User talk:Dilvish 10 words

Welcome!

Hello, Dilvish 10 words, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! --Pointe LaRoche 14:19, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your conduct here[edit]

As I understand that you are a user who was blocked on es.wiki and have some grievances regarding your treatment there. I want to make it clear that they have no place here. You are free to edit this wikipedia despite your block on other but the proper place for you to seek redress is with the dispute resolution processes of that wikipedia, not here. The talkpage of Spanish Wikipedia is not a place for you to rehash old issues or to raise complaints about your treatment - posts not directly related to properly sourced edits to that article will be removed. It is not for the en.wiki article on the es.wiki to criticise how it administers itself. I also strongly caution you against entering into dispute with editors here based on your views of their conduct on es.wiki - this is not acceptable. I hope you will enagage in collegial editing and become a productive member of this community but urge you to leave those grievances at the door (they cannot and will not be resolved here). WjBscribe 18:12, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE for the casual viewer: my answer here: [1] --Dilvish 10 words 22:13, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. For the lazy reader, my answer was:

Dear Mr. WJBscribe.

I sincerely believe that there is a serious problem of WP:COI in the article Spanish Wikipedia. As I proof I put the lack of any argumentation against. (even in your reprimand to me!, I must say)

I stated a clear reference that shows that the explanation on the split is incomplete and that keep silence on any criticism on the es:wiki administrators.

In the talk page I exposed that data and nobody has show an explanation, neither a reason against them. Instead of this I've received many arguments 'ad hominem'.

User Raystorm behave in a manner I do consider to be impolite, with many wordings as "pathethic" "you are very sad", "thought I wouldn't find out?", "insulting is second nature to you. How unfortunate for you that I do read Spanish. This explains everything"; personal attacks and distortions. When I asked Raystorm to discuss the data and not about me the answer was: "You just repeat what I told you. This is useless" not a word on the data.

My comments on user Raystorm were not any kind of badmouthing. Raystorm insulted and launched personal attacks against me, kept silence on my arguments and data, and even accused to me. That's what she did, and that's what I commented in the hu:wiki. IMHO, she can't prohibite to me to explain her impoliteness against me, specially when what she has written in the es:wiki contradicts some of her assertions). (and by the way, in her reference to my comments in hu:wiki she very seriously distorts my words; outstanding but not unexpected I must say).

By the way, can you explain why the data I afforded [2] is not relevant to the article? Everybody dismisses my claim, but nobody has bothered to give a reason. This is what I asked for repeatedly, but I received 'ad hominem', distortions and impolite comments. I still believe that the wording of the article is biased.

Do you really believe that commenting the biased quote of a reference, mentioning only the obsolete reasons but keeping silence on criticism on the es:wiki administrators is a Forum talk ????? I don't see how? I didn't discussed the article's merits, but its mistakes, hoping someone to correct them.

If you can't reason why the data I afforder doesn't show a biased wording in the article I beg to you to rectify it yourself with the same zeal with which you come to reprimand me (IMHO wrongly!).

And if you want to see how in the es:wiki there are administrators and users (as Ecemaml and Igor21) who discuss on how to change the content of the article Spanish Wikipedia read this: Propaganda de Wikipedia en castellano en la Wikipedia en inglés and answer whether there is interference and WP:COI or not. Ask yourself if this is how you want the WIkipedia to be.

--Dilvish 10 words 16:32, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

added --Dilvish 10 words (talk) 11:03, 2 April 2008 (UTC).[reply]

