User talk:KYPark

= 2001 = = 2002 = = 2003 = = 2004 = = 2005 =

= 2006 =

= 2007 =

= 2008 =

= 2009 =

= 2010 =

= 2011 =

= 2012 =

호미로 막을 것을 가래로 막는다
The images you used in this entry show that you don't have the difference straight between a Hoe (tool) and a shovel, which leaves me to wonder if you're translating the native Korean terms correctly. A hoe is a blade mounted on a handle, usually at an angle to it. The hoe is used for breaking up the soil or displacing it without removing it, as well as for chopping things like weeds. A shovel is a blade mounted in line with the handle, used to dig the soil by thrusting into the ground and lifting some of the soil on the wide blade. There's some overlap in the uses of the two, but the basic function of each is quite different. I'm not familiar with the term "power hoe", but that would imply to most English speakers something analogous to a hoe, but driven by a motor. Chuck Entz (talk) 18:10, 18 August 2012 (UTC)


 * ✅ Following your comment, I weeded out the snake's legs or sajog (사족, 蛇足), that is, "long-handled power hoe" but for "shovel" with which 가래 begins and ends with the ploughshare. Nevertheless, it may well mean something between the common shovel and the ploughshare, that is, such a special shovel as powered by two or four co-workers in front dragging both sides of the blade, like the ox(en) dragging the ploughshare, as suggested by the image here.


 * These are the commonest soil handling tools in Korea. Some 5 years ago, I must've created some, if not all, of them, which in turn someone must've deleted rather than counter-edited, hence a definite injustice done not only to me but also the community at large! May I take this opportunity to ask you to restore, and counter-edit if needed, them? Thanks in advance.
 * Sorry to be late to reply. I had some wireless connection trouble, and then had to work on the relevant hanjas in advance. --KYPark (talk) 03:24, 22 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I looked through your "deleted contributions" (Special:DeletedContributions/KYPark, probably only visible to admins), but it doesn't look like any Korean entries you created have been deleted, except a few wrong-script ones like areum. I can't find anything related to any kind of digging tool. Perhaps another admin can check that I'm not missing something. - -sche (discuss) 04:36, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Literal translations.
Hi,

In ====Translations==== sections, when you list a Korean translation, please don't give a literal re-translation back into English. That belongs only in the ===Etymology=== section of the Korean entry. (See Entry layout explained.) Thanks!

—Ruakh TALK 03:35, 27 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I see many other such translations out there, regardless of the relevant rule. That's just why I've so done so often so far. So sorry.... --KYPark (talk) 04:08, 27 August 2012 (UTC)


 * No need to apologize. Thanks for stopping. :-)  —Ruakh TALK 04:12, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit summaries when section editing.
When you edit a section named, for example,, you'll get a preloaded edit-summary that looks like this:

/* Translations */

you can then add the rest of your edit-summary after that:

/* Translations */ Korean

this way, the edit-summary will begin with a link to the relevant section, with an appropriately-placed colon:


 * (→ Translations: added Korean )

By contrast, if you add your edit-summary into the middle of the  part, you get a broken link, and a strangely grayed-out summary:

/* Translations - Korean */
 * (→‎ Translations - Korean  )

This isn't really a problem — if you want to keep doing it the way you have been, there's no rule against it — but it kind of defeats the point. I thought you might want to know. :-)

—Ruakh TALK 03:00, 3 September 2012 (UTC)


 * How many year old bad mindless foolish habit of mine! I wonder why i've never ever been checked so long. Thanks a lot for your nice advice. Hope you remain as nice as this. ;-) --KYPark (talk) 04:04, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Korean transliteration
We use Revised Romanization (국어의 로마자 표기법) as the standard for all Wiktionary transliterations of Korean. That means that every time a syllable ends in ㄱ, it needs to be transliterated as k. For example, see this diff. Thanks --Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 01:43, 4 September 2012 (UTC)


