User talk:Doremítzwr

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Doremítzwr, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!   (aeropagitica)  (talk) 

Contents

[edit] Morricone

Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. This page was empty except for a link to Ennio Morricone, which researchers could find anyway. Did you intend to create a disambiguation page? If so, list the remaining Morricone articles and attach a {{disambig}} tag to the page.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  14:02, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I was trying to make an article under Morricone which automatically redirected to Ennio Morricone, but I did not know how. Doremítzwr 14:06, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Just a note...

Your recent query on User:Bblackmoor may go unnoticed...you should make sure all messages to other editors occur on their talk page. I’d suggest moving your question from User:Bblackmoor to User talk:Bblackmoor. Then again, you may not get an answer, as that user seems to have generally “retired” from editing. Cheers! -- Scientizzle 03:29, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed a message by him in the AGF page saying that he’s basically given up. Shame; he seemed to make good points. Anyway, thanks for clearing up the user page / talk page confusion. I shan’t bother moving the question, as, if he has indeed retired, then another user is more likely to answer my question than him, and is more likely to notice the question if it is on the same page as the Latin phrase used in its original context. This isn’t breaking any rules, is it? Doremítzwr 04:20, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Search Google for the phrase. -- BBlackmoor (talk) 12:11, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Note to self and others: “Brevior vita est quam pro futumentibus negotium agendo” – “Life is too short to do business with idiots”
The Latin is from James Wallis, former head of Hogshead Publishing. It was the company motto: “Life is too short to do business with fuckwits”. -- BBlackmoor (talk) 21:50, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. The Hogshead Publishing website (from whence I gleaned the translation) had substituted “idiots” for “fuckwits”. I shall edit my scrolling marquee accordingly. However, I wish I knew what the literal translation was (I doubt that Latin has a word for “fuckwits”). Thanks again. Doremítzwr 01:10, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Magic quotes

Regarding [1]. Such changes make our text unnecessarily ascii-incompatible. We do use unicode characters where they are needed, but correct quote direction can (and IS) done by typographic software. Since it can be performed automatically, there isn't a need to code it directly into the articles. --Gmaxwell 18:34, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Quotation marks

I notice you are trying to clean up Wikipedia by changing quotation marks into so-called "smart quotes". This raises a couple of issues:

  1. The quote marks you are using are non-standardized, and may not render properly in many users' browsers. This is why we prefer the "straight quotes" - or as you call them, "inch primes".
  2. Editing other people's comments on talk pages (including spaces such as the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard) is a major faux-pas and should be avoided. There's no need to correct other users' grammar in the messages they have posted.

For these reasons, I have reverted your changes in quotation marks and ask that you please refrain from such edits in the future. (ESkog)(Talk) 18:34, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

In a related vein, I noticed that you incorrectly replaced the English word "resume" with the French word "rèsumè" on my "about" page. Please stick to plain ASCII text in Wikipedia from now on. Thank you. -- -- BBlackmoor (talk) 04:27, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Section headers

Changing the typography of section headers breaks inbound links, both those where a section is linked to from another article or discussion page, and those found in the auto-generated edit summary anchor links when a user performs a section edit. Also, consider that people will not visually notice the difference and will often continue to link to the previous section title. — Jul. 13, '06 [18:40] <freak|talk>

[edit] Page moves, redirects

I replied on my talk page. Haukur 14:51, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I replied on the OECD talk page. See you there. Beagel 16:23, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Icelandic words

Haukur's talk page is on my watchlist so I have already seen the discussion and put in some words there. I think we have settled 'album', 'single' and 'EP'. 'Soundtrack' might be more problematic (see the thread on Haukur's page). It would be very helpful if you could explain exactly where you are planning on using the words as the context might suggest the use of other Icelandic words. Stefán Ingi 14:23, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I have attempted to reply on Haukur's page, perhaps he will read it over. Stefán Ingi 11:01, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks a bundle ;D Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 12:24, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] College of pontiffs

Sir: In the article "College of Pontiffs", I changed the word "Rôle" to the 'normally used' "Role". You seem obviously displeased that you had to reinstate the previous version of the word. Pardon my ignorance but what is the difference between Rôle and Role aside from the obvious? I checked it on Merriam Webster and I got a slap on the wrist: "The word you've entered isn't in the dictionary. Click on a spelling suggestion below or try again using the search box to the right." As a native English speaker with a very decent education and above average vocabulary, I find "Rôle" unnecessary and certainly disconcerting.

