Archives

Hello, Taivo. It doesn't really hurt my ego that you deleted everything I added, however to be fair you might wish to consult Pigpen cipher and perhaps even S. Brent Morris's book "The Folger Manuscript: The Cryptanalysis and Interpretation of an American Masonic Manuscript (Vol 23 of the Masonic bookclub)". http://www.themasonictrowel.com/articles/manuscripts/manuscripts/folger_manuscript/the_folger_manuscript_lecture.htm 69.151.66.141 (talk) 06:13, 14 January 2013 (UTC)Cmkeating2[reply]

First, the Folger manuscript does not use the "Enochian script". Second, Morris doesn't mention Reformed Egyptian at all. Third, the Folger manuscript appears to be a one-off attempt and was not in actual use. Fourth, most of these attempts to link Freemasonry with "occult scripts" are written by anti-Masons and are not based on actual fact, only speculation. --Taivo (talk) 09:03, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Points one and two were never in contention, points three and four noted.

Hi. Re Nysinotbad's constant edit warring and false claims, I suggest you report him for edit warring if he continues to make the same edit. I have placed yet another warning on his talk page. He was banned for a week the last time. Here is a direct link to the archived prior complaint.μηδείς (talk) 03:14, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I won't hesitate if he keeps it up. --Taivo (talk) 04:59, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that instead of responding to the comments of the IP user, who is obviously Nyisnotbad violating his block, that you simply delete them. (You can delete them, and then simply make a statement if you like.) Enough of this behavior, and he will be sanctioned for bypassing the block.μηδείς (talk) 21:09, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would you look at Aryamahasattva's latest edits to this article? He has added a claim that a reference to Aramni/Armani on the Naram Sin Stele of 2300 BC refers definitively to the Armenians. I find no scholarly backing for that claim. See the Mallory and Horowitz sources I have added to the talk page. Aryamahasattva is arguing that the wikipedia article he has linked to is a source. That article simply arrives at a dead link for its only ref, and on line hits for his POV are obviously non scholarly wikis and nationalist POV fringe articles. I tried playing nice this time, he doesn't seem to get it. I have a third revert available, but would rather he hear from a third party first.μηδείς (talk) 23:36, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I restored the referenced material in the origins section of Armenian language about the Armenians being mentioned explicitly in Xenophon 900 years before their oldest surviving text and copied in some referenced material about them being identified by I Diakonov with the Mushki from Mallor's Encyclopedia. Aryamahasattva deleted this again saying that I cannot "use wikipedia as a source." I.e., he does not understand the difference between a citation itself, and where you found the citation. Please take a look at the diff, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Armenian_language&action=historysubmit&diff=397130755&oldid=397052802 and let me know if you think his deletion of my material should stand.μηδείς (talk) 17:49, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I agree with his comment that the article is about the Armenian language and the ethnic speculation isn't really relevant. I don't think DNA evidence should be on urheimat or proto-language articles either. --Taivo (talk) 19:19, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I will only restore the Xenophon reference, because it is explicit, and qualifies the Meshrob Matots comment, which makes it seek like they appeared out of nowhere. As for the DNA evidence, are you complaining about this article or elsewhere? I haven't added any such material myself.μηδείς (talk) 03:33, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The genetics comment was about other articles, not Armenian language. --Taivo (talk) 04:08, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I reported User:Saguamundi to User talk:EdJohnston about the recent edits.μηδείς (talk) 00:44, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Taivo, I'm beginning to have my suspicions that Fellowscientist might be you-know-who from past debates. Am I being paranoid?Comhreir (talk) 23:09, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, you're not being paranoid. I have the same suspicions. --Taivo (talk) 00:10, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Most depressing.Comhreir (talk) 03:02, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still waiting to hear what this means. Fellowscientist (talk) 11:47, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to talk to you about the PSL article bit. A little intrigued actually. Can I have your phone number? I know this sounds bizarre - but I think I know this girl, Supriya. I've heard someone talking about this page. Fellowscientist (talk) 14:36, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just have a look at this. Fellowscientist (talk) 14:41, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I need your number because I need you to give a statement about Supriya. I'd like the university officials to be alerted about her. This is crucial if we want her out forever. (One of the reasons for me to start this discussion on PSL was because I was hoping Supriya would be tempted and rejoin in to the conversation. We need to trap her. If you pretend to comply to having an article on PSL and incorporating it, I think she will...this will help us get hold of her.) Please delete this message and the one on the talkpage soon or she'll get warned. Fellowscientist (talk) 10:21, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've noted that you've try to made a scholar text addition to the Ukrainian language article. I think it would be usefull for you to note that the file Ukrainians en.svg - [1] depict a false claims over Ukrainian language scope.

• 1897 and 1926 Censuses does not cover Romania, Austro-Hungarian Monarchy, and Poland. 1897 Census does not claim about ukrainian language nor identify Don Cossacks as "ukrainians"

Don Cossacks spoke Ukrainian back then (as indicated by their census choices), they ethnically identified as Don Cossacks, however.--Львівське (talk) 20:53, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Atlas of the Ukrainian history (1914-1939) - ISBN 978-9669-538192. Ukrainians in the first half of 20th century - - there no such map [2] at this school book
• [[3]] seems to be strange to use 1941 USSR map for "the early 20th century" - also it's hard to treat it as WP:RS. Can you suggest a solution,ThanksJo0doe (talk) 10:15, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing inherently unreliable about using Soviet era sources. Their science was often just as good as Western science at the same time. I see nothing at all wrong with the map. It seems to be well-sourced. --Taivo (talk) 19:30, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1941 map does not say that is map "Ukrainian language and Ukrainians with their neighbours in the early 20th century. The rest mentioned sources does not have information which claimed as existed on it - see figures [4] and mapping [5] . ThanksJo0doe (talk) 12:31, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but you haven't proven that the map is inaccurate. It is based on multiple reliable sources as far as I can tell. --Taivo (talk) 12:34, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I try to explaine "multiple reliable sources" ( 1897 and 1926 Censuses does ) i.e. does not provide such kind of information which claimed as existed in it. Here listed a two map for school - 1941 and 2006 year of publishing - both of them does not claim as to be a representation of the ethnic and lingual borders "in the early 20th century". I hope I can able to explaine a difference between 1941 and early 20th century and atlas for school and reliable sources/ Thanks Jo0doe (talk) 12:42, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The map is indeed correct. It doesn't show the volume, just the extent of the language at that time. It's historically relevant and as accurate as other maps I've seen on language.--Львівське (talk) 20:51, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. In particular the three-revert rule states that making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording and content that gains consensus among editors. If unsuccessful then do not edit war even if you believe you are right. Post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.
3RR in 27h (2RR in 30 minutes!) on the article Croatian language. 13:02 4 Oct[6], 13:32 [7]4 Oct-16:11 5 Oct [8]. Kubura (talk) 04:02, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What a joke! 3RR in 27 hours? This is only after I posted an opinion on the Talk Page that disagreed with his nationalistic propaganda. --Taivo (talk) 05:08, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Taivo, it is also unfair that you suggest I'm impostering another user. You've not just been edit warring, you see. You are also being very prejudiced and uncooperative with the linguistics editing. Reverting all my edits is not always something I'll bear silently. It isn't fair that you do so. Fellowscientist (talk) 19:38, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Fair" has nothing to do with it. Your proposed edits have been discussed many times before on the Talk:Linguistics page and there is broad consensus that semiotics, stylistics, et al. are not linguistics and don't belong there. --Taivo (talk) 20:33, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very sorry, but this is the first time I remember discussing this. Please don't confuse me with other users. I have been taught stylistics (am working on my PHD in stylistic variations in Middle English) as part of my linguistics program. As for functionalism, how can you say it is not part of linguistics? This is absurd. Fellowscientist (talk) 22:17, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Read back through the archives of the Talk Page. --Taivo (talk) 22:23, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd see [9] before responding to latest comment by Ali Pasha. I've been reading through all the talk page debates and edit summaries, you might need to take it to some sort of arbitration, I don't think that either "side" will concede soon (for various reasons). I'm trying not to get involved on the talk page myself... Chipmunkdavis (talk) 11:16, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of WP:ARBMAC

Please note that the article Croatian language and other articles relating to the Balkans fall under the ruling of WP:ARBMAC. Note in particular Wikipedia:ARBMAC#Discretionary sanctions, which states

"Any uninvolved administrator may, on their own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if that editor fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, the expected standards of behavior, or the normal editorial process. The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; restrictions on reverts; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project. Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision."

Repeated blanket reversions, repeatedly and knowingly restoring material with large amounts of poor English and grammatical errors, and repeated introduction of material rejected by consensus all fall below the expected standards of behaviour at this project. Kubura (talk) 23:30, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Taivo, why did you post Kubura's grapeshot of WP:ARBMAC on my talkpage? I'm fully aware of his tactics and regular (mis)invoking of protocol/etiquette reminders on Wikipedia but there's no need to pollute my page too! ;-) Vput (talk) 01:28, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing personal, Vput. Everyone needed to have their page polluted a little--like that Hungarian "mud" ;) --Taivo (talk) 01:35, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All right, all right :-). Seriously it's bad enough that Kubura has a habit of weighing down discussions by running behind the standards of Wikipedia or trying to play the victim when trying to defend some of his methodologically-unsound reasoning/edits (I did see him trying to invalidate edits by those who have debunked or poked holes in his nationally-colored edits with that bogus warning about overstepping 3RR / 24 hrs. when it was really 3RR in 27 hrs.). Just don't do it to me, eh? I've done my best to extract straight and relevant content from the load of nationalist gobbledygook piling up on the talk pages of SC and Croatian. Vput (talk) 05:35, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for "talking" to him on his talk page.  :) It's hard enough dealing with the issues on the Talk Page without someone running around outside on the lawn shouting at the neighbors. --Taivo (talk) 05:40, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...your comment on the linguistics talkpage? Fellowscientist (talk) 15:48, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, TaivoLinguist. You have new messages at Kubura's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hey Taivo,

A similar problem might be cropping up at Filipino language, which I have said is a standardized register of Tagalog, only to be reverted to say it's a separate language. — kwami (talk) 05:35, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I put it on my watchlist. --Taivo (talk) 05:39, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In a similar line of thinking to the reword of your comment yesterday, I've tweaked your comment to preempt responses that tangentially focus on disagreements to your presuppositions about what is and is not a language. If you feel this is untoward, I won't have any hard feelings if you revert it. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 17:30, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That was a good idea to add (macro) in parens. You're right, it would just open the door to other tangential arguments otherwise. --Taivo (talk) 17:38, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You want to explain this? I find any further evidence of you posting edits to anyone's page under someone else's name, I will personally take you to ANI myself. Consider this an only warning, do not ever post any statement on any page and sign it with any name but your own. If you do, you will be reported and you will be blocked. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:19, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have found further evidence of your posting under someone else's name and brought it to the attention of an admin. I will let them decide if this should go to ANI. You need to post an explanation before hand. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:28, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ROFLMAO. You've got a burr under your saddle and an agenda. If you spent 5 minutes investigating Kubura, you would find that he posted that on the pages of those who opposed his POV, but not on the pages of anyone who agreed with him. I simply copied it and posted it verbatim on his friends' pages as well. If you read this you would see that it was taken with a grain of salt anyway. You will also see here that I told User:Kubura exactly what I did. I simply copied the entire post and didn't bother erasing any part of it. --Taivo (talk) 04:32, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have about five minutes to post a satisfactory explanation before I block you for violating WP:TALKNO by posting text allegedly signed by another editor. Jclemens (talk) 04:37, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See above. You'll note that I did not write the post. I simply copied this and pasted it on the pages of the involved editors that Kubura neglected to inform. --Taivo (talk) 04:43, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You did so without an edit summary, and without any in-text commentary surrounding your actions. On the face of it, that's a violation of WP:TALKNO, an impersonation of another editor. Consider this a single warning: doing so again will be cause for you to be blocked. If Kubura violated WP:CANVASS by selective notification, then bring his misbehavior up in an appropriate forum or dispute resolution process--do not take it upon yourself to "fix" the problem you perceive. Jclemens (talk) 04:52, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. --Taivo (talk) 04:54, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:40, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to know why did you wrote this message to me. What was unacceptable in my contribution to this discussion? It may be just a simple message to note me, but why do you think I don't know that? I believe it's Wikipedia:Assume good faith, but it could be also a hidden threat. I wrote that to you because you wrote to me Kubura should told me that. He didn't bring me here, I opened my account here in 2008 and not now just because of this discussion. --Flopy (talk) 07:21, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was just a notice. No one has done anything. The notice was verbatim and was posted in several other places. You were not singled out. --Taivo (talk) 07:25, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Still, it was unacceptable [10]. I simply copied his post and placed it on the pages of his friends as well. Who do you know I am Kubura's friend? Read that. --Flopy (talk) 07:34, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Taivo, how should I interpret your message on my talk page? As assuming good faith? Please stop spamming my talk page, thank you! --Roberta F. (talk) 09:08, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Serbo-Croatian language. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. In particular the three-revert rule states that making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording and content that gains consensus among editors. If unsuccessful then do not edit war even if you believe you are right. Post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. --89.172.201.168 (talk) 00:06, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rather pathetic that the sole edit in the history of this account is to post this block warning. — kwami (talk) 00:16, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have looked at the edits on the Serbo-Croatian page and see no 3RR violation or anything near 3RR, so I have struck the warning. Please disregard it. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:29, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I am interesting to know following because to be honest I am historian, not the linguist (although I could call myself linguist because I also studied German). In english speaking countries and linguistic science does the term "SC" have any other conotations than linguistic, then this is what is disturbing me and many Croats. In Yugoslavia Croatian national feelings have been surpressed and many people were in jail because of that. "SC" is for many in Croatia until today the bad symbol for this time of our history (as a historian at least I know something about that). I actually accept your last message about feelings but you also should have sensitivity and some knowledge of history of Southeastern Europe. The language here was a very important/crucial sing for national identity in time of germanisation, magyarisation and italianization in croatian countries during the centuries under foreign rulers. USA or GB didn't have such historical experience (they, especial the UK were assimilators), we had. "SC" in Yugodlavia really meant this: it was not only about the unifivation of the language than also about the unification of Croats and Serbs which was without success (just because of many differences between as) and ended in bloody war in 1990-s. So, are there eccept linguistc any other conotations or not? You or kwami may answer that in discussions but I would like to read it here clearly once again. Could you ask kwami also to anwer me? I only discussed, didn't reverted or make any changes in articles. I discusses civilised and gave my sources and argumentation and it's on you accept it or not. Thanks! --Flopy (talk) 20:14, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are quite correct, Flopy, that you were never involved in any of the edit warring. In English, the term "Serbo-Croatian" only refers to the language. It has no other meanings. There are two ways that the term is used to refer to the language. The first is to refer to the official standard language based on Shtokavian that is now broken down into standard Bosnian, Croatian, and Serbian. The second is to refer to all the dialects of the western branch of South Slavic that are not Slovenian, that is, to Shtokavian, Kajkavian, and Chakavian as a unit. It's not always 100% certain whether a particular author is or is not including Kajkavian and Chakavian in "Serbo-Croatian", but it always includes Shtokavian and the three national varieties of Bosnian, Croatian, and Serbian. There are no ethnic overtones to the term "Serbo-Croatian" in English, it is simply a linguistic term. --Taivo (talk) 21:51, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That agrees with my understanding, Flopy, including a large amount of recent reading up on English sources because of this debate. There simply are no ethnic or imperial overtones to the phrase in English; "Serbo-Croatian" just means Serbian plus Croatian, and now plus Bosnian, as a language. It's politically, historically, and ethnically neutral to us. Usage was of course reinforced during the Yugoslav decades, but long before that it was the only term in English for the abstand language, the kind of thing that an English speaker would study in school. (No university is going to offer separate courses in Serbian and Croatian, just as none offer separate courses in Hindi and Urdu, or in Malaysian and Indonesian.) The Foreign Service Institute at the US Dept. of State still calls its language course "Serbo-Croatian", I presume (OR) because their target audience is Americans who aren't going to be offended.

Remember too that for most English speakers, at least in the US and UK, the Serbs were the bad guys in the Balkan wars, and sympathies were first with the Croats, then with the Bosniaks, and then with the Albanians. We also have a culturally ingrained tendency to identify with the underdog, and Serbs were never seen as the underdog. I don't know of any American who is sympathetic to Serbian attempts to dominate their neighbors; coverage of Serbia in the US media was almost entirely negative. It's just that we don't see language as having anything to do with it: alphabet, religion, history, but not language.

I understand that many Croats may find the term offensive, and if we had a viable alternate, we would probably take it to avoid offense. But it seems that there is no viable alternate apart from awkward paraphrases like BCMS (or should it be SCBM? we could have an argument over that too!) But when you start getting into editing an article in order to avoid offending people, rather than to objectively describe what it thought or known, things quickly become problematic. Yes, for Serbs, even back in 1850, the Neoštokavian standard was apparently part of a dream of assimilating all SS peoples, or at least assimilating Croats and Muslims. But then for Croats it was apparently part of a dream of unifying the divergent dialects (arguably languages) that make up Croatian. What if we were to start hearing from Čakavian activists, who were upset at forced assimilation at the hands of Štokavian speakers and insisted that "Croatian never existed! It is forced assimilation! Čakavian is a South Slavic language! You are a stooge for Štokavian militants! You are stealing our history! Čakavian is not Štokavian!!!" Should we then move Croatian language to Čakavian-Kajkavian-Štokavian? I don't know if that sounds ridiculous to you, but that's how the "Croatian is not Serbo-Croatian!!" diatribes sound to me and I imagine to most English speakers, for whom Serbs and Croats are simply indistinguishable peoples in the Balkans who seem to fight all the time.

That said, if we had a discussion on renaming Serbo-Croatian, like Vodomar's started, rather than denials of its existence and wild, seemingly paranoid accusations about us being secret Serbian agents, it might go somewhere. I don't know if a request to move would succeed or not, but I think everyone would see it as a legitimate debate. The current debate, on the other hand, probably strikes most English speakers as ludicrous, the rantings of (well, no polite term comes to mind), and not something to be taken seriously. — kwami (talk) 22:23, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Taivo, and especially Kwami I am satisfied with your answer. So, no other meanings than pure linguistic. I believe you, have no reason not to believe. In the article there is only a piece of the sentence why is the term "SC" controversial for Croats:..though this term is controversial for native speakers. Is it possibile to write just a little more (why is it controversial)? I am never exclusive in discussion and I tend to finde a compromis. I think that would be a good compromise, at least for me and I am also sure for some other native speaker. Some user would/will probably criticize me but it doesn't matter. So, yes it is offensive for the majoritiy Croats and my well intentioned advice to you is: if you ever are going to visit Croatia (which I can hardly recommend to you) don't make mention of "SC" :-) --Flopy (talk) 11:12, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We had a little more, but it was deleted, I think because it was thought to be too offtrack for the lead. If you have a suggested wording, that would be helpful. But if we got into very much detail it would need to be a separate section, and that would strike me as being off topic for the Croatian language article. We do cover some of the issues at Serbo-Croatian#History of linguistic issues. Maybe we could link to that? You might want to review it to make sure we've got it right: it's hard to understand political sensitivities at this distance. Anyway, if you wish to reword the lede or the SC language issues section, you'd probably do a better job than I would.

I've always wanted to visit the historic towns on the Dalmatian coast, so maybe I will get to Croatia some day. Actually, I think you can make a pretty good argument that Serbian is a variant of Croatian (the time depth and linguistic diversity is in Croatia, rather like England for English); maybe that would be a more popular opinion than telling people they're speaking SC! — kwami (talk) 11:56, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Kwami, that we should have a link to the History of linguistic issues section at Serbo-Croatian. That does seem to be part of a good solution. --Taivo (talk) 12:18, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First of all sorry for "which I can hardly recommend to you", I meant "what I warmly can recommend to you". My level of English is intermediate and sometimes I do mistakes:)I think it should be a little more than now but as my English is not so good (you see I do mistakes) I don't think it would be a good idea that I write something. I gave you the reasons why (political, symbol of communist repression in Yugoslavia and Serbian hegemony in Kingdom of Yugoslavia), pehaps you could reword. Also the link to History of linguistic issues is good idea but I think not on the end than in the section where is the piece of sentence I mentioned. Kwami I can only to say you welcome but I don't think it would be a more popular opinion that Serbian is a variant of Croatian (perhaps only for extreme rightists) than that they are three separate languages. But, you can try;) --Flopy (talk) 12:41, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since you've asked for my input, I'll put it out here but Taivo and kwami have dealt with certain parts of how I see the matter. In addition I think that expansion of the sociolinguistic aspects of BCMS/SC is worth working on (if it expands further, perhaps it should be expressed as an independent article since the article on the language itself should focus on "boring" topics like phonology, morphology and lexis).

