User talk:יבריב

Putting {{auto cat}} in the page will let you avoid typing random junk in there. Equinox ◑ 00:00, 26 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

אתה שומרוני, או סתם מתעניין בשפות של השומרונים? --WikiTiki89 15:59, 26 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

שניהם, במידה מסוימת. בעיקר מעוניין יבריב (talk) 22:42, 26 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

לא הבנתי, איך אפשר להיות שומרוני "במידה מסוימת"? --WikiTiki89 21:31, 27 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

.טעות שלי, הייתי צריך להבהיר: אני שומרוני אך ורק דרך מוצאם (לדמיין יהודי תרבותי וחילוני). זה האחד חיבור יבריב (talk) 22:09, 27 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

I see that you created a template for Yiddish colours. Your transliteration had very many errors in it (and for phonetically spelled words, should not be written in at all). The errors you made suggest to me that you may not be very familiar with Yiddish; if that is the case, please do not make edits you are unsure of. Our standards for Yiddish can be found at WT:AYI. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 23:49, 6 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

I understand transliteration puts in things like "dzh" are used even when the sound is not accurately portrayed as such. I was using simplified phonetics. My mistake יבריב (talk) 01:02, 7 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hello. When adding Egyptian hieroglyphs, make sure to double-check anything you read against scholarly sources written by Egyptologists; unfortunately it’s fairly common for people to make up all sorts of things where Egyptian is concerned. For example, these glyphs you added at ꜣwšꜣmm (which I assume came from the Hebrew Wikipedia)

are not actually correct: they seem to be a sort of reverse transliteration back into Egyptian of the transliteration ꜣwšꜣmm. Unfortunately, the Egyptian writing system is quite complicated, and such reverse transliterations don’t generally work. The actual original glyphs are these:

which you can see here in the original Egyptological publication by Kurt Sethe. — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 06:42, 7 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Vorzblix: (sorry for any bad English) I apologize. I was looking all over for the original hieroglyphs to the Armana letters and the ones I posted were found right on the Hebrew Wikipedia page for the article. My mistake, and thank you! יבריב (talk) 13:18, 7 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

No problem! You can also add a template like {{attention|egy}} to an Egyptian entry if you’re not sure about something and want other editors to check it. — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 17:17, 7 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

• It looks to me that you are adding bad hieroglyphs again for Egyptian entries. You have been causing a mess in multiple languages, and you need to step back and stop making edits in languages you don't have any knowledge of. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 16:17, 10 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Metaknowledge: My knowledge of hieroglyphics is fine - I just happened to just now forget we use transliteration as page titles instead of the glyphs themselves. יבריב (talk) 16:21, 10 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

The arrangement of the hieroglyphs looks very wrong to me. Have you looked at how our Egyptian entries are formatted at all? —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 01:02, 11 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

האם באמת השומרונים כותבים ערבית בכתב השומרוני? אם כן תביא לנו ציטוטים בבקשה. ועוד, האם ערבית שומרונית באמת שפה נפרדת מערבית או מערבית לבנטינית? --WikiTiki89 15:45, 7 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

בעיקרון רק ערבית באמצעות אותיות השומרוני ערבית שומרוניתהיא שפה משמעותית מבחינה תרבותית לשומרונים יבריב (talk) 18:25, 7 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

אבל שם הערבית כתובה בכתב הערבי. --WikiTiki89 18:33, 7 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

נו, מצאת משהו? --WikiTiki89 19:16, 9 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

Some people want to know dates, e.g. year of first use. And some that you have removed are legit requests where the info is NOT obvious. Please stop. Equinox ◑ 23:21, 27 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

What kind of reconstructional method did you use for this lemma? As far as I know, Ptah isn't remotely pronounced that way you "reconstructed" it, in Old Egyptian, of course. When I don't know something, I back off. You need to back off.

Firstly, quite rude of you. Secondly, at most I misused a letter that didn't represent a schwa where there was one. You back off. יבריב (talk) 22:59, 28 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

"Firstly, quite rude of you."

Wow.

That's just you throwing stupidities and nonsense. You are being illogical and now you are throwing a tantrum accusing me unfairly of being rude. It is not rude, but the reality. Not my fault you can't accept it even though it is true.

"Secondly, at most I misused a letter that didn't represent a schwa where there was one."

Please, I advise you to calm down since you started your crying and grovelling again and look harder at the reconstructed pronunciation of Ptah which is validly reconstructed as /piˈtaħ/ by Antonio Loprieno. Your "reconstruction" is at best, a subjective opinion without any factual substance and you actually need to close your mouth and take away your fingers from any Internet-browsering device and keep your troll tendencies to yourself.

Quite ignorant if you ask me.

"You back off"

No! Ugh...

Now you're spewing ridiculous nonsense. You are embarassing further yourself with your 5-year-old mentality. Let Vorziblix do his usual magic. You have to be literate first which I find hard knowing your mindless attacks.

Please stop commenting on my talk. יבריב (talk) 23:14, 28 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

Why? Because you are an amateur and you are being exposed? Because of the fact you are called for your nonsense as Equinox and Μετάknowledge pointed out? No, you SHOULD stop commenting here. Nuff said.

