User talk:Kwamikagami/Archive 17
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Barnstars   
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 The colubrid Telescopus semiannulatus in an acacia, central Tanzania.
|
Quotes:
Words of the day:
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Colville-Okanagan language
editHey, why did you move Colville-Okanagan language to Okanagan language? IMO the latter refers to a single dialect while the former refers to the entire language. If the article is labeled Okanagan language then all the information about the non-Okanagan speakers (Colville and Arrow Lakes) should probably be deleted or moved to their own articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thesaltflats (talk • contribs) 03:03, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
- "Okanagan" is the WP:commonname for all of them together, used in Mithun, Ethnologue, etc. — kwami (talk) 10:06, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, I understand that Canadians insist that the language be named after them. There are other sources, such as Anthony Mattina's work, that use Colville-Okanagan. Does Wikipedia always go by the Ethnologue name? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thesaltflats (talk • contribs) 15:56, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Fujic languages
editWhat do you think about this idea: The Fujic languages. Is a proposed language family created by me Julio Duarte. Is part of the macro-family of the Altafujic languages wich are divided into Altaic languages wich includes: Turkic, Mongolic and Tungusic languages, and the Fujic languages wich includes: Koreanic, Japonic and Ainu languages. It's almost obvious that this languages are similar. The name Fujic comes from the Mount Fuji from Japan, that is very famous, also the name Altaic comes from mountains: The Altai Mountains. The name Fujic is a good proposal because these languages don't have a single name, in spanish is Lenguas fújicas, the names Kojainu languages or Aijakoreanic languages are very strange. Regards, J Cæsar (talk) 01:22, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
- It is simply a synonym for "Altaic", which normally includes Korean and Japanese. Hardly anyone accepts Ainu. — kwami (talk) 01:54, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Sign languages articles per country
editHi, why did you move Flemish Sign Language to Belgian Sign Language, and create Swiss Sign Language? These sign languages are separate per language community, not per country, so it makes more sense to have separate articles about them (as is done on other language Wikipedias). In the Swiss case, I can understand a bit more, since there wasn't an article yet, so this is a stub that would eventually be split. Regards, SPQRobin (talk) 13:42, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
- Flemish SL is a dialect of Belgian SL, at least according to Gallaudet U. It's fine to have articles on dialects, but we should at least have an article on the language as well. Readers are going to be at least partially interested in who they can communicate with, and AFAICT, Flemish and Walloon SL share their vocab and grammar. The fact that there are two communities is relevant, but not everything, just as in the case of Serbo-Croatian or Hindi-Urdu among oral languages, where we have a main central article, and the coverage of grammar and phonology is unitary, or of ASL / Ghanaian SL among sign languages. The article can be split if need be.
- AFAICT, the situation is similar with SSL: French, German, and Italian SSL are dialects of one language. — kwami (talk) 19:51, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
- Ethnologue catalogues Flemish & French-Belgian separately, and in Flanders it's explicitly recognised as "Flemish Sign Language". Even though both may be very similar to each other, they don't seem to be considered as "one". But anyway, I assume you have more knowledge about sign languages than I do, so I'll leave it :) SPQRobin (talk) 20:28, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
- Ethnologue used to treat them as one language. This is very similar to the situation with Serbo-Croatian, Malay, Romanian, or Hindustani, where a single language is split up for political reasons. In such cases textbooks continue to cover them together, because for the language learner they're effectively the same language. We can easily cover them in a single article, and note that speakers consider them separate languages; if we really develop the articles, so that we have material for the separate national standards, then IMO it would be appropriate to add separate articles as well, but for basic linguistic information, such as grammar, IMO it's probably best to keep them together. In the case of ASL and its dialects we probably want separate articles, because the ASL article is so extensive the dialects would get lost if merged into it, but that's not the case here. Or at least we should have a BSL article as the core, with FlSL and WSL as sub-articles. — kwami (talk) 21:45, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Hi. As Germanic languages, Romance language, needs a seperate article to list them, and already there are list for that language groups, iranian are not different, please do not undo. for example Semnani is not mentioned, Pamir languages are not mentioned, Gorani is not mentioned. There should be a detailed list and this list is the one. Another move for languages of Central Iran to incorrect title, Central Iranian languages is also not right, please talk to several other user who know the subject if you have doubt. Why Germanic language can have a detailed list and iranian group can not? this is not meaningful. Please provide reasons in the talk page of those article, i already started one section in one of their talk pages. Please get advice from other users who know the subject. As I requested please continue discussion and then we can decide. Please do not change the articles without discussion.--Companionship 17:27, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
I am going to add language codes to the article as done is List of Romance languages article. So another non-repeated information will be in the article. please pay attention to this.--Companionship 17:44, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
- As it was, there was practically no information in any of them apart from a list of languages. Multiple lists of the same languages are not useful, and cause problems. The fact that you found languages missing from one or the other is an effect of having multiple articles: they drift apart, as edits are not kept in sync. That's why we discourage content forks.
- As for Semnani, Pamir, & Gorani, you're wrong: they are included in both. The fact that you'd say this without even reading the article suggests that you are not going to keep the articles in sync, and therefore a strong argument for deleting the content fork. At least with the list of Romance languages, it's maintained responsibly and their is some slight difference in purpose.
- As for the title, I don't understand what you're saying. It's a genealogical node, not a geographic article. — kwami (talk) 20:00, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
- Also, why would you list each language code twice? You have content forks within content forks. — kwami (talk) 21:03, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
- About the lists of same languages you were right if there were lower-level lists, but at the moment this is the only list for all iranian languages, so it's not right to have a list for romance languages, and not have one for iranian languages.
- At the moment you cannot find Semnani in Iranian languages, so you didn't read that article. Also, please pay attention to this issue that, other than Semnani, there other languages which are separate language but cannot be included in Template of Iranian languages. as the full list is more detailed. Also there is no consensus among linguists to say what is language and what is dialect. Also, please do not make personal comments about what I do and what I don't this is absolutely against the rules of wiki, I am surprised by this view; because I don't organize the article it should be deleted!!. I will delete the possibly redundant SIL codes to keep the ISO-3... I did that in the style similar to list of Romance languages. but since you say so I will remove one code. I am also going to add the number of speakers for each specific language. another thing which is mentioned in similar articles. Also I precisely knew that the classification in List of Iranian languages is the much more accurate even than the one provided by ethnologue, as there are mistakes in ethnologue, so it is a valuable list too.
- About the other article, if you provided a reference, that title is acceptable but no academic source identifies them as Central Iranian, they are Northwest Iranian. The reason that linguist has use languages of Central Iran or Central Iran languages is the lack of single term for them, some use the name Raji but at the moment their name is Central Iran. So Central Iranian can be found in no academic source, but if you could find, move the article. In Persian Wiki several admins and linguist comment about that In "In Central Iran, or Center of Iran, Central Iran is absolutely geographic issue not genealogical. It means exactly Center of Iran, Isfahan, Arak, Yazd. mostly the modern Iran country." This is the comment they provided. you can check this with the last move by a linguist admin for fa:زبانهای ایران مرکزی. I know that wikis are indepedent, but the academic sources use the term Central Iran.
Thank you for reading my comments.--Companionship 02:23, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
- If you can't find Semnani, then I think you need to read the articles again.
- You're illustrating one of the reasons we discourage content forks like this. You say that the other articles are inaccurate, but rather than fix them, your create a separate article! We shouldn't have parallel correct and incorrect articles, we should simply have correct articles. And if the reason for the duplication is that your corrections are not being accepted in the main articles, then what we have is a POV fork, which is even worse than a normal fork.
- I don't know why we have a fork for the Romance languages. Perhaps it's justified, perhaps not—I don't work on it. But one bad article does not justify another. What is the point of having two lists of Iranian languages, one corrected, and one left full of errors? This is bad form, and it's unencyclopedic. (That's a sincere question: Can you tell me why we need to list them twice?)
- As for the Central Iranian languages, perhaps you could suggest the name you think would be better? Also, if it's not a genealogical group, then the article should be merged into the article for the higher node. — kwami (talk) 02:40, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
about the title of languages of Central Iran or anything, I do not care, I told you about Central Iran being geographical. So it is up to you which title you use. The correct or wrong whatever I do not say anything.
I checked iranian languages in which there was no Semnani. but The the other list mentions Semnani but not all languages and dialects. As this list is more complete list either this one should be remained or all the languages and dialects should be mentioned in Eastern or Western that means a merge of information might be needed, otherwise the only mention of a language in wiki is removed. Please also notice that format of Eastern and Western iranian languages article is different and this is some how odd. So information is Fork delete but before information should be merged. Many do not have problem but since you see that a problem information must not be lost. you can ignore my edits and use the history to use the older complete list, but if want to delete, keep the info in other two totally different format articles. That means first make them fork and then delete, not delete the article while there are unrepeated info in that.--Companionship 03:14, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
- I agree info should not be lost. I thought I had merged it. But if something is incorrect, please fix it. Don't just leave it wrong. — kwami (talk) 03:17, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you for paying attention. I am going somewhere right now but I will check and compare the articles today. Anyway one article (Wastern) has numbering and the other one (Eastern) has no numbering. I'll compare them and see how they are.--Companionship 03:29, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
- I thought all languages were included in East and West. Semnani is. The ones that aren't listed are also missing from the main articles, such as Caspian languages, or are dialects of a language, such as Mazandarani language. — kwami (talk) 21:21, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
And I checked some articles, similar to Germanic, if the size of East or West iranian increases too much, this list may be required to be created again as many times on Wikipedia the articles about a subject are different from articles which are just lists and have a sometimes different format, anyway thank you. I will check the articles.--Companionship 03:36, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
- There are very few language families where we have lists like this. There is a List of Bantu languages, but that's really a list of the various sublists, a list of the articles on the branches of Bantu. There is no List of Polynesian languages, for example, nor a List of Algonquian languages. Instead, the articles for the various branches are listed in the main article. Listing them twice would be twice as difficult to maintain, and with the ability to search, I don't know if there would be any point in doing so. — kwami (talk) 21:19, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Dispute
editHello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Holocaust denial". Thank you. --Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 18:15, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
You removed my {{unreferenced}} tag from Kulu language. I was just wondering what is you logic for it, since you did not add any references. Thanks. The Determinator p t c 02:01, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
- It's already ref'd in the info box. — kwami (talk) 02:02, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Removal of "Unreferenced" tags from Japanese dialect articles
editHi. Can I ask why you removed the "Unreferenced" tags from both the Kantō dialect and Hokkaido dialect articles you created? Neither have any reference sources enabling facts to be verified. I see you have also created a number of other Japanese dialect articles which are similarly unreferenced. As an administrator, I'm sure you are aware that verifiability is one of the core content policies of Wikipedia, so could you please take the time to add reference sources and citations to these and other articles you have written? Thanks. --DAJF (talk) 01:34, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
- Well, the ref isn't very good, but it is a ref, and it in turn lists multiple refs it is based on. I think this is more a ref-improve situation.
- I didn't write the info, I merely split up the main article, and they were not ref'd there. I don't know what the original refs were; the one I added was minimal. — kwami (talk) 01:36, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for the reply, but I was talking primarily about the Kantō dialect and Hokkaido dialect articles, which have no references at all. (The "Refimprove" tag is used only for articles that already have at least some references.) If you do have any good sources to hand, it would obviously be good to add them, but until then, the maintenance tags should stay. --DAJF (talk) 01:49, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
- They're ref'd in their infoboxes, like all language articles. I've been trying for months to get the articles switched over to normal, explicit refs, but that has turned out to be too radical a change for bot approval, and since there are thousands of such articles, it would have to be done by bot. — kwami (talk) 02:39, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
Cangin Languages
editHi Kawami, Long time since we crossed paths. Lol! Anyway, I was doing some general clean up and adding templates to some of the Serer articles when I came upon the Cangin languages article. As a contributor to that page, I have raised an issue in the article's talk page [1], perhaps you may be able to help. Best regards.Tamsier (talk) 03:39, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
The exodus
editPlease revert your most recent edit to this article (the exodus): the god of Israel was Yahweh (or YHWH to be scrupulously accurate), mand that's the proper direct, not God in Judaism, which has a theological and modern focus. PiCo (talk) 11:44, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
- The original link had been just a dab. I've changed it to Yahweh: is that correct? — kwami (talk) 21:50, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, Yahweh is correct. The reason is that Yahweh was the actual "god of Israel" - each ancient people had its own god, eg Chemosh the god of Moab, Marduk the god of Babylon. Pure monotheism arose among a r4ather small elite of Jewish intellectuals during the 6th century BC - pure in the sense that they believed that there was only one god in the universe and that Chemosh and the rest were unreal. Until then, the term "false god" meant a god who couldn't be relied on, not one who didn't exist. Nowdays of course modern Judaism is thoroughly monotheistic, as is Christianity, and it's difficult to think ourselves back into the cultural world that once existed. PiCo (talk) 23:58, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
Hi kwami, could you please move Paya language to Pech language. This is because Pech is given in Ethnologue and Holt (1999), and not Paya.
- Holt (1999) gives both; Campbell, Loukotka, Suarez, and Adelaar all give Paya, and apart from Campbell don't even mention Pech as an alt. — kwami (talk) 00:22, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
- Holt (1999) does give both, but in there he prefers and always uses "Pech," while he says that "Paya" would be the former designation. That's why he calls the book Pech (Paya) and not the other way around. Constenla, an authority on the Chibchan languages, also prefers to call it Pech. Holt has actually done a lot of fieldwork on Pech and is the authority on it, while Campbell, Suarez, and Adelaar - who are not Chibchan specialists - compile whatever the field linguists (like Holt) give them. — Stevey7788 (talk) 07:02, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
- Sure, but meanwhile "Paya" would seem to be the WP:COMMONNAME. It's what our readers are likely to encounter. — kwami (talk) 07:03, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Just checking... Did you realize that your changes to infobox language mean that there are over2200 articles that now need {{Reflist}}? Naraht (talk) 12:27, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
- Yeah, I saw that. But that's 2,200 fewer articles that people are going to mistakenly tag as unreferenced. A bot cleaned it up within a couple hours. — kwami (talk) 19:45, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
ANI question
editEarlier this week, I reported a user at WP:ANI but I haven't gotten any administrator response, even to tell me I've brought up the issue in the wrong place. Given that the page has a 24-hour archive bot, it seems that 5+ days to get a response is unusual. Am I missing something? — Ƶ§œš¹ [ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ] 17:46, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
- I don't know, Ƶ§œš¹. Sometimes people respond, and sometimes they don't. I don't know why. If Dale continues, you might want to let me know. Or Taivo, who knows about Slavic languages. He's not an admin, but it would be good for someone like me to see a 2nd opinion. — kwami (talk) 18:54, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
- Ok, thanks. — Ƶ§œš¹ [ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ] 19:35, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
- ANI is probably one of the worst places for WP:TLDR. Also, restoring from the archive often doesn't elicit a response; you might try just resubmitting your report next time. Also, you might get a better response at WP:DRN with this kind of problem. VanIsaacWScontribs 19:59, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks. — kwami (talk) 20:02, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
- Well, it didn't take long. This edit shows Dale both blanking of text (dispite opposition by myself and another user) and the removal of a citation request for the claim that Russian allows syllable onsets of more than 5 consonants. You can see earlier instances of his removal of citation requests on the claim in question here[2][3][4][5][6]. If you'd like, I can also provide diffs to show comments in the talk page that expand on Dale's edit summaries in expressing his belief that he doesn't need to provide a citation for this claim. — Ƶ§œš¹ [ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ] 14:10, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks. — kwami (talk) 20:02, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not sure I see the problem. If you admit the material is wrong, and just want to give the IP a chance to cite/correct it, I don't see why this can't happen without leaving the incorrect text/citation in the article. — kwami (talk) 18:31, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
- That's not the removal I'm pointing to. Let me see if I can't break it down
- In this edit, dated April 22, and this edit, dated April 25, Dale removed a citation request for the claim "The phrase к взгляду [k ˈvzglʲadu] ('to (the) gaze') begins with a cluster of five consonants."
