User talk:Ecthelion83

Edits to Dravidian languages

You added a cite needed to the statement that Dravidian languages are unrelated to other language families, but it may be worth pointing out that Dravidian languages are a primary family and have no genetic relationship whatsoever to other languages, and you mention it being liked to Japanese and Korean, which also represent different primary families from each other. If you're more interested about this topic there's a decent overview on the language family page if you're interested! Photonsoup (talk) 03:44, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Edits to Atakebune

Hi, your edits to Akatebune was fine. Just b/c the article itself is underdeveloped doesn't mean that you can't focus on adding stuffs about a particular subject related to the ship. Imagine the article as a featured article, many paragraphs long. What you wrote just now will be a part of that long article. It's ok. (Wikimachine 22:39, 3 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Greetings from WikiProject Korea!

Thank you for your recent contributions to one of Wikipedia's Korea-related articles. Given the interest you've expressed by your edits, have you considered joining WikiProject Korea? It's a group dedicated to improving the overall quality of all Korea-related articles. If you would like to join, simply add your name to the list of participants.

If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask at the project talk page. We look forward to working with you in the future! Wikimachine 22:39, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, remember to sign with (~~~~). Ok. You can basically copy and paste my user page & use it to your purpose if you want (then replace the infos).

You can go to here to get the user boxes that you need. You can also visit other Wikipedian user pages to get user boxes of their own. (Wikimachine 22:58, 3 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Thanks for joining WikiProject Korea, by the way. Also, Wikipedia uses the standard web code found here: [1] 1 of our editors got permanently banned b/c of 3RR violation (7 times). I hope you don't do that. (Wikimachine 22:59, 3 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]

WP:3RR. You can revert or change back an article (when you're in a dispute) up to 3 times, but no more. Upon 4th time, you get blocked for 24 hrs.... when it happens again, 48 hrs.... again, more, again, more, again, more, until you get banned permanently. (Wikimachine 23:08, 3 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]

What you want to do is to become an admin. That's equivalent to "success" here, but it's really hard if you're a Korean or any other minority & have to deal with many disputes. The best way to be an admin is to be cautious in disputes not to take any side, always be smiling, never get rough, and then you become like user:Visviva, whom everybody likes and his WP:Rfa passed with no opposition. When you've been in Wikipedia for about 1 year & have made about 1000 to 2000 contributions, you can apply for Request for Adminship (RFA). (Wikimachine 23:09, 3 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]

And you don't want to make small contributions. I've found that completely useless b/c overtime they degrade & get lost by other complete losers or vandals (in disguise, who pretend that they can't speak english very well, but in fact they can & they love to vandalize articles). You want to work on 1 article at a time, completely develop it into a master english literature & then submit it as a featured article (so that it can be displayed on the main page) at WP:FA. Look at WP:CITE to learn about the citation templates that you must use to cite articles.

When you've stayed in Wikipedia for about 3 months, you can get these anti-vandal tools (i.e. VandalProof). They're fun to play with sometimes. (Wikimachine 23:12, 3 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Also, this is very important - don't make multiple accounts & use them for your own ends, or you'll get banned. See WP:SOCK for more info on that. (Wikimachine 23:15, 3 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]

By the way, don't try editing on Liancourt Rocks - that was one of your very first edits which is a very ominous sign. Ppl have so much trouble with that article. Just ignore it. the guy who got banned was editing on that article. I'll deal with it. (Wikimachine 23:20, 3 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]

The link you gave me, already the other party rejected it. Some stuffs you've got to know: WP:OR - you've got to cite all your edits (theoretically) good example is Japanese invasions of Korea (1592-1598) that I'm working on. Look, you think all these rules will do you no good - trust me, ppl in disputes will use these rules against you whenever you violate them & make you look like a fool.

By the way, the way you write in discussion is perfect. There are some complete losers here who try to go for the French burgeois speech style & always says stuffs like please follow the guidelines, yes you are very welcome, however it is my belief that... or you're very welcome indeed.