To reiterate, Serbo-Croatian can bear three meanings to me. For most of us in the Anglosphere who have little or no connection to the Balkans, Serbo-Croatian refers to language only (1st meaning). Less commonly it can be used as an adjective denoting something involving both Serbs and Croats or Serbia and Croatia (e.g. "Serbo-Croatian political relations", "Serbo-Croatian projects on infrastructure"). The third meaning can be "official standard language of Yugoslavia that was biased towards the Serbian variant" but this only occurs to me and other native speakers of English only IF we have ties to the former Yugoslavia or have studied something about the region (I'm aware of this third meaning only because I've studied some BCMS/SC before but that was long ago i sada govorim malo BHS/SH).

Although I (and some other native English speakers such as Taivo, kwami and Aeusoes1) are aware of the symbolism in the term "Serbo-Croatian", the symbolism is meaningful to people from the Balkans. Based on our experience with English (not to mention French, German, Portuguese or Spanish), there is nothing unusual or "wrong" about different people (or groups who identify themselves as different) who use virtually the same language. The concept of a pluricentric language applies quite neatly to what happens and is observed. It hardly bothers anyone. Canadians and Americans know that they are different people but don't care that they speak variants of the same language primarily because both sides recognize differences in other areas. Flopy since you know some German, you're probably aware of the treatment of German in Austria and German in Germany. There is a detectable difference in how Austrians and Germans can perceive each other and themselves BUT neither Austrians nor Germans perceive their sense of being to be diminished by using variants of the same language. I think that there is also a greater sense of mental security which removes the need of cherishing the idea that language is the primary marker of identity (although it's interesting to remember that the idea of language as the core of a nation (narod) was synthesized by the German philosopher Johann G. Herder in the 18th century).

In addition the idea of language being the primary marker of a nation ignores large communities where the members' status depends on place of birth (e.g. you're an American just because you were born in the geographical entity called "The United States of America". It doesn't matter much what the religion (if applicable), ethnic consciousness or native language of your parents are, although there is nothing stopping anyone from viewing him/herself as a follower of a certain faith or member of a certain ethnic group or speaker of any language). Many of us in the English-speaking world come from such an environment (think of Australia, Canada, and the USA in particular).

Anyway to bring the discussion back to the linguistic side, you notice that I often use BCMS/SC because I acknowledge that the language is being used here as a marker for national identity AND a term representing a collection of variants drawing on the same sub-dialect. Where I do have a problem is the blatant subordination of language to national interests or political preferences to the exclusion of reference that's less political or less nationalized. By definition national interests are often of little importance to outsiders (that's why they're called "national" interests!). Why should potential users/students of BCMS/SC who have no relations to the ex-Yugoslavia automatically feel pressured to align with the sociolinguistic perceptions of native speakers? By the same token, Croats in ESL classes should not be insulted or ignored if they do not understand or refuse to participate in debates over which form of English is more prestigious. In other words, students in an ESL class shouldn't be insulted or looked down upon by people who criticize American foreign policy (or are anti-American) because they're learning and using standard American English. Even the term "English" can theoretically be viewed as pejorative since it makes no comment on the fact that "English" (i.e. something pertaining to Anglia or England) refers to the native language of people who have no connection to England in the first place (e.g. many Americans of Irish descent could theoretically take offense to the term "English" because of the nominal or etymological connection to England. The USA emerged as new "country" after the War of Independence from (1776-1783) while relations between the Irish and the English have been sometimes rocky). In the English-speaking world, we have no obstacle to or problem with seeing different ethnic groups from ex-Yugoslavia and generally try to respect the ethnic awareness (since most English-speaking countries today are made up of recent immigrants, there's nothing shocking about terms such as "Serbian-American", "Bosnian-Canadian" or "Croatian-Australian"). At the same time the insistence that different ethnic groups must also speak distinct languages (regardless of the degree of mutual intelligibility or virtual identity in many of the linguistic characteristics used) is puzzling (if not mind-blowing or frowned upon) because one would think that new immigrants to a country should be grateful to live in an environment where being in the "wrong" ethnic group or speaking "the enemy's language" is not going to mean fines, imprisonment or worse.

If you want to discuss this topic further, feel free. I don't mind. It is just that I think that the politicized arguments are often actually offensive because they've been used to push for what I see as destructive or harmful policies (e.g. the nationalist Serbian interpretation of Vuk's simplistic reasoning that ANYONE who natively speaks any Shtokavian (sub-)dialect must be a Serb just like him; the nationalist Croatian interpretation that because Croats and Serbs are acknowledged by everyone to be different people/ethnic groups, therefore they must also speak different languages (but I ignore those nationalist Serbs who like to use the term "Catholic Serbs"); the nationalist Bosnian interpretation that the Croats and Serbs "stole" one of "their" dialects because of the reliance on Eastern Herzegovinian in creating the standard languages). Vput (talk) 17:27, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vput, thank you (hvala) for your detailed answer. You three explained me the attitude of "english speaking" linguistic. We in Croatia will allways have different attitude and connect that with national and political feelings. "SC" as a symbol for repression and denying of our national identity. The problem are Štambuk (with his provocative messages), Director and some other users who deliberately put tension high in order to show to the native speakers that many Croats are intolerant nationalist and that there is no sense to discuss with us. They have their own private reasons for that (Štambuk is blocked indefinitly on hr.wiki, and after that he became an active user here and since that time we have such discussions here, that was not before) and I am sure you are aware of it. Most of you have no connections to Balkan and Štambuk is using that to tell you lies about "nationalist Croats". But I am sure you are aware of that. I am trying to undesteand your attitudes and I just would like that you try to undesteand the attitudes of somebody who is coming form that area of the world. Nothing more and nothing less. Unlike some other I didn't come here to yelling that you all are against Croats, I came here civilized to read your arguments and that you read mine and not exclusivistic characterize us as "nationalistic". I made some compromise proposals for the article, kwami allready did some changes, but it could be more. Just a little more. Do I want to much? --Flopy (talk) 20:00, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you are leery of changing the article because of your English (which I sympathize with: I'm insecure about my ability to write in other languages too), you can always propose changes or additions on the talk page and one of us can add it in with the appropriate corrections to your English. That would also ensure that non-Croats don't see it as overly political.

Vput's comment about the Irish is relevant. There was a lot of bad blood between the Irish and the English (saying "the English" with an Irish accent is even almost an ethnic slur sometimes), due to a long history of imperialism, exploitation, and events such as the Irish potato famine, yet the Irish have no problem with calling their language "English". (Almost no-one speaks Irish anymore.) The Scots sometimes call what they speak a separate language, but I think that's because it's so divergent that it needs a separate dictionary, and outsiders can hardly understand it. — kwami (talk) 00:31, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please could you explain why you made the edit to Kiev - Undid revision 390546751 by A.h. king on 19:11, 13 October 2010. The photos are the same. Is the problem that the photo was improperly uploaded to commons? See -[11]. --Toddy1 (talk) 19:30, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's pretty automatic when I see Kiev > Kyiv. --Taivo (talk) 19:45, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Keristrasza (talk) 13:13, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please, See http://www.ethnologue.com/show_family.asp?subid=681-16 What is this: "A. Eastern Algonquian" ??? It's true: A. Plains Algonquian; B. Central Algonquian; C. Eastern Algonquian --Kmoksy (talk) 19:52, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnologue uses an out-of-date classification for Algic. Contemporary Algonquian scholars do not divide the family up geographically. Only Eastern Algonquian is a genetic node. For example, Mithun does not separate Plains and Central, only Eastern. --Taivo (talk) 22:28, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A proposal to change the layout and sorting criteria of the article List of sovereign states has been finalised and submitted for consensus.

As you were previously involved in the discussion for this change, I thought I would inform you of the final proposal. Please provide comments here. Nightw 13:19, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've opened up a WP:RFM for List of sovereign states at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/List of sovereign states. Please indicate whether you agree or don't agree to mediation there. TDL (talk) 00:40, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, TaivoLinguist. You have new messages at Chipmunkdavis's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:59, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. I thought I'd let you know that I'm going to be travelling until early January, so I won't really be able to really contribute to either of those mediation cases with which we're involved. It looks as though things are getting moving again on the Somaliland one, so good luck! Nightw 15:40, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If "since a reader will search in vain for any reference to German." is part of your objection, then a few words could be added explaining about the first use of the word. It already has a sentence on the etymology in the intro; it can just be fuller. "Austronesian" is not a proper name because those are a subset of nouns whereas "Austronesian" is an adjective. It also differs from proper names such as are not found in a dictionary. "Austronesian" can be found in a dictionary. How to quantify this difference I do not know but there clearly is a difference. Also, Berlin being in the German loanwords category wouldn't tell you much; it's to be expected. On the other hand, Austronesian languages being part of the German loanwords category shows that Germans were the first to study the languages which is something people might not know. Munci (talk) 14:20, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Austronesian" is, indeed, a proper name since it has a specific, identifiable references to a group of languages. I don't know where you got the idea that it was not. It is always capitalized. That's a pretty darn good indication for even a lay reader that a term is a proper name. And I don't know where you got the idea that a proper name cannot be used as an adjective--"Polish sausage", "Russian vodka", "Hamburg dockyards", etc. No one is denying that Germans were among the first to study these languages, but that doesn't make the term "Austronesian" a loanword. It is built from Latin/Greek roots just like Micronesia, Polynesia, etc. that mean "South Islands". So, if anything, it's not a German loanword, but a Latin/Greek loanword. The use of "German loanword" in this case is totally inappropriate. --Taivo (talk) 14:38, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I got that idea from looking up the wikipedia article I linked above, the Oxford, Collins and Chambers dictionaries. They all said proper name=proper noun. Anyway, "Russian vodka" is different from "Hamburg dockyards" because the former is an adjective and the latter is an adjectival use of the noun. But it doesn't matter that much anyway. Munci (talk) 13:33, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose, at their own discretion, sanctions on any editor working on pages broadly related to the Balkans if the editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. If you engage in further inappropriate behavior in this area, you may be placed under sanctions including blocks, a revert limitation or an article ban. The committee's full decision can be read at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia#Final decision.

I am giving you and everybody else involved in the Croatian disputes notice that I intend to crack down on the incivility that fills the current disputes. Any comment that attributes bad motives to an editor or otherwise insults an editor is going to draw a block. This will happen even if the incivility is in response to incivility from another editor. The appropriate response to that is to complain, not to respond in kind. I intend to apply this to everybody involved. According to the WP:ARBMAC sanctions, editors can only be blocked if they have been notified of the sanctions. You can find a list of the editors who have been notified at WP:ARBMAC#Log of warnings. If I have missed anybody, please bring it to my intention. I am very serious about this. Looie496 (talk) 03:02, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(You haven't sinned to the same degree as others, but I intend to be completely evenhanded about this. Statements such as "You are blinded by your POV and unable to see scientific sources. I agree with Kwami, this is pointless. You have no interest in a referenced scientifically-sound encyclopedia. Please return to the Croatian Wikipedia where you can be back with your own kind", which you wrote to Kubura, are not going to be acceptable. Looie496 (talk) 03:02, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We could use some cool heads at Archaeology and the Book of Mormon. I am trying to overhaul the article, (maybe a bit too much for comfort of other editors - and I admit I have my biases - but I am trying to get the article to adhere to WP policy, particularly WP:RS), and I sense an edit war brewing. --Descartes1979 (talk) 23:08, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I added it to my watchlist. --Taivo (talk) 23:49, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Taivo,

according to all other places in Wikipedia, Chenoua is a sub-sub-branch of Zenati, itself a sub-branch of Northern Berber. So why did you put it as a primary branch into the infobox here? I would have removed it from the infobox right away, but I first wanted to know if perhaps there is a reason that I'm missing. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 20:38, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because I haven't seen any sources that place it within any of the branches of Zenati. Ethnologue places it as a top-level branch (or, actually, as unclassified) so that is the only source that I've seen. Do you have a reliable source that places it elsewhere within Zenati? --Taivo (talk) 20:47, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No idea where exactly the classification used in Wikipedia elsewhere (including the above article itself, outside the infobox) comes from. For Chenoua specifically, I've found this source. I can't access Kossmann (1999), which should provide further detail. I'm no specialist on Berber, I just noticed the inconsistence. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 21:11, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at my copy of Kossmann and he doesn't really build a subgrouping of Zenati except in general terms. He lists the languages in groups, which are somewhat geographic, but doesn't specifically claim that they are genetic groupings. He groups Chenoua with Beni Snous and Menacer as a group of languages in Northwest Algeria. But in Ethnologue, Beni Snous and Menacer are not listed, but Chenoua is listed as an independent branch of Zenati. So listing Chenoua separately is justified if Beni Snous and Menacer are included in it, but not necessarily if they are independently listed. But just because one article in Wikipedia says X doesn't mean that another article can't say Y. After all, WP:OTHERSTUFF.  :)) --Taivo (talk) 23:14, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But shouldn't at least every article be internally consistent?

Also, you're still missing the point (look at the section header): In all sources but Ethnologue, Chenoua is listed as a sub-branch of Zenati, not Northern Berber (at least not as primary sub-branch). They state that it is part of the Zenati group, not co-ordinate with it. Therefore, Ethnologue and the infobox are simply wrong, or at least at variance with the judgment of the specialists, which should weigh more heavily. Ethnologue's classifications are notoriously unreliable. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 23:31, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First, the classifications in Ethnologue are not "notoriously unreliable". They are notorious uneven. There is a difference. Some of their classifications are very reliable. It all depends on whether scholars on a particular language family are working closely with SIL to revise the classifications or ignoring them because they are missionaries and they despise missionaries. So please avoid the generalizations concerning Ethnologue. Some things they do very well. Other things they don't have the help available to do very well. Second, there are four basic sources that mention or seem to imply Chenoua in classifications. 1) Ruhlen 1976 mentions "Sheliff Basin" as part of Zenati; Chenoua may be part of his "Sheliff Basin". 2) Linguasphere (2000) lists "Menasser-Metmata" as part of North Berber with a note that it is part of NW Zenati; Chenoua may be part of its "Menasser-Metmata". 3) Kossmann (1999) mentions a NW Algeria group of Zenati consisting of Beni Snous, Menacer, and Chenoua. 4) Ethnologue lists Chenoua as a separate node of North Berber. None of these NW Algerian groups has had a lot of study so we are stuck with inferring the presence of Chenoua when it is not overtly mentioned. Based on this, and without further more specific references, it should be placed in Zenati. --Taivo (talk) 03:02, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But then, WHY do you keep it as a SEPARATE branch from Zenati in the infobox? That's what I've been asking all along. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 23:31, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Change it. I won't stop you. --Taivo (talk) 00:41, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have an issue with your edit, sir. I believe there is a 3RR rule that you are violating. Squarrels (talk) 07:44, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please count more accurately (I only reverted your edit twice) and read WP:BRD. After I reverted you the first time, you should have taken the issue up on the Talk Page to get consensus rather than making the same edit a second time. --Taivo (talk) 10:53, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would normally think you, and the OED, were correct, but there's that first quote from the ELL that's bothering me. What do you make of it? — kwami (talk) 19:31, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are nearly always outlying data points. If there were more support for the folkloric meaning of "folk etymology", then it would be part of a pattern. But an isolated reference, which may be more of a translation error than anything else, doesn't make a convincing case. We don't know the German model for his comment--it could be that the compounded German term may be "folk etymology" in the strict sense, but a non-compounded form may be "false etymology". (That is a pure guess.) But one aberrant data point when there are a hundred non-aberrant points is "fringe" and wouldn't really even constitute an alternative meaning. Taivo (talk) 20:28, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I deleted this comment of yours:

*Oppose. The linguistic term is the oldest and primary usage and is very clearly-defined and standardized. The folkloric usage of the phrase is not consistent, not universally-defined, not standardized, and is just one option out of several for defining the phenomenon. For example, the book The F Word (Jesse Sheidlower, 2nd ed, 1999, Random House) doesn't use the phrase "folk etymology" a single time in the 24-page introduction, despite the fact that this word probably has more "folk etymologies" than any other single word in the English language. --Taivo (talk) 19:43, 21 November 2010 (UTC),

from the discussion on Folk etymology because the section in which you commented (and which I have now archived) was actually a mooted discussion from the deleted Folk etymology (folklore page.μηδείς (talk) 22:59, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Taivo, I'm a bit new to Wikipedia as an editor, so I hope you'll explain to me why the addition about Russian/Ukrainian scholar was dismissed in the article on Linguistics. Why should a linguist of Russian or Ukrainian origin be considered unnecessary? There's not a word in the article on the scholars with such backgrounds, but you can't decline the Russian's and Ukrainian's contribution to Linguistics on the whole. Isn't it slightly bias? I don't mean to sound offensive or whatever, perhaps only a bit surprised. Hope to hear from you soon, AK IM OP (talk) 16:31, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It has nothing to do with the nationality of the scholar. The issue is that the article linguistics isn't about philosophy or peripheral issues to linguistics. Philosophy + linguistics is not a recognized combination among linguists. If you feel strongly that the issue is relevant, then discuss it on the talk page first and get a consensus for the addition. I'm not convinced that it is relevant to linguistics. --Taivo (talk) 18:16, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

I have just given a warning to a renamer, Rkononenko.User_talk:Rkononenko#Myrhorod_or_Mirgorod, User_talk:Rkononenko#Kyiv_.2F_Kiev, [12] & [13]

He has been changing "i" to "y" again. I have given him a level four final warning for [14] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bilhoro d_Kyivsky&diff=prev&oldid=396533977] :

"You have been asked many times to NOT change the "i" to "y" in names. Changing Kiev to Kyiv when it is NOT the "Official name", or "Kievsky" to "Kyivsky"'"

Was I correct or did I miss a debate on naming policy and these changes and page moves were OK (I do not want to give someone a bad warning !

thanks :¬) Chaosdruid (talk) 20:32, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This guy has been pushing the nationalist envelope for months now. I don't think the warning was excessive. (I moved the pages back.) --Taivo (talk) 21:27, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cool - that's what I thought  :¬) AFter I read the Kharkiv responses I was a little unsure and also wanted to alert everyone that had dealt with him in the past that he was feeling "safe" to do his "special work"

Chaosdruid (talk) 00:21, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

I am required to notify you that you were mentioned in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Canvassing_and_edit_warring_by_User:DavidOaks_at_Folk_etymology

μηδείς (talk) 21:51, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The original complex ANI against DavidOaks was archived without comment. I have reopened it here in regards only to his votestacking. μηδείς (talk) 21:37, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Upon refiling the complaint for canvassing one editor seemed to think I was accusing him of conspiring with DavidOaks and an admin assumed Oaks was notifying interested parties from all fields. They have reopened the complaint for comments here. An opinion on the nonsilliness of the issue there would be helpful. μηδείς (talk) 05:09, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Am I the only one who feels that posters on the Croatian language page who take the position it is a language use "LOL" a lot? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:19, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As a linguist, you may be interested in giving your input in this discussion regarding the usage of non-Roman in redirects and disambiguation pages. --HXL's Roundtable, and Record 17:15, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

I would appreciate some input here from more Ukrainian speakers/readers

thanks Chaosdruid (talk) 17:49, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thought you would be interested - Onondaga is repeatedly trying to dump over 30K of irrelevant material into Archaeology and the Book of Mormon

I have attempted to keep my head this time, but your repeated distortions have tempted me to bite further than I did the last time around. And you shouldn't come to a debate at all with this kind of arrogance, which I am sure you normally don't display while teaching. I have never seen someone be so insincere at reading others' comments to the full extent before replying. You did eventually, but your insistence on hitting us (opposition) over the head when some of us have expressed recognition of common usage before getting to anything else is unacceptable. And this time, I am more serious; moreover, I have better tasks on WP than to participate in a discussion that will stall, if not, be renewed, citing lack of broad consensus, which I doubt your viewpoint will ever gain.
The opposition's argument does not have only "I don't like it", though you like to portray it as such. maybe you should go trolling around the PRC, ROC, and China pages arguing for "China" to be re-directed to either the PRC or the ROC. Of course people will not "like it". that's what disagreement is. you know this, but use it as a lame excuse to sweep our arguments away. The opposition's argument can be summed up really as NPOV and accuracy, the former of which is why you shouldn't troll around asking for a re-direct from China to PRC; despite NCON "dictating" that 'China' re-direct to PRC, we have POV here. and don't pull up "other stuff". this is NOT a deletion discussion. --HXL's Roundtable, and Record 07:46, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But you have made NO arguments whatsoever in opposition. Not a single one. Not a single one of you has said anything along the lines of "I don't agree because...., with this evidence". Not a single one of you. --Taivo (talk) 11:39, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

if that is your standard of making an argument, then that is pathetic. To be blunt, and you have admitted this, you are delving into an area that you know not enough about. Enough with your ridiculous excuses, which amount to nothing more than propaganda. I think it reasonable to conclude that you won't accept or consider it given your deficiency of knowledge in this region. I will continue to assail you on this page until you withdraw that accusation. --HXL's Roundtable, and Record 13:45, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever, especially if your arguments are only based on personal POV rather than on actual evidence. You have admitted over and over that my evidence is overwhelming enough to make my point. But in the face of overwhelming evidence, you provide none. I'd say that's a poor excuse for a reason. Your argument still boils down to "I don't like it". What evidence do you have for any other reason? None. The most common name for this language in English is "Standard Chinese". You admit that. WP:NCON, which is Wikipedia policy, dictates that most common English usage prevails in naming articles. You admit that. So since you admit that all the relevant evidence points to "Standard Chinese", your arguments have no basis other than "I don't like it." Prove otherwise. --Taivo (talk) 14:10, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your participation in the Croatian language article and thought that you would be interested in this: [15] -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 12:02, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please could you have a look at the article on Nikolayev (Ukraine). I am not happy with the most recent edit to it. But I am aware that my view that the English name is Nikolayev or Nikolaev Airport is not one tolerated on Wikipedia (especially by people from Canada and USA whose grandparents fought for the Germans in the Great Patriotic War).--Toddy1 (talk) 17:37, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Russian versions should never be removed from cities in Ukraine. --Taivo (talk) 00:07, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that this template is putting "{{#ifexpr:1+1!=1|" at the top of pages. Is this due to something you've done this template? I'd simply revert it to an older, presumably stable, version but from the revision notes it appears you ahve been trying to fix one existing problem & I don't want to undo that just to fix another. Especially since I'm not familiar with the template programming language. -- llywrch (talk) 21:28, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At some point in the last couple of months someone edited the template and the list of states where languages are spoken disappeared and no longer listed them (even though they were still in the wikitext). --Taivo (talk) 01:52, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, TaivoLinguist. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Meetup/Utah.
Message added 16:43, 22 December 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I beg to consider again the question Kiev/naming that was addressed in October 2009. This question can have international legal consequences.

