User talk:Kwamikagami/Archive 6
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Barnstars   
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 The colubrid Telescopus semiannulatus in an acacia, central Tanzania.
|
Quotes:
Words of the day:
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Decipherment of Rongorongo FA discussion edit
Being basically unfamiliar with the FA process, I'm not going to comment on the review. But I will say that I'm a great fan of your work, in particular in turning Rongorongo from a sketchy, unhelpful mess into a tightly organized family of articles covering the entire Rongorongo corpus in a manner both scholarly and accessible. Say, that would sound good on a barnstar.
|
The Original Barnstar | |
| For transforming Rongorongo from a sketchy, unhelpful mess into a tightly organized family of articles covering the entire Rongorongo corpus in a manner both scholarly and accessible, I award you this Barnstar. May it bring you much mana! Fishal (talk) 02:10, 11 September 2008 (UTC) |
Thanks again. edit
I really appreciate your help and time on the Romanization. Whenever I have a problem on linguistic, I've got your help. Keep up the good work!! Best.--Caspian blue (talk) 02:37, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
First steps in Hadza language edit
Dear Kwamikagami,
Thank You for improving and correcting my last contributions.
I tried to make the first steps in learning Hadza language. I have found some special papers and other materials, all discussing a specific aspect. (It was a pleasant surprise that the the exclamations of the Hadza about a recently killed kudu on the Italian video could be recognized clearly after having read these papers.) Despite of the extreme value of these materials, their topic is very special. How have You done the first steps? I could not find any good introductory materiasl. I even looked for not-online materials (books, journal articles, catalogues, bibliographies), but still, I have not found any yet.
Or, if no introductory materials exist, are there at least some raw texts in Hadza, enabling learning by induction on a sufficient corpus? Are there any (continuous) raw texts at all, or, at least, whole sentences?
For contrast: I began to learn two Eskimo languages since the end of the 1990s: Sireniki Eskimo language and the Ungazigmi variant of Siberian Yupik languages. Since then, Sireniki went extinct, and the death of Ungazigmi is approaching too (no youth knowlege among youth, failed plans in school education). Despite of that, the written material about Siberian Yupik languages and cultures are A B U N D A N T, and also Sireniki materials are enough for a good start.
But the state of Hadza is not exactly like these extinct/endangered Siberian Eskimo languages. Hadza is a living language, with vigorous knowledge even among youth! And they seem to be actively studied (ecological, anthropological, phonetical studies, videos, even turistical visits). The seeming lack of available corpus and comprehensive linguistical materials seems form me very surprising.
Thus, how could You make the first steps in Hadza language? I tried to take them on my own, but I cannot find out the way now.
Best wishes, and thanks for the attention,
Physis (talk) 20:03, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
- Dear Kwamikagami,
- Thank You very much for Your help.
- I am glad to hear that the availability of Hadzabe linguistical materials can improve in the next few years.
- Till then, maybe I can ask for a copy of Berger 1943 from a German library. It had to be searched by series + journal (omitting title!) in the German bookfinder GVK. Wikipedia's Book sources was a great help in finding that.
Eris/Makemake resonances edit
We're going to need more authoritative sources that that hobby page if we're going to include them. Serendipodous 09:44, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
ㄧ 一 edit
which one is the correct one for zhuyin? ㄧ 一 and why are there two variants?ㄏㄨㄤㄉㄧ (talk) 21:19, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
re: IPA notice edit
Hi, there used to be a chart at IPA chart for Macedonian but now it's just a redirect. Thanks for the notice, though. :) --Kjoonlee 23:31, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Wow edit
I love how you've really cleaned up List of English words without rhymes, thanks for the help! (I know, I did a pretty pathetic job, but I don't come here often anyways). Teh Rote (talk) 01:35, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Expert attention required edit
[1], [2]. OpalNet IP's as before (User_talk:Black_Kite/Archive_17#Malta/OpalNet_user) Any offers? Knepflerle (talk) 19:46, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
- Blocked the socks and copy edited the article. Angr's right: I can see Arabic al- having its own article, as it's found in English, but il should be merged with Maltese language, which doesn't even mention the definite article. kwami (talk) 20:33, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the swift action. I've got no particular interest in this article, and agree it could be well dealt with in the Maltese language article or some such. But my biggest concern is the multi-sock offense that is going on over dozens of articles connected to Malta, Sicily and the Sicani. I've fixed the link above - if all that info is correct this is an issue that needs a thorough, concerted investigation and action (including an dnot restricted to checkuser etc) - the high-traffic articles are being corrected, but the insidious introduction of disinformation into low-traffic articles is an attack on the project's integrity. I only spotted this instance because I chased up the contributions of another suspicious edit, I hate to think what other damage has been done.
- Apologies for bothering you; it's so frustrating to be personally unable to do much against this sort of edits. Thanks again, best wishes, Knepflerle (talk) 21:18, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
- Tried AN/I here [3], no response. Contacted the checkuser who last dealt with the case, no response [4]. Asked last blocking admin [5], [6]... well, you guessed it. In fact, the guy who first introduced that "fact" into Il- has already(!) been identified as a likely member of the sockfarm [7] but nothing was followed up at all. Noone can say I didn't try though ;) Will try and file something again at some point but my editing time will be a lot more restricted for a while. Knepflerle (talk) 21:45, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
- (And a bonus prize if you can work out if/how this edit and these contribs fit into it all.) Knepflerle (talk) 21:54, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks edit
For your level-headed and informative suggestions/comments. Much appreciated. the roof of this court is too high to be yours (talk) 00:16, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Bimorphemic logograms edit
Can you comment on the logogram talk page why you restored the part that I took out on bimorphemic logograms? I explained there why I thought it should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.114.75.233 (talk) 23:20, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
- You removed it with the comment that it's nonsensical, but it makes perfect sense. Morphemes have nothing to do with syllables, so if Chinese characters adhere to syllabicity over morphology, then they're not strictly logographic. There are also couple bimorphemic and bisyllabic characters in modern Chinese, such as 卅 sānshi and 卌 sìshi. (Yes, I know they also stand for monosyllables, but they're used for both.) kwami (talk) 23:36, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
- First, morphemes surely have to do with syllables because I don't know how you can identify what is and is not a morpheme unless you can point to its pronunciation and show that it can occur elsewhere. A monosyllabic but bimorphemic example would take some justification. Maybe not impossible, but one would have to say a few words about it. The example with 王 is not well articulated on the page. Was 王 in Archaic Chinese actually pronounced as hjwang-s? That wasn't clear, especially because it would be a case of a bisyllabic character, which is itself quite rare and something I didn't even believe was possible. Also talking about the present-day lexical ambiguity of 王 (king vs rule) is confusing because those are not the two morphemes involved in its past bimorphemic-ness; rather, it's the morphemes king+suffix. You should also note there your examples of 卅 and 卌 as examples of bisyllabic logograms in *modern Chinese*, to support the fact that 王 could have been bisyllabic in Archaic Chinese, since 王 is not itself bisyllabic or bimorphemic in modern Chinese. Is it possible to use 卌 in a sentence, by the way? --130.91.109.98 (talk) 17:45, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- Oh shoot. Obviously. So, right, I am not paying attention. (I was stuck on modern Mandarin's syllable structure --- you couldn't, as far as I understand, have that -s in the same syllable as the rest, and there's not much room to decompose a Mandarin syllable into morphemes.) Nevertheless, whether something is confusing is in the eye of the beholder, right? Let me suggest the following re-write of that paragraph: "None of these systems was purely logographic. This can be illustrated with Chinese. Not all Chinese characters represent morphemes: some morphemes are composed of more than one character. For example, the Chinese word for spider, 蜘蛛 zhīzhū, was creating by fusing the rebus 知朱 zhīzhū (literally "know cinnabar") with the 'bug' determinative 虫. Neither *蜘 zhī nor *蛛 zhū occur separately (except to stand in for 蜘蛛 in poetry). In Archaic Chinese, one can find the reverse: a single character representing more than one morpheme. An example is Archaic Chinese 王 hjwangs, a combination of a morpheme 'hjwang' meaning king (coincidentally also written 王) and a suffix pronounced 's'. (The suffix is preserved in the modern falling tone.) In modern Mandarin, bimorphemic syllables are always written with two characters, for example 花儿 huār "flower (diminutive)"." Still, seeing some existing academic discussion of this would be useful. 王 is not a particularly good example if in Archaic Chinese hwang was also written as 王, because then it's not clear whether the writer actually wrote hwangs or simply wrote as much of the word that he had a character for. That's why I was asking for a citation. --130.91.109.98 (talk) 20:39, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks. Yes, that is an improvement. And yes, there is a question whether the character is truly bimorphemic, or whether derivational suffixes were simply ignored. (Either way, the script isn't purely logographic.) The problem with using other words is that you need a base of comparison, an un-suffixed form. I'll see what I can track down. kwami (talk) 20:45, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- To follow up, if you use it in a sentence, do you pronounce it as sānshi? --130.91.109.98 (talk) 20:39, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Cool, I never even heard of this dwarf planet before, I learned something today. :) But why does the article say there are three moons, but only two are listed? Corvus cornixtalk 21:22, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
RE: okina edit
My understanding is that IE versions prior to 7 cannot display the okina, so the template {{okina}} is used instead on all of the Hawaii-related articles. --Kralizec! (talk) 20:21, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
For you edit
|
The Working Man's Barnstar | |
| For getting all the EL61 links changed to Haumea (dwarf planet), I think you deserve the working man's barnstar. Must have been tedious as heck. Serendipodous 09:40, 19 September 2008 (UTC) |
Ataegina edit
Wow! I am seriously impressed by your work, and even more so by your accolades. Keep up the good work.
I would like to discuss one of your edits to one of my edits to the Ataegina article (chuckle). My intent was to show the identifier in the first sentence, then the name (as a link) in the second sentence (and, bonehead that I am, I forgot to link the name). All of which was intended to semantically show the evolution of the name.
Just wanted to state my case; I'll go with your decision.
Keep up the great work!
WeeWillieWiki (talk) 18:16, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
zhuyin for wu dialect edit
for shanghai and ningbo dialect, i know the extra letters, but do you know any letters that i Don't need?ㄏㄨㄤㄉㄧ (talk) 22:07, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Numeric format changes edit
Per your sweeping revisions to non-MoS-standard number formats on various science articles, I invite you to join the discussion at Talk:Earth#Number_format_changes. Thank you.—RJH (talk) 04:40, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Move of Hakka (linguistics) to Hakka Chinese edit
Hakka Chinese could refer not only to a group of people with a linguistic background, but also to the language itself. It would have been better, IMO, to have entitled the new name Hakka Chinese Language instead, given that 'Chinese' in itself is loaded with different interpretations such as the writing system, a spoken family of languages, and a rather large ethnic group. You should really have consulted on the talk page first before making the move unilaterally.
A copy of this will be pasted in the Hakka (linguistics)/Talk:Hakka_Chinese talk page. 00:15, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
- Except that not everyone agrees it's a "language". A see also link can be placed at the top of the page. kwami (talk) 00:17, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
- It's only a matter of semantics. Besides, now you've conflated Hakka Chinese (people) and (language/dialect), the original 'linguistics' was the original compromise... With respect to language, the Indonesian and Malay languages are so similar and mutually intelligible yet they are called languages. But, Spoken Hakka and spoken Wu are mutually unintelligible, and considered only dialects of Chinese. Dylanwhs (talk) 00:30, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
- Maybe someone can come up with unambiguous wording. But "Hakka (linguistics)" makes about as much sense as "British (linguistics)". We should name our articles with the normal English phrase for the topic; ambiguities are taken care of with 'see also' links and disambig. pages. The normal English phrases for Chinese languages are "X Chinese", so per the MOS that's what we should use.
- Hence the need for debate before your move. I assume it's reversible. Anyway, on the idea of 'British (Linguistics)' of course that's silly. You have 'English' for which which you could add 'linguistics' or phonology, or phonetics. I'm not saying that you should, but for Hakka (linguistics) at least you have a good idea what the article is about before clicking on it. The title of the article is therefore appropriate in its terse summary, and does away with the need for a disambiguation page. Why further add to the already amazing number of useless pages if you could have the title as succinct as that? Dylanwhs (talk) 00:44, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
- Because it's factually wrong, it's awkward, it violates Wikipedia standards, it's hard to enter in the search window, it implies Chinese languages are bizarre, etc. etc. Yes, "British (linguistics)" (not the same thing as "English(linguistics)", of course) is silly, just as silly as "Hakka (linguistics)". And changing the title doesn't involve adding any more pages. kwami (talk) 00:50, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Dear Kwamikagami, congratulations and thank you for following the community guidelines formed by Wikipedians earlier and enforcing them consistently. – Kaihsu (talk) 22:17, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Ulster Scots edit
I reverted your move to Ulster Scots dialect, as the title Ulster Scots (linguistics) was recently established in a debate that you did not participate it. See Talk:Ulster Scots (linguistics)#Requested move. These kinds of classifications are rarely black and white. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 08:49, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Writing systems map edit
Hi, I just noticed a small problem with your map on writing systems: the two words for the Mongolian script are in the wrong order. The left word reads "Bichig", the right word reads "Monggol" (roughly, anyway). The classical Mongolian script is read top-down, and from left to right, so what you wrote reads "Bichig Monggol". It should, however, read "Monggol Bichig". Can you please fix it? Best Regards, 11:44, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
MoS questions edit
You will get a quicker answer to your questions if you ask at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. That thread gets many daily posts and usually questions are answered promptly. There is also a Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) where replies are usually quick. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 20:54, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Rongorongo footnotes edit
Thanks for the hints, but footnotes are already being used for notes. Can I at least abbreviate the refs as "(Pozd. 2007:xx)" or something? This is what it looks like with full refs: Decipherment_of_rongorongo#Pozdniakov. kwami (talk) 00:42, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
- You can use ref tags for both the notes and references separately by using the "group" feature. See how it is done in Mary Shelley, for example. Kaldari (talk) 18:06, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Maltese language edit
So how come you get to make a valid edit in a locked article and I can't? ;) (Taivo (talk) 19:40, 23 September 2008 (UTC))
- (See my congratulatory note on Talk:Maltese language :) (Taivo (talk) 21:58, 23 September 2008 (UTC))
Bedankt edit
Thanks for the change and advice. Somehow I have missed the [Flemish People] article...take care.--Buster7 (talk) 09:08, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
displaying vertical text on wikipedia edit
can you give me the thing where i insert words to display them vertically?ㄏㄨㄤㄉㄧ (talk) 04:33, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not aware of any way to do that. Please let me know if you find out: vertical wikipedia would be cool.
- BTW, you might want to check out Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese). We're discussing what to use instead of that silly "(linguistics)" tag on the Chinese language articles. kwami (talk) 07:07, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
i have two over here but the first one is sideways, and the second one...i havent tried writing large amounts with it yet.ㄏㄨㄤㄉㄧ (talk) 19:30, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
ㄏㄨㄤㄉㄧ ㄏㄨㄤㄉㄧ ㄏㄨㄤㄉㄧ
| or |
|
Error in your IPA linking script edit
Your IPA linking script removed an alternative pronunciation from Kerguelen Islands. I only noticed because one item followed by an "etc" in a sentence is exceedingly odd. I hope my fix of the problem was OK. Just lettting you know in case there were other similar cases, or there is an alternative explanation. Thanks, Graham87 11:28, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the heads up. Actually, those aren't alternate pronunciations, they're just different dialects. When possible, we try to avoid listing a bunch of dialects for English pronunciaitons. (Why not include Australian?) If you follow the link, you'll see that /ˈkɝɡɨlɨn/ covers both RP and GA, as well as Aussie and many others. /ɝː/, for example, is defined as the vowel in bird, however you pronounce it. kwami (talk) 18:13, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Hello. I'd like to thank you for a really good version of the article Flemish. I read it and did some tweaks/corrections, but there are still some things that need to be clarified.
- Indeed, the dominant Flemish dialect, Brabantian, is also spoken in southern Netherlands, where it is considered a dialect of Netherlands Dutch. – Well, linguists tend to classify Brabantian as spoken in Belgium and Brabantian as spoken in the Neth with each other. Though, I'd like to make it clear in the article that there are significant differences between them.
- The Brabantian tussentaal, for example, tends to drop "h"s, while the West Flemish tussentaal turns "g" into "h". – In this sentence, you should have said "dialect", because tussentaal is rather the phenomenon which is "uniting" the dialects, with Brabantian as main influence. There's only one tussentaal.