They just sound ridiculous. Write naturally. Gl. Oh, this reminds me, there are ppl who always end their talk edits with these exclamations (I won't give you the one that I seen frequently b/c that would be considered a personal attack) like "best regards" or "happy editing!" & they just sound so sickening when they do that in a dispute & you know they're faking (& that they feel like coming to murder you). So, in a nut shell, write naturally. (Wikimachine 00:39, 4 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Your recent edits

Hi, there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot 23:24, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Citation

Hey, in order to cite, do this:

Create a section called "Footnotes" or "References" and then below copy paste {{reflist|3}}.

And then, use <ref>citation</ref> form & also for a citation that's used repeatedly,

use <ref name="citation name">citation</ref> & then all after, <ref name="citation name"/> Thx. (Wikimachine 21:27, 5 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Example would be Japanese invasions of Korea (1592-1598).

By the way, rest of your sources (about 3 of them) are also illegit b/c they're Wiki articles & they cannot be cited upon each other. gl. Keep developing the article, but you probably need something more than just websites you should go to main public libraries in downtowns, universities, etc. in order to get more info. Actually let me find some sources for you, e-mail me (on my user page I have my e-mail address). (Wikimachine 21:33, 5 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]

One tip as well--the wiki articles should be source themselves, so you can usually get the sources from there (and if not, please add the {{fact}} tag to the other articles). --Cheers, Komdori 21:35, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi and thank you for your service

I popped over the to the NU Wikipedians list and immediately recognized Ecthelion from Tolkien. Figured the person connected to that moniker had to be interesting. Sure enough, another NU engineer who spent more time on south campus prowling around the social sciences than their advisor probably considered safe. Were you ROTC?

I'm a dyed-in-the-wool civilian whose family business was military service. So: thank you for your service. It may have been reservist duty, but you raised your right hand and placed yourself at the disposal of the tender mercies of the DoD. Were you in on Rumsfeld's watch?

Good luck with the MPH and Med School. I expect your service ethic will find ample outlet in public health. Cheers, MARussellPESE (talk) 03:02, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 07:18, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NAR

You seem to think that everyone will get rollback (your comment about 6+ million users with rollback). This is not the case. Only users that have been reviewed by admins (and found a clean record, no revert warring, etc) would get the tool. And administrators won't give it out to vandals. -- Cobi^(t|c|b) 07:35, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your VandalProof Application

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, Ecthelion83. As you may know, VP is a very powerful program, and in fact the just released 1.3 version has even more power. Because of this we must uphold strict protocols before approving a new applicant. Regretfully, I have chosen to decline your application at this time. The reason for this is that:

Please note it is nothing personal by any means, and we certainly welcome you to apply again soon. Thank again for your interest in VandalProof. β^command 13:36, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kofun period

Please do not remove or alter others' comments on article talk pages. This is not a personal attack, and expressing one's point of view is exactly what talk pages are for. If you have a constructive response to the comment, by all means post it. But you don't have the right to censor other users. Kafziel ^Ask me for rollback 07:05, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I edited it because the opinion posted was simply wrong. I had cited sources to justify my statements (which were more or less neutral sources too), and I was told that those sources were my own personal opinion. The argument simply ate itself and made absolutely no logical sense.

It's not up to you decide whether it makes sense. Talk page comments don't need to be logical, sensible, or even remotely correct. If you disagree, say why and discuss it. Kafziel ^Ask me for rollback 22:43, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough.Ecthelion83 (talk) 02:51, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ANI#Long time abusing Wikipedia by Japanese editors from 2channel meat/sock puppets

WP:ANI#Long time abusing Wikipedia by Japanese editors from 2channel meat/sock puppets

Talk:Sea of Japan#2channel meatpuppets from 朝鮮人のWikipedia（ｳｨｷﾍﾟﾃﾞｨｱ）捏造に対抗せよ 21diff

Hi, Ecthelion83, I just come to inform you that you have been exposed to 2channel, Japanese famous bulletin board. Unfortunately, many Japanese editors seem to have abused Wikipedia with the threads for a long time (over 4 years!) The discussion set up three days ago, but I let you know of this now.

