User talk:Ⲁϩⲙⲉⲧ

From Wikimedia Incubator

Welcome to Wikimedia Incubator!

At the right there are some important links, and here are some tips and info:

If you have any questions, feel free to ask them on Incubator:Community Portal.

-- Welcoming Bot 11:52, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ⲀⲨⲢⲨϤ[edit source]

Could you please write a stub https://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wp/cop/ⲀⲨⲢⲨϤ – just a few sentences based on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kur%C3%B3w ? Only 5-10 sentences enough. Please.

PS. Article about Kurów is already in 357 languages and dialects (e.g. Middle Egyptian and Arabian Egyptian). If you do that, please put interwiki link into English version. If your village/town/city isn't yet on PL wiki, I can do article about it. (I'm first author of interwiki requests) Pietras1988 TALK 12:51, 30 November 2015 (UTC) [reply]

ⲛⲟⲩϥⲣⲓ :) ⲡⲓⲣⲁⲛ ⲛⲧⲉⲕϯⲙⲓ ⲡⲉ ⲕⲟⲩⲣⲟⲩϥ. ⲁϩⲙⲉⲧ

Thank you! This language has nice letters :). Pietras1988 TALK 13:41, 30 November 2015 (UTC) [reply]

Request for Help, please[edit source]

Greetings Mr ⲁϩⲙⲉⲧ,


Nice to meet you.


Could you kindly help me translate this article into your wonderful Coptic language? please.

Your help would be appreciated with gratitude, Thank you very much. --Philip J (talk) 00:54, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings[edit source]

Hi! I am from Uzbekistan and I have a long time interest in Ancient Egypt and Copts. I haven't started learning the language yet, but I am going to do that soon :) I am very passionate about new Coptic Wikipedia going on! If you have any problems and need help, you can ask me any time :) --Ochilov (talk) 19:13, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am glad to hear that. Thank you very much for your help. You may improve the pages like you have done already before (interwiki-links) and if you want, you may also create new articles :)

--ⲁϩⲙⲉⲧ (talk) 12:46, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I will try to help there :) --Ochilov (talk) 16:14, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I am really happy about your interest in Coptic. --ⲁϩⲙⲉⲧ (talk) 19:06, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

HELLO[edit source]

Could you please help me with the deletion of some false pages in Yaghnobi Incubator? For instance: Гарти Помӣр should be deleted, because its grammar/spelling are un-Yaghnobi. Thank you! Greetings Суғдӣ билдинк 17.12.2015

Done! --ⲁϩⲙⲉⲧ (talk) 00:14, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Next time please do not use your admin rights in other projects, because it is prohibited by the rules. Thank you :) --Ochilov (talk) 10:27, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you and sorry for the inconvenience! Суғдӣ билдинк 19.12.2015

Admin rights[edit source]

My congratulations! :) --Ochilov (talk) 10:29, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wp/yai/Гарти Помӣр[edit source]

Hi, you deleted the page above. However, test-adminship should only be used for the wiki for which it was given, i.e. Wp/cop in your case. Best regards, --MF-W {a, b} 13:37, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, sorry, I didn't know it. But I didn't want to interfere in other wikipedias anyway. It was an exception. Sorry. --ⲁϩⲙⲉⲧ (talk) 01:20, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A kitten for you![edit source]

Internet.

IlyaFan20 (talk) 17:51, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ϯϣⲉⲡ ϩⲙⲟⲧ `ⲛⲧⲟⲧⲕ :) --ⲁϩⲙⲉⲧ (talk) 19:24, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ⲛⲟϥⲣⲓ[edit source]

ⲡⲁⲥⲟⲛ ⲁϩⲙⲉⲧ :-) ⲫⲱⲛϫ `ⲛⲛⲓⲥⲉⲗⲓⲥ `ⲛ-`ⲛϩⲁ. ⲛⲓⲥⲉⲗⲓⲥ ⲡⲉ ⲙⲉⲧⲣⲉⲙⲛⲭⲏⲙⲓ `ⲛⲡⲉⲙϩⲓⲧ ⲁⲛ. ب.م.

ⲧⲓⲣⲏⲛⲏ ⲛⲁⲕ, ⲡⲉⲧⲣⲟⲥ ⲙⲁⲣⲕⲟⲥ. ϯⲛⲁⲫⲟⲛϫⲥ. --User:ⲁϩⲙⲉⲧ, 22:56, 15.01.2016
ϯϣⲉⲡ ϩⲙⲟⲧ ⲛⲧⲟⲧⲕ !!!! ب.م.