- In this edit, dated April 30, he removed the citation while expanding the claim to "Due to such phrases, there are many phonological words containing four or five consonants in a row. Since Russian has three words which are just single consonants, k, s, v, there are phonological words that begin with five consonants, e.g., к взгляду [g ˈvzglʲadu] ('to (the) gaze')." Although he had added a source in the previous sentence backing up a newly included claim about phonological words, the source in question did not explicitly say that five consonants were possible in Russian.
- In this edit, dated May 6, he removed a citation request for the claim "Thus, prepositions (especially the three that consist of just a single consonant: к, с, and в) contribute to phonological words with up to five consonant clusters in the syllable onset (e.g., к взгляду [ˈgvzglʲadu] 'to (the) gaze')."
- While there is rewording over time, the core claim that comes from Dale is that Russian allows five-consonant clusters in the syllable onset. I have searched sources and only found claims of a maximum of four consonants in the syllable onset (I had initially challenged claims of more than four-consonant clusters anywhere, though another user has demonstrated that 7-cluster codas are permissible). Initially, Dale seemed to believe that the request was for whether the phrase itself exists. So I have repeatedly clarified what is being asked for in the talk page:
- April 25: "I'm giving you (or other editors) a chance to provide sourcing that states that Russian allows five-consonant clusters."
- April 26: "While it's true that those words and phrases are written with such clusters, the issue is whether they are pronounced with them"
- May 1: "this source only backs up that the phrase exists, which I've told you several times is not the issue)."
- May 3: "I have called you to cite the claim that Russian allows for consonant clusters greater than four consonants...There is still nothing that shows that clusters greater than four consonants are permissible in the syllable onset."
- May 4: "The other editor and I have provided enough sourcing to show that spelling in Russian can't always be taken at face value. All you have to do is find a source that backs up your claim."
- As for the other removals, the only text that I agree is suspect is the claim "In certain cases, dropped consonants are restored in more modern pronunciations under the influence of written form." I can agree to keeping it out until the other editor provides adequate sourcing, though quickly deleting contested material seems a bit unfair, especially given the context of a disputed fact tag above.
- Every other removal in the May 6 edit is contested. Shall I provide diffs showing this as well? — Ƶ§œš¹ [ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ] 22:22, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
- That's not the removal I'm pointing to. Let me see if I can't break it down
- I'm not sure I see the problem. If you admit the material is wrong, and just want to give the IP a chance to cite/correct it, I don't see why this can't happen without leaving the incorrect text/citation in the article. — kwami (talk) 18:31, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
I've reverted to the version prior to the edit war. Would you mind restoring those edits of Dale's that you agree to? Sorry, I really don't have time right now to go over the minutiae of the argument. I shouldn't be on WP at all. — kwami (talk) 23:15, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
2012-05 fusion dans fr:
editVoir fr:Discussion utilisateur:Kwamikagami#2012-05 Proposition de fusion Chimane (langue) et Langues mosetenanes. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 20:58, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Curonia has its own unique history that's not exactly unform to the rest of Latvia, with all respect Livonians remained more dominant in Curonia, even after 1220 Indo-European influx Finnic speakers remained relatively isolated in the northern tip of Curonia! So lets leave it as Baltic or Finnic, because of the strong Finnic nature of the few linguistic examples found in Curonian history. Cadenas2008 (talk) 03:52, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
- Well, first you need sources. Second, you're making the article contradict itself, so it's at best sloppy. Also, we have a Curonian grammar article with clearly Baltic grammar. It's up to you to demonstrate your POV, and if you're correct that we don't know enough to tell if the language is Baltic or Finnic, then the grammar article is bullshit and needs to be deleted. Your edit should go together with that. — kwami (talk) 04:03, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
First Curonian is a dead language, so where did the grammar come from?! Reconstructing it based on Latvian makes it the Curonian Latvian dialect. The article is referring to Old Curonian, the language spoken by the historically acknowledged Livonians of Curonia. Before 1220 Curonia was Finnic, the Baltic Indo-European tribes assimilated all Latvia except the Curonia peninsula because Curonians were fishermen. Now please explain to me how did some Latvian nationalists managed to Indo-Europeanize the old Curonians?!
I don't expect proud nationalist Latvians to appreciate my edits either. Cadenas2008 (talk) 10:30, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
- I don't know. You need references.
- Yes, the grammar article looks suspicious to me too. I asked another editor if he can help. — kwami (talk) 10:40, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
Agreed Cadenas2008 (talk) 11:30, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
Well, technically many of the languages may not really have subjects, but categories such as "SVO" and "SOV" and "VSO" are given by Lynch et al. (2002) for the sake of simplicity. AVO and AOV are not widely used terminologies, and were not given in the source. For example, Tagalog is usually described as having VSO word order, although linguists who have taken a closer look at it sometimes doubt it strictly has a subject. Nevertheless, "VSO" is given for clarity. So if you want to, you can further add that "S" may in fact be something else in certain Oceanic languages.
As for removing the info from the "Utupua and Vanikoro" subsection, please make sure to at least move the info to another article instead of simply erasing it. I've moved the languages to the Utupua Island article. — Stevey7788 (talk) 05:34, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
- They were already listed in their family articles (Utupua languages, Vanikoro languages). That's kinda the idea of having all languages at least red-linked from a family article. In this case, duplicating it meant missing a language that already has an article, which in the past has resulted in duplicate language articles. — kwami (talk) 05:45, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
- All right, got it, thanks for letting me know. ;)
- And yes, I do think Lynch, Ross, & Crowley (2002) would be far better as the basis for our classification, since the ABVD study was a really recent tentative grouping done automatically by supercomputers. The ABVD results haven't been entirely uncontroversial either. Plus, Lynch, Ross, & Crowley are all main authorities in Oceanic linguistics. — Stevey7788 (talk) 06:34, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
- For non-Oceanic AN languages, I've given non-ABVD classifications for Malayic languages, Chamic languages, Philippine languages, Central Philippine languages, Bikol languages, Bikol language, Visayan languages. However, non-Oceanic AN languages are still not well classified, especially since the AN languages of eastern Indonesia (Nusa Tenggara and the Moluccas) still remain poorly documented. For now, the ABVD classification should work for many of those non-Oceanic AN languages. — Stevey7788 (talk) 07:06, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
For the Palaungic languages article, I have reincluded the one given in:
http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Palaungic_languages&oldid=474879014
That's because the classification you took from Sidwell (2010), m.s., (http://email.eva.mpg.de/~wichmann/Sidwell_ASJP_draft.pdf) is actually that of the ASJP, which was done by a computer program. If you actually read the paper, Sidwell was talking about how the ASJP actually produced some wrong results. The one I had included was from his 2009 book. — Stevey7788 (talk) 06:39, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
- It's not the ASJP, which is presented in the next section. He labels this one "Palaungic classification suggested by Sidwell (ms.2010)" in Fig 23. The ASJP classification is in Fig 24 and has a very different branching structure. There are only two changes from his 2009 book: he abandons West Palaungic, and accepts Danau as being divergent. — kwami (talk) 06:48, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
- OK, I see it now. Anyways, it would be better to keep past classifications in articles as well (such as Diffloth & Zide (1992)) instead of entirely substituting them with newer classifications. — Stevey7788 (talk) 06:52, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
- Okay. Could you redirect La to its proper article? — kwami (talk) 06:59, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
- Well, whenever you create new stubs on languages, it's not a good idea to base it off Ethnologue, which is designed to be part of SIL International's missionary projects rather than to produce scientifically sound classifications. Ethnologue is horrible at classifying languages, often reduplicating them, not naming them well, and giving bad classifications. Errors abound in its entries. Instead, new language stubs should be created after consulting academic sources.
- And La doesn't need to be redirected anywhere - I'll just take the red link off. For now, there should just be an article on Lawa. There really isn't any point of creating two articles on Bo Luang Lawa language and La-up Lawa language (why not Umpai instead?), because it is still very unclear about they (and most other Southeast Asian hill languages) should be divided up internally. Most people who stumble upon the article and want to contribute something would be better off with something simpler like Lawa (subsections can be created if they want to describe different variants). Creating a bunch of stubs for languages that of uncertain status only leads to a big mess, sooner or later. Same goes for the various Hmong-Mien and Tai languages. Good job on all the language articles and classifications though - I really appreciate your hard work. — Stevey7788 (talk) 07:16, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
- Okay, I'll merge them.
- When I have another source, I go off that. I use Ethnologue to fill in the blanks. (Some of their classifications are actually good, you just can't rely on them.) I ever created a section on the WProject task list for ISO languages which are not mentioned in our sources.
- I have no problem merging Ethnologue stubs. However, we definitely should have redirects from the Ethnologue names, as E16 is the only global language reference and therefore very commonly referred to.
- Any cleanup in Tai is welcome. Consolidate away!
- I plan on redoing Oceanic in all the infoboxes.
- It would be a lot easier to change classifications if it were centralized, as it is in the bio info boxes. Any ideas on that? Maybe we should get the bio people to share their experiences. — kwami (talk) 07:25, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
- Well, I just requested an ILL for Visser's Naro dictionary. It certainly does look like an amazingly fascinating language, especially its phonology.
- There should also be some cleanup for the Hmong-Mien language articles too. The classifications and nomenclatures should follow, or aat least be somewhat close to, those of http://zh.wiki.x.io/wiki/%E8%8B%97%E8%AA%9E%E6%94%AF , since they was based off good Chinese sources. Names like "Qiandong Miao" should be used instead of obscure ones like Hmu. — Stevey7788 (talk) 07:48, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks!
- The problem with Chinese sources is that very many of them use ethnic rather than linguistic classifications. Or they combine the two, as Chinese linguistics sees ethnicity as just as valid as reconstruction for language identity. The current classification is based on English sources which consider the Chinese lit, sometimes working with the (Chinese) authors to weed out the ethnic bias. It is not based on Ethnologue, though ISO names may be used. — kwami (talk) 07:51, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Do you have a source for saying that Wuvulu and Aua are two separate languages? Ethnologue says "Dialects nearly identical.". --JorisvS (talk) 09:14, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
- Lynch, Ross, & Crowley (2002) list them as two of four Western Admiralty languages, at least according to Stevey's editing at Oceanic languages. Unless I'm misinterpreting that? — kwami (talk) 09:19, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
- That's what the Lynch, Ross & Crowley volume asserts in two different locations--Wuvulu and Aua are separate. No one has requested that ISO 639-3 split wuv yet. --Taivo (talk) 09:32, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
- In which case I'd suggest that we source this and that the article be split into Wuvulu and Aua, because why have one article dealing with two, possibly random(?), languages from a language family? Though, I'm wondering why Ethnologue says what it says. --JorisvS (talk) 09:38, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
- (ec) However, Blust (2008) states clearly: "Wuvulu is spoken on the island of Wuvulu (called "Maty" in the early twentieth-century literature), some 180 miles west of Manus in the Admiralty Islands of western Melanesia. Together with the Aua dialect, spoken on an island of the same name about 25 miles to the northeast, it forms part of the Western Islands branch of the Admiralty subgroup of Oceanic languages (Blust 1996a)." The Blust comment, that Aua is a dialect and "together" they form part of the Western Islands branch, should be given priority since 1) it is more recent and 2) it is not in an overview of the 500 languages of Oceanic, but in an article specifically about the Wuvulu "dialect". He consistently refers to Aua as a "dialect" through the remainder of the article and in a quick skimming, I saw the only instance where he mentions a difference between them as being Wuvulu [ɣ] Aua [g]. Based on Blust I would not separate these into different languages. It should be noted that Blust did fieldwork on both islands. --Taivo (talk) 09:47, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
- Obviously, based on my above comment, these should not be split. --Taivo (talk) 09:48, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
- I edited the Oceanic article, but on second thought reverted it back to Stevey's editing. The Oceanic article listing specifically references the Lynch, Ross & Crowley 2002 listing and should be replicated as is (otherwise maintaining the list would be a nightmare with potential for massive amounts of variation in each grouping). However, that split of Wuvulu and Aua in LRC 2002 should not be replicated in the Wuvulu-Aua language article because of Blust 2008. --Taivo (talk) 09:59, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
- Obviously, based on my above comment, these should not be split. --Taivo (talk) 09:48, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
- That's what the Lynch, Ross & Crowley volume asserts in two different locations--Wuvulu and Aua are separate. No one has requested that ISO 639-3 split wuv yet. --Taivo (talk) 09:32, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Move req
editKwami, could you move Solar system model to Solar System model so that its capitalization is consistent? --JorisvS (talk) 13:27, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Runic alphabet
editI undid your move from Runic alphabet to Runic script. Something went wrong and the talk page was not moved (note that there are now two new contributions under Talk:Runic alphabets; not sure what's the best way to deal with them), and moreover, I disagree with the move as all variants of the Germanic runes are clearly alphabets. Also, you had moved Runic script to Runic alphabets before, creating a double redirect. Shoddy work. Perhaps it would be a good idea to discuss the move on the talk page, and whether the article should be under Runic alphabet, Runic alphabets, Runic script, Runic scripts, Runes (my own suggestion: KISS and dodges the issue entirely, and runiform scripts, which should rather not be called "runes", are already listed there and under Rune (disambiguation)), Germanic runes, Futhark or whatever. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 20:01, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
- Bots fix double redirects in a matter of hours, so that's irrelevant. (BTW, you did not move the talk page archives, and so left those as double redirects.)
- If you disagree that they're alphabets, let alone a single alphabet, why would you move the article back to 'alphabet'? That makes no sense.
- "Runes" works for me.
- Can you give an example of a non-alphabetic runic script? — kwami (talk) 20:14, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
- My bad. Thank you for fixing the aforementioned problems, and all else you do. I really appreciate your work, just to be clear.
