User talk:Skrzymir
Add topic
Skrzymir (block log • active blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • user creation log • change block settings • unblock)
Request reason:
The ignored attempt is here: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/User_talk:Per_utramque_cavernam/2017-2018#chimney. Another user who was reverting my edits also ignored my query on their user page, but that's marginal at this point. I then decided to make this entry: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/User_talk:Per_utramque_cavernam/2017-2018#Mindlessly_reverting_my_edits_and_not_replying. Now, the reply from the owner of the page is only a fallacy known as "appeal to the stone"; no reasoning is given as to why my edits were wrong. It also includes a fallacious ad hominem attack claiming "I don't know what I'm doing". This user simply wrote that "I'm not worth their time", and then gave some unrelated abstracts about how "chronology matters" and the such. You can image my dismay when all I was trying to do was to expand on some etymologies in good faith.
Before I get any further, I must admit another thing. I did begin my contributions on this website by making edits that I'd expected would most likely provoke some discussion. I simply did not expect that I'd be ignored for so long, at first, and then fallaciously dismissed. What I should have perhaps done was to make some straightforward contributions first. This was something I wanted to do eventually.
In the case that I am unblocked, I promise to make such straightforward contributions as adding missing words in Polish. For example, I would add the related words kędzierzawy and kędziory meaning "curly" and "curls" respectively. It's interesting to note that these words seem to be cognates of Latin caesaries, so I would propose to include that information in the related entries . I would also gladly add missing Polish words like upór ("obstinacy, stubbornness"), posucha ("drought; dry spell") and potentially hundreds of others.
To get back to the situation that escalated. I proceeded to, in reply to the fallacious dismissal, provide some explanation for the edits that I'd made. Some of it may be unrelated and a general commentary on historiography, and was rather purposely written in order to retaliate against having been treated harshly -- one could indeed assume that there is some "agenda" behind it, and such a claim has been made in the reasoning behind my block by @Metaknowledge ("Not here to build a dictionary, but instead to advance an untenable agenda and claim persecution to waste our time"), but surely, this type of anxiety is exactly what stirred me up and lead me to assume that the user @Per utramque cavernam was the one with some kind of agenda in the first place, since he was treating me in the manner that he was. I assure you that I have no agenda that isn't governed by truthfully employed conventional linguistic methodology. To show that it is governed by it, in the second paragraph I insisted that I was positive that chimney is indeed related to the PIE reconstruction translated as "stone", because of its connection to Polish kamień, hamaraz etc, which are related to *h₂éḱmō (“stone”). This does not necessarily imply that Old High German Kamin is directly derived from Proto-Slavic *kamy (as were my edits suggesting -- part of it is due to me being an inexperienced user), although I expect that to be the case; at the very least, these words are cognates and that fact alone should be noted in the respective entries. Instead, everything was rejected altogether and nothing specifically addressed logically. Then the user @Anatoli T implied that my suggestions needed verification (I agree, of course), which I was willing to provide, quite clearly, as well as wanting to discuss the matter. His comment continues with the claim that two certain edits of mine "were insane" was unwarranted. Perhaps I made a mistake in inserting that the given words these edits were concerned with derived from certain obviously related Proto-Slavic words, but if they are obviously related and cognates, then how was it insane? They're cognates, that's valid information. And then, to conclude, an in-group bias seemed to take the better of everyone involved "against me". I made a final comment before being banned that was, seeing how I was agitated by the lack of any logical counterarguments, a little abrasive. Again, this type of behavior of mine is not something that I am proud of, and I apologize again, and promise not to repeat anything like it again. Some type of logical deduction -- supporting or going against my claims -- was warranted, however, and none was given, which is a factor somewhat vindictive of my behavior, I hope you'd agree (while believing that I truly have no hostile agenda and was acting in good faith).
I then e-mailed the administrator @Metaknowledge who has blocked me. More of the same followed, and no counter argumentation to my line of reasoning was given by him; instead he responded with a link to a book that I'd been familiarized with beforehand. My tone with him wasn't exactly too friendly either. I apologize to him also.
I'm just a human. I possess the ability to be mannerly. Frustrations due to being treated in a way I perceive as objectively unfair and unreasonable sometimes lead me to calling others bigots, being ironical and whatnot. In the case that I am unblocked and a situation like that was to happen again, I assure everyone concerned that I'd never again communicate in a manner in any way unpleasant to anybody, whether they decide to fallaciously dismiss the most obviously rational claim of mine or not -- I will simply, in such a case, concede and deal with my disappointment without involving or blaming anyone.
I have been taking part in many Internet discussions on forums large and small for over a decade, and never have been permanently blocked for being offensive, only warned in rare cases. I always abide by the netiquette with the exception of small transgressions on occasions when real-life situations make me more prone to losing my nerves in the virtual world. I've never vandalized or trolled any serious forum.
Start a discussion with Skrzymir
Talk pages are where people discuss how to make content on Wiktionary the best that it can be. Start a new discussion to connect and collaborate with Skrzymir. What you say here will be public for others to see.
