User talk:Mnemosientje

I.J.

I am sorry that I have been involved with correcting the IJ digraph in Wikipedia. What I know is that ij is a digraph (two letters making one sound such as Th, Ch, and Sj), but it is unusual among the digraphs as when it is capitalized, it is sometimes regarded as one letter, and it is capitalized as IJ (Yep, that threw me off). Even other digraphs (or any multigraph) which is treated as one letter do not result in double capitals, such as Dz, Lj, Nj, Sz, and Dzs. I believe that the Dutch treats IJ preferentially. I knew a meager amount of Dutch, and had no trouble and disagreement, except for that IJ (I also heard many other Dutch disagree with the IJ). My native language is English, and I am wondering how foreigners feel when they first see an occurrence of a capitalized IJ.

Firstly, I indeed found the name IJsbrand extremely weird, not only being hard to pronounce for foreigners, but making me think "What does the IJ have to do with this name?" I also found any other names "mysteriously" beginning with the IJ as weird, such as IJmuiden and IJsselmeer, (I pronounce IJmuiden as I. J. Muiden) and would correct all these names to Ijmuiden and Ijsselmeer respectively. In a few Dutch learning resources they are all written Ijmuiden and Ijsselmeer.

Secondly, I claimed that the IJ river is an acronym, so I posted "what does IJ stand for." Based on the name, most foreigners would call this river the I. J. river. It turns out that this I. J. is actually a capitalized IJ digraph, but it indeed confused many foreigners.

I had no trouble or opposition regarding other unique Dutch orthographic features, such as the van title, or apostrophes used as word contractions (which can also result in unusual capitalization), such as 't for het, and 'n for een. Interestingly, there is a festival called 't IJ, two unique orthographic features of Dutch, but I indeed oppose the IJ.

I hope I won't bother about "correcting" instances of IJ again, Kleio.

What is your stance on IJ? Do you consider IJ to be two letters or one letter? Do you consider titlecase Ij acceptable in any way, such as Ijsselmeer or Ijsbrand? (Use IJ when you consider it as two letters, and IJ when you consider as one letter. ßlackHeart (talk) 00:16, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

"I hope I won't bother about "correcting" instances of IJ again, Kleio." -- glad to hear it, because it's silly to impose your own opinion out of nowhere on a well-established spelling (no matter what IP you do it from).

"Use IJ when you consider it as two letters, and IJ when you consider as one letter." -- no sorry, that's not how that works.

I don't particularly care if you view it as a single letter or not, nor does my opinion on that issue matter very much. Phonologically it's a diphthong, but in terms of spelling it behaves as a single unit or a single letter if you will (though technically it's a digraph without a mixed-case form). The point here is that there is a spelling convention, it is admittedly somewhat unusual, and you can't change it merely because it happens to resemble an acronym in English. Thus, the fact that you "oppose the IJ" doesn't matter in the slightest given the existence of the spelling convention, which any foreigner who isn't completely ignorant on the matter will follow as well as a Dutch person would, because reasonable people don't try to force their own opinions on the idiosyncrasies of other languages. So, simply put: when you find it in Dutch words and it's word-initial, the entire thing is capitalized as one when the word ought to be capitalized (as with proper nouns). Thus IJsbrand, not Ijsbrand, and IJ, not Ij. Don't change any of that, it is not "correction", it is vandalism. Don't impose your spelling on a word just because you "oppose it", because your opposition does not matter as long as your opposing view has not yet gained a consensus (which is followed on Wikipedia), which it has not (nor do I see any reason why it should, really). — Kleio (t · c) 18:44, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Okay. For what reason and origin did the Dutch treat the IJ preferentially, such as treating it as a single letter, and creating double-capitals when it manages to be capitalized? I though it has to do with Y, but IJ seems to be the only controversial aspect of the Dutch orthography.

Again, do you consider Ij acceptable in any way at all?ßlackHeart (talk) 00:19, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Historically, the j in ij simply marked vowel length afaik: in Middle Dutch, the long i sound (ī) was spelled ii or ij; then there was a vowel shift around the end of the Middle Ages or early modern period I think which changed this long vowel to the diphthong we know today (but don't quote me on this, it's based on vague recollections from a codicology 101 course). As for Ij - no, not really acceptable, it's simply not used that way. There is no mixed case version of this digraph in use. Why earlier Dutch decided that a mixed case Ij doesn't work is beyond me, but that's just how it is -- anything other than IJ/ij just looks silly now. — Kleio (t · c) 03:01, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

ßlackHeart, on your own talk page you wrote

THank YOu - now I understand about the IJ. ANd, HAppy NEw YEar's, WIkipedians! HAve a GReat 2017! ßLackHEart (TAlk) 04:33, 2 JAnuary 2017 (UTC)

