User:KYPark/2012

September 2012

The following two sections exceptionally come from Beer Parlour.

What is the WT way of RR?

According to w: Revised Romanization of Korean #Consonant letters, the Korean consonant string /ㄷㅎ/, as of 닫히다 and 받히다, the passive forms of 닫다 "to close" and 받다 "to butt," respectively, shall be romanized into either /t/ or /th/ or /ch/, embarrassingly. --KYPark (talk) 12:55, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Indeed there are two valid ways of the dualist RR:

1. 1:1, hence simple, clear-cut, academic, orthographic transliteration of written Korean. (Personally I've preferred this academic way since 2006.)
2. 1:1+, hence complex, confusing, secular, orthoepic transcription of spoken Korean. (WT admin's often press me to use this confusing way hence to my agony.)

The WT authorities concerned are cordially asked to make clear to Korean editors including myself which is the definite unnegotiable standard, before and after this moment.

References

• User talk:Metaknowledge #At Korean transliteration < KYPark 01:47, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
• User talk:KYPark #Korean transliteration < Metaknowledge 01:43, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
• User talk:KYPark #Transcription < Stephen 00:08, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

--KYPark (talk) 13:38, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

See also User:KYPark/rrok and find which of the four romanizations, if given alone, enables you to make the best guess of the corresponding hangul orthography unavailable. May I take this opportunity to argue strongly that though imperfect, this at least should be the minimum essential standard? --KYPark (talk) 15:02, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

We traditionally use the system of RR that you call "orthoepic", which is what I believe is standard RR, and matches all the official use of RR that I have seen in Korea. You call it "confusing", but to a native speaker, it should be very simple (I find it to be the most useful myself, and not difficult in the least). Also, I find your misleading parenthetical notes about which is more "academic" to be very disingenuous, and your continuing to use your preferred system (after several Hangeul-reading editors have told you that Wiktionary does not use that system) to be frustrating. --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 15:45, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

You dare to blame me for being "very disingenuous" meaning even "deceptive."

• RE ""confusing"" : Refer to the passage on top, ending with "embarrassing" instead this time, wishing the confusion implied there to be resolved. Please resolve it.
• RE ""academic"" : It is not my wording but the Korean government's allowing the way I prefer to be used for "academic" purposes, from the dualist perspective. Therefore, this should be explicitly ruled out, and on this base only you should ask me to stop it. Otherwise you press me unprincipled, roughly based on "tradition" and your personal judgment. I ask you to go beyond that "which is what I believe is standard RR" as well as the "reasonable doubt."

Remember I am responding to your previous advice for me to bring the question of using that academic way to this forum. And I added my personal agony. But now you look like focusing on personal attack on me, I fear, making a "disingenuous" liar of me because of that minor side effect. Is this a fair play? Are you focusing on the main point in question? BTW, it's too late; I have to go to bed.

--KYPark (talk) 17:07, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

닫히다 and 받히다, 닫다 and 받다: dathida, bathida, datda, batda. —Stephen ^(Talk) 17:44, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

KYPark, I can't believe you're accusing me of personal attacks after all the rude things you've said about me and other editors in the Etymology Scriptorium. In any case, the "base" upon which I ask you to cease is community consensus. Only I and Stephen have commented so far in this thread, and I have expressed my preference, while Stephen has given transliterations that align with that preference. I really cannot imagine how this is causing you "personal agony". --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 20:52, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Let me move leftmost...

To Stephen

On what grounds is the /ㄷㅎ/ to /th/ other than /t/ and esp. /ch/, though WP treats all as equal, as suggested on top? Did WT ever make /th/ an explicit rule? I wonder if RR ever made it very clear, but the so-called orthoepic way of RR is basically but roughly based on the so-called "Phonetic Hangul." Otherwise, unprincipled! Accordingly, RR must take it that:

Canonic Phonetic Orthography Orthoepy Remarks Hangul 닫히다 다치다 Roman dadhida dachida dathida ??

So I suspect WP and WT arbitrarily introduced /th/ to align with /kh/ (ㄱㅎ) and /ph/ (ㅂㅎ) which may be also arbitrary. Go and see the following real-life examples, incidentally 3:3, half and half! Anyway, this may well sum up the state of confusing WT traditions. See also more confusions in a nutshell I worked on hard. Naturally you find no Sino-Korean but native Korean examples of /-ㄷㅎ-/.