- I don't understand. I said: all variants of the Germanic runes are clearly alphabets. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 20:18, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
- Ah, sorry, misread you. Yes, they are all alphabets, but AFAIK they are not a single alphabet. A family of alphabets sharing the same letters is what we've been calling a "script", like the Latin script, Cyrillic script, Arabic script. There's no single modern "Cyrillic alphabet", for example. — kwami (talk) 20:54, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
Ruslik
editHe's back.[7][8] --JorisvS (talk) 21:36, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
- And [9]. --JorisvS (talk) 14:25, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
- He now has now added a sentence to 2001 QF298 saying Tancredi do not consider it a viable DP candidated and "cited" it with a paper that simply does not mention the object in its list of plutoids, instead of listing it as 'No'. Smells like OR and maybe SYNTH to me. What do you think? --JorisvS (talk) 21:30, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, sources need to say what they're being used to source. Don't know what his problem is, but then he doesn't even know what hydrostatic equilibrium is, so what can we expect? — kwami (talk) 21:32, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
- He now has now added a sentence to 2001 QF298 saying Tancredi do not consider it a viable DP candidated and "cited" it with a paper that simply does not mention the object in its list of plutoids, instead of listing it as 'No'. Smells like OR and maybe SYNTH to me. What do you think? --JorisvS (talk) 21:30, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
I've been removing assumed values from several TNO infoboxes firstly because they are uncited (plain OR). Moreover, with the correlation between TNO density and size, assuming Pluto's density to be 'typical' would be naive. Now Ruslik is reverting me saying 'he doesn't see any problem with assumed values', without adding a source. What do you think? --JorisvS (talk) 11:33, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
- Assumed values have been used for ages. If you want to abolish this established practice, you should start an RFC. Ruslik_Zero 12:21, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
- Why don't you try to respond to other people's concerns or arguments? --JorisvS (talk) 12:30, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
- I can address the same question to you. Ruslik_Zero 12:46, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
- Try reading my above statement. --JorisvS (talk) 12:55, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
- Try reading my above answer. Ruslik_Zero 14:25, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
- That's not an answer. --JorisvS (talk) 14:43, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
- This's not an answer either. Ruslik_Zero 15:45, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
- You are the one who has so far not come with any (counter)arguments. Are you maybe incapable of coming with them with respect to this topic? Don't respond by basically copying what I've said now, I'll take that as a "Yes, I am incapable of doing so.". --JorisvS (talk) 15:54, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
- This's not an answer either. Ruslik_Zero 15:45, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
- That's not an answer. --JorisvS (talk) 14:43, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
- Try reading my above answer. Ruslik_Zero 14:25, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
- Try reading my above statement. --JorisvS (talk) 12:55, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
- I can address the same question to you. Ruslik_Zero 12:46, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
- Why don't you try to respond to other people's concerns or arguments? --JorisvS (talk) 12:30, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
- Ruslik, AFAIK we use assumed values because they are used in our sources. We don't just make up what *we* think is reasonable. That would clearly be OR. Unless you can show me where the astronomy WP decided that a certain assumed value was appropriate when none is published? 20:17, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
Here Ruslik has asked a relevant question about the situation at 2001 QF298. --JorisvS (talk) 15:12, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, it would be nice if he made his point at the beginning. I've known him to have one occasionally. — kwami (talk) 20:15, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
And reinstating his OR wording here: [10]. POV edit and inserting OR here: [11]. --JorisvS (talk) 09:38, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
With upmost civility.
editPlease, could you explain to me how you know I am goading him and that my edits have nothing to do with his writing.
I am asking you this because I believe that you, with all due respect, do not know my intentions in either case.
And if that is the case, I would like to know why you have chosen, so it seems to me by the tone of your argumentation, to have taken his side of this matter. Especially in the light of his responses to me.
Upon receiving your reply, I will not post on your page again.
I thank you in advance for your co-operation and await your reply.
Most sincerely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.26.45.111 (talk) 23:53, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Well, you didn't answer my questions, but you did tell me how you feel, which is fair enough. Thank you. You know, I don't contribute to Wikipedia to make friends. I could care less about those who run or contribute to Wikipedia. I don't mean to be mean spirited or insulting. Its just that when I do participate I find the environment hypocritical. People here go to great effort to control the content, but it seems nary an apparatchik bothers with style. Oh my dear Lord, a meal can be nutritious, but if its poorly prepared and unappetizing, no one will eat it (to make a somewhat strained analogy.) Hey, no insult, but I sort of felt you were a dick too ... coddling the clearly emotionally unstable editor (come on, did you see what he called me!) in the face of his sub-standard contributions. Hey, chacun à son goût.
Sorry, I lied and posted on your page again. It will be the last time.
Back to doing what I like to do. If it benefits Wikipedia too, well bully. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.26.45.111 (talk) 00:53, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
The Creolization of Vedda
editHi Kwami, There is no doubt that modern Vedda is a Creole as of today, but the original Vedda language has nothing to do with Sinhala, besides the Vedda substratum "reintroduced" by Sinhala. The Vedda people & their language predates Indo-Aryan presence in Sri Lanka by thousands of years. Genetic studies show that a good portion of modern Sri Lankans are populations that were isolated from mainland Sri Lanka by at least 20,000years, so the substratum was no coincidence.
If you have time please read this: The Creolization of an Aboriginal Language: The Case of Vedda in Sri Lanka (Ceylon) K. N. O. Dharmadasa Anthropological Linguistics Vol. 16, No. 2 (Feb., 1974), pp. 79-106 Published by: Trustees of Indiana University Article Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/30029514 Cadenas2008 (talk) 22:52, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
- But the original Vedda language is unattested, so we can't possibly say that it was an isolate. The article is about modern Vedda; if you want to add a section on Old Vedda, or create a separate article, fine, but we can't ref it as Modern Vedda and then claim it's Old Vedda. — kwami (talk) 22:56, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
Do we at least agree that the original Vedda language & the modern Creole are two diff things?
- Vedda language is the aboriginal language that is not Indo-European. Nor do we know what it is[12]
- Vedda Creole is a an Indo-Aryan Creole of the inlanders who didn't interact with Indo-Aryan settlers. The Indo-Aryans interacted with the urbanized Vedda population, the cultural infusion created the Sinhalese culture & language. The groups that didn't assimilate eventually Creolized around more than a Millennia later, I am not touching the article.
- Sinhalese 5th BC = East Indo-Aryan + Urban Vedda Substrata + Tamil Substrata
- Vedda Creole 10th AD = Sinhalese + Forrest Vedda substrata
My opinion there should be two separate articles, there is no reason to merge both of them! Especially that wikipedia is full of articles discussing aboriginal cultures & their languages. Just like Barababaraba language has an article Vedda gets one on its own also & the Creole another article (because they are not the same). Cadenas2008 (talk) 05:31, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
- Of course they're not the same thing, but this article discusses the creole, because that's the only Vedda language we know.
- A second article would be fine, IMO.
- We can't say it was not Indo-Euro, because we don't know that.
- We can't say it was an isolate, because we don't know that either.
- All we can say is that it's unattested and therefore unclassified.
- There are words in Sinhalese which have no cognates in other Indic, which have been claimed to be a Vedda substrate. However, we don't know that.
- It is assumed that the Vedda descend from the aboriginal hunter-gatherer population. However, we don't know that. (For all we know, the Vedda were Dravidian farmers who arrived in the 5th century, absorbing or displacing the indigenous Ceylonese, and were in turn either absorbed or displaced by the Sinhalese in the 10th, and those Vedda who were displaced from the arable areas adopted a foraging economy.)
- I think an article about what we do know would be very short. — kwami (talk) 05:35, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
Deep at the bottom of the substratum, the +35,000 old aboriginal population of Sri Lanka spoke their own native language, just the Andaman islands aboriginal population does today. Not a mystery to me at all, if we are to assume an Indo-European or Dravidian presence in Sri Lanka 35,000 years ago, then there is no point of starting the article Cadenas2008 (talk) 16:11, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
- That's not what I meant. But we have nothing to say about such a language, any more than we do the original language of Orissa or Kansas. There is the inferred pre-creole language of the Vedda, but we have no idea what it was or how long it may have been on the island. We can talk about that, and even have an article on it, but I would object to any claim that it's been there since a particular date. I don't think we'd have anything to say that we don't already say, though I might be wrong. — kwami (talk) 20:51, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
- I'd find such a page useful though, if only to make it clear that we don't know much/anything about it and what the various mainstream interpretations are. Having them both sort of on the same page is a bit like having Basque and Iberian on the same page. Akerbeltz (talk) 12:19, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
- What would we call it? "Old Vedda" means the creole. "Ancient Vedda", maybe? "Pre-Vedda"? I'm not aware of a name for it.
- Here are a few Vedda words which supposedly do not have Sinhalese cognates: tuta 'son', tuti 'daughter', kukka 'dog', kokka'monkey', dola 'pig', okma 'buffalo'. I wonder if tuta, tuti could be a corruption of putra, putri. — kwami (talk) 20:11, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
- What we're dealing with is very much like the non-Indo-European elements of Germanic--nothing can be said about them other than "They're not reconstructible to Proto-Indo-European". That doesn't even mean that they're not ultimately Indo-European, but if they are, there are no other surviving cognates in other branches. We simply can't even definitively say they are categorically not Indo-European, just that they are not reconstructible based on extant evidence from other branches. --Taivo (talk) 23:25, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
- Here are a few Vedda words which supposedly do not have Sinhalese cognates: tuta 'son', tuti 'daughter', kukka 'dog', kokka'monkey', dola 'pig', okma 'buffalo'. I wonder if tuta, tuti could be a corruption of putra, putri. — kwami (talk) 20:11, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
- There doesn't seem to be any agreed name indeed. I get a reasonable number of ghits on Scholar with "original Vedda language" but that's more descriptive than a name. But perhaps it might serve as a working title? It's not as if we never move pages on Wikipedia ;) Akerbeltz (talk) 23:42, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
- It is similar to pre-Germanic IMO. In both cases, you get a lot of assumptions about a prior language, but little that can be said with any certainty. An article on either topic would be more about modern perceptions of what might have been, than about the purported language itself. Not to say that we shouldn't have them, but they wouldn't really be language articles. — kwami (talk) 00:57, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Since you have edited the file King Sejong - from Commons.jpg, you might be interested in the deletion request: Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2012 May 12#File:King Sejong - from Commons.jpg. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:19, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
Faulty disambiguation revisions
editIn this revision to Adjectivals and demonyms for countries and nations on 14:26, 15 May 2012, the result is not an improvement, and a link to British people was not used. The history of the list suggests to me that there could be several other faulty disambiguation revisions. You might be better able than I to make the necessary corrections; otherwise, I will probably try to make them myself.
(Incidentally, I disagree with the tag saying that Wikipedia is not a dictionary, because already the article has introductory information in addition to a list of words.)
—Wavelength (talk) 16:06, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
- But it redirects to British, so it's not a big deal. The demonym column does rd to British people, as it should. I checked a few others, and they seemed okay to me. I don't understand the point of most of the links, frankly. I would simply not link the words, if we don't have a good article for them. IMO, linking "British" to a dab page that simply repeats that it's the adjectival form of Britain is a waste of the reader's time. — kwami (talk) 16:32, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you for your reply. I hope to analyze the entries in the future.
- —Wavelength (talk) 00:10, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
There's a Tamil nationalist pushing some silly "Telugu and all Dravidian languages are derived from Tamil" baloney at Telugu language. I've reverted him three times already today and he is just persisting. --Taivo (talk) 18:13, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
- I'm also keeping an eye on it. (btw. please don't call people like that what they are, it makes it more difficult for admins to handle the issue correctly)·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:22, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Hindi-Urdu language map
editHi. On the map File:Hindi-Urdu as an official language.png, Azad Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan ought to be in yellow since those territories are administered by Pakistan and Urdu is constitutionally the national language/lingua franca of the country. From what I understand, there are no other official languages in use in Azad Kashmir and Gilgit Baltistan, thus the brown shade (which I believe specifies "secondary provincial language") would be misleading. The way the areas are depicted in File:Urdu official-language areas.png is correct. Could you please make the necessary changes and correct the map? Thanks, Mar4d (talk) 08:12, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
- Hi. Our Azad article has a ref "Urdu declared official language of Azad Kashmir" (Pakistan Times, 21 August 2005), though the link is now dead. I don't remember where I got the Gilgit–Baltistan info, but we make the same claim in the infobox of that article. Are our articles wrong? — kwami (talk) 17:32, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
Badimaya Language
editHi Kwami, on the Badimaya language page you have a family tree structure in the infobox that suggests that Badimaya is part of a 'Watjarri' group, within the Kartu group, was that your intent? Dougg (talk) 08:27, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, that's what Dixon has. Do you know of a better classification? — kwami (talk) 08:32, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
- Does he? In his 2002 volume I expect? I didn't know, I don't think anyone takes his classifications very seriously. But it's in print so I suppose it has WP validity. I'll go and check it out and think about what to do.
- Yes, it is. I've been creating articles for all Australian languages, going through Dixon 2002, since the other sources I have access to are so piecemeal that I'd have to rely on largely Ethnologue otherwise, and I don't know what their sources are. I figure Dixon is so reticent to accept a family that if he does it's probably pretty obvious, but perhaps not.
- Ngarluwangka/Ngarlawangka: there are so many spelling variants with these languages that this probably doesn't mean anything.
- Where you could really help, beside here if you want to, is a respected classification for the top of Pama-Nyungan. Karnic languages and Kulin languages need cleaning up too (+ duplicates in Northeast Pama–Nyungan languages). Also, do you know if Yugambal (dialect: Ngarrabul/Ngarrbal) and Yugumbir are different languages? What about Mirning and Ngadjunmaya/Kalaaku? Other than that, all of Australian should hopefully be finished, apart from 3 questionably classified langs at Ngayarda, the eternal questions of language vs dialect, and extinct nearly unclassifiable languages that we haven't covered. And, of course, periodically changing everything with better sources. — kwami (talk) 09:00, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
- Ok. I've no idea where Dixon gets 'Ngarluwangka' from, I'm pretty sure I've never seen that spelling before.
- I'm afraid I simply don't have time to do the things you suggest, though they would be very worthwhile. I'll try to find the time to improve the southern WA info though, as that's my area of expertise. Unfortunately there's not a lot published (yet). Dougg (talk)
- That would be good! Every bit helps.