 * My way of transliteration has mattered so long, as discussed with User:Stephen G. Brown in 2006, as long as.
 * He strongly denied it, though the Revised Romanization explicitly requires it be used for the academic purposes of exactness.
 * So ironically, you'd be so surprised at this edit by Stephen himself last year:
 * You may better discuss his new, as well as my old, way with him than me, as he is one of the most admired here. Cheers!
 * --KYPark (talk) 03:24, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I am definitely surprised that Stephen made that mistake, but that is beside the point. I would be happy if you, at least, agreed to use RR (yes, I know it's not as good as 한글, but it's official in the South Korean government and widely used by linguists). --Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 03:54, 4 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Please ask him (if possible, to say formally) if he "made that mistake" accidentally indeed, or if he made that decision depending on a new situation evolving. That is, in the beginning or at the moment of that discussion, there was no phonetic device yet but for romanization, which thus just had to do with orthoepy at the cost of orthography. Now, the situation is upside down, as Stephen and you would agree. Don't suggest as if "my way" were outside of RR. It is the academic part thereof. It isn't the point to compare simply, but to communicate bilaterally, that with hangul. A very small script for my way of consistency would completely free the editors from romanization of Korean forever! Isn't this strikingly attractive? --KYPark (talk) 05:00, 4 September 2012 (UTC) One more vital thing is that the way you say is too complicated for me indeed, honest. --KYPark (talk) 05:06, 4 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi. Regarding the above translit., I also wonder why 낮 is transliterated "naj", not "nat", 말은 is "mal-eun", not "mar-eun", 듣고 is "deudgo", not "deutgo". Was that an intentional mistake? My Korean is not great but I use the RR when I add Korean translations (planning to improve my Korean). KYPark, I noticed you use too many hyphens. Why is that? I reserve hyphens for vowel disambiguation, particles and when syllables start with ㅇ. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 05:40, 4 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi there! Your wondering above are not directly mine but Stephen's; I just quote his to suggest it's originally what I've claimed as absolutely legitimate within RR, while it was unfortunately deadly denied here! Stephen was most responsible for this, I fear. But ironically indeed, he himself now practices my way he vehemently denied. "Was that an intentional mistake?" I'd say yes! It's because the situation has changed upside down. To be sure, however, don't ask me but him. And, yeah, perhaps I use more hyphens than essentially needed, but I do so in case of the Hanja string that is quite syllabic in contrast to native Korean. Unconsciously, I may be discriminating Sino-Korean from native Korean words. In a nutshell, I admit my hyphenation may be unprincipled after all. Regards. --KYPark (talk) 06:20, 4 September 2012 (UTC)


 * 감사합니다, KYPark, I wouldn't take transliteration differences too personally. It often helps people reading who are slightly familiar with the script or struggling to read it quickly, like myself. For people who don't know the Korean script, which method is used, doesn't really matter, as long as it's consistent (followed) and understood (people understand all changes and problems with reverse transliteration). I read your discussion with Stephen. Don't worry, Korean is not the only language where different letters may result in the same transliteration or they change sounds if they are followed by something else. It's normal. People should focus on the NATIVE script when learning, transliteration is minor. I prefer RR because it's now standard and will become even more widely used. Please continue your good work, we need more Korean contents. Perhaps we should write up the transliteration policies in more clearly and in more details in WT:AKO. The Wikipedia articles doesn't cover many cases and assumes knowledge of MR. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 06:39, 4 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks a lot for your concern and encouragement. --KYPark (talk) 06:57, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

But as the situation stands RR is still our standard, and as Anatoli says, it should be "consistent (followed)". If you want us to use a different system, bring it up at WT:BP, but until consensus in reached, please use RR. --Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 05:27, 7 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I suggest to you again and again that I have used nothing but RR. Upon your repeated request, however, I'll only very reluctantly use the very worse way of RR you suggest. In effect I feel like being pressed so hard by triviality, you know. --KYPark (talk) 06:10, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Beer Parlour subpages for new topics
We don't use them. You know that yet you persist on creating them. Beer Parlour discussions take place on the Beer Parlour. Consider my block lenient in the extreme given your history. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:11, 26 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I have a subpage Beer parlour/What is the WT way of RR?, though. It is an archive in advance, and I've found it very efficient to avoid edit conflicts. I wonder why such subpages are illegal in Beer Parlour where there are lots of them in fact other than mine and usual archives. --KYPark (talk) 11:41, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Reduplication
This is the process of making a new form from an old one by repeating part of the old form. Having more than one occurrence of a letter or even of a syllable in a word doesn't make it a reduplication. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:47, 30 December 2012 (UTC)