First of all, I am afraid I do not have sufficient command of Spanish to read the link on es.wiki you refered me to. As to other points, I do not think it helpful or appropriate to make reference to any issues you have with any user's conduct outside their editing of this wiki (and even that should be avoided - comment on content is to be prefered to that on contributors). Allegations of cabalism and conduct issues on es.wiki are definitely not useful. Your posts to the talkpage contained maily comments on other contributors and your views of them rather than being directed towards proposed edits to the article. I am unhappy with various diffs and pages from es.wiki being cobbled together as sources - that seems to me to constitute original research if conclusions are drawn. I would not expect es.wiki ArbCom cases to be used as sources for example, only independent reports of them (if any exist). If reliable independent sources have made specific criticisms of es.wiki, those criticisms should may be included. Proposals to include them should not involve discussion of the conduct of other editors, merely a discussion of the notability of the criticisms are reliability of the sources. It is not for the en.wiki article to draw conclusions - only to reflect notable coverage of es.wiki. If reliable independent sources cannot be found to substantiate a criticism it should not be included. Please stick as closely as possible to proposing content changes and avoid comment on your perceptions of the conduct of others. WjBscribe 20:29, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE for the casual viewer: my answer here: [3], [4] and [5]--Dilvish 10 words 22:13, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. 2008 for lazy readers: My answer was:

Thank you very much for your answer.

You're right about that my first editions (in the section "Who will put END to Spanish administrators arbitrarity???") were too long and messy and that my feeling that I must put beforehand my bad relations with some (not all) es:wiki administrator made it difficult to understand. I considerer that editing the article (instead of the Talk page) could be too provocative.

That being said, maybe my english level is too bad, but I thought I had exposed well my proposal of changes in the opening text of " Is that O.K.or it's WP:COI?" (as it can be seen in [[6]].

The reference to the reasons that the Enciclopedia Libre argues for the split already were translated in the article Enciclopedia Libre, and they do include criticisms on the administrators behaviour (read it yourself; I don't know if "personal wordings" is a proper translation but I think that the idea is clear). The fact that all the criticism on the es:wikipedia has disappeared in the Spanish Wikipedia article and that is usual that administrators and users of the es:wiki edit the article and that they talk in the es:wiki on how to get a more favourable image in the article should remark the need of care.

As the page of the Enciclopedia Libre do is a primary source I do think that its data should be included. As this documents also is a clear criticism on the gestion of the es:wiki it should be included in the section criticism. The fact itself of the split is a symptom of a special feeling of discomfort in the es:wiki.

But I'm not sure on the question of to quote or not the claim 30 in which user Thanos report the es:wiki administrator Dodo for continuous and repetitive abuses of various kinds[7]. It does look odd to quote a claim, but this one is really and excellent piece of work, a first class work, very precise. Take a look ar it.

I wonder if it could be quoted in a foot-note. Its relevance is that, as Thanos says, the claim only mentions examples of the last three months, and even so there are about 150 examples, some of them very serious, and with examples in which the accused did the same things by which he expelled users for ever from the es:wiki. So it shows how an es:wiki administrator can conduct despotically without any control with impunity, and hence it is a proof of the criticism. That's its relevance, but still I don't if it is proper to mention it in the section criticism. My opinion is what I said: as an explicative foot-note with the link without comments or only a brief description.

I also believe that as many en:wikipedians are not es:wikipedians it's no need for the es:wikipedians (specially administrators) to edit the Spanish Wikipedia article, and hence the WP:COI policy can be applied. Es:wikipedians can afford data in the Talk page if necessary.

--Dilvish 10 words 23:14, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S: As a matter of fact, an es:wiki administrator has just deleted all the section on criticism [[8]] a clear case of WP:COI. --Dilvish 10 words 23:43, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(added to my talk page --Dilvish 10 words (talk) 11:03, 2 April 2008 (UTC))[reply]

I was still waiting for an answer, specially on the unpolite commentaries, massive distortions and personal attacks launched against me in this wikipedia (not just "perceptions of the conduct of others"; see the history). I'm able to defend myself, of course, but I'm unhappy on the attacking person not receiving any "advice" or the slightest "criticism" in his talk page. I'm dissapointed, very dissapointed.