Since the word you insist on using does not normally appear in a 'regular' dictionary, may I kindly suggest you correct the typo yourself?

Thank you for your kind understanding and the inconvenience of correcting it yourself. Sincerely, Dr mindbender 07:30, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Name

What kind of a name is Raifʻhār Doremítzwr? --Amir E. Aharoni 12:53, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

My name. Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 14:17, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes, but from what language or country does it come? --Amir E. Aharoni 15:30, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
I experienced a vision five years ago. Raifʻhār Doremítzwr is the name I was ‘instructed’ to adopt. At the time I believed it to be of Polynesian origin; however, a Copt with whom I have had a recent fortuitous encounter suggested that its origin is in fact Finno-Ugric. I do not know much else about my name’s origin. Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 15:53, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Diæretics

I’m Dutch, so I like diaeretics, but please read WP:MOS and WP:SOAPBOX (WP:ASR wouldn’t hurt either) before doing that again on the English Wikipedia. —Ruud 00:33, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I’m sorry, but I don’t see how they apply. The use of the diæresis is part of English grammar. Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 00:39, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
No it is not. OALD, COED, AHD, MW and CALD all give “cooperate” as the correct spelling with “co-operate” as an alternative. So stop soapboxing your alternative views on English spelling with self-references to Wikipedia-namespace essays in article space and especially read this section of the MoS:
In June 2005, the Arbitration Committee ruled that, when either of two styles is acceptable, it is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change. For example, with respect to British spelling as opposed to American spelling, it would only be acceptable to change from American spelling to British spelling if the article concerned a British topic. Revert warring over optional styles is unacceptable; if the article uses colour rather than color, it would be wrong to switch simply to change styles, although editors should ensure that articles are internally consistent. If in doubt, defer to the style used by the first major contributor.
The use of diæreses in English is archaic and no longer common practice. It is not used in literature, in major media and academia, except for a few rare exceptions. You shouldn’t impose your personal views on the matter on such a general-purpose site as Wikipedia. Archiesteel 21:26, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
It does not work to justify archaic spellings in your edits with Wiktionary entries that you yourself have created only hours before. Strad 22:39, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Archaïc? See preëmptively’s adjectival root. Would you call words used in 2002 and 2003 “archaïc”? The fact that I created the entries in question is an irrelevant genetic fallacy — the entries nonetheless satisfy Wiktionary’s criteria for inclusion, thereby making them valid entries and extant words. Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 23:48, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Referencing your own articles in your edit summaries is deceptive because it creates the illusion of precedent for these archaic spellings, when in practice the consensus eschews them. This is why your essay was removed from the Wikipedia namespace — because you created it in a single day so you could link to it in your edit summaries and on talk pages to lend credit to these pet spellings of yours. Not that it particularly matters; they all get reverted by different editors eventually. Strad 00:08, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
I created that essay as something unto which to refer people, rather than having to rehash the rationale thereïn every time the reasons applied, not to give my views an aura of authority. Attested Wiktionary entries are, meanwhile, truly authoritative, in that they prove a given word’s existence, and, in the case of preëmptive, show the word’s recent use. Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 00:17, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
As I said in reference to campus / campi, diaeretics are unorthodox and confusing whether such spellings exist or not; their usage is unconventional and isolated. They are so archaic in fact that their Wiktionary entries didn’t even exist until you singlehandedly created practically all of them. Going around editing articles to reflect archaic spellings does nothing but confuse readers and incite edit wars, especially when you add nothing else of note to the article. JSGoral 00:36, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Wiktionary lacks many entries; neither did it have an entry for “preclusive” before I added it this morning — I doubt that preclusive could be considered “archaïc”. Noöne has yet expressed being personally confused by either “campi” or “preëmptively” — I take the belief that they would confuse readers as an example of unwarranted underestimation of Wikipedia readers. Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 12:54, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Disambiguation Talk Request

This is a form message being sent to all WikiProject Disambiguation participants. I may have found your page based on your contributions or your link repair user box on your user page. If you are not a member, please consider including your name on the project page. I recently left a proposed banner idea on the WikiProject Disambiguation talk page and I would appreciate any input you could provide. Before it can be approved or denied, I would prefer a lot of feedback from multiple participants in the project. So if you have the time please join in the discussion to help improve the WikiProject. Keep up the good work in link repair and thanks for your time. Nehrams2020 22:54, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] How to revert edits