 * You may or may not be right. Frankly, I'm not terribly sure of my new additions, such as pipe, teeter, totter, tread, trot, being reduplications but frequentatives, the category of which is not yet available. Do you mind us having Category:English frequentatives to contain the above instead of Category:English reduplications? --KYPark (talk) 04:14, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think Frequentative is what you want, either. While reduplication is strictly a matter of manipulating form (with some influence on meaning), a frequentative uses a derived form to change the action from a single instance of the action to a repetitive version of the same action: drip vs. dribble, flit vs. flitter, etc. I don't think teeter or totter are frequentatives, though teeter-totter is a frequentative-based noun. I have no idea what pipe, tread or trot have to do with any of this- they're neither reduplicated nor frequentative, nor do they have reduplicated or frequentative derived forms. What quality of these words leads you to treat them as a group? Maybe I can find a term that does apply. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:41, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Requesting definitions
Please use the template. Thanks, Chuck Entz (talk) 16:46, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

鯡
''This 청어 (靑魚) should not be confused with the homonym 청어 (鯖魚), that is, 고등어 "mackerel." ''
 * Given that the headword is 鯖, shouldn't it be "This 청어 (鯖魚) should not be confused with the homonym 청어 (靑魚)"? Chuck Entz (talk) 13:47, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, vice versa, I think. --KYPark (talk) 13:53, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

毛蟲
Please do not redirect traditional forms of Mandarin entries. On Wiktionary we have separate entries for both forms. Thank you. ---&#62; Tooironic (talk) 02:00, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Etymology scriptorium
Like some editors, I think your pseudoetymological musings should no longer be posted to Etymology scriptorium. Posting them to your talk page would be much preferable. Alternatively, instead of inventing crackpot theories supported by European-continental relativistic and anything-goes-isting pseudophilosophy, you may choose to expand English Wiktionary with high-quality Korean entries. --Dan Polansky (talk) 21:03, 13 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Your harsh private talk opposing or denying my freedom of posting to the open forum would sound a threat far more than its public version. Do you mean it? By yourself, your view is your freedom. Otherwise, it should be morally or socially tested.


 * I think it silly to inform or post those facts to my talk page, as you ask me; I have to do them publicly just for popular reference. They are not speculative "crackpot theories" I invent at all, but just objective observations no one can deny. In this regard, you are simply one of those who have repeatedly invented strawman arguments to harass me. I wonder what the "crackpot theories supported by European-continental relativistic and anything-goes-isting pseudophilosophy" are precisely.
 * --KYPark (talk) 02:11, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It seems more that it's you who's making straw man arguments. This has nothing to do with freedom of posting, and Wiktionary is not an open forum (see WT:NOT). I agree with Dan Polanski that you shouldn't be posting things in ES unless there is something concrete you want to improve about Wiktionary's content. Etymology Scriptorium is not for discussing etymologies, it's for finding ways to improve the etymology sections of Wiktionary entries. In other words, don't insinuate or imply, don't just say "how amazing is it that these two words are so similar" because that isn't of any use to Wiktionary. Suggest a concrete improvement, suggest a change to a specific entry. Anything else has no place on ES and only clutters it up, it should go on your own user page. And don't complain that you're being censored. You ARE being censored, just like everyone else on Wiktionary is being censored. Instead of trying to act like a victim, why don't you actually listen to what people say to you and try to improve your behaviour? Trying to act like you're right and everyone else is suppressing you won't get you anywhere, it will just breed more resentment and people will have no more sympathy for you (they already seem to have lost a lot of it, judging by the reactions I've seen). And as you know, Wiktionary operates by consensus, so I hope for your sake that you don't get people so frustrated about you that there comes a consensus to get you banned. It's up to you. 18:44, 16 March 2013 (UTC)