You may or may not know that you and I were accused of socking each other about one month ago. Anyway, I translated some of information, but the threads are too many, so if you have a time to look at it, please visit the links listed there. I also add the diff in case you come to the page much later. If it is archived, you would find it in No. 380 or 381. Or use Special:Whatlinkshere Thanks. --Appletrees (talk) 02:24, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Ecthelion83. You can solve your query at this. Regards. --Appletrees (talk) 11:31, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Korean/Japanese similarities

Hi,

I'm writing about your recent edit to the Korean language page, where you appended to the phrase "[the two languages] share a number of possible phonological cognates" the caveat "(though a majority of them are likely due to local pronunciations of the Chinese characters from which they are derived)".

I confess to not understanding what is meant by "possible phonological cognates", but that notwithstanding... the borrowing of Chinese vocabulary that is common to Korean and Japanese is more than well-known among linguists and speakers of both languages. Any historical linguist who is taken at all seriously would recognize this and not use Sino-Korean/Japanese vocabulary in classifying either language. I think it is safe to assume that whoever identified the "possible phonological cognates" was careful to exclude Chinese-derived vocabulary. If this were not true, your observation would certainly blow this theory out of the water, but your observation strongly implies that Martin and Miller were, well, too stupid to realize that many words come from Chinese -- or that that's not a valid basis for claiming common ancestry. Rschmertz (talk) 07:29, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your remark regarding my recent edit to Korean language is partially accurate. The common cognates derived from the Chinese characters alone are not sufficient to support a common ancestry theory. This is valid even if Korean and Japanese pronounced the characters exactly the same with identical intonation, pace, and so on; for example, would the German and Korean pronunciation of words like "restaurant" be evidence of common ancestry because the pronunciations are similar/identical? Despite the fact that I think that Korean and Japanese do indeed have some common ancestry, the nature of this ancestry as well as a time of divergence (the sparse records that take note of events before the unification of Korea indicate that at the time, individuals living on the Japanese archipelago, at least those under Yamato jurisdiction, and those people living on the Korean peninsula were able to communicate quite well with each other without the need for a translator; these records also indicate that individuals could communicate if they were practiced in the "common speech," implying that the two languages had already begun divergence and their speakers had to use a mutually-intelligible "in-between" language for communication) are not at all clear. The comment about the "common speech" is a reference to a note made in either the Nihongi or Kojiki (I don't recall which) about how some Silla envoys to Yamato Japan some time before Korean unification mispronounced some Japanese landmarks because they were not practiced in the common speech.

I'm afraid you pretty much lost me after that first opening parenthesis :-), but from the part before that, I think we agree that shared vocab borrowings between languages should not be considered in determining genetic relationships between languages.

As for your suggestion that I imply that Martin and Miller were "too stupid" (your words, not mine), that is not true. I inserted my caveat before they were named, and in addition, Martin and Miller were named only as examples of researchers - I was not (at least not intentionally) trying to insult an entire group of academics with my remark. What do you suggest I do about it? Should I include the note in some other relevant section, or give it its own paragraph? It is certainly something that readers unfamiliar with the subject matter should know - maybe it's more appropriate in the "sprachbund effect" section (2 paragraphs down).

Well, I ask you not to get too hung up on the "too stupid" remark. This is not so much about insulting anyone -- I have no sensitivities whatsoever on this matter, and I don't know these guys from Adam. But your qualification definitely implies that whoever mentioned the possible phonological cognates was relying heavily on Chinese-derived vocabulary. I am simply suggesting that was not the case, for the reasons already mentioned (but see below).

As to what you should do: that's a tough one. Ideally, you would find out what cognates were suggested by Martin and Miller (or whoever). Then, in an ideal world, you would find that either a) their cognate list consists primarily of the Chinese borrowings, in which case you'd consider the whole cognate idea complete rubbish and delete it outright, or b) said list contains no Chinese borrowings (my contention), in which case your qualification would obviously be incorrect.

