User talk:Mazamadao

August 2021

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give a page a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into Gogyo. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases for registered users, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. Thank you. Code Pending (talk) 03:04, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not replace Wikipedia pages with blank content, as you did at Gogyo. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you think that the page should be deleted, please read Wikipedia:How to delete a page. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. Thank you. Please use the article talk page to discuss additions or subtractions, but removing references is definitely not allowed. Nate • (chatter) 03:51, 27 August 2021 (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) 01:03, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merger discussion for Gogyo

An article that you have been involved in editing—Gogyo—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:30, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Some points on Sokuon

Basic information about the subject should precede detailed information about its origins. Most readers of the Sokuon article will not know much about the subject when they begin to read. You are asking them to read 促聲 when they don't know what っ is. This is why I moved the material further down the page. Please start with simple information. You called this reasoning "nonsensical".
Template:Nihongo: English words should go in the running text; terms in foreign alphabets go inside the parentheses. Otherwise you are asking English-language readers to read the Japanese (or Chinese) in the running text. The accepted style is to write sokuon (促音, lit. "rushed sound"), not 促音 (sokuon, lit. "rushed sound"). You can use Template:Nihongo to see or fill in terms in the accepted order.
WP:CITE#When and why to cite sources: "citations should be placed at the end of the text that they support." Thus the citations go at the end of the sentence or phrase, not after something like "a book says". I did not remove any citations. You readded them in the middle of the sentence after I had moved them to the end. If you put the citations after the word "dictionaries", all the citation shows is that dictionaries exist, not what their contents may support. Further, you have not created significant citations for these. Are they websites? Book pages? The cites are not able to be verified by other readers. With citations that state "one Meiji-era book used the terms", there is no way for the reader to know whether that is a widely-held position, or one fringe researcher's classification.
WP:DAB: Hatsuon is a disambiguation page. Links should go to articles, not to disambiguation pages. I fixed the ambiguous link to point directly at a relevant article, and you unfixed it. If there is no applicable article, please don't create a link, or else create a WP:REDLINK to indicate the possibility for a new article.
WP:CIVIL is a policy standard that must be met when dealing with other editors. You said I was "getting rid of things with ZERO justification" when the only thing on the page I had removed was a specific reference to a term that is often considered derogatory in modern Japanese (Shina, which even at the Wiktionary link to Shinago that you inserted is listed as "obsolete, often derogatory"). You said "how about you actually spell words correctly for once" when I had not spelled any words incorrectly, but rather had fixed your grammar; you wrote "Dictionaries lists" rather than "Dictionaries list", and "a syllable that ends in a vowel, semivowel and nasal" (no, it is only one of those, "or" is correct). You wrote "Why the hell did you remove the sources" when I had done no such thing. It is unclear why this made you angry, but it is natural that other editors will later edit your work. That's the nature of Wikipedia.

Best, Dekimasuよ! 06:38, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dekimasu:

"Basic information about the subject should precede detailed information about its origins. Most readers of the Sokuon article will not know much about the subject when they begin to read. You are asking them to read 促聲 when they don't know what っ is. This is why I moved the material further down the page. Please start with simple information. You called this reasoning "nonsensical".": That section is for "etymology". Where you think it should be placed for a better reading experience is debatable. In general, I found that an "etymology" section is placed early in the article. I deemed you said "nonsensical" because "secondary" doesn't mean anything to me other than your subjective standard. Furthermore, what you're claiming here relies solely on my use of Chinese characters, which, practically, is very much nonsensical. The reader does not need to understand those characters, but they need to be there for reference (for example, advanced readers' further research). Mentally, they can substitute it with the romanization, in this case, sokusei, when they read.
Furthermore, you're making some bold assumptions on the reader's knowledge here, as to what they know and don't know. This isn't a textbook where writers must hold readers' hands and spoonfeed them information incrementally. Articles can be written with "complex" information upfront, for example, knowledge on concepts like "unreleased plosives", "shinjitai", etc., and if the readers want to know what they mean, they are free to cross reference the links provided. I could have been explaining every single concept there in this article, but I decided against that, and assumed that the readers must know what those mean. And the idea that Chinese characters (kanji) alone are too complex for readers who are reading an article about the Japanese language is laughable.
"Template:Nihongo: English words should go in the running text; terms in foreign alphabets go inside the parentheses. Otherwise you are asking English-language readers to read the Japanese (or Chinese) in the running text. The accepted style is to write sokuon (促音, lit. "rushed sound"), not 促音 (sokuon, lit. "rushed sound"). You can use Template:Nihongo to see or fill in terms in the accepted order.": "Sokuon" is no more an "English word" than 促音. It's a romanization. But I do concede if it's the style of this wiki.
"citations should be placed at the end of the text that they support.": Read this carefully and really understand it. It does NOT mean "Thus the citations go at the end of the sentence", but it could be at the end of a "phrase". What do those sources support? The "dictionaries" part. What don't they support? The romanizations and literal translations I provided later for English readers' convenience.
"You said I was "getting rid of things with ZERO justification" when the only thing on the page I had removed was a specific reference to a term that is often considered derogatory in modern Japanese (Shina).": More nonsense. First, you did not claim this reason when you got rid of it. Second, it was a historical term, that the author used. Whether you find it objectionable is not relevant. In fact, search for the Japanese names of the East China Sea and South China Sea and tell me again if Shina is always "derogatory in modern Japanese". What's relevant is that the reader, who might want to check the source, doesn't get lost when what they find is the term Shinago, which was not intended to be "derogatory" by the author whose interest was in linguistics. There are a host of articles on words that are now deemed offensive by most people (nigger, chink, and all the ethnic slurs listed at List of ethnic slurs), but not at the time they were used decades or centuries ago. What did you think "Meiji-era" means? You are taking some very liberal and ignorant interpretations of these guidelines here.
"You wrote "Why the hell did you remove the sources" when I had done no such thing. It is unclear why this made you angry, but it is natural that other editors will later edit your work. That's the nature of Wikipedia.": You're making me sound like some bitter loser who's easily triggered when he doesn't get his ways. Have you heard anybody use the word "hell" before? It doesn't have to be anger, but mere frustration. Yes, I'm aware of how wikis work, thank you for enlightening me. I'm capable of having civil discussion with people who demonstrate good faith, but I have very little patience with people who just make arbitrary edits with ZERO justification like you did. You don't get to justify your earlier unjustified edits after the fact and then claim I got "angry" for no reason.Mazamadao (talk) 07:05, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"You're making some bold assumptions on the reader's knowledge here, as to what they know and don't know." The next section explains the appearance of hiragana and katakana characters. Thus the article to date has already included the assumptions that the reader does not possess significant background knowledge. In general articles proceed from the least to the most complex information. Meanwhile you are using kyūjitai directly in running English-language text. I'd ask you to consider what the article is intended to teach the reader.
"What do those sources support? The 'dictionaries' part." No, in that case there would be no difference between citing Daijirin and citing Merriam-Webster. The purpose of the sources must be to support some claim made in the sentence. If the sources do not support the content of the sentence, then they are not appropriate sources for the sentence. This is not a question of who is doing the romanization, but of what actual information is being cited. These references will still need to be fixed, whether by me or by other editors.
"First, you did not claim this reason when you got rid of it." You are not leaving edit summaries at all; in comparison, I explained most of what I did in detail. "Second, it was a historical term, that the author used. Whether you find it objectionable is not relevant. What's relevance is that the reader, who might want to check the source, doesn't get lost when what they find is the term Shinago." You are expecting visitors to this page to read 舒聲 (not glossed in the Roman alphabet at all in your version), so I am surprised you think they won't know what Shinago means. What the author of a particular Meiji-era book called Chinese is not relevant to improving the reader's understanding of the concept of Sokuon. Likewise, you skipped over the part of my objection that asked why readers should rely upon the contents of this source. There would be no censorship issue if the material were relevant to the article.
"People who just make arbitrary edits with ZERO justification": I explained most of the reasons for my edits at the time, and I have explained the reasons for my edits in more detail precisely because you requested it. You wrote, "How about you cite a particular guideline or manual of style", so I made the detailed post above. Today I have made four edits to the page in total: 1) noting that the etymology is not basic information of the lede; 2) moving the etymology section down the page, with my reasoning, as well as fixing grammar and citation style, and removing Shinago; 3) reinserting the page number you added when it was lost in an edit conflict, with the edit summary "repairing cite"; 4) fixing the ambiguous link to Hatsuon. It is still unclear to me why any of this copyediting has frustrated you, or why you think I was not acting in good faith on an article about a Japanese kana character. Meanwhile another editor has now gone back and fixed the ambiguous link that you unfixed.
"This suggests an origin in Middle Chinese phonology" appears to be Wikipedia:Original research, as it is not cited at all. Dekimasuよ! 07:33, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"In fact, search for the Japanese names of the East China Sea and South China Sea and tell me again if Shina is always "derogatory in modern Japanese". What's relevant is that the reader, who might want to check the source, doesn't get lost when what they find is the term Shinago, which is not intended to be 'derogatory' by the author whose interest was in linguistics." You were still editing your response above while I was replying to it, which makes it appear that I accepted this statement, but although of course Shina is included in the Japanese name of the East China Sea, it is not written in kanji either by ja:東シナ海 or by the Japanese government precisely because it is derogatory, as noted by Wiktionary. Dekimasuよ! 07:49, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