 * This sounds a classic  appeal to spite.
 * While referring me to WT:NOT as to the "open forum" unclearly, refer yourself to that as to the following clearly --KYPark (talk) 13:24, 26 March 2013 (UTC) :


 * What Wiktionary is not
 * 8. Wiktionary is not a battlefield. Every user is expected to interact with others civilly (1), calmly and in a spirit of cooperation. Do not insult (2), harass or intimidate those with whom you have a disagreement. Rather, approach the matter in an intelligent manner, and engage in polite discussion. Do not create or edit entries just to prove a point. Do not make legal or other threats against Wiktionary, Wiktionarians or the Wikimedia Foundation. Threats are not tolerated and may result in a ban (3). [my numbering to refer to the following explicitly]


 * 1) civilly: Civility
 * 2) insult: No personal attacks
 * 3) ban: BLOCK

More etymological speculation
I see you have not ceased posting implausible etymological speculation to Etymology scriptorium. Recently, you have posted the following, in :

withy


 * From wiþ ("?") + -ig ("-like"). Cognates may include:


 * withe:, German Weide: ("willow twig")
 * with: ("side by side"), Swedish vid: ("wide, beside"), and perhaps
 * wide:, German weit: ("wide"), Weid: ("pasture")
 * wood:, Old English
 * widow:, Latin dividere: ("to divide, separate")
 * Italian pettine: ("comb, reed")

This is what I meant when I spoke of your inventing crackpot theories. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:30, 30 March 2013 (UTC)


 * You have now posted this: "Contrary to God's eye view, every human view is more or less speculative in itself." in . This is what I referred to as relativistic and anything-goes-istic. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:21, 31 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Relativism goes so far as neither one thing (absolutist, monist) nor "anything goes" but our karma or culture goes. Then, your favorite phrase "relativistic and anything-goes-istic" is quite an oxymoron. Should you be unconvinced, you might be a helpless hence hopeless crackpot yourself, I fear. --KYPark (talk) 04:38, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Korean entries from new user
Hi KYPark, but I noticed from watching Special:RecentChanges that you sometimes work on Korean entries, so I was wondering if you're interested in taking a look at some recent pages by a new editor: Special:Contributions/Retorik. I think the user does not know the correct templates to use with Korean entries. The same user also added some Japanese pages, which I have checked over and revised. The definitions were OK, but corrections to the formatting were necessary. Just thought you might be interested. --Haplology (talk) 12:44, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Blocked
This user is currently blocked. The latest block log entry is provided below for reference:


 * 16:12, 28 April 2013 Atelaes (Talk | contribs) blocked KYPark (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 1 month (account creation disabled) (Irritating everyone)

View full log


 * After ✅ "Do you think you could sum [it] up in a simple sentence?"
 * at WT:Beer parlour/2013/April

There I wished them (CodeCat, Ungoliant, and Chuck Entz) in silence to reflect on themselves in silence, what'd be legally, fatally wrong with their conduct as referenced there, possibly a collective criminal offense, namely, bullying. Explicitly or tacitly, if not arbitrarily, backed by that irrational conspiracy, CodeCat deleted or removed a number of my agendas away from the global readership and editorship for little or no reason, daring to deny the human freedom of information as well as expression, public as well as private. Regardless of my will, anyone might charge them all anytime anyway, I fear. To avoid the worst, they'd better UNDO ASAP what they'd done unjust to me as well as this blocking, I guess. Or they'd likely collectively do harm to WT that should rule out such disruptives positively. I wish to be informed here of unblocking ASAP, before I finish my appeal.