But as I said, it's really a good, neutral article which descibes the current situation correctly. (Btw, where do you have all this neutral information from? Or it is totally from existing articles/discussions here at Wikipedia?) Greetings, SPQRobin (talk) 18:22, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
- I know absolutely nothing about Flemish. I just tried to remove the obvious biases from the article, address a concern or two I saw on the talk page, and apply some common sense. I'm sure I got lots of stuff wrong, though, so thanks for cleaning up after me. The Brabantian comment, for example, was just a clumsy attempt to show that conceptions of Dutch & Flemish may be defined by the border, but that this isn't reflected on the ground. As for tussentaal, that's a completely foreign word for me. The article said both that there's a tussentaal, and that there's a different tussentaal for each dialect. I had no idea which was correct, so I left it more or less as it was. kwami (talk) 19:41, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Manchu alphabet edit
can you give me the latin equivalents of the manchu alphabet? theres a website that allows conversion from latin alphabet into manchu, and it displays pictures of the letters, so it can be displayed in a table on the article.ㄏㄨㄤㄉㄧ (talk) 20:26, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
- The only transcription I'm aware of is,
- a, e, i, o, u, ô (ligature), n, ng, q, k, γ (not Latin), g, k', g', χ (not Latin), x, b, p, s, š, t1, d1, t2, d2, l, m, č, ǰ, y, r, f, w; Chinese: c, ï, ž
- The transcription's a bit different: ū for ô, h for both x and χ, g for both g and γ, k for both k and q, etc. With an intelligent converter, these and t1, d1, t2, d2 could be automatically determined by the following vowel, so you wouldn't need to input Greek or numerals. kwami (talk) 20:50, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
um i dont understand the rules on the converter. ill just show the website- [8]
ㄏㄨㄤㄉㄧ (talk) 16:39, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
- Okay, if you follow the 'Manchu Script' link at left, it takes you to the full alphabet, with romanization in the left column. That's the basic convention they use. However, a few letters aren't easy to input, so under the input window on the page you directed me to, it describes their input conventions: x for š, v for ū/ô, etc. kwami (talk) 17:46, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Haumea edit
The dates you mentioned, March 7, 8, 9 2003, aren't in the quoted source. Could you tell me where you got them? Serendipodous 06:35, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
- Oops, sorry. I was hoping to integrate the Ortiz side of the controversy into the article, but didn't get to it today. The external link's at the bottom of the page, and one of the research team gives those dates. They never do give the discovery date, however, which I find odd. kwami (talk) 06:42, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Cantonese edit
Stop adding "Yue" to Cantonese, especially for spurious reasons!! That is just Mandarin pinyin used by some Mandarin people in China who do not know the English name of the language. It is not the name of the language.--Strawberycake (talk) 13:59, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
- It is the name in English of the entire language, for people who restrict the name "Cantonese" for the dialect of Canton. kwami (talk) 17:38, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
- No. Cantonese is the name of the entire language. The English word "Cantonese" exactly equals to "粵語" or "白話"，while "standard Cantonese" equals to "廣州話" or "廣府話"（"廣州話" is standard Cantonese, all native Cantonese speaker admit that）。See Chinese version. Mandarin pinyin "Yue" is nothing. --Strawberycake (talk) 13:10, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Rapa Nui language edit
why is the 'language family 13' of the page Rapa Nui language and the page Rapanui languages erased? It is clearly stated in the Ethnologue that Rapa Nui language is a language while Rapanui languages is a language family, it is two different things. It's just like the Quechua and Aymara languages, which are classified in the Quechuan languages and Aymaran languages groups respectively, if the erasing rules apply, those pages have to be deleted too. Kotakkasut (talk) 10:25, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
- Presumably because they're the same thing, it's a tiny island with just one language, at best it may have had a few dialects but certainly no Rapanui language family. Akerbeltz (talk) 17:46, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, RN is a relative isolate & therefore a "family" of its own. Certainly a RN "family" is nothing to create an article for. Quechua, on the other had, is a family of related languages. But I agree that either the Quechuan articles should be merged, or Quechua should be renamed for the specific dialect it describes. Aymara is different, however, than the Aymaran languages, and so should be a separate article. kwami (talk) 17:49, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
- What about the Konkani language then? If there's an error in those articles mentioned, I suggest that you correct it to be fair with the Rapanui language article. Kotakkasut (talk) 13:07, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Fluoride again edit
Hi! I just stumbled upon the Water Fluoridation article and see that is is very biased in favor of the anti-fluoridation crowd. Do you have any interest in coming back to try to improve the article? --—CynRN (Talk) 20:55, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Congratulations! I compliment you on how you handled the issues during FAC. A well-deserved star! Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 14:25, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Hello,
First of all, thank you for your excellent edits to Burusho. However, I am having trouble with a nationalist who keeps reinstating the old version. I'm opening a discussion and your contribution would be very welcome. --Tsourkpk (talk) 17:45, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- *sigh* Yes, he, or s.o. like him, has been pushing this for years now. kwami (talk) 19:30, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Dear Kwamikagami,
There was a consesus for this article (see Discussion page).
As of the language, we agreed that the short explanation about the possibility of linguistic connection of Burusho language to other languages which is sourced should be mentioned.
As of the Burusho leaders' claims of connection to Ancient and Modern Macedonians, the situation is clear. It's not a nationalistic nor scientific claim. It's only a stand of these people's leaders which is very important for this article. No one wants nor can prove whether the Burusho people have such a historical or cultural connection and that's not the intension. The intension is only to inform about Burusho leaders' claims, not to prove anything.
I think this discussion is unneccessary. The "problem" was solved and is more than clear. However, some editors (especially from Greece) don't want to understand it and continue to revert with explanation "provide us with a reliable source to prove 'your' claims". I don't claim anything, my friends, I just give information and statements and prove that they were really given somewhere at some time.
I think that we've lost a lot of time in arguing about something that is so clear, the best way to solve this is to ask for an administrator's solution. Dimitar2007 (talk) 21:32, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- As I wrote on the talk page, I have no problem with mentioning Burusho visits to Macedonia. It's rather interesting. However, extended discussions of unsubstantiated Balkan-Burusho linguistic ties—which have been rejected in the language article—have no place in the ethnic article. kwami (talk) 21:38, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- The refs and basic idea were still there; I just added a sentence to expand on it. I doubt it's much more notable than that. (Maybe if I could read the reference I'd change my mind.) kwami (talk) 21:51, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Burushaski. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Dimitar2007 (talk) 18:34, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Nakh migrations edit
Hi, sorry for my late reply. Thanks for the explanation, but I was wondering what N-true and you specifically thought about User:Ingushetia's edits to those pages. Thoughts? Khoikhoi 19:54, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- Okay, a few clods of manure: "Rise of the Sino-Caucasian culture"?? If there were such a thing, which is highly doubtful, there is no evidence for it. And it would certainly be much older than 5-6ka. I haven't seen the ref in question, but I seriously doubt that agriculture was the domain of the Nax, which almost certainly didn't yet exist—it would instead have been NEC. In the 2nd edit, he's conflated Nax & Vainax, a distinction which AFAIK is still maintained in the lit. In the third article you didn't give me a diff; I only see something about Soviet soldiers capitulating, which can be deleted as OR since there's no ref. kwami (talk) 08:05, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- "Science 19 May 2000: Vol. 288. no. 5469, p. 1158 DOI: 10.1126/science.288.5469.1158: "LINGUISTICS: Peering Into the Past, With Words Bernice Wuethrich Prehistorians typically rely on stones, bones, and DNA to piece together the past, but linguists argue that words preserve history too. Two new studies, both based on endangered languages, offer new insights into the identity of mysterious ancient peoples, from the first farmers to early inhabitants of the British Isles. Archaeologists have long known that some 10,000 years ago, ancient people in Mesopotamia discovered farming, raising sheep, cattle, wheat, and barley. And researchers knew that by 8000 years ago agriculture had spread north to the Caucasus Mountains. But they had little inkling of whether traces of this first farming culture lived on in any particular culture today. People have migrated extensively through the region over the millennia, and there's no continuous archaeological record of any single culture. Linguistically, most languages in the region and in the Fertile Crescent itself are relatively recent arrivals from elsewhere. Now, however, linguist Johanna Nichols of the University of California, Berkeley, has used language to connect modern people of the Caucasus region to the ancient farmers of the Fertile Crescent. She analyzed the Nakh-Daghestanian linguistic family, which today includes Chechen, Ingush, and Batsbi on the Nakh side and some 24 languages on the Daghestanian side; all are spoken in parts of Russia (such as Chechnya), Georgia, and Azerbaijan. Languages heard near the Caspian Sea today trace their ancestry back to the first farmers of the Fertile Crescent. Nichols had previously established the family tree of Nakh-Daghestanian by analyzing similarities in the related languages much the way biologists create a phylogeny of species. She found that three languages converge at the very base of the tree. Today, speakers of all three live side by side in the southeastern foothills of the Caucasus Mountains, suggesting that this was the homeland of the ancestral language--on the very fringes of the Fertile Crescent. To get a rough estimate of when the language arose, Nichols used a linguistic method that assumes a semiregular rate of vocabulary loss per 1000 years, and she dated the ancestral language to about 8000 years ago. Nichols also found that the ancestral language contains a host of words for farming. The Chechen words muq (barley), stu (bull), and tkha (wool), for example, all have closely related forms in the earliest branches of Daghestanian, as do words for pear, apple, dairy product, and oxen yoke--all elements of the farming package developed in the Fertile Crescent. Thus location, time, and vocabulary all suggest that the farmers of the region were proto-Nakh-Daghestanians. "The Nakh-Daghestanian languages are the closest thing we have to a direct continuation of the cultural and linguistic community that gave rise to Western civilization," Nichols says. Population geneticist Henry Harpending of the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, has just begun the job of unraveling the genetic ancestry of Daghestanian speakers and is impressed with Nichols's work. "For years I wished linguists would get in the game. Nichols sure is." Nichols is now reconstructing the ancestral language, hoping for more clues to the culture of these early farmers. But she has to work fast, for the three Nakh languages are vanishing. Although there are still about 900,000 Chechen speakers left, the other two tongues have fewer speakers, and all three are being eroded by war, economic chaos, and Russian educational practices, Nichols says.""
P.S. I understand that English is not your native language. Proto- means PRE-. So if I say PROTO-INGUSH that mean ancestors of Ingush. http://www.blurtit.com/q602529.html I will report your immature behavior. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ingushetia (talk • contribs) 23:03, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- No. In linguistics, "proto-Ingush" means ancestral to Ingush but strongly implies not ancestral to other languages. Thank you for quoting the ref from Science. It proves my point. "Nakh-Daghestanian linguistic family, which today includes Chechen, Ingush, and Batsbi on the Nakh side and some 24 languages on the Daghestanian side" means that these languages are related: they form a language family. See the article Northeast Caucasian languages, a synonym for Nakh-Daghestanian. (Linguists such as Bernard Comrie have in the last few years determined that the Nakh languages are not particularly divergent, and are just another branch of Daghestanian, not coordinate with it.) kwami (talk) 00:01, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I wasn't really around when the edit war occurred, but I think he broke 3RR: [12], [13], [14], [15]. Khoikhoi 06:32, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
- I don't think it's fair to count that, even if it's a technical violation. He came up with a compromise edit on his fourth time round. However, when I fixed it up again (which made me 4 as well), he again reverted. If he keeps it up I'll block him. Meanwhile, restore/edit as you like. kwami (talk) 06:37, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi edit
Hi Kwami, I'm sorry I was a rude to you on the Arabic numerals talk page. I guess your right, I shouldn't have posted comments without really investigating into the matter. BTW, I see you have an amazing edit count of over 40,000. I've added a service badge to your user page regarding it. Cheers. Arjun G. Menon (talk · mail) 13:22, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
153 Hilda edit
Thanks! Perfect! (Hey, that's not lousy. It's at least close enough to get the point across.) kwami (talk) 17:17, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
- Feel free to port them to commons if you like. I wasn't especially happy with either, and nobody at Talk:Hilda family or Talk:153 Hilda seemed to care much for them, so I kinda abandoned them. WilyD 17:22, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
- I don't bother with Commons anymore. It's too much trouble to have to watch & wait three months for anything to be decided anytime anyone objects to anything, just to have to restore images that get deleted anyway.
- I'm almost perfectly happy with the left image. Yes, it would be nice if Hilda obeyed Kepler's laws and matched up perfectly with the L points, but that's of secondary importance. An illustration like this is much more valuable than a verbal description for a lot, probably most, people. If someone objects to it not being perfect, let them do better! kwami (talk) 17:32, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
- Err, the image is as correct as it's precision - it's Keplerian less perterbations from the planets, since it's simulated data. Real Hilda family asteroids oscillated around the idealised orbit - this is J2000 data, as I recall, so it's Hilda's orbit from January 2000 - sometime in 2011, then repeated. The average orbit might match up perfectly with the L points - I'd have to either think about it or check Murray and Dermott, but any particular orbit does. Similar to finite resonance widths and so forth ... WilyD 17:41, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oh, my impression from the discussion was that it moved at a constant speed, and I couldn't tell the difference. I'll delete the note. kwami (talk) 17:45, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
- No, it's simulated with ... SWIFT, probably. Orbital speed goes like square root of the radial distance, so an eccentricity of .141 means the speed is only changing by ~15%. I think I can eyeball it, but I'm not sure. I think the fact that it doesn't hit the Lagrange points dead on may confuse people, as it's thus not the greatest example for the Hilda family, but there's nothing you can do for 153 Hilda. WilyD 17:50, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
- I just changed the note to say that this is orbital data from 2000 and that Hilda seldom hits the L pts exactly. Hopefully that should cover it, but you might want to reword if you can think of something clearer.
- No, it's simulated with ... SWIFT, probably. Orbital speed goes like square root of the radial distance, so an eccentricity of .141 means the speed is only changing by ~15%. I think I can eyeball it, but I'm not sure. I think the fact that it doesn't hit the Lagrange points dead on may confuse people, as it's thus not the greatest example for the Hilda family, but there's nothing you can do for 153 Hilda. WilyD 17:50, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oh, my impression from the discussion was that it moved at a constant speed, and I couldn't tell the difference. I'll delete the note. kwami (talk) 17:45, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
- Err, the image is as correct as it's precision - it's Keplerian less perterbations from the planets, since it's simulated data. Real Hilda family asteroids oscillated around the idealised orbit - this is J2000 data, as I recall, so it's Hilda's orbit from January 2000 - sometime in 2011, then repeated. The average orbit might match up perfectly with the L points - I'd have to either think about it or check Murray and Dermott, but any particular orbit does. Similar to finite resonance widths and so forth ... WilyD 17:41, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
IPA chart 2005 edit
I say on the talk page of Image:IPA chart 2005.png that I'll be happy to generate an SVG file if someone tells me how, but there hasn't been any response. The only way I can think of is to first convert the Word doc to PDF, and then convert the PDF to SVG, but much of the text gets corrupted. Some of the fonts get lost along the way. Is there an extension that would allow me to convert directly? kwami (talk) 21:44, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
- I'm sorry I didn't check the talk page, I was just routinely tagging. Anyway, without seeing what went wrong for myself it's hard to say what exactly goes wrong, but I gather PDF is okay, right? So maybe there's something wonky with the program you use to convert the PDF to SVG. There are a few things you could do. You could try a different program to do the conversion, a quick websearch yields the names Pstoedit (commandline utility), Gsview (a PDF/PostScript viewer that calls Pstoedit), and Inkscape (but not yet in the main branch). Another option would be to grep the file for the font names or to try to select the text objects and see what kind of font names the converter made up, so you can correct what went wrong. It's of course also possible that the SVG is okay but that the drawing program doesn't load it correctly. If all else fails, I can recreate the file as an SVG using Inkscape, but that will involve drawing the table etc., so in that case I will take my sweet time. Oh, and thanks in advance for your trouble. Bye, Shinobu (talk) 02:31, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
reply edit
Hi! No, there's no such word. We simply say "американец" (US citizen) and "американский" (of US). These words can refer to American continents in general but in overwhelming majority of the cases they are used in narrow sense. Of course slang has a few words of that meaning, ranging from offensive ones to pretty neutral, but still unsuitable for an encyclopaedia. Alæxis¿question? 05:20, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
nasau edit
Hi, re nasau in Tok Pisin - sorry, no, I've never heard the word. It's possible it is used in some regions - Tok Pisin has a very high rate of innovation and regional variation - but I think it would be a recent development if it exists at all, and so unlikely to be the origin of anything in another language. Cheers, Wantok (toktok) 23:49, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi Kwami:
No - I've never heard of it. As Wantok says, it may be used in some regions, but the only word I've normally heard in this sense is "longlong". MarcusCole12 (talk) 12:43, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Need your help edit
Hi, Kwamikagami. I don't know whether you can read old Korean language or not, but if possible, could you check the history of Empress Myeongseong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and the SPA Bukubku (talk · contribs)? The person created his account just after some AFD for South Korean cultural claims was open and was canvassed by now indef.blocked Michael Friedrich (talk · contribs) to 2channel, the biggest Japanese we bforum in Japan as well as known for an anti-Korean bashing site. Bukubku obviously seems to be a sock per the history of the article and ongoing disruption by the web-forum. The user's been taking over mesh.ad.jp IP user's consistent vandalism to the article and also has been checking on me per his admission as interruption to a discussion between me and another user. Bukubku and sock ip users have tried to insert spurious citations which are regarded not only unreliable, but also tried to forge that the murder of the empress ordered by Miura Goro was made by Jo Hui-yeon's order. I checked the sources, but I could not find any of mentioned info. That means they keep lying even though their sources are not backing up their claims. Therefore, I ask you to check the sources and exam the duck test.