- I'll change the spelling. — kwami (talk) 15:10, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
4RR
editYou're at 4RR at Secular Islam Summit with 4 reverts in the past hour. I strongly recommend that you revert yourself; you are an experienced user and are unlikely to avoid sanction for behavior that you know by now is against WP policy. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:12, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
- Reverting your revert is not 4RR. — kwami (talk) 05:19, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
- Reverting four separate times is 4RR. Reverting means undoing the effects of one or more edits. 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 = 4. What about this is unclear to you? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:20, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
- I was in the middle of editing the article when you started reverting me. If I save four times while editing, that is not four reverts. — kwami (talk) 05:23, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
- You made five (now) separate edits that undid other editors' work. EWN is historically not very lenient with experienced users who make excuses about their edit-warring, and I don't see why they will treat this case differently. 5 reverts in the past hour and a half. Not looking good. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:01, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
- Whether I revert 5 things all at once or one after another is immaterial. 3RR does not consider the number of things being reverted, it's about two people reverting each other repeatedly. If I made the same reverts in a sandbox and then posted them all at once, would you say that violates 3RR? — kwami (talk) 06:03, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
- Probably not, but you didn't; you made them separately. No use talking in hypotheticals. You know quite well that a 3RR violation isn't only 4+ reverts of the same edit. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:41, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
- Whether I revert 5 things all at once or one after another is immaterial. 3RR does not consider the number of things being reverted, it's about two people reverting each other repeatedly. If I made the same reverts in a sandbox and then posted them all at once, would you say that violates 3RR? — kwami (talk) 06:03, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
You previously blocked this user for edit warring. They still haven't figured out how to use talkpages, and have never actually used one, despite the fact that I explicitly noted they had to on their talkpage. I'm not asking you to reblock them, but perhaps if you informed them of the same thing, they'd take it a bit more seriously. If they don't, then I guess there's little hope. CMD (talk) 16:08, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
Talk pages
editAt least one of your recent moves has broken the association of a talk page with its article: Talk:Voiced uvular plosive. I don't have the time right now to look if there are others. --JorisvS (talk) 22:37, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
- The server kept crashing. I wonder if that was it. There was nothing to stop the move, as far as I can see. I'll take a look at the others. — kwami (talk) 22:39, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
It's a shame how you being an admin keep edit warring and bossing over articles across Wikipedia. The page was moved to Tulu per this. You being an admin does not give you the sole right to move pages without a discussion. — Abhishek Talk 14:25, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
- Were the people involved aware of WP:NCLANG? I know from personal experience that the policy laid out there was formed from discussion involving more than three people. — Ƶ§œš¹ [ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ] 15:53, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
- How is a single edit "keeps edit warring"?
- I was not aware of the discussion. However, the article occupying "Tulu" was not the primary use, and thus inappropriate. The word "language" may be dropped when what remains still refers to the language, but that was not the case here, as "Tulu" would just as often mean the people.
- — kwami (talk) 21:49, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
- Actually, wouldn't Tuluva also have to be moved per WP:NCLANG, just like the article about the Tswana people is not found at Batswana? --JorisvS (talk) 14:00, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
- Yes. I was waiting to see if there would be a reply. I'll go ahead and move it now. — kwami (talk) 18:18, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
- I just found out we have the same situation with Kannada and Kannadiga. And now I'm looking for them: Malayalam and Malayali, Kodava language but Kodava, Koraga language, but Koraga, Kui language (India) and Kuvi language but Khonds, Muria language and Muria people but no dab page at Muria (but instead about a village). --JorisvS (talk) 09:32, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
- Kui and Kuvi are the same name (Kuwi), but considered distinct languages. I'm not sure we can do a one-to-one match up of language and people, but let me know if you have any suggestions. The others I'm looking into. — kwami (talk) 09:40, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
- For Kannada, the English and native forms are comparable in frequency, so I moved the articles. However, there is a huge disparity for Malayalam. That might be a case where we need to defer to COMMONNAME. You might want to look into it further. — kwami (talk) 10:00, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
- The dab page for Kannada is still at Kannada (disambiguation). --JorisvS (talk) 13:54, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
- I just found out we have the same situation with Kannada and Kannadiga. And now I'm looking for them: Malayalam and Malayali, Kodava language but Kodava, Koraga language, but Koraga, Kui language (India) and Kuvi language but Khonds, Muria language and Muria people but no dab page at Muria (but instead about a village). --JorisvS (talk) 09:32, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
- Yes. I was waiting to see if there would be a reply. I'll go ahead and move it now. — kwami (talk) 18:18, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Hey, wait a sec, Abhishek. You're the one who keeps falsely presenting Indian languages as English! — kwami (talk) 07:30, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Death penalty in Mexico?
editHi, I think you meant to post this somewhere else :) Regards Hekerui (talk) 06:08, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
- No, I meant it there. I was suggesting it as a solution to the dispute over whether to add Quintana to the map. — kwami (talk) 06:50, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
IP doesn't know who he is
editHello! The latest edit by this person suggests an unusual degree of confusion, possibly so great as to preclude constructive editing of Wikipedia for a longer period than three months, though I may not be the most impartial judge of this. (Tip of the hat to User:Closedmouth for tipping me off.) -- Hoary (talk) 13:39, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
- Reverted and blocked their access to their talk page. — kwami (talk) 06:27, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Nomination of Hehe language for deletion
edit
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Hehe language is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hehe language until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Mjs1991 (talk) 13:59, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Continued abuse by anonymous editor: 70.26.45.111
editPlease see recent activity in Ben's Deli article...:
1. (cur | prev) 21:55, 22 May 2012 70.26.45.111 (talk) . . (9,290 bytes) (-9) . . (Undid revision 493877499 by Apple2gs (talk)) (undo) 2. (cur | prev) 21:55, 22 May 2012 70.26.45.111 (talk) . . (9,299 bytes) (-687) . . (Undid revision 493877186 by Apple2gs (talk)) (undo) 3. (cur | prev) 21:54, 22 May 2012 70.26.45.111 (talk) . . (9,986 bytes) (-43) . . (Undid revision 493874183 by Apple2gs (talk)) (undo)
This is yet more examples of reverting (blanking out) my edits without any explanation whatsoever in the Edit Summary, and ignoring my discussion in the Talk section of the article. I don't wish to get pulled into another edit war when he/she is obviously trying to bate me. This anonymous editor has been sufficiently warned (see user's Talk page for details: [13]) yet doesn't seem interested in anything but continuing to cause mischief and harassment. I believe an IP block is warranted, particularly since this has been ongoing for 4 and a half years now. Felt I should seek your assistance before going any further with this. --Apple2gs (talk) 23:14, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
- You're in a content dispute, which you should probably try to resolve through WP:dispute resolution. But meanwhile he is being a dick again, so I reverted. — kwami (talk) 08:14, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
Convert superscripts
editI see you've changed the superscripts on some of the convert subtemplates back to the prefab versions that had been in place originally. You wrote "per mm" but I'm not sure what "mm" means. For a long time I had argued for these prefab superscripts but eventually I was convinced that using <sup> was better. I guess the most obvious place where these prefabs look out of place is where we use scientific notation e.g. "500,000,000 square miles (1.3×109 km2)". JIMp talk·cont 11:59, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
- I saw that cm were formatted differently that mm, so changed them to match, and then did the rest. Yes, it does look odd with SN. We should probably reduce the size of the superscript in those; that would bring them a bit more in line. — kwami (talk) 19:19, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
- Oh, I must have over looked square millimetres (easy to miss something so small I guess). I'm not sure that we could so easily reduce the SN superscripts since the only prefabs I can find in the edit box are for 2 & 3 (we'd need another 8 digits plus a minus sign). Using <sup><small> is no good as it gives us illegible specks for superscripts. (e.g. 109 m²). JIMp talk·cont 01:17, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
- That's what I was thinking. They're legible on my browser.
- There are prefab digits, as well as +/− and parentheses, if we want to go that route: 10⁻³, 10⁺⁶ 10⁹, 10¹², 10⁴⁵⁷⁸⁼⁽ⁿ⁾. I can add them to the edit box, though presumably there would be no need if they were handled by the template. — kwami (talk) 01:22, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
- That would mean extra processing to convert a number (input as a parameter or calculated using
{{#expr}}) into a string of prefab digits. We could go that route but unless we can convince Wikipedians in general that this is the way to go, convert will be out of sync with everything else (e.g. {{val}}, WP:MOSNUM#Unit symbols, Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Superscripts and subscripts). JIMp talk·cont 11:05, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
- That would mean extra processing to convert a number (input as a parameter or calculated using
- Maybe we should just go with full-size raised digits rather than superscripts, then. — kwami (talk) 11:14, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
- Too tired to look into it right now, but I wonder how they stacked the digits in {{Nuclide2}}. I didn't know you could do that. — kwami (talk) 11:15, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Reverted myself, and changed mm too, per the MOS. — kwami (talk) 20:05, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Language classification
editHi, I want to ask you. Why language classification in Wikipedia differs with Ethnologue? For example is Acehnese language.
- Wikipedia: Austronesian, Malayo-Polynesian, Nuclear MP, Malayo-Sumbawan, Chamic, Acehnese (check)
- Ethnologue: Austronesian, Malayo-Polynesian, Malayo-Sumbawan, North and East, Chamic (check)
Thank you -- Si Gam (talk) 13:54, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
- Because Ethnologue is a 3ary source and therefore not preferred. Where we have a better source, we go with that; we only follow E when we have nothing more reliable to go on. That said, the organizing source for Austronesian (the 2008 lexicostatistical study) isn't very good, and needs to be replaced. It's on my to-do list, so if you can help, it would be appreciated. — kwami (talk) 19:16, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
- So, what is the reference in language classification used here? -- Si Gam (talk) 17:04, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
- Go up the family tree. The refs should be there for each node. Chamic: Thurgood. Malayo-Sumbawan: Adelaar. Nuclear MP: Wouk & Ross.
- Oh, I removed the E16 classification from Chamic. It's unreferenced, likely to contain errors, and looks like it's just Thurgood anyway.
- (As for the errors: The Ethnologue trees are computer-generated. They are not reviewed by human eyes, and they contain numerous errors. Every times someone uses a different spelling in a language entry, it produces an error in the tree, so the result may not be faithful to the ref that Ethnologue is using—which we can't check, because they don't list their sources. It looks in this case that they're using Thurgood, so better for us to just use Thurgood directly.) — kwami (talk) 18:58, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Glossary of contract bridge
editHi, Today i visited Template talk: Anchor for another reason --or maybe not a distinct reason; see my two inquiries.
I noticed your report of a problem with span tags at Glossary of contract bridge terms, where I am one of the most frequent editors. (none very frequent; page relatively static; Glossary format established years ago) What is the problem? or a link to cogent discussion?
I am the author of {{gcb}} for convenient wikilinks to Glossary entries. It is not yet heavily used. I will use it heavily before the 2013 world championships (a target date for improving more than w.c. articles), probably not heavily during year 2012. --P64 (talk) 23:03, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
- I do not understand the details, but it would appear that we have no good way of linking to sections within an article. The best way is to put an anchor within the heading, though that is a pain for editors because it screws up the edit summaries and breaks the links in the article history.
- Because your glossary does not expect links to sections, but to entries within the sections, AFAIK there is no problem. — kwami (talk) 23:12, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks --P64 (talk) 20:36, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Bengali speakers
editHi,
I tried to calculate the total number of native speakers of Bengali speakers in 2011 from the 2011 Indian and Bangladesh censuses and the percentage of the population of Bangladesh and West Bengal whose first language is Bengali. In the 2001 figure, Bangladesh's population has to be reduced to 98%. But a much more accurate and informative figure can be gotten by using the 2011 census, since the population of the entire region changed by about 14% in the decade. I made a mistake in the calculation note by typing 2011 instead of 2001. But I think it was obvious though that it was a mistake. I think another million should be added for the large number of native speakers of Bengali in other parts of India like Delhi, in Singapore, UK, USA, and other parts of the world. In total, they shouldn't be less that 1 million, maybe more though.
The Bengali page of Ethnologue [14] mentioned 250 million including second language speakers, likely based on the 2001 India and Bangladesh censuses, which I used for total speakers of the language. Maybe that should be the first of the two web pages in the same reference.
I'm going to change back the population figures and the references, with 1 million added to the native speakers, and 250 million for total speakers, with 2001 noted, and only the 2011 figure for native speakers in the article, since based on the 2001 native and total speakers, there's a significant number (53 million in 2001) of second language speakers. I don't know who they are though, maybe people in Assam speak Bengali as a second language, the only thing I can think of, but I can't see any reason why they'll need to learn it. Coming back to the article, it'll be awkward and confusing if not misleading for many if not most readers, who wouldn't be aware of the 2001 figure for native speakers, to use a 2011 figure for native speakers as 229 million and a 2001 figure for total speakers as 250 million. Certainly, the difference was greater in 2011 than the 53 million in 2001. So I think until a figure is published or can be calculated for the total speakers in 2011, it'll be better to keep the 2001 figure just in the infobox, with a note to change it when a 2011 figure is published (I can't see any way to calculate it, figures of second languages of people probably aren't taken, let alone published separately).
I don't like the deleting of a whole, and a significant, contribution for a typing mistake and not referring to the second web page of a reference though. One has to be more diligent, even if in busy editing, even if it means making less edits, otherwise reverting meaningful contributions doesn't help articles.
Happy editing!
--Fmqtr3754 (talk) 04:24, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
- We shouldn't just guess at numbers, like you say you're going to. You can probably get a good enough approximation from Ethnologue.
- Do you have a link for the 2011 census? The reason I reverted wasn't the typo, but the fact that the ref you linked to *was* the 2001 census. — kwami (talk) 04:26, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
- Ya, the links for the 2011 censuses were in the first reference. Check back now. Maybe we can leave out the 1 million for Bengali speakers outside of northeast India and Bangladesh, as there's no official number, at least I'm aware of, and calculating will take some serious research. But it's not a total guess, as it is large, as it includes the Bengali speaking population in India's capital (I read its a large number and expected as there's no hindrance to migration), and the also the large numbers of immigrant populations in other parts of the world. --Fmqtr3754 (talk) 04:53, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
- Also, do you know how to make the graphics for the "Pages from the Charyapada" smaller? I tried it without success. It shouldn't take that much horizontal space in the article. Maybe you can try some way to specify the width. --Fmqtr3754 (talk) 04:59, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
- Delhi is already included in the Indian census.
- There is not Indian census at that link, and the Bengali census does not talk about language. Let's wait until the actual census data comes out, rather than guessing *if* Ethnologue did this, then we can assume that, which would suggest this other ... OR, for no particular point. Yes, the population has grown in 10 years, but we do give the date of the pop figure, so that is a ref'd, dated figure. — kwami (talk) 05:25, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
Tropical plants
editHello, How are you? I need your help. I thank you your help in the articles and I hope you help me again in future. I ask you: Can you find more people willing writing in tropical trees, genera and families? I ask you if you could enlarge some articles making better known this group of trees in Wikipedia, adding links to genera and families and writing information and asking people if they are interested in writing about topics as tropical trees articles, tropical forest articles or botanical or biodiversity articles. Do you know Wikipedia forums that could be interested about these type of articles? They are welcome too. I thank you very much.