In the real world, you're not made of time, of course, and it may be difficult to find this out.

Personally, I'm not clear that there are too many non-Chinese-derived cognates between Korean and Japanese (though I do know that the Tsushima dialect or "ben" of Japanese has borrowed many words from Korean), and I think that the grammatical structure presents stronger support in favor of a common ancestry/link between Korean and Japanese, as the presence of shared cognates alone demonstrates some kind of sprachbund effect at best. This is why I had also added that Korean and Japanese have "nearly identical" (since I am not familiar with the extent to which they are similar, I worded it this way, though from what I understand they're close enough to be identical) grammatical structures.

This is equally unknown to me. From what I can tell -- I have at least a basic knowledge of both -- there is virtually no non-Chinese vocabulary that seems to be shared between the languages, unless you count the (striking, to me) similarity in some of the grammatical elements (the noun suffixes -ga and -e have very nearly the same meanings in both languages, for example). But from what I understand of linguistic theory (though I am not a professional linguist by any means), a sprachbund effect may indeed be the best way to explain these things.

Thanks for keeping me on my toes, by the way - I probably re-wrote my comments to you at least twice before I decided on saying what I wanted to in this way.Ecthelion83 (talk) 11:16, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to be making someone work :-P --Rschmertz (talk) 07:11, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese revisionism

Hi Ecthelion83, just a little note to let you know to participate in the next rm for Wiman as the last one was unfairly closed [2]. Your input on this matter would be greatly appreciated. Kuebie (talk) 01:32, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ecthelion83, I have made a new requested move. Please participate if you can. This time I'll be going for WP:COMMONNAME. Kuebie (talk) 21:25, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File copyright problem with File:Zoë Poledouris (Starship Troopers).jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Zoë Poledouris (Starship Troopers).jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Eeekster (talk) 00:39, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Capital letters

MOS:CAPS is explicit on this, "The adjective biblical should not be capitalized." Of course you are correct about Bible where it refers to the Jewish/Christian Bible. Dougweller (talk) 14:12, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I missed that (in other sections, biblical was also capitalized, so I was attempting to justify making my corrections consistent with those) -> thanks for the heads-upEcthelion83 (talk) 18:53, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 25

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Korea under Japanese rule, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page George Kennan (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:08, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Love history & culture? Get involved in WikiProject World Digital Library!

World Digital Library Wikipedia Partnership - We need you!

Hi Ecthelion83! I'm the Wikipedian In Residence at the World Digital Library, a project of the Library of Congress and UNESCO. I'm recruiting Wikipedians who are passionate about history & culture to participate in improving Wikipedia using the WDL's vast free online resources. Participants can earn our awesome WDL barnstar and help to disseminate free knowledge from over 100 libraries in 7 different languages. Multilingual editing encouraged!!! But being multilingual is not a necessity to make this project a success. Please sign up to participate here. Thanks for editing Wikipedia and I look forward to working with you! 20:14, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 31

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Presbyterianism in South Korea, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page 38th Parallel. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:30, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Asian 10,000 Challenge invite

Hi. The Wikipedia:WikiProject Asia/The 10,000 Challenge has recently started, based on the UK/Ireland Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge and Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The 10,000 Challenge. The idea is not to record every minor edit, but to create a momentum to motivate editors to produce good content improvements and creations and inspire people to work on more countries than they might otherwise work on. There's also the possibility of establishing smaller country or regional challenges for places like South East Asia, Japan/China or India etc, much like Wikipedia:The 1000 Challenge (Nordic). For this to really work we need diversity and exciting content and editors from a broad range of countries regularly contributing. At some stage we hope to run some contests to benefit Asian content, a destubathon perhaps, aimed at reducing the stub count would be a good place to start, based on the current Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The Africa Destubathon which has produced near 200 articles in just three days. If you would like to see this happening for Asia, and see potential in this attracting more interest and editors for the country/countries you work on please sign up and being contributing to the challenge! This is a way we can target every country of Asia, and steadily vastly improve the encyclopedia. We need numbers to make this work so consider signing up as a participant! Thank you. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^Che dicono a Signa?_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 01:54, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Ecthelion83. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