It seems like they provoke me to violate 3RR. I've been stalked and harassed by Japanese editors' on and off wiki for one year, and they even make a stalking site dedicated to me http://www3.atwiki.jp/apple-tree/ (appletrees is my former name) because I've filed many RFCU files on many disruptive sockpuppeters and many are blocked. I think people at ANI would say "oh, that's a content issue?" and then gone. So well, could you do me a favor? Thanks.--Caspian blue (talk) 00:17, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry, I don't read Old Korean. I can figure enough out for the hangul articles, but that's only because they're strongly constrained by context.
- You should be flattered there are sites dedicated to you. If you ever feel from your wiki activities that you don't have a real life, remember these folks have even less of one.
- Actually forging references, as opposed to disagreement on their interpretation, is vandalism, not a content dispute, though few admins will be able to verify your claims. Sorry that I'm not one of them. However, if there's a pattern of behaviour, they can ban accounts even without being able to read the sources. kwami (talk) 00:48, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
- Obviously, they don't read Korean which I've acknowledged from useless discussions with the SPA. However, they just forge the content as if the murder order was done by Koreans. Only one source (most of them are actually duplicates) states that there are Korean collaboraters but they make up Jo Hui-yeon is the leader for the murder. It seems like Bukubku (talk · contribs) seized the moment to make me blocked as s/he keeps speaking inconsistent story and doing vandalism. Please don't say such kidding. I'm very pissed off after finding out the stalking site. That is a libel! There is none of admins able to speak Korean (only one admin who can read Korean is not interested in history subject and does not come to ANI) and the source are written in old Korean, so a translation tool is not effective. I feel just frustration again and again.--Caspian blue (talk) 01:00, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
- I've asked Bukubku to quote the relevant passage. Since it's so obscure, that's a reasonable request for an admin to make. kwami (talk) 01:10, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
- The citations they use are Annals of Gojong and Sunjong which are regarded "forged documents" by scholars because it was written by Japanese order during the occupation period as well as incorrect/much omitted info and blatant praises for Empire of Japan. Besides, [[16] that the users keep inserting does not even mention about Bukubku's claim. Moreover, the users have tried to change the style of the Empress to Queen. The other info also mislead that Empress deserved to be a commoner for her demeanor (which was also written by force and King's life was at stake). Anyway, thank you for the help. ANI does only work for articles with English citations.--Caspian blue (talk) 01:20, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you for your message, Kwamikagami. Jo Hui yeon was former Military Minister at that time. After the success of coup he became Military Minister again. But soon King refuged the Russian Legation. Then King said Jo Hui yeon was one of criminals. He was the highest rank person in the criminals. Japanese troops must have been under the order of Japanese high official in this case Miura Goro. Similarly, Korean troops must have been under the order of Korean high official. So I wrote former Military Minister of Korea Jo Hui yeon and Miura Goro ordered. If you feel not good. Shall I write the all person's name who King said the criminals or Shall I write Several Korean Officers? And I have a petition what discussions should be discussed in Talk:Empress Myeongseong. Some people didn't discuss in Talk:Empress Myeongseong, and they deleted the article without consensus.
- That is your original research. You don't have any source to back up your clam except the duplicated "spurious sources". That is called vandalism. Miura Goro's order was cited, but you don't. The collaboraters are of course charged criminals, but Japan court aquitted the charge of Japanese criminals and they paved their success from the murder. I should remove your "falsification" You've been warned more than enough.--Caspian blue (talk) 02:20, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
- To:Caspian blue: First: I understood the issue of Empress to Queen that the issue has several opinions. So I didn't edit the issue after you assigned me. Second: I know your opinion Annals of Gojong and Sunjong which are regarded forged documents. I think that was regarded forged documents in South Korea, not others. And in this case, Annals of Gojong and Sunjong is same Official Gazzete of Korea that was published at that time. So I land the Annals of Gojong and Sunjong, too.--Bukubku (talk) 02:06, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
- Not others? Why did not UNESCO designate it as the master piece unlike other annals? The citation that you put are all "premary sources", not secondary sources that scholars have proved. Do not vandalise the article with your assumption.--Caspian blue (talk) 02:20, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you for your message, Kwamikagami. Jo Hui yeon was former Military Minister at that time. After the success of coup he became Military Minister again. But soon King refuged the Russian Legation. Then King said Jo Hui yeon was one of criminals. He was the highest rank person in the criminals. Japanese troops must have been under the order of Japanese high official in this case Miura Goro. Similarly, Korean troops must have been under the order of Korean high official. So I wrote former Military Minister of Korea Jo Hui yeon and Miura Goro ordered. If you feel not good. Shall I write the all person's name who King said the criminals or Shall I write Several Korean Officers? And I have a petition what discussions should be discussed in Talk:Empress Myeongseong. Some people didn't discuss in Talk:Empress Myeongseong, and they deleted the article without consensus.
- The citations they use are Annals of Gojong and Sunjong which are regarded "forged documents" by scholars because it was written by Japanese order during the occupation period as well as incorrect/much omitted info and blatant praises for Empire of Japan. Besides, [[16] that the users keep inserting does not even mention about Bukubku's claim. Moreover, the users have tried to change the style of the Empress to Queen. The other info also mislead that Empress deserved to be a commoner for her demeanor (which was also written by force and King's life was at stake). Anyway, thank you for the help. ANI does only work for articles with English citations.--Caspian blue (talk) 01:20, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
- I've asked Bukubku to quote the relevant passage. Since it's so obscure, that's a reasonable request for an admin to make. kwami (talk) 01:10, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
- Caspian, a disagreement on the authenticity of sources is not "vandalism". Let's see what Bukubku can come up with. If there is only mention of this in sources that were written under Japanese occupation, we can say as much in the article. kwami (talk) 02:23, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
- Falsification on citation constitutes "vandalism" as you said earlier. He admits that he added his original research and synthesis which are not only all violations of Wikipedia's core policies, but also "disruptive lying".--Caspian blue (talk) 02:31, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
- Caspian, a disagreement on the authenticity of sources is not "vandalism". Let's see what Bukubku can come up with. If there is only mention of this in sources that were written under Japanese occupation, we can say as much in the article. kwami (talk) 02:23, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
- You're assuming bad faith, which is also against core policies. Perhaps B deserves it, perhaps not. In the mean time, I expect B to provide a quote of the relevant passage. If he can't, then we delete the passage. And you're correct, inferring that a title means a particular person when it's not explicit in the text is OR—but it's hardly vandalism. If B can provide an appropriate quote, and you believe the source is not reliable, then we can mention that in the article: 'Jo is alleged to have ordered the assassination in documents commissioned by the Japanese occupational authorities' or some such. kwami (talk) 02:38, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
- Well, I've been watched and he suddenly interrupted into a discussion between me and Sennen goroshi after his break. I have no reason to abuse good faith policy to the obvious SPA. You were kidding at me that I "should" be proud of the stalking and attack site. So please do not expect me to do a good faith to his repeated vandalism to the article. Jo was one of the collaraborater, not a leader as he forged. He could not provide the source, because I could not find any mention about his claim from the sources. The falsification of the article is clearly vandalism.--Caspian blue (talk) 02:47, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
- You're assuming bad faith, which is also against core policies. Perhaps B deserves it, perhaps not. In the mean time, I expect B to provide a quote of the relevant passage. If he can't, then we delete the passage. And you're correct, inferring that a title means a particular person when it's not explicit in the text is OR—but it's hardly vandalism. If B can provide an appropriate quote, and you believe the source is not reliable, then we can mention that in the article: 'Jo is alleged to have ordered the assassination in documents commissioned by the Japanese occupational authorities' or some such. kwami (talk) 02:38, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
- No, Caspian, it is not. It appears to be OR, and on that basis in unacceptable. But we don't know that Bukubku is one of your stalkers. I know that must upsetting (and I was attempting to lighten the mood by joking about it, not to upset you further), but for all I know B is just in the wrong place at the wrong time. It's happened before. Perhaps if I knew the full history, it would be obvious to me, but as things stand it is not. Meanwhile I've explained to B that editor synthesis is not appropriate, and that if his sources do not explicitly state that Jo gave the order, then that passage needs to be deleted. I have no reason to think he's been anything but cooperative. Let's see how things play out. kwami (talk) 02:57, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
- It is not OR. He ignored my point-out on his blatant falisfication and he really meant it as his repeated violation of the policies. He also made edit wars over the style of the empress. If we're so strict about the style, there were no emperor in history of Japan except Meiji, Taisho, Hirohito. Many Korean media call the current "Tenno" as Japanese king, so should it be reflected to the article? Korean and other countries call her with the style except the Japan. Why should he insist on using "Queen Min"? That is how Japanese revisionist historians' attempt to defame her. Her brief posthumous status as a commoner was done by force and Gojong's life was almost at stake. The user should've put such information, but made a synthesis that she deserved to be dead like that. --Caspian blue (talk) 03:12, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you for your message. I deleted the articles you regarded my OR. and I deleted the citation from Annals of Gojong, too. I didn't know UNESCO didn't designate it as the master piece unlike other annals. Thank you Caspian blue. and I apologize.--Bukubku (talk) 03:20, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
- I already said the same info to your talk page before, and it is so good that you changed your mind after Kwami's intervention.--Caspian blue (talk) 03:27, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
- No need to be confrontational. It only makes you look bad, when Bukubku is being cooperative. kwami (talk) 03:31, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
- I only said about truth.--Caspian blue (talk) 03:54, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
- No need to be confrontational. It only makes you look bad, when Bukubku is being cooperative. kwami (talk) 03:31, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
- I already said the same info to your talk page before, and it is so good that you changed your mind after Kwami's intervention.--Caspian blue (talk) 03:27, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you for your message. I deleted the articles you regarded my OR. and I deleted the citation from Annals of Gojong, too. I didn't know UNESCO didn't designate it as the master piece unlike other annals. Thank you Caspian blue. and I apologize.--Bukubku (talk) 03:20, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
- Caspian, enough. I've said what I have to say. Let Bukubku present his evidence. kwami (talk) 03:19, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
- Kwami. I really appreciate your help, but I do not want to argue over the different point of view on the same one.--Caspian blue (talk) 03:27, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
- It is not OR. He ignored my point-out on his blatant falisfication and he really meant it as his repeated violation of the policies. He also made edit wars over the style of the empress. If we're so strict about the style, there were no emperor in history of Japan except Meiji, Taisho, Hirohito. Many Korean media call the current "Tenno" as Japanese king, so should it be reflected to the article? Korean and other countries call her with the style except the Japan. Why should he insist on using "Queen Min"? That is how Japanese revisionist historians' attempt to defame her. Her brief posthumous status as a commoner was done by force and Gojong's life was almost at stake. The user should've put such information, but made a synthesis that she deserved to be dead like that. --Caspian blue (talk) 03:12, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
- No, Caspian, it is not. It appears to be OR, and on that basis in unacceptable. But we don't know that Bukubku is one of your stalkers. I know that must upsetting (and I was attempting to lighten the mood by joking about it, not to upset you further), but for all I know B is just in the wrong place at the wrong time. It's happened before. Perhaps if I knew the full history, it would be obvious to me, but as things stand it is not. Meanwhile I've explained to B that editor synthesis is not appropriate, and that if his sources do not explicitly state that Jo gave the order, then that passage needs to be deleted. I have no reason to think he's been anything but cooperative. Let's see how things play out. kwami (talk) 02:57, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
- Caspian, another of your objections is to calling her Queen. That certainly is inappropriate if the article is titled Empress, not as a matter of POV, but merely of consistency. I've added a new section on this to the talk page and hope it should soon be cleaned up. kwami (talk) 03:29, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks. Other queen consorts are always styled as "wanghu" (왕후), not "bi (비)" such as "Munjeong Wanghu (Queen Munjeong)" who was born in Yun clan. She is not called "Queen Yun". Just like the example, Queen Min (민비) is the very inappropriate and disgraceful title only given to divested queen consort or second wife of the king. Empress Myeongseong is how the Korea posthumously named her.--Caspian blue (talk) 03:40, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
- Caspian, another of your objections is to calling her Queen. That certainly is inappropriate if the article is titled Empress, not as a matter of POV, but merely of consistency. I've added a new section on this to the talk page and hope it should soon be cleaned up. kwami (talk) 03:29, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
uh huh edit
so... instead of fixing it... you revert the edit entirly... and that makes sence how?--Jakezing (talk) 02:01, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
PNG date formats edit
Hi, in answer to your question, date formats in PNG are generally dd/mm/yyyy - as with many other things, it's a result of the Australian colonial presence and continuing substantial influence of Australian culture on PNG. Cheers, Wantok (toktok) 03:36, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Relexification edit
Excellent copy edits. (Taivo (talk) 02:15, 10 October 2008 (UTC))
Hank Williams Song edit
It's pronounced /kə'laɪdʒə/. Not sure why it's spelt so oddly. I really have no interest in editing Wikipedia, but I do look up things here sometimes, after which I am inevitably disappointed. If you would like to earn yourself another barnstar and some major ePenis I would suggest rewriting the page for Gitche-Manitu. I am quite familiar with the scholarship surrounding Anishinaabeg Ethnohistory, and I must say that that (uncited, or rather badly documented) article is in a poor state that you people should be ashamed of. [[User:Kyle543 |Kyle543]] (talk) 03:07, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi! The name is pronouced as "Nave" - as in part of a church, then "en" and then "bee". Don't think that is quite the scientific way of writing it! So, it is: Nave-en-bee If you don't think it is right in the article, please feel free to change it. I ran it past the pronunciation bods at Wiki while writing the article, so had hoped that it was OK. -- Myosotis Scorpioides 10:12, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
- That's fine, but we really should show where the stress lies. I don't want to just make a guess. kwami (talk) 20:32, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
- Hi, I left a message on the talk page but, just incase you haven't seen it, the stress is on the 'nave' part of the name.-- Myosotis Scorpioides 10:33, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
I've re-blocked for 1 week. We don't indefinitely block IP addresses. Regards, Rjd0060 (talk) 20:20, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Burusho edit
While he was definitely heading for a block I think in the long run it is best for admins to not block users with whom they are themselves involved in content disputes. It might cast shadows on your integrity as an admin.·Maunus·ƛ· 00:19, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
History of Alphabet edit
Hi Kwamikagami (or should I call you Sabt, which is Saturday in my language :-)) I have noticed you removed my additions to the article of "History of Alphabet." May I know why. I believe my additions adds value to the sequence of the article, fills some missing information, and is appropriate. I appreciate your explanation for me to improve my contribution and collaboration on Wikipedia [BTW I am now translation the article to Arabic} (Aboluay (talk) 19:22, 17 October 2008 (UTC)).
Unicode for seal script edit
um is there a unicode for seal script or something.Count Dooku of Serenno (talk) 19:44, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
- No. For practical purposes, seal script is a graphic variant of Chinese characters, and no more needs distinct encoding than grass script, or italics in the Roman alphabet. Or at least the Small Seal Script: I found the following comment on the Unicode web site:
- Graphologically, the Han script ("Chinese characters") has long been considered a single script, adapted for use by neighboring cultures, but not separated into distinct scripts by such usage. Historically very early versions of the Chinese character usages (e.g., the Great Seal script) probably rightly qualify as distinct scripts, but such distinctions are irrelevant to the status of Han synchronically.
