User:KYPark/Ruakh

Definition from Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to: navigation, search

What's most wrong with this edit?[edit]

Not to mention this. You may well view and review this question from the oriental, neutral, or non-Abrahamic perspective. --KYPark (talk) 08:12, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I think it's a readability issue. We don't want really long entries; Wikipedia does that, people come to us for relatively short, concise definitions. Mglovesfun (talk) 08:19, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm not asking the old but new, Ruakh's edit, whose 'wrong' may sound impossible to you. --KYPark (talk) 08:48, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
Just to clarify, you're asking us to critique this version without references to the previous versions, and answer the question "what's most wrong with it?" Mglovesfun (talk) 08:59, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
I meant this. I wonder why I made reference to another as above. --KYPark (talk) 09:07, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
Well my question above stands, as that's what I started replying to and you told me I'd misunderstood. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:08, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I refer everybody to:

NOT to your:

And I never told you that you "'d misundertood." Please be precise not to mislead people. --KYPark (talk) 09:23, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, since you asked "What's most wrong with this edit?", I'd say the most wrong thing is creating a red link for "don't do unto others what you wouldn't have them do unto you", even though that isn't a saying in English and is unlikely ever to be an entry. —Angr 09:45, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
That red-link was already there; I merely failed to remove it. —RuakhTALK 00:30, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
I agree (though I don't know if that's the question being asked, but if it is, I agree). Mglovesfun (talk) 09:51, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
Still you misunderstand me. So I say again "what's most wrong with [Ruakh's counter] edit" upsetting mine. Did you read the process at all, even not terribly carefully, before you say something responsibly?
Should it be most wrong to create a red link for "don't do unto others what you wouldn't have them do unto you," then it would be enough for it to be erased from Alternative forms, instead of reducing the content from 2.5 to 1.0 kbytes. Is your reason still reasonable?
I wouldn't continue this talk because strange edit conflicts continue. --KYPark (talk) 10:14, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
Examples of usages are supposed to be in the langauge of the entry, and they must use the exact word/phrase that the entry is about. Thus, only examples containing 역지사지 (yeokjisaji) can be used, not quotations of English texts. I am not sure why the synonym section was removed. Njardarlogar (talk) 14:09, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
Re: why the synonym section was removed: The sole "synonym" was marked as "-- Confucius". Since Confucius didn't speak Korean (or even some ancestor of Korean), I figured this must be a mistake. Given that the entry was filled with inappropriate content, I assumed this was just another example of such, so I removed it. —RuakhTALK 02:51, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
See #caveat lector (Reader, beware!)
I would have made the same revisions, pretty much. For one thing, the English-language citations in the September 14 version are irrelevant for a Korean expression. The September 14 content looks more conceptual (encyclopedic} than linguistic. DCDuring TALK 14:49, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
caveat lector
  1. I'm quite surprised that no debater understands what's the very question. So I guess that the self-righteous suffer cognitive biases to such an extent.
  2. What if all faults, if any, should be found with KYPark, likely the paganic eccentric Eurasiatic, while nothing would be wrong with Ruakh the powerful admin. Simply this is so unlikely. Why?
  3. Singly relevantly, though marginally, wondered in this session so far was "why the synonym section was removed" by Ruakh, who in turn answered, "Since Confucius didn't speak Korean ... I figured this must be a mistake." In effect, he admitted he was not terribly principled or objective.
  4. By doing so, he looks like watering down the original thick question "What's most wrong with this edit" of his. He disguised his scathing counter-edit as a marginal ("m") "trimming" [1] while making a mere bare bone of my special, strategic thick description!
  5. For many years, my such Eurasiatic strategy has remained too notorious for even the least informed to miss it. So I always feel like my opponents, say, PIE people having conspired to make a joke of my edits and make a scapegoat of myself, by all means. May I ask if I'm hypersensitive? Ironically, yes is what I really wish to hear. But surely they wouldn't convince me as I wish.
  6. Meanwhile, Ruakh's easy reply on synonymy as above is in fact too uneasy for me! Let me explain this way.
  7. Native English speakers would hate me, should I interfere with them using Latin such Category:English proverbs as follows:
  8. Likewise, Koreans in turn would hate Ruakh, who in fact or in effect interferes with them using hanja such as 孔子 and his saying 己所不欲,勿施於人.
  9. That simple is the principle of moral reciprocity that has lasted at least 2.5 millennia old, repeating itself one way after another, evolving quite uneasy etymologies and meanings, as evident as follows:
    1. 己所不欲勿施於人 (Confucius)
    2. 易地則皆然 (Mencius)
    3. 易地思之 or 역지사지 (author unknown)
  10. So these entries should be handled very carefully! Outsiders, say Ruakh knowing little Korean, have little to do with, or interfere with, them.
  11. But, I'm afraid and sorry that he in fact has been so disruptive as:
  12. By the way, I wish you all to be motivated by this regretting "ownership of language" as a fatal fallacy.
  13. In this regard, I guess, Ruakh is painfully misguided by, and misguiding, such unreasonable and unseasonable ownership of language in this global joint venture like these wikis in this global age. I wish him respice finem and not to do what may make the East Asian very angry at him!
  14. I wonder if whatever Ruakh does is purely for the benefit of Wiktionary. I fear if he might greatly endanger all the wikis that has kept stressing themselves as founded on NPOV. No global wiki forever without global NPOV, I guess.
  15. Eventually, I wonder why Ruakh dares to take risks of the unnegotiable NPOV. So far I have no idea on the relevant root and reason than the deep-rooted self-righteous Abrahamism coupled with Eurocentrism. No world peace with these, I fear utmost!

I wish the above numbers of mine to discussed one by one. And I confess that during this session I was blocked for a day for a dubious reason. --KYPark (talk) 10:11, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

I assume it's because you're not a native English speaker that you were unable to express what you meant. Having read what you've just written, you're talking rubbish and I won't reply because it might imply that I think your points are legitimate, which I don't. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:16, 28 September 2012 (UTC)