This is not "nationalistic pressure to change the title". It's international relations.

When I studied English, Kyiv was Kiev . But, everything flows, nothing stands still...

Best regards,

--Pavlo1 (talk) 15:11, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome to address the issue again, but you need to actually read the evidence that was gathered last year. The usage of Kiev versus Kyiv in English has not changed since then. The issue has nothing to do with international relations, but only common English usage. The evidence that Kiev is still the most common English spelling is still overwhelming. English speakers have not changed in a year and what their governments say doesn't make one bit of difference. Examine the evidence from last year before you waste your time making another proposal. It is your job to convince the editors with supporting evidence that common English usage has changed. Government positions are irrelevant, only common English usage matters in Wikipedia. (See WP:NCON) --Taivo (talk) 16:23, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder how the "nationalistic" wikipedia editors would feel if the English government tried to impose its chosen spellings on the Ukrainian language? What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

It also puzzles me that that these "Ukrainian nationalists" tend to live in America, Canada, Australia (basically former English colonies). Surely if these people are so nationalistic, they would want to live in Ukraine? That way they could attempt to speak Ukrainian all time. Why do these people who have very little connection with Ukraine seek to impose their spelling of personal names and place names on people from Ukraine, ignoring the preferences of the people themselves?

Why is it that "nationalistic" wikipedia editors do not like Jews from Ukraine who emigrate to the west listed as Ukrainian-Americans?--Toddy1 (talk) 20:30, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, indeed, my dear Ukrainian friend :) This happens often in all the articles subject to nationalism--the expatriots are often more strongly nationalistic than the actual citizens. --Taivo (talk) 21:01, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On this topic, do you think Guangzhou would be better at Canton? I don't know of anyone who calls it "Guangzhou" in English (at least in spoken English), and even Cantonese-speaking Chinese-Americans call it "Canton". But in writing I do often see "Guangzhou". — kwami (talk) 21:43, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course English names like Peking, Canton, and Chung King should be used.--Toddy1 (talk) 08:30, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By the way this wonderful link was placed on Talk:Kharkov by user Butko - Books Ngram Viewer. It compares usage over time. There was an article about this type of Google tool in last Friday's edition fo the The Economist.--Toddy1 (talk) 08:30, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Taivo. I respect your healthy conservatism. However, in this case, your position creates a conflict between the wikirules "Сommon English" and "Authoritative source". I must insist on re-examination of this issue.

Do not get me wrong. This article was not written for you and me (we know what is Kiev and what is Kyiv). The article is addressed for the thousands of Wikipedias readers from Brazil, South Africa, India, etc. who want to visit Ukraine. They will travel to Kiev, but will arrive (bad surprise) in Kyiv!

Welcome to Kyiv.

Happy editing. --Pavlo1 (talk) 09:46, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No the place name is written Київ. Perhaps we should just abolish English spelling and use only Ukrainian language spelling?--Toddy1 (talk) 10:52, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I studied English, including in the Newport's Naval Staff College... In your opinion, my friends, the U.S. naval officers use "the Ukrainian language spelling" special for me? --Pavlo1 (talk) 11:52, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pavlo1, as I said above, you are welcome to readdress the issue, but I doubt that the situation has changed and Wikipedia is, by WP:NCON bound by the principle of common English usage. English usage hasn't really changed in a year. But if you want to gather the evidence from media sources, etc., knock yourself out. But examine the evidence gathered last year and see how high the bar has been placed before you offer one or two things from government sources. --Taivo (talk) 15:39, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

O.K. Maybe you're right. This is not my topic. But...

Repeat. Wikipedia exists primarily for the people. This is a information guide (I think so). People need to know how to address a letter to Kiev or Kiyv, where to take the ticket, how to fill out visa documents, in the end.

I propose a compromise solution: in the first part of the article should be a section about the official (in use) name of the city. As will be known as section - does not matter, I'm talking about that the man got into city, looking for pointers understood that it is there where he wants.

Section "History of Kiev's name in English" will not replace it. It has a purely academic value.

Personal request. Why change Kyiv to Kiev in the other articles? For example: if the author wrote about the ship, which was built at the shipyard "Leninska Kuznya" Plant Joint Stock Co, he uses the official address of the plant — Ukraine, Kyiv, 29-A Electrikov Street, or short Kyiv. Am I wrong?

P.S. In my speech to protection of the term Kyiv I suggested just two (from my point of view, the most authoritative sources) examples, because you have rejected all other options, previously proposed.

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year.

--Pavlo1 (talk) 18:31, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't "rejected" anything, but you have put too much emphasis on official government sources. Official government sources are only one of the pieces of evidence used to determine common English usage. That's my point--that government sources are no more important than any other source or piece of evidence. All are of equal value and since the majority of sources show that "Kiev" is still the most common English spelling, the government sources do not have the weight by themselves to change anything here. The article on Kiev already shows the alternate Ukrainian form of the name in the very first sentence in bold type. That is quite sufficient. Wikipedia isn't a travel guide, so mixing "Kiev" and "Kyiv" in the article (and throughout Wikipedia) is unacceptable. "Kiev" is the most common English usage, so it is the standard form that should be found throughout Wikipedia. --Taivo (talk) 19:53, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please could you add Krivoy Rog to your watchlist. It had been vandalised, and the English-language name deleted in November, but nobody noticed.

Best wishes for 2011, though I fear that myself and most other people 2011 will be a very bleak year.--Toddy1 (talk) 17:06, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey mate! Just to keep you updated, I've just re-added Somaliland to the East Africa page following that rediculous mediation case we had. Let's hope it sticks. In order to help with this, I've requested an upload of that photo from Danlaycock, so that we might include the image on the page. The Somali language page still appears to be stable.

I just wanted to make sure that some progress came out of that case. Anyway, I'll keep you posted... Cheers, Nightw 03:09, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good show. Thanks for the heads-up. --Taivo (talk) 04:11, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It didn't stick. Any ideas? Nightw 04:59, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits on the East Africa article are simply unacceptable. You can clearly see and have been told repeatedly that the part of the intro that you keep adding the Somaliland region of Somalia to refers to the actual territories in the U.N. geoscheme:

East Africa or Eastern Africa is the easterly region of the African continent, variably defined by geography or geopolitics. In the UN scheme of geographic regions, 19 territories constitute Eastern Africa:^[1]

Per the U.N. website itself, the secessionist Somaliland region of Somalia most certainly is not a part of its geoscheme. Alluding to some agreement you may have reached with other like-minded editors cannot change that. Wikipedia functions first and foremost according to reliable sources, not original research. I'm asking you politely to stop adding untruths to the article. Next time, it's off to AN/I. Middayexpress (talk) 00:21, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Did you actually read the addition? It does not include Somaliland as a full member. And just because you refused to be a part of the arbitration process doesn't mean that you can set the agenda for the rest. A consensus was reached to include Somaliland. That was the result of the arbitration. --Taivo (talk) 01:29, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant. Somaliland was already included in the article. But that apparently wasn't good enough, since you then attempted to add it to the section of the article exclusively reserved for actual countries that are a part of the U.N.'s geoscheme. And that, of course, still most certainly does not include the Somaliland region [16]. This unfortunately makes your edit [17] very much original research. Middayexpress (talk) 01:38, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus in the arbitration was that Somaliland should be added, but as a parenthetical remark. All I added was the parenthetical remark that was the result of the discussion at the arbitration. Perhaps you should read WP:CONSENSUS before traveling solo down this road. --Taivo (talk) 01:40, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

...and the Somaliland region was already added as a parenthetical remark. But that still apparently wasn't good enough, since you then attempted to add it [18] to the section of the article exclusively reserved for actual countries that are a part of the U.N.'s geoscheme. And that, of course, still most certainly does not include the Somaliland region [19]. This likewise unfortunately makes your edit very much original research. End of story. Middayexpress (talk) 02:09, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You don't seem to understand the meaning of WP:OR and WP:NPOV. --Taivo (talk) 02:36, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FYI...you're name has come up at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Geoscheme as a result of this issue. Or more precisely, a discussion of anonymous "open supporters of Somaliland", which I presume is you, has come up. TDL (talk) 22:20, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notification. Middayexpress didn't bother to notify anyone else. --Taivo (talk) 22:49, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, this is just to let you know that I have granted you the "autopatrolled" permission. This won't affect your editing, it just automatically marks any page you create as patrolled, benefiting new page patrollers. Please remember:

• This permission does not give you any special status or authority
• Submission of inappropriate material may lead to its removal
• You may wish to display the {{Autopatrolled}} top icon and/or the {{User wikipedia/autopatrolled}} userbox on your user page
• If, for any reason, you decide you do not want the permission, let me know and I can remove it

If you have any questions about the permission, don't hesitate to ask. Otherwise, happy editing! Acalamari 14:00, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please could you have a look at the article on Rus' (region). I think whoever wrote either the article, or the English translations used as sources in the article has mistranslated the word for Norsemen as Norman. In English, they do not have the same meaning. So when the article starts talking about Normanist Treory and Anti-Normanist theory, they are using what I think are the wrong words. Unfortunately the terms "Normanist Treory" and "Anti-Normanist theory" are fairly wdiespread on the internet.--Toddy1 (talk) 22:27, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But what is “Egyptian writing?” Is it simply hieroglyphics? Is it Demotic? That, to me, is the question. As AFAIK the Coptic Wikipedia is the only variety of Egyptian with its own WP, I figured it might couldn’t hurt to include it under the larger umbrella of “Egyptian language.”

And Internet chatters write Arabic all the time without writing it in Arabic. ;) What about Maltese? —Wiki Wikardo 20:07, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Taivo, I have reported some IP users I believe to be the same person for abusive language. See Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts#IP editor 24.0.177.155.2F70.111.133.184. However someone has asked for a translation of the abusive language from Ukrainian to English. Please could you help both in saying what it says, and why some words are offensive (for example the word he uses for Russian people).--Toddy1 (talk) 21:21, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't speak Ukrainian, Toddy1. Sorry. --Taivo (talk) 22:18, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Taivo, if you don't speak Ukrainian, how in the world do you posit yourself as an authority on Ukrainian linguistics? Please stop your anti-Ukrainian agenda. I have provided references for Kyiv Pechersk Lavra being the correct English transliteration from Ukrainian. Please stop deleting it without discussion. Sanya3 (talk) 09:06, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't take a speaking knowledge of Ukrainian to read Ukrainian and understand what is and is not a correct transliteration of a name. Since you provided references for your "incorrect" transliteration, then it can stand. --Taivo (talk) 13:56, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It seems we've finally found a mediator for this case. Please see the discussion here and indicate whether you consent to mediation. Thanks. TDL (talk) 23:20, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi m8

They were on the Ukraine page, not the Kiev page yet. I'll put them on there as well right now :¬) Chaosdruid (talk) 07:25, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for correcting me. I was in a hurry and I replaced with "kartvelian" even those names that I should not have. Best.--ComtesseDeMingrélie 02:00, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The initial MEDCAB mediator got busy and a second mediator is willing to take the case, but we need to re-state our acceptance/decline. Please see the discussion here and indicate whether you consent to mediation or not. Please, even if you don't expect to participate (because of lack of time or other reason) - state your acceptance/non-acceptance of the mediation process - so that we don't have to wait for unaccounted for users. Thanks. Alinor (talk) 18:30, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You reverted me at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Cyprus . I have gotten used to taking reverts on the chin and forgetting about them. But I have to inform you that what happened on the island is only described as an intervention by the Republic of Turkey and its sphere of influence. Your revert supports the Republic of Turkey's POV and does not support consensus. The Army of the Republic of Turkey has been on the island for 37 years. That is not an intervention. It is an invasion with a fully-intended intended permanent occupation. The United Nations recognises it as an invasion. Now what on earth is your reason for calling it an "intervention"?  Nipsonanomhmata  ^(Talk) 12:32, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Take it to Talk:Northern Cyprus if you want to discuss. --Taivo (talk) 12:59, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You need to discuss a one word reversion? I'm game if you are but don't keep me waiting because I'll come right back here.  Nipsonanomhmata  ^(Talk) 01:32, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That word can be highly charged. Read WP:BRD. That says that if someone reverts your edit, you take it to the Talk Page and get a consensus. Take it to the Talk Page. --Taivo (talk) 02:02, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is not some "game" - please do not think that something can be discussed in a short period of time such as half an hour. Consensus on these matters, and do not forget that these pages are much argued over and contentious, can take some time.

I would appreciate it if in future you allowed more time than half an hour before deciding that the matter is settled. (and I am saying that to all concerned!) Chaosdruid (talk) 05:50, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am also a little confused as to this discussion here over "tested the theory" - it seems that there is some hidden agenda perhaps? Chaosdruid (talk) 06:00, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is the "theory" that he was testing. --Taivo (talk) 06:04, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah ok, I hate it when lengthy discussions occur in edit summaries lol, thanks for clarifying. Hope all is well with you and yours btw! Time for bed as sun will be up in about 30 mins :¬) Chaosdruid (talk) 06:10, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Georgia (country) currently uses "invasion" in its description of Russia's acitons in the 2008 war. Standardise one way or the other? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 06:11, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the English language press probably uses "invasion" for both the Ossetian incursion and the Northern Cyprus incursion. That's probably the search term that most English speakers will use (a criterion of WP:NCON). But the editors of Turkish POV might object. --Taivo (talk) 06:14, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well I have posted some definitions and reasoning at the talk page, but I suspect that Russia's motives were more A1 and A2 than B anything Chaosdruid (talk) 06:18, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Russia's motives for anything are always A1 and/or A2 ;) --Taivo (talk) 06:21, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This was the justification given by another editor about the reason for the word "invasion", if that helps. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 06:21, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I notice on your userpage you have a passing interest in linguistics; I was wondering if you know anything about the Dutch/Flemish debate? It came up on Dutch people, but I didn't really have the background to deal with it, as far as language goes. Let me know if you interested, but know you might walk into a trap of ethnic conflict... Outback the koala (talk) 00:57, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've walked into those traps before. Dutch and Flemish are varieties of a single language. --Taivo (talk) 02:03, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, You reverted this edit I made[20]. May I ask why?

The piece is sourced:

On the contrary, the French linguist Didier Morin (2001) has made an attempt to

bridge the gap between Beja and another branch of Cushitic, namely Low-Land East Cushitic and in particular Afar and Saho, the linguistic hypothesis being historically grounded on the

fact that the three languages where once geographically contiguious.[21]

Wadaad (talk) 23:53, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The reference is virtually hearsay in an article that isn't really about the historical relationships of Beja. It's a brief one-off sentence. Additionally, the theory is not widely accepted among Afroasianists--mentioning it is a violation of WP:UNDUE. --Taivo (talk) 07:20, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The reference is not 'hearsay'. It refers to a study published by Didier Morin in 2001. Wadaad (talk) 07:35, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia reference therefore should not be to a one-sentence reference in a work that does not focus on historical linguistics, but to the actual work where the theory is proposed. However, a single reference to a theory that is not widely accepted must be very carefully weighed and is subject to the restrictions of WP:UNDUE. The majority of linguists do not accept a special relationship between Beja and Afar-Saho. --Taivo (talk) 08:39, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, these names are not very common for European science, but they were accepted many years ago. May be you can event the new nomination? Or shall I turn back this information without these words?

You need to use accurate linguistic terminology, not archaic references. "Sun and moon letters" will not be accepted. --Taivo (talk) 17:31, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't you propose once to include the Russian Cyrillic version of peoples names in every biographical Ukrainian-article? In Talk:Mila Kunis#Signficant changes to article I proposed to put her Ukrainian Cyrillic version of her name in the Early life section of her article and Ruslana's Russian Cyrillic version of her name in her Early life section of her article. This might be a good thing to do this for every biographical Ukrainian-article for people born in the USSR. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 20:38, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This should be discussed/decided by a majority of all Ukraine Wikiproject members of course, maybe the old discussion (I couldn't find it on your talkpage archive) should be reopened and this proposal of mine can be made a standard someday... Unfortunately, as you know, I'm a bit pressed with time... — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 21:00, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The current version of the Introduction promotes anti-Ukrainian and anti-Western POVs echoing the Russian propaganda - e.g. the (unreferenced) statements that Ukrainians have always been a minority in Ukraine, silencing the mentioning of the anti-Ukrainian genocide committed by Moscow communists, etc etc

No. The sentence says that Ukrainians have generally been the minority in the urban centers. It does not say that Ukrainians were the minority in the country. Mentioning all the anti-Polish and anti-Russian stuff is pointless and simply pushes a POV. The current text is more NPOV. --Taivo (talk) 03:43, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To bring the text up to date, I have added NPOV wording about the Holodomor and Russification of eastern Ukraine. --Taivo (talk) 03:55, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Hope all is well, and sorry to maybe drag you into this one ;¬)

I don't know the extent of your historical knowledge, but you may be able to contribute to this discussion. It is getting a little out of hand with reverts and edits massively changing the history of Ukraine in articles so needs some sort of consensus found.

