User talk:Cgboeree

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hello Cgboeree, and welcome to wikipedia! I see that you have contributed to the article Lingua Franca Nova, and that you have just created the article C. George Boeree. I would like to bring Wikipedia:Autobiography and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest to your attention. If you are indeed C. George Boeree, as your username implies, the man who created the Lingua Franca Nova, it might be wise to leave the editing of the articles to others. It is our experience that the distance between the editor and the subject needed for neutrality becomes too small if the editor is directly connected to the subject. This could lead to problems with both verifiability and our position on original research. Groeten uit Nederland, Aecis ^{No running, shouting or piddling in the shallow end} 18:36, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Should I remove it? I only wanted to put the most basic info there! En groeten uit Pennsylvania! Cgboeree 21:15, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

There's no need to remove or undo your edits, because they are constructive. That's why I won't take any further actions. I just think it would be wise if you kept the above guidelines in mind when editing. If you have any further questions on how to contribute to wikipedia, feel free to contact me on my talk page. Aecis ^{No running, shouting or piddling in the shallow end} 23:32, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Out-of-control deletions

Hello!

I'm responding here to what you wrote on Saizai's talk page under the header "Out-of-control deletions". Yes, I fully agree, it IS disheartening! I have been around here for quite a few years now, faithfully maintaining the Constructed Languages Porta, but to tell you the truth, the deletion of Ill Bethisad really did it for me. I'm glad that at least Lingua Franca Nova survived - and rightly so! But to answer your question: no, I'm afraid there's nothing that can be done about this kind of vandalism. All wikipedians are equal, and so every opinion is counted, no matter whether a person actually knows something about the subject in question. And let's face it: there are quite a lot of people who just don't like constructed languages. You are right: there are thousands of pages about minor sports figures, porn stars, and let's not forget all the lenghty stuff about virtually every possible Star Trek character, or character from about any other popular TV series. All in all, there are about two hundred articles related to constructed languages, mostly about particular conlangs. In other words, nothing excessive, nothing to be upset about, even if you are a hardcore deletionist. So don't ask me what the particular reasons are for this type of crusade. In my opinion, many deletions are completely justifiable, but in the case of Slovio, Folkspraak and Ill Bethisad I think it is a real shame. But again, there's nothing that can be done about it. Even if an article survives an AfD, there is not much time needed before anyone can issue the next AfD, and so on. Ceqli was ultimately deleted after 3 AfDs! But once an article has been deleted in that way, recreating it is really hard.

Myself, I'm in the lucky position that my own Wenedyk already survived two AfDs. But then, I'm sure it is just a matter of time before someone tries again. Besides, much has changed over the last few years. Deletionism seems to be popular these days. A few years back, deletion should be a matter of consensus. But what's happening now, for example in the case of Ill Bethisad? There are about as many "votes" in favour of keeping the article, but the closing administrator deletes it anyway, even using arguments that weren't even used in the discussion. In other words, administrators might as well delete articles without any discussion at all. Yes, it is disheartening. Again, I feel tempted to withdraw from the whole project altogether (from .en, that is; the Dutch and the Polish wikipedia are, fortunately, much more pleasant).

Groeten uit Zaandam,
—IJzeren Jan _Uszkiełtu? 03:04, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Although I'm in the IAL line of work, I love some of the creative artlangs. They actually tell us something about language. It is a shame. So who are these "closing administrators?" Cgboeree (talk) 20:03, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Reposting my response so as to diminish discussion-frag:

I agree that it's a problem. I don't know re Schaeffer (and would say that describing anyone as a lapdog or criticizing their other interests is rarely helpful). Keeping Wikipedia:WikiProject Constructed languages/Edit wars and deletions updated will help some. My own opinions are at Wikipedia:Conlangs/Sai's_two_cents.

I suggest you take a look at / participate in the couple discussions I've started on CONLANG-L (e.g. this); there are relatively few ways to address this. Let me know what you think of what I proposed there. May also help to start similar discussions elsewhere; don't know what fora you frequent.

Hope that helps, and that we can beat this one way or another. Sai Emrys ¿? ✍ 00:07, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally re administrator deletions - Amir deleted at least some articles (like Essays on Language Design) through his own administrative power. It's possible to try to petition to remove his admin authority for abuse or conflict of interest, as admins are not supposed to be party to anything they exercise power on. I don't know whether this would be helpful, and I don't honestly believe that Amir is acting in bad faith, but it is an option to consider.

I find it very unfortunate that people like Jan are getting turned away from Wikipedia - notice all the work he's done to make this a good reference! - but see the discussion linked above. This idea of "verifiability" and "notability" is going to be a problem so long as notability is still the going standard (even if it's not officially policy) and conlangs remain published in their current form. There are various things we can do about this on the meta level - the Language Creation Society is trying - but that's going to be slow, collaborative work that only indirectly affects the situation here on Wikipedia. Sai Emrys ¿? ✍ 00:18, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

New from User:Amire80: Portal talk:Constructed languages#Reconciliation & Wikipedia talk:Verifiability#Mailing lists as sources. You may be interested. Sai Emrys ¿? ✍ 22:12, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

You are far more generous than I: I suspect there is indeed some "bad faith" here. Amir seems to be on some sort of crusade: Why go to all the trouble of working on wikipedias in other languages to rid them of Slovio, for example, when those wikipedias have already decided to keep their version of the article? Why continue to hammer away at LFN again? Why does he lament that only the English wikipedia is doing things "the right way?" This appears to me (yes, I am a psychologist) to be an issue of authoritarianism. I have been getting downright depressed about this. In LFN, we have tried to create something that might make a difference. We are a group of people that include several professionals, including linguists. And yet we are being treated like high school kids who are making something up during recess (I think he even uses a phrase like that at one point!). Enough ranting. Peace to you! Cgboeree (talk) 23:42, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Kotava

Hello

I put back some details of information which you had removed in the article about Kotava, and I added also a small table of the vowels. Beyond the simple description of the language itself, the approach initiated by Staren Fetcey her creator would deserve to be more developed, but someone would regard that as "propaganda". I will thus not add any more.

Koe teliz icde Kotava jin va konaka givapinta yo rinon sulayana su dimplekú ise va kirnafa waframa su loplekú. Kaike opelafa pimtara va ava, godela koaskiyina gan Staren Fetcey redusik va lo vonera co-riwer vexe konaktan wetce "galbedura" vaon co-krupted. Acum me loon loplekutú.

Wikimistusik (talk) 09:07, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] LFN

I was wondering, the LFN-English dictionary has 7500 entries. Are there more words or just those 7500? --OosWesThoesBes (talk) 14:48, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

There are more words - the technical ones for various fields. We made an effort to keep the number of basic words (for day-to-day conversation) down to under 2000, but writers and translators for our wiki needed easy access to more technical words as well. We will likely go up to 10,000 or so, then call it quits. Additional technical words will be in the articles relevant to the field, and be almost exculsively "rewritings" of greek (and occasionally other languages) according to LFN phonology. Cgboeree (talk) 15:03, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, that's clear. (just curious about LFN :))--OosWesThoesBes (talk) 15:18, 23 February 2008 (UTC)