""You're making some bold assumptions on the reader's knowledge here, as to what they know and don't know.": The next section explains the appearance of hiragana and katakana characters. Thus the article to date has already included the assumptions that the reader does not possess significant background knowledge. In general articles proceed from the least to the most complex information." What??? According to whom that this assumption is made at all? Your own inference?
""What do those sources support? The 'dictionaries' part." No, in that case there would be no difference between citing Daijirin and citing Merriam-Webster.": See, my frustration is that you're not even attempting to make sense at all. Why would I cite Merriam-Webster here? I cited Daijirin because it's germane to the topic at hand, which Merriam-Webster is not. The claim is simple: What dictionaries? These dictionaries.
"You are not leaving edit summaries at all; in comparison, I explained most of what I did in detail.": No you did not. I barely even understood it as English given the multiple grammatical errors. It's frankly alarming that you think whatever you said, which borders on gibberish, qualifies as "in detail." I concede my expediency for not leaving summaries all the time since I assume whoever objects to my edits ought to understand my edits first, which are often self-evident as to what they are about.
"舒聲" is Chinese word, my dude. Check the Wiktionary link I provided for heaven's sake. It has nothing to do with Shinago, a Japanese word. Your "surprise" is a complete non-sequitur.
"What the author of a particular Meiji-era book called Chinese is not relevant to improving the reader's understanding of the concept of Sokuon." It's relevant to whoever wants to read the source and doesn't know what Shinago means. In the source, it sticks out as one term that may not be understood today.
"noting that the etymology is not basic information of the lede" It was not in the lede anymore, but has its own section. What's this about?
"moving the etymology section down the page, with my reasoning" I don't care what your personal reasoning is. Where's the manual of style that requires the etymology section be moved further down? What's the official guideline to quantify which information is "basic" and which isn't?
"reinserting the page number you added when it was lost in an edit conflict, with the edit summary "repairing cite"": Which part do you think makes more sense, the "reinserting the page number you added when it was lost in an edit conflict", or the "repairing cite". Why would you assume I knew what you mean by "repairing cite"?
"It is still unclear to me why any of this copyediting has frustrated you, or why you think I was not acting in good faith on an article about a Japanese kana character." Because you just added incomprehensible gibberish to your edit summaries and expected me to not be frustrated, I guess? Clearly all of this squabble could've been avoided if you'd actually given me a heads-up sooner instead of waiting for me to demand you to.
""This suggests an origin in Middle Chinese phonology" appears to be Wikipedia:Original research, as it is not cited at all.": Sure, contest that. Add a "citation needed" template if you will. That claim I only made tentatively, only supported later with that Meiji book.Mazamadao (talk) 08:05, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Most of this reply is not germane or misinterprets what I've written, so while I'm bemused by the idea that it's gibberish, there is clearly little successful communication happening here. I suggest that you should be prepared to extend to other editors the same courtesy you ask them to extend to you. If you demand policy- or guideline-based objections in order to alter any of your edits, you may soon encounter editors who revert entirely on the grounds that you have not provided any policy- or guideline-based reasoning either. I doubt that this discussion will become more productive, although I would be interested to hear where you have found any grammatical errors in my comments. I suspect you may be referring simply to "link repair", which is a common phrase on Wikipedia (see also Category:Articles needing link repair), but if there is anything else I should be aware of, maybe it will help me improve my linguistic knowledge. Best, Dekimasuよ! 