User talk:Idielive

Welcome![edit]

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia

Respect copyrights – do not copy and paste text or images directly from other websites.
Maintain a neutral point of view – this is one of Wikipedia's core policies.
Take particular care while adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page and follow Wikipedia's Biography of Living Persons policy. Particularly, controversial and negative statements should be referenced with multiple reliable sources.
No edit warring or sock puppetry.
If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to do so.
Do not add troublesome content to any article, such as: copyrighted text, libel, advertising or promotional messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject. Deliberately adding such content or otherwise editing articles maliciously is considered vandalism; doing so will result in your account or IP being blocked from editing.
Do not use talk pages as discussion or forum pages as Wikipedia is not a forum.

The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! Doug Weller talk 19:24, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

February 2016[edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Biblical cosmology has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
For help, take a look at the introduction.
The following is the log entry regarding this message: Biblical cosmology was changed by Idielive (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.949766 on 2016-02-10T21:45:02+00:00 .

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 21:45, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Biblical cosmology shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Doug Weller talk 19:22, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Our articles[edit]

are not meant to be based on one person's idea of the TRUTH, as your edit summary says, but upon what sources that meet our criteria at WP:RS say about a subject. You are violationg WP:NPOV by trying to make it reflect your views, you are removing sources that meet our criteria and adding some that don't. Please stop and discuss on the article's talk page. Doug Weller talk 19:27, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Idielive reported by User:Doug Weller (Result: ). Thank you. Doug Weller talk 19:37, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've declined the edit warring report, because you don't appear to actually be reverting. BUT you are editing disruptively, replacing sourced material with unsourced material, and violating WP:NPOV. Please click these links: WP:RS and WP:NPOV, and read them, as they will explain better what the problem is. And please don't continue to add material that is likely to be challenged, unless there is a consensus on the talk page for it. Note that this is not an invitation to argue on the talk page to add the clearly unacceptable changes you want to make; it is a suggestion for what to do with actual reliably sourced neutral suggestions you have after reading the linked policies. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:46, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Citations and Links[edit]

I am having much trouble when it comes to correctly creating links and citations. I would be very grateful if one of you more experienced members give me an example of how this would be accomplished. Idielive (talk) 02:39, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits[edit]

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 23:03, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive edits, again[edit]

I have reverted your latest two sets of article edits, at Indo-European ablaut [1] and Proto-Indo-European phonology [2]. In both cases, you added reference links to some Google-books search result that blatantly failed to support the statements you claimed to be supporting with them. This is highly disruptive behaviour. I am pinging Floquenbeam, the latest admin to warn you against this kind of behaviour, and I will leave it to them if this continued behaviour should be met with a block or if you should be given another (last) chance. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:45, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, FP@S, I don't understand enough about the subject to judge whether this was a minor mistake or a major mistake. I mean, obviously you can't use a link to a google search as a reference, but I don't know if that was the only problem or not, one excerpt seems to partially address one of the claims. I don't know. I barely remember being involved with this user more than a year ago; a brief review shows they were wholesale inserting large swaths of their own opinion into articles, and weren't listening to others about it. But it looks like that isn't the case here (the misuse of article talk pages earlier this month seems to have morphed into a lot of ref desk threads, which I have no opinion on). I'm neither attacking or defending Idielive here, just responding to the ping to say I'm not going to make a judgement here. If you really want my initial gut instinct, I'd say this is a much lower level of problem than last year. But I'll defer back to you. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:10, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Weller: might be better placed than me to remember this user from last year, and might be less of a chicken than me to give an opinion. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:12, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Floq, of course I respect your decision not to make this call. Just for the record, I'll explain: On Proto-Indo-European phonology, Idielive inserted an argument (not necessarily implausible, but apparently purely personal), roughly to the effect that because the sound [a] is very common across the world's languages, it would be unlikely for Proto-IE to have lacked it. He supported this with a link to a page in some 1920s book where somebody claims that "a" is the most common vowel, but that page doesn't even mention Proto-IE at all, let alone the (present-day) lingustic debate about the status of /a/ in Proto-IE. – On Indo-European ablaut, he sought to support some highly technical statement about the nature of some phonological alternation in Proto-IE, and what he evidently did was, he simply entered a few keywords from that statement into a google search and added a link to the first best random result without even reading it ~ the page in question talks about "syncope" and some "hypothesis" in an entirely different historical context, the early history of Latin (long after common Proto-IE). I'd argue both cases are quite serious cases not just of "mistakes" in citing stuff, but of blatant, completely irresponsible source distortion. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:38, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I'm busy banging my head against a different brick wall, no stomach for more right now. I'm happy to defer to whatever you think best. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:50, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Floquenbeam and Future Perfect at Sunrise: I'd like to hear what Idielive has to say, but I agree this looks like more of the same problems from last year. At the moment I'm inclined to block. Doug Weller talk 19:23, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I meant to replace that source I gave in PIE phonology with a better one, but I slacked off and totally forgot because I am very busy. You wont have to worry about any edit war. I am bad at finding good sources. Please, nobody edit this comments signature. What am I, a goat, let me sign my own posts. Idielive (talk) 7:23, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Your recent edits[edit]

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 02:50, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

recent Language reference desk edits[edit]

If you want to publish or publicize linguistic results that academic linguists will take seriously, then you need to do so in a scholarly way. The "Language reference desk" can't really be used to develop or publish your personal theorizing; that's not what it's for... AnonMoos (talk) 10:23, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Help:IPA for Sanskrit[edit]

Hi. Please stop replacing ⟨ɕ⟩ with ⟨ç⟩. Such a transcription is not in line with how languages from that region are pronounced now. It's objectively a worse transcription. Mr KEBAB (talk) 10:43, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]