יבריב (talk) 00:08, 29 August 2017 (UTC) !מי אתה לעזאזל? לעזאזל.Reply

• Both of you are engaging in personal attacks. This kind of interaction is unacceptable. Hanno, despite my frustrations with יבריב, you will note that I have not resorted to any of the crass name-calling that you have engaged in, and I expect you to cease that, both on this page and elsewhere. This is a warning to both of you, and I will not block anyone for the comments already made in English, but I will if they continue thus. My Modern Hebrew is not good enough to determine whether directing someone to Azazel is offensive to a blockable degree, but it is certainly not acceptable discourse. @Wikitiki89? —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 00:41, 29 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Metaknowledge: @JohnC5: Welp, I tried to respond and found myself blocked. Good job.

Honestly, I understand there is a certain amount of verification that goes into these things, but how dense do you have to be to argue aigialosaur needs an rfe when it links to the etymology in the definition? That agnoprotein isn't a compound of agno- and protein? That afference isn't related to afferent? adipocyte isn't a compound of adipose and -cyte? I mean, honestly, this shit takes less than a minute on google to find all the sources you need! And I concede my edits on Aksu, for example, needed to be reverted, but when it clearly shows no one bothers to put in the research I am being accused of not preforming, excuse me if I restore correct information through mass-reverts.

Hell. Hell, gentlemen. Hell. יבריב (talk) 02:14, 29 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hmmm, so each of your things are wrong in a subtly different way. Everything from not recognizing blends to not showing the correct chain of inheritance and borrowing to adding entirely unrelated information in hopes that it counts as an etymology. If you would like I can provide a step-by-step analysis of my changes, but I'm too tired at the moment. For now, I will say that at about 90% of your entries are either wrong, deceptively not correct, or ill-formatted. —JohnC5 02:50, 29 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

First order of business: you didn't get blocked because of whether or not the entries need etymology requests. You got blocked because you were told by one admin why what you were doing was wrong and reverted by another admin, but instead of responding, simply reverted all the edits you didn't like. That is disruptive, and it is wasting everybody's time.

Secondly, on to the issue: No, not everything is obvious and we aim to show all etymologies. As Equinox already explained, etymologies can also include information about who coined a term and when, whether it originated as a New Latin taxonomic term or the taxon was named after the English (or whether both came from another language, such as French), etc. You should never remove a request made in good faith unless you have an exceptionally good reason to do so — and you did not. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 02:53, 29 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

Meta, in fully aware of why I was blocked – however I was NOT aware Kohn was an admin. יבריב (talk) 12:13, 29 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

This is unacceptable. I will report you for your inane vandalism. :-)

יבריב (talk) 01:01, 31 August 2017 (UTC) אל־תען כסיל כאולתו פן־תשוה־לו גם־אתהReply

Nevermind your petty insults since your comments make no sense and have zero arguments. Your trolling style is extremely particular. We figured you out though, you are a little most logically goverment-interests agent that has reverse-transliterating lemmas over the course of his life and you had intentionally damaged articles in a admittedly sneaky way. Almost perfect your miscreant plan was, but it failed. Mark my words! Here ALL are paid!

Hello again. From what I can see this entry (ꜣwkrtry tyzjsrz) doesn’t say Titus at all, it’s just a very mangled representation of the word autocrator followed by Caesar. It looks like a handful of glyphs are missing and/or incorrectly written, too. Could you show me where you transcribed this from? — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 12:20, 31 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Vorziblix: yo יבריב (talk) 12:31, 31 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

Ah, that clears things up a bit, thanks. Note that , , and are three different glyphs and shouldn’t be confused. It also looks like there were some glyphs missing in the original cartouche (maybe they were chipped away); there should be a and possibly a in the blank space under that first vulture. With that in mind, the full text there is three separate words, aucrator Titus Caesar.

— Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 12:41, 31 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Vorziblix: That would explain the lack of "Titus" sounding signs in the inscription. I'll try to refrain from hiero pages w/o verifying them a bit more, if anything just to make your life easier. יבריב (talk) 13:31, 31 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

I thought I should leave you a clear warning and explanation. Repetition of the actions that you have been warned about in the past will still merit a block after this expires. That includes removing RFD or RFV templates before the discussion is concluded, which Wikitiki89 has warned you against doing in an edit summary. If it wasn't obvious, personal attacks and abusive language are never acceptable. So far, you have actually been given rather short blocks considering — they will be much longer if you continue in this fashion. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 07:55, 10 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Metaknowledge: I completely understood the reason I was blocked. On another note that vein, Chuck Entz called me an idiot and accused me of edits I never even made. So considering calling someone a moron once got me a three-day, maybe give that some attention? יבריב (talk) 17:06, 10 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

I think he mistakenly thought that the creator of the page was not you, but an anon who had merely edited it. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 18:06, 10 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

This is your last warning. If I catch you edit warring one more time, I'm blocking you for a longer period. Edit warring is when you revert a reversion without first starting a discussion and reaching an agreement. --WikiTiki89 17:35, 11 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

I have extended Wikitiki's block for three months from now due to using an IP address to evade your block. (To make things even worse, the IP account was used to edit-war and make bad edits that have to be reverted, which were exactly the sorts of things you've been repeatedly warned about.) —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 16:45, 14 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Metaknowledge: It seems like you don't know what the phrase "never gonna stop" means, do ya? יבריב (talk) 17:17, 19 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

I admit, I had not realised that the depth of your juvenile obsession is matched only by your intense stupidity. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 01:44, 20 November 2017 (UTC)Reply