Coptic rendering![edit source]

Hi! Which font do you use to have a proper rendering of Coptic letters? I installed a few dozens of them, but I still see only boxes. Can you give me a link to download a normal font with which I can see these nice Coptic letters? --Ochilov (talk) 17:59, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! I think it is not the font which causes you problems, but the browser. Which one do you use? --ⲁϩⲙⲉⲧ 19-03-2016

ⲁϩⲙⲉⲧ, Google Chrome. --Lingveno (talk) 12:21, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Coptic help :)[edit source]

After the ⲟⲩ· prefix is added onto a word, when do you stop putting the "ⲡⲉ" at the end of the sentence? I'm guessing after it is done with the topic, like a cat, or a black cat, as the adjectives would still be placed before the "ⲡⲉ". I am an extreme Coptic enthusiast, I have been to a Coptic monastery, and I really want to learn everything there is to know about the language. Thank you1

Also, you are really good at Coptic. Nice :) X2A3Q (talk) 19:44, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello :-) It depends on the structure of the sentence. If you say "A is B", than you put it on the end of the sentence. If you say something like "A is the name of B in X", than you put it after the A. Thank you for working here :) (talk) 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Coptic help 2[edit source]

Hello ⲁϩⲙⲉⲧ,

Could you help give the Coptic translation of John 3:16?:

English: "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. "
Modern Greek: "Eπειδή, με τέτοιον τρόπο3 αγάπησε ο Θεός τον κόσμο, ώστε έδωσε τον Yιό του τον μονογενή, για να μη χαθεί καθένας που πιστεύει σ’ αυτόν, αλλά να έχει αιώνια ζωή."
Coptic: = ?


Thanks. --Ernesztina (talk) 05:57, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

IP user[edit source]

An IP user just created a bunch of pages on your test. The edit summaries are disruptive. Can you tell me if the pages themselves are problematic or ok? Thanks. StevenJ81 (talk) 06:45, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. The pages themselves are more or less OK. It is obvious that he copied it from other pages, but as long as it is only a content like "X is a country in Asia. The capital is Y.", it is OK. However, the names are always taken from English (written in Coptic script, but even that is sometimes wrong as he uses ⲏ for N, not as a vowel.)

I (and others) normally move the title of the page and exchange the wrong names in the content. And I delete the original wrong page titles. ⲁϩⲙⲉⲧ (talk) 20 September 2017

That's fine. Thank you.
Since your toolkit does not include suppression of edit summaries (I don't think), I'll suppress those edit summaries. I'm not sure how many I'll get to this afternoon, then I'm off-wiki for a few days. So I'll do as many as I can, and handle the rest next week.
Do keep an eye on Category:Maintenance:Delete. You can suppress creation of redirects, but others can't. So you should watch for anything within your test that requires deleting (like redirects left over from page renames).
That user is blocked for a week because of the disruptive edit summaries. I will be fast to reblock if that happens again after the block expires. StevenJ81 (talk) 15:30, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Additional note: User did the same thing from a different IP address recently, too. So if user reappears with an unblocked IP address and writes the same type of edit summaries, please block for at least a week. StevenJ81 (talk) 15:43, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the information. I will do what you said. Concerning the redirects, I usually delete the wrong ones. However, in some cases I leave them because there is sometimes ambiguity how to write Greek (or Greekish) proper nouns, ⲧⲟⲩⲣⲕⲓⲁ if treated as a Greek word (and also in all major non-Bohairic dialects of Coptic) or ⲑⲟⲩⲣⲭⲓⲁ (according to the Bohairic orthography, if we say it's not a Greek loanword). But that's a minor detail. About the disruptive edit summaries - i don't think I can delete them. Thanks for doing that, it looked a really disturbing. ⲁϩⲙⲉⲧ (talk) 20 September 2017
I have deleted a couple that were tagged with {{delete}}. (Don't know if the IP was involved, doesn't matter to this.) I think what I'd like to do about these is that whenever there is a name-change redirect like that tagged with {{delete}}, I'm going to leave it for you to address. (You can find all such requests at Category:Maintenance:Delete; just look for files there with your prefix.) You can either delete those pages or revert them to the previous version to maintain them, as you see fit. Just remember not to delete any if there are still other pages linking to them. StevenJ81 (talk) 17:21, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

IP user (redux)[edit source]