Chaosdruid (talk) 21:13, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Based on your participation in WikiProject Countries/Lists of countries#Territories, I believe you'd also be interested to share your opinion and ideas at Talk:List of current heads of state and heads of government. 203.198.25.115 (talk) 13:28, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We need to resolve the edit war over the article on on Zaporozhye between Taivo and Zas2000. I have gone through your differences sentence by sentence, and created a structure where you can explain them in a way that a mediator can understand. Please can you add comments, citations, etc. to Talk:Zaporizhia#Please_can_we_stop_this_edit_warring_and_make_a_compromise.--Toddy1 (talk) 06:58, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Taivo_reported_by_User:Nipsonanomhmata_.28Result:_.29  Nipsonanomhmata  ^(Talk) 16:00, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Taivo, I noticed, that you removed my referenced content in the Sumerian langue article. Care to discuss it on the talkpage? Else I´ll be forced to rev Thanks.--Wangond (talk) 17:07, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My edit summary says it all. The vast majority of Sumerian scholars and historical linguists treat Sumerian as a language isolate. Any purported connections to other groups are fringe positions and are not to be given undue emphasis. If we give a paragraph to your Dravidian connection then every other fringe position must also be given equal weight and readers will get the idea that some or all of them are valid positions within the linguistic community. Your characterization of "many scholars" is pure baloney. There may be one or two scholars who are toying with Sumerian as related to Dravidian, but the use of "many" is a lie. If you insist on trotting out your "references", then I'll just have to overwhelm you with a sample of the references that debunk any connection between Sumerian and anything else. Remember to read WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE before continuing down this fruitless path. --Taivo (talk) 17:18, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would definitely contest your fringe assumption on Sumero-Dravidian, but I won´t contest the prominent opinion of the isolate status. The Sumero-Dravidian connection is a well established scholarly opinion compared with the other "candidates".--Wangond (talk) 17:37, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not really "well established". It may be "well-established" among those who are proponents of the connection, but outside that very small group, it is not "well established" at all. It is, indeed, fringe. When your source makes statements like "It has been found, that the entire Sumerian vocabulary of the pre-Gudean period was identitical, both phonetically and semantically, with the roots of the living Dravidian languages of India, including the first six numerals, demonstratives and the words for mother (amma) and father (appa)" it is clear that the source is complete non-linguistic hogwash. Related languages are never "identical, both phonetically and semantically" unless they are the same language. This is clearly being pushed by some Indian nationalist group, whose modus operandi is to establish the most ancient links possible for Dravidian nationalist purposes. It's not real linguistics at all, but a pseudo-linguistic political agenda. --Taivo (talk) 17:54, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, TaivoLinguist. You have new messages at Talk:Most difficult language to learn.
Message added 16:53, 10 April 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

It looks like we've reached a deadlock with the proposed move to "Difficulty of learning languages". I would appreciate your input on what to do next. All the best. — Mr. Stradivarius (drop me a line) 16:53, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again Taivo. Do you want to chip in at this discussion? If not I'll try and work out a consensus with Rjanag and the others. All the best. — Mr. Stradivarius (drop me a line) 03:25, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You just had me literally choking on my lunch over that pen joke... Nightw 10:18, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to be of service :) --Taivo (talk) 17:14, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• On Monday and Tuesday I went through the various sources provided by Movses, to build the Zaporozhye population table. In the early hours of Wednesday morning a Spanish IP accessed my Yahoo email account, sent spam messages to everyone on my address book, and deleted the last 14 months worth of sent messages. This may just be a co-incidence - but please be careful with the URLs used as sources.--Toddy1 (talk) 12:55, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• When you revert Zas2000's edits, please some of the time send him a message explaining why you did it. His English is limited, and by making an extra effort with him we could avoid edit warring - see the message I received from another users yesterday.--Toddy1 (talk) 12:55, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please could you look at this diff. I put the original Russian name Волчьего Горла because it seemed more useful to the non-Russian speaking reader who might want to find more information on it, and therefore needs some help knowing what the Russian phrase is. However our friend thinks that a translation of the name in English is better. As it is a place name, I am not sure that it matters what the name originally meant. What do you think?--Toddy1 (talk) 17:14, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is a second message for you on Talk:Zaporizhia#Kichkas/Kichkassky bridge--Toddy1 (talk) 05:50, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just a heads up, Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Freedom House, I'm not going to comment for now, just watch and see how it goes. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:27, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Taivo,

Wanna check that Ethn. hasn't messed up. We say that "The substratum language of Karipúna Creole is Karipúna, a now extinct mixed language with Galibi vocabulary and Palikur syntax", but Ethn. now has that Karipuna language as Tupian VI, along with another language called Karipuna. The idea that Garifuna passed through Karipuna Creole is dubious if the creole is Tupian-French rather than Carib-Arawak. ?? (I know nothing of this area.)

— kwami (talk) 11:01, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll check up on it. There are a couple different languages labelled Karipuna in the literature. As I recall one Panoan and one Tupi, but I'll see what the sources say. --Taivo (talk) 12:02, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just created a stub for Carabayo language, only to realize that it may be the same as Yuri language (Amazon). Maybe that's why Yuri isn't listed in Ethnologue? And LingList may have just gotten confused over the names. Merge? — kwami (talk) 00:12, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What makes you think they are the same? Ethnologue places Carabayo here, while the map in Campbell places Yuri further east in Brazil (with only a tiny bit crossing the Colombian border. It would be nice to have a single source listing both entities, but the maps we have do not coincide. I suspect you're looking at the map in Asher and Moseley (or Moseley and Asher). The evidence to collapse them is ambiguous at best. --Taivo (talk) 02:19, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sources give Yuri as an alt name for Carabayo, and Carabayo as an alt name for Yuri. They're spoken along the same region of the Caquetá River – unless of course someone got them mixed up, and gave the Yuri info for Carabayo or v.v. because of a confusion over the names. I'll put what I can find in the merge discussion. — kwami (talk) 05:40, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you have encountered anon IPs from the California(LA) area[22]. These are most likely sockpuppets/meatpuppets of Phoenicians8, who has also attacked other articles to ensure his POV, regardless of sources/references. Just thought you should know. Take care. --Kansas Bear (talk) 06:44, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I suspected that the two anon IPs were socks. I've requested semi-protection for the page in question (Armenian language). --Taivo (talk) 06:47, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Warning to Taivo, you have exceeded your 3 reverts allowed in a day and will be blocked if this happens again. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:19, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:3RR doesn't count if you're dealing with sock puppets: [23]. --Taivo (talk) 14:31, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You would have been on safer ground if you had templated the talk page of the user you were reverting. It is not that much more work to put {{subst: uw-del1|Armenian_language}}--~~~~ on his talk page. It also makes it easier to justify a block on him/her later on.--Toddy1 (talk) 17:10, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Taivo, I am not encouraged by your approach to editing. It seems to me that your claim of Wikipedia using variables rather than dialects is unwarranted because my survey of several linguistic articles proves otherwise.

Further, all my editing is, or soon will be appropriately referenced where it counts, while the previous edition of the article was not, and your promise of doing so is not a reason to revert my editing.

Also, you seem to be unprepared to discuss this on the article talk page, which is unhelpful to say the least because it is the first act of Wikipedia's editing conflict resolution policy.

I am going to reinstate my editing while I look into the issue further, and I urge you to restrain yourself from escalating the editing conflict further for now. You seem to have enough conflicts on your hands as it is for the time being Koakhtzvigad (talk) 12:13, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And where is your "cooperative editing strategy"? Where did you initiate a discussion on the Talk Page over your changes to the artice? WP:POT. --Taivo (talk) 14:28, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There was nothing to discuss, and still isn't from my perspective. I'm editing, i.e. improving the article according to the policies found in Wikipedia, you on the other hand are just reverting, something I consider a mildly vandalistic expression of WP:POV. For example you keep saying "we" don't use dialects in Wikipedia, but you have not stated who these "we" are, or when this decision was made, where, and why. Understand? Koakhtzvigad (talk) 15:50, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You don't know Wikipedia policies obviously. Read WP:BRD. When you edit and someone reverts you, you enter into a discussion and build a consensus BEFORE you edit again. Understand? You obviously don't. Discuss the issue. Take your edits to the Talk Page before making them again. --Taivo (talk) 17:18, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for cleaning up that mess. I'd also welcome if you'd take a look at the issue debated at Talk:Balto-Slavic languages. (It admittedly won't be an easy job commenting on the opinions of someone who's behaving like that and who after the slightest disagreement with him resorts to vicious personal attacks ("dirty, imperialist Slavs") the way he does). But well, if you have some time and dare, please take a look, erhaps you can offer us further insight. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 13:54, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You might possibly be interested in remarks I have made in the Talk page of the article on Balto-Slavic.

Dear Taivo,

I really like your profile, honestly I really love languages too, I am crazy about language wanted to be the one who can speak more then 100 languages, I want to registered my name in Guinness Book of World Record in languages anyways very pleasure talking to you please keep in touch to expand and make wikipedia more awesome...!!!

Regards, --Faizanalivarya (talk) 04:37, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kaufman lists Andoquero, Coeruna, Nonuya, Koihoma as Witotoan. Multitree only includes Coeruna and Nonuya; the only Andoquero and Koihoma they have are synonyms for Carapana[24] and Orejon,[25] both Tukanoan. Ethnologue does not list those names as synonyms.[26][27] Our Witoto article warns that Witotoan Koihoma is distinct from Tukanoan Koihoma, but does not mention a problem with Andoquero. In our Indig. American lang article, we list all four as isolates/unclassified, suggesting that someone thought they were more than Tukanoan synonyms. Any idea how I should address Andoquero and Koihoma? (I've only got a dozen red links to go for S. Am., though a couple more should be added.) — kwami (talk) 07:12, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll look at it in the next day or two when I get the chance. --Taivo (talk) 07:46, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yikes. Check out Gamela language. I'd been leaving this language for last because I figured, as one of the "only Greenberg would dare classify" languages, there'd be little to say about it. But when I looked up the LingList code, I found they had it as umo (Umotina). But this is a Bororoan language, and they still have it as an isolate (note, not unclassified). Has there been a discovery in some archive recently? Is this a mistake? (There are three Bororoan languages, and they list three, but two of them are Bororo!) If you don't know, I'll write them and ask. — kwami (talk) 10:37, 8 May 2011 (UTC) Okay, it was just a mistake. — kwami (talk) 01:26, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could you offer an opinion here: [28]. thanks..Faustian (talk) 15:09, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Taivo,

Do you have access to Tucker (1940)? I see he proposed C.Sudanic and some Ubanguian langs as part of the group, but was it also E.Sudanic? — kwami (talk) 03:43, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't have ready access to it. I'd have to get it through interlibrary loan. I've got a copy of Tucker & Bryan 1966 and he doesn't even mention "Eastern Sudanic". --Taivo (talk) 04:21, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not worth the effort. I'll see what I can dig up, but for now I've just deleted the comment. Thanks! — kwami (talk) 04:39, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What does "ine" mean, and why was it so important for you to use the undo feature instead of actually using an edit summary that explained why my edit was wrong? 216.93.212.245 (talk) 21:45, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"ine" is the ISO 639-5 three-letter code for Indo-European languages. If you don't understand an entry in the templates, you should click on the links to find the answer rather than simply deleting something you don't understand. --Taivo (talk) 06:02, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I'm not sure this is how one responds to messages on user pages, so forgive me if I'm supposed to be doing it some other way.

I have to admit it's a little difficult for me to know how to approach the BoM articles that are explicitly polemical (Book of Mormon anachronisms comes to mind). It seems disingenuous to argue that the very existence of these articles is not due to a POV. That doesn't discredit its merit of existing, however, it just makes the POV issue a little more difficult to deal with than, say, a history topic that isn't by its nature polemical. I'm fine with adding all sorts of material, as long as the critical responses get a free pass as being "objective," whereas the apologetic responses are all biased.

Consequently, for a piece that is polemical by its nature, placing apologetic commentary does not seem out-of-place when critical commentary is similarly there, (especially, in the case of the "Book of Mormon anachronisms" the introduction explicitly states "The list below summarizes perspectives... by Mormon apologists, and rebuttals." If there is a section on apologetic response, then adding more material seems legitimate to me. If we're going to take up space on words that problematize the BoM's claims, then it seems to make sense to have space for words that take the other approach in an article of this type. I understand your concern about my placing it in a way that ruined the flow, next time I'll try to place it in the explicitly labelled "apologetic" section.

I wholeheartedly agree with you about the "some believers won't accept anything as "balanced" that doesn't unequivocally state that the BOM is true history," however, I've also seen some cases where non-believers won't accept anything as "neutral" that doesn't make everything to do with Mormonism out to be a complete satanic fraud. We both have to deal with such people in our camps.

Minor note, "When you read something in FAIR or FARMS or the Maxwell Institute, before you get all excited and head to Wikipedia to show the world that the BOM is true," sounds like a stereotype you have of some of us (which has probably been confirmed in the past); you should get to know some of us more. I'm not trying to prove anything (most Mormons in my generation aren't).

I know pages like this are the result of a careful consensus, and I didn't want to step on any toes. I do think I had some valid information, but accept your criticism of my placement, etc., and will try to find a way to do so in a matter that is more agreeable.

All the best.Kant66 (talk) 07:07, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Saw what you were getting at. I rephrased the question and removed your comment as I think it's been resolved. Is this correct? Nightw 17:19, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, much, much better. A simple, straightforward question. --Taivo (talk) 18:42, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited to join the discussion at Category talk:Arabic languages#Note on dialects. Fayenatic (talk) 09:49, 2 July 2011 (UTC) (Using {{pls}})[reply]

I wonder who our 'new editor' is. Dougweller (talk) 20:21, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, indeed. Three edits at Reformed Egyptian and his response sure doesn't sound like a newbie :p --Taivo (talk) 20:27, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is quite funny to explain me the "importance of Hungarian in Romania", as if I where from... Croatia, with no idea about Romania nor Hungary. Then, why not add names in other languages for France and Germany; the latter has a very important Turkish minority, no? And Hungary? Does it not have ties to Austria (German), or other minorities? Why this double standard, and include Hhungarian in all possible places, weather it is propper or impropper to include it there? I repeat my question: WHY THE DOUBLE STANDARD? --ES Vic (talk) 09:40, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yet again: WHY THE DOUBLE STANDARD? that is quite hard to understand, no? I tripped to this page accidentally, and I don't see why a list would present such a great topic to "present interest" as you have said. Furthermore, on the "historical significance" basis, why is there no Russian in the Armenia or Azerbaijan entry? Is it that Russia (and USSR) hat no historical influence there? Have the allmighty Wikipedia historians already sorted that out as long time ago and as fast and as undeniable as in the Romanian case? That I do wonder. If all the other controversial issues would have been sorted out THE SAME WAY, I would have left this page the way I found it. --ES Vic (talk) 19:00, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm not denying anything, don't jump to interesting conclusions! I am just willing to remove the image of some sort of former colony (as The Philipines once was) that this language attracts to all the sorounding countries... except Austria. I browsed the archive, as you sugested, and I saw that you are the only one so keen in keeping Hungarian wherever possible; that raises questions to me, especially with the "don't trust Romanian statistics/officials regarding the number of Hungarians" idea I found belonging to you somewhere in that archive. You might hate and mock Romania for all the reasons in the world, but doing that on Wikipedia, isn't an action included in some random acronyms stating the breaking (or at least bending) of a rule? i don;t think that we should engage in linguistic issues, as the origin of the word uca in Hungarian... Just don't make people buy internationalistic BS if they are not willing to do so! --ES Vic (talk) 19:44, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And what does this say about your point of view: "Transylvania was a part of Hungary and inhabited solely by Hungarians for centuries longer than it's been part of Romania."? Are you a fan of Eduard Rösler? Because, allthough you don't admit it, your opinions are at least as biased as mine. --ES Vic (talk) 07:06, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You really should read other books regarding the ethnic structure in Romania and, for your own pleasure, in Transilvania particulary. You have started by reading the laws; that is good. Don't talk about something you don't know! See you when Russia annexes Ukraine! --ES Vic (talk) 10:33, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reverting the unconstructive edits made by 24.81.6.248. It would be helpful though if you were to use the templates available for dealing with such users on his/her talk page. This helps Wikipedia to build up a picture of how such editors are behaving, which can be using in deciding whether to block them. Do not worry, there is no cause for action this time - another user has placed the relevant notices on User: 24.81.6.248's talk page.

Next time, when you revert unconstructive edits made by this user, please spend a few extra minutes placing notices on the user's talk page.--Toddy1 (talk) 09:45, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Annoying IP Vandal 68.36.49.223 from New Jersey vandalised articles on Rovno, Chernigov, Sumy, and Cherkassy on 5 September, and Cherkassy again on 6 September. Thanks for reverting his vandalism to the article on Sumy. I have incremented the warnings on his/her talk page to level 3, so if he/she does so again tonight he/she is entitled to a level 4 warning. Please could you look out for this annoying vandal. As you can see from Special:Contributions/68.36.49.223, this seems to be a vandalism-only user, so if he/she keeps it up, we may be able to get him/her blocked.--Toddy1 (talk) 18:49, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In England sewerage is a common word, just like cat and dog. Maybe in Americanese it is not understood?--Toddy1 (talk) 07:10, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have never seen that word before your use. It's not just uncommon in the U.S., as far as I know, it's unknown except, perhaps, by civil engineers. --Taivo (talk) 09:28, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps this is one of those words that is normal in one language, but rare in the other, where a different word is commonly used - like pavement/sidewalk, lift/elevator, slum/downtown.--Toddy1 (talk) 09:59, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Taivo, why did you delete referenced info here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Northern_Cyprus&diff=441524490&oldid=441487447 ?

After resignation of the president of SCCC, SCCC stopped to exist. Supreme Court of Cyprus (SCC) was formed by merging SCCC and High Court of Cyprus and undertook the jurisdiction and powers of the SCCC and HCC: http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/search.asp Orams v. Cyprus]Tick all on the left pane; Application No: 27841/07; click Search: The Administration of Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Law 33/1964 (“Law 33/64”). Brasilian Prince (talk) 13:12, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted because I trust DrK's judgement. --Taivo (talk) 14:34, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just saw your reply Taivo. Coming from you it is a great honour. Thank you. Best wishes. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 15:14, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But why Portuguese is listed as language of Equatorial Guinea? According to criteria “The names of the items in the list are given in English, as well as in the official, national, major minority, and historically important languages of the state.” Portuguese is not official language of Equatorial Guinea, is not national language of Equatorial Guinea, is not minority language in Equatorial Guinea, and is not historically important languages of Equatorial Guinea. IP editor has add Portuguese without any sources, without any discussion and without any sense [29] and this mistake is listed since 2009 (see information about Portuguese in language section in Equatorial Guinea). So what I must discuss if I correct obviously false information? Aotearoa (talk) 05:34, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not false information at all. The islands that belong to Equatorial Guinea in the Gulf of Guinea were part of Portugal in the past. --Taivo (talk) 05:47, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So Fernando Po was Portuguese colony till 1778. For 230 years Portuguese is not language of this country. If such languages are important, than plenty of languages should be added – e.g. Turkish, German, Italian to Greece; Dutch to Sri Lanka, German to Papua-New Guinea. Latvian to Trinidad and Tobago and of course English to Equatorial Guinea (from 1827 to 1843 Fernando Po was British). Aotearoa (talk) 06:26, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just off that section of the Equatorial Guinea article it seems to me Portuguese is a very important language in the country. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 07:53, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Usually editors bitch because they can't add some fringe information to an article. Under languages at List of sovereign states our most common problem is that editors want to remove information. Go figure. --Taivo (talk) 11:21, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you fluent in Hungarian? If so - what is the gist of the point of the following video - is it based in reality? Or is it a propagandist work?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iqOdVc6Jd5c

My Magyar is nil, so was curious. Thanks. HammerFilmFan (talk) 18:21, 8 August 2011 (UTC) HammerFilmFan[reply]

My Hungarian is marketplace, so this is a bit beyond my skill level. --Taivo (talk) 04:17, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have a suspicion NelsonSudan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) may be a sock of Alinor. Ladril (talk) 16:36, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He certainly writes the same volume of garbage. --Taivo (talk) 06:29, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Doubt it. Alinor's almost definitely vanished judging by all the unanswered deletion nominations on his talk page. Instead from looking at these edits [30][31] I'd say he's the infamous Tobias Conradi. I've asked Golbez to take a look. Nightw 09:46, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well you know how to brighten a feller's morning. And wow, I had no clue he had a constant string of SSP reports. I'll probably take a look later. --Golbez (talk) 12:40, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a sock puppet. NelsonSudan (talk) 18:02, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I happen to be one for vigorous debate; thrashing issues out. That might ruffle feathers....but it is bona fide. I don't deserve to be singled out and bullied like it looks like you guys are suggesting. My contributions aren't "rubbish" either. NelsonSudan (talk) 18:20, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have any friends here.........and don't really want friends, just to be treated fairly and have each contribution assessed on its merits. NelsonSudan (talk) 18:23, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another thing....Check my edit history carefully around the Tobias Conradi thing and you'll see I came across him because I was involved in a disn. re Dominion of India (still am). I think Mr TC wanted to participate because he left a message on the notice board page but it was removed..........Frankly, the involvement of other editors was barely existant...like so many things that people don't get involved in.......So I certainly wanted to hear whatever Mr TC had to say....So then I discovered he was "Permanently banned" (quite possibly because some group ganged up on him....which I now feel, incidentally give your disn. here, might happen to me) and I took up his case. That's that explained. I really feel the kind of talk you have had here is bad faith talk....trying to find some way of getting me blocked as a sock puppet. Its worrying for me naturally. NelsonSudan (talk) 19:55, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am rather concerned that a user has made and is editing large numbers of articles related to Transylvania to remove Hungarian elements from them [32]. Individually all the edits can probably be defended. Please could you have a look. We have all the problems of Ukrainian nationalist extremists deleting names they do not like from articles on places in Ukraine; this looks similar - but from a Romanian nationalist extremist POV. I would value a second opinion on this.--Toddy1 (talk) 13:45, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads-up. --Taivo (talk) 23:50, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, you have an answer on my talk page. Adrian (talk) 06:53, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, you have an answer on my talk page. Adrian (talk) 09:07, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback 3

