User talk:208.70.40.2

Could you please stop pushing "ci" in the Esperanto grammar article? It is not part of the normal usage of Esperanto and the remark I added in the pronoun section is enough. Mutichou (talk) 08:57, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Please also do not make erroneous edits to other pages. This is contradicted by the later article, unsourced, unexplained and also wrong, at least for Modern English. The same changes were made here and here, before, and were reverted then. I assume you are the same user and request that you stop it. Throne3d (talk) 16:43, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

January 2018

Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles, as you did to Esperanto grammar. Your edits could be interpreted as vandalism and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. Meiloorun (talk) 🍁 05:14, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Please answer

Instead of keeping pushing your changes, could you please answer to people who are trying to get in touch with you, either in this page or in the talk page of the articles you are editing? Mutichou (talk) 09:48, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Response

I am the IP user that keeps making the changes. I have tried to get in touch with the users by explaining why I did so, in the portion where I describe the edit that I made (how ci can help in number and formality distinction, just like a normal language). I know that the following statement may be subjective, but I think that the pronoun ci is great for Esperanto and I want other people to use it also (partly for etymological reasons). So, I am doing this change so that the other people learning Esperanto would be taught this way, and I feel that by undoing the changes, you are hindering my goal here. So, I request that you please allow the changes to stay. I do not have an account, so this is the best that I can do to get in touch with you (the users).

According to many other users, "ci" does not exist in Esperanto. If something only exists in your mind, is not widely published, and cannot be verified by third party sources, then it is considered original research, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. I hope you understand that if you're trying to push your agenda, Wikipedia is not the place for that. Meiloorun (talk) 🍁 19:20, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

The point of Wikipedia is to describe things as they are, not as you want them to be. Esperanto is a living language and the reality of Esperanto is that ci has never been widely used and people who use them are a tiny minority. (In 10 years of active use of Esperanto, I've met like 2 people who seriously use it and I've attended week-long events without hearing the word ci a single time - and the usual context is theoretical discussions about ci. That's also what the citations in Esperanto grammar say: [1] [2].) Ci deserves to be mentioned in specific articles as a remark, but putting it in pronoun tables and using ci in example sentences is misleading as it implies it is part of normal Esperanto usage. You have also added ci to quotes from the Fundamento where it has never been. Mutichou (talk) 19:42, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

What I said about ci also applies to -iĉ-. Although more used than ci, it is unofficial and used only by a minority of speakers; words such as knabiĉo are very rare and Johaniĉo sounds like a joke (the only Google results for this word are Wikipedia pages you have edited). So please, could you stop pushing a fictional version of Esperanto in Esperanto-related articles? Mutichou (talk) 09:49, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Dispute resolution request

I have added a request in the dispute resolution noticeboard, could you please react to it? Mutichou (talk) 09:12, 5 February 2018 (UTC)