I just blocked for three months (longest I usually do for an IP) and revdeleted the edit summaries. Do warn me whenever you see this guy around; I want to act on such things as quickly as I can. Thanks. StevenJ81 (talk) 13:26, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the message. I did not know what to do, because his contributions were good this time, but it is true that he seems to be a bit maladjusted... ⲁϩⲙⲉⲧ (talk) 13:46, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's an understatement. What we can do (what I did) was to hide the edit summaries, because they are disruptive. They're not so egregious that I have to call in a steward to suppress them (i.e., hide them even from sysops like me). But they should be hidden. You can't do that, so ping me next time. StevenJ81 (talk) 13:57, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Good, I will do that. ⲁϩⲙⲉⲧ (talk) 14:52, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think he/she is back with a different IP address. Please, check out ⲟⲙⲁⲛ and ⲓⲉⲙⲉⲛ. --ⲡⲓⲙⲟⲩⲓ (talk) 16:01, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You're right. I'll deal with it. StevenJ81 (talk) 16:12, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Again ⲕⲁⲙⲃⲟϫⲓ‎, ⲗⲁⲟⲥ‎, and ⲕⲟⲩⲉⲓⲧ. --ⲡⲓⲙⲟⲩⲓ (talk) 17:11, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done. StevenJ81 (talk) 18:30, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
ϯϣⲉⲡ ϩⲙⲟⲧ `ⲛⲧⲟⲧⲕ (Thanks) StevenJ81. --ⲡⲓⲙⲟⲩⲓ (talk) 19:09, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Admin notification[edit source]

We will keep an eye on it - as long as it's only the summary and the change as such is helpful it is no huge problem. Summaries in Coptic would be the best, but I guess we can't force everybody to write in Coptic. (In this case his/her change was nice, the name of the goddess is ⲙⲟⲩⲧ indeed, and not ⲙⲁⲩ as I used to think.) Thanks for letting me know! --ⲁϩⲙⲉⲧ

Thanks, that was mainly the reason (to keep an eye on it), I let you know of this. Honestly, I was afraid that he might be one of those Afro-centrists and that would affect the bias of our articles. Anyway, I left him/her a message not to use Nobian characters, not sure if that was the best thing to do, though. --ⲡⲓⲙⲟⲩⲓ (talk) 00:14, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Status of Wp/cop[edit source]

Congratulations: Yours is one of the very few test projects on Incubator that has sufficient activity to meet the activity requirements for project approval. Keep up the good work.

That said, I did a random check of ten pages in your test, and all ten were stubs. I would strongly encourage your project team to stop creating new stubs now. Instead, start building out pages you already have so that they have some real content.

Also, please check the interface localization at translatewiki.net. Eventually, you will need to translate the MediaWiki Core (most important messages) group for the project to be approved.

Good luck! StevenJ81 (talk) 20:52, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. We will work on that. ⲁϩⲙⲉⲧ (talk) 16:23, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Former country infobox[edit source]

Hello! Could you please import Former country infobox template (Template:Infobox former country)? We could use it in articles like the recent one about Byzantine Empire. Thank you!

--Bloomaround (talk) 00:01, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I will ask User:ⲡⲓⲙⲟⲩⲓ about it, because I think he knows better about it. Unfortunately, I am very incompetent with technical stuff, and I wanted to copy it from the English wikipedia, but it didn't really work :( ⲁϩⲙⲉⲧ (talk) 15:50, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ohh, ok I got it, hope it's gonna work with help of ⲡⲓⲙⲟⲩⲓ then! --Bloomaround (talk) 00:55, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I hope it will work out. Or maybe you can try it yourself? Maybe you can copy the template:infobox country and modify it a bit? Do you think that would work? ⲁϩⲙⲉⲧ (talk) 19:20, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'll certainly try to --Bloomaround (talk) 18:18, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Means of communication[edit source]

Hey! Recently I've been thinking, it would be cool if we could communicate in some sort of instant chat, Telegram maybe. By us I mean all the current active contributors to Coptic Wikipedia. That's why i think so:

  • There are some sort of neologisms/words that are not present in dictionaries etc., which is a real problem for me as a non-native speaker.
  • Sometimes there are words in dictionaries that are only present in their Sahidic/Fayyumic form and need to be changed to Bohairic one which is not always obvious.
  • Sometimes there are disputes about countries/cities/towns names/using certain words for describing certain things.
  • Native Arabic speakers could explain etymology of Arabic names/provide extra info which other users who don't speak Arabic can't get.

I'm sure that instant communication could resolve much of these these problems and would be good for development of Coptic Wikipedia. Also it would be just cool to have a live communication in Coptic sometimes :) What do you think? Bloomaround (talk) 16:38, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) In principle, there's no reason you can't do that. In practice, please be careful about how much you do or don't do on Telegram. In particular,
  • If you resolve disputes about specific words, please at least summarize the discussion on-wiki at the appropriate talk page.
  • Don't hold policy discussions or disputes on Telegram. These need to happen on-wiki, so anyone not in the Telegram group can weigh in.
StevenJ81 (talk) (Incubator sysop) 17:04, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yes, you're absolutely right. I'm not talking about serious disputes with several points of view that may be right or wiki-related disputes. All these things should be on wiki talk pages. What i'm talking about is just general sharing of experience in Bohairic dialect and Coptic in general, especially describing certain type of things. Bloomaround (talk) 17:26, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Good points, thanks for adressing that. I think we should create a distinct page in the Wikipedia with the lemma "Coptic neologisms", what do you think? I will adress that now at the main page. ⲁϩⲙⲉⲧ (talk) 21:29, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please look at this page:

ⲁϩⲙⲉⲧ (talk) 22:03, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Wp/cop/ⲡⲉⲣⲉⲙⲟⲩⲛ (ⲑⲱϣ)[edit source]

I restored this redirect. There are some pages that still link here. So you are going to want to fix those pages' links before deleting this redirect. StevenJ81 (talk) 17:33, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I will do it. ⲁϩⲙⲉⲧ (talk) 18:31, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Share your experience and feedback as a Wikimedian in this global survey[edit source]

Hello! The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey. We want to know how well we are supporting your work on and off wiki, and how we can change or improve things in the future. The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation. You have been randomly selected to take this survey as we would like to hear from your Wikimedia community. The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes.

Take the survey now!

You can find more information about this survey on the project page and see how your feedback helps the Wikimedia Foundation support editors like you. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this privacy statement (in English). Please visit our frequently asked questions page to find more information about this survey. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email through the EmailUser feature to WMF Surveys to remove you from the list.

Thank you!

WMF Surveys, 18:36, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder: Share your feedback in this Wikimedia survey[edit source]

Every response for this survey can help the Wikimedia Foundation improve your experience on the Wikimedia projects. So far, we have heard from just 29% of Wikimedia contributors. The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes to be completed. Take the survey now.

If you have already taken the survey, we are sorry you've received this reminder. We have design the survey to make it impossible to identify which users have taken the survey, so we have to send reminders to everyone. If you wish to opt-out of the next reminder or any other survey, send an email through EmailUser feature to WMF Surveys. You can also send any questions you have to this user email. Learn more about this survey on the project page. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this Wikimedia Foundation privacy statement. Thanks!

WMF Surveys, 01:34, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback matters: Final reminder to take the global Wikimedia survey[edit source]

Hello! This is a final reminder that the Wikimedia Foundation survey will close on 23 April, 2018 (07:00 UTC). The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes. Take the survey now.

If you already took the survey - thank you! We will not bother you again. We have designed the survey to make it impossible to identify which users have taken the survey, so we have to send reminders to everyone. To opt-out of future surveys, send an email through EmailUser feature to WMF Surveys. You can also send any questions you have to this user email. Learn more about this survey on the project page. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this Wikimedia Foundation privacy statement.

WMF Surveys, 00:43, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ⲙⲁⲣⲧⲩⲣⲟⲥ `ⲛⲣⲉⲙⲛⲭⲏⲙⲓ `ⲛⲭⲣⲓⲥϯⲁⲛⲟⲥ[edit source]

Hello ⲁϩⲙⲉⲧ, may be we should have this discussion else where! Anyway, I noticed a number of very similar stubs created by (_يوسف_) which differs only by name. I suggest we merge them into a single page like what the English Wikipedia (2015 kidnapping and beheading of Copts in Libya) is doing. What do you think? --ⲡⲓⲙⲟⲩⲓ (talk) 21:44, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, there is already a page about this incident, ϫⲓⲛⲱⲗⲓ `ⲛⲧⲛⲁϩⲃⲓ `ⲛϩⲁⲛⲭⲣⲓⲥϯⲁⲛⲟⲥ ϧⲉⲛ ϯⲣⲟⲙⲡⲓ 2015 (which would also need improvement and expansion). If we want to keep the articles, than we should add some information. There is a lot of information about them out there in the internet, but the question is, is it relevant. As they are treated as martyrs now in the Coptic Church, I am reluctant to delete the pages because it may look like I want to erase any information about the IS terror. ⲁϩⲙⲉⲧ (talk) 20:28, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Btw, it would be good to come up with a terminology for "Islamic State". Everybody seems to use something else, as I read through the articles... ⲁϩⲙⲉⲧ (talk) 20:32, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Activity level dropped in June[edit source]

Hi, ⲁϩⲙⲉⲧ and @Ϯⲙⲉⲗⲗⲓⲥⲏⲧ. I notice that your project fell below the approvable activity thresshold for June. Given that Wp/cop is still very stubby, and that much translation work still needs to be done at translatewiki.net, this is not necessarily an immediate concern. But I'd encourage you to keep the activity level on the project strong, all the same. StevenJ81 (talk) 15:07, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the message. We will try to keep it up. ⲁϩⲙⲉⲧ (talk) 13:00, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look at Special:BrokenRedirects[edit source]

If the two broken redirects are needed, please fix; if not, please delete. Thanks. StevenJ81 (talk) 14:51, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the information, I fixed it. ⲁϩⲙⲉⲧ (talk) 13:44, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ⲥⲓⲕⲉⲗⲓⲁ[edit source]

Hello ⲁϩⲙⲉⲧ! I wanted to ask you where does ⲥⲓⲕⲉⲗⲓⲁ comes from? I've just used ⲥⲓⲕⲓⲗ() cause it's mentioned in Trismegistos.