Hello, you have an answer on my talk page. I have found the link to the consensus and hope everything is ok now. Adrian (talk) 06:30, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, you have a message on my talk page. Adrian (talk) 19:45, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, please put my talk page on your watch-list because like this I am "bombarding" messages :). Adrian (talk) 20:06, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to bother you, but about this edit there[33] is a clear consensus by the Administrator [34] for the lead section not to include the "or" version.Adrian (talk) 20:19, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The link doesn`t take you to the right section (don`t know why). The consensus you can find on that link, from the list of sections, section 42 Hungarian names of Romanian places , subsection 42.2 Time to close this. Adrian (talk) 20:22, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your page is already on my watchlist :) --Taivo (talk) 20:24, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, but I provided you with the link for the rule against the "or" form. Why did you repeated this edit [35] ? Adrian (talk) 20:38, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because that wasn't the overt consensus in the previous discussion, which was to include the Hungarian form in italics if it was under 20% and bolded if it was over. The "summary" provided in the link you showed me was not an accurate summary of the apparent consensus that emerged in that other discussion you linked to. --Taivo (talk) 20:41, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but not in "or" form. That was never accepted. It is to be included in standard form " Sighisoara (Hungarian XXX), (German XXX) is a place in Romania, along etc...". The new consensus I provided you links for is stating exactly about this issue (in what form to be written) and it is written by an Administrator. Why is this a problem now? Adrian (talk) 20:46, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Iadrian yu is correct. As far as I know, the "or" version is only used when there are two different names in the same language. Thus the Shepherdswell article, although it says "Shepherdswell (also Sibertswold)..." could say "Shepherdswell, or Sibertswold,..." Mjroots (talk) 05:23, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Taivo, you seem to have misread what I wrote. For the record, if you are engaging in discussion and not edit-warring at the same time, there will be no need for any admins to take any action. It's when one side insists on keep reverting the article to their preferred state whilst a discussion is going on, or being attemped, that action is necessary. FWIW, I think that alternative names in different languages are useful, particularly so when those alternative names are now historic, such as Danzig, Memel, Lourenço Marques etc. Mjroots (talk) 16:48, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mjroots - please try to be more even-handed when threatening admin action against editors who insist "on keep reverting the article to their preferred state whilst a discussion is going on". I am fairly certain that admin action is not needed against either Taivo or Adrian or me. There is a discussion going on. It may be bad tempered and punctuated by statements that I am a vandal and should be taken to ANI, but it is nevertheless a reasonable discussion, which is producing better understanding and will probably result in small improvements to Wikipedia.--Toddy1 (talk) 17:51, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is ridiculous. The "preferred state" happened to be the status quo ante and per WP:BRD, I reverted Iadrian yu's edit. To his credit he was willing to let the previous text stand until the conclusion of our discussion. --Taivo (talk) 20:55, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That there are 2-4 Mil. Kurds speaking Zazaki doesent mean anything about the Zazaki ethnicity being Kurdish or not! The source says that some Kurds speak Zazaki just like some Kurds could speak Arabic or English.Sagapane (talk) 04:44, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you ok? Arent you able to understand that it is indeed important to be mentioned that some million Kurds speak a language called Zazaki? This doesent has to say anything about the language or classification of the Zaza People.Sagapane (talk) 13:30, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that you don't understand what you're reading or the purpose of the article. Your source, which is not a reliable source by Wikipedia standards is not about ethnicity and the comment you are trying to hitch your argument to is simply a throwaway line in a footnote about how many people speak Zazaki, not really about their ethnicity. If the source were reliable, and the source was about ethnicity in particular, you would have a good source, but the article is still only about the language, not the ethnicity of some or all of its speakers. Zazaki is not a Kurdish language, even though its speakers may identify themselves as Kurds. It gets confusing to our readers to see the term "Kurd" in the article, since this would lead them to assume that this language is a dialect or variety of Kurdish. It is not. So we leave the meaningless, improperly sourced, and potentially confusing remarks about ethnicity out of articles such as this since they add nothing to the content of the language article. Go to the Zaza people page and talk about Kurds all you want. I don't care. But leave the ethnicity pushing off the language page. Clear enough? Can you understand that? You're the one confused, not me. --Taivo (talk) 16:43, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Taivo,

There's a proposal to move Shilha people to Chleuh or similar, if you're interested. Currently the same name is used as in the language article. — kwami (talk) 18:08, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Finally got that draft done today. It's at Talk:List of sovereign states/Discussion of criteria. Nightw 11:50, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Taivo,

Any advice on how to handle the repeated idiocy of what to call Greek Slavic in articles on place names? I don't know if that's been settled anywhere. — kwami (talk) 06:05, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is a current discussion at Macedonian language on that very issue. It becomes one of nationalistic POV very quickly. Even if you use "Greek Slavic" you are still in a quandary over where to link that :p The map at Macedonian language calls it "Macedonian", but Bulgarians as well as Greek POV pushers have a hard time accepting that. --Taivo (talk) 11:55, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Taivo,

If you're around, could you comment at Telugu? Randy from Boise is visiting. — kwami (talk) 05:14, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is utterly incomprehensible what garbage the internet lays on our doorstep :p Anyone with a couple bucks to spare can post anything they want and the gullible masses suck it up like mother's milk. --Taivo (talk) 07:02, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At least he didn't say there were any skeletons involved. — kwami (talk) 07:08, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*Sigh*. Now we've got a Serer racist saying that mentioning Fula alongside Serer "desecrates" the articles. He's deleting the Serer–Fula node from the info boxes, and I just know this is going to turn into another edit war. — kwami (talk) 09:27, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, Ethnologue has Wolof closest to Fula, but evidently that's a misreading of the data. Details in the articles. — kwami (talk) 09:35, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The chapter on Atlantic languages in Bendor-Samuel's manual on Niger-Congo also places Wolof and Fula closer based on lexicostatistics. Most of the classification of Atlantic has been based on lexicostatistics, but the problem (admitted by specialists) is that the cognate percentages in the Atlantic group are typically low. Wolof and Fula have a 37% shared rate while Serer is 25% with those two. My library isn't strong on Niger-Congo, but every other source I looked at places Wolof and Fula closer together with Serer the next closest. This apparently goes back to David Sapir's classification in the 1970s (everyone seems to cite him as the ultimate source). Ethnologue's data base programming is messed up in this little group, but they are simply following the standard classification: Fula-Wolof + Serer. I really don't know where the Serer-Fula grouping comes from. I wrote this without reading Wikipedia's articles on the languages, but simply based on the standard sources. I'll read the articles now. --Taivo (talk) 14:00, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I really wish that people would stop removing sources from the references list, or start actually putting the references they cite in the References List :( (Sapir 1971) etc. is dutifully cited in the Serer language article, but does not appear in the references list. --Taivo (talk) 14:03, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Actually, Sapir said the opposite. I think the error crept in with Wilson, who verbally said it was Fula–Serer, but in a graph got the 37% and 25% switched and had Fula–Wolof. (He didn't do any new stats.) Since then, most sources have copied the graph, though a few follow the text, often citing Sapir directly. Serere has done the first classification since Sapir (tho still stats), and confirms Sapir (at least on this point: much of the rest is different). Serere's well-published & respected in Atlantic languages, so I've been updating the articles to reflect him. — kwami (talk) 14:09, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)This is from David Sapir's contribution to Volume 7 of Current Trends in Linguistics from 1971. My library doesn't have it, but if yours does, then it can probably be checked pretty quickly. It's a pretty common work in libraries of universities that host a full linguistics department (I have always assumed that you're at one of those). --Taivo (talk) 14:11, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Wouldn't be the first time that numbers got switched and then copied ad infinitum. Africa isn't in my "realm" so I simply rely on the standard published handbooks. --Taivo (talk) 14:13, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you know what those references to Serere are, then it would be good to add them to the articles. As it is, there is no bibliographical information to guide the reader who actually wants to check the articles out :p --Taivo (talk) 14:19, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Added the ref to Sapir. No, I don't have access to a library, unfortunately. Just what I have myself or can find online. — kwami (talk) 15:12, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Guess it's always interesting the little stories and biographies we ascribe the other anonymous editors here. --Taivo (talk) 15:15, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I have posted some questions regarding the Stratfor source on the Ukraine article talk page. Your thoughts would be greatly appreciated. Qe2 (talk) 08:17, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't editwar, it can get you blocked even when you're right. I am keeping an eye on the page now. Best.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:45, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. And, of course, Nagarjuna reverted within moments of you posting on his Talk Page. --Taivo (talk) 03:51, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For which reason he will not be bothering anyone on wikipedia for the next 72 hours. I'll be on the look out when he comes back. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 04:06, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Someone needs to revert his last revision, however. --Taivo (talk) 04:09, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

i hope the new citation is good enoughRevharder (talk) 19:00, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've posted some proposed changes to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Dnieper_River#Name, could you please take a look and if it's can be changed advise what to do next ;) Thanks.

I ignore editors who don't sign their posts. --Taivo (talk) 11:09, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't mind, could you comment at Hindi-Urdu? We have an editor who edit warred over deleting the name Hindustani some months ago with the argument that it's offensive to Muslims (despite it being a Muslim name) because Pakistan is an independent country. He eventually settled for a POV tag on the article, saying that Pakistani language authorities don't use the term, so we can't either. I left the tag and forgot about it, but yesterday another editor reviewed the debate, decided there was no reason to have a POV tag since there isn't any real debate, and deleted it. The original editor is now edit warring over keeping the tag. We do keep tags where there's some substantial disagreement, but I don't see any substance here. — kwami (talk) 20:23, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please have a look at the discussion User:Daizus and I are having at Talk:Proto-Romanian language? --Florian Blaschke (talk) 21:35, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that this user was blocked and then unblocked. u tried to explain him, but i feel that it had fallen on deaf ears. please check his recent disruptive editings by Hassanhn5 (talk) . i think some more needs to be done in his case. regards. --dBigXray (talk) 00:24, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

now he has edited my talk pages and is warning me of Getting Blocked. it seems that he is not happy that i have reported this incident. I am glad that Wiki allows even the Persons who get blocked themselves, to block others. regards--dBigXray (talk) 09:49, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I'm not interested in Hassanhn5's editing. I'm only interested in articles that are within my field of expertise, principally linguistic. His other editing is outside that, so it's up to other editors to monitor his activity. --Taivo (talk) 12:06, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Taivo. I am thinking that our article on Language should be an FA, would you like to help me with this? I think a section on the world's languages and language families would be an excellent and necessary addition. It should very briefly summarize the world's linguistic diversity and the classification into families. It should be about the size of the section about "Language and it's parts" and it should have subsections describing variety in terms of language families and in terms of typology and perhaps in terms of linguistic areas. I am asking other Language specialists for help as well on writing sections for the article on their topics of specialization. I think the article deserves to be better. Thanks!·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:12, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, this is not worth it for one adjective, however sorely that may be needed. You win. Djathinkimacowboy 19:56, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I don't have the refs to check this out. S.o. supplied an inventory, but the writing system uses underscores to distinguish laminal from apical affricates/fricatives, which we're missing. I assume that's phonemic, but don't want to augment the table just based on the orthography.

Also, are you aware of any orthographies that use gemination to indicate ejectives? Esp. of voiced letters: bb, dd, jj, gg, etc. Bringhurst Haida does (though voiceless), and I see Unicode does for Carrier syllabics (including a ⟨jj⟩). Just wondering if that's part of a wider tradition.

— kwami (talk) 06:17, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have anything on the contemporary writing system, but we don't want to adapt the phonemic inventory to an orthography. Phonemically, there is no "apical/laminal" series distinction in the descriptions. There is alveolar and alveopalatal in the contemporary phonemic system. In the earliest grammatical treatise, from the end of the 19th and the beginning of the 20th century, there was a distinction, probably between dental and alveolar (laminal and apical ?), but that distinction was leveled by the end of the 20th century. The precise time of leveling is unknown. In 1976, the leveling was complete among younger speakers, but even in the earliest description, there was rampant evidence that the distinction was being neutralized even then. The latest phonemic description includes the laminal/dental series only in parentheses. In a 1981 list of phonemic segments, the dental/laminal series is said to be found in only the "very oldest speakers". By now, it is most likely extinct. I would not separate it out since it is probably gone. Bill Poser's article on noun classification in 2001 uses the underline, but states that it is only found in the most conservative speech. I wonder, however, how much load this distinction carries even in conservative speech where one finds in successive examples the word for "all" beginning with an alveolar in one sentence and with a dental in the very next sentence, with the only difference being the noun classification suffix on the two forms. --Taivo (talk) 23:09, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks. I'll add a comment to that effect. — kwami (talk) 15:29, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you have time please could you comment on whether the article on the city of Dnepropetrovsk should have a list of mayors as part of the article, or whether the list should be a separate article. The list can be seen in old versions of the article, but was deleted on 18 November.

Please post your comments at Talk:Dnepropetrovsk#List of mayors and political chiefs of the city administration.--Toddy1 (talk) 10:33, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I saw you edited my recent edits and your summary about that. One question: we can not add Altaic as family color, because the theory is not widely accepted or it's controversial? Is it wrong to classify Turkic languages and dialects as a subdivision/sub family of Altaic? Or we need to wait for more linguistic research about this? Thanks. Winter Gaze (talk) 16:03, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We have a color for "Altaic" just as we have a color for other non-genetic groups such as "Papuan" and "American" in order to keep the number of colors at a manageable level. But most linguists have never been convinced of the validity of "Altaic" as a genetic group and the majority of linguists simply view it as a Sprachbund. I doubt that further research will reveal anything more convincing. The notion of "Altaic" has been around for 60-something (or more) years and has failed to convince the majority of historical linguists in that time. It's not like we're dealing with unknown languages and simply lack enough data. "Altaic" is likely never to be demonstrated to be a valid genetic grouping. --Taivo (talk) 17:14, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I must review my edits/contributions in the Turkic languages articles to edit/revert my previous edits. Winter Gaze (talk) 17:32, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All of these language articles redirected and their names changed recently:

• Iranian languages
• Eastern Iranian languages
• Western Iranian languages
• Proto-Iranian language

And much more. See this user's work. Winter Gaze (talk) 15:17, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. The term "Iranic" is also used in some academic sources (e.g. see THIS) and it's not as confusing with the Iranian nationality. MassaGetae(talk) 15:46, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Some" is not "the majority". The majority of sources in English continue to use "Iranian". If you think you have a case, then initiate a Request for Move. Do not unilaterally move these articles. --Taivo (talk) 15:47, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Massagetae, as I wrote in your talk pages, all of your redirects need to be discussed in the articles talk page. Editors' votes are very important before redirect. Winter Gaze (talk) 15:55, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Taivo,

I think I remember a comment of yours somewhere about confusion of the Tai languages Yay and Yoy, and it might be relevant to the Northern Tai languages article. Can you remember what it was? — kwami (talk) 19:19, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for your disruption caused by edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule at Iraqi Turkmens. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Magog the Ogre (talk) 09:24, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Z10

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

TaivoLinguist (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

This is not an appeal, per se, because I did, indeed, violate 3RR. It is a question of why I received a 48-hour block, but the other editor involved received only a 24-hour block. Since neither of us actually filed a report about the other, I'm curious why my block is twice as long. --Taivo (talk) 11:04, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

See WP:NOTTHEM. I can't comment on the other editor, but you've been blocked before for edit warring, and therefore should know better.  An optimist on the run! 12:02, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I've cut the block to 24 hrs, since no reason was given for it being twice as long as the other editor, and I don't see any significant difference between them, except that the other editor was edit warring against two editors, and Taivo against one. I don't see how NOTTHEM is relevant: comparable behaviour should result in comparable sanctions. — kwami (talk) 12:37, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The time has expired, but I'm still being listed as blocked. --Taivo (talk) 13:16, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

TaivoLinguist (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

My 24-hour block (see Kwami's note above) has expired, but I'm still being blocked as if my block was still 48 hours --Taivo (talk) 13:20, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

The admin mis-typed the block expiration date, so you should have been automatically unblocked a couple hours ago. Oh well, I've manually unblocked you. Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:30, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It probably should have remained as 48 hours ... based on your block log, and the concept of escalating blocks. In other words, because you know better because of past blocks, you're blocked for longer than another editor. I will not action the above (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:40, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree with Bwilkins' assessment. That said, the block was adjusted, but the date parameter seems to be off (Friday is 16 December, not 15 December) so this might be a technical error more than anything else. In any event, don't edit war - though the block may or may not have been reversed (!), the next one proceeds from the 48 hour timeframe, meaning that you'll be looking at a week or more. Do be careful. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 16:16, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've posted a request at the Administrator's Noticeboard, purely on the technical issue of what the hell happened with this block and its reduction. FYI. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 16:24, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help, Reaper Eternal, for the unblock and thank you, Ultraexactzz, for bringing this problem up at the Administrator's Noticeboard. --Taivo (talk) 16:36, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Can I point out what a really bad idea it is to return to edit warring immediately after being blocked? By all means please quit it. Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:09, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I simply reverted to a stable version that preceded the edit war until we can come to consensus. --Taivo (talk) 02:09, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And you didn't make a similar post on Turko's page because? He was the first to revert. --Taivo (talk) 02:20, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This continually comes down to the greatest weakness of Wikipedia--specialists must continually kowtow to the demands of non-specialist nationalist POV-pushers. If you examine the page, you will see that Turko is using non-linguistic political and ethnographic sources to make linguistic claims and ignoring my actual linguistic sources. See WP:RANDY. --Taivo (talk) 02:44, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Still, it's difficult for most admins to distinguish you from Randy. Probably best to bring this to the attention of a knowledgeable admin who can either jump in and block Randy if he persists, or protect the article until he goes away.

BTW, isn't Randy correct in the case of the Peloponnesian War? All the participants that have been found to date have been skeletons, and many of them have had swords! — kwami (talk) 04:12, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my. It's late and I started looking for the "Like" button :p --Taivo (talk) 06:48, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I left a similar message at his talk page. If you'd bothered to give more than a two second look you would have realized that. Once again, WP:NOTTHEM applies, even outside the context of you currently being blocked. Magog the Ogre (talk) 14:15, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I just went back and looked and you edit warred more since I placed my message on the page. I've blocked you for 96 hours. Please consider in the future making use of WP:3O rather than ramming your point of view through by edit warring, after half a dozen people have told you it's not acceptable. Magog the Ogre (talk) 14:19, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, I didn't. Look at the edits, they were working toward a compromise wording. That's not edit warring. Editing is not edit warring. --Taivo (talk) 18:06, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And actually look at the history. Turko85 reverted three times before your warning to me and I only reverted once along with Toddy1 prior to your warning and not after. Ridiculous. --Taivo (talk) 19:07, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

TaivoLinguist (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

This block is unjustified and excessive. Magog's comment that I edit warred after he placed his comment is simply false. Look at the actual edits and time stamps--there was no editing on the article whatsoever for the previous five hours (and was none after the warning). (Warning placed 0100 on the 18th [time stamps are strangely off, this may have been at 1800 on the 17th]; last edit occurred 2000 on the 17th.) [Because of problem with time stamps, there may have been a couple hours of constructive edits on the text, during which time the present compromise text was written.] He has punished me (alone) for what he perceived was happening before he placed his warning without actually reading the edits or matching the edits with what was on the Talk Page. Wikipedia's optimal process is WP:BRD. But some editors, like Turko85 will simply not follow that process. They insist on reverting and placing their text in the article simply because they proposed it on the Talk Page (sometimes). Sometimes that is the process that results. Consensus isn't reached on the Talk Page, but in the article by multiple revisions. 1) Immediately after coming off my block I did nothing, waiting for the other editor to discuss issues on the Talk Page. 2) The other editor then reverted back to his version without coming to any kind of consensus on the Talk Page. He simply posted his reasons on the Talk Page and reverted without waiting for discussion or trying to build any kind of consensus. 3) Toddy1 then reverted him and urged him to discuss on Talk Page. 4) Turko85 then reverted Toddy1 without getting consensus as Toddy suggested. 5) I then reverted to encourage a discussion. 6) Thinking that a better option would be to revert back to a position BEFORE the edit war, I, in essence, extended that one revert to a larger period of time so as to start from a fresh slate before either of us had done anything. What might look like two reverts was actually just one--going back to an earlier point in time. 7) The other editor reverted this as well. Then, if you look carefully, we no longer reverted, but began, piece-by-piece to edit the article into a compromise form. The other editor refused to discuss edits on the Talk Page before editing, so that is the pattern that both of us fell into. There were no more reversions, only editing until it seems that a fairly stable version has resulted (I assume that since he made no more revisions). While the process was not optimal (some editors like Turko85 simply refuse to discuss to consensus before editing), it stopped being an edit war and has resulted in an acceptable text. But even before Magog's warning, Turko85 had reverted three times to my and Toddy's one each. Is this really an appropriate block and who really initiated the edit warring after the block? Not me. Taivo (talk) 16:32, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Based on this statement, you a) clearly do not understand what a revert is, and b) you continue to feel justified in your actions. Either way, this is 100% disruptive, and against the spirit of Wikipedia - especially after having been recently blocked for the same thing. As Wikipedia's preventative measures work on an escalating basis, it appears that you have just shy of 96 hours to read WP:REVERT, WP:EW, and most importantly WP:DR. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:27, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I will not decline your request as, frankly, I will not make a judgement on whose sources and where they're placed trumps the other. Good grief...you were just blocked for edit warring and you return to the article and begin discussion in edit summaries. This practice is counterproductive at best and disruptive at worst. Please take the advice of an outside observer; discussion takes place on the article talk page. Additionally, discussion is not a free pass to edit war. There's no doubt in my mind that you know more of the subject matter than I but, looking at the article revision history, I almost don't care. The readers of this project deserve better from those that are supposed to know the subject. Tiderolls 19:59, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discussing on the Talk Page only works when both parties take that route. I was perfectly willing to discuss and come to a consensus there (as I have done on countless other pages), but when one party simply posts on the Talk Page and then makes the edit he/she declares without any effort at consensus building, then the ideal system breaks down and editing continues on the article. --Taivo (talk) 22:39, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But back to the block. There was no edit warring occurring when Magog issued his block for "warring after his warning." Editing (without reverting) is not edit warring. It's clear that the other editor accepted my changes because when he/she did revert one of my changes, he/she did not revert all of them. Magog's reasons for this block are unfounded. --Taivo (talk) 22:43, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is what I see: after Magog gave his warnings,[36][37] Turko85 made a complete revert here. Taivo accepted this (despite it being dubious IMO), and added Turko's wording (slightly modified) and refs back to the body here. That is not edit warring on Taivo's part so far as I can see. Taivo then deleted a paragraph here, which I don't see as being a revert (though perhaps I've just missed it), which Turko then reverted here, objecting on the talk page that this is a quotation from one of his sources .[38] Taivo then accepted it apart from its last sentence.[39] That is, Turko has edit warred over two major parts of the text since the warning, and Taivo has accepted these edits apart from reverting the quote, "their dialect differs sharply from neighboring Irano-Turkic varieties such as South Azeri", which they were discussing this on the talk page.