Arbitrary? RR	Principled RR
백화점 (배콰점) baekhwajeom 역할 (여칼 ) yeokhal 입학 (이팍 ) iphak	백합 (배캅 ) baekap 특히 (트키 ) teuki 낙하산 (나카산) nakasan

May I take this opportunity to ask you if you made this mistake last year purely by accident? Your frank witness would greatly influence the standard RR to be or not to be refined. Regards.

낮 말은 새가 듣고 밤 말은 쥐가 듣는다 naj mal-eun saega deudgo bam mal-eun jwiga deudneunda

--KYPark (talk) 04:29, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

You asked how to transliterate those letters and I told you. If you have found a mistake, you should fix it, just like I fix your mistakes. You are still griping and complaining about RR after these six long years. Enough already! We use the Revised Romanization here. If you cannot do it, then do not put transliterations. We will do the transliterations for you if they are so difficult. Please note: this paragraph is the answer to your questions. This paragraph does not contain a question. —Stephen ^(Talk) 09:43, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

To fix mistakes is one thing; to fix what are mistakes at all is another. Don't mix both here, as the latter solely matter here. As perhaps one of the most influential here, you should focus on all I ill or well bring to everybody's attention. For that's what we have to collaborate to resolve. Please don't focus on attacking me unproductively, uselessly to the community. I really hate your emotionally pointed point of view. Didn't I say "Regards" of goodwill to you? Is this really the way you would respond to that? Will you remain such an awful enemy to me forever, for what at all? Anyway please answer the question at the end.

--KYPark (talk) 10:41, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

RE: "Please note: this paragraph is the answer to your questions."

This is not really the answer to my question beginning with "On what grounds is the /ㄷㅎ/ to /th/ other than /t/ and esp. /ch/ ..." but in effect an escape from it, I fear. Please advise me the reason for nothing but /th/ for /ㄷㅎ/. Sincerely. --KYPark (talk) 11:16, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are talking about. I don’t know what you mean by mistakes versus mistakes at all. I don’t attack you productively or unproductively, there is no emotion in what I write. You asked how to transliterate those letters and I told you. There’s an end to it. If you did not want to hear my answer, then you should not have asked. We discussed grounds and reasons six years ago, I am not going to rehash it because I already know that you will never accept the community decision. I am not going to argue with you about it. I have already said all that I am going to say on the matter. —Stephen ^(Talk) 11:28, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

There would be no worse way of speaking ill of me in this collaborative community than saying that "you will never accept the community decision." You make a self-righteous man of me, while I am seriously asking what or which is exactly "the community decision" at all regarding the very Janus-faced RR in disguise. And you just escape from answering a simple question I ask you, to my great regret, not to mention from any critical review of my reasoning based on the relevant RR principle (say, phonetic hangul basis) and real-life practices in a nutshell. I am really disappointed. Enough is enough; let's stop here. I can lead a horse to water but I can't make him drink! --KYPark (talk) 13:23, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

To Metaknowledge

I always wish you to remain more careful and consistent. You doubt my "personal agony" which was explicitly given above: "press me to use this confusing way hence to my agony" which is manyfold: (1) to be pressed to use the confusing way, (2) which itself in turn is embarrassing to become the source of mental stress that is simply undecidability, and (3) maybe blocked if I keep going "my way" inspite and instead of your "preference" warning!

Honestly I suspect you of trying to find some reason for blocking me long. Irrelevantly, indeed, you bring even WT:ES events into BP. Yeah, my karma or what I have ill or well done cannot be undone. I wonder if it helps resolve this agenda.

I make it a rule to attack ahead of no one, but perhaps tougher than an eye for an eye when attacked, as I did in ES. But ideally I prefer cosmic w:moral reciprocity such as do unto others as you would have them do unto you or 역지사지, as I recently created specially to this end. [ I correct "anyone" to "no one" above. --KYPark (talk) 04:03, 11 September 2012 (UTC) ]

I raised this agenda step by step, starting from quite a simple straightforward question. It could have ended up with a simple answer. But no one answered quite a while. So I escalated again and again. At last Stephen answered very simply but quite doubtfully to me, as I suggested to him above.