08:28, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My dude, buddy, pal, please stop talking down to me just because you have admin privilege. I have interacted with more know-it-all people than you can imagine. I have worked on other wikis. I know disagreement exists. I know people may alter my edits later, which they are free to do, and which I am free to object to and discuss about. I know bloody well how wikis work. You are demonstrating a very bad tendency of people who have no good argument: dodging the subject and moving the goalpost. Where does this "link repair" come from now? I guess you may have mentioned it somewhere in whatever you claim to be your "detailed edit summaries", but that's the least of my problems. Either you address the real issues, or stop replying. What does "secondary" mean? What are the objective standards to measure which information should be placed first in an article? Does the manual of style real state that you must put citations at the end of a sentence? Do you just determine a word as "derogatory", without factoring in relevant context, based solely on some other people's claims on Wiktionary that it's "derogatory".Mazamadao (talk) 08:50, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On order in the article, WP:DETAIL links directly to Inverted pyramid (journalism) and states that the reason for doing so is "to summarize and distribute information ... in a way that can serve readers who want varying amounts of details." On citation, you have not yet understood what I wrote above, WP:CITE says explicitly that "citations should be placed at the end of the text that they support"; the cite does not need to come at the end of a sentence, but must show what it is being used to verify, as noted at WP:TSI: "The point of an inline citation is to allow readers and other editors to see which part of the material is supported by the citation; that point is lost if the citation is not clearly placed." And WP:OM: "While Wikipedia is not censored, Wikipedia articles should only contain offensive words and images for a good reason." On this point, it is clear that we differ on what is "a good reason". In my view, selecting this detail about the name for Chinese in an 1897 book is not helpful for a general reader trying to learn about Sokuon. Dekimasuよ! 09:16, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See? Not so hard, wasn't it. I'd appreciate all this much more if you hadn't wasted my time with all the earlier nonsense. Now, while I maintain most of my opinions apart from the "inverted pyramid", which I agree is better for average readers, at least we can argue on much better terms now. Do include these very helpful links next time if you really want your summaries to be "detailed", rather than saying something incomprehensible like "secondary" or "repair cite". I've seen other editors do it before, it was never this hard and painful.Mazamadao (talk) 09:23, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you have also been working on Japanese pitch accent. Once that work is noticed by other editors, they will likely begin to ask about sources on edits like this one. It is clear you are adding information for everyone's benefit, but it is not clear where that information is coming from in order to distinguish between verifiable information and original research, particularly since you are frequently using phrases like "tend to be", "often", or "may occur" in unsourced edits to that page. Dekimasuよ! 08:04, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The NHK dictionary for heaven's sake. The NHK dictionary. I was afraid that that section was too long and some people may lose track of the source, but it's the NHK dictionary. Every time I used another source, I made sure to include it. If you have a better idea on how to keep citing the same source a hundred times over, be my guest.Mazamadao (talk) 08:07, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Those phrases are not my subjective judgements, but based on the NHK dictionary' examples and exceptions. If a "rule" is stated, but some exceptions occur, I cannot restate those rules without some concession now can I? That's just how the NHK dictionary works, stating "rules", and adding footnotes later. It also uses words like 傾向 ("tendency") for example.Mazamadao (talk) 08:15, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Citing sources

Thanks for your contributions. Do you have URLs (or DOIs) for the citations you are using? Those would be helpful per WP:CITE. - Amigao (talk) 17:20, 12 September 2024 (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) 00:43, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]