- This suggests that at least someone at Unicode might be thinking of adding old variants of Chinese to the historical scripts plain, along with Egyptian, Mayan, and the like, but I don't know if there are any actual plans to do this, or when it might happen if there are. kwami (talk) 19:54, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for taking the time to reply. As for ABJAD, it is Phoenician. If you look at the Phoenician order of alphabet, they start with "Alep". "bet", "Gimmel", "dalet" which is the same representation as "a", "b", "j" "d", thus the "abjad" (you may check the table in the article.) While Alphabet is coming the way the first two letter (Alep) and (Bet) are pronounced. Arabic and Latin used the same pronunciation later on. In addition, I believe there must be some mention in the article about how the Phoenician separated the words. Don't you think? By the way, I am impressed with your vast knowledge espcially with linguistics... are you familiar with Arabic language? (Aboluay (talk) 20:07, 17 October 2008 (UTC))
- I took 2nd semester Arabic at university. It's fun when everyone in the class knows more than you, and you have to catch up. I had a real mental block with Arabic because of the lack of written vowels (I tend to learn visually), but even that one semester was enough to show me how easy it is to predict the vowels in Arabic, so I no longer have a problem with it. I don't remember much, but if I ever travel to an Arabic-speaking country, I'll be able to pick it up quickly. The main thing I've used Arabic for on Wikipedia is working out the Arabic originals for all the Arabic-derived star names we use in English.
- Yes, the ABC order may be found in Phonecian, as well as the names, but "alphabet" and "abjad" are not from Phoenician. Easy enough to demonstrate: for one, 𐤀 was pronounced aleph, not alpha as in Greek. For another, 𐤂 was pronounced g, not j as in (Classical) Arabic. By your reasoning you could claim that abugida is Phoenician, but the word itself is Ethiopian. Daniels, who first used the term "abjad" in English, specifically says that it is from Arabic, and any dictionary will give you a Greek etymology for "alphabet".
- As for word spacing, languages all over the Mediterranean used : and · to separate words—including Phoenician, Aramaic, Carian, Greek, and Latin. Spacing was not used in Phoenician, and did not appear in Europe until the 8th century CE. Forms of word separation often spread across scripts. Thanks—that's a good idea for a short article. kwami (talk) 21:06, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Taiwanese Hokkien edit
Hi tH,
Several people have objected to the name Taiwanese Hokkien, as the term used by the ROC is evidently Taiwanese Minnan (or actually, just "Minnan" in English, but it's disambiguated in Chinese). I don't care either way myself (against govt usage, "Taiwanese Hokkien" appears to be twice as common as "Taiwanese Minnan" on Taiwanese websites, at least according to Google), but thought you might want a say. kwami (talk) 20:10, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
- Both names are presented at the top of the article, and Taiwanese Minnan redirects there. My concern was that the language's name isn't the most common use of the word "Taiwanese", which has many meanings. It doesn't matter to me whether the article on the language is named "Taiwanese Hokkien" or "Taiwanese Minnan". And at this point, it would be picking at nits since both terms are mentioned at the beginning of the lead paragraph. The Transhumanist 20:16, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Hainanese Dialect Question edit
Hi Kwamikagami. In the Hainanese article, you edited the article to say "It is mutually unintelligible with other Min Nan dialects...etc" How do you know that the Hainanese dialect is mutually unintelligible with other Min Nan dialects? Can you speak Min Nan? Sonic99 (talk) 03:27, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
- No, I don't. I'm going on sources, and by other editors. What I've seen says that Teochew–Swatow have only limited intelligibility with Amoy–Hokkien, and that Hainanese is more distant still. If you believe it is intelligible, bring it up on the talk page. A change of wording or even page name may be in order. kwami (talk) 05:54, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi, this article does not meet a few of the requirements for Good Articles. One of the most obvious is that needs to be fully referenced. I would recommend withdrawing the nomination, as a reviewer might quick-fail the article. Listing it at Wikipedia:Peer review would probably be more productive, as you would get feedback from several editors. Good luck with the article. GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:03, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Help in pronunciation dispute? edit
Hey, I am in a dispute over pronunciation at Talk:Lich#IPA Pronunciation in article, and I was wondering if you could come offer an outside opinion, since you seem to be much more knowledgeable in these matters than I am. I apologize in advance for the fact that the dispute is extremely trivial...but this other editor won't back off.
For a quick summary of the dispute, basically, the other editor is saying that the article should give /laɪk/ as a pronunciation of "lich," because a different word ("like") also pronounced /laɪk/ used to be spelled the same way in Middle English or something like that. I have been saying that pronunciation is irrelevant because it's a different word, and that the historical evidence only proves that "like" used to be spelled differently, not that "lich" (in this context) used to be pronounced differently.
Anyway, if you are free sometime, I would greatly appreciate it if you could offer an opinion there...don't feel compelled to read the entire argument, as most of it is just me and the other editor repeating ourselves over and over again anyway. Thank you, —Politizer talk/contribs 14:53, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
English alphabet edit
My edit was simple copyediting that only tried to make things less confusing and easier to understand by adding parentheses and using shorter sentences. I didn't change any content. Could you please explain what you mean with "errors"? Thanks, Espoo (talk) 10:38, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
- A couple things. I was going to bed and was just too tired to clean them up: saying that 'blind' is derived from the letter ef, and confusing the plurals. The rest didn't strike me as any more legible than the old version, so I didn't see any reason to stick with it. kwami (talk) 17:35, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Hunza edit
The refference added explains that there is no "legend" of hunza being related to maceodnians. the myth was created 12 years ago and the article explains it. There is no evidence for such a "legend" no link provided. This "legend" is as young as 12 years ago and it is being wrongly passed as if it is centuries old —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.225.116.222 (talk) 22:17, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
- See the talk page. I was overly hasty in reverting you. There is a tradition in Afganistan of descent from Alexander, though I don't know if that extends to the Burusho. Any connection to the Republic of Macedonia will of course be recent, since the Republic is itself recent. That's a separate issue than whether there was a legend of a connection to Alexander.
- There was a link, which it would seem you deleted. kwami (talk) 22:26, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
The link i deleted was because it discussed the greek contribution to the pashtun gene pool. I deleted it because it belongs in the Pashtun people article, not in the Burusho. The Greek contribution to should definately be discussed but why talk about Pashtun ancestry in an article that is not about pahstuns at all?
- Because it debunks the Greek link by showing this left no detectable genetic signature in the Burusho. It's also a more reliable source than a newspaper. BTW, I've linked to the original Financial Times article, to avoid the possibility that a partisan web forum might misquote it. Thanks for the link; it's the first intelligent account I've seen of this. kwami (talk) 22:40, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
OK thats fine. but how about removing it as a 'Hunza' legend the legend is only amongst the pashtun population in afghanistan and possible pakistan, but extending this legend to the Hunza seems misleading. The Hunza dont even speak an Indo-European language. Or how about we put it is believed today in greece and Macedonia however it is a new phenominon amongst the Hunza? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.225.116.222 (talk) 22:51, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
- I'm editing the section. See what you think in about 10 minutes. Meanwhile, I don't know if this was a new idea for the Hunza, or just that Casule told them about the Rep. Mac. recently. I'll see what I can dig up. kwami (talk) 22:56, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
OK no problem I'll wait. Take an hour if you want. The article provided by the auther states no one heard of it, combining it with evidence of lacking genetic connection as well as the Hunza language being an isolate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.225.116.222 (talk) 23:07, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
- Okay, I'm done. Yes, no-one had heard of modern Macedonia, which was only five years old at the time. That's hardly surprising: these people aren't at their computers accessing the BBC. The Burusho do however have a tradition of descent from a village founded by an Alexandran soldier. That could be true, BTW, and not leave any genetic trace, if there are few straight male descendants of that one person. (On the one hand, the founder of a village might have many children. On the other, there would have had to be an all-male line of descent among the tested population, and I doubt very many Hunza were tested. A minor genetic component could easily be missed.) But this would have nothing to do with the linguistic connection that Casule claims to have found, which would have to be much much older, unless he's detecting loan words rather than common ancestry. kwami (talk) 23:26, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Is there a source for this "legend" ? ie. a text or an old inscripture or a writing from scholars who visited the region much before macedonians (as Macedonian "scholars" are biased in this issue). Cause most scholars maintain very little is known about the Hunza and their isolate language. 12 years ago Macedonians came out of nowhere and alot of these uneducated Hunza are mislead into accepting it. Once that is done, Macedonians are counting this acceptance as 'proof' If you look at the talk page one is arguing that the Prince's visit and claim as solid proof. The claim that it's an old legend also contradicts the idea of them never hearing of Macedonia or Greece till recently. Also both the genetic and linguistic evidence goes against it as we both agreed on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.225.116.222 (talk) 00:09, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
- Yes. Check the ref. (It's in Google books.) Don't read too much into a newspaper article. They don't know what they're talking about.
- Aren't you listening? They hadn't heard of the Republic of Macedonia. The article never says that they hadn't heard of Macedonia at all. Alexander the Great is a huge figure in the history of this region, and it's a bit ridiculous to claim that Casule made it all up, even if his conclusions are bogus. kwami (talk) 00:19, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Can you please add the link you are reffering to here or better yet at the talk page where we can have this discussion and others can add their input. The article's writet Niel Mcdonald seems to have been studying this issue for a while. Just google his name. Maceodnians insist Hunza are of 'ancient Maceodnia' the whole idea of Alexander and Macedonia was alien to them a few years ago. but again let's discuss it on the article talk page it's the best place to sort this out. -99.225.116.222 (talk) 06:38, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Pronunciation of English counties edit
Hi. In your addition and changes to IPA pronunciations of English counties, you seem to have overlooked that Received Pronounciation, the standard accent of the country, is non-rhotic. For example, in the case of Somerset the rhotic pronunciation is the regional one. Kanguole (talk) 09:22, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
- No, I didn't overlook it. They aren't intended to be regional pronunciations (for that we would need to specify "locally pronounced X"), and if you follow the link it specifically addresses this issue. kwami (talk) 09:26, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:IPA for English is a poor fit for place names. There is no global standard pronunciation for Arkansas, Melbourne or Berkshire. There is some maximal area (usually the country) over which their pronunciation is standardized, and everyone else either follows that or sounds funny. To suggest to a speaker with a rhotic accent that they should pronounce an r in Berkshire is as misleading as suggesting that they pronounce the second w in Warwick. Kanguole (talk) 11:11, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
- It's not at all misleading. Whether or not the ar is pronounced is a function of the dialect of the speaker. Warwick is different: the silent double-u is not a matter of dialect. People who pronounce it are using spelling pronunciations, which is a different matter. However, if you really think that we need multiple transcriptions for multiple dialects, then the place to bring it up is on the template talk page. kwami (talk) 16:55, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
- I don't think we need multiple transcriptions, because I don't think anyone should be told that Berkshire is pronounced with an r (even if it is present in the spelling). Kanguole (talk) 17:08, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
- Pardon me for jumping in, but I agree with Kwami that rhoticity is a property of the speaker, not the name. Are you saying that nonrhotic speakers should pronounce "New York" (and other American placenames) with an r? If someone is named "Mark" we should all pronounce or not pronounce the r depending on whether he himself is rhotic? —KCinDC (talk) 17:22, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
- I don't think we need multiple transcriptions, because I don't think anyone should be told that Berkshire is pronounced with an r (even if it is present in the spelling). Kanguole (talk) 17:08, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
RfD nomination of a template redirect edit
I have nominated a redirect to a template for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. MBisanz talk 14:52, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
DPs and MPs edit
Hello... it seems to be yet another one of those areas where the IAU is less than clear. From what I can recall (it has been a while) the term "minor planet" was phased out in favour of the planet-dwarf planet-SSSB categories. Further to that, dwarf planets were given numbers on the MPC list because Ceres already had one - not because they were categorized as minor planets. (There was also talk of a new list for DPs.) All very confusing, I know; I will try to dig through the archives from the Pluto article naming debates to find my sources. Hope this helps. --Ckatzchatspy 19:40, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Hello, as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force, I have conducted a Good Article reassessment of 3 Juno, to which you have been a major contributor. I have a few concerns that should be addressed if the article is to remain listed as a GA. If you are able to help out, the reassessment can be found here. Thanks, GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:43, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
- Hello again. Would you be able to take a look at my comment at the bottom of the review page? There's a piece of information in the article that could use a reference. I think I found a source for it, but I'm hoping someone with more knowledge in the subject area can let me know if it's appropriate and reliable. Thanks for your hard work on the article, GaryColemanFan (talk) 04:07, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Peterborough edit
Why is Peterborough prounounced /ˈpiːtɚbʌrə/, while Soke of Peterborough is given as /ˌsoʊk əv ˈpiːtərbərə/? Shouldn't they be the same? Cheers, Chrisieboy (talk) 10:32, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Need your help edit
Hi Kwami. I'm sorry I'm troubled with Caspian blue again. Caspian blue wrote that Japanese discriminated Woo Jang-choon without source. Woo Jang-choon was half Japanese and half Korean. So I tagged " {"{fact}"}" and added opposed articles with source. But he deleted " {"{fact}"}" and "<"references /">" again again again.. There is my report WP:ANI#User: Caspian blue. Please see my report being free from bias. Then he sent me a message with new source. And he told this source is evidence. However his source this link denys his opinion, moreover supports my opinion. Please mediate us.--Bukubku (talk) 05:27, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oh no, not again! I can't read Korean, so I can't judge who is at fault. Besides, the article is now protected, and I'm not going to second-guess the admin who protected it. I know that dispute resolution probably won't have anyone who can read Korean either, but I can't help you with that. The disputes you two have are ridiculous, and apparently unending. My only advice is to be on your best behavior so that you look good in comparison. Meanwhile, fact tag anything that you feel needs it. Many of CB's additions are strongly opinionated, and without proper sourcing someone else will eventually delete the tagged statements. But fact tagging something and then deleting it the next day, without any attempt at dispute resolution, makes you look bad. kwami (talk) 06:47, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
- [tedious reply by CB deleted. take it elsewhere.]
IPA-pl template edit
Hi, if you're using the {{IPA-pl}} template (as you did at Łyna (village), unfortunately it doesn't include the square brackets as the other IPA templates (and indeed Audio-IPA-pl) do. There was a reason for this (since the number of parameters has to be limited, you sometimes need more than one consecutive instance of the template), but I wish I'd done it differently now. Anyway, can't really change it without breaking lots of existing articles, so you have to include the square brackets - either as the first and last parameter (works best), or outside the template.
I was also thinking we might try to universalise this idea somehow - at least by having an IPA template that doesnt' add any extraneous text apart from the transcription (I thought we'd kind of agreed once that this was the best solution). Sorry, I see that we have this already ({{IPAlink}}).--Kotniski (talk) 21:21, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, I keep forgetting that. Since I was using AWB, there was no feedback.
- The problem with a lack of brackets is that people will use slashes for phonetic transcriptions & vice versa. Better to have it decided within the template. If you want to add brackets to IPA-pl, which I think is a good idea, I volunteer to AWB all the articles that transclude it and remove the extraneous manual brackets. kwami (talk) 21:30, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
- That would be great, but beware that we are talking about thousands of articles here (upwards of 10,000?) that have been created by a bot. As I understand AWB, you still have to click at least once for each article, which is going to take you ages. I think it would have to be done with a fully automatic bot. Also we'd have to decide what we are going to do with the cases that have more than the template's supported number (20) of parameters. I guess that could be solved by raising the parameters to about 40 - hopefully that won't overload the parser.--Kotniski (talk) 21:50, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
- I just unvolunteered on your talk page. AWB lists 25,000 pages, which I believe is its limit, not the actual number. Yes, you need a bot. You're right, there is a problem there—with auto brackets, you can no longer string together templates for 20+ parameters. Not sure it's worth it. kwami (talk) 22:04, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
- Well, one way out might be to create a new template under a different name (Ipa-pl, IPA-pl2 or something), deprecate the old one, and make the new one add the brackets. (The parameters problem could be solved by having three extra variant templates adding right only, left only or no brackets.) This would have the disadvantage that the name would be inconsistent with the other IPA-xx templates - but maybe this would be "justified" by the fact that this template has the different functionality. In fact, that way it might be the first of a new series of templates using the respelling technique, if people feel inclined to develop such things for other languages.--Kotniski (talk) 22:23, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
- I just unvolunteered on your talk page. AWB lists 25,000 pages, which I believe is its limit, not the actual number. Yes, you need a bot. You're right, there is a problem there—with auto brackets, you can no longer string together templates for 20+ parameters. Not sure it's worth it. kwami (talk) 22:04, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
I've decided to make a new template rather than play around with the old one. It's called {{IPAr}} and in principle can be used for any language, though the respelling (or whatever you want to call it) is so far defined only for Polish. The instructions are rather off-putting at the moment, but it should actually be no more difficult to use than the existing templates.--Kotniski (talk) 11:34, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I'd like to close up the review and there is just one thing left. Could you please take a look at my question at the bottom of the review page when you have a chance? Thanks, GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:41, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Attributive verb edit
You ask:
- How does okan şiir differ from okuduğu şiir? It would be nice to keep the words short so the morphology is transparent.