I am from Spain and my mother language is not English language. Many country side areas, and Natural areas and Living beings are in Countries where population cannot collaborate with Wikipedia, but their Natural World and its highly economically valuable species are very important too in the human knowledge and developtment of the mankind. People should have information because these matters are important, not just a curiosity only. This unknow world is from Poles to ecuator, in unoccupied oceanic areas closely to Europe, in Deserts as Sahara, or whatever. But to me the main aim is to gather the abundant information disperse about living communities and living beings that have existed for millions of years because they are disappearing and in 20 years they will are not longer exist. Curritocurrito (talk) 11:57, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
File:World homosexuality laws alt.svg
editThat map is absurd. Fo example, Colombia and Ecuador have different colours, depsite that both countries have similar laws. There are other several concerns. You should read User:Ronline's post on Template talk:World homosexuality laws map. The ILGA report is far from ideal. Ron 1987 (talk) 10:00, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
- That's what our sources say. It's a relevant distinction for the topic. Perhaps you have better sources? — kwami (talk) 19:28, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
JovanAndreano on WP:ANI
editHello.
This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved : Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#JovanAndreano : user making OR edits everywhere
Thank you.
Ambisyllabicity and /r/
editI don't think the claim is that /r/ does not occur syllable-finally for any conception of "syllable", but that it only occurs before vowels. That is, it does not occur in pausa or before other consonants. That may be simplified by stating that it does not occur at the end of a syllable (under a schematic /CV.CV/ conception), but AFAIK it's not actually a claim that the /r/ in hurry cannot be a coda. Well, maybe some people do, but it's not considered incompatible in what I've seen.
- Well, certainly in rhotic accents, /r/ is a perfectly OK coda consonant. In non-rhotic accents, I think it is valid to say both that in terms of its distribution, /r/ only occurs before vowels, and that in terms of its role in syllable structure, it is not one of the normally-occurring codas. Would you suggest I rewrite the relevant bit to make this more explicit?
Also, do people still talk about ambisyllabicity? It was s.t. I'd learned, but I thought it had since been largely abandoned.
- I have never been keen on the ambisyllabicity argument myself, but I feel it's right to give it a mention in the interests of covering all the points. Being retired, I'm not up to date on developments in the subject the way I used to be, but quite a few text-books published relatively recently give some space to it, e.g. Ladefoged's Course, 5th. ed., 2006; McCully 'The Sound Structure of English', 2009; Giegerich 'English Phonology' (I have the 1992 edition, but I believe the relevant bit is unchanged in the second edition around 2004); Lodge 'A Critical Introduction to Phonetics', 2009. I think I ought to cite one or two of these in what I have written. RoachPeter (talk) 10:55, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I do think that all the Ta'Oi languages/dialects should be merged into one article. Sidwell (2005) describes 4 divisions for the Katuic languages. 1 branch is West Katuic consisting of Bru and Kuy (each with many dialects); the other 3 branches have 1 language/macrolanguage each, with none of the varieties being treated as completely separate languages. Katu (Low Katu, Laos) and Phuong (High Katu, Vietnam) should be merged into Katu, since only Costello had come up that bipartition; Sidwell describes a lot of dialects under a "Katu" section. — Stevey7788 (talk) 04:48, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
- Plus, I just got the Naro dictionary. Any suggestions for what would be good to put up? — Stevey7788 (talk) 04:50, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
- It's probably the same as Phóng, but we'd have to check more sources. These languages/dialects are still poorly documented and not sorted out. — Stevey7788 (talk) 08:03, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
- Actually, Enfield & Diffloth say that "the Kri and Phoongq languages are mutually intelligible - that is, they may be regarded as dialects of a single language." So we can go ahead an add Phoongq as a dialect of Kri. The Kri described would be Kri proper. — Stevey7788 (talk) 08:10, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
"barrier" to "wall"
editWhy did you change "barrier route" to "wall" here?—Biosketch (talk) 08:56, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
- No particular reason. I was updating the description to go with the updated map. — kwami (talk) 09:06, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
- The map, much like the article, is called "Westbank_barrier.jpg," and nothing on it says "wall." "Barrier" is the NPOV convention.—Biosketch (talk) 09:13, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
- Kwami was right. Wall. -DePiep (talk) 23:37, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
- Well, whichever term has been settled on in the article. I have no idea about the history. — kwami (talk) 04:20, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
- The term that's been settled on in the article is "barrier." That this is so could not be clearer than that the name of the article is "barrier" and not "wall." Furthermore, contrary to what's being claimed above, there's no indication in the map itself that "wall" is the convention, nor does the caption cite a source that calls the barrier a "wall." There is, in short, no reason that accords with WP:NPOV to have changed the text from the correct "barrier" to the incorrect and POV "wall" and therefore no valid justification for having made the change. I've restored the language to what the long-term consensus has been. User:Kwamikagami is advised to ensure that his edits in the Israel/Palestine topic area conform to the remedies and restrictions laid out at Template:ARBPIA and Template:Palestine-Israel enforcement.—Biosketch (talk) 06:21, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
- Oh, give it a rest. Change it to whatever term's been agreed on. No-one's opposing you. — kwami (talk) 06:40, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
- That's another obvious misrepresentation of the facts: [15]. And had you not opposed the caption's original NPOV language, you had only to change it back yourself instead of misleadingly arguing that the map was what motivated the change in terminology. In reality the map did no such thing.—Biosketch (talk) 07:06, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
- Oh, give it a rest. Change it to whatever term's been agreed on. No-one's opposing you. — kwami (talk) 06:40, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
- The term that's been settled on in the article is "barrier." That this is so could not be clearer than that the name of the article is "barrier" and not "wall." Furthermore, contrary to what's being claimed above, there's no indication in the map itself that "wall" is the convention, nor does the caption cite a source that calls the barrier a "wall." There is, in short, no reason that accords with WP:NPOV to have changed the text from the correct "barrier" to the incorrect and POV "wall" and therefore no valid justification for having made the change. I've restored the language to what the long-term consensus has been. User:Kwamikagami is advised to ensure that his edits in the Israel/Palestine topic area conform to the remedies and restrictions laid out at Template:ARBPIA and Template:Palestine-Israel enforcement.—Biosketch (talk) 06:21, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
- The map, much like the article, is called "Westbank_barrier.jpg," and nothing on it says "wall." "Barrier" is the NPOV convention.—Biosketch (talk) 09:13, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
- I didn't oppose anything, and I didn't argue anything. I merely reworded the caption because I had changed an inaccurate map (showing an non-existent barrier in many places) and the wording needed to be changed accordingly. If I made a bad choice in rewording it, you were perfectly free to correct it. You never got an argument from me: When DePiep said it should be "Wall", I contradicted him. And when you did change it, I didn't contradict you. And frankly, if you're so concerned about the barrier being made to look more than it is, I don't know why you didn't do the responsible thing and correct the map years ago. — kwami (talk) 15:18, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
- The only thing that's of concern here is WP:NPOV, and it's especially vital to uphold in the topic area to which the barrier article belongs. Replacing an inaccurate map with one that's accurate is good. Replacing NPOV wording with wording that's not NPOV isn't acceptable. What's still confusing is the part in the comment above that says, "the wording needed to be changed accordingly." According to what did the wording need to be changed to "wall"?—Biosketch (talk) 19:52, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
- If it's not obvious, the map had a red line for the barrier, whether or not it actually existed. I changed it to red for a barrier which actually exists, and pink for other. The wording of the lead needed to be changed to accommodate. Now, if I did a poor job at rewording, then fix it! rather than whining about it on my talk page. And since you did fix it, and I made no objections, the problem is solved. So why are you carrying on about it? You're obsessing over a non-issue. — kwami (talk) 19:58, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
- The only thing that's of concern here is WP:NPOV, and it's especially vital to uphold in the topic area to which the barrier article belongs. Replacing an inaccurate map with one that's accurate is good. Replacing NPOV wording with wording that's not NPOV isn't acceptable. What's still confusing is the part in the comment above that says, "the wording needed to be changed accordingly." According to what did the wording need to be changed to "wall"?—Biosketch (talk) 19:52, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
- I didn't oppose anything, and I didn't argue anything. I merely reworded the caption because I had changed an inaccurate map (showing an non-existent barrier in many places) and the wording needed to be changed accordingly. If I made a bad choice in rewording it, you were perfectly free to correct it. You never got an argument from me: When DePiep said it should be "Wall", I contradicted him. And when you did change it, I didn't contradict you. And frankly, if you're so concerned about the barrier being made to look more than it is, I don't know why you didn't do the responsible thing and correct the map years ago. — kwami (talk) 15:18, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
T
editThank you for taking care. I could not predict. -DePiep (talk) 23:14, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
List of names in English with counterintuitive pronunciations
editHi Kwamikagami! You beat me to it; I was just telling Deflective that I was going to undo his bot's work and find that you've just done it! SiGarb | (Talk) 20:53, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
- (Interestingly, I noticed that in the revert edit windows, the bot worked perfectly, right to the foot of the article!) SiGarb | (Talk) 20:55, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
- There's a limit on the number of calls (or whatever they're called) that WP allows in articles. Evidently the edit window isn't subject to it. — kwami (talk) 21:01, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
edit
|
The Original Barnstar |
| thank for contributing us... Liansanga (talk) 00:23, 8 June 2012 (UTC) |
- Thanks! — kwami (talk) 00:49, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
AN notice
editHello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Dale Chock at Russian phonology. Thank you. — Ƶ§œš¹ [ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ] 03:09, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
Wikimedia Ghana wants you on board
editDo you know that there's actually some few people, including myself, trying to establish[Wikimedia Ghana]?
Since you are Ghanaian, and an excellent contributor to the wikis, you're well qualified to be part of the Wikimedia Ghana. The official email of the Wikimedia Ghana is wikimedia@gmail.com
Please get in touch with us soon as we are currently in need of determined and dedicated editors like you!
Nkansahrexford (talk) 22:15, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
- Hi,
- Actually, I'm not Ghanaian, I just have an Akan user name—and even that's not from Ghana, but from Benin!
- If you have a specific topic in mind, please let me know, but mostly I stick to languages and a few other topics I'm interested in. — kwami (talk) 01:15, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
AN/I
editHello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. The thread is here, although in recent moments it was not displaying where I would expect it to. Dale Chock (talk) 02:29, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
perth
editPlease stop changing Perth and associated pages as the admin who closed the discussion has indicated otherwise. Gnangarra 03:15, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
- (a) "stopping" requires that I be doing, which means more than once, and it was just once
- (b) I don't see where the closing admin changed his mind, and you didn't provide a link
- — kwami (talk) 03:30, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
- Gnangarra has now re-re-reverted you. I believe he has done so with a deceptive edit summary.
- At WP:ANI#Perth, Gnangarra had posted "The last comment by J on the matter indicates that he also question his decision."[16]. I believe that was nothing more than wishful thinking on his part, but the discussion there was closed by admin soon after, before I could reply to it.
- He has now re-re-reverted your original closure with the edit summary "as per discussion at closing admin talk page reversing closure to prior status quo" [17] and "reversed rm as per discussion with closing admin" [18], which seems outright deceptive in that it implies that some agreement involving more than one person was reached on that talk page. I see nothing of the sort, JHunterJ did not acquiesce to being reversed. — P.T. Aufrette (talk) 08:02, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
- JHunter said "too late to rever[t]" because s.o. already had. You'll have to ask him whether he objects. — kwami (talk) 08:22, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
- I was complaining about Gnangarra's wheel-warring conduct, which per WP:WHEELWAR is defined as reverting another admin without discussion. The point is, Gnangarra simply invented the existence of a discussion in his edit summary, seemingly in order to deceptively escape sanction for what would otherwise be clearcut wheel-warring. I wasn't asking you to add fuel to the fire and wheel-war in turn. Sorry for taking it to your talk page, I guess I was just sputtering in indignation in the wrong place.
- As for JHunterJ he seems to have simply thrown up his hands after the fact, and hasn't posted at all today other than to ask people not to make his talk page the forum for a multi-user discussion. But in any case this isn't really about the original proposed move anymore, it's about Gnangarra's conduct. I may do an RfC, but will think it over for a day or two. — P.T. Aufrette (talk) 14:43, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Confused by your edits
editHi Kwami, I notice you have edited Roog (Serer deity). I'm somewhat confused by your edits in the lead. Would you please check it again? Thanks. I also see that you have removed a huge chunk from the etymology section. Was it about the reference to Ra in the diagram? Gravrand is a reliable source and a scholar on the subject. But anyway, I have no problem with your edits in that section. If you wanted I could have even removed Ra from the diagram. You will notice that I didn't even mention him in the body of the article apart from the diagram. As you can see, when I added links to other articles e.g. Sandawe people and Faro (mythology), I did not even go to Ra. I am a Serer traditionalist and do not find the need to affiliate with Egypt. I am very happy with my Serer heritage. I think you know that anyway, atleast by now. I was only reporting what the sources say. I would have removed Ra from the diagram if you wanted me to. I hope you don't take offence, it was not meant that way. Anyway, thank you very much for your edits in Roog. Would you be so kind to check the lead again? Thanks.Tamsier (talk) 04:31, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
- Hi Tamsier,
- Yes, it's nice to meet someone who doesn't need to trace their ancestry to Egypt to feel legitimized. That really annoys me!
- Gravrand may be an expert in comparative religion, but he's not an expert in linguistics. A person only counts as a reliable source in their field of expertise. His linguistic musings are amateurish; usually people who make such claims are called 'crackpots'. Unless the Serer borrowed their word for 'sky' from the Sandawe, or the Sandawe borrowed the Serer word for 'sky' and used it as their name for God, his idea doesn't work. The same goes for the Egyptian connection. And if there were such connections, we'd need more evidence to substantiate it. As it is, I could make just as good an argument that Koox is from the Hebrew YHWH. Better yet, that Roog comes from the English word "God"! (You just need a little metathesis. /d/ becomes /r/ all the time.)
- As for the lead, it was mostly just clean-up. The prose was awkward and seemed a bit scrambled. The only thing of substance I see that I removed was the appellation Roog Sene, but that is covered further down, and AFAIK is not a name used in English. What were you confused by?
- — kwami (talk) 04:50, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for fixing the grammar.Tamsier (talk) 09:00, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
RfArb
editYou are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Perth wheel war and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
Thanks, — P.T. Aufrette (talk) 03:29, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
I have not yet finished drafting a statement, but wanted to give you a heads up as soon as possible. — P.T. Aufrette (talk) 03:29, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
- Sometime after your made your post to the RfArb page, it occurred to me to check whether some involved parties had participated in the requested move survey, and I did add that information to the timeline of events. Just wanted to let you know that my original statement had been modified after you made your statement. — P.T. Aufrette (talk) 15:24, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Move review for Perth, Western Australia
editI have asked for a Move review of Perth, Western Australia. Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:50, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Perth RFAR opened
editAn arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Perth. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Perth/Evidence. Please add your evidence by June 28, 2012, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Perth/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Lord Roem (talk) 17:58, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
more IPA
editI started up again, so if you don't mind "checking my work", so far I did Adherer and Afanc (Dungeons & Dragons) and will do more soon. Thanks! 129.33.19.254 (talk) 14:12, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
- Did three more: Algoid, Ascomoid, and Booka (Dungeons & Dragons) - have a great weekend, and thanks! :) 129.33.19.254 (talk) 00:32, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
Q re: recent change to Japanese phonology#Vowels
editHello Kwami, long time no write --
An infrequent editor of the EN WT earlier today started altering the IPA of a number of entries, and the changes to some Japanese entries showed up on my Watchlist over there. Tracking back where this user's changes might have come from, I found this edit you made to the Japanese phonology page, about which I have a couple questions for you.
