User talk:Evertype/Archive 5

Writing systems resources

Hi again! I was wondering if you knew of any literary resources that are good overall references for writing systems. I've used The World's Writing Systems quite a bit but I don't plan on citing every WS article with it...is there anything particularly useful that I could find in a bookstore? I'd appreciate any pointers. Regards, The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 03:30, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Blatant advert

Hi Michael,

My name's Alison - you might know me as I'm a friend of this person and we had some dealings in the past (even on GAELIC_L) :) Anyways - I'm currently temporary sysop over on ga.wiktionary.org, and myself and a team of others are trying to revive the project over there. I think there's a crying need for an active wikti as Gaeilge, and have taken this one on as a labor of love of something! Either way, I ... umm ... would be really honoured if you would maybe pop in every so often and maybe add a word or two. We could use all the help we can get over here! Best regards - Alison ☺ 06:12, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Burma internet access

You said on my talk page, following on a comment which I made recently on Talk:Burma, "My report is first-hand, but that is not the same thing as Original Research. I was not expostulating a theory. I was reporting a fact." I would point to WP:V, a Wikipedia policy, the opening sentence of which reads as follows: The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. If you think it useful to continue this discussion, let's do it either on my talk page or yours, rather than bouncing back and forth. I'll keep your talk page on my watchlist for a while in case you wish to continue the discussion here. -- Boracay Bill 00:49, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

The problem with "news" is that sometimes it isn't verifiable. Currently if you check new stories like this one from Reuters http://uk.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUKBKK8937820071007 it says that internet access is cut off. Well, I know that there is limited access because I have on the nights of 5 and 6 October exchanged IM messages with friends in Yangon. They reported to me that access is available pretty much late at night; one said it was a sort of curfew. There isn't any way for me to "prove" this. When I made the edits I did include this caveat in the edit summary. I don't know how else to do better, if none of the News Agencies know about it. -- Evertype·✆ 08:25, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Again, The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. -- Boracay Bill 23:43, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm aware of that. I'm not a newbie. I can also say truthfully that last night my friends were not online from Burma, so it seems that internet access may be down again. -- Evertype·✆ 09:28, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Aware or not, you seem to be arguing that in this particular case verifiability doesn't matter because in your view what you understand to be truth, though unverifiable by others than yourself, overrides normal WP policy. -- Boracay Bill 13:24, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

When I made the edits I clearly marked them as unverified but true. How would you suggest the reports be verified? -- Evertype·✆ 14:33, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia's verifiability policy says:

• The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed.
• The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. The source should be cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question.

The moon is made of green cheese. I got the information from a source which I trust, and I believe it. This information is unverified, but true.

Material which is "unverified but (believed to be) true" does not meet the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia.-- Boracay Bill 00:52, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

You didn't answer my question. You also appear to suggest that it was my "belief" that the Burmese internet was live between 22:00 and 05:00 local time as of the date in question. It was not a "belief". It was a fact. I communicated by Instant Messenger with colleagues in Yangon. I reported this on the pages in question. It's ridiculous that you're treating me to a lecture on Wikipedia policy. Have you not been paying attention to what is going on in that country? I for one was quite worried when the internet was cut and I had no contact with my colleagues for several days. Oh, and by the way: the internet remains up during the curfew hours. You probably can't verify that unless you have friends in Myanmar. -- Evertype·✆ 07:56, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I am not suggesting that your information is untrue. If I had to guess, I would guess that your information is probably true. However, neither "I believe that this is a fact" nor "a source which I believe but which I cannot cite as a reliable source told me this" meets Wikipedia inclusion criteria. Just in case anyone other than you and I is reading this, the Burma article snippet which we are discussing reads: "Internet access was restored by at least midnight of 5 October, Burmese time. Sources in Burma said on 6 October that the internet seems to be working from 22:00 to 05:00 local time."

I did a bit of original research myself just now. I noticed that http://www.google.com/search?q=site:.mm returns 60,000+ hits so I tried clicking on a few of them. The ten or so which I tried within the past few minutes failed. -- Boracay Bill 10:58, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Religion/Philosophy CFD

Oh, joy. Another witch-hunt. -- Evertype·✆ 13:43, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I was not trolling. I was quite serious. Again and again we have to enjoy these attempts to delete these categories. Again and again they are Not Deleted. Why not do the community a favour and withdraw your CFD requests? -- Evertype·✆ 20:31, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

One can be serious, and still be trolling... That aside, I would request that you actually read the current nominations. Anyway, Hope you're having a good day. - jc37 02:02, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

switched

Hi there. You wrote over here: "Category:Bright Wikipedians should be kept. Category:Wikipedian Brights could be deleted." I think you meant it the other way round! Cheers, Dan Pelleg 21:24, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Personal attack

You've placed that personal attack 3 times now. Please do not do so again, or I will ask for you to be blocked. I suggest that you drop it. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 00:22, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Brights

hi. I am a Bright, and I was looking for a Bright user template. There was none (none that I've found), so I created Template:Bright User and used it on my user page. Looking at similar "This user is an atheist" templates, I was naive enough to open Category: Wikipedian Brights and link there. 3 minutes later it was deleted by jc37, he left some message in my page about it too, pointing Wikipedia:User_categories_for_discussion/Archive/October_2007#Category:Bright_Wikipedians - where I found you.

