Hello, Cnscrptr! 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 or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about 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 when making edits to pages.
Thank you for clarifying why you undid it this time. Last time you did, it was with the reason of "source: trust me bro", which was disingenuous. Cnscrptr (talk) 13:39, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
October 2023
Hi. Welcome, and thanks for your contributions to Greek alphabet. I've undone them because you didn't provide a source, but don't worry, your changes are preserved in the page history. You can restore your changes, along with citations to reliable sources. If you have any questions about editing Wikipedia, feel free to {{reply}} below, or you can ask at the Wikipedia:Help desk. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 16:04, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your feedback! I added citations as you requested.
The underdotted "z" symbol comes from transcription of Arabic tajwid (recitation) pronunciation, where the sound is a little bit artificial (devised so that the letters ض and ظ could be pronounced differently among speakers of Arabic dialects where the sounds written by the letters had merged). Nobody ever thought there was an actual emphatic [z] sound in early Northwest Semitic (or nobody knowledgeable who actually thought about it, anyway), but it was convenient to drag in the underdotted "z" symbol to represent the etymologically corresponding Ugaritic letter, whose actual sound value was a matter of speculative reconstruction... AnonMoos (talk) 09:58, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I corrected it to an emphatic /θ'/ as shown by the Proto-Semitic word ṯ̣ill "shade" a few hours ago, though I kept the name ẓil to conform with the sources.
I guess the central issue is that we currently have this in the article North Korea (see page history for attribution):
"North Korea, like its southern counterpart, claims to be the legitimate government of the entire Korean Peninsula and adjacent islands. Despite its official title as the "Democratic People's Republic of Korea", some observers have described North Korea's political system as an absolute monarchy or a "hereditary dictatorship". It has also been described as a Stalinistdictatorship."
So adding anything into the infobox (such as totalitarian dictatorship, hereditary dictatorship) around this issue creates the appearance of WP:SYNTH. Personally, I wouldn't go beyond "unitary one-party socialist republic" in the government type infobox, since this is something that even the NK governments itself agrees with and there's little difference of opinion. I'm not going to personally revert your edit, but the note to not make additions or changes without talk page consensus is there for a reason. Sagflaps (talk) 01:26, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A One-Party Socialist Republic is not necessarily totalitarian
North Korea is also the shining example of a "totalitarian regime", though someone else changed it to totalitarian dictatorship despite my reservations due to the Article talk. I also refrained from describing it as "hereditary" since scarce sources describe it as such and the talk reached a consensus against such definition.
Anyway, thanks for the feedback and I will keep this in mind (I just felt the need to edit the article).
Thanks also for not reverting the edit, although if someone else finds trouble with it due to a reasonable conclusion based on the Article talk, they should feel free to do so.
You're welcome to discuss North Korea being a totalitarian regime, but it's just that the infobox in particular has a far higher standard, and it seems like the more that gets added, the more drive-by editors will make additions that are just based on their personal opinion of how the country should be called. To not get too deep into the analysis, the key characteristics of totalitarianism are a lack of pluralism (western style democracy), as well as a strong central government (the opposite of economic austerity). One-party describes the first point, and the second is a key characteristic of socialism. Sagflaps (talk) 04:21, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It looks similar to glyph 4, especially since the sentence in 367 can be reconstructed as גד עשׂ(ה) עש "Gad Create a moth" (the only one that succeeded in google translate), though I manually reconstructed the source's גד ער עש as "Gad Awake a moth" Cnscrptr (talk) 22:57, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, when I decided to interpret Lachish's ś for myself, I noticed it wasn't a closed shape but an open one similar to Glyph 4 at 367 Cnscrptr (talk) 23:25, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I expected anybody trying to read the proto Sinaitic inscriptions knew the Phoenician alphabet. You will learn it, accidentally even, reading inscriptions or Hebrew. Temerarius (talk) 04:02, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know. of the Kuntillet Ajrud script, I guess. The descender aspect is the same problem from there or p-Sinai look: 𐤆𐤌𐤓 it's like they're in capital letters. they're all stretched or squeezed between the x-height and the Baseline (typography). I'll demonstrate an alphabet for you. Or find an example. 𐤌: It's twin peaks in the main space and the mountain creek as the descender in a certain era's or area's conception, different from the earlier wavy lines from egypt. It's what happend when an element is meant to be coming from within its bounds, that process where it becomes a descender or in l's case an ascender. Temerarius (talk) 22:11, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I printed this alphabet from the font "Alphabetum" then I added some. I'm not sure if this demonstrates what I'm asking for, but it does show something. I added the ones that go high or low. Phoenician did lose some of these quirks but it didn't lose the ascenders and descenders completely. Temerarius (talk) 01:35, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You might want to understand the rules around original research, in your post here. If source A calls North Korea totalitarian, source B calls North Korea authoritarian, source C calls North Korea an absolute monarchy, source D calls it a dictatorship, and source E calls it hereditary, then to put "totalitarian hereditary dictatorship" is original research. Sagflaps (talk) 14:50, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wrongful WP:Synth twists sources to create a conclusion that would not be endorsed by any source, whereas WP:Synth done right takes the POVs of each source to build a full picture in a way that doesn't contradict any source.
For example, if source A describes it as "totalitarian" without commenting on hereditary while source B as "hereditary", then describing it as "totalitarian" and "de facto hereditary" would be proper synthesis unless the context of either source implicitly or explicitly opposed such synthesis. Cnscrptr (talk) 15:03, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The issue here is that determining whether a particular source would endorse a statement by another source would require contacting the authors, unless they explicitly say so. This is why the connections need to be made by the sources Sagflaps (talk) 15:34, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
By implicit and explicit I mean whether there's anything in the source directly stating or indirectly pointing to a contradiction to a particular conclusion. Cnscrptr (talk) 15:41, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I know what you meant, but in this case where reliable sources say different things about the type of government, it would be better to leave the discussion to the body instead of selecting based on editor opinion which one we like the most. Sagflaps (talk) 15:48, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
March 2024
Hello, I'm Sinclairian. I noticed that you recently removed content from Kuntillet Ajrud inscriptions without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Sinclairian (talk) 16:50, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hi, I've just been hit with a missing explanation for a letter. Very satisfying. Are you ready to start our panel? I need the collaboration. I think we can do it just the two of us. Two are ten times better than one.
Sinaitic (talk) 18:13, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
^Richards, Fiona (2001). The Anra Scarab. Oxford: BAR International Series. ISBN1-84171-217-5.