- To my ear, the Japanese /a/ sounds more like [a] as given at IPA_vowel_chart_with_audio; the Japanese phonology#Vowels section formerly gave this as [a̠], and given my understanding of Relative_articulation#Raised_and_lowered, I think the diacritic would be correct. However, this is now changed to [ä]. What prompted this change?
- Does your edit to the phonetic IPA for /u/ mean that there is now a proper diacritic for compression? If so, should we be replacing [u͍] with [ɯᵝ]? I noticed a while back that the KO WT uses [ɯ] for the Japanese /u/, but the Japanese phonology#Vowels section explicitly notes that this is incorrect, and [ɯ] certainly doesn't sound like Japanese /u/ as presented at IPA_vowel_chart_with_audio. The [u] audio doesn't sound like Japanese /u/ either, but it's closer, and with the diacritic, it should be even closer, so I've been using [u͍] in EN WT entries. I'm happy to change that out if the provisional [u͍] rendering is now supposed to be [ɯᵝ] instead.
- If you feel up to it, could you update the table at International_Phonetic_Alphabet#Diacritics?
Thank you, -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 16:16, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
- Hi Eiríkr,
- ⟨a̠⟩ and ⟨ä⟩: the under-minus means retracted, and the umlaut means centralized; for front vowels, they are essentially the same thing. (Similarly, ⟨ɑ̟⟩ is equivalent to ⟨ɑ̈⟩.) From what I've seen, the umlaut is generally used where applicable, and the others where the umlaut wouldn't work, like an advanced central or front vowel, or a retracted central or back vowel.
- ⟨u͍⟩ means [u] with "labial spreading". That could perhaps be interpreted as [ɯ], and in any case the diacritic is part of ExtIPA, not IPA proper.
- There is no official diacritic for compression vs protrusion. However, any IPA letter can be made into a diacritic to indicate that the base sound has characteristics of the diacritic, like ⟨ᶣ⟩ for labio-palatalized, which is common enough to have Unicode encoding despite not being included in the official IPA chart. (The chart only includes the dedicated diacritics and the most common superscript letters.) The Swedish compressed vowel /ʉ̟/ has a β-like offglide in some environments, so [ʏᵝ] is an obvious transcription for it, and Japanese /u/ has the same kind of compression, as demonstrated by the fact that /h/ before /u/ is pronounced [ɸ]. The only problem with that transcription is that it might be confused for an off-glide, but that's a problem throughout the IPA, for example with ambiguous ⟨kʷ⟩ and ⟨tʲ⟩ for obsolete ⟨k̫⟩ and ⟨ƫ⟩. ([kʷ] may actually have a labialized on-glide.)
- — kwami (talk) 17:06, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you for the explanation.
- Listening to the audio at IPA_vowel_chart_with_audio, and reading through Relative_articulation#Advanced_and_retracted, I had interpreted the [a̠] as being halfway between the [a] and [ä]; reading around elsewhere, I think my misinterpretation was partly due to my own ears -- the IPA_vowel_chart_with_audio pronunciation for [a] sounds slightly different from the Japanese /a/ that I hear around me, but I suppose that might just be me, or at any rate that it's not enough of a difference to matter.
- I'm more confused about the change in notation from [u͍] to [ɯᵝ]. If superscript β introduces ambiguity about a possible glide, yet the subscript for labial spreading/compression does not, then wouldn't the unambiguous symbol be preferable? Additionally, the audio given for [ɯ] is decidedly not the Japanese /u/ sound. And lastly, the last sentence of the IPA#Vowels_2 section states that:
|
The only known vowels that cannot be represented in this scheme are vowels with unexpected roundedness, which would require a dedicated diacritic, such as ⟨ʏʷ⟩ and ⟨uᵝ⟩ (or ⟨ɪʷ⟩ and ⟨ɯᵝ⟩). |
- The Japanese /u/ is not rounded, but rather compressed, as described also over at Rounded_vowel#Types_of_rounding. In light of this and the above quote, ɯᵝ seems like maybe not the best fit.
- Would you be opposed to using a different notation instead of ɯᵝ, or including [u͍] as an alternate? I ask as I've added many IPA transcriptions to Japanese entries at EN WT using [u͍], so I'd like to have this nailed down one way or the other before plunging in and changing things.
- (PS: The IPA fonts on WP don't look as good as the ones on WT.)
- -- TIA, Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 22:10, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
- The recordings we have might be inaccurate. Either ⟨a̠⟩ or ⟨ä⟩ could be central, or anywhere between front and central. According to our vowel chart, Japanese /a/ is central, but our chart might be inaccurate too.
- "the subscript for labial spreading/compression" – there is no subscript for compression, only for spreading, which AFAIK is not the same thing. We'd need a precise definition to be sure, but since it was created for speech pathology, I'm not sure we'll find a non-pathological equivalent.
- Japanese /u/ is rounded. Compressed and protruded are the two kinds of rounding. Usually back vowels are protruded and front vowels are compressed, but Japanese and Swedish are exceptions. The quote you give would support ⟨uᵝ⟩ or ⟨ɯᵝ⟩ for Japanese /u/, since that would be the unexpected value. (⟨uʷ⟩ or ⟨ɯʷ⟩ would be the expected value.) — kwami (talk) 22:27, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
- Ta, thank you! I really appreciate this discussion.
- Re: compressed, duh. It says right there in Rounded_vowel#Types_of_rounding. Apologies for my mental density. I was stuck on the physics of the shape of the mouth, for which I misinterpreted "compressed" to mean not rounding, but rather that the lips are compressed vertically (instead of laterally) towards each other. Watching my coworkers as they speak, some use very little rounding at all in the shapes of their mouths when saying /u/, while others do use a bit more. Interesting variations.
- And poking around just now, trying to find a page for the roundedness diacritics that go under vowels (used in the Japanese phonology image of the vowel chart, and shown in the top row of "Co-articulation diacritics" at IPA#Diacritics), I stumbled across Close_back_compressed_vowel#Close_back_compressed_vowel, which gives both u͍ and ɯᵝ as equivalents. Is u͍ verboten now? Or would it still pass muster in IPA phonetic transcriptions of Japanese? (Perhaps you can tell how much I don't want to have to change all those entries at EN WT. :) ) -- Thanks again, Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 23:21, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
- Since there isn't a conventionalized transcription, it probably doesn't matter too much. The problem with u͍ is that it's not really IPA, and I doubt people would understand it out of context. It does, however, tell the reader that there's s.t. going on with the lips. In the IPA Handbook, they give a couple ad-hoc transcriptions showing intermediate rounding (and a bit of mid-centralization), but that's really just what we have with English /ʊ/, so they're not adequate either. — kwami (talk) 23:39, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you, Kwami. So would it be acceptable then to add [u͍] back to the Japanese phonology article, with a note that this transcription is more ad hoc (possibly just copying the relevant text from Close_back_compressed_vowel#Close_back_compressed_vowel)? -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 01:48, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
- I suppose. It's not very accurate, though, so I don't know why we'd need both, unless it's just a matter of support for Wikt.
- We could also change the Wikt entries using AWB. It wouldn't take long, and if all entries start with
{{IPA|lang=ja|, like one I just checked, it would be easy to program. That might be better. - Might want to change [ɴ] as well. That's not its phonetic realization before other consonants.
- The /r/ is also unfortunate, since it's not retroflex. Phonetically it's [ɾ̠] or [ɺ̠], or what Ladefoged would transcribe with an under-dot, but I suppose that is close enough we could leave it. — kwami (talk) 02:03, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
- I've started using [ɯᵝ] over at EN WT. I haven't used AWB before, so that's something fun I can learn about.
- Re: [ɴ], yeah, you're right, that's more the phoneme than the phone in a number of places. Gah, something else I'll have to fix...
- Re: /r/, I've been using [ɽ] to represent the flap; was that in error?
- Re: /w/, I've been using [w͍]; if we're changing away from the compression diacritic, should this now be [wᵝ]? Or [ɰ], or [ɰᵝ]?
- -- Cheers, Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 03:07, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
- I wouldn't say that [ɽ] is an error, but it's post-alveolar, not truly retroflex. Ladefoged wouldn't use that letter, but it's not uncommon elsewhere: I think the IPA Handbook uses it. Close enough.
- As for /w/, I don't know. Do we have a ref that it's compressed like the /u/? I never paid much attention to the /w/, and I don't have any intuitive feel for it. — kwami (talk) 03:22, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
- Re: /w/, it's essentially the same sound as /u/, just used as a glide instead of as a moraic vowel.
- Re: /r/, it's not retroflex to my ears at all; pronouncing it myself (though not a native speaker, I've managed to fool native speakers when talking on the phone [not in person, as I'm genetically northern European and obviously not Japanese]), post-alveolar sounds about right. The tip of my tongue is in almost the same place as English /d/, though the sides of my tongue do something closer to a lateral. FWIW. -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 03:40, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
- Ah, I misinterpreted -- you mean that [ɽ] is retroflex, not the Japanese /r/. In that case, the table at Japanese phonology needs changing. I'll replace [ɽ] with [ɾ] momentarily. -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 03:43, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
- The IPA uses ⟨ɽ⟩; since the retroflex series is not restricted to sub-apical retroflex, it's not inaccurate to use it. ⟨ɾ⟩, however, captures little of the sound. It should at least be ⟨ɾ̠⟩, but since the IPA uses ⟨ɽ⟩, that's not bad either. Also, ⟨ɾ⟩ contrasts with ⟨ɺ⟩, whereas ⟨ɽ⟩ has no lateral equivalent in the IPA, so that's a point in favor of ⟨ɽ⟩ as well.
- If the /w/ is just a consonantal /u/, then IMO it should be transcribed the same way: ⟨uᵝ wᵝ⟩ or ⟨ɯᵝ ɰᵝ⟩. — kwami (talk) 03:54, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
- Ta, thank you. (And thank you for fixing my mistaken edit to the consonants section for /r/, and otherwise clarifying.)
- A Q about transcribing the IPA for the small ゃ・ゅ・ょ modifiers in kana -- I've been using the palatalization superscript [ʲ], but it occurs to me that this might not be sufficient to fully indicate the glide. What do you think? Should りょ, for instance, be [ɽʲo̞], or [ɽjo̞]? Or [ɽʲjo̞]? Or even something else? -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 19:10, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
- Apart from the sibilants and /n/, are they actually palatalized? AFAIK [CjV] is sufficient. /amyo/ is never pronounced [ajmjo], for example. — kwami (talk) 23:04, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
- All the consonants followed by /j/ palatalize. The /k/ + /jV/ variants are palatalized to the extent that /ki/ and /k/ + /jV/ become /chi/ and /ch/ + /jV/ in the Okinawan dialects, through what seem to be similar processes as what happened to Latin "c" + front vowels, in words like wikt:caesar or wikt:cibum.
- Re-reading Palatalization, I note these sentences:
|
"Pure" palatalization is denoted by a small superscript ⟨ʲ⟩ in IPA. This is a modification to the articulation of a consonant, where the middle of the tongue is raised, and nothing else. ... Phonetically palatalized consonants may vary in their exact realization. Some, but not all languages add offglides or onglides... Typically, the vowel (especially a non-front vowel) following a palatalized consonant has a palatal offglide. |
- My understanding of the superscript "j" was that it indicates palatalization of the consonant, but not necessarily the preceding vowel? The Palatalization page does not make it plain whether superscript "j" is adequate to indicate palatalization with offglide, but not onglide. At any rate, for Japanese, アミョ /amyo/ would never be [ajmyo]. Would /amyo/ be properly rendered phonetically as [ämʲo̞], however? I've gone over Japanese phonology, and that consistently uses just the superscript "j", but the document is inconsistent enough in other ways that I'm not sure how much to trust it. Meanwhile, you seem to know what's what. :) -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 16:12, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
We might want to just reflect our sources here. AFAIK, myo wouldn't be any more palatalized than mi is, and we don't transcribe mi as [mʲi]. — kwami (talk) 18:33, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
- Oh, dear. Japanese_phonology#Palatalization_and_affrication lists 海 /umi/ as [ɯᵝmʲi], and 庭 /niwa/ as [n̠ʲiw͍a]. In need of change? -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 20:22, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
- The [n̠ʲi] is ref'd, even if more detail that I personally think we need. I don't know about all the other C's being palatalized. If we have a ref for that, okay; I've never heard it, but it could be a dialectical difference or just my ear. — kwami (talk) 23:16, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
- For my part, I hear [ɯᵝmi], but not [ɯᵝmʲi]. For the small ゃ・ゅ・ょ modifiers, I note that (especially female) speakers in careful speech in particular will hyper-pronounce the [j] to produce very clear palatalization, such as in しましょう, to the point that it almost sounds like [ɕimäɕʲjjo̞ː] (deliberate exaggeration). -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 18:26, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
- That's pretty much what I hear too, which is why I think it's [CjV], with palatalization only of the alveolar consonants. — kwami (talk) 18:58, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
- Aha. So then アミョ would be phonetic IPA [ämjo̞], whereas アショ would be [äɕʲo̞], and アニョ would be [änʲo̞]? I also note palatalization of velar consonants /g/ and /k/, and glottal /h/ becoming [ç]. -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 02:29, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not sure [ɕʲ] is distinct from [ɕ], since [ɕ] is already palatal. I'd write either [aɕo] or [aɕjo] and [anjo] or [anʲjo] (or w [n̠]). /h/, yes. I don't hear anything with /k g/ apart from the normal fronting you'd expect from a following /i/. — kwami (talk) 04:11, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
- Okay, cool. I'm mostly trying to figure out how to account for the palatalization + glide, so I'm happy with [ɕj] for that.