1. So why wasn't there at least a public user template like the one I created? It hasn't been deleted yet anyways. If all Brights link to some public template it would at least be easy to get a list of us (using "What links here").
2. Reading that discussion, I don't seem to understand why the category was finally deleted... was there a vote count or something? There are more "keep" votes there. --Itaj Sherman (talk) 02:08, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you did anything wrong. I don't think that category should have been deleted, either. But Jc37 is fervent in his prosecutions. -- Evertype·✆ 07:38, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Shall we write a small report recording a recent case of discrimination against Brights in comparison to Christians in Wikipedia and add it to the Bright article? Only (half-)joking… ☺Dan Pelleg (talk) 23:22, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Move of Scottish kings

There is a proposed move of Scottish kings at Talk:Kenneth I of Scotland that I thought I'd bring to your attention. I think you have had things to say on this subject in the past. Probably won't be successful, but that's wiki for you. Best regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:26, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

photo

I sent you an email, but just wanted to say that you are welcome to use the image, please just cite from me. Profberger (talk) 20:13, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Did you get my email? Profberger (talk) 14:58, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and I will be very pleased to use your photograph ono the cover of the book. Many thanks. -- Evertype·✆ 17:03, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Europanto

I came upon this weird thing: Talk:Europanto#European_Union_buildings. Are you familiar? --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 20:01, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Unicode expert required

Hi, you being probably the expert on this, could I ask your input at Talk:Eta (letter)#"Tack heta" glyphs? Thanks a lot, Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:11, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Font used in recent Greek Unicode documents

Which Greek font (preferably TTF) was used in http://std.dkuug.dk/jtc1/sc2/wg2/docs/n3263.pdf (5.0) and in http://unicode.org/charts/PDF/U0370.pdf (5.1) files? I need it to write my own Greek-lettered texts featuring at once all Unicode 5.0 and 5.1 both standard and obsolete Greek letters. You even stated in Eta talk page that the exact glyphs for the three characters were drawn by you. Please help and NOT ignore me - thanks. CBMIBM (talk) 14:48, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm busy, and you're anonymous and a bit demanding. -- Evertype·✆ 09:37, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Excuse for that demanding manner, (I'm not anonyous, but under nick CBMIBM) but reason of my demands went mainly and primarily from need to adapt full Greek alphabet (including all obsolete letters) as first ever consonant+vowel alphabet to writing Proto-Indo-European language treated as first ever language according to statement, which I discovered recently in relevant article. Can you provide me name of this font that was used in these PDFs, but covering current Unicode 5.1 Greek range? CBMIBM (talk) 13:57, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

A nickname is anonymous. But it doesn't matter. The font is a private font of my own, and has not been released for public use. -- Evertype·✆ 16:02, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Will this font be ever released for public use? When? I need to know it to be sure which way I should choose: waiting for public release of your font or starting making my own font from scratch. Please don't keep me in uncertainity. Thanks. CBMIBM (talk) 16:22, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not able to assist you at this time. -- Evertype·✆ 16:57, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

What this means? That your font ALWAYS will be your private font and NEVER will be published? Please confirm or deny this. CBMIBM (talk) 17:05, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

No. I have said all I am going to say. My font is a private font used for standardization purposes and has not been released for public use. -- Evertype·✆ 17:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

That means that this font will be ALWAYS private one and my only solution is to make own font from scratch? Do I understand you properly? You used past time for font release status, thus my misunderstanding that "it has not been published in the past, but may be published in future". Please clarify this as soon as possible. CBMIBM (talk) 17:55, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

He said "No". 76.93.172.63 (talk) 10:59, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

What really means this "No"? No publication in future or no dispublication in future? Evertype, please tell me what this "No" finally means. CBMIBM (talk) 12:00, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

"No" means "No". "I'm not able to assist you" means "I'm not able to assist you". Please stop pestering me. -- Evertype·✆ 20:28, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Thus things are clear: You know past of your font as unreleased, but you don't know future of your font and still didn't determined if it will be released or not, because you are currently uncertain in this matter, because your superiors still didn't determined future fate of your font. Because of this uncertainity, you can not assist me in any way. Thus I must make my own font from scratch, to avoid loss on my time, because length of uncertainity period is too uncertain. Thanks for explanation. I hope that I understood you properly. CBMIBM (talk) 20:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Just curious...

Hi, I have a question that has nothing to do with Wikipedia... I am as well very interested in the world's writing system and have studied and learned by hard quite many of them. Or at least everyone I know considers it an extreme amount and asks me if I had nothing to do. So far, I can read and write in about 22 alphabets/writing systems (depending on the definition, it might be ±2 or so). I've never come across anyone, who knew that many writing systems. So my question to you is: How many can you read and write by heart, without help? — N-true (talk) 19:50, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

All of them. -- Evertype·✆ 00:53, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for nothing. — N-true (talk) 16:28, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

You asked. -- Evertype·✆ 16:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I was expecting an honest answer, in fact. Guess it was too much to hope for, unfortunately. I was not going to put your answer into some article and I was not going to prance with it either. — N-true (talk) 02:56, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Sometimes people are too busy to drop whatever they are doing to satisfy another person's idle curiosity by making a list. You might factor that into your exectations. It doesn't seem to me to be very polite for you to suggest that I was being dishonest, however. If you are really interested, you can find a list here. -- Evertype·✆ 10:42, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, N-true. When Evertype shares his knowledge with the world, there will be no more undeciphered scripts. He's also one of the few who can read Late Egyptian inscriptions from more than the one temple they specialize in. 76.93.172.63 (talk) 10:59, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not a decipherer. -- Evertype·✆ 11:24, 29 January 2008 (UTC)