It's clear by your use of two consecutive capitals that you still thought it strange, but nevertheless: you said you understood. Now, you are again placing your own view of how things should be higher than the way things actually are. To be honest, this is a getting tiresome. Even if you don't understand, please accept the fact that some things are the way they are – especially when the way they are is documented by multiple sources. Personally, I don't see the logic in writing the first person singular as a capital I, but that's just how it works in English and I have accepted that a long time ago. If you cannot restrain yourself from changing 'IJ' to 'Ij', perhaps you'd better stay away from articles that contain 'IJ'. Richard 11:29, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Wiktionary Hebrew etymologies

Noticed you rectified the etymology at מצה and figured you could also finish up the etymologies that are still needed. As far as I can tell, סילאן is from a Judeo-Arabic word spelled the same way that itself came from the Arabic participle "سيلان" which would mean "flowing" - apparently because silan is made from oozing juice out of dates. The second one, עדי, comes from the Aramaic "עִידִיתָא", which also meant "ornament", per A Comprehensive Etymological Dictionary Of The Hebrew Language — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.24.133.2 (talk) 22:55, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Just so you know, Mnemosientje is quite busy in real life and although he is a good scholar, Hebrew is not even a focus of his on Wiktionary. I'd be just as happy as you if he could clear this stuff out, but it's just not a reasonable thing to ask of him. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 23:37, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Meta for the kind words :) But I think since it's only two entries it should be easy enough to get around to one of these days (though probably not before the 14th due to irl obligations). — Mnemosientje (t · c) 13:03, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Boris edit

Hi, Many thanks again for spotting the error and reverting, That will certainly teach me for skimming through half the changes and assuming everything's okay!, FWIW the bizarre edit still happens when the script's used there so I've raised it with the script owner, Anyway many thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 18:50, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Gotcha, I'd assumed it was accidental — Mnemosientje (t · c) 18:56, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Figures etc. in Germanic heroic legend

Hello Mnemosientje, you may be interested in contributing to the list of Germanic heroic figures, people and place names, and named objects that I'm building with Berig in my sandbox User:Ermenrich/sandbox. Since you asked me a long while ago about the legend, I'm also pleased to report that there's a new well-sourced article that Berig and I have made on them, Germanic heroic legend.--Ermenrich (talk) 16:46, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

@Ermenrich: Thanks for the heads up, looks good! I am quite busy these weeks, but once that clears up I'll see if I have anything to add. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 21:35, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

RfC

Dear Mnemosientje, I have started an RfC on the article Goths that may be of interest to you, see Talk:Goths#RfC.--Berig (talk) 20:57, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

academic biographies

I know you've looked at some of the problems we have on academic biographies. On Srnec's talk page I was recently shown that some of these problems extend to Wikiquote where there is less oversight. See the articles for Walter Goffart (e.g. focuses the reader on the idea that his ideas come from his being born in Belgium, even though he wasn't), and also Guy Halsall and Michael Kulikowski. Of course the equivalent articles here on Wikipedia are in many ways more important, and have similar distortions. I feel I can help very little, also on the Goths article. There is just too little interest among better editors in fixing these problems, and it just makes me look like Don Quijote, even though I know there are a bunch of good editors keeping quiet in the background who hope/expect me to keep working on such things.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:33, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

(See also my response on the Kulikowski page.) I will continue to edit here and there on related articles as I have done in the past, but I have no intention of structurally working on this problem right now, as my life is currently too busy for me to be able to invest the time and energy necessary. As for what I hope or expect - Wiki editing is voluntary labor and while any investment of time improving collaborative projects like these is a noble thing, there is no justification needed for not editing. Others' expectations, hopes or whatever are quite irrelevant, just do what you will and can. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 14:29, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes of course, it is up to you what you do. But anyway, I've put some work into those articles about academics this weekend as I am sure you noticed. Concerning Goths, FYI, a simple vote or short feedback about that RFC could be a small investment of effort that makes a difference. I honestly believe that it would make a big difference if, as proposed in several recent RFCs there already, we can simply move the main discussion of "pre Goths" to other shorter articles. The current RFC is simply about a draft which would put that consensus into practice. If you get a chance...--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:33, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

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) 00:27, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Minionsgameplay.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Minionsgameplay.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:40, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 01:12, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:39, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Texel

In case you are still looking for audio of the correct pronunciation of Texel: commons:File:422 Texel.ogg. – Editør (talk) 18:41, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! I had requested Marcel Coenders who usually does Dutch pronunciation files to make a new one and he seems to already have done so as well (File:Nl-TESSul.ogg) — Mnemosientje (t · c) 08:28, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

I saw your message when I was looking for a place to request audio recordings of Dutch pronunciations myself. – Editør (talk) 11:42, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

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) 00:24, 19 November 2024 (UTC)