- And for /k/ and /g/, My sense is that these are fronted even more in Japanese than in English, compared to the consonants + a mid or back vowel, but if that doesn't need marking, so much the simpler. Thank you! -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 23:59, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not sure [ɕʲ] is distinct from [ɕ], since [ɕ] is already palatal. I'd write either [aɕo] or [aɕjo] and [anjo] or [anʲjo] (or w [n̠]). /h/, yes. I don't hear anything with /k g/ apart from the normal fronting you'd expect from a following /i/. — kwami (talk) 04:11, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
- Aha. So then アミョ would be phonetic IPA [ämjo̞], whereas アショ would be [äɕʲo̞], and アニョ would be [änʲo̞]? I also note palatalization of velar consonants /g/ and /k/, and glottal /h/ becoming [ç]. -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 02:29, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
- That's pretty much what I hear too, which is why I think it's [CjV], with palatalization only of the alveolar consonants. — kwami (talk) 18:58, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
I'm tired of going back and forth on this with you. I've asked WP:3O for help. VanIsaacWScontribs 03:43, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
AfroSemitic is widely being used by scholars who are much more expertise on this subject than both you and I. Thus it is not a matter of subjective opinion, rather scholarly opinion. This is not the same situation as the German language being used in Austria and still being referred to as "German". Ethiopia and Eritrea have many different Ethnic groups and languages. Many in the Horn of Africa that speak "ethiosemitic" languages do not consider themselves Ethiopian. Thus as I said, this is not subjective, rather scholarly opinion. Cluckbang (talk) 01:11, 13 June 2012 (UTC) |}
- Fine. Present your sources on the talk page, and if they support your title, we'll move the article. — kwami (talk) 20:38, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
I made an edit to an article while logged out and I want my IP to be concealed or linked to my account, do you know who I should contact? Thanks. Cluckbang (talk) 01:11, 13 June 2012 (UTC) |}
- I can take care of it, but I don't see any IP edits to conceal. — kwami (talk) 23:37, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Hi Kwami.
I don't know if you remember, some time ago you've moved the article Guaraní language to Guarani language (without diacritic), saying ["this is not Portuguese, so we don't need Portuguese spelling"]', but some time later another user moved again to Guaraní language, I've notice this just recently, and I've tried move back to Guarani language because that diacritic is only used in Spanish language, it is not used even in Guarani (where words without diacritic has stress on last syllable), nor in Portuguese (where words without diacritic ending with written 'i' or 'u' has stress on last syllable), neither even in English, the language of this version of Wikipedia, English don't use diacritics to point stressed syllables, but I couldn't move back because a bot has edited on the redirect page. Should be better you, as a sysop, delete the redirect page and move the article to the appropriate name (without diacritic) again?--Luizdl (talk) 00:42, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
- It's a minor point. Ethnologue uses a diacritic, but unless s.o. can demonstrate a clear pref in the lit, it doesn't really matter. I'll move it back pending discussion, if anyone thinks it important enough to discuss. — kwami (talk) 04:15, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Hi Kwami. I notice you work primarily on language articles and I see you have contributed to some GAs and FAs so I'd like to ask for some advice. I'd love to see more of the Project's language articles improved to GA and FA status. I decided to start with one I've studied and nominated Khmer language for a GA. User:G Purevdorj (who appears to not be a native English speaker) started the review (Talk:Khmer language/GA2) and raised many objections, some of which I don't quite understand and some towards the end contradict what he says earlier in the review. But, I digress. I think I've taken care of the obvious problems and, in view of your experience with language articles, I'd like to ask if you'd take a look at the article and provide some feedback on the article's quality and/or the validity of the reviewers objections and (if the mood strikes you) some tweaks to help it pass as a GA. Thanks in advance.--William Thweatt TalkContribs 01:03, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry I haven't got to this. It's more of a project than I want to take on right now. I'm becoming less and less active on WP. — kwami (talk) 19:46, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
- No worries, I understand. Thanks for the response. Cheers!--William Thweatt TalkContribs 20:11, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
Altai language
editCan you move Altay language to Altai language to conform with Northern Altai language and Southern Altai language? See also Talk:Altay language#Move to Altai language?. I think this is an uncontroversial move, so perhaps I need not bother with WP:RM. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 20:31, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
- Moved. Also merged the articles, since they overlapped in their coverage. — kwami (talk) 23:12, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
- Excellent, thank you! --Florian Blaschke (talk) 19:23, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
ENGVAR language ids
editHi. I created the {{engvar}} template (we met over WP:ENGVAR of course, recently). When used in another template, it allows an article page to show en-UK or en-US spellings as requested. It is live employed now at phosphorus, showing en-UK spelling: -isation. The language ids covered are: "en-US" and "en-UK" and "en".
My question is: Which other language ids should be covered too? Can you type link me a list, with a bit of their relevances? And: is there a nesting situation? Like say the logic: when en-AUS is not defined, then use en-NZL, then use en-US, else do the default word. I can make that but I don't know the list & and its sub-lists.
Detail: the template also accepts identifying variants, so "US" surely stands for "en-US". As long as it is identifying. I made "en" for generic & default. Whad'you think? -DePiep (talk) 22:08, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
- May be a good idea. I don't think there is a list of English variants to use, though. US, UK, and Aus, of course; I don't know of there are many articles that use NZ, SA, India, or any of the dozens of others. — kwami (talk) 22:54, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
- Fine. So AUS would be "en-AUS" then? en-GB equals en-UK, and I am correct in using "en" for default, saying "plain en". -DePiep (talk) 00:33, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
Klingon language (disambiguation)
editI totally agree with the opinion on Talk:Klingon language (disambiguation) that Klingon language (disambiguation) is completely redundant. I've therefore turned it into a redirect. Just wanted to bring this to your attention, as the redirect itself is not a likely link or search goal and therefore could simply be deleted wholesale. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 21:26, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
Oh, and do you agree that Category:Klingon languages should be moved to Category:Klingon language? For some reason, I can't move categories at all. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 21:32, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
- Yes. There's only one actual language. AFAIK you can't move cats: you need to change the cat in each article instead. The existing cat can be deleted once empty. — kwami (talk) 22:29, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
- I see, so I'll have to do it manually. Fine. For the dab page, see now WP:RFD#Klingon language (disambiguation), just in case you can think of something to add to the discussion. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 21:00, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
- Maybe a bit quicker if you use AWB. — kwami (talk) 21:31, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for the hint. I've now found out that categories can be renamed. There was no need to change the cats manually, but I don't think it's a problem. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 22:00, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
- Renamed how? — kwami (talk) 22:11, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
- See WP:CFD. You learn something new every day, don't you? --Florian Blaschke (talk) 11:20, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
- Yeah, that's handy. — kwami (talk) 23:14, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
Centering in cells
editI'm not sure what the logic of edits like this is. IMHO, taking out the forced centering of the tables doesn't look as nice. Is there something more going on than just aesthetics? — Ƶ§œš¹ [ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ] 23:08, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
- Left alignment is normal, and centering the language names and translations looks really odd, like a demographic chart for age distribution.. The IPA might look nicer centered, if all the examples are of comparable size. — kwami (talk) 23:11, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
- Okay. It might just look weird because it's different. I'll probably get used to it in no time. — Ƶ§œš¹ [ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ] 00:28, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
- There are some articles where the IPA is centered and looks nice, but it's too much work to check them all individually. Also, where the IPA spans the word and IPA columns, it would probably be best centered, but I didn't think to do that until I was most of the way done. I might go back. — kwami (talk) 00:31, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for June 28
editHi. When you recently edited Korean grammar, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Numeral (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:29, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_June_29#Category:Latin_alphabets
editWikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_June_29#Category:Latin_alphabets - Indiana State (talk) 00:14, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Template:Infobox language
editHi Kwami. Not sure if you're aware of this but something you may have done to Template:Infobox language is causing articles not to display properly in Google Chrome. There is a huge (HUUUUUUUGE!) whitespace between the bottom of the infobox and the beginning of the article...so much that when the page opens, it appears to be just a blank page with an infobox. I tested it in Internet Explorer and there didn't seem to be any problems. It worked fine in Google Chrome prior to your edits of today (I was viewing Stieng language and it was fine, refreshed the screen and noticed the problem, then went to the template history and saw that you had made changes). Forgive me if you're already aware of this and are working on it, but I don't know which browser you use and as it is only happening in Chrome, I thought I should give you a heads up. BTW, I took a quick look and couldn't discern what was causing the issue.--William Thweatt TalkContribs 00:58, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
- Okay, thanks. They're temporary test changes, to root out poorly formatted info boxes. (I requested that a bot do this, but it's been months, and this is the quickest way I can think of.) As soon as the error-generated category updates, so I can fix the articles, I'll revert the changes to the info box template. — kwami (talk) 01:01, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
- I think I've taken care of the problem in the mean time. (Cats still updating.) — kwami (talk) 01:12, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Hutu/Tutsi
editThe three articles Tutsi, Hutu, and Origins of Tutsi and Hutu disagree on the origins of these ethnic groups. In particular the Origins article doesn't even mention colonial classification; the Tutsi one emphasizes it; and the Hutu one calls it an "alternate theory". It would be nice if we could harmonize all three to reflect the best current research as well as various important points of view (is the Rwandan official version different from the Burundian official version, for example? I don't know). I have no expertise in this area, so I'm afraid I can't really contribute to it.. --Macrakis (talk) 17:06, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry, I'm not going to be of much help. I know little about it. I think the Tutsi and Hutu articles should summarize the main one, though, and that's where the real work should go. — kwami (talk) 19:35, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
This note's for you
edit[19]. Drmies (talk) 04:08, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
- Yeah, I noticed that. Thanks. — kwami (talk) 04:09, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Your input would be appreciated
editHi, do you have time to comment at User_talk:Sitush#What are these edits about.3F ? The thread relates to a set of articles that may require merging and in which you have had some involvement. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 14:27, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Bowern (2011)
editHi, Could you link to http://anggarrgoon.wordpress.com/2011/12/23/how-many-languages-were-spoken-in-australia/ rather than the spreadsheet, so that a) people clicking on the link have some access to the information about the circumstances under which the list was compiled, and b) so I can track user stats better? Thanks, Claire — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.132.198.160 (talk) 20:37, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Sure. How's this?:
- Bowern, Claire. 2011. "How Many Languages Were Spoken in Australia?", Anggarrgoon: Australian languages on the web, December 23, 2011 (corrected February 6, 2012)
Hindi languages
editI'm not sure what to make of this edit of yours; it does not seem to be an improvement and honestly looks rather hurried and sloppy. :-/ To name only the most glaring problem, it leaves the incomplete sentence "Thus Hindi proper includes" at the end. I don't feel quite able to remedy the problem, either (apart from simply reverting, which I've honestly considered), because I don't really get what you intended to do there. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 06:40, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- Oops, sorry, oversight. The edit was just a cleanup, and that slipped through. — kwami (talk) 07:18, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Notice of Dispute resolution discussion
editHello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. VanIsaacWScontribs 08:11, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
removed suspect cite on Harappan language article ....
editHello Taivo and Kwami,
While I am by profession a nuc. eng/elec. eng., I minored in history and have made that my major hobby in retirement. I would never claim to be anything even remotely approaching an expert in any linguistics field, but I've read quite a bit on the history of various civilizations, and can often 'smell a rat' with some of these edits on Wiki.
I removed a drive-by addition in this article that referenced the Tamil language as related to the language spoken by the Indus River civilization because the reference was a private paper (Word doc) on a website.
If I have erred, please replace it. It was added in March 2012 to the article. Thanks. HammerFilmFan (talk) 22:10, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- None of the decipherments of Harappan are accepted, so you probably did right. I'll check it out.
- Yeah, a language which did not exist back then, and a pub date of 1953. Even if legit, not notable any more. — kwami (talk) 22:14, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Animal rights
editHi, I asked an admin to move back the animal rights movement article. This was the result of an RM, so your move to add the hyphen went against consensus, as that change was not discussed. If you want to add the hyphen, please open an RM and provided sources that show the hyphen being used (my read is that the hyphen is not used).
thanks, --KarlB (talk) 14:06, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- It's the same name as what you moved to, just following the MOS for punctuation. — kwami (talk) 18:17, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- No, that is not the same name. Please revert this change and open an RM if you are really convinced that is the right way.--KarlB (talk) 18:39, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- I agree with KarlB, and I would also urge you to reconsider. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:09, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- No, that is not the same name. Please revert this change and open an RM if you are really convinced that is the right way.--KarlB (talk) 18:39, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Central consonants: [f v]
editHello:
I saw that, according to this, you made a claim on the central consonant page that [f v] are usually lateral (albeit not considered as such). Does the book source referenced on that page say so? I was just wondering because my [f v] aren’t lateral, and lateral [f v] sound quite different from what I normally make; I have never heard that claim about [f v] elsewhere. Note that I am a native English speaker.
Thanks for your time. ― Espreon (talk) 01:49, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry, I should've left a page #. I assume it was in SOWL, but can't find it off hand. — kwami (talk) 06:53, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- By the way, if possible, it would be nice if you could put examples of languages that usually have central [f v] as well as examples of languages that usually have lateral [f v] somewhere. Thanks. ― Espreon (talk) 21:50, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- I don't remember there being anything that specific. I think if there had been, I would have mentioned it. — kwami (talk) 07:46, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi,
Your objections on the Kamrupi language are valid. I created two pages, Kamrupi dialect and Kamrupi Prakrit, and made Kamrupi a disambiguation page. User:BhaskarBhagawati has reverted some of those changes. Could you please have a look. I do not think "Kamrupi Prakrit" can go under "Kamrupi language", because we do not have a good enough description of it, and most of the evidence suggests a differentiation from the North Indian at the Prakrit stage of language developments. Your comments would be helpful.
Chaipau (talk) 14:37, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- User:Bhaskarbhagawati has reverted most of the disambiguation efforts. He has moved back the "Kamrupi Prakrit" page back to "Kamrupi language" and restored the Kamrupi I think a resolution or a binding decision is required on this issue. I have reverted some of his recent changes, but I suspect this will devolve into an edit war. Chaipau (talk) 11:46, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
- The capitalization of the title he's using is inappropriate for WP, so I salted it so that it can't be used any more. He deleted the dialect article, and since we don't go into details about other Assamese dialects, I'm letting the deletion stand. I reverted the prakrit article to your last edits, since articles following topics-not-titles is a basic convention of WP, but because I've taken sides in this and edited the article, it would be better for you to go elsewhere for page protection. — kwami (talk) 19:25, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Kindly keep in touch in Talk:Kamrupi.
bbhagawati (talk) 08:11, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Check back and entertain sources.
Thanks !
bbhagawati (talk) 12:56, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
It is obvious that sources can hardly click you as you are newbie to subject. So i suggest you to the restore article in original form as it was few days back and if in doubt, you may tag the page with expert attention template. As User Chaipau is engage in an disagreement with me from last month about another article, his oppositions (he jump on mid way) are understandable. Hope you see the matter as neutral being and bring on a middle way. Lastly i like to say that said article is not created by me nor i made any major contribution to it. It is rather come into current form by untiring efforts of different users belonging to Assam state itself and all that users involved cannot be ignorants.
Thanks !
bbhagawati (talk) 13:58, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
- We currently have two articles for two topics. I have not seen reason to merge them. I suggest you tag them with {{merge}} templates if you believe your sources will convince others that you are correct. — kwami (talk) 14:02, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Before making such edits please kindly get familiar with the terms like Western Assamese, Western Assamese Dialects or Western Asamiya.
