User talk:Garik/Archive 2

Diolch!

Thank you so much for the Civility Barnstar! It was very kind of yours and very encouraging. :-) Kindest regards, Húsönd 00:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Galicia

It is not fair what you have done with Galicia, you dont know anything about this country. Search in google about celtic nations and you will see. --193.144.48.15 17:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not much in favour of google searches as evidence - they don't really tell us much reliable (it's more of a who-can-shout-loudest contest). I sympathise, but my big problem with your edit is that Galicia is already mentioned in the next paragraph. A distinction (I think a reasonable one) is being made in this section between those Celtic areas where Celtic languages are still spoken (or were spoken recently enough to have been revived) and those Celtic areas where no Celtic language has survived at all. But now I look at the article, I see that the dictinction was not made explicit enough. I've edited it now to remedy this. There seems no good reason to me not to include the Galician flag next to the appropriate paragraph btw - those of Asturias and Cumbria (if there is one) should probably be included on the same basis. garik 17:26, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to contact you here, but...

os dach chi'r Garik sy wedi anelu defnyddio ngeiriadur Firefox i, dw i wedi postio hyfforddiannau nawr ar y dudalen[1] 'ma. hwyl, Marnanel 19:07, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Eskimo

I saw that you tagged the article here and just wanted to know what was wrong (other than the formatting) of the reference already in the article? I did also find this and this. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 06:55, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi. My problem is that the reference doesn't say that most Inuit find "Eskimo" highly offensive—just that it's considered derogatory in many other places, which is not the same thing. The most your two other sources say is that it's widely thought to be "rather insulting". None of the sources are very clear at all on whether they're talking about the preference of Inuit people specifically, or Canadians generally. It may be that Inuit people do dislike the word Eskimo intensely, but I have a suspicion that this might be more an assumption based on false etymology. (As in: "Well, I wouldn't like to be called an eater of raw meat!") As a Welshman, I have nothing particularly against possibly derogatory exonyms as such! This makes me wonder whether the Inuit really do. garik 11:34, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I see your point. I think one of the problems here is that, in Canada at least, it's one of those obvious things that no longer needs defining, like "fire is hot and water is wet". A few other links, Random House, the dictionary maker, says to avoid the term but not really why. Native Languages mentions that it is "...is considered rude by many Inuit." MSN Encarta says some find it offensive as does the Information Centre on Aboriginal Health.

Most of the rest of this is original research. Basically everybody east of here will find the word Eskimo offensive to varing degrees. From here west the word can sometimes be used but genereally it's safer to use Inuit. Part of this has to do with a disagreement over the meaning of "Inuit" and "Inuk". They are used mostly to mean "The People" or "The Real People" and "Person" and this can only be used to refer to people that used to be called Eskimo. However, the people of the area where I live (Copper Eskimo/Inuit) call themselves "Inuinnait" (plural) or "Inuinnaq" (singular). This is defined by my dictionary as "a real Inuk; an Eskimo person". The dictionary further defines "inuit" and "inuk" (note they are not capitalised) as "person; human being", in other words everybody in the world qualifies. So in Iqaluit I would never be an Inuit but in Cambridge Bay I am an inuit.

By the way do you think there might be an article in the Kitikmeot Heritage Society? They have a museum and do some interesting work. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 21:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

We've got to be very careful of the "everyone knows" argument for inclusion. When I was growing up, I thought everyone knew that native Americans hated being called Indians and preferred Native Americans. I then learnt that some dislike Native American because they find it patronising (or that it imposes the name American on a culture that is older than the name) and that quite a lot prefer Indian. In any case, Wikipedia is strict about original research. I don't think we can keep the claim that most Inuit find the term Eskimo highly offensive until we get a source that says just that.

The Kitikmeot Heritage Society may be some help, though I can't see anything on their website. garik 22:36, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the "everybody knows" and have rewritten the section based on what is available. It's odd but even the local library has nothing on it. As to the KHS I was wondering if you thought that it would make a good WIkipedia article or it was too non-notable. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 23:34, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 00:25, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Invitation, arrr.

Garik, you're turning up on tons of LGBT articles, so I'd like to invite you to join WikiProject LGBT studies. Will ye serve? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 21:31, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Garik, welcome to WikiProject LGBT Studies! We are a growing community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to identifying, categorizing, and improving articles of interest to the LGBT community. Some points that may be helpful: Our main aim is to help improve LGBT-related articles, so if someone asks for help with an article, please try your hardest to help them if you are able. Most important discussions take place on the project's main discussion page; it is highly recommended that you watchlist it. The project has several ongoing and developing activities, such as article quality assessment, peer review and a project-wide article collaboration, all of which you are welcome to take part in. We also have a unique program to improve our lower quality articles, Jumpaclass, so please consider signing up there. If you have another language besides English, please consider adding yourself to our translation section, to help us improve our foreign LGBT topics. If you're planning to stay, have a square in our quilt! You can put anything you want in it. If you have any questions, feel free to ask on the talk page, and we will be happy to help you. And once again - Welcome!