Hello. It is Greek. ⲥⲓⲕⲓⲗ() points to ⲥⲓⲕⲓⲗⲓⲁ, which is also good. Words which are from Greek I usually write with a Greek spelling, but if you prefer ⲥⲓⲕⲓⲗⲓⲁ, it is totally fine. ⲁϩⲙⲉⲧ (talk) 15:15, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Problems with User:ⲫⲁϯⲟⲩⲉⲣϣⲓ[edit source]

I think it would be good to talk about the manner of User:ⲫⲁϯⲟⲩⲉⲣϣⲓ in this Wikipedia. So, I don't mind if he is writing a new paragraph where he uses his wordings - everybody would write most things a bit differently. But I strongly object that some of the user's contributions are simply replacing words which have been accepted by the writers here to his own words. Recent examples can be seen in articles like Wp/cop/ⲅⲉⲱⲣⲅⲓⲟⲥ ⲉⲗϫⲁⲟϩⲁⲣⲓ, where ⲫⲁϯⲟⲩⲉⲣϣⲓ replaces ⲣⲉⲙⲛϥⲣⲁⲛⲥⲁ by ⲫⲣⲁⲛⲅⲁⲥ. Now, I could accept that word if he would add new information, and just opts for ⲫⲣⲁⲛⲅⲁⲥ - although this word does not exist, and, unlike ⲣⲉⲙⲛϥⲣⲁⲛⲥⲁ, is also not immediately understandable to Coptic learners. Even that wouldn't be a problem - new vocabulary for the 21st century needs to be created, and not everything needs to be immediately understandable - , but than, at least, his words should be supported by at least any other person than ⲫⲁϯⲟⲩⲉⲣϣⲓ himself. I obey when the majority decides here, for instance, when people started to use ⲕⲩⲡϯⲟⲥ here which i was skeptical about, and the majority was fine with it, so I accepted it too. I remember you (or somebody else, Idk) coined the term ϩⲛⲟⲩⲛⲧⲙⲏ, but we decided to use ϫⲁϫⲃⲁⲕⲓ, you seem to agree to use this term too. But why does ⲫⲁϯⲟⲩⲉⲣϣⲓ always get a free pass? I think given your many contributions here, you should also say something. It is always me or some less regular users which point out his asocial behavior. ⲁⲛⲉⲯⲓⲟⲩⲥⲓⲣⲓ (talk) 01:20, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1) I was editing my own paragraphs 2) ⲫⲣⲁⲛⲅⲁⲥ does exist while ϥⲣⲁⲛⲥⲁ is a pseudo Arabic internet coinage 3) ⲁϩⲙⲉⲧ is also OK with ⲫⲣⲁⲛⲅⲓⲁ 4) Just mind your own business, your arguments of "majority" that accepts anything are not valid as there is no way to measure your "majority", it's just a logical fallacy. Copts are not limited by your friends and the are a lot of educated Copts who want to preserve and revive their language and not turn it into pseudo Egyptological pidgin. I understand that this bravado nationalistic rhetorics of "purging" and "cleansing" are in high demand but let's keep that crap out of linguistics, science and history. Coptic is a beautiful and living language and it has a lot of influences just like any other living language. --ⲫⲁϯⲟⲩⲉⲣϣⲓ (talk) 09:30, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And ⲫⲣⲁⲛⲅⲁⲥ does not exist! Why do you lie so much? It is a personal name. I can't believe it. You just think we're stupid here. ⲁⲛⲉⲯⲓⲟⲩⲥⲓⲣⲓ (talk) 17:19, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And wtf does "pseudo Arabic" internet coinage mean? This is not pseudo-Arabic, it is just Arabic. Why do you think that Greek is better than Arabic? Your scala-Coptic is not as popular as you think. Some take words from Demotic, some take them from Arabic, and don't think your Greek BS is the only way to go. I think you like to use "pseudo" a lot to denigrate other people's efforts, but you should first look up what pseudo really means. And "internet" coinage is a good point: Maybe you realized that the Coptic used here by me and others is actually not just a creation by myself, but actually used by some others too, as can be seen in many facebook groups. I don't see why using an Arabic word is "purging", while you using Greek instead of Arabic or Coptic is not "purging". ⲁⲛⲉⲯⲓⲟⲩⲥⲓⲣⲓ (talk) 16:04, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Your own paragraphs"? What is this here? This is public you ******. Also, why do you think your way is better? You just want to revive 15th century Coptic when nobody spoke it anymore, and it was just written down in some scalas in a Greek spelling. That's the reason why ⲫ is ubiquitous in your own words, and all the proposals you make are based on wanna-be-scalas. ACCEPT THAT NOT EVERYONE AGREES WITH YOU THAT THE SCALAS ARE THE ULTIMATE SOURCE OF WISDOM. ⲁⲛⲉⲯⲓⲟⲩⲥⲓⲣⲓ (talk) 14:40, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I often stay out of these discussions because I just think there are different philosophies of approaching the revival of Coptic. Other revived languages have faced the same problem. In my opinion, Cornish (a Celtic language, in Cornwall) is a good example. Cornish can be divided into several stages, Old Cornish, Middle Cornish, Early Modern Cornish (Late Cornish, until 1800). There have been several camps of revivalists. Some of them (first by Henry Jenner, also chronologically the first revivalist) wanted to continue Early Modern Cornish because they think it is the "organic" continuation. Early Modern Cornish was already extremely influenced by English, in vocabulary, spelling and pronunciation, which is all reflected by their Cornish. Another group ("Unified Cornish") based their revival on Middle Cornish of the 14th and 16th centuries, where there was a thriving literature and the language was less influenced by English. Words which didn't exist where not taken from English (as did the first group), but created by analogy from very closely related languages (Breton and Welsh) and Old Cornish. The spelling differed too, as it was an archaic etymological spelling. Another group ("Kernewek Kommyn") was also based on older Cornish, but they proposed a different spelling which was more phonemic than the traditional Unified Cornish orthography. Another group ("Modern Cornish") is even more radical than Jenner's proposal, as they base their Cornish on the latest of all sources (17, 18th century) with even more simplified grammar, English pronunciation and vocabulary. The current standard seems largely based on "puristic" Middle Cornish, with English constructions of course allowed because the speakers are all English speakers and interference is inevitable.
So, although in the Cornish discussion, the orthography debate plays a bigger role than in Coptic, as here, the orthography is mostly settled, I think only time will show what style will prevail.
When it comes to me personally, if there is a word not attested in Coptic, I do draw on Demotic, because I think we should take advantage of the huge wealth of Egyptian, and there is no need to relie on Greek, or any other language. But I'm generally reluctant to revive pre-Demotic forms, because pre-Demotic forms a different linguistic system from Coptic, while Demotic and Coptic, despite the different script, are often mutually intelligible (especially Graeco-Roman Demotic). This is why you guys convinced me to not use ϩⲛⲟⲩⲛⲧⲙⲏ, as it is based on pre-Demotic. When it comes to ⲥⲓⲉⲛⲥ(ⲓ), however, I don't think it is "invented", and I will change that section in the article a bit. It is also the reason why I argue for ⲑⲉⲛϩⲱⲥ, and other stuff which can be reconstructed from Demotic and other evidence. I personally think we should not base Coptic on the latest attestations and scalae, because then Coptic was obviously already a language in decline, and I think the revival should be based on a stage where the language was still vigorous. I do, however, accept that there are different approaches. ⲁϩⲙⲉⲧ (talk) 15:40, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