Well, okan şiir would mean "the poem which reads" (the poem's doing the reading), whereas okuduğu şiir means "the poem (which) s/he read/reads"—which I think is what you want. Sorry: that's just the way it is! In Turkish the attributive verb—if such it is—takes a personal ending: thus okuduğum şiir "the poem I read"; okuduğumuz şiir "the poem we read"; etc. The choice of the verb is slightly unfortunate since the English translation ("read") obscures the fact that the participle/attributive verb can be either past or present in meaning. This is all spelt out in detail in the section of Turkish language which you edited. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 11:39, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
- I must have been daydreaming! The form *okan şiir is doubly incorrect. It should of course be *okuyan şiir (the root of the verb is oku-, not ok-)—but that's still wrong. (BTW the okur in Şiir okur is correct, being formed from oku- + -r rather than ok- + -ur.) --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 14:50, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
- It's finally occurred to me that you may have meant to include, as your second example, something like şiir okuyan adam "the man who reads poetry", which would do nicely. But if you definitely want "the poem which he reads" you'll have to keep my correction. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 18:44, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Just out of curiosity... edit
I know this is asking a lot to very little purpose, but I was wondering if you might create a mass pie chart for this article starting at Earth and then going down? (Choosing a suitable cutoff point of course). I'm curious to see how soon the names disappear. Of course, if you don't want to do it, that's no problem, but I thought it might be interesting. Thanks! :-) Serendipodous 13:22, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
- Triton, Eris, and Pluto are just slivers about two pixels wide, and Earth is nearly half of the chart. You want me to post it? kwami (talk) 19:19, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
- Do you think it could go anywhere? I just thought it would be interesting to see.Serendipodous 12:31, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
- I suppose if we added a gas giants vs. everything else" chart, they could go together into the List of Solar System objects by mass. A "Sun vs. everything else" chart would be nice, but I doubt it would show anything. Serendipodous 12:34, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
- Do you think it could go anywhere? I just thought it would be interesting to see.Serendipodous 12:31, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
- The planet chart can be found at Solar System#Structure. With the sun included, I think it would only have a sliver for Jupiter. Might still be useful, though.
- As for where to put the Earth–Pluto chart, we could put it in the list to illustrate "Solid Solar System bodies", I guess. kwami (talk) 12:48, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
- Good. Haumea and Makemake might actually *just* show up in the third chart (like Saturn in the first), but once you get below Pluto we'll need frequent updating and we don't have accurate data for many objects, so I don't think a fourth chart for DP-sized objects is worthwhile. kwami (talk) 13:56, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
possible sock edit
Do you think this Nikolamilevski character might be a sock of Dimitar? It appears that way to me. Sorry I haven't been able to help you much. --Tsourkpk (talk) 16:51, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
GA sweeps: 4 Vesta edit
Hello, as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force, I have conducted a Good Article reassessment of 4 Vesta, to which you have been a major contributor. I have a few concerns that should be addressed if the article is to remain listed as a GA. If you are able to help out, the reassessment can be found here. Thanks, GaryColemanFan (talk) 18:39, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Looks like edit
You have had to deal with cornell types as well- javanese script article is now worse than when started upon - i have also left a message at the supervisor - but no answer yet SatuSuro 08:41, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
The article has a link to Eskimo-Aleut languages in the box. Eskimo languages and Eskimoan are both redirects to Eskimo-Aleut languages. So yes the Eskimo language family is already there and its already linked. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 01:30, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- But Yuppik is not a branch of Eskaleut, it's a branch of Eskimoan. kwami (talk) 10:16, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- I've fixed it in the article so that it shows the relationship better. Eskimoan needs its own article like Aleut language. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 17:28, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Kwami, could you help out by keeping an eye on two editors (unless one is a sockpuppet) trying to change English-language terminology for this script? They're doing it on the hu.wikipedia.org as well. The roots of this are in a dispute as to what the name should be in the UCS. See the history as well. Thanks! -- Evertype·✆ 19:52, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- Sure thing. kwami (talk) 19:54, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- For what it's worth, I left notes on their talk pages. -- Evertype·✆ 19:59, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- You might want to check out Pauline Rovas Script. kwami (talk) 20:02, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- I will, but an edit war has just started on the other one. -- Evertype·✆ 20:05, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- TimeWarner is on the fritz again today, and it can take me up to five minutes to load a page, so I can't respond very quickly. But I'll keep an eye on it. kwami (talk) 20:26, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- Should we ask others to have a look? -- Evertype·✆ 20:41, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- Probably a good idea. I get timed out trying to save a page, and if there's an edit war going on, chances are it won't go through because of intervening edit conflicts. kwami (talk) 20:45, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- Who? Please. We need watchers here. -- Evertype·✆ 21:07, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- Looks like I just got the connection issue resolved.
- As for who, I'd suggest User:Dbachmann, User:Angr, and maybe User:Dougweller, User:THEN WHO WAS PHONE?. kwami (talk) 21:23, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- Who? Please. We need watchers here. -- Evertype·✆ 21:07, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- Probably a good idea. I get timed out trying to save a page, and if there's an edit war going on, chances are it won't go through because of intervening edit conflicts. kwami (talk) 20:45, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- Should we ask others to have a look? -- Evertype·✆ 20:41, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- TimeWarner is on the fritz again today, and it can take me up to five minutes to load a page, so I can't respond very quickly. But I'll keep an eye on it. kwami (talk) 20:26, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- I will, but an edit war has just started on the other one. -- Evertype·✆ 20:05, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- You might want to check out Pauline Rovas Script. kwami (talk) 20:02, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- For what it's worth, I left notes on their talk pages. -- Evertype·✆ 19:59, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
I let you know that Evertype is not neutral. There are two or more proposals for encoding "Old Hungarian Script". We recommend to use both terminology "Old Hungarian Script or Szekler-Hungarian Rovas". The English-language terminology for this script is debated, see proposal N3527. Evertype apparently wants to hide the fact that there are more proposals for the same script. Please check Evertype's changes in history. Thank you for your contribution. Wajaskifli (talk) 21:56, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not the one trying to make a case for new English terminology by attempting to establish it in the English Wikipedia. Call me un-neutral? I have given citations of genuine linguists who have called the script "Old Hungarian" in the English language since at least 1947. You have named a newly-formed private organization's resolution. That does not change the English language. Kindly have respect for my language as you would have me respect yours. -- Evertype·✆ 22:09, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- And I'm not trying to hide anything. In fact you will note that I helped to edit one of the footnotes some days ago to correct the formatting of footnotes one of you had made to refer to the three proposals. (There are three.) Must we war? We could get this script encoded if only you would take advice. -- Evertype·✆ 22:18, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- [edit conflict] I must say that, as an English speaker, "Old Hungarian script" tells me exactly what it is, while "Szekler-Hungarian rovas" is complete gibberish. For one thing, the Szekler wrote in Hungarian, so that name seems redundant. For another, "rovas" is not an English word. But the real issue is that the name is not actually used. The only thing I can find online is a couple references to the Unicode proposal. That is a proposal, and not in the least bit notable. If Unicode accepts the name, then I could see mentioning it as an alternate name, notable only because Unicode is widely adopted. (The names Unicode uses for things are largely irrelevant to the larger world, but should be mentioned for cross-referencing.) I can see adding székely–magyar rovásírás though. kwami (talk) 22:16, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
apology edit
We all have bad days, but I went too far. I apologize for the rude comment I made in my edit summary. Regarding the article, if all compounds are excluded, we need to remove something and nothing (the words) as well. Take a look, for example, as to how Wiktionary does their rhymes: this is a good example- notations are made regarding how to get new rhymes with compounds. I think that compounds should be included for now, but if the list gets to long, they can be removed. Let's give it a shot and see how it works. Teh Rote (talk) 22:13, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- Hey, it's good to know I'm not the only one who snaps at people when I'm annoyed. I'll take this as a rain check for when I'm having a bad day. :)
- There was a time when people started adding a bunch of compounds, and I thought it would get out of control. But I don't have any problem with just a couple of them, though I don't know and can't confirm the stress pattern of black powder. As for something and nothing, in my mind these are exceptional, because they're grammatical words. They're not the kind of thing you can just coin, and in any case, there are very few grammatical compounds to even consider. In addition, the only way you could get a compound rhyme for nothing would be to use a word with a final [ʌ], which doesn't exist in English outside onomatopoeia. kwami (talk) 22:29, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Brahmi Script edit
Hi, I recently added two paragraphs on the characteristics of the Brahmi script. However, I noticed that you just took out everything I wrote. I read your comment "redundant and incorrect." I tried to avoid repeating what was already on there. But if I made that mistake, I apologize. But, everything I wrote was based on the information I got from the books on the Brahmi script. I did not use any Internet sources. Also, I am doing this for my school project. We are supposed to choose a writing system and update Wikipedia web-page on that writing system. I admit I don't have much knowledge about the Brahmi script, but I will be doing some research on it, and I will try to do my best to put up accurate information. But so as not to make the same kind of mistake you pointed out to me, could you tell me what parts of my writing were not accurate or redundant? Could you also recommend to me what features of the Brahmi script I should try to concentrate on? I would appreciate your sincere suggestions so my writings will not be deleted again. I look forward to your response. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frandis (talk • contribs) 04:23, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
- Ah, now I understand what the "Cornell edits" that people have been talking about are. I'm deleting your address so you don't get too much junk mail, and will answer you here. Since your two paragraphs pretty much stand by themselves, I'll review them out of context, which maybe isn't fair to you.
- Okay, first, formatting. There's no need to use page breaks. Just double return for a paragraph.
- "The unique feature of the Brāhmī script is that there is no difference between the spoken and the written form." We can't know that's true, since our knowledge of the language is filtered through the script. However, assuming it is approximately true (it is never more than approximately true for any script—why else do you think people feel obliged to use emoticons?), it's hardly unique. I assume you mean that there's one letter for every sound, and vice versa? That's the case for most well designed phonemic scripts, and is nothing unusual for Brāhmi.
- "The Brhami script consists of a full set of vowels and consonants." What makes a set "full"? This doesn't convey anything meaningful to me.
- "The structure of the language is based on the vowel-consonant order." You mean the structure of the script. Brāhmi is not a language.
- "The vowels may be sorted into four different classes which are 1) short, 2) long, 3) guna, and 4) vrddhi." Use English. If you need to use a foreign word because there is no English translation, then explain what it means. Also, you don't explain how this is relevant to the "vowel-consonant order". If it's not relevant, then you need to explain what the vowel-consonant order means in the previous sentence.
- "The consonants carry the inherent a, and make up five classes of twenty-five mutes." You never explain what "mutes" are. Actually, the word is pretty much obsolete. And no-one says "hard consonant" and "soft consonant".
- "The consonants consist of ..." You mean the other consonants.
- "The voiceless spirants are called halanta, and this concept became the starting point of the use of conjuncts." No, halanta is a consonant without a vowel.
- "Brāhmī is alphasyllabaries, meaning that it is based on the diacritically modified consonant syllabic system." Besides the incorrect plural, there's the fact that it is not really a syllabic system, or, if you're going to say it's syllabic, you should be clear how it differs from a true syllabary.
- Pretty much all of your addition repeats what has been said elsewhere in the article, or if not, it is described in more detail at abugida, where the reader has already been directed for background information.
- I can only follow what you wrote because I already know it. If I were a reader coming here for information, I'd be almost completely lost. I get the impression from how you write that you may be lost yourself, that you don't really understand the words you're writing. Your pardon if I'm wrong, but that's my impression from these two paragraphs.
- And finally, you've made no effort to integrate them into the section, but simply tacked them on to the end. You also did not hyperlink key concepts (such as mute, alphasyllabary, spirant, halanta, conjunct, guna, vrddhi, etc.) for readers who don't understand the concepts or who want more detail. kwami (talk) 08:54, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for you explanations. This is the first time I've ever edited Wikipedia page, so I'm not really familiar with Wikipedia tools- I'll try to fix my writing and upload again. If you see any mistakes in my writing again, please comment on my user talk page. Getting comments from other people and making corrections is also a part of the school assignment. I understand you would not feel pleased with all the mistakes I make, but please point out the mistakes on my talk page instead of deleting them. I will try to fix my errors as best as I can. Thank you.--Frandis (talk) 16:44, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I just realized that you left a comment on my user page. But I think you are talking to a wrong person. I haven't written about the Brahmi numerals. All I did was to add a new section on "basic grammar." Well, anyways I will be glad to take your suggestions if you have any. --Frandis (talk) 07:17, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Re:Lontara script edit
I've provided the reference hoping for someone to do that. I'm not really sure how to make a short explaination on Basa to Bakkeq, and I think it's more suitable to be placed in Buginese language literature section (the section has not existed yet). Anyhow, Basa to Bakkeq is (in point):
Why are their language infoboxes for language clusters? edit
i question the appropiatness of using the language infobox for articles like Mandarin Chinese, as these are not individual languages, and it also brings to question why the individual languages like standard mandarin are not given the infoboxes(im going to add one now).68.160.247.52 (talk) 00:25, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- Mandarin Chinese is a distinct language, while Standard Mandarin is not—it's just a standardized register of Mandarin. kwami (talk) 00:30, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
" is a category of related Chinese dialects"
that was taken from the article... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.160.247.52 (talk) 01:18, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- Poorly worded. The problem is that most Chinese feel that Mandarin is a dialect of Chinese, not a language of its own. However, if you accept that, you certainly can't argue that Standard Chinese, a register of the Beijing dialect of Mandarin, somehow is a language of its own. kwami (talk) 02:50, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Sonja Elen Kisa edit
Hey there. I thought Sonja Elen Kisa deserves a separate article (other than the one on Toki Pona). I raised this issue in the talk page of the Toki Pona article, but so got no reply. However, I saw you undid my small edit (the one implying and urging for such article), and so am asking whether you can shed any light on why the entry for Sonja Elen Kisa has been locked, redirecting to Toki Pona. Cheers, 92.6.255.179 (talk) 08:32, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- I didn't realize the article had been locked, but it was once its own stub. It was voted for merger as being unnotable on its own. Also, Kisa does not seem interested in having the blurb about her in Toki Pona expanded. kwami (talk) 15:47, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks! 92.6.255.179 (talk) 17:21, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Question about Hangul article edit
| Simple | Aspirated | Doubled |
|---|---|---|
| ㅈ | ㅊ | ㅉ |
| ㄱ | ㅋ | ㄲ |
| ㄷ | ㅌ | ㄸ |
| ㅂ | ㅍ | ㅃ |
| ㅅ | ㅆ |
The table at Hangul#Consonant jamo design (reproduced to the right) was confusing me a little, since the terms used in the table don't seem to be mentioned (or at least aren't mentioned prominently) in the article itself. Does "doubled" in the table refer to tense consonants? And if so, should that be changed, or are the terms interchangeable?
Thanks, —Politizer talk/contribs 23:58, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for catching that. "Doubled" means graphically doubled, whereas "aspirated" is phonemically aspirated. kwami (talk) 00:14, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi; just to recommend that this new article have "language" appended to the title; even stand-alone native-language names have had "language" added e.g. St'at'imcets language. This is to avoid confusion as to whether an article is an ethno/people article or a language article. The people article in this case, so far, is the government Confederated Tribes article but that's overdue for a split-away of the ethnographic non-governmental material. This is by no means a standard - Halkomelem and Lushootseed don't have "language" attached to them, but there's also no tribe names that resemble them; and you have to admit "Montana Salish" is just as adequate a descriptor of the people as it is of the language. Note also Coast Salish vs. Coast Salish languages (the latter used to have the former's title...). While I'm here, do you have any knowledge of the special dialect of Halqemeylem spoken by the Sts'Ailes/Chehalis of the Harrison River (not the WA ones); I have a communication from their researcher/history person that they are NOT Sto:lo and do not speak regular Halqemeylem, rather a language that's intermediary between it and Lower Lillooet River St'at'imcets; I don't know anything further but just figure it should be "covered", likewise the Nicola dialect of the Thompson language, the Spaxomin and Similkameen dialects of the Okanagan language, and so on....I'm not a linguist, just an overzealous wikipedian trying to sort it all out....Skookum1 (talk) 14:21, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
- Moved. Sorry, I don't have the info you're looking for. kwami (talk) 23:15, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Basque Vandal nomenclature
edit
Kwami, quick question - what does one normally do when an IP user account starts making possibly well meant but wrong and unhelpful edits? 75.95.245.214 is riding roughshot through the Basque pages on which we have spent a lot of time to get consenus on the terminology and he's making mincemeat of it... sadly he doesn't have a talk page... cheers! Akerbeltz (talk) 20:39, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
- If he has an IP account, he has a talk page. Not your fault if he doesn't use it.