You asked me on my talk page to explain how reverts work. The wikipedia help system has a fairly good explanation here Help:Revert. Hope that helps. i kan reed 20:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Campuses vs. campi

I’m not sure people would understand the word “campi”. In the dictionary, “campuses” is listed as the plural form of campus. I will not revert your edit a second time on the Community of Christ article because I don’t want this to turn into an edit war.--Dbolton 19:38, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Campi is also listed as a plural form here and here on Wiktionary. As I said, most people are familiar with the “us→i” rule for forming plurals; I doubt that anyone would be confused by “campi” for very long. Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 19:12, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
The use of campi is unorthodox and confusing, many people may be familar with the “us→i” rule; however, the majority of people are considerably more familar with the term ‘campuses’ than with ‘campi’. As the term adds nothing to the article except mild confusion (especially to foreign readers), I have changed it back to campuses. JSGoral 00:27, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
You made this word up. It is not in any external dictionaries, and there are no WP:Reliable Sources for its usage. Therefore, you cannot use it here, per Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms. Please stop adding it to the article. — coelacan talk — 01:25, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
The citations I provided for campi are from sources spanning 110 years — the most recent of which was taken from a 2004 publication. Therefore, “campi” is neither archaïc nor a neologism. Furthermore, it is formed through a familiar (albeït not the most common) rule for forming plurals (namely the “us→i” rule). Wiktionary entries are reliable sources, as long as they meet Wiktionary’s criteria for inclusion, and are words suitable for use in Wikipedia, as long as they aren’t tagged as “(nonstandard)”. “Campi” is as confusing as “cacti” — it’s only that the latter is more common; everyone understands “cactuses” — it’s just that “cacti” sounds a lot better. Reading “campuses” made me cringe — that is what it adds unto the article; “campi” merely removes that cringe. Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 13:32, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Please refer to the manual of style, specifically here, it states: “In June 2005, the Arbitration Committee ruled that, when either of two styles is acceptable, it is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change. For example, with respect to British spelling as opposed to American spelling, it would only be acceptable to change from American spelling to British spelling if the article concerned a British topic. Revert warring over optional styles is unacceptable; if the article uses colour rather than color, it would be wrong to switch simply to change styles, although editors should ensure that articles are internally consistent. If in doubt, defer to the style used by the first major contributor.” As changing campuses to campi is unorthodox, confusing and adds nothing substantial to the article I have reverted word back to ‘campuses’ which is the word used by the first major contributor. Your cringing is irrelevant. JSGoral 18:24, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
You know as well as I do that that ruling was made in order to put and end unto UK / US English edit wars, not to disallow changing words like “campuses” unto words like “campi”, or vice versa. The “us→i” rule is hardly “unorthodox”, and I would love you to refer me unto someone who is actually confused by “campi”. Your changing the word unto “campuses” shall be reverted. Think of it as copy-editing. Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 20:35, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
The reason the ruling was made is irrelevant; it was still made nonetheless. Is English your first language? The ‘us→i’ “rule” does not apply to all words, surely you’ve heard of viruses, hippopotamuses or syllabuses? The rule my not be unorthodox, but it’s application to campus certainly is. You are being completely absurd and looking at your contributions it seems you have a history of trawling through Wikipedia altering spellings to non-standard or archaic alternatives. Campi is not in common usage, campuses is readily recognisable hence your edit has yet again been reverted as per the WP:MOS ruling. JSGoral 21:51, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
“The reason the ruling was made is irrelevant” — You think so? See mischief rule / purposive approach. English is my second language (Welsh being my first), yet I am still more able thereïn than (it seems) most English people are.
“The ‘us→i’ “rule” does not apply to all words” — No, it doesn’t. It only applies unto Latin masculine second declension nouns, of which “campi” is one. Viri is the plural of vir (man), whilst virii is just plain wrong — virus is a Latin mass noun, so unless you’re willing to make it neuter (thereby making it “virum”), and then pluralising it (and thereby making it “vira”), you’re going to have to stick with “viruses”. Yes, I’ve heard of both “hippopotamuses” and “syllabuses”, but I’ve also heard of “hypothesises” and “childs” — I prefer “hippopotami”, “syllabi”, “hypotheses”, and “children” (though some would write “hippopotamoi”, “syllaboi”, and “childer”).
Anyway, this argument is clearly never going to be resolved, I have therefore sought a compromise. See the Community of Christ article. Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 11:08, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Metropolises versus Metropoleis