familycolor altaic에 대하여

familycolor는 언어의 지역적 구분을 위해 사용하는 것이지 무조건 같은 어족만 묶으라고 있는 기능이 아닙니다. 한국어 문서에 걸려 있는 familycolor altaic 역시 알타이어족 가설이 신뢰할 수 있어서가 아니라 그저 지역적 구분을 위해 사용하고 있음을 알려드립니다. Altaic 외에도 어족이 아닌 지역적 구분을 위해 사용하는 familycolor로는 Amerindian, Papuan, Australian, Caucasian, Khoisan 등이 있습니다. --117.53.77.84 (talk) 10:24, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

더해서 강원도 영서는 경기 방언권에 해당됩니다. 흔히 강원도 방언이라 하는 것은 정확히는 영동 방언입니다. --117.53.77.84 (talk) 10:29, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

편집하기 위해서 위키백과에 가입해야 할 의무는 없습니다. 또한 familycolor altaic은 알타이어족 가설이 옳다는 뜻이 아니라 어디까지나 '지역분류'로써 사용하는 것입니다. --117.53.77.84 (talk) 13:50, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

또 수도권 거주자=경기방언 사용자, 호서지방 거주자=충청방언 사용자, 호남지방 거주자=전라방언 사용자가 아닙니다. 특히나 경기지방(수도권)의 경우 지역에 대대로 살아온 거주자가 사실상 없는 수준이고 인구의 대다수가 다른 지역 출신 이주민이기 때문에 더욱 그렇습니다. --117.53.77.84 (talk) 13:52, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

아니, 대한민국 정부에서 공식적으로 특정 한국어 방언 사용자 수에 대한 통계를 낸 적 자체가 없습니다. 거기다가 도경계와 방언경계가 무슨 정확히 일치하는 것도 아니고... 그런 상황에서 방언 사용자 수를 적는 건 독자연구입니다. --117.53.77.84 (talk) 15:58, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

그리고 familycolor altaic은 Turkish language, Manchu language, Mongolian language에서도 사용됩니다. 무슨 한국어나 일본에어만 특수하게 적용되는 색이 아니에요. --117.53.77.84 (talk) 15:59, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

그런 사용례가 틀렸다면 애초에 familycolor altaic이 왜 존재하겠습니까? 다시 한번 말씀드립니다만 해당 색은 언어의 지역구분을 위해 사용되는 것이지 알타이어족 가설이 신빙성있어서 사용되는 게 아닙니다. --117.53.77.84 (talk) 16:09, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox language family를 보시면 알겠지만 Altaic에는 '(areal)' 표시가 되어 있습니다. 한 마디로 말해서 단순히 지역구분을 위해 사용한다는 것이지 알타이어족 가설을 인정하는 게 아닙니다. --117.53.77.84 (talk) 16:11, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

familycolor altaic을 한국어 문서에 사용한다는 총의는 이미 확립되어 있습니다. 1과 2를 참조하시기 바랍니다. 비록 자신이 한민족 혈통을 가졌다는 것이 자랑스럽더라도 민족주의를 여기까지 끌어오지는 마세요. altaic이라는 areal classification을 사용하는데 있어서 한국어만 예외취급이나 특별취급을 받아야 할 이유는 전혀 없습니다. --117.53.77.84 (talk) 17:04, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

또한 방언 화자 수는 단순한 도 인구만으로 측정할 수 있는 게 아닙니다. 예를 들어 경상남도 서부(진주, 사천 등)나 경상북도 북부(안동, 영주, 봉화 등)는 일반적으로 알려진 경상도 방언과는 크게 다른 방언을 사용하는 지역입니다. 전라북도 북부(전주 등)도 마찬가지고요. 이런 거 고려 안하고 도 인구만으로 방언 화자 수를 이야기한다는 건 커다란 무리수에 가깝습니다. --117.53.77.84 (talk) 17:09, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