You mentioned your "preference" in reply, which is not the right answer, I fear. The question is "What is the WT standard of RR?" especially "unnegotiable." If you as an admin repeatedly impose your mere "preference" on me, in effect you threateningly do unto me, as you once warned me a long blocking, as I am easily scared by you, you know!

I greatly regret I have to say all these, regardless of the main point. You should know how hard I am preparing myself for its resolution; this byproduct is never ever what I want.

--KYPark (talk) 04:29, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

To be maximally clear: I will not block you over transliteration. I will not block you for a long period of time (i.e., more than a couple days) without bringing it up here first. I think that adding a Korean hanja box to the English section of an entry on purpose and defending it is disruptive, and because you have been warned, I will block you for a short period of time if I see you do that again. That's all. Honestly, I would much rather never block you. I apologize sincerely if I have scared you.
Nothing here is "unnegotiable", but my preference happens to be the same as what almost all Korean entries and translations on Wiktionary follow for RR. That is why I have been modifying your transliterations. --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 04:45, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I hope you guys calm down. Here's my thoughts:

Using a standard or most common transliteration is very important but not critical. KYPark, please reconsider this carefully. What seems to be good and natural to YOU, may not be good to others and may put off users, editors. RR has become very popular among Korean learners, that's the fact.

Losing a passionate editor, a native speaker or a person with a good knowledge of a language over transliteration is not wise. I had to compromise over this before. Perhaps we can compromise too. One option is to leave all entries and translations WITHOUT transliteration altogether until the dispute is resolved. Korean is not a language, which has a long tradition of using one standard transliteration, so a compromise might be possible, I think.

My preference is that we use Revised_Romanization_of_Korean (RR)) but I'm not sure if the Wikipedia article describes it completely in English (or any other web-site) and all the nuances are subject to the decision of Wiktionarians. My knowledge of RR is not so great but it's definitely better than McCune–Reischauer (MR).

Sorry if I sound confusing. I may have done a bunch of inconsistencies as far as Korean transliteration is concerned. BTW, I think Stephen was occasionally using a very relaxed Korean transliteration, so I wouldn't worry about why he transliterated the way he did. We don't have a Wiktionary document describing in a clear way how we should transliterate, so we get all sorts of varieties. As I said, transliteration is important but it's more important that the native script is written correctly. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 05:50, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

To Anatoli

Surprisingly, you include everything most vital in your first paragraph, as I note and respond as follows:

"KYPark, please reconsider this carefully."

I did "reconsider this carefully" over and over again, at least no less than half a dozen years, as explicitly referenced and discussed above. It's now your turn to do hopefully that much.

"What seems to be good and natural to YOU, may not be good to others."

This sounds the very way of my motto I've implicitly raised recently. This sounds the very goal of my motto I've implicitly praised recently all the way and perhaps forever!

But this is not exactly mine, to be precise. What you see "popular" is what I see "secular" or likely unacademic or unworthy of Wiktionary in my critical view.

"RR has become very popular among Korean learners, that's the fact."

Your view is supposed to be generally right. But you are right as far as RR is nothing but the secular or popular orthoepic transcription of spoken Korean at the cost of the academic orthographic transliteration of written Korean. But the truth is RR is not so monist but dualist indeed! I'd rather blame the Korean government authorities concerned for misquiding the world as if such secular then popular orthoepy were the standard RR.

These are all I'm saying here forever. Kind regards.

--KYPark (talk) 09:50, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't have an opinion on the matter at hand, but I will say that you do love to create drama. Most people would be content with simply making their point, without pages of hyperboly, marginally relevant or irrelevant data, tables, charts, graphs, illustrations, etc. Not you. Sometimes you have a valid point buried under all of that, but I suspect that pretty much none of those not actually participating in the debate will ever see it- it's just too easy to page past all the eye-glazing prolixity. Chuck Entz (talk) 13:50, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Also, it is easy to find a stick to beat a dog. You come to find still another fault with me. Again, enough is enough; let's just focus on the very RR in question, shall we? --KYPark (talk) 14:32, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Okay, it's the way the rest of us want to transliterate Korean, so that's the way consensus goes. If you're not interested in discussions of your communication style, I think that's what you're going to get.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:56, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Haha, what a classic circular argument! (^_^)

1. "What is the Wiktionary way of RR?" (or "the very RR in question")
2. "Okay, it's the way the rest of us Wiktionary community want to transliterate Korean, so that's the way Wiktionary community consensus goes."

