User talk:Wakantanka

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hello, Wakantanka Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking Image:Wikisigbutton.png or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already loving Wikipedia you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Happy editing! LittleOldMe 15:36, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Getting Started
Getting Help
Policies and Guidelines
The Community
Things to do
Miscellaneous


Contents

[edit] Proto-Canaanite alphabet

Hello I saw your changes to the article on the Proto-Canaanite script, and I wanted to let you know that you removed a lot of referenced information from the article. If you see problems with sourced information in an article, it is best to discuss such changes on the article's talkpage before rewriting an article. I've added back in the removed information, but I've attempted to keep some of the content that you added. Feel free to discuss these changes with me, as I don't want to create any disputes or misunderstandings. Cheers, The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 00:09, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

For your recent edits of the related Middle Bronze Age alphabets article, please review the articles abjad and syllabary. These scripts were not syllabaries in any meaningful sense of the term. kwami 19:30, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Abjad and Abugida are terms coined by Peter Daniels who recognizes that West Semitic writings were not "alphabets" becase they did not isolate phonemes of human speech. The smallest unit a human can isolate without special training is the syllable. The Egyptian writing, on which the West Semitic was based, worked in just this way, giving information about consonants but not about vowels. Hence the reduced short signary of "consonants" must have done the same and encoded consonants plus unknown but implied vowels. Daniels recognizes all this and hence rejects "alphabet," but only muddies the water with these neologisms. I. J. Gelb first made this argument in 1952, so not sure what you mean that these systems were "not syllabaries in any meaningful sense."User:wakantanka

[edit] Homer

Hello Wakantanka,

I appreciate your contributions to Homer and related articles, but I want to be sure that you understand Wikipedia's policies, particularly the neutral point of view policy. Wikipedia articles are supposed to represent all prominent points of view on a topic. For an article like Homer, this means that the article should try to give a full representation of what scholars think about the composition of the poems, etc.--obviously, this means that the article needs to inform readers of the sharp disagreements that scholars have about the date of the poems, the role of writing in their composition, etc. Wikipedia is thus unlike many other reference works, which strive to give the "right" answer about a particular question.

I mention this to you because, despite your recent name change, I am aware of who you are (or at least who you previously claimed to be), and I believe your recent edits are not in accordance with the neutral point of view policy--that is, you are privileging opinions published by a particular scholar as the correct view, when the article needs to reflect the range of opinion in current scholarship. Your recent comments about Nagy are symptomatic of this problem--even if you strongly disagree with Nagy's views, he is an important figure in current Homeric scholarship (why else would he be in the Brill New Companion?), and therefore his opinions need to be described in Wikipedia's articles on Homer and Homeric scholarship. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:24, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, obviously we're going to have to use some judgment as to whose views are influential and worth including in the article. One of the authors you mention is Stephanie West. Well, in this edit you removed one of her views, apparently to alter the text to reflect your own viewpoint. I'm sure you can acknowledge that there's a diversity of views on what happened during the Pisistratean "recension", but your edit has the effect of saying that one--and only one--view of that event is correct. This is not in accordance with the neutral point of view policy.
On the subject of Nagy's influence, all I'm going to say is that your view is self-evidently ridiculous, and the way in which you're expressing it is unseemly. Please note that an important principle at Wikipedia is consensus, and there is a strong consensus among the regular editors of Homer that Nagy is an important scholar. As you note, the article is not currently in good shape, and desperately needs improvement--but it will be much easier to make it better if a spirit of cooperation prevails among editors. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:32, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
No, we should be arguing/discussing, because it does get us somewhere. You asked: "A neutral point of view places creationism on a par with evolutionary theory, doesn't it?" No, it doesn't. This is where a reading of the neutral point of view policy will come in handy. Articles are supposed to represent all prominent views, in accordance with their importance. Take a look at the articles on evolutionary theory, intelligent design, and so forth. In each, it's clearly spelled out that evolutionary theory has solid scientific support and intelligent design has no traction within the scientific community, and that intelligent design is a religious perspective.
"You can never find yourself through the forest of Homeric studies without a theoretical frame built of all we know about archaic life, literacy, and oral tradition." Yes. This is why we need editors who know the field, rather than a bunch of people who are finding random bits from the books they happen to have read.
"Where there is controversy, this should be made clear, but the problem with this article is that it is not made clear and many things are said that are unsupported by fact or theory. 'Some say, because ... but others say, because ... Most agree with the second view, because ...' not 'So-and-so says such and such.'" Sure, that's fine, but so far your edits haven't adhered to this principle--you're leaving important views out. Also, this is where one of the more annoying features of Wikipedia come in. If you're an expert in a topic, you tend to rely on your own informed judgment about what the consensus of the field is, but Wikipedia's policies on no original research and verification require that all information in an article come from reliable sources. It's very easy from personal acquaintance with the field to say that a majority of scholars would agree with Martin West when he says X, but if someone challenges you on that, it's hard to find a printed source that says so. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:09, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] May 2008

Hi, the recent edit you made to Linear B has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thanks. Quercus basaseachicensis (talk) 16:42, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't even remember doing that, so I removed the warning. However, it already says in the article that there is a Cypro-Minoan syllabary, so why did you add a "Cypriote syllabary"? J.delanoygabsadds 13:44, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism warnings

If you were falsely accused of vandalism, the best thing to do is to talk to the user who accused you, and explain why your edit was not vandalism. Which user accused you vandalism? Acalamari 18:50, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: FALSE CHARGES OF VANDALISM

What are you talking about? I already removed the warning I gave you. J.delanoygabsadds 16:19, 20 May 2008 (UTC)