I appreciate your edits to Wikipedia! Thank you for your input and additions. However, I have a quick point to make. I think you edits to articles containing the plural of metropolis can be confusing and unhelpful. I did a quick Google search on the two options: "metropolises" returns about half a million hits while "metropoleis" only returns about 500. I think that for the sake of clarity and consistency in language, metropolises is much more appropriate. As an open source, community based encyclopedia, language herein contained needs to be as clear as possible. For these reasons, I am reverting the changes you made to a number of articles (the same logic applies to the adjudicator change I made). Thanks! Please let me know what you think! I see above that similar issues have been discussed previously. JeffreyN 06:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A little left out

A few weeks ago i started to add flags to the Metropolis article, since there was none, and User:Db1944 finished off that work. But just now i noticed this when on my way to his discussion page: User_talk:Db1944#Concerning_your_recent_revision_unto_Metropolis.

Now I am not asking for a barnstar or anything here, I am just letting you know that not only 1 person contributed to, let alone started, that revision, Cheers -- Hrödberäht (talk) 19:37, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm fine without a barnstar, its your choice to award such, and it would seem greedy of me to ask for one. Frankly, i only started about half as many countries as Db1944 did. Thanks, -- Hrödberäht (gespräch) 22:59, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please Stop

Hello there again. I know that you are very set on "correcting" plural words which have singular forms ending in -us and -polis. However, I would like to respectful ask again that you cease and desist. Grammatical rules cannot be blanketed on every word and situation. Every -us or -polis word does not become -i and -poleis in the plural, despite the fact that linguistic origins dictate it should. The standard, common English language is what it is, despite illogical anomalies such as -polises and -uses. For the sake of conforming to the way the vast, vast majority of people speak and write English, I ask you to stop. Wikipedia must be understandable and represent the way a language is used within everyday contexts. If you want to continue to make your changes, be aware that I will likely revert them. I feel this is only appropriate and in the best interest of Wikipedia. JeffreyN 04:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I realize that we obviously have a difference of opinion, but I wanted to thank you for seeking to remove plurals when possible! For example, in the List of Star Wars planets (H-J) page JeffreyN 16:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
That’s quite alright. Thanks. Please excuse my blunt style of argument — it is a reäction to others’ attitudes and nothing personally against you. Where practical and grammatical, it would of course be better to avoid such points of conflict (both the disagreements over “campi” and “preëmptively” were resolved by avoiding the plural, and opting for a compromise spelling (“pre-emptively” instead of the “preemptively” / “preëmptively” dichotomy), respectively). Thank you for your civility. Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 19:07, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Sorry that your comment was edited off my talk page. I am not sure what User:Robert Ullmann quite means about you editing his comments. There was only a space added at the beginning. Anyway, thank you as well for remaining civil. Sorry I have not been around the past few days (the real world calls). How are you feeling about the issue at this point; would you like to get some arbitration to sort things out? JeffreyN 15:53, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
I just outlined a possible route to get consensus on this issue at User_talk:Robert_Ullmann#The_-polises_-poleis_issue. The idea would be to discuss the plural forms on English plural's discussion page. I think we could get enough feedback from people. Let me know what you think JeffreyN 16:17, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Diacrit

Got time to help defend “rôle” at Marginalism? —12.72.72.114 23:57, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

There you go. Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 12:20, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Since you are so fond of diacritics, RD, you might be interested in how I used them when teaching English. Rothorpe 23:41, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hawaii (island)

Referring to your intention to rename the article Hawaii (island): there is a decision (SPN 1999) of the BGN declaring the feature name Island of Hawaiʻi as official. --ThT 16:25, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:The Legend of Bagger Vance soundtrack cover.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:The Legend of Bagger Vance soundtrack cover.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 12:05, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Diacrit

Got time to help defend “markèd” at Marginalism? —SlamDiego←T 00:42, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

There you go. Raifʻhār Doremítzwr (talk) 19:12, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] TNX!

Thanks for catching that missing circumflex! —SlamDiego←T 00:43, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey, you’re welcome. I reckon that most people would agree that consistency one way or the other is more important than whether a word is spelt this way or that. Raifʻhār Doremítzwr (talk) 02:39, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree that it is and that most people would think that it is. —SlamDiego←T 04:13, 14 March 2008 (UTC)