User talk:INFIYNJTE

Welcome!
Happy editing! Peaceray (talk) 19:12, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

September 2023
Please do not add or change content, as you did at Sandinista National Liberation Front, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 02:32, 5 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Thank you for clarifying why you undid it this time. Last time you did, it was with the reason of "source: trust me bro", which was disingenuous. INFIYNJTE (talk) 13:39, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

October 2023
Hi. Welcome, and thanks for your contributions to Greek alphabet. I've undone them because you didn't provide a source, but don't worry, your changes are preserved in the page history. You can restore your changes, along with citations to reliable sources. If you have any questions about editing Wikipedia, feel free to reply below, or you can ask at the Help desk. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 16:04, 24 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your feedback! I added citations as you requested.
 * If there's still room for improvement, feedback is appreciated! INFIYNJTE (talk) 13:47, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, I noticed; thanks Mathglot (talk) 18:24, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

underdotted z
The underdotted "z" symbol comes from transcription of Arabic tajwid (recitation) pronunciation, where the sound is a little bit artificial (devised so that the letters &#1590; and &#1592; could be pronounced differently among speakers of Arabic dialects where the sounds written by the letters had merged). Nobody ever thought there was an actual emphatic [z] sound in early Northwest Semitic (or nobody knowledgeable who actually thought about it, anyway), but it was convenient to drag in the underdotted "z" symbol to represent the etymologically corresponding Ugaritic letter, whose actual sound value was a matter of speculative reconstruction... AnonMoos (talk) 09:58, 28 December 2023 (UTC)


 * I corrected it to an emphatic /θ'/ as shown by the Proto-Semitic word ṯ̣ill "shade" a few hours ago, though I kept the name ẓil to conform with the sources.
 * Thanks for pointing this out and I hope we can work together in fully deciphering the Proto-Sinaitic script. INFIYNJTE (talk) 10:48, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

North Korea
I guess the central issue is that we currently have this in the article North Korea (see page history for attribution):

So adding anything into the infobox (such as totalitarian dictatorship, hereditary dictatorship) around this issue creates the appearance of WP:SYNTH. Personally, I wouldn't go beyond "unitary one-party socialist republic" in the government type infobox, since this is something that even the NK governments itself agrees with and there's little difference of opinion. I'm not going to personally revert your edit, but the note to not make additions or changes without talk page consensus is there for a reason. Sagflaps (talk) 01:26, 23 January 2024 (UTC)


 * A One-Party Socialist Republic is not necessarily totalitarian
 * North Korea is also the shining example of a "totalitarian regime", though someone else changed it to totalitarian dictatorship despite my reservations due to the Article talk. I also refrained from describing it as "hereditary" since scarce sources describe it as such and the talk reached a consensus against such definition.
 * Anyway, thanks for the feedback and I will keep this in mind (I just felt the need to edit the article).
 * Thanks also for not reverting the edit, although if someone else finds trouble with it due to a reasonable conclusion based on the Article talk, they should feel free to do so.
 * Thanks again INFIYNJTE (talk) 01:58, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
 * You're welcome to discuss North Korea being a totalitarian regime, but it's just that the infobox in particular has a far higher standard, and it seems like the more that gets added, the more drive-by editors will make additions that are just based on their personal opinion of how the country should be called. To not get too deep into the analysis, the key characteristics of totalitarianism are a lack of pluralism (western style democracy), as well as a strong central government (the opposite of economic austerity). One-party describes the first point, and the second is a key characteristic of socialism. Sagflaps (talk) 04:21, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Alphabets
Would you have any interest in working on the Kuntillet Ajrud alphabet? Temerarius (talk) 22:11, 4 February 2024 (UTC)


 * I'm more interested in working in the Proto-Canaanite table of glyphs and its descendants. INFIYNJTE (talk) 22:28, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Have you found anything interesting so far? Temerarius (talk) 02:07, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I haven't.
 * I plan to work on the table and on writing mainly. INFIYNJTE (talk) 02:42, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Alphabets ii
https://imgur.com/a/eY0XfOQ Same sequence? Temerarius (talk) 01:46, 5 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Brbrbr.png Temerarius (talk) 04:34, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Alphabets iii
How well do you think the photo in Khirbet Qeiyafa ostracon matches the illustration? Temerarius (talk) 22:56, 6 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Haven't seen it yet INFIYNJTE (talk) 23:10, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * But can you tell me what you think of the symbol with two dots in Serabit 367 and the padlock-ish shape in 349? INFIYNJTE (talk) 00:14, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
 * here? Romain Butin, Serabit el-Khadim inscriptions, 367.jpg I don't know. Do we have a photo of the piece? Temerarius (talk) 15:57, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I might be missing it, but I don't see a photo in butain 1930 Temerarius (talk) 16:58, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Also, the striken šamaš used in the article prior to 5 Feb might represent a tooth (šinn) according to one source. INFIYNJTE (talk) 17:13, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
 * What source? Doesn't seem like it would make sense. Where are those glyphs you made for the turnip? Temerarius (talk) 22:19, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
 * the "turnip" glyph was the Proto-Canaanite ś in Lachish Comb, based on the reconstruction of the word "hair"
 * https://jjar.huji.ac.il/sites/default/files/jjar/files/jjar2_art4_lachish_p76-119_2022-10-12_01.pdf
 * It looks similar to glyph 4, especially since the sentence in 367 can be reconstructed as גד עשׂ(ה) עש "Gad Create a moth" (the only one that succeeded in google translate), though I manually reconstructed the source's גד ער עש as "Gad Awake a moth" INFIYNJTE (talk) 22:57, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Also, when I decided to interpret Lachish's ś for myself, I noticed it wasn't a closed shape but an open one similar to Glyph 4 at 367 INFIYNJTE (talk) 23:25, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
 * google translate? a language model would be better. Temerarius (talk) 03:56, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Alphabets iv
https://imgur.com/a/Rv4smdo Hazael horse frontlet r h n? n/m? a r m h q? t [break] n/l? shad b q ... Does this artifact look funny to you? Temerarius (talk) 18:04, 7 February 2024 (UTC)