가장 중요한 게 대한민국 정부나 국어국문학계에서 공식적으로 방언 화자 수를 조사한다거나 한 적이 없습니다. 대한민국 국문학계가 이런 쪽으론 거의 신경을 안 쓰다 보니 그렇지요. 이 부분은 저도 안타깝게 생각합니다. --117.53.77.84 (talk) 17:15, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We should block the IP user from english wikipedia, he is activly vandalising sourced content and ignore all discussions213.162.68.186 (talk) 15:01, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• He is participating in a discussion, which is how it is supposed to be done (I don't know where my responses have gone; I do recall having a back-and-forth conversation about this at the time, but my remarks seem to have disappeared, though I did eventually concede the point); therefore he (she?) has done nothing wrong (even if I disagree with the opposing position). We had a conversation (like I said, I don't know where my remarks have gone), and while I don't agree with the editor's position, I do understand the rationale. Unfortunately for me, there just isn't enough evidence/scholarship to demonstrate our positions either way, so the editor's argument is indeed valid on its face until a greater volume of scholarship can be accumulated. Your opinion, on the other hand, in particular with regards to possible punitive actions, goes against the spirit of Wikipedia editing; your edit history also suggests non-neutral/malicious intent, and I cannot take any remark you make seriously. Ecthelion83 (talk) 20:26, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Ecthelion83. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Ecthelion83. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

August 2019

Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to Linguistic relativity, it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. Thank you. Megaman en m (talk) 07:35, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:09, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:42, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:23, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Korean cuisine in America

You mention Korean cuisine on your User page, and although I have no ties to Korea and am not of Asian descent, I'm interested in the culture (K-pop not so much, except as a phenomenon), and especially, the cuisine. (Also the language: I've taken an intro Korean course, and know Hangul, and a few greetings, but not much more!) Korean cuisine is one of my favorites, and although I've tried cooking Chinese (esp. Szechuan) cuisine myself and been happy with the results, I haven't tried cooking Korean dishes yet. My impression is, that although the tastes and sauces are quite different from Szechuan and other Chinese regional cuisines, there's one similarity in the cooking, namely that that there's a whole lot of prep time, and then once all the prep is done, everything cooks up very quickly; is that a correct impression? One big difference, I think, is dealing with all the different kim chis, which don't really have an analogy in Chinese cuisine, and I guess you don't really "cook" them so much, as open up all the jars and present them, I guess. (My fave Korean high-end resto gives you about 8 or 10 kim chees in those little dishes, and I could make a meal out of them with no main course.) But what about the cooked dishes, like dolsot bibimbap (my fave), or some of the spare ribs, jiap chae (sorry if my spelling is off) and many others. What Korean dishes do you like to cook, and if you have to substitute American ingredients for Korean ones, how do you manage? Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 10:24, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's...kind of a lot to put on my talk page, and a lot to discuss.

That said, prep time is definitely a hurdle that I think most people new to East Asian cuisine face, but that is 1) true to anyone who is new to a type of cuisine, and 2) relative to experience (i.e. if you know what the procedure is and have the ingredients on hand, prep time is dramatically reduced). Kimchi as a whole is a different beast because it requires a degree of fermentation (which, depending on who you ask, does or doesn't get included in prep time). The cabbage (or radish, or whatever vegetable you choose to use as a base) needs to be pickled at least overnight, then strained, then seasoned with the requisite spices and sauces (e.g. garlic, powdered red pepper, fish sauce, and so on). Even so, freshly-prepared kimchi takes some time (a week or more) to truly "ripen," so to speak, and reach the flavor that is familiar to most non-Koreans.