I think Taivo should have gone to s.o. else about this, but the edit warring was largely on Turko's side. Taivo, if I unblock you, will you leave this article alone for the 96 hrs you would have been blocked, and come to User:Toddy1, myself, or some other editor if Turko should revert you after that point, as if it were WP:1RR? — kwami (talk) 04:32, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. BTW, I agree with Kwami's edits to Iraqi Turkmen. --Taivo (talk) 08:53, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocked. I should have added WP:BOLD in there, but since you have yourself quoted it, I didn't think to make it explicit. So, 1RR & BOLD when dealing with Turko85 on that article, okay? I've offered Turko85 the same terms. — kwami (talk) 05:53, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Thank you, Kwami. --Taivo (talk) 14:22, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The reason why I blocked for 96 hours is this: per WP:EW, "A 'revert' means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part." This edit [40] was a partial revert of this edit [41]. If you can agree that this was wrong, I will reduce the block length to 24 hours based off the fact that it was only a partial revert and you were attempting to compromise much more than the other editor. Magog the Ogre (talk) 11:33, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Magog, you've got to be kidding me. By your definition of "revert", then any compromise text editing is a "revert". By your definition changing "and I saw the the horses" to "and I saw the horses" would be a "revert" and subject to a block. And 96 hours for a "partial revert"? Please read the resulting text of the paragraph in question carefully. It wasn't a revert since the substance of Turco85's content was still there. I removed some extraneous wording that had little to do with the actual content of the paragraph. But if you want to call it a revert, then OK, it's a "revert". I will call it a revert if you insist, but I will not call it "wrong" since it was an honest attempt at achieving a compromise text that maintained Turco85's content, but made it more neutral in tone. Even Kwami's analysis above showed that I was accepting Turco85's content save for the last sentence. That is the nature of proper Wikipedia editing, we work to achieve a text that is acceptable to both. Some editors will work well on the Talk Page, but Turco85 refused to work on the Talk Page before inserting text into the article. If you look at Kwami's later editing of the paragraph in question, you will notice that he completely rewrote it, so my very slight editing of Turco85's text cannot really be considered "wrong" since I was working with Turco85's text much more closely. I accepted the previous block with equanimity only questioning the duration because that had, indeed, descended into edit warring and I violated WP:3RR. But this one is unwarranted since I was working toward compromise. I think that your overliteral reading of WP:EW is incorrect in this case. I'll let you call it a "revert" if you insist, but what I did was not "wrong". Even you admit that I was attempting to compromise. If what you really want to hear is that I violated your overliteral reading of Wikipedia policy by "reverting" that is different than being "wrong". By your interpretation of Wikipedia's WP:EW policy, following your warning I partially "reverted" one of Turco85's reverts by eliminating one sentence and part of another and rewording some text in order to seek a compromise. Was that worth 96 hours? I've already served 24. --Taivo (talk) 12:30, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

TaivoLinguist (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

There was no revert following Magog's warning. There was a compromise edit that has since been completely rewritten by another admin. If a 96-hour block was for "edit warring after warning", then it is false. Read kwamikagami's analysis above--he does not call that edit a revert. Wilkins and Magog have simply ignored what happened after the warning and have not addressed the actual content of the edit--that it retained the other editor's content while adjusting wording. Wilkins and Magog have had interactions with me in the past and I don't trust their impartiality at this time. Would another admin, who has never had a previous interaction with me, please read the edit in question and kwamikagami's analysis and then determine whether that is worth a 96-hour block. Wilkins accuses me of "disruption", but since my edits to the article were accepted by the other editor as compromises and left in place, where is the disruption? --Taivo (talk) 19:36, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

I believe Taivo is good to his word above (1RR/BOLD re. Turko85). I made the offer before his request was refused above. I will make the same offer to the other editor. — kwami (talk) 05:39, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I think that the block on the two editors was premature - it would have been better to wait and see, and only block one of them after a clear breach of the 3 revert rule.

I gave the other editor a 3 revert rule warning - but before he/she had a chance to react, the admin blocked both of them. This seemed unfair to both of them.

I had intended to give User:Taivo a similar warning message - but as far as I could tell he/she had only done one revert, so I did not think it appropriate to give him/her such a warning.

When Taivo's unblock is considered, please could consideration also be given to unblocking the other editor too.--Toddy1 (talk) 20:41, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Taivo. There is some dispute about Constituent (linguistics)#Phrase structure and dependency structure (talkpage thread here) and I was wondering if you might be able to offer an outside opinion (if it's appropriate for me to ask). Best, rʨanaɢ (talk) 07:03, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for sharing your thoughts and experiences with me. I am indeed pondering what you write. In many cases, I would disagree with the evaluator who discounts work on Wikipedia as "a waste of time". Wikipedia is reaching an audience that dwarfs all other modes of media when it comes to the dissemination of ideas and knowledge (regardless of the quality of that knowledge). While you may forbid your students from citing Wikipedia, you can rest assured that they are reading it. It is simply too convenient and easy. It is certainly much easier than going to the library to check out a book. If a student comes across "bracketing paradox", for instance, he/she can call up the Wikipedia article in 5 seconds.

I am revising the section on constituency and dependency along the lines you suggest (but the trees are being included). I'll have it up on the discussion page in a couple of hours. Hopefully you can provide some feedback that will get us to consensus.

Best, Tim

P.S. I'd still like to know your identity.

While they may be looking at Wikipedia for simply answers, anything requiring citing in a paper should be from an authoritative source, of course. And you might be surprised at how much anti-Wikipedia prejudice is out there among our colleagues. Just be careful. --Taivo (talk) 20:40, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tjo3ya, it's not very appropriate to repeatedly ask Wikipedia editors divulge their identity. On Wikipedia, arguments or article edits are judged by their own content and sources supporting them, not by the real-life credentials of the editor making them. No editor is required to divulge their identity. rʨanaɢ (talk) 15:48, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Taivo,

Your advice is patronizing, especially when it is unsolicited and appears on the main discussion page. You are more experienced at Wikipedia; that is obvious. But you apparently know nothing about DG, and you also have little oversight about what constituency tests tell us about constituent structure, otherwise you would have been more cautious and more knowledgable about how you characterized DG and the original section that is under dispute. Like Rjanag, you first seemed to claim that individual words are not necessarily constituents in phrase structure grammars. Further, your claim that "unimportance" vs. "importance" is due to a typo is ridiculous.

If you want to have a pissing contest, let's do it here on our talk pages. I will let you have the last word on the discussion page in this regard. My main interest is to reach a compromise. Hopefully you will not block the draft that has now been banged together.

Finally, if you are who you say are (e.g. an associate professor of linguistics who has taught in the Ukraine), then you probably have a significant body of knowledge that I could learn from, and conversely, I bet I have a significant background that might be beneficial for you (as a contact perhaps). In this regard, we should get over this dispute.

Best, Tim - 21:00, 5 January 2012[42]

So you never make typos, or change your thought in midsentence and fail to correct everything that went before to match it? Your ridiculous accusation is simply childish. And the original issue was not whether constituents can never be individual words, but your original wording that only individual words are constituents. Since you've reworded the text to clarify that all subnodes are also constituents, notice how that issue is gone now? --Taivo (talk) 22:14, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But the real issue of my comment on the article talk page was about outing. Wikipedia takes this issue very, very seriously and I still don't think you've quite understood the consequences. --Taivo (talk) 22:27, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll block that editor if they continue to edit war at Macedonian, but I think the point is a good one. Yes, the hat note lets the reader know that the article is not about Ancient Macedonian, but the naive reader might still think there's a connection, just as there is between Ancient and Modern Greek, or Old English and Modern English. (Anyone who understands what "Paleo-Balkan" means wouldn't need the explanation anyway.) Also, a link to the classification section would bypass the hat note. IMO it would be a good idea to make it clear that the languages are not related, esp. as there as still pubs floating around claiming that they are. (Though I haven't seen that for a while: have the nationalists given up?) — kwami (talk) 12:48, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As you are well aware, this is one of the articles that are very sensitive to nationalists, so anything must be sensitive. I think a repeated hatnote in the classification section will satisfy the Greeks without offending the Macedonians. --Taivo (talk) 12:50, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, a hat note just saying the article is about the modern language wouldn't address the claim that it descends from the ancient one. IMO we need to be clear that there is no connection. — kwami (talk) 12:57, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's where you get into the nationalist issues. The sentence must be extremely carefully worded. A Greek editor will make sure to denigrate the Macedonians and a Macedonian editor will make sure that the Macedonian claim to Greece is foremost. IstorMacedonian's text was inflammatory and pro-Greek. I'd rather see some discussion on the Talk Page and an agreement before anything is placed in the article. I'm gone today and can't write anything now or discuss until tomorrow. I've placed a hat note for now. --Taivo (talk) 13:00, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that IstorMacedonian's wording was unacceptable. I was thinking of s.t. along the lines of 'no connection to Ancient Mac.' — kwami (talk) 13:44, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's probably fine although not exactly accurate since they're both Indo-European. Probably "no close relationship"? --Taivo (talk) 13:48, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I took your wording from the talk page.

BTW, I put in a move request at talk:Kolkata (to 'Calcutta') if you would like to comment. — kwami (talk) 02:00, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just saw your note at Taa language. Added a ref to the paper the inventory was taken from. — kwami (talk) 16:43, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, would you happen to have access to a source with the inventory of ǂHoan? I have the clicks from a couple sources, but no-one seems to bother with the rest of it. It's a rather important language for phonological typology. I would imagine Chris Collins has published s.t. — kwami (talk) 19:46, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've never seen one. Like you, all I've ever seen is an inventory of the clicks and an article on syntax. But I've never seen anything more than that. But the references here and here look promising for the near future. --Taivo (talk) 20:53, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Taivo,

like you I am also an academic, in the natural sciences, and I hate to see Wikipedia abused as a vent for skewed nationalist politics. It is no surprise either that certain Serbs and some Croat currents oppose the separate identity and language of the Bosnian/Bosniak people; beliefs which inter alia culminated in the Srebrenica genocide in Bosnia 17 years ago. Regarding the issue of language, it is important to underline that Serbo-Croatian was constructed as a political umbrella term within former Yugoslavia strongly favoring Serb and Croat interests while leaving out the Bosniaks politically discriminated, also withdrawing their choice for "Bosnians/Bosniaks" in population censuses while instead introducing "Muslims by nationality". The bottom line is, historically, Serbo-Croatian is not a proper language or even a valid term any longer, however further (incorrect) use is fiercely pushed by Serb and Croat individuals as to undermine the actual validity of the Bosnian language, which is officially recognized as its own language and not as part of another. It is therefore highly incorrect and erroneous to maintain that "Bosnian is a form of Serbo-Croatian" as currently attempted by a number of editors. It may however be acceptable to write that Bosnian language is sometimes still refereed to as Serbo-Croatian, but only if stressing that this is unofficial, defunct and incorrect. I appreciate and hope for your help. Thank you.

Interestingly I just discovered that you are one of the individuals promoting the misleading mentioning of Serbo-Croatian in the Bosnian language article. This leaves me very disappointed given your supposed academic background. You are fundamentally mistaken that Serbo-Croatian is used in the English language as a name given to B/S/C. Nowhere is this considered accurate any longer (for which I can provide you with a heap of sources). Obviously the factual description of a language in a Wikipedia article should reflect the official conditions as opposed to unofficial contextual use. I also urge you to not underestimate my editorial capacity on Wikipedia, despite my lack of user account I have a previous editing history on Wikipedia stretching 7 years. And this battle should not be too difficult considering you are contending what is pretty much an axiom by now.

This is just nationalistic drivel. The truth is that Croatian, Serbian, Bosnian, and Montenegrin are nearly entirely mutually intelligible, all four standard languages are even based on a single dialect of Serbo-Croatian. They are "separate languages" by religio-nationalistic labels only, not by linguistic fact. "Serbo-Croatian" is the term most commonly used in English for the language that comprises the non-Slovenian West South Slavic dialects. --Taivo (talk) 23:18, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stop deleting sourced material, as you have at ǂHoan language, or I will ask to have you blocked. — kwami (talk) 11:24, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not "deleting sourced material", but rewording it to make it more linguistically acceptable and accurate. --Taivo (talk) 11:34, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You don't know what you're talking about, Randy. Of the three languages you added, two are extinct and one is already mentioned. So we still have only two. Which is why we follow sources rather than engaging in OR. — kwami (talk) 11:59, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. "Extinct" isn't the issue. You're simply being inflexible and stubborn and refusing to admit when you have become fixated on an issue and not willing to see the forest for the tree. "You don't know what you're talking about"? LOL. You've told me yourself that you're not a linguist, therefore who doesn't know what they're talking about? --Taivo (talk) 12:01, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Of course 'extinct' is the issue. What else do you think the point of this discussion is? I've also never told you I'm not a linguist. — kwami (talk) 12:07, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to specify "living" then you must specify that if Miller does and then we can make the further comment that at least two other recently extinct languages also included them. And, yes, you told me recently in another exchange that you are not a linguist, but it doesn't matter to Wikipedia. But you still need to follow acceptable linguistic practices, which is not to get fixated on precise numbers. --Taivo (talk) 12:28, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The present tense specifies that they are living languages. Otherwise Basque is not an isolate / is not the only isolate in Europe (depending on which sources you choose). Otherwise we are not the only member of our genus.

You misread or misremembered my statement.

Precise numbers are fine when we have precise numbers. Avoiding them out of some sense of false humility is not scientific, and is a disservice to our readers. — kwami (talk) 13:04, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Croatian_language "Croatian is the collective name for the standard language and dialects spoken by Croats."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serbian_language "Serbian is a form of Serbo-Croatian spoken by Serbs." (this is not correct).

If Croatian is "the collective name for the standard language and dialects spoken by Croats", then "Serbian is the collective name for the standard language and dialects spoken by Serbs." Serbian language is much older than Serbo-Croatian, so it cannot be a form of Serbo-Croatian. Also, it is an official language in Serbia, Bosnia Herzegovina and Montenegro: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c0/Map_of_Serbian_language_-_official_or_recognized.PNG

Apparently you failed the read the whole first paragraph of Croatian language: "They are varieties of the Serbo-Croatian language, along with Serbian, Bosnian, and Montenegrin." --Taivo (talk) 20:21, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but seems nothing wrong in IP´s edit, as he didn´t removed any sourced content. Both languages have the same relation to Serbo-Croatian, so there is no reason for one to have a different intro from the other. FkpCascais (talk) 21:22, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, move request Talk:Yangon → Rangoon, if you're interested. "Yangon, Burma" is a little weird, IMO. — kwami (talk) 22:28, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Taivo, first of all I'd like to wish you a happy new year. I am writing to you in regards to the language of the Iraqi Turkmens. First of all, do you have any objections to me writing in the info box of the Iraqi Turkmens that they use Istanbul Turkish for writing? Secondly, I believe that we should also clarify their language with the article: Languages of Iraq as it currently just says "south Azeri". Moreover, we should also do this in the article: Iraq. I look foward to hearing from you.Turco85 (Talk) 16:06, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I really wish that you would place warning templates on the talk pages of IP vandals such as User talk:68.36.49.223 when you revert their edits. If you increment the warning templates, these people get blocked and go away for a while. You know perfectly well that their edits are vandalism, as shown in your edit summary at [43] Warning templates can be found at Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace.--Toddy1 (talk) 10:06, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just forget about it when I see 10 articles to revert :p Sorry. --Taivo (talk) 11:10, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely not. These edits were not vandalism: WP:NOTVAND. You can warn for civility issues if they apply, but vandalism, not so much. Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:51, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• This edit was not vandalism.[44]
• This edit was not vandalism either.[45] It was a polemic - this is English language Wikipedia; it should have been posted in English. As he/she made 8 such comments I asked him to stop posting polemical comments in a foreign language.
• This edit was vandalism.[46] The person from New Jersey has repeatedly made such edits under this and other IPs. He/she has been blocked for such edits before. He/she does understand that such edits are not OK, and that if he wants such changes made, he/she needs to persuade people to adopt them by using the talk page. He/she also understands that this is about as likely to happen as persuading people to drop all mention of Obama's presidency from Obama's biography. That is why he/she uses vandalism.--Toddy1 (talk) 07:31, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read the link I gave? POV pushing, edit warring, stubbornness, and poor usage of sourcing aren't vandalism. Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:24, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I've seen your comments on another user's talk page -- someone who has a particularly strong appetite for haphazardly editing linguistics articles and articles about languages and grammar yet who (if he even is a linguist) is consistently incorrect. He generally goes in and changes simple usable articles to his own opinion with huge numbers of strange examples that are usually either incorrect, incorrectly analyzed, or just have nothing to do with the topic at hand. Mostly though, as you've pointed out, he feels his right is to change the edits of others and to either revert to his versions without discussion, or to hijack every discussion (along with a couple of other editors each time) away from linguistics and toward some theory that every wikipedia article on linguistics should be based not on linguistics but rather on a consensus of which version is "correct" among wikipedia contributors who are not linguists and who admittedly have little more than lay knowledge of the topic being decided.

How this person has become an administrator I have no clue but I do truly believe (as a linguist and someone who is an expert on many of the things he is constantly altering) that unless some controls can be placed on him (and less so on the two or three others he seems to function in tandem with) that the very hard work linguists have put into giving language articles on wikipedia some semblance of accuracy and legitimacy (which were completely absent just a few years ago) shall be wasted and the quality of this website yet again lost.