--KYPark (talk) 10:52, 30 April 2013 (UTC)


 * What sense of charge do you mean in “anyone might charge them all anytime anyway”? — Ungoliant (Falai) 11:34, 30 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Perhaps they're deludedly imagining some kind of legal "charge" being given by someone...? User: PalkiaX50 talk to meh 11:43, 30 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Perhaps it'd depend on the degree of your bullying in fact. Anyway it'd be up to you what sense you make to your benefit, after The Death of the Author. --KYPark (talk) 11:56, 30 April 2013 (UTC)


 * You are alive, so please answer: are you suggesting that any legal action can be brought against CodeCat, Chuck Entz and me? — Ungoliant (Falai) 12:11, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

KYPark, as you have noticed, it was me who blocked you, as I have done in the past, and, I fear, will do in the future. You have the capacity to become an extremely capable and useful editor, if you would simply set yourself aside and work for the good of the project, according to the will of the community. All previous experience seems to predict that you will not, which is unfortunate. Please recognize that if you persist in wasting everyone's time, your next block will likely be permanent. Please also recognize that you are unlikely to convince anyone to undo my block, and you certainly won't convince me. I have successfully garnered community support for blocks against you in the past, and have reason to suspect that I can do so again. I will not respond to gibberish like the lines above this one. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 12:58, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * May I also note that I actually warned you that this would happen? In a discussion above, I noted:
 * Trying to act like you're right and everyone else is suppressing you won't get you anywhere, it will just breed more resentment and people will have no more sympathy for you (they already seem to have lost a lot of it, judging by the reactions I've seen). And as you know, Wiktionary operates by consensus, so I hope for your sake that you don't get people so frustrated about you that there comes a consensus to get you banned. It's up to you.
 * And it seems like that is exactly what has happened. You've frustrated enough people that one of them blocked you, and there is nobody left who still has enough sympathy for your cause to unblock you. All I can say is, you'be brought this on yourself, and I hope that you take this time off to reflect on what you could improve. But one word of advice: if at any time you start to ask what the community has done wrong to you, then you're not doing it right. If you continue to blame others, that just tells everyone else that the block was right because you still don't get the point. Humility can go a long way in improving the situation, but it's not up to us to be humble, it's up to you. 13:24, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

A guide for the perplexed

 * RE&#58;


 * WT:Beer parlour/2013/April


 * Google&#58;


 * "About 72,900 results"


 * German verbs

The infinitive consists of the root and the suffix -en. With verbs whose roots end in el or er, the e of the infinitive suffix is dropped.


 * -en

From Middle English, a blending of Old English infintives and , from Proto-Germanic
 * Etymology 6
 * Suffix
 * -en
 * 1) (obsolete) Used to form the infinitive of verbs.


 * -en

A merger of various infinitive suffixes : ...
 * Etymology 1
 * Suffix
 * -en
 * 1) (obsolete) Used to form the infinitive of verbs.


 * West Germanic infinitive suffix - Wiktionary

... The infinitive suffix -en in German .... Originally, the infinitive suffix was just -ną in Proto-Germanic. Various vowels would appear before that suffix depending on the type of verb, giving -aną (...), -janą (...), -ōną (...), -āną (...), -janą (...), -naną (...). .... But ... all of the suffixes fell together into a single common -en and were no longer distinguished. So the answer to "what is the origin of the German infinitive suffix -en" is "all of them!".

—CodeCat‎11:25, 6 October 2012


 * All the underlines above are mine.


 * My view
 * The German infinitive ending -en is a suffix. It is also known as infinitive suffix, and calqued into 接尾辞 and 접미사, as simply translated back into "suffix".
 * No without  and the two affixes so that the etymology,, by way of   is valid.
 * The negative views need be formally, explicitly made void by Longtrend, CodeCat, and Chuck Entz themselves, though they may informally or personally carry them on in spite of the above proof, so that this discussion could be concluded from the given than hidden, and the global readers and editors could be conserved from being perplexed any longer.

