are related even though one means vein and the other sinew.

bachman, why should they think that? Those words have in meaning very little in common, and sound very differently. It is pure phantasy, that they are cognates.

Do you get it? no? pity, because I will not explain it again. dab (ᛏ) 10:22, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You explained, that you do not understand, how a simple word table should be set up understandable, and also, that you think, words that are clearly unrelated in meaning and also in form, are cognates. This is very unlikely. However, all this is your problem, not mine. Antifinnugor 09:56, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Finno-Ugric

Hi there -

Thanks for the message. I was just helping out with a requested page move: there was a request on Wikipedia:Requested moves to move Critic of Finno Ugric and Uralic language Groups to Critique of Finno-Ugric and Uralic language Groups. The discussion is here, but I'll add it to a talk page if it is controversial.

Here is my reasoning:

  1. The first article, Critic of Finno Ugric and Uralic language Groups, is wrong for three reasons: it should be "Critique", not "Critic" (wrong word); it should be "Finno-Ugric" (with a hyphen) not "Finno Ugric"; and it should be "groups" not "Groups" (no capital);
  2. The second article, Critique of Finno-Ugric and Uralic language Groups, is also wrong: it should be "groups" not "Groups" (no capital);
  3. The right place for the article, if anywhere, is Critique of Finno-Ugric and Uralic language groups.

There is also an argument that the material should be incorporated into Finno-Ugric languages, or as a separate main article but summarised in Finno-Ugric languages. There is definitely no need for the same material to be in two or three places at the same time: that is what redirects are for. -- ALoan (Talk) 20:50, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Reply about Finno-Ugric languages

I tried to put my reason for reverting in the edit field, sorry it wasn't clear. I haven't contributed, but I've been following the discussions on Talk:Critique of Finno-Ugric and Uralic language groups and Talk:Finno-Ugric languages, and I've had many interactions on other pages with the linguists I see discussing the conflict there, so I think I have a good basis for understanding what's involved. I understand that you believe strongly in the views you put forward, and that you must feel very beleaguered, with everybody joining forces against you like this. Believe me, I don't take any pleasure in contributing to that feeling. On the other hand, doesn't it tell you something that you're in a minority of one? It's an encyclopedia, it's supposed to be for consensus. The whole Internet's out there, nobody's going to revert you if you start your own website, or contribute to one that already exists for the purpose of propagating your take on the Finno-Ugric language question.
I have a question for you in return. Why do you persist in breaking the rules of this place, after being warned? Nyenyec warns you of the 3 revert rule above on this page, I warned you again in my edit line, and yet you keep right on doing it. Please stop. Nyenec gave you a link for it, here it is again: Wikipedia:Three revert rule. Please go read it if you don't understand the rule.--Bishonen | Talk 09:20, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

answered. Antifinnugor 09:46, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Temporary block on editing

Hi, you have been temporarily blocked from editing on Wikipedia for (repeated) violations of the Wikipedia:Three revert rule at Critique of Finno-Ugric and Uralic language groups.

Specifically, after being personally and specifically warned of the rule at 19:35, 23 Dec 2004 (all times UTC), by User:Nyenyec, you performed the following series of reversions:

  • 11:29, 25 Dec 2004 Antifinnugor - Initial creation of version later reverted to
  • 16:11, 25 Dec 2004 Antifinnugor - 1st Revert
  • 16:51, 25 Dec 2004 Antifinnugor - 2nd Revert
  • 18:51, 25 Dec 2004 Antifinnugor - 3rd Revert
  • 19:37, 25 Dec 2004 Antifinnugor - 4th Revert (limit exceeded)
  • 20:01, 25 Dec 2004 Antifinnugor - 5th Revert

which clearly violated the 3RR. This block is for 12 hours only, in an attempt to impress on you that we are serious about these rules, and have enforcement mechanisms.

In future, please follow all Wikipedia policies, and respect community consensus; whatever the decision is, you really have to go along with it. Refusing to follow a community decision, and making edits in the face of it, is a serious infraction, which can garner you a much longer block. Repeated failure to do so has led to people being banned. I know it can be a problem sometimed - numbers do not make for correctness. Nonetheless, like Churchill's saying about democracy, it's the best rule we can work out, and to discard it would lead only to chaos. Good wishes for your future edits. Noel (talk) 18:55, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

PS: Please also note, before you ask, and before it gets you in trouble, that the community consensus (see WP:AN#Three revert rule) is that a reversion with an edit added into it (e.g. adding some categories, or cross-language links) is still a reversion, and still counts against the 3RR. Noel (talk) 22:07, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Finno-Ugric languages

I have unblocked your account and protected Finno-Ugric languages. This will give you a chance to return and hopefully work out a compromise with the other users on the talk page. In the future avoid breaking the "three revert rule" so as to avoid another block. 172 07:21, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Your email

Hi, I just now got your email (the power failed at my house after a large blizzard, and it only now came back one, so I'm just back online now). I'm not sure what the problem was with your block, but it was probably the result of a bug in the Wikipedia software we've been having trouble with, where blocks expire but are not automatically lifted (as they are supposed to be). I see several people (including dab) have unblocked your account, so it should be working now. If not, please send me more email and I will investigate.

As to how to protect a page in the main article space, you can make a request at WP:RFP, but please note that there is no guarantee that the version that will be protected will be the one that you want! Administrators aren't supposed to pick a particular version, and prefer that one. If you want to make sure that a page with the content you like is available for people to look at, you should create it as a Wikipedia:Subpage of your User: page (e.g. User:Antifinnugor/Finno-Ugric languages). It is against Wikipedia policy for anyone else to edit such a page, and so if anyone does change it, you can ask the administrators to come look at the situation, and take action. Noel (talk) 13:43, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Critique of Finno-Ugric and Uralic language groups

Please see Wikipedia:The Wrong Version. Jayjg | Talk 17:52, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The point of the article is that everyone who complains about protection thinks their version is the right version, and protected version is the wrong version. There is no way you can get the version you prefer protected, as the comments in the section above also indicated. Jayjg | (Talk) 18:10, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I don't know how to make this any clearer; just because you asked for protection, that is no guarantee that the version you want protected will be protected. You were apparently warned about this (above) by Noel. Noel also suggested you create a subpage of your own page with the information in question, which I think is a good suggestion. Jayjg | (Talk) 18:24, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] User talk:Antifinnugor/Critique of Finno-Ugric and Uralic language groups

You've got something new on the page. -- Sajasaze 18:55, 12 May 2006 (UTC)