ANI notice
editHello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Help_with_page_move regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --KarlB (talk) 16:17, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- Hi Kwami, I'd appreciate it if you would undo your move to "animal-rights movement." It is known within the academic literature as the "animal liberation movement" or "animal rights movement," without a hyphen. "Animal rights" is a well-known compound, and there is no ambiguity without a hyphen, which is the test of when to hyphenate. That is, no one would read that phrase and think it was a rights movement led by non-human animals, so the hyphen is unnecessary. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:50, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- Done. — kwami (talk) 17:07, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- Many thanks, much appreciated. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:14, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks and cheers. --KarlB (talk) 17:56, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks from me too. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:51, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks and cheers. --KarlB (talk) 17:56, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- Many thanks, much appreciated. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:14, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Could you take a look?
editHello Kwami,
I've put a query at this talk page which you could surely better answer than anyone else. I'm not sure you've seen the query (perhaps I should have put the query on the Commons page?) so I'm sending this message to alert you to its existence.
Thanks very much, PhoneticsPhonology (talk) 18:23, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Talk:Yerba mate
editA move discussion has started again on the article: Talk:Yerba mate#Requested move: ? Ilex paraguariensis. I am notifying you since you expressed an opinion in the topic in the past. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:55, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Talk:Mate (beverage)
editA move discussion has started again on the article: Talk:Mate (beverage)#Requested Move: ? Maté. I am notifying you since you expressed an opinion in the topic in the past. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:59, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Please see Talk:Stress_and_vowel_reduction_in_English#Unreferenced.2FPOV. – Smyth\talk 01:30, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Hello there - would you be kind enough to look at the language section of this article? It seems rather, um, topical!
Btw, I'm not at all impressed about the Arbcom matter at hand. They could count the atoms on a pin head, yet the things that really matter could be staring at them on a billboard in bold type and they would not be able to read let alone get it. A joke. It does not reflect well on wikipedia at all. --Merbabu (talk) 08:06, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
- Merged to Riau, & fixed that section per our refs. Similar comments at Riau and Riau Islands Province. — kwami (talk) 08:20, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
AN
editHello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:56, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
- And EWN. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:33, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
I noticed that you reverted my change to the syllabification of "syllable" at Syllabification. This seems to violate the Maximum Onset Principle and also differs to the syllabification of "syllabification" higher on the page. I'm curious as to your reasons for placing /l/ in the coda of the first syllable. I would appreciate it if you could explain this to me or cite a source for that syllabification. —Leftmostcat (talk) 07:39, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
- Maximun Onset doesn't apply to English. (Ambisyllabicity etc.—well, some people try to make it fit.) The syllabification is that of Wells (Longman Pronunciation Dictionary).[20]
- Added a link to English phonology. — kwami (talk) 07:43, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
2012-07 malayo-polynesian languages
editHello,
Could you create a copy of File:Malayo-Polynesian.svg, but without Madagascar? You might call it File:Malayo-Polynesian-Southeast-Asia.svg.
Could you create a copy of File:Borneo-Philippines.svg without Madagascar and only with Philippines languages? Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 21:02, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry, I probably won't get around to this. You might want to ask at the graphics lab, or just download Inkscape and do it yourself. (Inkscape isn't very user-friendly, but deleting stuff is easy.) — kwami (talk) 21:24, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for July 17
editHi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
- Borowa people (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to Macu
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:41, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Looks like you are engaging in unnecessary edit warring, if you really care the books are available in any university library. I got mine from the University of Toronto library. Kanatonian (talk) 04:07, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
- These are books/articles -> based on field data gathering by linguists, Dharmadasa, K.N.O (February 1974). "The Creolization of an Aboriginal language:The case of Vedda in Sri Lanka (Ceylon)". Anthropological Linguistics (Indiana University) 16 (2): 79–106.
Samarasinghe, S. W. R. de A (1990). The Vanishing aborigines : Sri Lanka's Veddas in transition. International Centre for Ethnic Studies in association with NORAD and Vikas Pub. House. ISBN 978-0-7069-5298-8.Kanatonian (talk)
- You add material with refs that contradict the material. Of course I delete it.
- Also, your copy editing resulted in bad English. You restored that too. — kwami (talk) 04:21, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
- Please substantiate your claims or this is personal attack of an editor violating Wiki guidelines. Do you have access to the literature ? I am more than willing to stand behind my edits and escalate the process. Kanatonian (talk)
- Okay: you write "18,000 BCE: First inhabitants of Ceylon, presumed ancestors of the Vedda". Yet the source you provide says that there were inhabitants at least 125,000 BCE, and perhaps 1M. If that source does not hold up, why should I think the others will? — kwami (talk) 04:42, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
- You have done a very cursory reading and are assuming the worst about me contrary to assume good faith. The cited article says very clearly " These human remains have been subjected to detailed physical anthropological study and it has been affirmed that the genetic continuum from at least as early as 18,000 BP at Batadomba-lena to Beli-lena at 16,000 BP to Bellan-bandi Palassa at 6,500 BP to the recent Vaddha aboriginal population is remarkably pronounced (ibid:486-9; Kennedy et al. 1987; Hawkey 1998; Kennedy 2000; the earlier material from Fa Hien-lena is too fragmentary for such comparative study)". The article is based on another study which is also cited in the article. It would be irresponsible to claim that Vedda's ancestors can be found as early as 125,000. That would be falsifying the citation. Kanatonian (talk) 04:52, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
- Please participate here. Thanks Kanatonian (talk) 04:44, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
- You have done a very cursory reading and are assuming the worst about me contrary to assume good faith. The cited article says very clearly " These human remains have been subjected to detailed physical anthropological study and it has been affirmed that the genetic continuum from at least as early as 18,000 BP at Batadomba-lena to Beli-lena at 16,000 BP to Bellan-bandi Palassa at 6,500 BP to the recent Vaddha aboriginal population is remarkably pronounced (ibid:486-9; Kennedy et al. 1987; Hawkey 1998; Kennedy 2000; the earlier material from Fa Hien-lena is too fragmentary for such comparative study)". The article is based on another study which is also cited in the article. It would be irresponsible to claim that Vedda's ancestors can be found as early as 125,000. That would be falsifying the citation. Kanatonian (talk) 04:52, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
- I am participating.
- Okay, your reason for the first is that you have incorrectly summarized the ref. Your last ref also fails. — kwami (talk) 05:01, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
An arbitration case involving the article Perth has been closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:
- JHunterJ is advised to respond calmly and courteously to queries regarding Wikipedia-related conduct and administrator actions.
- Deacon of Pndapetzim is admonished for use of administrative tools while involved, and for reversing another administrator's legitimate administrative action without first entering into discussion.
- Kwamikagami is desysopped for use of administrative tools while involved in an editing dispute, and for reinstating a reverted administrative action without clear discussion leading to a consensus decision. He may regain the admin toolkit through a fresh request for adminship.
- Gnangarra is admonished for use of administrative tools while involved in an editing dispute, and for reinstating a reverted administrative action without clear discussion leading to a consensus decision.
For the Arbitration Committee, Lord Roem (talk) 14:41, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
ARBCOM
editHi Kwamikagami. As per remedy 3 of decision in the Perth case, I have desysopped you. you may regain the admin toolkit through a fresh request for adminship. Secretlondon (talk) 15:03, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
- Hi Kwami. I just want to go on record that I think this decision to take away your (and only your's!) mop is (notwithstanding the block below), as Newyorkbrad wrote, "completely disproportionate and excessive". I was only vaguely aware of the ArbCom proceedings or I would have weighed in before now. After reading through the case, I think some good arguments were made (Noetica's and Newyorkbrad's seem to stick in my mind) in favor of not desysopping anybody, particularly you. I know you've said you are less and less involved in WP lately, but you are a valuable contributor and, 98.75% of the time (yes, I just made up that number, nobody's perfect :) ), a great admin. I hope you decide to stick around and get the tools back, either through seeking an amendment to the ArbCom decision or if need be, a fresh RfA (heck, I'd even nominate you if you'd like). Anyway, don't let it get you down; keep working on our language articles!--William Thweatt TalkContribs 19:42, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
- I'm rather shocked too though in a way, it's almost symptomatic of Wikipedia's underlying problems. I recently got my wrists slapped for being mildly abusive towards a vandal in a revert summary... not that I was expecting laurels for patrolling but to reprimand the patroller but not the vandal is rather like this Perth nonsense. I wish they'd invest some time in better structures than re-doing the design <sigh> Akerbeltz (talk) 19:52, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
- I read that ArbCom as well and am wondering, "What the heck?" Why every other admin got their wrist slapped and you got desysopped is a complete mystery. There are simply no words for the arbitrariness of that. --Taivo (talk) 20:03, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
- I did some hunting around and found the relevant discussion, where a few people made it clear that their vote to desysop factored in the context of past issues with Kwami's use of admin tools. This makes me think the wording of the ArbCom describing the reasons for desysop is currently insufficient/misleading. — Ƶ§œš¹ [ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ] 20:13, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
- I read that ArbCom as well and am wondering, "What the heck?" Why every other admin got their wrist slapped and you got desysopped is a complete mystery. There are simply no words for the arbitrariness of that. --Taivo (talk) 20:03, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks, all. — kwami (talk) 20:10, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
July 2012
edit
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Magog the Ogre (talk) 17:29, 18 July 2012 (UTC)- This is ridiculous. Calling devout Muslims "atheists" and insisting it's okay because (a) a RS reported the slander, or (b) they attended a conference also attended by atheists, is a clear BLP violation, and 3RR does not apply to BLP violations. — kwami (talk) 17:32, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
- How is what you're describing the case? This was a summit, and you were removing quotes that criticized the summit. How were your edits in any way protecting against libelous material against a person? Magog the Ogre (talk) 17:37, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
- Also, you did not remove any content calling any devout Muslims atheists; you simply removed something that criticized the summit as extreme. Casting a net so wide that literally nothing can be said which is negative toward any person or organization is to cast the net so wide that it exempts literally 90% of edit warring. BLP is definitely not a policy with either the spirit or letter which allows this type of edit warring. Magog the Ogre (talk) 17:41, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
- Not the summit, the speakers. The speakers are persons. Calling the speakers atheists, or even "extreme", when some are devout Muslims, would presumably be considered libel by the devout Muslims. There is a long history of this; Roscelese has conceded many of the points she was pushing, but is still trying to force her libelous POV around the margins. There is an ongoing discussion which is slowing resolving the issue. Also, R has 5RR on the same page, or 6 if you go to 25 hours. — kwami (talk) 17:49, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
- Flat-out lying about me because you're unhappy your edit warring got you blocked will not get you unblocked any faster. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:53, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
- But your edits didn't even revolve around calling the Muslims atheists. It only revolved around dampening criticism of the summit. Also, R did not violate 3RR unless R was the one editing via IP (24.45.42.125 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)). Is that the case? Also, please assume good faith Roscelese. Magog the Ogre (talk) 17:55, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not IP 24, which Kwami already knows because we had this conversation on the talk page. Claiming that I'm also at 5RR means either that Kwami's counting skill is so poor that zie should know better than to make claims about numbers, or that zie is deliberately trying to get me sanctioned for things I didn't do. I tend to assume that people editing Wikipedia can count from one to five, so I concluded the latter (especially given that in this very conversation Kwami's made other false claims in order to try to evade sanction and to get me sanctioned instead, eg. about the nature of the edits). –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:02, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
- Well, first off, I'd recommend Roscelese take a few hours before commenting further on this issue (or on this talk page), as it appears you've become emotionally involved (WP:MASTADON) and your comments above are frankly personal attacks.
- Anyway, I have to go (life calls), so I'll leave this in the hands of any qualified administrator who ends up patrolling it. Because I will not be around, and because unblock requests for a 24 hour block become nearly impossible to deal with in such circumstances, any admin has my blessing to handle this dispute in undoing (or reaffirming) my actions for any reason whatsoever. Magog the Ogre (talk) 18:07, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
- But your edits didn't even revolve around calling the Muslims atheists. It only revolved around dampening criticism of the summit. Also, R did not violate 3RR unless R was the one editing via IP (24.45.42.125 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)). Is that the case? Also, please assume good faith Roscelese. Magog the Ogre (talk) 17:55, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
- Flat-out lying about me because you're unhappy your edit warring got you blocked will not get you unblocked any faster. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:53, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not assuming bad faith, I'm assuming R is irrational. No-one would spout such nonsense unless they actually believed it.
- No, it revolved around calling the "speakers" (who were Muslims) "extreme", which is what R has settled for after not being allowed to call them "atheists". She's simply watering down the libel until she can get it to stick. Evidently it has worked. Her stated reasoning actually is (a) and (b) above. I don't care about criticism of the summit—perhaps it really is a neocon conspiracy—but BLP issues should be taken seriously. — kwami (talk) 18:08, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
- You're the only person who doesn't think we should report the US News-sourced criticism of the speakers' identification, which is why it has remained in the article throughout this entire discussion. The dispute is whether we should also include material from several independent reliable sources as to whether they are extreme. (Of course, you're also the only person who thinks we should remove that.) If you don't even know what you're adding or removing, I will re-state my suggestion that you should not be editing this article. It is clear that you are blinded by your personal feelings to the disregard of WP's policies on reliable sources, original research, and edit warring, as well as to the point of a WP:COMPETENCE issue. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:16, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
- I didn't realize those other accounts were sock puppets of me. But please take Magog's advice and stay off my talk page; talking with you makes me feel dirty. — kwami (talk) 18:22, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
- Kwami, I've watched this from the sidelines ever since I saw on Recent changes that you were blocked; I've read the talk page comments as well. I'm sorry, but I don't see how BLP can be invoked here to avoid a charge of edit-warring. What we have here is name-calling (as one might call it), reliably reported, but none of it rising to the level of a BLP violation since it is properly sourced. Roscelese, it's probably best if you take Magog the Ogre's advice, and Kwami, it's probably best if you leave this be for the moment; little will be gained by continued confrontation, and I for one want to see you back here. Drmies (talk) 19:53, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
- That's Roscelese's argument. So, you're saying that if I find a RS reporting that someone said the Pope is a pedophile, even though we have RS's that it's factually untrue, it's okay to add that to an article on Catholicism, because it's reliably reported name-calling? — kwami (talk) 20:17, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Sorry about your troubles
editKwami, I am sorry that you have having troubles (as mentioned above). Unfortunately these things happen. We all sometimes make errors of judgment. My impression is that you are a good person. Best wishes.--Toddy1 (talk) 19:39, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Toddy1 has given you a Pork pie. Pork pies are full of meaty goodness, and are wonderfully delicious! On Wikipedia, they promote love and sincerity. Hopefully, this one has made your day happier.
Spread the goodness and sincerity of pork pies by adding {{subst:Pork Pie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message! Give one to someone you've had disagreements with in the past, or to a good friend.
--Toddy1 (talk) 19:39, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
- Mmm, poork! — kwami (talk) 20:11, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Damn
editI hate to see this happen to you, you're one of the good guys. Luckily wikipedia isn't all there is to life, I know I tend to enjoy it when I rediscover the world out there when frustrations drive me to take a break. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:02, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks. I think I'll take that route. Unfortunately, WP has been a welcome distraction from the world out there. — kwami (talk) 20:21, 18 July 2012 (UTC)