But I want to object that this is "pseudo Egyptological pidgin." ⲁϩⲙⲉⲧ (talk) 15:46, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm calling the purging of Coptic Greek vocabulary a "pseudo Egyptological pidgin" (as it will come to this) not the deriving of words from other dialects (which I'm totally fine with if there's no Bohairic equivalent) or Demotic (although I'd be very cautious about it and would only derive specific historical terms not the meanings and constructions as in case with ⲑⲉⲛϩⲱⲥ). Scalas have a lot of mistakes but it's a last glance on Coptic as a living language. I can understand the will to purge the Arabic influence – as it is what made Coptic die (just like in case of English and Cornish). But Greek is not "English" and Coptic is not "Cornish" in this case. Greek vocabulary and script is what makes Coptic what it is. --ⲫⲁϯⲟⲩⲉⲣϣⲓ (talk) 16:14, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The difference is: Nobody wants to purge all Greek, but you only accept Greek - this is not how it works. ⲁⲛⲉⲯⲓⲟⲩⲥⲓⲣⲓ (talk) 16:23, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What does it even mean? --ⲫⲁϯⲟⲩⲉⲣϣⲓ (talk) 16:30, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"I can understand the will to purge the Arabic influence", interesting twist, ⲫⲁϯⲟⲩⲉⲣϣⲓ. You criticize Arabic for being the death of Coptic, but you don't see how Greek contributed to the lethal wounds. You always talk about Coptic as a living language, then just admit that if you just want to continue late Coptic, it would NOT AT ALL LOOK LIKE YOUR SCALA-GREEKISH. In later Coptic, Coptic is full of Arabic loanwords. What does that mean now? We should all use Arabic everywhere? There is no need for that. Arabic will inevitably come into Coptic anyway as most Copts are native speakers of Arabic. The same is for Greek. At least some people try to create a pure Coptic, with not large amounts of Arabic and Greek, although both languages have their place in Coptic. Few would deny that. Again, the problem is that you only accept a Greek Coptic, and don't allow anything else. ⲁⲛⲉⲯⲓⲟⲩⲥⲓⲣⲓ (talk) 16:58, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You equivocate. To put it simple for you - Egyptian+Greek=Coptic, Coptic+Arabic=Arabic. That's just the way it is. Arabic substituted Coptic while Greek made Coptic what it is – an Egyptian language with (sometimes) a major Greek influence. --ⲫⲁϯⲟⲩⲉⲣϣⲓ (talk) 17:07, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting, so one the one hand you lash out against purists and language planners, on the other hand you defend Greek because that's what in your opinion is Coptic, and you change every incident of genuine Coptic and Arabic here. How inconsistent. You can have your stance, but don't use the argument of Arabic or Egyptian being not real Coptic based on history, you just use whatever argument to write everything in as much Greek as possible. Arabic was as much a part of Coptic in the late periods as Greek was, and if you believe in reviving "living" late Coptic, you should allow Arabic too. But you don't, just because you just like Greek. ⲁⲛⲉⲯⲓⲟⲩⲥⲓⲣⲓ (talk) 17:15, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also against unnecessary reconstructions and inventions like in case with ⲥⲓⲉⲛⲥ(ⲓ) and ⲑⲉⲛⲟⲩⲉⲓⲛⲓⲛ. Coptic is perfectly capable of expressing concepts like "prince" and "Greece". I mean people can use it if they want and we can even mention them in the articles but I'm against of making an invented or reconstructed term a "standard" instead of a genuine Coptic one. --ⲫⲁϯⲟⲩⲉⲣϣⲓ (talk) 16:21, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I get that when it comes to ⲥⲓⲉⲛⲥ - it can just be a terminus technicus. But that people don't want to use ϩⲉⲗⲗⲁⲥ when they have the chance to use a genuine term is legitimate. ⲁϩⲙⲉⲧ (talk) 16:27, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
How is ⲑⲉⲛⲟⲩⲉⲓⲛⲓⲛ is genuine Ahmed? You open Bible - you see ϯⲉⲗⲗⲁⲥ, you open any Coptic text (in any dialect) – you see ϯⲉⲗⲗⲁⲥ, you open any late Scala - you see ϯⲉⲗⲗⲁⲥ. I'm sorry but the only way to see ⲑⲉⲛⲟⲩⲉⲓⲛⲓⲛ is to open this Wikipedia. --ⲫⲁϯⲟⲩⲉⲣϣⲓ (talk) 16:32, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's because you don't know where else to look. Online forums use it. Besides, nobody says you can't use your Greek, but you need to accept that the majority here does not use Greek. And I don't see ⲉⲗⲗⲁⲥ used by any Copt - although I know it is used in the Bible. But the Bible is full of Greek, as it was translated from Greek, and there is a lot of code-copying. ⲁⲛⲉⲯⲓⲟⲩⲥⲓⲣⲓ (talk) 16:39, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Which online forums? Give some links. --ⲫⲁϯⲟⲩⲉⲣϣⲓ (talk) 16:42, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Again, if you object to it, why don't you never do anything against Phat Wershy's behavior here? He just changes the articles you and others have written, but when somebody changes his articles, he reverts them and says he is allowed to do that because it was "his article". ⲁϩⲙⲉⲧ, I'm sorry, your behavior is not tolerant, it is just weak. So many of his changes and "contributions" here is replacing wording of others users by his own words, which he thinks are the only truth. ⲁⲛⲉⲯⲓⲟⲩⲥⲓⲣⲓ (talk) 16:04, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Do I change other users' words or my own ones? Be consistent lol. --ⲫⲁϯⲟⲩⲉⲣϣⲓ (talk) 16:14, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
First: Both. But I don't see how that would matter, as this is public. Second: That's all what you have to say? Third: Let's talk about the spelling of Wp/cop/ⲑⲉϩⲁ ϩⲟⲩⲥⲉⲉⲓⲛ. WTF is ϩⲟⲩⲥⲉⲉⲓⲛ. ⲁⲛⲉⲯⲓⲟⲩⲥⲓⲣⲓ (talk) 16:22, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find any logic in your statement. It's public, OK, what does it change? Once written can't be changed? On ϩⲟⲩⲥⲉⲉⲓⲛ see "Perméabilité linguistique et anthroponymique entre copte et arabe : l’exemple de comptes en caractères coptes du Fayoum fatimide". --ⲫⲁϯⲟⲩⲉⲣϣⲓ (talk) 16:30, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fine but your strategy gives us hundreds of different spellings. As soon as one (Arabic) word is attested in whatever spelling in whatever ancient text, you use that writing for word Y today. Word Z found in another text by a scribe who used another spelling, you write nevertheless like him. Word W is then another spelling. And btw, your consistent spelling of Arabic short a as ⲉ is another thing only you do - no source always uses ⲉ for that, and you even use it in the environment of emphatic consonants. You can do that (sigh), but then don't change all formerly written articles to your personal preference. ⲁⲛⲉⲯⲓⲟⲩⲥⲓⲣⲓ (talk) 16:34, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You can easily change it, I'm totally fine with that. That's not the subject here.--ⲫⲁϯⲟⲩⲉⲣϣⲓ (talk) 16:36, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Problems with User:ⲫⲁϯⲟⲩⲉⲣϣⲓ 2[edit source]