--KYPark (talk) 04:00, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Someone may be kind enough to copy and paste this section at the end of the relevant section as referenced above. Thanks in advance. --KYPark (talk) 04:00, 2 May 2013 (UTC) -- The third point rephrased --KYPark (talk) 04:23, 2 May 2013 (UTC) -- Underlined --KYPark (talk) 07:17, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

My discussions

 * CodeCat arbitrarily removed a number of my WT:ES agendas from the public -- global readership and editorship -- to the private User:KYPark subpages, as shown below. What would be CodeCat's objective criteria of such selective removals at all? This doubt, unless cleared up, may best explain why I came to be blocked after all. These arbitrary removals should be undone ASAP, together with this sudden and specious blocking.


 * April 2012
 * WT:Etymology scriptorium/mor > User:KYPark/mor
 * WT:Etymology scriptorium/Vienna > User:KYPark/Vienna
 * WT:Etymology scriptorium/Ordinal suffix > User:KYPark/Ordinal suffix


 * May 2012
 * WT:Etymology scriptorium/Archive 2012/May
 * WT:Etymology scriptorium/duke > User:KYPark/duke


 * June 2012
 * WT:Etymology scriptorium/Copenhagen > User:KYPark/Copenhagen


 * July 2012
 * WT:Etymology scriptorium (Tibetologist)
 * WT:Etymology scriptorium #cane and can in consilience > User:KYPark/cane and can in consilience
 * WT:Etymology scriptorium


 * August 2012
 * WT:Etymology scriptorium/sugar cane > User:KYPark/sugar cane


 * September 2012
 * WT:Beer parlour/2012/September
 * WT:Beer parlour/2012/September


 * October 2012
 * WT:Etymology scriptorium/Dipper > User:KYPark/Dipper
 * WT:Etymology scriptorium/cauldron (no progress)


 * November 2012
 * WT:Etymology scriptorium/taugen (no progress)


 * December 2012
 * WT:Etymology scriptorium/likely cognate with cognate > User:KYPark/likely cognate with cognate
 * WT:Etymology scriptorium (User:334a)


 * January 2013
 * Etymology scriptorium/Toward deep etymology > User:KYPark/Toward deep etymology
 * WT:Etymology scriptorium
 * WT:Etymology scriptorium
 * WT:Etymology scriptorium


 * February 2013
 * WT:Etymology scriptorium
 * WT:Etymology scriptorium
 * WT:Etymology scriptorium
 * WT:Etymology scriptorium [Worm ser. 1]
 * WT:Etymology scriptorium [Worm ser. 2]
 * WT:Etymology scriptorium [Worm ser. 3]
 * WT:Etymology scriptorium [Worm ser. 4]


 * March 2013
 * WT:Etymology scriptorium [Worm ser. 5]
 * WT:Etymology scriptorium [Worm ser. 6]
 * WT:Etymology scriptorium [Worm ser. 7]
 * WT:Etymology scriptorium (CodeCat)
 * WT:Etymology scriptorium (Grolltech)
 * WT:Etymology scriptorium (Benwing)
 * WT:Etymology scriptorium #withe > User:KYPark/withe
 * WT:Etymology scriptorium #withy > User:KYPark/withy
 * WT:Etymology scriptorium (Fuzzypeg)


 * April 2013
 * WT:Etymology scriptorium (CodeCat)
 * WT:Etymology scriptorium (Eiríkr Útlendi)
 * WT:Etymology scriptorium #mulberry > User:KYPark/mulberry
 * WT:Etymology scriptorium
 * WT:Beer parlour/2013/April
 * WT:Beer parlour/2013/March -- See also: The line at bottom.
 * WT:Beer parlour/2013/April
 * WT:Beer parlour/2013/April
 * WT:Beer parlour/2013/April (No comment)
 * WT:Beer parlour/2013/April
 * WT:Beer parlour/2013/April

After I made reference to WT:Beer parlour/2013/March, which contains a specious conspiracy against me and ill or well leads to the CodeCat's removal of my agendas as mentioned above, Atelaes suddenly blocked me for the reason that I "irritate everyone". So dubious is if he knows enough what's been going on around me at WT:ES for the last 13 months in his entire absence therefrom.

