User talk:Palaestrator verborum

Your submission at Articles for creation: Taʾ marbutah (November 20)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by I dream of horses was:

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.


 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Taʾ marbutah and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Ta%CA%BE_marbutah Articles for creation help desk] or on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:I_dream_of_horses&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Ta%CA%BE_marbutah reviewer's talk page].
 * You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

I dream of horses If you reply here, please ping me by adding to your message (talk to me) (My edits) @  06:57, 20 November 2017 (UTC)


 * It does not exist, Tāʾ marbūṭah exists. Taʾ marbutah is handled as Tāʾ marbūṭah when given into the search, but does not link in articles. Palaestrator verborum (talk) 07:04, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, there are also issues surrounding moving the page. You might be able to simply create the redirect directly instead of using articles for creation. I dream of horses If you reply here, please ping me by adding to your message (talk to me) (My edits) @  07:16, 20 November 2017 (UTC)


 * How can I? I mean, redirects are usually in the mainspace, but I am not allowed yet to create articles there. Is there another way to create redirects? So, the article redirect is bugged in the draft space? I guess I cannot delete from the draftspace? If this is the case, I invite you take the steps for its deletion. Palaestrator verborum (talk) 07:28, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * It looks like I have catched a bad day to begin: “For a trial period from September 14, 2017 to at least March 14, 2018, users will not be able to create pages, including redirects, directly in the article mainspace until their accounts are autoconfirmed”. Palaestrator verborum (talk) 08:12, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Let me see if I can get some help, because I've never encountered this issue before. I dream of horses If you reply here, please ping me by adding to your message (talk to me) (My edits) @  02:22, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
 * No worries, I have already caused it being deleted, and I can wait for the autoconfirmation here, as I have collected my ten edits and just need four days as it seems. I am not even that eager to work in Wikipedia, I am usually on Wiktionary and should restrain myself. Just a pity that people coming from the dictionary are not so much foreseen by those making the decisions around here, as creating redirects could even be the first thing that I wanted to do on Wikipedia, for example for Arabic placenames which have Articles in the English Wikipedia but are not reachable by the native placenames one might encounter and search here (me contributing much to Arabic on the English Wiktionary). Palaestrator verborum (talk) 15:07, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Well, don't restrain yourself after autoconfirmation! I dream of horses If you reply here, please ping me by adding to your message (talk to me) (My edits) @  18:50, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Broken plural
It's probably best not to use "smartquotes" (‘’“”) in most cases -- and it's definitely undesirable to set up some kind of contrast between smartquotes and straight quotes ('") in an article... AnonMoos (talk) 11:42, 25 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Why don’t use them? Only because I can why others can’t because they use inferior keyboard layouts? I don’t set any contrast. The fact is that it is an error to use U+0022 QUOTATION MARK in English or in any other language. It’s not part of the English language, it’s in the keyboard layouts for usage in computer languages but a misspelling for quotations. Even the Unicode data says that “” are preferred: “preferred characters in English for paired quotation marks are “ U+201C LEFT DOUBLE QUOTATION MARK & ” U+201D RIGHT DOUBLE QUOTATION MARK”. I don’t ever hit the key to get " and write the correct quotation marks for each language automatically; also I automatically write U+2019 RIGHT SINGLE QUOTATION MARK for the apostrophe. Should I corrupt my superior habits for equality? No, people other than me need to change their layouts and habits, because they have been wrong the whole time. Palaestrator verborum (talk) 16:07, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Wikipedia is not about showing off how much you're superior to other people. It's mostly about working well with others to achieve goals. The policy is at Manual of Style... AnonMoos (talk) 05:19, 26 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Well, this is what holds people off working here. I won’t do anything on the English Wikipedia that requires using quotation marks, as apparently people are not allowed here to work well. The worst thing is that they do not just point out at the beginning that it is in the style manual but try to lure into the obviously false belief that typewriter quotes are better than typographic quotes – by claiming first the æstimation that it is “probably best” while then insisting on it because of it being ruled thus. The page I have edited even used single quotes for quotations disallowed by the same rules and signs for Arabic transcription disallowed by the same rules which I have replaced for consistency, but there is no acclaim of it by you. I would probably have assumed that the community stands out by honesty. Thank the gods that such a trifling thing like quotation marks is enough to shew that Wikipedia is a snake pit full of spite unworthy of contributing to it. I will stay true to Unicode instead of submitting to the ṭāġūt. Palaestrator verborum (talk) 05:51, 26 November 2017 (UTC)


 * In my opinion, Arabic transcription conventions where ء and ع would appear as ’ and ‘ are a poor adaptation of ancient Greek spiritus lenis / spiritus asper conventions (see Manual of Style/Arabic), and I would prefer ʾ and ʿ or ʔ and ʕ. But the use of ‘’ to indicate Arabic sounds is yet another reason not to use the same symbols for article punctuation...  In any case:
 * 1) Wikipedia is not about revealing your individual personal brilliance. It's about working well with others within an agreed framework.
 * 2) The right way to agitate for a change to the policies is at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style, not by editing articles.
 * 3) Even if "smartquotes" were to be accepted in articles, it still would not be acceptable to create a contrast of straight quotes ('") used for one purpose and smartquotes (‘’“”) used for another purpose (as you did on the "Broken plural" article)... AnonMoos (talk) 02:29, 28 November 2017 (UTC)


 * P.S. "æstimation" seems to have been a minority spelling even in the 17th century, and obsolete in any other century, so its use is quite pretentious in 2017. If that's the type of thing that you're going to insist on including in Wikipedia articles, then your editing career may end up being contentious and brief... AnonMoos (talk) 02:42, 28 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I said I did not set any contrast. Where do you see a contrast? It does not look remotely like somebody tried to set a contrast or has used it for different purposes. Some ASCII quotation marks were left over. And I have not used ’ and ‘ but changed it to ʾ and ʿ. Also it is obvious that “Wikipedia is not about revealing your individual personal brilliance”. But I disagree that it is about working well in an agreed framework. Wikipedia is about working badly with others within an agreed framework because, as you exhibit, the rules have become autonomous of reason and people neither distinguish nor appreciate what is good. You do not even try to apply reason to me but only repeat and contradict the facts and yourself by trying to show how brilliant your views are. Or what are you trying to persuade me to? To dupe me into contributing in the framework? It does not succeed, I am already out, and you are at fault for it.
 * Also, it is puerile to assume that I write the same way in articles as in discussion pages. These are different text genres and one does not need to share a language accross different areas but can develop different writing personalities as one likes. You should end your editing career too as you are not able to comprehend the sense in works nor know the frameworks which you are in, which might explain why you mostly are not even writing in the mainspace but try to impose your personal – mediocre – views on other people. Unless of course your existence is the least harmless on Wikipedia. Palaestrator verborum (talk) 02:59, 28 November 2017 (UTC)