- Revert the edits with the request to bring his ideas to the talk page. I'll take a look. kwami (talk) 21:42, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
- Akerbeltz, this is not "vandalism"! He's merely adding an alternate name. Vandalism is when someone intentionally defaces a page. His edits aren't even wrong, they're just not in line with the POV that other wiki editors have taken. And he's not edit warring—how is he "riding roughshod" over anything? This is a minor disagreement of nomenclature, one which can probably be prevented from escalating by placing a polite note on his talk page (assuming he has a fixed IP) pointing out the discussion where y'all decided on the wording. kwami (talk) 21:51, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
- Err no, there's a specific pattern to his edits. His trying to push a particular POV by removing references to Navarre in connection to the greater region and removing Euskal Herria by replacing it with Euskadi and using totally outdated spellings like Euzkadi and Euskalerria. But I'll see if I can get through to him somehow, thanks. Akerbeltz (talk) 02:26, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- As far as I can tell, he hasn't touched Navarre. That's a different IP on the other side of the world. Using outdated spellings may simply mean he has outdated sources, not that he's vandalizing the article. However, since he's insisting on his version without discussion, I've warned him about edit warring. kwami (talk) 02:35, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
I meant that he consistently tried to remove references to Navarra being part of the greater region from the BC greater region page. Thanks for looking into it! Akerbeltz (talk) 12:29, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
expanding wikitionary edit
im looking foward to expanding wiktionary to include the shanghainese pronounciation for every chinese character. do you know anyone that could help me? i want to include both latin alphabet, IPA(which i cant read), and zhuyin fuhao.大始王皇 (talk) 00:47, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry, I don't. I've seen dialectical concordances from mainland China which cover various Wu dialects, but I don't have access to anything now. The best dictionary in English is supposed to be Creamer,[17] but I'm sure there's plenty of stuff available in Mandarin. I would suggest that you learn the subset of the IPA used in Shanghainese before you start, or you may end up with a lot of mistakes to fix!
- There is no user category for wikipedians who know Shanghainese or Wu, so I don't know who you'd ask. At Wu, we don't even have the native pronunciation of 吳語! But try checking the page history of Wu Chinese, Shanghainese, Suzhou dialect, etc. kwami (talk) 00:55, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- The best source for IPA for Shanghainese Wu I've come across is 上海方言詞典 by 李榮, published by 江蘇教育出版社. Funnily enough, 吳語 isn't in it but 上海話 is: [zã he ɦo]. The problem you'll have is that the IPA is - and I AM a fan of it - fair useless when it comes to marking tone. Perhaps there is a romanization for Wu that might make more sense? Akerbeltz (talk) 02:49, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Endangered Salishan languages edit
Dear Kwamikagami, When they are extinct, they are not endangered, so a separate category: Category:Endangered_Salishan_languages. Sometimes I am confused doing these. If you still think that I am wrong, please edit them, or tell me to do it.--Raayen (talk) 03:07, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
TfD nomination of Template:Near-close central unrounded vowel edit
Template:Near-close central unrounded vowel has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 06:33, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- There are a couple of new comments at this TfD discussion, the second of which is from me. It looks like the thing to do is to move this template (and the others like it) from template space to mainspace, and change the transclusions from {{name}} to {{main|name}}. (Whether any additional summary is needed at the points of previous transclusion, I'm not sure, and probably not most qualified to judge.) I've been bold and actually done this to one of the other templates, Near-close central rounded vowel, partly to test that it actually works, but partly because making the change is really easy if it can be gotten to before a mainspace page is created and before one or both pages get nominated for deletion. Anyway, I thought I'd give you a heads-up and a bit of an explanation of why I moved so fast on Near-close central rounded vowel.
- Oh, BTW, I actually have worked out the technical details of how one could modify Template:Vowels to include the near-close central unrounded/rounded vowels (including how to write the edit descriptions to placate the GFDL). Of course, there's no point in trying to field the change until the mainspace articles on those two vowels actually exist, which is why I chose to try out the change on the one of those two that isn't currently tied up in red tape. Pi zero (talk) 02:07, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Basque country edit
Please Don't believe to the first one who talks about the basque country ,specially if you actually don't know about basque politics or history .Please
(SENT TO AKERBELTZ, that in basque or lingua navarrorum means ' black goat ')
Sorry , But not outdated .
I am not trying to forgot Navarre because the word 'Euzkadi' or 'Euskalerria' includes Navarre itself with the rest of the six provinces that are forming the 'zazpiak-bat'(seven basque provinces or territories) :'Euzkadi' or 'Euskalerria' .
'Euskalerria' is the cultural concept of 'zazpiak-bat 'Euzkadi ' is the politic (nationality ) concept of 'Zazpiak-bat'
And 'Euskalherria' is a neologism created by the friends and left extremists violent (and terrorist ,of course ¡¡) group of ETA and their friends ,modified from 'Euskalerria' and imposed with no consensus, against the traditional name of 'Euzkadi' created by the founder of the basque nationalism who defended the same concept as 'zazpiak-bat'(Seven in one) that includes 'Navarre' ,of course.
But what this left extreme violents want to do is to bury the 'Euzkadi' term because it was created by the main pacifist and non violent basque nationalist party that rules the basque autonomy since it was reinstaured.
So, Akerbeltz your intentions are different and you want to bury the original names of 'Euzkadi' and 'Euskalerria' .Don't be false ¡¡
Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.234.151.51 (talk) 13:14, 16 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.234.151.51 (talk)
- This needs to be discussed on the Basque Country page. If you are right, you should be able to produce sources supporting your position. If you feel that you can't get a fair hearing, you can ask for a third opinion, and if that doesn't work you can go through arbitration. However, they will expect evidence, not just your say-so, and I will revert you or block you if you edit war, regardless of who's "right". (It's unlikely you'll get anyone who can read Basque, but Spanish or French texts will be okay.) kwami (talk) 21:25, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- Why are we discussing this on Kwami's page? Ok let's see: 1) If Euskal(h)erria is a neologism created by ETA & Co, then how come Azkue has the entry Euskalerri (An, B, G) país vasco, compuesto de siete regiones, que algunos reducen á seis: Araba, Bizkaya, Guipuzkoa, Lapurdi, Naparroa (Nabarra alta y baja)...? Azkue was printed in 1905. ETA was founded in 1959 so you have a small historical problem. Here's an even bigger headache for you. In Leizarraga's Bible translation of 1571 you find the Appendix entitled ABC edo Christinoen Instructionea. ... Heuscal-Herrian Gaztetassunaren iracasteco carguä... A good few centuries before Basque nationalism was ever born. 2) It is well documented that Arana Goiri invented the term Euskadi (Euzkadi in his spelling), in his own writings even. Unless you have some hitherto unseen proof that Euskadi predates Arana, I'm sure everyone on the Basque Project and indeed the wider Basque academia would love to hear about it. 3) Even though Arana's original idea was that Euskadi would be a Basque state comprising all 7 territories, it's modern use extends solely to the Comunidad Autonoma de Euskadi. That's also a well documented fact. 4) There is nothing original in the sense of authentic about most of Arana's neologisms. He coined a great number of them, amongst them Eusko Jaurlaritza, Euskadi, Le(h)endakari, euskotar, Euskaltzaindia, abizen, aberri and many more. These are all documented neologisms, including his somewhat eccentric derivation of eusko- from eguzkiko- 'of the sun', hence the z spellings. Again, you would need some pretty compelling evidence to show that there is linguistic legitimacy in the Euzko- spelling with z. Akerbeltz (talk) 21:34, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
A question for both of you: Is it true that in Basque, when dates are written only with numbers, the form is year first, so that today's date would be 2008-11-16, rather than Spanish 16-11-2008? kwami (talk) 21:28, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, the convention both for the spoken and written form is YYYYMMDD, so today would be 2008.11.16 (normally dots, not hyphens) or 2008ko Azaroaren 16a or fully spoken, bi mila ta zortziko Azaroaren hamaseia. If you need a source: Zubiri, I. and Zubiri E. Euskal Gramatika Osoa Didaktiker, Bilbao 1995 p. 781. Akerbeltz (talk) 21:39, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- I'm trying to verify the map at Calendar date. Much of it is based on IBM and Unicode locale encodings. Sometimes they're wrong, and even when they're right, they fail to show more than one convention per language per country. kwami (talk) 01:14, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Latin alphabet letter spellings edit
Back in October 2007, you added sources to most of the letter articles for the statement on how the letter is spelled. Currently, I, U, and Z do not have these sources. If you have a chance, would you add them? Thanks. Anomie⚔ 16:05, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I didn't add the tones in the table of Spoken Chinese, because it may be somewhat difficult to input the tones. Moreover, the tones are all different in languages presented in the table, so I don't think it will make great sense to add them.--Symane (talk) 13:10, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
- But that's exactly why we should add them! The whole point of the table is to show how the languages differ. Transcribing Chinese without tones is like transcribing the other half of the table, Romance, without vowels. Just add the tones in number format (1 for low, 5 for high, etc.) and I'll convert them to the IPA for you. kwami (talk) 13:19, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Where is the Cantonese data coming from? Some of it looks really weird (especially -y as a final segment, I always thought of that as a glide) but then I speak the Hong Kong dialect. I would have thought though that ŋan 'eye' and man 'night' need long vowel markers and that the finals ptk need to be marked as unreleased in the IPA. Is it possible that this is from the 新雅 dictionary which uses not quite standard IPA? Akerbeltz (talk) 15:15, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
- It's clearly not pure IPA from several other segments. We can adjust after Symane's done, unless there are actual errors (such as your vowel length). We don't need to mark the stops as unreleased, since we're just interested in contrasts, and all Chinese final stops are unreleased. kwami (talk) 21:15, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
- Okidoki. I've added the characters for Mandarin (those I was certain of) and Cantonese. I'm not sure where this choice of words comes from but I'm not sure if that's the selection most apt to show the divergences. It certainly shows the commonalities. I would suggest adding have/not have, the plural pronouns (or at least one), come/go, and the past tense marker. I'll check my sources later to see if I can find the Wu/Hakks characters. Akerbeltz (talk) 23:06, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
- I finally choose to show the tones of each language at the bottom, since the table will be immense and quite ugly when all tones and hanzi filled. Previous revision of my edit is here, this edit can be undone, but I suggest finding out at first a better solution for presenting all info in the table.
- As for the precise pronunciation, most of sources come from here.--Symane (talk) 21:29, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Hakka (linguistics) edit
While taking "language" or "dialect" off, shouldn't we take "Chinese" off too? Suffixing Hakka with "Chinese" is just the same meaning of treating it as a dialect of "the Chinese language". I'm not sure if you think all the varieties of Chinese should be regarded as "languages" or "dialects", but people would be led to think that Hakka is only a dialect of Chinese, if "Hakka Chinese" is used. So "XXX Chinese" is not NPOV too, please note that.
I agree to take "language" away, but in exchange please stop moving all the language/dialect entries to "XXX Chinese". I agree that there should be disambiguity, then "Hakka (linguistics)", "Wu (linguistics)", "Cantonese (linguistics)" etc are much better than your proposed names. Isn't that less controversial? —Preceding unsigned comment added by MilchFlasche (talk • contribs) 00:13, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- There is already consensus against using the hack (linguistics) tag. Mandarin Chinese, Yue Chinese, Wu Chinese, etc. is the wording in Ethnologue, so it has precedent. "Hakka" works on its own, but then you get into conflict with people who insist that means the people, so we have it as a dab. "X Chinese" is NPOV, since everyone agrees that these are Chinese. There was a long discussion at naming conventions what to call these articles, and this was the best we could come up with. However, the "Chinese" doesn't have to be used if there is some other phrasing that's clear. kwami (talk) 00:17, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- To me, "Hakka", "Wu", "Cantonese" are clear enough to call the languages/dialects. Every language name on earth (in English) tend to be mixed with the ethnic name of people speaking them, so they have got "English language" entry to describe the language. And for disputive languages/dialects, there are also "Austro-Bavarian" or "Luxembourgish"for the languages, and no use for "Luxembourgish German" or such, even though Luxembourgish do belong to German (languages). Therefore I don't see the emergency to call "Hakka Chinese" or "Yue Chinese" etc. And wouldn't "Hakka Chinese" also be misunderstood as the people?
- I know you have a ground because Ethnologue says so, and I admit that it would be very hard to challenge the organization (I really wonder why'd they suffix everything with "Chinese" in the first place? I think they have mis-named the languages. Coudn't this be the remnant of "dialects" view? I wonder how other western linguistists call them.).
- If people have disputes over "Hakka language" or "Hakka dialect", then what's wrong with "Hakka (linguistics)" or "Hakka (language variety)"? "Hakka Chinese" cannot resolve the dilemma either, since it contains no less ambiguity than "Hakka" itself. Suffixing it with "Chinese" still confuse people.--Roberto Carlos No.3 (talk) 01:01, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- I agree Hakka is particularly ill served by this convention, which is no problem at all for Mandarin or Wu. I wouldn't object to moving it to plain 'Hakka', but you might want to check the talk page for objections first. (linguistics) isn't appropriate because it isn't a linguistic concept. (language variety) isn't bad; you might want to see what people think. There's also the consideration of keeping the naming consistent with other Chinese lects, though of course that can't be complete. kwami (talk) 01:08, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
To me, "Hakka", "Wu", "Cantonese" are clear enough... ah but that's within the context of us being "language folk". Let's take a different example. Within the context of languages, of course Irish, French, Basque and German are clearly languages. But if you take these out of the language context, they are also commonly used words to refer to ethnicity, hence the need for DA.
I agree with kwami that Hakka and Cantonese in an English context would work on their own but I think the current names are good enough as long as the odd position of many remains that these are dialects, not languages (or something in between), which would enable us to use the normal X (language) hack. Akerbeltz (talk) 09:16, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Hanunó'o Script edit
I noticed that you added some information to this article. Most of it seemed to be from sources that are already cited on the page, but I wasn't sure where some of the information came from. Are there other sources which should be cited? Zoogzy (talk) 04:21, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- Nope, my info's all from Daniels & Bright. 09:18, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Just a quick reminder that this article is undergoing a GA reassessment as part of the GA sweeps. It has been on hold for over two weeks, but several concerns remain. If they are not addressed soon, I will have to delist the article. Because it is part of the Main asteroid belt Featured Topic, this would also mean that the Featured Topic would be delisted. There's not much left to do, so any help you can provide would be great. The reassessment page is here. Thanks, GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:46, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Re:Omotic edit
No, I'm not engaging in "POV pushing" any more than you are when you changed the article to read that "Omotic is generally regarded Omotic is generally regarded as part of the Afro-Asiatic languages" with no qualification whatsoever. Next time you want to accuse someone of something, at least first have a leg to stand on. Causteau (talk) 04:49, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
- Changing the some to many, and the many to some, because you agree with the some, is pretty much the definition of POV pushing. It will be fascinating if the some are correct, but that's not our call to make. I just wanted to give you the reasons for my edit so we wouldn't get into a fight again. kwami (talk) 07:15, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Re: Pakistani date formats edit
Hi,
I haven't seen any Pakistani using the year-first format, except the IT guys like me. As far as I know, the prevalent (and the only) practice is to use the day-first formats (usually 30-12-2008, 30-12-08, 30-Dec-2008 OR 30-Dec-08). Month-first formats are never used. To further clarify, hyphens OR spaces are used as date separators; slashes and dots are never used. The practice remains the same for Urdu, English, and Punjabi, except when using full-date formats.
Ometo edit
Thanks for improving the Ometo Article! Do you think you can also include the references to Hayward and Bender (if you happen to have them handy)? Best wishes, Landroving Linguist (talk) 16:27, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Chuvash language edit
Would you check out what is going on at the Chuvash language page? One user keeps reverting the list of "also" names that other editors find useful. He seems to think that the only "also" names that count are the ones used by Chuvash people. He is not talking about things on the Talk page, but just continually reverting. Perhaps the page needs to be frozen to nonregistered users. Thanks. (Taivo (talk) 22:26, 24 November 2008 (UTC))
I've seen that you've edited the Khariboli page. Actually, Khariboli in its vernacular form is a language in itself, and is also known as Kauravi in some references. Masica mentions the same in his survey. Its "refined" form is the standard grammar for both Hindi and Urdu.