Apparently, you don't like the likely well-established and well-known difference between:

1. orthographic transliteration of written language, and
2. orthoepic transcription of spoken language.

The RR mode of Stephen's "community decision" or your "concensus" is not transliteration but transcription, to be precise, to avoid so widespread confusion even in this relevant discussion. Whence, the first button may have been wrongly fastened, I presume; what has been seen cannot be unseen.

--KYPark (talk) 04:03, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

KYPark, your arguments are very hard to read, sorry. Not sure if it's your English or mine. Even after careful reading I don't know what we are arguing about. Specifically, what examples of transliteration are you advocating? Are you sure that Stephen is insisting on the transliteration example he used (it may have been his mistake)? If you are FOR the use of RR, then what are the specifics? There's a lot of emotion here but little technical and little to the point. Can you start with consonants in each position? We have a consonant table here: RR transcription rules. What part do you disagree with?

Importing the table:

	next initial →	ㅇ	ㄱ	ㄴ	ㄷ	ㄹ	ㅁ	ㅂ	ㅅ	ㅈ	ㅊ	ㅋ	ㅌ	ㅍ	ㅎ
previous ending ↓			g	n	d	r	m	b	s	j	ch	k	t	p	h
ㄱ	k	g	kg	ngn	kd	ngn	ngm	kb	ks	kj	kch	k-k	kt	kp	kh, k
ㄴ	n	n	n-g	nn	nd	ll, nn	nm	nb	ns	nj	nch	nk	nt	np	nh
ㄷ	t	d, j	tg	nn	td	nn	nm	tb	ts	tj	tch	tk	t-t	tp	th, t, ch
ㄹ	l	r	lg	ll, nn	ld	ll	lm	lb	ls	lj	lch	lk	lt	lp	lh
ㅁ	m	m	mg	mn	md	mn	mm	mb	ms	mj	mch	mk	mt	mp	mh
ㅂ	p	b	pg	mn	pd	mn	mm	pb	ps	pj	pch	pk	pt	p-p	ph, p
ㅇ	ng	ng-	ngg	ngn	ngd	ngn	ngm	ngb	ngs	ngj	ngch	ngk	ngt	ngp	ngh

--Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 05:21, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

In the beginning, I ask "what is the WT way of RR?" say for 닫히다. Please romanize it for me using the above table. --KYPark (talk) 05:44, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I would romanise as dathida (although I used datida, never dachida) . The table doesn't describe initial consonants or between vowel (there are other tables on the Wikipedia page). The initial (same as between vowels) ㄷ is transliterated as "d". Using "t" and "ch" for ㄷ + ㅎ is confusing. We should stick to "th". I'm against using dadhida or tadhida, that's definitely not RR. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 05:54, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Definitely, you are split among the three options, being more or less embarrassed.

1. Why would you change your mind from datida to dathida?
2. Is it because Stephen said so above?
3. Why do you say "we stick to dathida"?
4. What if neither Stephen's dathida nor your datida is outside of the RR proper? Should we still stick to it?
5. Why do you rule out dachida for which I argued from the "phonetic hangul" perspective?
6. Do you say that dadhida is not RR proper? Just forget tadhida which is absolutely wrong.

--KYPark (talk) 06:25, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I have been doing occasional Korean translations for a few years and if asked seriously would insist on dathida - that's my understanding of RR but I may be wrong. I haven't change my mind recently but I at some stage got misled by a textbook which used a variety of MR method. It used just "t", "k" and "p" in such cases. Stephen's answer doesn't have to do with this. Did he mention this example? You have too many questions, some sarcastic, from which I can't tell what YOUR preferences are. If you prefer phonetic Hangeul, why do you insist dadhida? What DO you insist on? dadhida and dachida are opposite extremes. Are you trying to confuse me or are you trying to turn everyone against you?

I don't understand: "# What if neither Stephen's dathida nor your datida is outside of the RR proper? Should we still stick to it?"