Again, the user just changed words which were used before into his favorite word. Now in Wp/cop/ⲫⲁⲓⲁⲧ (ϣⲗⲟⲗ). Why is this tolerated? If this is allowed, I will change every ⲭⲱⲣⲁ to ⲑⲟ, and there are no consequences? I think this is not how it should work here. ⲁⲛⲉⲯⲓⲟⲩⲥⲓⲣⲓ (talk) 01:13, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is tolerated because I feel stupid to engage in this kind of edit war and I don't have the energy to monitor every change in this wikipedia and see if somebody has changed a word or not. I see you changed it back, that's fine. Just leave it. ⲁϩⲙⲉⲧ (talk) 15:06, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's actually ridiculous as we've agreed to use ϯⲗⲩⲃⲏ for "Libya" on it's talk page before so I'll revert it. --ⲫⲁϯⲟⲩⲉⲣϣⲓ (talk) 20:54, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Acts 2:10 "ϯⲫⲣⲓⲕⲓⲁ ⲛⲉⲙ ϯⲡⲁⲙⲫⲓⲗⲓⲁ ⲭⲏⲙⲓ ⲛⲉⲙ ⲛⲓⲥⲁ ⲛ̀ⲧⲉ ϯⲗⲩⲃⲏ ⲑⲏⲉⲧϩⲓⲛⲓⲥⲁ ⲛ̀ⲧⲉ ϯⲕⲩⲣⲓⲛⲛⲏ ⲛⲉⲙ ⲛⲓⲣⲱⲙⲉⲟⲥ ⲉⲧϣⲟⲡ ⲛ̀ϧⲏⲧⲉⲛ..." --ⲫⲁϯⲟⲩⲉⲣϣⲓ (talk) 22:02, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello[edit source]