That conspiracy failed in figuring out what's wrong with my agendas and discussions, and why they should be removed from WT:ES, from the public. This failure is a clear measure how arbitrary CodeCat's removals of mine were.

--KYPark (talk) 10:14, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Text revolution
I'd coin simply "text revolution" for all the revolutions since 1974, including digital revolution, internet revolution, world wide web revolution, hypertext revolution, communication revolution, information revolution, cognitive revolution, or the like.

The "text revolution" sounds closest to "hypertext revolution," which in fact would be fairly said to have empowered:
 * the world wide web revolution (ironically rather too) narrowly, and
 * the Internet revolution (practically rather too) widely.

Anyway, wikis may definitely and deeply relate to such historical revolutions, perhaps very proudly. How proud are you? What's your merit anyway?

--KYPark (talk) 09:18, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

convex, concave etc.
I have undone your edits for two main reasons (other than putting the Han gyph into the English entry, which I presume was just a typo). I would suggest you look on Commons for some pictures of, say, convex lenses, and use them - they are more obvious, and 'real-world'. Cheers. Hyarmendacil (talk) 10:05, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Concave/convex implies a smooth curve. The example you have given is, for want of a better term, nondifferentiable, and so is really not a good example.
 * Secondly, you are presuming the picture is being looked at from the top down. This is not immediately obvious - you need a note, viewpoint or some sort of surface indication.

This is our first encounter, isn't it? Frankly, anyway, I deeply regret your bold, perhaps too bold, counter-edit. Frankly again, I admit that I am bridging East and West, perhaps to the strange agony of some Western people, which has become my point of departure around here. Almost my last decade looks like a blockade by them against me, as well documented here and elsewhere.

In real life, at your age, I was a mechanical engineering student, too. And I'm still living by a mechanical engineering worldview, that is, Newtonian or Einsteinian determinism and Einsteinian "hidden variables," implicit, unknown or obscured, which may make our will look like being free, the world like being indetermined !

Meanwhile, I take it very seriously that we greatly suffer from ignorance and obscurantism. Say, in this case, I am uncertain which is really wrong with you, to be ignorant or obscurant.

Please google "convex" or "concave" and then select the "Images" option on top. And rethink your claim that "Concave/convex implies a smooth curve."

Partly, I agree that my concave/convex figuration may be "really not a good example" as "nondifferentiable," from the absolute or objective perspective. Partly, however, I disagree with you from the following perspectives at least:


 * not only the Eastern 凹 and 凸, namely, concave and convex, or, yin and yang,
 * but also the Western &cup; and &cap;, namely, cup and cap, or, concave and convex,
 * as well as the equation with ♀ (ultimately, Mary Magdalene as Jesus' wife, figured as the Holy Grail, in point!) and ♂, respectively, by Dan Brown The Da Vinci Code, Doubleday, 2003. (The #1 New York Times Bestseller).
 * Regardless, our subjective optical illusion may mainly cause us to see [[file:rhombus-concave.png|30px]] as concave and [[file:rhombus-convex.png|30px]] as convex.

Objectively or theoretically, both the concave and convex sides stem from the Great Oneness, or Taiji, embracing both yin and yang. Simply, the lower concave side is lesser, while the upper convex side is greater, than the 180 degrees.

Subjectively or practically, however, we are cognitively biased to see either side rather than both at the same time, say, &cup; and as concave, and &cap; and  as convex.

Cheers. --KYPark (talk) 13:42, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

My concave and convex figures, after Dan Brown, would be the simplest of the kind, perhaps too simple or ambiguous, as you are afraid. But such ambiguity would be mostly reduced by aligning
 * [[file:rhombus-concave.png|30px]] with 凹, &cup;, cup, riverbed, etc.
 * [[file:rhombus-convex.png|30px]] with 凸, &cap;, cap, mountain, etc.