Why do you say "we stick to dathida"? You tell me why not. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 06:45, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Did he mention this example?
Yes he did indeed! And this dathida of his is practically all that this long discussion has answered me properly though implausibly. In response, I argued against it as unfounded at all, while for dachida as founded on the phonetic hangul. In retrospect, this was the climax of this discussion! So I'm afraid you miss that. Thus may I ask you to read through all the discussion very carefully, before you complain you cannot understand what I am talking about. Nonetheless, this discussion is not enough. It entails a six-year old prehistory, as referenced above. To become a really responsible commentator, you have to read through those references, at least.

I have to say it again but your English and your manner of expressing yourself is hard to understand. It was also obvious from Stephen's comments. In reply to your lengthy writing where your main point was thoroughly buried, he just mentioned what our convention is. Instead of explaining clearly what you want, you give numerous examples. Yes, it's our convention and common practice. I think I'll leave this unproductive discussion but prepare a some tables later on for a discussion. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 23:30, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

In response to your complaining of difficulty in understanding me, I asked you a simple question. And you answered:

I would romanise as dathida (although I used datida, never dachida).

That is, dathida > datida > dachida, in short for 닫히다. The RR proper, however, almost certainly requires this be upside down, say, dachida (my guess) >>> dathida (Stephen's and newly yours). That is, Stephen and you and all the silent friends of yours are most likely wrong, I fear!

Now I have a way to prove it definitely, while all of you may have none, hopelessly. Or, You all may have one but say none so as not to prove You all are wrong yourselves. Metaknowledge's mentioning "preference" at last suggests You have one or the like proof. Otherwise, You all are simply unqualified here!

You complain of my hard English: "It was also obvious from Stephen's comments." Do you take him as your guiding light? But I said "To fix mistakes is one thing; to fix what are mistakes at all is another." And he said "I don't know what you mean by mistakes versus mistakes at all." Do you also have the same or similar trouble with understanding my passage as such? Please answer frankly so that I could review and refine my English for this community!

Thus I newly begin to wonder if the native English speaker can always understand English better than a level-2 English speaker like myself. Furthermore, not only English understanding but everything else....

Next to one simple question, I asked six discreet numbered questions, expecting you to answer each individually but in vain. This confusing way of Q&A is helpless and hopeless, I fear and regret, for precise approaches to problem-solving, isn't it?

--KYPark (talk) 08:30, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

In reply to your lengthy writing where your main point was thoroughly buried, he just mentioned what our convention is.
In reply to my first single sentence, "he just mentioned" not "what our convention is" but what his preference or preoccupation is, I fear. Should it be our explicit convention, it may be simply wrong, as I explained so long so far. Now it's your turn to examine if and how ours is wrong. There is no use to blame me and cover but uncover it!

Instead of explaining clearly what you want, you give numerous examples.
"Clearly what I want" is to clearly show or suggest to you, through "numerous examples," what may be wrong in your ways of thinking and doing, say, not transliterating written Korean but quite exceptionally transcribing spoken Korean into Roman, possibly to the great disadvantage to Korean! Nonetheless, my original question was very simple and humble indeed. You all have helped it evolve into all this complexity. It's rather your karma, I fear.

Yes, it's our convention and common practice.
I remember you plausibly doubted it at first. I wonder what has changed your mind suddenly to be so firmly convinced of what is so doubtful to me. The single example 닫히다 is enough for me to doubt your "convention" from the bottom up!

I think I'll leave this unproductive discussion but prepare a some tables later on for a discussion.
I sincerely wish you every good luck, for it could throw a bright light on this all darkness. Cheers.

--KYPark (talk) 11:43, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

If you prefer phonetic Hangeul, why do you insist dadhida?
The "phonetic hangul" is not a matter of preference but how Korean sounds. It is the very basis (perhaps in disguise) of a mode or face of Janus-faced RR, you know. Another mode or face is say dadhida I prefer. Put otherwise, I never prefer phonetic hangul but prefer such romanization that can do without it. It is hard even to Koreans, and perhaps too hard for foreign editors of Korean. They have to check it for every new entry. Do you do that nusance? For what? Just for trivial phonetic ease at the cost of everything else! (cf. 小耽大失)

I don't understand: "# What if neither Stephen's dathida nor your datida is outside of the RR proper? Should we still stick to it?"
Because of my poor English or carelessness, I am awfully sorry to make such a simple stupid mistakes that "neither ... nor" be "either ...or" or even "both ... and". Again very sorry, but please think again.