Hello ,

I really loved the work u guys are doing on the Wiki Cop , Im a Tachelhit Wiki contubuter ( an Amazigh language ), i think we guys should help each other, thats why i wrote in the Coptic request that i supported the project . I invit u guys to do the same for the Tachelhit Wikipedia here : https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages/Wikipedia_Tachelhit

And could you please write a stub about the Tachelhit language in wiki cop – just a few sentences based on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shilha_language ? Im gonna do the same thing for the Coptic language in our Wiki.

Thanks --Ayour2002 22:33, 01 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, nice to here from you. Yes I will. ⲁϩⲙⲉⲧ (talk) 16:55, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wp/cop/ⲕⲁϣⲣⲱⲙⲓ[edit source]

Can you please work a bit on the article? ⲫⲁϯⲟⲩⲉⲣϣⲓ has written a lot, but it's all agrammatical, and we need to make it actual Coptic. بطرس مرقس (talk) 15:25, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I will try to. ⲁϩⲙⲉⲧ (talk) 16:06, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong diacritic[edit source]

Hello Ahmet. I believe you are using a wrong diacritic when writing Coptic. Take this example:

  • ⲣⲉⲙⲛ̀ⲭⲏⲙⲓ

Do you notice the character above the ⲛ? As you are writing now, it would look like that:

  • ⲣⲉⲙ`ⲛⲭⲏⲙⲓ

Thanks. --Mahmudmasri (talk) 22:20, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I've noticed it. It should be fixed now. Ⲁϩⲙⲉⲧ (talk) 05:15, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://incubator.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ⲁϩⲙⲉⲧ&oldid=5482366"