 * https://imgur.com/a/4kPdMTZ clear pic Temerarius (talk) 00:13, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * This looks like a Phoenician inscription INFIYNJTE (talk) 00:15, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, I expected anybody trying to read the proto Sinaitic inscriptions knew the Phoenician alphabet. You will learn it, accidentally even, reading inscriptions or Hebrew. Temerarius (talk) 04:02, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Alphabets v
https://imgur.com/a/9h4CJcV can't make much out of this one Temerarius (talk) 20:57, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Alphabets vi
Interesting Temerarius (talk) 20:16, 10 February 2024 (UTC) Temerarius (talk) 20:16, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Alphabets vii
You enjoy making glyphs digitally, right? Could I make a request? I could use a m and n that descend like they're supposed to. Neither this font https://www.typofonts.com/alphaeng.html nor the Unicode document for PS have descenders. Temerarius (talk) 03:11, 15 February 2024 (UTC)


 * of which script? INFIYNJTE (talk) 13:32, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't know. of the Kuntillet Ajrud script, I guess. The descender aspect is the same problem from there or p-Sinai look: 𐤆𐤌𐤓 it's like they're in capital letters. they're all stretched or squeezed between the x-height and the Baseline (typography). I'll demonstrate an alphabet for you. Or find an example. 𐤌: It's twin peaks in the main space and the mountain creek as the descender in a certain era's or area's conception, different from the earlier wavy lines from egypt. It's what happend when an element is meant to be coming from within its bounds, that process where it becomes a descender or in l's case an ascender. Temerarius (talk) 22:11, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I printed this alphabet from the font "Alphabetum" then I added some. Scenders.jpg I'm not sure if this demonstrates what I'm asking for, but it does show something. I added the ones that go high or low. Phoenician did lose some of these quirks but it didn't lose the ascenders and descenders completely. Temerarius (talk) 01:35, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * As far as I know, Phoenician doesn't differentiate between capital and lowercase letters. INFIYNJTE (talk) 20:56, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Right. Well, that's why it's odd that they put them artificially in monocase -- small caps really -- for these fonts. Temerarius (talk) 23:42, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Original Research
You might want to understand the rules around original research, in your post here. If source A calls North Korea totalitarian, source B calls North Korea authoritarian, source C calls North Korea an absolute monarchy, source D calls it a dictatorship, and source E calls it hereditary, then to put "totalitarian hereditary dictatorship" is original research. Sagflaps (talk) 14:50, 27 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Wrongful WP:Synth twists sources to create a conclusion that would not be endorsed by any source, whereas WP:Synth done right takes the POVs of each source to build a full picture in a way that doesn't contradict any source.
 * For example, if source A describes it as "totalitarian" without commenting on hereditary while source B as "hereditary", then describing it as "totalitarian" and "de facto hereditary" would be proper synthesis unless the context of either source implicitly or explicitly opposed such synthesis. INFIYNJTE (talk) 15:03, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The issue here is that determining whether a particular source would endorse a statement by another source would require contacting the authors, unless they explicitly say so. This is why the connections need to be made by the sources Sagflaps (talk) 15:34, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * By implicit and explicit I mean whether there's anything in the source directly stating or indirectly pointing to a contradiction to a particular conclusion. INFIYNJTE (talk) 15:41, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I know what you meant, but in this case where reliable sources say different things about the type of government, it would be better to leave the discussion to the body instead of selecting based on editor opinion which one we like the most. Sagflaps (talk) 15:48, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

March 2024
Hello, I'm Sinclairian. I noticed that you recently removed content from Kuntillet Ajrud inscriptions without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Sinclairian (talk) 16:50, 6 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Noted. I added an explanation and removed the irrelevant citation. INFIYNJTE (talk) 17:25, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Sinclairian (talk) 11:12, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * No worries! INFIYNJTE (talk) 14:58, 8 March 2024 (UTC)