--KYPark (talk) 07:44, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Please answer in particular what if both dathida and datida were not RR. Should we still stick to /th/ or dathida?

--KYPark (talk) 08:26, 11 September 2012 (UTC) --KYPark (talk) 08:45, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Were is subjunctive; if it were not so, then it would not be so, but that has little impact on what we should do here where it is so.--Prosfilaes (talk) 09:38, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Then I ask otherwise. Suppose dathida is not RR. Then what should we do? Should we give it up or not? --KYPark (talk) 09:47, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Self-help

Motivations

• a chain is only as strong as its weakest link; what's the weakest of yours?
• as you sow, so shall you reap; what have you sowed?
• attack is the best form of defence; only if not the worst!
• bad money drives out good; truly indeed so often!
• empty vessels make the most sound; who are such vessels at all?
• fools seldom differ;
• great minds think alike;
• heaven helps those who help themselves; 皇天不負苦心人, 자구다복!
• honesty is the best policy; there are so many who doubt it!
• if my aunt had balls, she'd be my uncle; if my aunt had orthographic transliterations, she'd be my uncle (she always has orthoepic transcriptions only).
• if you want a thing done well, do it yourself; 求人不如求己!
• you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink; indded!

• He who knows does not speak, he who speaks does not know. 知者不言 言者不知. -- Lao Tze
• The cruelest lies are often told in silence. -- R. L. Stevenson
• In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends. -- Martin Luther King Jr.

What's most wrong with this edit?

Not to mention this. You may well view and review this question from the oriental, neutral, or non-Abrahamic perspective. --KYPark (talk) 08:12, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I think it's a readability issue. We don't want really long entries; Wikipedia does that, people come to us for relatively short, concise definitions. Mglovesfun (talk) 08:19, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not asking the old but new, Ruakh's edit, whose 'wrong' may sound impossible to you. --KYPark (talk) 08:48, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Just to clarify, you're asking us to critique this version without references to the previous versions, and answer the question "what's most wrong with it?" Mglovesfun (talk) 08:59, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I meant this. I wonder why I made reference to another as above. --KYPark (talk) 09:07, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Well my question above stands, as that's what I started replying to and you told me I'd misunderstood. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:08, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I refer everybody to:

• http://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=%EC%97%AD%EC%A7%80%EC%82%AC%EC%A7%80&diff=18282977&oldid=18150655

NOT to your:

• http://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=%EC%97%AD%EC%A7%80%EC%82%AC%EC%A7%80&oldid=18282977

And I never told you that you "'d misundertood." Please be precise not to mislead people. --KYPark (talk) 09:23, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, since you asked "What's most wrong with this edit?", I'd say the most wrong thing is creating a red link for "don't do unto others what you wouldn't have them do unto you", even though that isn't a saying in English and is unlikely ever to be an entry. —Angr 09:45, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

That red-link was already there; I merely failed to remove it. —Ruakh_TALK 00:30, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree (though I don't know if that's the question being asked, but if it is, I agree). Mglovesfun (talk) 09:51, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Still you misunderstand me. So I say again "what's most wrong with [Ruakh's counter] edit" upsetting mine. Did you read the process at all, even not terribly carefully, before you say something responsibly?

Should it be most wrong to create a red link for "don't do unto others what you wouldn't have them do unto you," then it would be enough for it to be erased from Alternative forms, instead of reducing the content from 2.5 to 1.0 kbytes. Is your reason still reasonable?

I wouldn't continue this talk because strange edit conflicts continue. --KYPark (talk) 10:14, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Examples of usages are supposed to be in the langauge of the entry, and they must use the exact word/phrase that the entry is about. Thus, only examples containing 역지사지 (yeokjisaji) can be used, not quotations of English texts. I am not sure why the synonym section was removed. Njardarlogar (talk) 14:09, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Re: why the synonym section was removed: The sole "synonym" was marked as "-- Confucius". Since Confucius didn't speak Korean (or even some ancestor of Korean), I figured this must be a mistake. Given that the entry was filled with inappropriate content, I assumed this was just another example of such, so I removed it. —Ruakh_TALK 02:51, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

See #caveat lector (Reader, beware!)