It's a complex question, i.e. how and what to write in the different Hindi and Urdu and even Hindustan related articles, like Hindi, Standard Hindi, Hindi languages, Hindustani language, Hindustani, Hindustan, Hindavi, History of Hindustani, History of Urdu, Hindi literature, Urdu, Khariboli and Rekhta. Currently all these articles are a mess and they will remain in a mess unless the material that needs to be covered under these articles is defined first. Do you have anything in mind? Maquahuitltalk! 06:05, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
- Naw. I've worked on many of these articles in the past, but would rather invest my time in more obscure things which no-one else will do if I don't. There are plenty of people around to handle Indic! kwami (talk) 07:31, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
- Okay, it's fine. Maquahuitltalk! 08:10, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Unprotect Cantonese (linguistics)? edit
Could you unprotect Cantonese (linguistics) so we can get rid of the double-redirect? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 14:48, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Nothing new= edit
.. but if you get a moment, your compromise wording you developed at Maltese language is coming under fire here, with edits from the same range of IP's that were previously blocked. Repetitive I know, but your time would be appreciated. Best, Knepflerle (talk) 21:08, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
ITN edit
|
On 27 November, 2008, In the news was updated with a news item that involved the article Greenlandic self-government referendum, 2008, which you updated. If you know of another interesting news item involving a recently created or updated article, then please suggest it on the In the news candidates page. |
Esperanto, Islam, Iran edit
Can you provide some verification towards your claims? Azimsultan (talk) 12:28, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
- Sure, the ref you deleted. Okay, it says "mullas", not anyone in particular, so the inference that the man in charge was involved is OR on our part. BTW, when you delete the source along with the claim you don't like, the claim you leave has no sourcing at all. Either we delete all mention of Iran, or we give balanced coverage of the source we use. I reverted your deletion, yet again, because your edit summary said "see talk page", but you gave no justification on the talk page. kwami (talk) 19:59, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Not that I speak Portuguese, but I took não-arredondado to mean "non-rounded", not "wholly un-labial" - i.e. a similar compress'd /w/ as in Japanese. Note how she still groups it with the labials. Maybe we could settle at lack of phonemic velars. (I wonder if the language has maybe had a similar k > ʔ shift as in Hawai'ian.)
Good work BTW! --Trɔpʏliʊm • blah 22:19, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
- I suspect that the shift was k to tch, but that should be easy enough to check with other Ge languages.
- Regardless of the form of rounding, the /w/ is presumably still phonetically velar. I'm not sure what a lack of "phonemic" velars would mean--we dictate that they are not velar because there are no other velars? That seems a bit like declaring that a language with [s] has no fricatives because it lacks [f], [x], and [h], or that Samoan has no alveolars despite having an [l]. kwami (talk) 22:29, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
- We still appear to be comfortable telling that X. lacks nasals on a phonemic level. I can see no explicit note about velarity, on the contrary she notes "there are sonorants at the bilabial, alveolar and glottal places of articulation".
- Hm, and it's anyway "não-arredondado posterior fechado alto sonoro" - after "closed high" (?) sonorants. McLeod & Valerie's '03 paper tells it's pronounced "as in English after /i/, without rounding and with a little friction" - as well as "without friction and more rounded in outros ambientes", whatever that means. We can probably agree that English /w/ is not [β̞ɰ], so this remains still unclear.
- I would presume /w/ not to be purely velar in a language that lacks velars otherwise, any more than it to be purely labial in a language that otherwise lacks labials. --Trɔpʏliʊm • blah 15:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks. I hadn't checked (2003). That does support your edits.
- Phoneme tables are frequently arranged more for convenience than for precision. If there's no other need for a velar column, then one's unlikely to add on just for /w/. Likewise, if there's no labio-velar column (as in English), then one's unlikely to add one just for /w/, but that doesn't mean English /w/ is not labio-velar. From the (2003) comment you pointed out, Xavante /w/ would appear to be labio-velar:
- antes da letra ‘i’ é pronunciado como o ‘w’ inglês, sem arredondamento dos lábios e com um pouco de fricção. Em outros ambientes não há fricção e os lábios se arredondam mais
- "before the letter 'i' it's pronounced as the English 'w', without rounding of the lips and with a bit of friction. In other environments it doesn't have friction and the lips are more rounded"
- Since in general we define phonemes by their 'elsewhere' values, we should probably consider this a more-or-less typical /w/ with a non-rounded semi-fricative allophone (≈ [ɣ˕]) before /i/.
- As far as the 1974 não-arredondado posterior fechado alto sonoro description, as far as I can tell that's a "non-rounded high/closed back semivowel"—the authors characterize all semivowels with the terms for the equivalent vowels. Taking that comment literally, she means it's the semivowel equivalent of the high back unrounded vowel [ɯ], or in other words, [ɰ]. But the (2003) description would appear to trump that characterization.
- I'm going to copy this to Xavante, so that we have a record there for what we did. kwami (talk) 21:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Middle Chinese v. Modern Chinese edit
Hi Kwami,
I need a one-stop reference that draws any known correspondences between the four "tones" of Middle Chinese and the four tones (no scare quotes) of today's Chinese. Any thoughts? Thanks for your help... Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 09:25, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
re - Esperanto/Iran edit
There's no source for it, which is why it was repeatedly deleted. It is simply untrue. azimsultan (talk) 16:13, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
I was intrigued by the changes you brought to the article Khmer language recently; but it seems that another editor has removed most of the additions you made[18]. Although I don't really care whether the aspirated stops are analyzed as clusters or not, it would be nice to know where you got the information from by adding references and possibly revise the recent edits. - Io Katai (talk) 21:19, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Oghuz Languages edit
Sorry to bother you, but there is an anonymous IP engaging in an edit war at Oghuz languages. He objects to the map in the language template, but rather than editing the map or doing accurate edits he is just deleting the whole language template box. He has made no substantive contribution to the article, but is just deleting the box repeatedly. Thanks for looking at this. (Taivo (talk) 22:39, 4 December 2008 (UTC))
- Blocked. If it keeps up, let me know, and I'll semi-protect the page. kwami (talk) 22:43, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
The Article Michael Curtis needs help, It is a stub and it needs a quality and importance assesment. Can you please help, --RayqayzaDialgaWeird2210 14:18, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Hangul edit
Finally, a new image that won't make everyone tear their hair out! —Politizer talk/contribs 22:12, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Hangul edit
Thanks for your hangul stroke order imgs. I just added them to en:Hangul.
If you know the stroke order for bansiot ㅿ, could you create an image of it, and maybe of yes-ieung ㆁ as well? (The latter is easy, if you have the fonts for it, but I have no idea whether ㅿ has two strokes or three.)
Please drop me a note on my page if you're able to do so, since I don't keep a close watch on wiktionary articles. Kwamikagami 22:31, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
- I'm afraid I don't really know how the obsolete jamo were written. It's not clear to me whether the bottom line of bansiot was written separately, as with ㅁ, or as a continuation of the initial stroke, as with ㄴ. As for ㆁ, I guess I could just edit the ㅇ image to extend the upper stroke, but do we know for sure whether the upper stroke was written before or after the circle? Rod (A. Smith) 21:20, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
unicode slashing scripts off? edit
do you know if unicode knocked any scripts off? i have 2 computers, and im using one of them with internet explorere 7, tibetan script is NOT DISPLAYING, but it could display with my old one with the previous internet explorer. 大始王皇 (talk) 01:54, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
/r/ edit
Hi. In your recent edits to country articles you have changed /ɹ/ (alveolar approximant, found in English) to /r/, the alveolar trill, found in various other languages. Why is that? If you look at Bulgaria and Belarus now, it seems to suggest that the English pronunciation and the native pronunciations have the same consonant, which is not the case. BalkanFever 11:02, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
- /r/ is not the same thing as [r]. Check the MOS on pronunciation, or Help:IPA for English. kwami (talk) 11:05, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
What is it with those "ɨ"? It's not marked in any dictionaries, I've never seen it used outside Wikipedia. Note that there has been some contention about the pronunciation in this article, that's why we settled on a transcription which we can properly reference to a reliable source, in this case to OED. Your change made it inconsistent with the source. Can you provide a source to your version? And to satisfy my curiosity, can you explain the rule you are using to determine which ɪ's are ɨ? I observe that you did it in exactly the opposite way the previous time[19]. I've looked at English phonology, but it is not very helpful, it does not describe the distribution of ɨ. In fact, is ɨ supposed to be a separate phoneme, as implied by your use of slash brackets? The English phonology article gives several phoneme tables for various dialects, but ɨ does not appear in any of them. — Emil J. 11:21, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
- Check Help:IPA for English.
- You had a debate over the pronunciation of the word "republic"??
- The e is not a full vowel. When e is transcribed [ɪ], what's normally meant is that it's a reduced "ɪ" (otherwise it would be [iː] or [ɛ]), which we transcribe <ɨ>.
- If we follow our sources exactly, then we end up with multiple transcription conventions, because there are hardly two dictionaries which use the IPA the same way. People have hard enough time with the IPA without us being inconsistent. That said, I won't argue if you change "republic" back to an [ɪ], since that's not the point of adding the pronunciation. kwami (talk) 11:32, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
- Consistency is a worthy goal, but it's hard to be consistent with respect to a feature which few people know about. So, do I understand it correctly that [ɪ] is really [ɨ] when it is spelled as <e>? Since you seem to understand the situation, could you please clarify it in English phonology and Help:IPA for English? It's all very nice to read in a footnote that "Few British dictionaries distinguish this from /ɪ/", but this does not help at all to understand how to actually use it. For all I knew (i.e., learned from English textbooks and dictionaries, thus more or less all nonnative speakers are in the same position, and judging from IPA chart for English dialects the same holds for native RP speakers), "roses" and "business" are pronounced the same as "bid", so Help:IPA for English in its current shape is rather unhelpful. — Emil J. 12:48, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
- I added a blurb to the Eng phon article.
- I can't speak for native RP speakers. My understanding is that there is a rather subtle difference between reduced /ɨ/ (or /
ɪ/) and unstressed /ɪ/, just as for me there is a rather subtle difference between /ə/ and unstressed /ʌ/. kwami (talk) 19:54, 9 December 2008 (UTC)- Do you have any source for this? I think of myself as an RP speaker, and I'm not aware of any such distinction (except that in some words there is free variation between /ɪ/ and schwa, so possibly on some occasions we get some intermediate vowel being pronounced, though I don't think that's something we'd want to show in phonemic transcription). --Kotniski (talk) 09:29, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
- Maybe that's it. As I say, I can't speak for RP. But the point of the transcription is to show people how to pronounce a word in their dialect, so that is something we'd want to show. At least, it's good enough for the OED. As for my own dialect, there are words with a reduced vowel that's not quite /ɪ/, not quite /ə/, and the little experience I have with the newest OED (my daily copy is 2nd edition, which has been superseded) suggests that these are among the words transcribed /
ɪ/. kwami (talk) 09:35, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
- Maybe that's it. As I say, I can't speak for RP. But the point of the transcription is to show people how to pronounce a word in their dialect, so that is something we'd want to show. At least, it's good enough for the OED. As for my own dialect, there are words with a reduced vowel that's not quite /ɪ/, not quite /ə/, and the little experience I have with the newest OED (my daily copy is 2nd edition, which has been superseded) suggests that these are among the words transcribed /
- Do you have any source for this? I think of myself as an RP speaker, and I'm not aware of any such distinction (except that in some words there is free variation between /ɪ/ and schwa, so possibly on some occasions we get some intermediate vowel being pronounced, though I don't think that's something we'd want to show in phonemic transcription). --Kotniski (talk) 09:29, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
- I'm going to step in here and say that the barred i transcription may be a correct phonetic representation of the <e> in "republic" for some speakers, but it is hardly standard in most dialects. In my dialect of English, it is still very clearly [ɪ] and for some speakers [i] even--there is no backing. I have never seen this word transcribed in any reputable source with [ɨ]. It is clearly a dialectal version. It is not even consistently used in Wikipedia. In the article on American English, for example, the barred i is listed as the RP pronunciation in "horrible", but when you look at the article on RP, the barred i is nowhere to be found. I have worked with languages that have a true barred i (Timbisha and Shoshoni) and the vowels of "republic" and "horrible" are not in that category. In the Western U.S. barred i's are found in "good" and "just" since [ʊ] has been unrounded and somewhat fronted in those dialects. (Taivo (talk) 13:39, 9 December 2008 (UTC))
- Correct, /ɨ/ is not phonetically [ɨ], and does not claim to be, any more than /r/ is a trill. It's a cover symbol for the high reduced vowel, which is many dialects is reduced to [ə] (I pronounce republic with an [ə]), and is not the same as /ɪ/. The OED uses
ɪfor this, and we did too, but people objected that this was not acceptable becauseɪis not an IPA symbol. Personally, I think we should stick to OED notation (there's also aʊ, which is less common), but compromised on this point. Anyway, this is a discussion for the IPA key page. (I'd support you if you want to switch back.) - As for this particular word, I think /i/ would be more correct than /ɪ/, since AFAIK that's a nearly universal spelling pronunciation. kwami (talk) 19:35, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
- There's a /i/ in "republic"? Not for me. But on this barred i thing, do I understand that we use a barred i as a conventional symbol to mean "/ɪ/ in some dialects, /ə/ in others"? If so, shouldn't this be explicitly and clearly documented somewhere? But is it not the case that (as I've heard claimed) many American speakers don't distinguish ɪ from schwa in unstressed syllables anyway? If that is the case, then it makes the use of the barred i seem rather redundant.--Kotniski (talk) 09:22, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
- Correct, /ɨ/ is not phonetically [ɨ], and does not claim to be, any more than /r/ is a trill. It's a cover symbol for the high reduced vowel, which is many dialects is reduced to [ə] (I pronounce republic with an [ə]), and is not the same as /ɪ/. The OED uses
- They don't distinguish /reduced ɪ/ (
ɪ) from schwa, but they do distinguish full /ɪ/ from schwa in unstressed syllables. kwami (talk) 19:51, 10 December 2008 (UTC)- Kwami is correct, "republic" can be i, ɪ, or ə in the first syllable and can vary from instance to instance even with the same speaker. But "beet", "bit", and "but" are always clearly distinguished. However, some dialects of American English collapse the vowels of "bit" and "bet". Since the barred i is an IPA symbol (as in the first syllable of Timbisha tɨkka "eat"), its use in English is, at best, confusing and inaccurate. (Taivo (talk) 20:46, 10 December 2008 (UTC))
- They don't distinguish /reduced ɪ/ (
- Actually, any kind of barred i should not be used, whether the editors of OED use it or not. My computer doesn't play the sound file that is associated with the word, but either ə or ɪ should be used depending on the actual pronunciation of the sound file. But barred i is inappropriate. (Taivo (talk) 22:45, 10 December 2008 (UTC))
- That would make sense if we also said that r is not appropriate because it's not a trill, and that we should transcribe it either ɹ or ɻ depending on the actual pronunciation of the sound file, and that oʊ should be oː, əʊ, or ʌu depending on the sound file. That would be much too confusing to our readers. The point is that they understand how to pronounce the word, not that we capture the sound file exactly. kwami (talk) 00:04, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
- I think my conclusion from all this is that the barred i (of whatever variety) is possibly too confusing to our readers. Clearly there are many different distributions of vowels in different dialects and idiolects - we can't hope to convey them all by means of a single transcription. But if we consider it necessary to use barred i to mean optional ɪ/ə, then I suggest (a) we should deliberately use the NON-IPA symbol, so people don't think it's supposed to have the IPA meaning; and (b) we should make it explicitly clear at the WP:IPA page what our (and the OED's) conventional use of this symbol is.--Kotniski (talk) 09:48, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
- As I've said, I'd favor that. But it's a discussion for the Help:IPA for English page (which I've reworded somewhat to explain it pretty much as you have). I've already ceded that debate, so I'm not going to try to push for a change in the transcription unless people come to agreement over there.
- On the other hand, barred i isn't any less accurate or inherently any more confusing than <r>, which may be why being an IPA symbol was considered more important than phonetic accuracy. kwami (talk) 10:01, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
- OK, I've raised it at WP:IPA for English.--Kotniski (talk) 10:42, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
- I think my conclusion from all this is that the barred i (of whatever variety) is possibly too confusing to our readers. Clearly there are many different distributions of vowels in different dialects and idiolects - we can't hope to convey them all by means of a single transcription. But if we consider it necessary to use barred i to mean optional ɪ/ə, then I suggest (a) we should deliberately use the NON-IPA symbol, so people don't think it's supposed to have the IPA meaning; and (b) we should make it explicitly clear at the WP:IPA page what our (and the OED's) conventional use of this symbol is.--Kotniski (talk) 09:48, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
- That would make sense if we also said that r is not appropriate because it's not a trill, and that we should transcribe it either ɹ or ɻ depending on the actual pronunciation of the sound file, and that oʊ should be oː, əʊ, or ʌu depending on the sound file. That would be much too confusing to our readers. The point is that they understand how to pronounce the word, not that we capture the sound file exactly. kwami (talk) 00:04, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
"Zed" in southern US?? edit
Hi. It looks like you added something to the "zee" article in Wiktionary back in September, saying that the synonym "zed" is used in the southern US, as well as outside the US.