--KYPark (talk) 14:13, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * @Hyarmendacil: This response of his should tell you all you need to know about him, but see his block history for more.
 * @KYPark: Those edits are unhelpful in distinguishing the meanings of the words and the use of Han characters there was inappropriate. If you make a similar edit again I will block you. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 16:42, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Concavity, my personal background, and the Da Vinci code? I'm not going to attempt an argument. See . Cheers. Hyarmendacil (talk) 22:41, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Same warnings, all these years later
I wish I could give you the benefit of the doubt, but you've already proved that nothing has changed. All the warnings you have been given and blocked for remain in place, and here is another: if you undo any admin's edit instead of accepting it or engaging in discussion, you will be blocked. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 07:19, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't consider you to be a vandal
You made strange theories and hypothesis because Westerners(Caucasians) have built Proto-Indo-languages, right? I understand. What you have to do is, you can also make your own proto-languages(but just don't put it in wiktionary). For instance, 빠르다 and 뼈. You can create your own proto-Indo language of 빠르다 and 뼈 as something starting with ㅂ, not ㅅ by linking to fast and bone, etc.

Please don't irritate Westerners since this is an "English" Wiktionary, not Korean Wiktionary. You should understand that Proto-Indo European languges(or Proto-Germanic languages) were built for some "purpose" by White scholars. And we should not attack that, but just try to understand.

I don't consider Proto-Indo European words as real. Their spelling is made-up. So trust only 60 to 70%.

So what we have to do is to concentrate more on adding Korean, Chinese and Japanese entries instead of English entries. After all, this is an English site. ^^

Also, please remember that China alone has the world's largest population, 1,435,071,365 and the current population of entire European continent(which is split by 44 different countries) is 747,288,276. And their languages are all different.

Or the other option is: When you're reading English words etymology and encounter Proto-Indo signs(*), just don't read it and ignore all of them, because their spelling is made up.

Although we are outnumbered by many Chinese descendants in Korea and losing politics and military power by Westerners, I still think that there's a chance.

Best, B2V22BHARAT (talk) 17:33, 25 September 2019 (UTC)


 * "When you're reading English words etymology and encounter Proto-Indo signs(*), just don't read it and ignore all of them, because their spelling is made up" -- Do you know IPA? Are you sure you should be editing this site? Do you know what is Grimm's law? Do you know what is comparative linguistics? Take a look at the languages here: Category:Reconstructed languages. Does all of them look Western do you? Of course Proto-Indo European words are not real. They are reconstructed terms based on sound laws. If you are serious enough, go enroll in a linguistics course, and become an expert in Proto-Koreanic language. 182.172.146.215 10:25, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Non-white non-Westerner here. Proto-Indo-European is an empirically constructed representation of what a common ancestor of all the Indo-European languages be. It is a model, not an absolute truth, and thus subject to frequent change as we discover more evidence and learn more about language evolution. There's no special agenda by white people or something (there is plenty of research by South Asians, who usually aren't considered white or Western, on the subject). Anyone with a brain and sufficient linguistic knowledge can see the evidence for themself and find it quite reasonable. You don't seem to know the fundamentals of PIE so you aren't in a position to say it's BS. —AryamanA (मुझसे बात करें • योगदान) 13:30, 26 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm not degrading many brilliant scholars' efforts to create Proto-language of similarly sound languages. I'm mainly interested in the history of English words spoken by the White people(Caucasians). But every time I encountered Proto Indo European words, I felt the form of Proto-Indo European words differed very much to the current English words, and I wondered if this word was really the ancestral form of current English words. For example, according to Wiktionary, English word 'pain' came from Ancient Greek ποινή(poinḗ), which makes sense, but when it extends to Proto-Indo European root, the form changes to kʷoynéh₂, which looks like a bunch of different phonemes added to it. If we simplify kʷoynéh₂, it becomes kwoyneh, and I don't think I ever encountered English words starting with kw-. In addition, I have never said that PIE was a complete BS. There are some PIE words that takes very similar form to the current form, which increases credibility. But many times this is not the case which makes me question: Is this PIE really the ancestral form of English words that White people used it? B2V22BHARAT (talk) 03:51, 27 September 2019 (UTC)