I would have made the same revisions, pretty much. For one thing, the English-language citations in the September 14 version are irrelevant for a Korean expression. The September 14 content looks more conceptual (encyclopedic} than linguistic. DCDuring TALK 14:49, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

caveat lector

1. I'm quite surprised that no debater understands what's the very question. So I guess that the self-righteous suffer cognitive biases to such an extent.
2. What if all faults, if any, should be found with KYPark, likely the paganic eccentric Eurasiatic, while nothing would be wrong with Ruakh the powerful admin. Simply this is so unlikely. Why?
3. Singly relevantly, though marginally, wondered in this session so far was "why the synonym section was removed" by Ruakh, who in turn answered, "Since Confucius didn't speak Korean ... I figured this must be a mistake." In effect, he admitted he was not terribly principled or objective.
4. By doing so, he looks like watering down the original thick question "What's most wrong with this edit" of his. He disguised his scathing counter-edit as a marginal ("m") "trimming" [1] while making a mere bare bone of my special, strategic thick description!
5. For many years, my such Eurasiatic strategy has remained too notorious for even the least informed to miss it. So I always feel like my opponents, say, PIE people having conspired to make a joke of my edits and make a scapegoat of myself, by all means. May I ask if I'm hypersensitive? Ironically, yes is what I really wish to hear. But surely they wouldn't convince me as I wish.
6. Meanwhile, Ruakh's easy reply on synonymy as above is in fact too uneasy for me! Let me explain this way.
7. Native English speakers would hate me, should I interfere with them using Latin such Category:English proverbs as follows:
   • caveat lector (reader, beware)
   • e pluribus unum (from many to one; the national motto of the U.S. until 1956)
   • hic Rhodus, hic salta (prove what you can do here and now)
   • in vino veritas (in wine lies truth -- Pliny the Elder (23-79 AD))
   • lex dubia non obligat (a doubtful law is not obligatory)
   • respice finem (look to the end or final outcome)
8. Likewise, Koreans in turn would hate Ruakh, who in fact or in effect interferes with them using hanja such as 孔子 and his saying 己所不欲，勿施於人.
9. That simple is the principle of moral reciprocity that has lasted at least 2.5 millennia old, repeating itself one way after another, evolving quite uneasy etymologies and meanings, as evident as follows:
   1. 己所不欲勿施於人 (Confucius)
   2. 易地則皆然 (Mencius)
   3. 易地思之 or 역지사지 (author unknown)
10. So these entries should be handled very carefully! Outsiders, say Ruakh knowing little Korean, have little to do with, or interfere with, them.
11. But, I'm afraid and sorry that he in fact has been so disruptive as:
    • to reduce do unto others as you would have them do unto you from 3.1 to 1.6 kbytes
      • [2]
      • [3]
    • to reduce 己所不欲，勿施於人 from 1.2 to 0.3 kbytes [4]
      • destroying the needed Etymology
      • destroying the refined Definition, restoring such nonsensical as "do unto others as you would have done unto you." This may prove why Ruakh's storming counter-edit is disruptive or destructive!
    • to reduce 역지사지 from 2.5 to 1.0 kbytes [5] m (→‎Korean: trim)
12. By the way, I wish you all to be motivated by this regretting "ownership of language" as a fatal fallacy.
13. In this regard, I guess, Ruakh is painfully misguided by, and misguiding, such unreasonable and unseasonable ownership of language in this global joint venture like these wikis in this global age. I wish him respice finem and not to do what may make the East Asian very angry at him!
14. I wonder if whatever Ruakh does is purely for the benefit of Wiktionary. I fear if he might greatly endanger all the wikis that has kept stressing themselves as founded on NPOV. No global wiki forever without global NPOV, I guess.
15. Eventually, I wonder why Ruakh dares to take risks of the unnegotiable NPOV. So far I have no idea on the relevant root and reason than the deep-rooted self-righteous Abrahamism coupled with Eurocentrism. No world peace with these, I fear utmost!

I wish the above numbers of mine to discussed one by one. And I confess that during this session I was blocked for a day for a dubious reason. --KYPark (talk) 10:11, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

I assume it's because you're not a native English speaker that you were unable to express what you meant. Having read what you've just written, you're talking rubbish and I won't reply because it might imply that I think your points are legitimate, which I don't. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:16, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

October 2012

刁斗

Wiktionary:Etymology scriptorium/cauldron