With regards to the variations of Chinese cuisine, particularly those relevant to Korean cuisine, I would direct you here, if you haven't been there already: Korean Chinese cuisine. Chinese restaurants in the United States that advertise as "Mandarin" cuisine (I have not seen any in the US outside of the Chicago area and one location, Charlie Kang's in East Lansing, but I imagine the LA, NYC, and Atlanta metro areas would have at least one such location) typically will also serve Korean Chinese cuisine, though the vast majority of Chinese restaurants in the US are of the Szechwan variety.

Korean cooked dishes, in my opinion, don't take more or less prep time than those dishes of other regions, again assuming one has the ingredients nearby. Bibimbap (비빔밥) only requires, at minimum, pressure-cooked rice, sesame seed oil, and a few varieties of "herbs" (나물; "herbs," at least the English terminology, is not actually adequate to describe the vegetation included in bibimbap). Some will also top that off with a sunny side-up egg and some other ingredients, but you get the idea - for most Koreans bibimbap is one of the simplest dishes to prepare. Kalbi (갈비, the ribs to which you refer) is really just beef (not pork) ribs that are cut in that way, and are typically grilled, and preparation is as varied as the number of people who grill it, though most people will only use salt (or seasoned salt) as preparation (I also douse it in lemon juice, usually freshly-squeezed). With regards to japchae (잡채), in my opinion the meat (should you choose to have meat in it) takes the longest to prepare, followed by the noodles, but after that it's really just stir-frying/sautéing to desired consistency.

Personally tteokguk (떡국), yookgaejang (육개장), kalbi, Korean-style roast beef, and naengmyeon (냉면) are probably my favorites; of those, kalbi and tteokguk are the easiest and least time-consuming to prepare (tteokguk's only prep time involves soaking the rice cake slices in some water prior to boiling, and maybe chopping up scallions/green onions prior to boiling; kalbi literally only requires the ribs and a means to cook them, i.e. zero prep). In terms of ingredient substitution, many of the ingredients are not specific to Korea/East Asia, and those that are more prevalent there (e.g. sesame seed oil, certain types of noodles, fish sauce, and the like) generally lack substitutes and thus must be sourced from Korea directly or from an East Asian grocery in the US, which was more challenging outside of American metro areas when my parents and I first came to the US (i.e. the mid-1980s) but now is quite simple (as all of that stuff can be ordered online).

Hope that helps.Ecthelion83 (talk) 13:56, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:33, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year, Ecthelion83!

Happy New Year!

Ecthelion83,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Abishe (talk) 20:40, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Abishe (talk) 20:40, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently been editing abortion which has been designated a contentious topic. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially-designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;

comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;

follow editorial and behavioural best practice;

comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and

refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Doug Weller talk 15:03, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Never change an alert. Note that this talk page does not belong to you and certain things can't be changed. Doug Weller talk 16:16, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies. I would suggest you go to https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Abortion&action=history and tell me where in that history I am. I couldn't find myself there and I couldn't find it in my contribs. As for "recent," tell me how you define "recent."Ecthelion83 (talk) 16:19, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As I said on my talk page, it is topic areas, not articles, and Project Veritas is in both areas. I suggest you read the alerts again. Doug Weller talk 17:17, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just looked more closely at the talk page. Now I understand. Thanks again for the heads-up.Ecthelion83 (talk) 17:28, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus

Please read wp:consensus (as I have asked you to elsewhere) as when we use it it does not mean what you think it means.

You also need to read wp:tenditious wp:bludgeon and WP:DROPIT. Slatersteven (talk) 18:03, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1) You have not discussed wp:consensus (the only thing I can see that you have discussed is wp:rs).

2) Perhaps you should take your own advice and consider WP:TENDITIOUS yourself. I am trying to have a discussion on the talk page based on what I can verify as fact. Consider WP:GOODFAITH.

3) I'll cite WP:DROPIT back at you: "'Just drop it' is not a very useful response in either case."

I am going ask that you don't post on my talk page again, other than to inform me what conditions apply with such a request. Ecthelion83 (talk) 18:11, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:27, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

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.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:15, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]