I understand that wikipedia in general believes that expert opinions should not necessarily come from experts, but in the case of linguistics, when you have a majority of contributors and editors being admitted non-linguists, there's a serious problem. Drew.ward (talk) 05:05, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Taivo, I have serious concerns with the way SIL is being used in Wikipedia to categorise North Eastern Neo-Aramaic varieties. They show little understanding of the geographical and religious distribution of those dialects. Furthermore, I have read a number of books and articles by specialists none of which even mentions those names. Do you have any thoughts concerning this issue? Cambridge has an extensive project that can be used instead. Regards, Rafy talk 15:49, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with SIL is that it is a community effort in many ways. For language families (such as Semitic) where they do not have an active missionary presence, they are dependent on scholars from outside the organization to help them revise and amend both their own classification system and the ISO 639-3 coding system. They don't have dedicated staff for every language family in the world. With that said, if you know scholars who specialize in the Aramaic group, please encourage them to contact SIL and enter into a dialogue about revisions. As far as Wikipedia is concerned, we must rely on published sources for these kinds of issues. Until Cambridge publishes something, we have the SIL classification and categorization scheme. The international standard scheme is ISO 639-3 and that categorization scheme is administered by SIL with input from others. ISO 639-3 is our standard usage because it is being increasingly used by international organizations for coding language information and for libraries for cataloging their collections. So unless ISO 639-3 is changed, then that is the system we use. Scholars with knowledge of a better classification scheme work with SIL and the staff who administer ISO 639-3, then it can be amended. I have worked with them profitably on many occasions, but I am not an Aramaic specialist and there has been no detailed categorization of Aramaic varieties published to compete with the SIL scheme, so that's what ISO 639-3 uses. Wikipedia must profitably use ISO 639-3 since that is the most widely used standard for coding and categorization. --Taivo (talk) 17:17, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see, we will probably have to wait for the next ISO update to see some improvements since more research have been done the last years. Would it be OK to state that these dialects simply correspond with existent ISO codes and do not necessarily reflect the actual distribution. For example I always wondered why does Koy Sanjaq Syriac language have its own standard since it is barely distinguishable from the dialect of Ankawa for example, which I assume belongs to Chaldean Neo-Aramaic, while Karemlesh and Bakhdida with their unique dialects are still with no apparent ISO code.--Rafy talk 17:29, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's probably a valid strategy--that these entries correspond with ISO 639-3 divisions and are being revised. I'd love to see a comprehensive reworking of the Aramaic varieties, but organizing 50 something different community varieties in a linguistically sound fashion must indeed be a daunting task. I didn't look closely, but these must also take into account the dialects in Israel. I assume that they are not ignoring those communities. --Taivo (talk) 21:34, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for you answer, I was thinking about writing articles on non-ISO NENA dialects which might not conform to the current standard and I though of asking a linguist before.--Rafy talk 13:11, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a recent linguistic source, it's fine to go with that instead of Ethnologue. We have many articles where ISO codes are combined or split up, and others where there is no ISO code at all (we even have a category for such articles: most of these are extinct with almost no documentation, but a few have simply been overlooked). There are also several hundred pending changes to Ethnologue, though I don't recall Aramaic among them. You could also check Multitree; they are not a reliable source, but they do sometimes assign sub-ISO3 codes (though not consistently). (There's also Linguasphere, but that would probably have been added in by now.) You also might want to write to the editor of Ethnologue and ask if they have revised their classification since E16, or what the source is for their existing classification. — kwami (talk) 04:20, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will try and contact someone from Ethnologue. I wouldn't describe myself as someone wth an "academic" knowledge in linguistics, in real life I study Electronical Engineering so that wouldn't bring much credibility to me. However, as a native speaker I find the way Christian NENA dialects are categorised very confusing. I understand now that koy sanjaq and senaya acquired its ISO code because a researcher who published some works over them dialect was also affiliated with SIL. I have noticed that several books on NENA conform to the categorisation of the University of Cambridge found here. Here is another good reference which is more or less identical to the first one. Both sources are more reliable than Ethnologue imho--Rafy talk 21:41, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The talk between 2 users is not a consensus ( or somebody can say it is consensus between 2 users).This is the reason why on this page polemics were non-stopped. Try to found real consensus (have a look at least to other interwiki, which solve this matter) instead to be a watchman on this page ( as I found on history of this page). 88.218.184.176 (talk) 09:59, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you need counting lessons? There are three users in that discussion (actually that is only the most recent consensus, it had been discussed before). And of those three discussants, one was Greek and two were neutral. All three agreed to the current ordering. Indeed, since it is YOU who are trying to change the consensus, it is YOU who must build a new consensus. On the Talk Page first. --Taivo (talk) 12:38, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just a heads up, there are no Chadic languages spoken in Chad. So don't revert the article on Chadic languages.

Wrong. I won't revert since Kwami got there first. --Taivo (talk) 06:05, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here, you undid an edit I made. While I agree with you that the stuff in the Book of Mormon is completely inaccurate and a load of hooey, I fear we can't say that not a single non-Mormon believes in its factuality...even if just one person in the entire world thought it, the statement as written would be inaccurate. Hence the word "virtually". As a historian, I avoid talking in unproven absolutes. Oh, and you also removed an "a" farther down the page that needed to be added. Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 01:08, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As of this time, there is zero non-Mormon support in sources. Once I'm shown one non-Mormon source that supports it, then we can write "virtually", but as long as there are zero sources, then we can leave "virtually" out. It's about sources. --Taivo (talk) 03:14, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please could you keep an eye on the article on the Odessa Numismatics Museum, as it is coming under repeated attack, by a user who suffers from the "that is how you spell it in Ukrainian, so that is how you must spell it in English" fallacy.--Toddy1 (talk) 20:16, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello TaivoLinguist. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click HERE to participate. Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 11:17, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article on Rinat Akhmetov starts as follows:

Rinat Leonidovych Akhmetov (Ukrainian: Рінат Леонідович Ахметов, Russian: Ринат Леонидович Ахметов, Tatar: Ренат Леонид улы Әхмәтов; born on 21 September 1966) is a Ukrainian businessman and oligarch.

But in Donetsk, his first name is spelled 'Renat' in English. Please can you advise on how to word this.--Toddy1 (talk) 11:34, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would simply add "also known as Renat..." --Taivo (talk) 13:32, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.--Toddy1 (talk) 13:42, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Taivo,

I found an ISO code for "Yassic", an extinct Iranian language of Hungary, that would presumably be Jassic. However, the date given on LingList is off by 800 years, and they have "Jassic" as a dialect of Ossete. LL often has multiple codes for a language from not recognizing alt spellings, but the date would require a separate error. Any idea? — kwami (talk) 05:31, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The LL date is simply wrong. They probably meant something like "extinct in the 15th century", but typed 5 instead of 15. The Magyars didn't even enter the Alföld until 896, so the 5th century date isn't even possible. "Yassic" and "Jassic" (j = [j] in Hungarian) are the same thing. --Taivo (talk) 06:29, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Yes, I recognized they were the same name, but there could have been more than one people called by that name. And "Hungary" could have meant where modern Hungary is, well before the Magyar arrived. But this should be certain enough. — kwami (talk) 06:37, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

LL has corrected the error. — kwami (talk) 06:51, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

STOP REMOVING TAGS !!! [47] Only because you cannot imagine, you have no right to remove this! HTML2011 (talk) 12:58, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Any editor can remove a tag if he feels it should go. No single editor "owns" Wikipedia. HammerFilmFan (talk) 17:51, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arabic dialects of many words borrowed from the ancient Semitic languages In fact, the main difference between standard Arabic and Arabic dialects is the result of Arabic dialects influenced by the ancient Semitic languages Or that most speakers of modern Arabic Semites are descendants of Arabists. Ashrf1979 (talk) 09:23, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Akkadian went extinct about 1000 BCE. You've got to prove that the "ancient Semitic" language of 1000 BCE somehow influenced the Arabic dialects 1500 years later. And that influence would have been on Pre-Classical Arabic anyway, not on the modern dialects, so adding these things to the entries on the modern dialects isn't relevant. --Taivo (talk) 12:22, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The words that I chose is not used in classical Arabic,I think that the history of Akkadian language extinction is not 1000 BC. Because in the fourth century AD Nestorian monk from Iraq visited the Beth Qatraye , He said the South Beth Qatraye There monastery of 200 monks read their prayers in Chaldean. Nestorian monk knows the difference between Arabic and Aramaic and Chaldean. I have read this information in an article in Arabic about the history of Assyrian Church I know you probably do not speak Arabic, but perhaps can translate. وفي القرن الرابع الميلادي أنشأ عبد يشوع الناسك في جنوبي قطر ديراً باسم مار توما، زاره نحو سنة 390 م مار يونان الناسك أحد تلاميذ مار أوجين، فوجده آهلاً بمئتي راهب. فأقام فيه ثمة مدة يقضي الصلوات مع الرهبان بالكلدانية*30. http://www.kaldaya.net/2012/Articles/02/12_Feb04_NoriMando.html Ashrf1979 (talk) 09:53, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Akkadian evolved into Babylonian and Assyrian and both were extinct as spoken languages by the 6th century BCE. The Assyrian church has NOTHING to do with ancient Assyrian and the Akkadian language. The modern Assyrian language is a variety of Aramaic, as is Chaldean. It's not my job to read your Arabic. It's your job to find an English translation. --Taivo (talk) 13:29, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

وفي القرن الرابع الميلادي أنشأ عبد يشوع الناسك في جنوبي قطر ديراً باسم مار توما، زاره نحو سنة 390 م مار يونان الناسك أحد تلاميذ مار أوجين، فوجده آهلاً بمئتي راهب. فأقام فيه ثمة مدة يقضي الصلوات مع الرهبان بالكلدانية*30. سير الشهداء والقديسين الأب بولس بيجان ج 1 ص 486 _ 488 (In the fourth century hermit Abdeshua founded Monastery in the south Beth Qatraye the name of St. Thomas It Was Visited in the year 390 by St. Younan hermit one pupils of Saint Eugene he found 200 a monks at the monastery where he settled for praying with them in Chaldean) Ashrf1979 (talk) 18:46, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chaldean is NOT Akkadian. It is Aramaic. --Taivo (talk) 19:19, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What proves that the Chaldean is not a dialect of Akkadian language Perhaps these monks Descendants of the Chaldean priests They used the Chaldean language in worship Because Strabo spoke of the Chaldean exiles from Babylon who live in the city of Gerhae located south of QatifAshrf1979 (talk) 07:20, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The valid majority of reliable scholarly sources. Any other questions? HammerFilmFan (talk) 14:58, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A little birdie told me that you might be able to contribute to the discussion at Russian phonology. There's some dispute about consonant clusters in Russian. Since the talk page may evoke a WP:TLDR glaze in your eyes, here are the main areas of contention between myself and the other user involved, Dale Chock

• Are the tables of permissible consonant clusters relevant/notable? I think they are, Dale thinks they're trivial.
• What are the limitations of consonant clusters? I'm having trouble verifying that more than four consonants is permissible.

I must warn you that Dale has a habit of focusing his comments on contributors rather than on content and has a generally harsh tone. But if you can help out, I would greatly appreciate it. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 01:07, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Taivo,

An editor is telling me that Curonian is too poorly known for us to even be able to classify it as Baltic or Finnic. There may be a problem with sourcing there, but we have a potentially bigger problem: the Curonian grammar article. Obviously, if it had Baltic inflections, as that article shows, it was a Baltic language, but I notice the grammar is "reconstructed", based partly on "New Curonian", which suggests that perhaps someone invented a grammar for it to prove it was Baltic. Do you know anything about this? — kwami (talk) 07:02, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, the "Curonian grammar" is pure hypothetical baloney. There isn't enough of Curonian to say anything about grammar and it looks like the inventor was a Baltic POV pusher promoting "Baltic purity" perhaps. The article Curonian grammar should either be deleted as Fringe or clearly labelled as such. There are no references listed so it may even qualify as WP:OR. But OR or not, it's a fantasy to think that we can say anything at all about Curonian when the only evidence is substrate data. The supporters of that article should either put up their sources or let the article go away. --Taivo (talk) 10:27, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I nominated it for deletion. --Taivo (talk) 10:40, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted it. If there's anything to it, we can always resurrect it. — kwami (talk) 10:46, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I deleted was that we have that info (their classification) in the sub-articles. If we give all the details for them, we should probably give all the details for the other classification too, and with a family of 500 languages, that quickly becomes unmanageable.

We should probably merge some of the sub-articles, though. Any ideas on which we should keep, and which not? — kwami (talk) 00:59, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Editors are wrong sometimes. It's OK to correct them, but please refrain from calling them "idiots".

Thank you for understanding. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 06:56, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Tavio might be a Assistant professor in linguistics, but it does not seem that you know something about dravidian languages. I am not a stupid to post all the dravidian languages are derived from tamil. Want to learn more, do some research or come down to south india and you will get to learn something with evidences around.I help you to get trace and my friend is also a linguistic. Give me chance to teach you also some be behavioral to not to call others comment as "Idiot"--Karthiksabaasha (talk) 07:04, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kathirksabaasha, you clearly don't know any linguistics since you make comments like "all the Dravidian languages are derived form Tamil". This is simply bad linguistics. Actually, it is "non-linguistics" and totally unscientific and no self-respecting Dravidian scholar (a linguist, not a nationalist propagandist) would make any such comment. (And I mean ACTUAL linguists, like Krishnamurti [The Dravidian Languages (2003, Cambridge)], ["Telugu" The Dravidian Languages (1998, Routledge, 202-240)]; and Ramanarasimham ["Old Telugu" The Dravidian Languages (1998, Routledge, 181-201)]). Telugu, like Tamil, is descended from Proto-Dravidian, the ancestor language of all the Dravidian languages, not from "Tamil" or any of the other extant Dravidian languages. --Taivo (talk) 12:24, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As you said I will be back soon with strong proof. Thank you.--Karthiksabaasha (talk) 13:07, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is no scientific linguistic proof for anything you have written at Telugu language. Zero. If you continue to add unscientific nonsense to that article you will continue to be reverted. Unless you learn the difference between science and stupid nationalistic nonsense, that is. --Taivo (talk) 14:04, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He'll be gone for a long, long time I fear, searching for 'strong proof.'  :-D HammerFilmFan (talk) 15:00, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tavio, NeilN has given me time & chance to prove that all the Dravidian languages are derived from Tamil only. This is not a nationalistic nonsense but the truth. As you are authorized in the position to revert or warn someone putting irrelevant/ unknown unproven messages, you should try to ask them to prove their message with proper evidence, if they don't, then all you can do is to just abandon the user and not to keep on using the terms Non-Sense, stupid or idiots over them. I stopped adding things on Telugu since I got reverted thrice and I am following NeilN. Soon I will prove that I am right. All you have to watch whether Am I bringing proper evidence or not. Not to scold me. Stop your messages over me. Just Wait and see. Hope you understand. "Not everyone is Right and Not everyone is Wrong too" Behave yourself.--Karthiksabaasha (talk) 15:34, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, until you provide such proof, Taivo is right in reverting you. — kwami (talk) 16:25, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tavio. Now I know the rules and regulations of Wikipedia clearly. As I requested earlier, try to speak up politely, Erase the intention from your brain that I am forcing some thing. I was doing that without knowing Wiki's rules and regulations properly. You just wait and see and I am not going to edit something on the main page. OK. Otherwise, I am just querying things to NeilN.--Karthiksabaasha (talk) 04:06, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for that buddy. Will spell your name properly hereafter.--Karthiksabaasha (talk) 04:27, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Taivo. Please be patience. Bhadriraju Krishnamurti, Sanford B. Steever are not only in this world to prove about dravidian language. Ok I tell you in brief. Bhadriraju krishnamurti is not from Tamil and he has hidden some truth. Sanford B Steever is not even basically from India. Tell me one thing clearly, why are you being so enthusiastic to come against me after all I accept my mistake of editing on the main page. WAIT AND SEE. --Karthiksabaasha (talk) 04:43, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So you have now made clear that you have a political agenda to push--since the number one Dravidian scholar in the whole world is not Tamil, but Telugu, then you will discount his learned opinion, even though every historical linguist on the planet considers him to be one of the most important voices in the study of the Dravidian languages. It doesn't matter one bit whether a scholar is Telugu or Tamil or American or Tahitian or Swahili. If they are among the most important Dravidian specialists in the world, then that is all that matters. I can tell right now that you are going to bring forward garbage political sources that are pushing a Tamil political agenda in the disguise of "science". There are no more reliable sources than the two works which I have cited, which are cited by virtually every Dravidian specialist. I assure you that for every Tamil political source you cite, I will have ten scientific sources that will back up the simple fact that Tamil, Telugu, Tulu, Kannada etc. all descend from Proto-Dravidian and not from "Tamil". And the reason I am trying to discourage you from this unscientific course you have set for yourself is that it is a waste of everyone's time every time that an unscientific non-linguist like yourself comes along to push a political agenda or repeat the political propaganda that he was taught in school. You simply have nothing scientific to offer and it will take time to convince you that you have nothing scientific to offer. --Taivo (talk) 05:40, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Taivo,

We have a problem at Dônđäc. It started with that silly founder-effect article in Science. There was an equally silly reply, which attempted to show that SE Asia has greater phonemic diversity than Africa, by removing the simplifications of WALS. They may have abandoned WALS's attempt at keeping the sample representative, but more worryingly, they double count tones in Asian languages, and count allophones as phonemes at least in this one case. (There are 20 Dônđäc vowel qualities, but some occur only in open syllables, and others only in checked syllables, just like the tones.) The authors of the paper never claim that this is the largest vowel inventory in the world, but that's what it's being made out to be in the article. (They also do not provide their sources.) Unfortunately, the link we used to have for Dônđäc vowels has gone dead, we never had a proper ref, and I don't know where to retrieve it. [found the link. will work on it.] — kwami (talk) 18:20, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kwami, I'm away from home until Monday, so don't have ready access to many references and not a lot of time to dabble. But if there is still a problem on Monday, I'll jump in with both feet. There are always problems when non-specialists misinterpret the UPSID or WALS databases and draw absolute conclusions based on only representative data bases. --Taivo (talk) 23:27, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's okay now. I expanded the article based on the recovered link, and archived it for future reference. — kwami (talk) 05:33, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, maybe not. Since Dônđäc (Jinhui) has different vowel qualities in open and closed syllables, there are 20 allophones, and the editor is insisting that this means it has the largest inventory in the world. There is a Science article that repeats the 20-vowel claim without noting this, but AFACT they don't claim it's the largest in the world. — kwami (talk) 21:09, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just realized his article was a miserable stub - which was a shame. Do you perhaps know of any good biographical sources about him?·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:35, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Um, Maunus, is this where you really wanted to post this question? --Taivo (talk) 17:41, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, I must have clicked on the wrong link to your talkpage. :) Moving there/here. Sorry!·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:49, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I know that when he died an obituary and bibliography appeared in the Bulletin of the Society for the Study of the Indigenous Languages of the Americas. There might have been a bio in one (or all) of these: Language, International Journal of American Linguistics, Anthropological Linguistics. --Taivo (talk) 18:54, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the info on the one in American Anthropologist. --Taivo (talk) 18:56, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - meanwhile I'd found Kinkade's obituary in AA, but I can't find the SSILA one or one from SLA. If you have a chance to read my expansion for errors it'd be great. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:00, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please try to template vandals when you revert them. It helps get them blocked.--Toddy1 (talk) 17:06, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I always forget. It's usually about 4 in the morning when I'm doing my vandal pruning :p --Taivo (talk) 17:27, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the name is "Burushaski", but "Burushaski language" is redundant, isn't it? Or should we maybe have "Burushaski people" as well? — kwami (talk) 02:14, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are a whole lot of language names in English that include the morpheme "language" in the native name, so I wouldn't spend two seconds worrying about the "redundancy". (Probably half of the common English names for languages in South America fall into this category.) English speakers don't know that "-ki" means "language", so "Burushaski language" isn't redundant in English. --Taivo (talk) 03:02, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could you stop painting this as a war against nationalism? It's a linguistic, and even common use dispute; no need to escalate this over a single letter.--Львівське (говорити) 06:05, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Posted this on the UKrainian language talkpage; thought you might be interested: [48].Faustian (talk) 13:39, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Very interesting article about Surzhyk. Thanks for the link :) --Taivo (talk) 18:07, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Someone's been mucking this up with 'Altaic' hypotheses while the entire section ignores that linguists overwhelmingly consider it an isolate. Needs expert adjustment. You, Kwami, etc.? Thanks. HammerFilmFan (talk) 14:37, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the text was fine, but the "Language Isolate" position has been de-emphasized. I re-emphasized it. --Taivo (talk) 15:28, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think of Template:Altaic languages? It is placed on the bottom of all five linked articles, and previously a lot more. I think it's an attempt to normalize the "Altaic" classification as fact. If not TfD'd away altogether, shouldn't it at least be removed from the Korean and/or Japonic articles? Shrigley (talk) 16:53, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't noticed it. If someone proposes a TfD, I'll probably support it, although there may be some legitimate arguments to support it even though it is hypothetical. --Taivo (talk) 17:26, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for keeping Reformed Egyptian in your radar. John Foxe (talk) 18:55, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The formatting of a citation has nothing to do with whether it is a publication or not, using a citation template is simply the preferred way of citing any source in wikipedia, also those that are not formal publications - because it makes it easier to format and link to by using different link generating syntax in the articles. Also, PhD dissertations do count as "publications" in regards to Wikipedia because they are both reviewed and generally available to the public - in this sense they are neither primary sources nor selfpublished. The only good argument not to format the dissertation in a citation template is that the other citations aren't formatted that way- but it would make more sense to format those as well. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:51, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If a source is being cited multiple times in an article, there are advantages to formatting a citation, but when a source isn't cited even once, and other identical sources in the biblio are not formatted, then there is a problem. --Taivo (talk) 16:31, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And, actually, had the editor who reformatted Lamb's dissertation actually reformatted all the references, I probably wouldn't have noticed. But when he/she reformatted only one out of three, that always looks suspicious. --Taivo (talk) 17:16, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Suspicious of what? That is how wikipedia progresses - little by little.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:42, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm a little confused as to how exactly dissertations are not publications. Is there an AGF issue here? — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 20:33, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Publications are published by a publisher for wide distribution--that's what "published" means. Dissertations are not written for wide distribution and not distributed. Granted, some are posted on the internet and most are available on-demand through University Microfilms or ProQuest, but they were not produced with that in mind, while publications were. There is a very clear distinction in academia between publications and dissertations. I've met Sydney Lamb and his dissertation is highly respected in the field (I've read it several times and list it regularly in bibliographies), but it's still not published. And "suspicious" is probably not exactly the right word, but why would an editor reformat only one reference that is identical to the reference right next to it and is not referenced anywhere else in the article? While there isn't anything "criminal" about having two identical references that look different from one another, it's not consistent and looks amateurish. --Taivo (talk) 20:49, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe he just had four minutes before getting on a plane? Or he planned to do all of it but his daughter fell down the stairs and he had to take her to the hospital. Or his wife called and said dinner was served and then he forgot what he was doing. If we start reverting stuff that is actually helpful because it could have been even more helpful then we have a long way to go. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:02, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can certainly sympathize with these reasons, but if that happened to me and someone reverted my half-done editing, I would have no complaints. We want our encyclopedia to look as nice as possible and half-done work should be reverted until it is completed (unless, of course, there is a note on the Talk Page that says, "I'm working on it and will get it finished as soon as possible"). And this particular edit wasn't "helpful" in the sense that it improved anything in the article. It was simply a formatting change without any other improvement. And since it made two identical references right next to each other on the same page look different with different formatting, then it's arguable whether "helpful" is the correct adjective. I assume good faith on the editor's part, but that doesn't always mean "helpful". As I said above, had the editor reformatted everything so that there was consistency in appearance, I wouldn't have said anything. But half-done work that is only cosmetic isn't an improvement. --Taivo (talk) 21:08, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I hope that my recent revert is an improvement. If we decide to expand the article we can use those references as linked in line references just by adding the ref=harv parameter. This is really useful for long articles so that the reader can just click on the inline parenthetical short reference (Lamb 1958) and it will take him to the full title. You can see how nicely it works in Totonacan languages. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:17, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looks fine to me and is consistent. Thanks. (I don't use the templates because it's just another piece of technology that I can live without.) --Taivo (talk) 21:21, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello 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) 22:08, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The language is called both Cari or "Aka-Cari" in references. Now "Aka-Cari" would be acceptable but is is not English, and "Aka-Cari language" is silly (like "Rio Amazonas River" or "Pulau Karimun Island"). Please return it to "Cari language". Ditto for the other nine. All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 07:06, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, you don't seem to understand. We use the common name found in English. The majority of linguistic sources on these languages include "Aka(r)" in the name, Aka-Bea, Akar-Bale, etc. It doesn't matter one tiny bit that "Aka(r)" means "language" in that language. We only care about the common English name and the most common forms used for these languages in English sources includes the prefix. If you want a list of references to prove this to you, I'll provide them, but we go by the names found in English. Half the language names in South America also include morphemes that mean "language" or "speech", but we don't remove those either. We use the language names most commonly found in English sources and most recognizable to English speakers using Wikipedia. Even ISO 639-3 uses the A-Pucikwar, Akar-Bale, and Aka-Bo forms. The evidence is simply conclusive that these prefixes are part of the English common names for these languages. I will not change them back. If you think you have a point, then initiate a Request for Move and I'll assemble the evidence that will prove this to you. --Taivo (talk) 07:18, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I have better things to do. All the best. --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 07:24, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the obituary [49] she is called "Boa Senior". I believe it is important to spell it out, both because it is standard WP practice ("Mount Everest" never "Mt. Everest") and because it is not obvious what "Sr." stands for (could be another language, abbrev name, etc.). All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 07:12, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The obituary is wrong. If you read all the actual materials written about Boa Sr. it is ALWAYS written Sr. We had this discussion a couple of years ago when she died and the consensus was to use Sr. and not spell it out. At no point is this spelled out. It should remain Sr. I don't know where that obituary comes from, but it's just a .pdf on a website and not from a reliable source. --Taivo (talk) 07:18, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just for reference, this is the place we discussed her name. --Taivo (talk) 07:29, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And,also for reference, here are some legit sources with the spelled out name:

• Boa Senior dies at 85, and with her a language and a culture, Digital Journal
• Last speaker of ancient language of Bo dies in India, BBC News
• Ancient Andaman tribe dies out, Al Jazeera
• With Boa die tribe & tongue Demise of Andaman lady marks end of a society, The Telegraph, Calcutta
• 65,000-YEAR-OLD LANGUAGE GOES EXTINCT, Discovery News
• Ancient Indian language dies out, By Alastair Lawson, BBC News
• Boa Senior, la dernière à parler la langue « Bo », vient de mourir, RFI
• The day Bo died, Polyglossic blog
• Vanquished voices, The Hindu magazine
• Save dying languages..., The New Indian Express
• Bo tribe extinct, Radio Netherlands Worldwide
• One year after extinction of Bo, Andaman tribe in danger, Thaindian News
• Ancient tribe dies out in India's Andaman islands, The Times of Earth
• Volksstam Andamanen volledig uitgestorven na overlijden laatste stamlid, Survival International

and many more... Enjoy ;-) --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 08:03, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All of these sources are basically one and the same source--the obituary of Boa Sr. and not independent sources. One source repeated over and over in the world's media is not multiple sources. Here is the definitive source for the life of Boa Sr.: [50]. Dr. Abbi never spells out "Sr." If, however, you feel strongly about spelling out "Senior", then initiate a Move Request at Boa Sr. and we can discuss it and get other viewpoints. --Taivo (talk) 08:13, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Again, thanks, I will go play somewhere else. All the best (really), --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 08:20, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would also point out that we don't spell out "Jr." or "Sr." as a rule anyway: Martin Luther King Jr.. --Taivo (talk) 11:05, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please could you have a look at the article on Little Russia. I think it needs reviewing by someone with a broader perspective than I have.--Toddy1 (talk) 12:48, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

why dıd you undo my contrıbutıon?

Akselwikia (talk) 19:48, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I undo many contributions that are unsourced or pushing a POV. Where was your edit? I don't read minds. --Taivo (talk) 19:50, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I've seen you around on Indigenous languages of California articles ... Would you consider becoming a member of WikiProject Indigenous languages of California, a WikiProject which aims to expand and improve coverage of Indigenous languages of California on Wikipedia? Please feel free to join us. --Djembayz (talk) 14:22, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On what grounds have you deleted name suggestions for "famous Ukrainians?" in section culture and statesmen? You should apologize and restore before I will report your vandalism activities.

85.220.91.50 (talk) 10:23, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You "name suggestions" were hidden in extended anti-Russian rants that are inappropriate in Wikipedia. I told you on that page how to proceed--slowly, one-by-one, without the politicization of every individual, with our primary users' interests foremost in mind. --Taivo (talk) 15:23, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for defending me this past week. I appreciate it.

BTW, someone has for the 2nd time edited Dahalo language and Aweer language to claim that there is ling evidence of the origin of both; I dn know about Aweer, but it's not a ling source, and AFAIK the claim that Aweer has clicks is nonsense, so the whole thing's a bit dubious. (Non-ling sources s.t. use 'click' for 'ejective'.) Would appreciate if you could keep your eye on them.

Am cutting back, but there are still a few Randies I want to resolve, and this could end up being another. — kwami (talk) 20:18, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. I've put both of them on my watchlist. --Taivo (talk) 01:30, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is a courtesy notification that an amendment request you were named in has been declined.

For the Arbitration Committee, Lord Roem (talk) 17:32, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I shouted to get his attention. I don't know where the discussion is now. -- Evertype·✆ 11:24, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know. The discussion has moved to here. Kwami has agreed that the ISO 639-3 link should go to the ISO 639-3 official code page and that it should not redirect to either Ethnologue or LinguistList and that the "maintenance" wording was incorrect. Thanks for your valuable support in ensuring that Kwami understood that neither Ethnologue nor LinguistList have any official role in assigning or maintaining ISO 639-3. I'm sure that some of the wording on Ethnologue's site is confusing, but as you and I know, the official wording at at the ISO 639-3 site is, well, official, and overrides anything that either Ethnologue or LinguistList might say. --Taivo (talk) 11:53, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey,

Any idea what "open-rounded (labialized)" and "close-rounded (labialized)" refer to? Superscript œ indicates the former in the Ext-IPA, but I can't find anything that defines the terms. Don't know if it's the degree of aperture, or a synonym for endo- or exo-labial. — kwami (talk) 07:38, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's an interesting use of "open" and "closed". It's certainly not standard and not well-defined. It apparently refers to the size of the labial aperture, but, as I said, it's certainly not standard. Sometimes phoneticians get into the hyperactive mode of trying to rigidly label every single variant of a phone rather than letting the big picture be clear and uncluttered. --Taivo (talk) 18:28, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's from speech pathology, so it may be important there. Was wondering if it might be useful for regular speech. — kwami (talk) 00:55, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. Phonetics for speech pathology is a whole different animal from linguistic phonetics. I had to teach a class one semester in phonetics for speech pathology. I had to unlearn and relearn a whole bunch of things for that class. --Taivo (talk) 04:24, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mind keeping an eye on Zotung language, Cushitic languages, and Lowland East Cushitic languages? — kwami (talk) 23:58, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Added to my watchlist. --Taivo (talk) 13:40, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And East Cushitic, South Cushitic (plus any comments if you like).

And Old Azeri. It never ends! — kwami (talk) 18:27, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

... Potwari

and Lahnda languages (same 'panjistani' stuff breaking links)

The IPs making those edits typically do have a dozen at once at articles like Western Panjabi language, Jhelum, etc.

Guardian of Hamari Boli

Most sincere gratitude for your invaluable contributions to Hindi-Urdu related articles on English Wikipedia. Forever indebted to you -and wikipedia of course- for telling it like it is.. Amazing how you never gave up and went thru all the troubles dealing with zealots. Bravo! You're one of the inspirations that led to the genesis of http://www.HamariBoli.com edge.walker (talk) 21:59, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

the discussion at ANI which in part relates to the misleading use of Kramer as in the one you just reverted? Dougweller (talk) 20:55, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can't remember heading, I think it starts with an attack on Kurdo777 who in fact has been removing the Kramer ref as false. Dougweller (talk) 21:08, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please see here: [51]..the user is adamant about Sumerian being Turkish.. should wikipedia tolerate users who use multiple socks to put fringe views?--96.255.251.165 (talk) 22:38, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sumerian language.. Can you please clean that fringe section. I suggest we really do name it "fringe theories" or "controversial non-academically accepted theories" --96.255.251.165 (talk) 03:08, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please take time to have a look at the recent changes made to the section of "Ancient Macedonian as Hellenic language" on the Talk page of Ancient Macedonian language. I ask you to inform me on your views, concerns and your assumption. Itisonlyone (talk) 00:33, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Taivo. I was wondering if you might be interesting in helping on Franz Kafka, the discussion is here: Talk:Franz_Kafka#Syntax. The part of the article it is talking about is Franz_Kafka#Translation_problems_to_English. We'd like to get this article to FA. Thank you.PumpkinSky talk 02:30, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the same guy that was vandalizing Sumerian language a while back [52] has managed to damage multiple pages including Tarkhan (see analysis of the sources he inserted in the talkpage), Turkic peoples, Gok Turks, Nart Saga, and Khatun with flimy linguistic theories. He either uses fringe sources, or manipulates sources or sources that have no speciality (like American heritage dictionary rather than say Peter Golden..).. Here is his new ip: [53]. I was wondering if you can fix these pages. I am not going to continously bother with such a user [54] who is adding all these sorts of fringe theories. Thank you --96.255.251.165 (talk) 20:02, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[55] I have seen such "meandering rivers" be the reason to delete more general categories if one of its subcategories is present on a page on different (less sensitive) topics present in Wikipedia. If you insist that Category:Serbo-Croatian language be directly accessible from the pages about its standards forms (which I would understand), could you please add it to Croatian language, Bosnian language, and Serbian language? --JorisvS (talk) 23:14, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, TaivoLinguist. You have new messages at Talk:Montenegrin language.
Message added 00:46, 6 September 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hi! Kwamikagami and I were having a discussion here about the infobox colouration of Altaic languages, and we were wondering your take on the matter. Given that Altaic is such a contentious classification, I was wondering if it wouldn't be a better idea to use different infobox colourations for the various constituent families rather than giving undue weight to the Altaic hypothesis by using one colour for it. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 03:14, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good day, I saw your contributions on the subject of Native American languages and would like to invite you to the recently created Wikimedia Indigenous Languages, an international body to promote and support the use of small and endangered languages on Wikimedia projects. Thanks, Amqui (talk) 20:15, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What will you do now that you are supreme retired regent of the Japanese armies?  :-) (I advise using the Samurai in attacking the Balkan nationalists who continue to drive us crazy on those talk pages-oh, if were only that easy!)HammerFilmFan (talk) 15:07, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi you are repeatedly changing the edits of these two dialects of Punjabi, i can speak both of them along with standard punjabi because i am native speaker of these dialects. u keep classifing them as Lehnda instead of my continous edits as Punjabi..for your kind information Lehnda is Punjabi word for westeren dialects of Punjabi...How can any forigner language expert who cant speak these dialects can classify them as an separate language only on the basis of 200 to 300 word comparison..there is only 10% minor changes in between and each dialect speaker can very easily communicate with other dialect speaker...these all dialects are mutually understandable...i have put a table in the support which is only high lighting the few differences in words in these 3 dialects....IF YOU HAVE ANY FURTHER OBJECTION THEN EITHER learn these dialects then challenge my edits OR classify AUSTRAILIAN, US , BRTISH, South African english as different languages...GOD HELP YOU — Preceding unsigned comment added by LanguageXpert (talk • contribs) 17:13, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

You need sources to support your claims, because other native speakers say just the opposite. Several editors are reverting you, not just me, because you have not proven your claim. (For that matter, Panjabi and Hindi transition into each other as well: Does that mean Panjabi is a dialect of Hindi?) You may very well be right, but we still need sources. — kwami (talk) 17:17, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Reply to KWAMI....wt is the authencity of a reference if i provide...a book then wt is the dame guarentee that book is a true reflection of reality..STILL i m providing u reference....Book name: 3 HINDUSTANI LANGUAGES Page 99 Author: Doctor K S BEDI...Book name: PUNJABI LISANIYAT (LANGUISTIST) Page 142 Author: Shehbaz Malik...Book name: SHORT HISTORY OF PUNJABI LITERATURE Page 17 Author: Qureshi Ahmed Hussain..Book name: URDU IN PUNJAB Page 76 Author: Hafiz Mehmood Shirani....i challenge u to research by learning these dialects (NOT LANGUAGES) and then analyse my claim...Problem wid 1920 research by geirison (A FOREIGN WHO CANT SPEAK THESE) were that he compared 200 words list of EASTEREN punjab's (INDIAN PUNJAB) punjabi which is full of SANSIKRAT with.... ARABIC PERSION MIXED SAREIKI and HINKO...bt reality has changed after india pakistan creation....now LAHORE's STANDARD punjabi is full of ARABIC PERSION WORDS so if we compare all three dialects then only difference is future tense....so sir,dialects exist for every languages... as i mentioned AUSTRAILIAN, US , BRTISH, South African english so dont classify a dialect as an language......THANX

These aren't reliable scientific linguistic works and your "personal knowledge" is also not a valid reliable source. The actual linguistic literature is fairly consistent in its classification. --Taivo (talk) 19:26, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your continual edit warring is unacceptable Wikipedia behavior. If you want to convince other editors of your position then stop edit warring, go the Talk Pages of the article, discuss the issue, and build a consensus for the changes. Edit warring is doing nothing to promote your position. --Taivo (talk) 19:30, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for chipping into the argument with aussieguy on the Raj debunkle. I wish I hadnt started it now, I cant believe, in this day and age of all that going on in the world that people like him are so bothered about such a minor fact that they think must NOT be included into the precious article, they should get a life. Like you said, this aint no great work. It aint going to be carved into stone, it may aswell be carved into sawdust in a windy room for all its worth!! thanks 4 the input and good editing. Markdarrly (talk) 02:07, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Historical Atlas of the World, ed. by R. R. Palmer (Yale University) [assisted by six others from separate universities], Rand McNally, ç1965 - page 30 'Languages of Europe 13th Century' - copyright violations aside, it would be wonderful to be able to use this. The resulting torrent of POV objections would be most entertaining. :-) HammerFilmFan (talk) 15:19, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You like hitting a hornet's nest with a stick? :) --Taivo (talk) 19:26, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Taivo,

Could you please take up any reverting process a bit more professional? Hope a discussion would be appreciable before you revert anything. Taking up the reverting this way not only means that you are defaming our respect over the language but you are also subduing and curbing a language's credibility and goodwill at an international level.

Could you please revert back to me.

Thanks & regards, B Ram

Perhaps you should take up the article on Telugu with more scientific legitimacy rather than alphabet silliness. Alphabets are not "better or worse" and a vote at an "alphabet olympics" does not make it so. Adding such a silly and completely unscientific and irrelevant comment into the article demeans the seriousness of the discussion. We have fought hard to keep this article scientific and not full of the nonsense that nationalists have sought to fill it with--"Telugu is the sweetest tongue", "Telugu is the most musical tongue", etc. There is absolutely nothing absolute or scientific about some vote done at a "language olympics". Believe me, I would be "defaming" Telugu if I let such unscientific silliness stand in the article. But content should be discussed at Talk:Telugu language. That's the problem here. This alphabet silliness has simply been added to the article and after it was reverted, rather than following Wikipedia policy at WP:BRD to discuss and gain consensus, it was simply added back in over and over. It is the original editor's job to justify the addition and build a consensus. --Taivo (talk) 15:39, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Taivo, So did you mean, you discussed already with the original editor before deleting the edition on the page? Otherwise (if you haven't discussed), your statement means that, you won't be having any problem if I discuss with the original editor and arrive at a consensus whether the article should be on the page or not. Hope you won't have any hard feelings with whatsoever decission we arrive at. Now that the discussion involves the original editor, hope I needn't have to talk to you again. Will get back to you if the original editor doesn't respond to me in a day. Thank you for your support Taivo.

Regards, B Ram

You don't seem to understand the way that Wikipedia works. The original editor needs to go to the Talk Page, state his/her case, and then EVERYONE who is interested will discuss whether or not this piece of unscientific trivia even deserves mention. That includes me as well. Consensus means everyone, not just you and X. --Taivo (talk) 16:51, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Care to comment on this revert? The "Türk ʿAcämī" monicker used by Bellér-Hann may be somewhat of an affectation (Google Search does not show it used anywhere else, at least not in the spellings I can think of, in Latin alphabet languages); but her book is a serious study of the attested early forms of the Turkic language(s) of Iran (i.e., the predecessor(s) of today's Azerbaijani, as she says), and I would not mind introducing a few key facts from that study. Specifically mentioning Tārīkh-i Khaṭā'ī in this article (as opposed to History of the Azerbaijani language, which we of course don't have) may be somewhat of WP:UNDUE, but Bellér-Hann views it as important because it is among the few known major works in the language of that early (pre-Safavid) period. -- Vmenkov (talk) 05:16, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First, it simply wasn't clear that the reference was to, and second, the variant names weren't really necessary at that point in the article. Perhaps getting more clarity on the Talk Page would help. --Taivo (talk) 06:05, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could you take a look? I'm going to start running into 3RR. Thanks. — kwami (talk) 07:48, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Taivo, please see my reply to your recent revert on K's talk page. Praxis Icosahedron (talk) 06:25, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please find the discussion over at the talk page of the bs article. If you're keen on reverting edits I also hope you're prepared to offer some input to the discussion. Praxis Icosahedron (talk) 06:41, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is need to improve this page. I indicated the region of Saraiki Speaking areas, also a map. I also wrote about dialects of this language. Kindly help me to improve this article, please.

Your edits are not based on reliable sources. --Taivo (talk) 15:45, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What is your problem Mr Taivo. can you explain the grounds for reverting with out any reference. dont miss use your edit chair for fun and reverse only you can proof the edits wrong as suppourted by published material. REGARDZZZZZ Frenchdreamer (talk) 18:13, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This material is just a rehash of other discredited material and isn't supported by reliable linguistic sources. --Taivo (talk) 20:25, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Y not you use Talk page to justify your reverts point by point by thourgh logic see how others are also complaining and you keep repeating automated replies for example "isn't supported by reliable linguistic sources". For your kind information their are thousands of IPs available on different internet cafes in our country so if you will keep reverting with out logic point by point i will keep correcting the article. its great fun... BEST OF LUCK for your hard work LanguageXpert (talk) 11:53, 2 November 2012 (UTC) kindly see the matter and finalize as soon as possible. Saraiki language also must be shown immediately in the map of Languages of Pakistan.[reply]

Dear Taive, look in to matter, see changes made by user Saraikistan, in Saraiki language.

Dear 182.186.9.98 ! Its Taivo not Taive, any ways you are consistently reverting my edits and editing the article with out any basis. I told you that you should not involve in edit war and instead of editing directly to the article use talk page and develop WP consensus. Regards Saraikistan (talk) 12:34, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

saraiki dialect is redundant with the Riasti dialect, Shah puri dialect,Multani dialect, Multani language, Thalochi dialect, Thalochi ,Derawali dialect articles. I suggest merging these articles , as the all these are same. And also be Redirected to Saraiki language. Also Jhangvi dialect is dialect of Saraiki. Kindly See these External Links http://www.ethnologue.com/show_language.asp?code=skr http://globalrecordings.net/en/language/16338

– Fayenatic London 15:23, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kosovo isn't considered a country yet, therefore there is no need to place it under the "Official Language In" section. However, if you are so desperate to have Serbia in pieces, then you might as well place Vojvodina in that section as well......

In Wikipedia, we consider Kosovo to be a country, but place its name in italics. --Taivo (talk) 23:46, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]