Requests for comment/Cultic emphasis on classical latin at latin wikipedia

The following request for comments is closed. Local issue, resolve locally. PiRSquared17 (talk) 16:58, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ave omnes,

Is there a place where I can ask for help? The administrators (magisters) over at the latin wiki are a bit extreme, or cultic. I'm sure my grammar is correct but they seem to abuse this dub sig notifications. In this instance, there is no 'classic latin' word for identity. Identitas is considered new or medieval latin. This is not the only instance of abuse but there are others. The article was 'improved by the way' meaning a lot of the core ideas were simply removed. So you have great grammar with hardly any content. I don't want to encourage creating your own new latin but on the other extreme, I shouldn't be prohibitted from using New Latin already being used in the net. Thanks.--Jondel (talk) 07:01, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are of course not prohibited from using postclassical (but attested, cf. en:WP:NOR) Latin words or forms. However, there is no ownership of articles, so everyone is free to change and improve text that you have written, which includes improvements to style.

Abuse is quite a strong word, so if you suggest abuse (of admin powers?), please provide clear difflinks. I cannot see abuse in the difflink you provided above. For other questions not amounting to abuse, I would suggest to continue to use the la.wikipedia village pump or the talk page of the user in question. Greetings, --UV (talk) 21:09, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

UV hello. I think the ownership of article is irrelevant here. If the NOR is an issue, would putting sources (fons) as 'translations from the English wikipedia' settle your issue? The ipv6arcticel was improved by removing a lot of core ideas

My issue is that I feel that is an unhealthy insistance to use kind of latin which can not exist. Terms for new science concepts need to be accomodated, available.

The IPV6 is an example, of many particular cases. Identitas is not classical so a dubsig was placed. The new IPV6 is severly amputed of the original ideas like security ID.

Refusing to check if Identitas , securitatis, can be used is a form of abuse. Why is the administrator in vicipaedia if he is not willing to do the work of checking? Maybe fasciculonis can be dubsigged but why Identitas?!! --Jondel (talk) 02:58, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Salve, I will focus first with discussing with the adminstrator as you suggest. I hope we can achieve some comprimise. Vale.--Jondel (talk) 03:57, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhapse it is not abuse to you because he is a fellow administrator like yourself? If I can suggest to you UV, it usually seems trivial if you do it but when you are the receiver of the action it would be a different story. You feel you can just change an article, to many of us you would be abusing. The Latin wikipedia does not stipulate that we are required to use classical Latin. How can you not see abuse?!! Is it because he is your friend maybe?--Jondel (talk) 11:40, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DIFF LINKS Instances

total deletion -Well, since no one owns the article let 's just delete it ok? No explanation not even a dubsig. WHY?!!
-5 Latinitats I get a -5 latinitats simply because I didn't properly express the ablative apparatus as 'apparatu' Of course it is not abusive, he's an administrator just like you!