And you're still in time to get today's newsletter...

Drop by the WT:LGBT talk page if you've got any questions, or pick out one of the more active editors there and bug them on their user talk page; most don't bite. =) — coelacan talk — 03:56, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

LGBT WikiProject Newsletter

SatyrBot 05:07, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

"Why remove my response?"

There's a bug in the Wikimedia software where, on talk pages, it occasionally fails to catch "edit conflicts" and instead, just silently wipes out the earlier edits. That's apparently what happened on Talk:Wales; I certainly had no intention of removing your response -- please accept my apology.

Atlant 12:39, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

No problem. I guessed it was probably something like that. garik 12:41, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

my sister

Hey, i am sorry. My sister found my password on a iece of paper and thus thought it would be 'funny' to vandleise wiipedia. Sorry, i have changed it. Thankyou for enlighteneing me. Kind regards, Zesty Prospect 15:09, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

trlkly: RE hate autosigner

My bad, I should have been more specific with my terminology. What I hate is the bot that goes around signing previously unsigned posts. "The previously unsigned comment was written by <X>" just sounds elitist to me. And useless. Why can't it just sign it normally so that nobody has to use the tildes? Is it really necessary to point out who is a newb or just plain forgetful?

Oh, and I intentionally didn't sign this comment, hoping it would give you an example.

St.York

Sorry, I hadn't thought off that. The last time I was active the page was a flurry of constant vandalism, bickering, and protection requests. Also, I hope this is the proper way to send a message?

Anyways thanks for clearing that all up. St.York 03:46, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

LGBT WikiProject Newsletter

Delivered on 16:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC). SatyrBot 16:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

LGBT WikiProject Newsletter

Delivered on 16:00, 6 July 2007 (UTC).

Re. Question regarding the acquisition of animal "language"

The two components would be cognitive/non-cognitive or mental/sensory if defined in that way. Your earlier reply suggests that the cognitive aspect of acquiring a language poses as much a barrier to learning animal communication as would the physical part. Since the two cannot be separated (ie. L1 acquisition is not a 100% mental task), analyzing the cognitive barrier on its own would not be useful.

Are you saying that because something is innate, it cannot function as a spandrel? Pendragon39 13:21, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. It's been a remarkably busy couple of weeks, and I completely forgot about your message. Now things are quieter and I can reply.

It's not clear to me that something can "function" as a spandrel. The term refers to the origins of something, not its function. Language – or, more likely, certain components of human language – may well be spandrelic (probably not a real word, but should be) in origin. But of course such components would also be innate. My distinction is between innate and cultural. On one extreme, the shape of the vocal tract is very clearly innate; on the other, the fact that the Welsh word for dog is ci is clearly cultural. It is rather less certain to what extent a good deal of the components of human language are cultural or innate(Principles and Parameters theory really muddies the water here). I agree that analysing the cognitive barrier to the acquisition of non-human communication systems alone would be to exclude something important. But I suppose I do believe that the cognitive barrier is more important. Imagine if you had a computer like Stephen Hawking's that could produce all the sounds a dolphin can just by pressing the right button. You would still be an enormous distance away from acquiring dolphin "language". garik 16:26, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello :) Yes, I forgot about it too and assumed it was too far-fetched to be worth replying to *blush*

I should have wrote "function as if it were a spandrel". For example, can feral children learn animal communication? Or can hunter-gatherer groups learn it by virtue of necessity? Unfortunately these situations are rare in the modern world.

If a function is a by-product it is called a spandrel. Only solutions to specific problems (affecting the fitness of the individual) are considered adaptations. Is written language an invention or a spandrel? It does appear to be a by-product of spoken language despite illiteracy.

I think my problem with the word 'innate' is that I keep thinking it implies exclusivity. Obviously language is innate to many species. Dolphins can learn dolphin communication, and (we assume) that non-dolphins cannot.

Thank-you for taking the time to consider my random ramblings. I just wonder about things sometimes... Pendragon39 20:06, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

LGBT WikiProject Newsletter

Delivered on 16:00, 6 July 2007 (UTC).

Invitation to vote

You as someone who participated in the editing of English people article might be interested in taking part in this discussion. Feel free to state your opinion. M.V.E.i. 16:40, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

LGBT WikiProject Newsletter

Delivered on 17:31, 11 October 2007 (UTC).

LGBT WikiProject Newsletter

Delivered on 12:00, 1 November 2007 (UTC).

LGBT WikiProject Newsletter

Delivered on 20:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC). SatyrBot 21:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)