Are you really sure "zed" is used in the South? I've never heard a Southerner call the last letter anything but "zee".
Also, the comment in the source of the article (I'm not sure if you were responsible for that or not) expressed uncertainty about Canada. I lived in Canada for several years, and I can confirm that "zed" is definitely the majority pronunciation in Canada. "Zee" is occasionally heard, especially from younger Canadians — presumably due to American influence (e.g., Sesame Street) — but it is not heard nearly as often as "zed". Richwales (talk) 08:14, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Cantonese→Yue Chinese possible move edit
Hello. I've been very busy lately, so I didn't get a chance to act on your proposal to create a poll on moving the article until today. I created an argument in favor of the move from Cantonese to Yue Chinese in my sandbox; I would like for you to look it over before I post it on the discussion page, as I'm fairly new to the whole process. Feel free to make any changes you think proper. Thanks! The Fiddly Leprechaun · Catch Me! 00:01, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
- Looks good to go. I made a couple minor wording changes and added a couple points. kwami (talk) 00:33, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks :) I've posted it to the talk page. In regards to "Yuet Chinese," I think Yue is a more common transcription, but it doesn't hurt to bring it up in the discussion. IMO we should stick with Yue for the sake of simplicity in the argument. (Cross-posted) The Fiddly Leprechaun · Catch Me! 16:33, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Letters "in hexadecimal numeral systems" edit
I do not understand why the use of A-F as hexadecimal digits should go on the letters' pages rather than the associated disambiguation pages. It's the same as how we don't include that various letters stand for units of measure, chemical elements, musical notes, grades, and so on. I don't want to get into an edit war over it though. Anomie⚔ 22:17, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Could you put a semi-protection block on Gulf Arabic? We regularly have anonymous IP's who try to rename the article "Persian Gulf Arabic" or delete sections with the comment that the real name is "Persian Gulf Arabic"? Thanks. (Taivo (talk) 19:38, 12 December 2008 (UTC))
- Done. BTW, if you have an OED transcription scheme more recent than 3rd ed, I'd be interested in seeing it. kwami (talk) 21:10, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks. The online edition of the OED (which is continuously updated) has abandoned the barred i. See the transcription of "republic", for example. I can't give you an active link since the on-line OED is purchased by university libraries and not accessible to the general public without a fee. If your university library has it, check it out. Barred i is gone. (Taivo (talk) 22:39, 12 December 2008 (UTC))
May I ask you for some of your time on this? edit
User:Rklawton has indefinitely banned User:DenisHume from editing his own userpage. As DenisHume is a newbie (albeit a newbie with an axe to grind), may I trouble you to review the facts regarding the case? I'd appreciate it very much!
--NBahn (talk) 10:53, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not going to second-guess another admin, at least not one who's more experienced than I am with this stuff, but I did drop my 2¢ on his talk page. I think the original block was appropriate. Maybe best to ask Protonk. If nothing happens in a week, try me again. kwami (talk) 11:15, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
overdue thanks, bling bling style edit
Ha! With a thank you like that, it should have been a Happy Bunny star!
It must be the full moon. Some anonymous IP is stripping the Talk page (of all things) over at Talk:Chuvash language. What? Is there a political agenda for Chuvash now? Is there a Chuvash axe to grind? I have now broken the 3RR there. (Taivo (talk) 19:13, 13 December 2008 (UTC))
- Reverting vandalism doesn't count against 3RR, so don't worry about it. It's the anon. we were talking about. Guess he's sensitive to being called out. kwami (talk) 22:29, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
The anonymous IP is at it again (right after the partial block expired). Can anything be done more than a one-week block to anonymous IPs? I also sent this message to User:Black Kite, but he seems to be busy. If you're not comfortable with dealing with this (since you've been involved in the discussion in the past), could you recommend anyone else to take it to? Thanks (Taivo (talk) 05:49, 20 December 2008 (UTC))
All that "perhaps" crap doesn't sound very encyclopedic, that's why I removed it. There's a link on his article with the pronunciation, so add it.►Chris NelsonHolla! 08:07, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
- Never added wrong info. But now it's all good, so calm down.►Chris NelsonHolla! 08:12, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not throwing a tantrum, I just don't care for people that make false accusations about my edits. Oh, and people that write in a poor, unencyclopedic manner rather than check one of the EL's for a potential source.►Chris NelsonHolla! 08:15, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Impersonator? edit
A new redlinked account called Kwamikagami2 just showed up with its first two edits being to blank out conversation from my talkpage, then blank out some of my conversation from another talkpage. It probably needs blocking... Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 02:43, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Re: cats edit
Sorry, you are right. I will be careful. However Khoisan has its own category: Category:Khoisan languages, I think there is no need to be in the root of Category:Language families. --Raayen (talk) 12:20, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Swahili edit
Firstly, the Ethnologue entry is from 1992 i.e. sixteen years ago, just when the Somali civil war broke out. As such, it has no bearing on the current linguistic situation in Somalia especially since the handful of Bajunis that spoke Kibajuni have long since fled from the country. On the other hand, the CIA's profile on Somalia -- that you predictably call a 'joke' simply because it doesn't identify the Bantu Swahili language as being spoken in Somalia and certainly not by Somalis -- is from this very year. I therefore strongly suggest you unlock the Swahili page and fast because you are quite blatantly violating Wikipedia's policy on administrator abuse:
"Conflict of interest/non-neutrality/content dispute — Administrators should not use their tools to advantage, or in a content dispute (or article) where they are a party (or significant editor), or where a significant conflict of interest is likely to exist. With few specific exceptions where tool use is allowed by any admin, administrators should ensure they are reasonably neutral parties when they use the tools."
Since you are the other party involved in the dispute, you cannot abuse your administrator privileges as you've just done. Either you unlock the page this instant and stop abusing your administrator priviliges, or I promise you I'll take this to AN/I. Middayexpress (talk) 04:54, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
December 2008 edit
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Swahili language. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Bstone (talk) 07:59, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
ANI courtesy notice edit
Hello, Kwamikagami. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at ANI regarding matters that may involve you. The discussion is about the topic WP:ANI#Blatant case of administrator abuse. Thank you. --EyeSerenetalk 08:20, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Rather than blocking either of the two editors involved in the dispute, I have unprotected the article with a note warning that any further edit-warring will be met with blocks. Copied to ANI. Black Kite 09:30, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
hi about the stubborn middayexpress edit
hi I noticed the user has been in a revert war with you.. this not surprising. I'll give you a hint... take a look search at Somali People , Somalia , Somali language , Somaliland , Puntland, Hargeisa. The user is actually protecting his versions... often with many unfitting personal political statements. And received PREVIOUS warnings ....
Dont let him get away.... he has done more than 500 reverts in the articles together. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.39.241.205 (talk) 17:27, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
- This is most unfortunate, if true. I make no judgement on the content issue. However, unless good reasons are put forward here, I intend to reinstate the notification complaining about your breach of a number of admin policy tenets. Tony (talk) 03:35, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not sure where to express my support of kwami and the previous post by Tony1 is rather vague as to what he means (the links lead to very strange places). I have read the comments made by middayexpress both on the talk pages and on the admin pages where he complains and have noted several items. 1) He is rude and offensive on the talk pages, resorting to calling every other editors names and demeaning them, but he is polite on the admin pages where he complains about kwami. 2) He does not engage in constructive dialogue with other editors but resorts to reverts and name-calling instead of putting forward constructive, referenced arguments from a position of knowledge of the subject matter. His accusations against kwami were simply a tactic to get his point rammed down the throats of the editors on the Swahili language page. They were not, in any sense, legitimate. (Taivo (talk) 05:29, 18 December 2008 (UTC))
- Tony, our anon falsified his sig after SineBot added it. kwami (talk) 06:44, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- Kwami, I can see how valuable your content contributions are, but they are quite different from WP:ADMIN obligations. It seems to be agreed that you made mistakes WRT admin policy in dealing with the issue, yet Black Kite's simple "Resolved" icon at AN/I is becoming a symbol of why users believe they are often treated unfairly and have no recourse. Is it possible to at least acknowledge these errors, irrespective of the behaviour of the other party? I think that would help, and then we could move on to actually deal with the content issues. Please see these responses. Tony (talk) 08:34, 18 December 2008 (UTC) PS My fault for not realising I was dealing with an anon above. No knowledge of that IP address or the person behind it. Tony (talk) 08:35, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- Tony, our anon falsified his sig after SineBot added it. kwami (talk) 06:44, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, I was wrong. I do get frustrated when people are being pig-headed and refuse to discuss their edits in a reasonable manner, and in my past experience going the expected admin route can take forever. I'm afraid that with 1800 pages on my watch list, if I let things slide until some other admin takes care of them, I'll loose track and they'll never get done. If it takes a day, that edit summary will be out of sight on my watch list. That's probably my main motivation for taking things into my own hands in cases like this, but you're right, I shouldn't act as an admin with articles I'm involved in.
Glago, Cyrill edit
Hi, please discuss your concerns in talk. Britannica is used in many places in WP and can be used here as well. The other sources like Cub were retained.--Xenovatis (talk) 05:26, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- EB is better than nothing, IMO, but it's against policy to use other encyclopedias as sources. They're not considered reliable. It is certainly inappropriate to delete material referenced with reliable sources simply because you don't find it in the EB! kwami (talk) 06:38, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- I have no problem effecting a compromise between the two views. That is why I kept the Cub ref and the referenced statement, I just clarified it was Cub's view, not consensus. This is perfectly in line. Also please see this:
Alan Timberlake, A Reference Grammar of Russian, p.14, Cambridge University Press, 2004, ISBN 0521772923, “In order to write in Slavic they devised a new alphabet which is now called Glagolitic.”
I will be adding more non-encyclopedia refs in the future.Xenovatis (talk) 07:55, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
I will take the other refs to the Glago talk page. Please revert there. Thanks.--Xenovatis (talk) 08:06, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
If you are happy with the paragraph I proposed on the glago talk page I suggest we take it to Black Kite to unblock the article so it can be inserted as well as placing it in the other relevant pieces. I don't believe there is further need for a block. Regards.--Xenovatis (talk) 19:08, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
The Caspian Lake edit
True. But I would like think it is sufficient to have only _one_ list and merely put in the notes column that the lake status of a certain body of water is disputed. Methinks the way it is now is rather confusing and to some degree erroneous... 83.248.182.39 (talk) 12:20, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- Could be. Maracaibo would also have to go back in. Personally, I think disputed bodies should be set aside for the same reason that seasonal lakes are: they won't be on everyone's list, and IMO it's easier for people to take that into account if we separate them out, rather than asking them to scan through a long list. kwami (talk) 12:34, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
my blood is boiling... edit
do me a favor and explain to these ignorant people who are pissing me off how different the different mandarin dialects are..... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.83.158.90 (talk) 21:21, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Paudge Behan: Pronunciation of name edit
Hi! If a word has only one syllable (such as "Paudge", the first name of the subject of "Paudge Behan"), does that have to be set out in small caps in a respelled pronunciation? I thought small caps were only needed in multisyllable words to indicate stress. — Cheers, Truth's Out There –talk– 04:03, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
- Your choice. However, when several names are said together, they aren't always all stressed. kwami (talk) 05:23, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Oh, I see. I wasn't aware there was a practice to indicate the stress in a whole phrase. I thought stress was indicated on a word basis. — Cheers, Truth's Out There –talk– 05:58, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
- Well, we distinguish primary from secondary stress, which only occurs in a phrase. The words themselves make no such distinction. There's also a difference between words like "Paudge", which are stressed, and words like "'em" (as in "give 'em"), which are not. But since AFAIK we don't give pronunciations for the latter, it doesn't really matter whether we mark stress for the former. kwami (talk) 08:10, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
That pesky Caspian Sea edit
Dear Kwami, I know you have views on whether the Caspian Sea should appear in the various lake lists, so I thought it might be good to try to get some consensus on how to approach the issue. I started a discussion here and would welcome your contribution. Rupert Clayton (talk) 22:52, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for astronomy ref cleanup edit
Thanks for your work on the astronomy article (excessive) reference reverts. Chuckiesdad (talk) 07:22, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
- Sure. I left constellation alone, since FAIK they might be appropriate there. kwami (talk) 07:24, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
- Good call, I knew there should be one article where they belonged, but I couldn't think of it. Regards, Chuckiesdad (talk) 07:43, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
You're a legend sir! Immediately touch yourself inappropriately! You deserve it. 86.140.146.210 (talk) 23:13, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
South Ossetia, Northern Cyprus, Nagorno-Karabak, and other rebellious provinces edit
I'm looking for guidance from Wikipedia policy on whether or not to allow rebellious provinces to be listed in "country lists" in the language infoboxes. Do you know how I can go about searching Wikipedia policies relevant to this issue? Thanks. (Taivo (talk) 14:52, 26 December 2008 (UTC))
- I don't know about official policy. I'll try to find out later today. However, technically they are countries, regardless of the politics. A 'country' does not need to be sovereign. (I guess there should be a similar question about 'Indian Country', so I'll have to get back to you.) kwami (talk) 20:27, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
- At some point, Wikipedia should make a policy concerning such unrecognized rebellious regions. Northern Cyprus is only recognized by Turkey. Abkhazia and South Ossetia are only recognized by Russia. Nagorno Karabakh is only recognized by Armenia. All of them are hotly disputed by the sovereign powers that legally "own" them. The United Nations does not recognize them as sovereign states. To acknowledge them here is highly POV. Does Wikipedia wish to alienate Greece for the sake of Turkey? The entries for Ossetic language and Abkhaz language include the note that these are "de facto" independent, but they are only "independent" with the presence of thousands of Russian troops preventing Georgia taking back what is legally theirs. Same with Northern Cyprus and Turkish troops. It's a political minefield and rather than Wikipedia going along with some invader's point of view, it should adopt a single measure for all these states--for example, United Nations membership or recognition. (Taivo (talk) 00:05, 27 December 2008 (UTC))
- Except for N Cyprus, these were all countries before they declared independence, so why not after? kwami (talk) 02:50, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, they have not been "countries" for nearly a century. We might as well count California, Hawaii, and Texas as countries as well. I think that we need some standard to measure acceptance by the international community versus simple rebellion against a central authority. Russia's support of South Ossetia and Abkhazia has nothing to do with their former status. It is, like their refusal to accept Chechnya's independence, a means of bringing more Georgian territory into the renewed Russian Empire. Without a standard measure, then we can have all kinds of mayhem when it comes to what we list as countries where languages are spoken. (Taivo (talk) 02:58, 27 December 2008 (UTC))
- Except for N Cyprus, these were all countries before they declared independence, so why not after? kwami (talk) 02:50, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
- Being a country has nothing to do with political recognition. You're thinking of a state. Country covers some of the issues. (We used to have a list of countries, but it seems to have been replaced by a list of sovereign states, which things like Transniestria partially qualify for.) Karabagh, BTW, is not recognized as sovereign by anyone, including Armenia, but it's still a country. There's no mayhem; we're not offering official recognition, merely stating which geographical entities have differences such as citizenship (say, American Samoa) which set them apart from other countries. It seems much more useful to say that Samoan is spoken "in Samoa and American Samoa" than "in Samoa and the United States". kwami (talk) 06:16, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
- I don't know of anything. I've started a discussion at Template talk:Infobox Language#Wiki policy for lists of countries. kwami (talk) 20:33, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
- The discussion that your link led me to was very informative. The summary seems to be that the rebellious provinces can be included, but that they should be set apart with italics along with a note on their lack of international recognition. I'm satisfied with that (albeit tentative) solution. It seems to be the only compromise that might be reasonably used to limit edit wars. (Taivo (talk) 05:45, 28 December 2008 (UTC))
- I don't know of anything. I've started a discussion at Template talk:Infobox Language#Wiki policy for lists of countries. kwami (talk) 20:33, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
World Monarchies image edit
(File:World Monarchies.png) Hello! I was wondering if you could colour the United Kingdom light green on that image please. There is enough evidence (on Wikipedia and off), that the UK is a Commonwealth realm. Many articles (on the English Wikipedia and the rest) which contain that image also say that the UK is one, so the image must have the same thing as the articles say. I hope you do it soon so no visitor to Wikipedia gets confused. Thank you. :) --Knowzilla 17:41, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