On the othe hand, the main question (that in the article Spanish Wikipedia there is a lack of NPOV as it is edited mainly by Spanish Wikipedians and they even discusse how to change the article in order to get a more favorable version in the talk pages of the Spanish Wikipedia- I poninted the link to WJBscribe) seems to be of no interest to anybody (except to the authors of the nasty messages against me, of course, which happen to be also members of the es:wiki and even discussed how to attack me in the es:wiki user pages). How sad, very, very sad. --Dilvish 10 words 13:07, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Images and compounding of Iberian Scripts[edit]

Thank you for compounding the images, I had tried but couldn't achieve a good display. But, may I suggest that the images should be bigger? I could try to enlarge them, but I'm afraid it could become another mess. As I said in the talk page, there are more interesting images avaiable. --Dilvish 10 words 22:07, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

How abou now? The Ogre 17:54, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thaks for your corrections...[edit]

Dear Mr. Dilvish

You say that my correction has no logic, and I invented a phoneme P, while delete or remove a phoneme in B. I am very grateful for their interest and intentions. I am sure that you act in good faith, guided by the literature he read. However, I took many years of my life studying the ancient writings of Iberia, and it is very easy to demonstrate that the writing system used by iberians, actually there is no point that can be compared with a Greek Beta, or Phoenician Beth .

In all systems used by the Iberians scriptures, they never used the letter Beta from Greeks and Etruscans alphabets nor the letter Beth from Phoenicians alphabets. They always used the letter or sign, that all alphabets Greeks, Etruscans, or Phoenicians used to play the phoneme P. And this is an indisputable and scientific evidence, of that they did not have the sound of phoneme B, or having a phoneme whose sound was intermediate between a B and a P, but closer to phoneme P. It is simple common sense...

If they really had the sound of phoneme B, and did not have a sound for the phoneme P (as many scholars still believe erroneously), then the logical thing they had chosen the letter that the Greeks or the Etruscans or the Phoenicians had for the phoneme B. You only should review the writing system of ancient Iberians, and yourself can see that there is no equal sign to the Greek Beta, nor any letter or sign similar to the Phoenician Beth.

The writing system found in Espanca, Portugal, as we see in place that would occupy the phoneme B, they used a letter similar to the Greek Pi. This shows that they did not have a sound equal to phoneme reproducing the Greek Beta, because then they would have used the same sign of the Greek Beta, and not the sign of phoneme Pi, but the fact that they are chosen sign that the Greeks, Etruscans and Pheonicians used to play the phoneme P or Ph, in a second position, corresponding to phoneme B, shows that the ancient Tartessians then, like the Iberians, had a sound that was intermediate between the phoneme B and P phoneme, but closer to the sound of phoneme P.

This theory that I defend, and was discovered earlier by great philologists and linguists of the past, but at present nobody wants to remember, for example, the famous French linguist and philologist, Edouard Philipon, who also was a great expert and connoisseur of the ancient writings and the ancient toponimy, and philology, of the ancient civilizations of Iberia.

I understand that you are going to insist that I show that this is not the same that is officially extended (even though it exposed the evidence with great common sense, logic and scientific rigor). Okay, here you are right. ie, what I exposed is not the same that we read in most major books on Iberian languages. I guess you know it is very difficult to get scientists or experts acknowledge a serious error of interpretation, but as Wikipedia must always be impartial and neutral, then I propose to you a more fair and more neutral, and also respects the policy of Wikipedia, ie, maintaining the official version, and then make a brief paragraph, where I explain this same that I have explained to you, and of course citing the exact source of the work of Edouard Philipon.

The people have a right to know the facts, and reflect on the truth and what is credible, that is a possible misinterpretation, or observation. Always with the guarantees of a neutral and impartial vision.

The people have a right to know that, in really, in the writing system used by the Iberians, from the standpoint of Epigraphy, there is no sign that can compare with any sign used by the Greeks, Phoenicians and Etruscans for the phoneme B, and that in really there is only one letter or sign which is identical to the Greek Pi used by Greeks and Etruscans, and that is the same today that experts read as if it were a sign only for the phoneme B, and a few as a sign for the phoneme B and also for the phoneme P.

Kind Regards, --Georgeos Díaz-Montexano (talk) 15:33, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Iberian-guanche images[edit]

Hi, Dilvish, I tagged those redundant images for speedy deletion. So they might be deleted soon. Thanks --Sasikiran (talk) 16:06, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]