Tamfang
- User talk:Tamfang/Archive 2005
- User talk:Tamfang/Archive 2006
- User talk:Tamfang/Archive 2007
- User talk:Tamfang/Archive 2008
- User talk:Tamfang/Archive 2009
- User talk:Tamfang/Archive 2010
- User talk:Tamfang/Archive 2011
- User talk:Tamfang/Archive 2012
- User talk:Tamfang/Archive 2013
- User talk:Tamfang/Archive 2014
- User talk:Tamfang/Archive 2015
- User talk:Tamfang/Archive 2016
- User talk:Tamfang/Archive 2017
- User talk:Tamfang/Archive 2018
- User talk:Tamfang/Archive 2019
- User talk:Tamfang/Archive 2020
- User talk:Tamfang/Archive 2021
- User talk:Tamfang/Archive 2022
- User talk:Tamfang/Archive 2023
- User talk:Tamfang/Archive 2024
- User talk:Tamfang/Archive 2025
Regarding...
edit...this,[1] you might have figured it out anyway, but he's not asking for medical advice. He's the India-based troll who's always griping about plot lines in TV shows. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:55, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- I know; it was a new way to yank the chain. —Tamfang (talk) 21:32, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Clever! :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:38, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
Eldho@1234
editEldho@1234 42.105.158.23 (talk) 05:28, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
- You don't say. —Tamfang (talk) 05:35, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
Removed edit
editHey why did you remove my edit of the 51st state page? I had a valid source, and it was accurate so it should have been fine. GibleGamingYT (talk) 23:53, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
- Your source does not support its relevance to that article. —Tamfang (talk) 05:20, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
Hello! Thank you for your contributions.
I noticed that you've removed a paragraph (diff) and said "none of these are cognates". That is true, but per the first line of the article, "a false friend is a word in a different language that looks or sounds similar to a word in a given language, but differs significantly in meaning"; I don't see how that paragraph is irrelevant.
I have not reverted your edit, but I'd like to know your rationale. Thank you in advance :) x RozuRozu • teacups 23:10, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
- My main reason for removal is that a list of chance resemblances could go on forever. One has no right to expect English foot and French foutre, say, to have similar meanings. Cognates are more dangerous: English actual and French actuel have the same origin, so it is reasonable to expect them to have the same meaning.
- (I am curious about Catalan gos and French gosse !)
- Perhaps the article ought to mention, if it does not already, that chance resemblances exist for any pair of languages, particularly if their phonotactics are as similar as those of Catalan and English. —Tamfang (talk) 23:17, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
Spherical cube
edit@Tamfang Just found a source about the spherical cube, but is the modelling explanation way too short? I might need a hand as long as it sticks to the source. Feel free to ask if you have some questions regarding the content. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 07:05, 10 March 2025 (UTC)
an editor since 2005 surely must understand the difference between wikilinks to section and wikilinks to a separate article: Topographic surname. --Altenmann >talk 04:16, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
- didn't see a # anywhere —Tamfang (talk) 04:29, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
Dutch Caribbean AfD
editHi Tamfang,
Just wanted to notify you that I’ve nominated the “Dutch Caribbean” article for deletion. The rationale is based on issues of legal nonexistence, neutrality, and verifiability. You can review or join the discussion here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dutch Caribbean.
Best regards, Neutralwikifixer (talk) 11:26, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
- Closed procedurally because the above nominator seems to only be able to speak through chatbots (and this was their first edit so that played a part too). Nathannah • 📮 17:16, 15 April 2025 (UTC)'
- Reply to Nathannah: The assumption about chatbot use avoids engaging with the content presented. Whether someone used a tool like a spellchecker or translator is irrelevant — what matters is the substance of the argument. You leave the substance of the nomination unaddressed. The nomination raised critical concerns grounded in neutrality, verifiability, and policy, as well as valid points about the legal nonexistence of “Dutch Caribbean. None of those have been refuted. It deserves to be discussed on those merits. — Neutralwikifixer (talk) 16:32, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
- South America and Latin America are not legal units either; would you delete them for that? —Tamfang (talk) 16:36, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
- You don’t see:
- Venezuela, South America
- Colombia, Latin America
- used as part of identity or official addresses — and rightfully so. These are countries, not sub-labels of a region. So why should we accept:
- Curaçao, Dutch Caribbean
- Aruba, Dutch Caribbean
- Saint Martin, Dutch Caribbean
- Not even "Caribbean" is appropriate in this context — let alone "Dutch Caribbean" — because the Dutch don’t own those countries in the Caribbean. These are autonomous countries with their own identities, not Dutch territory.
- By this logic, should we say:
- Netherlands, Dutch Europe?
- That would sound just as absurd.
- Countries deserve to be recognized by their name — nothing more, nothing less. Neutralwikifixer (talk) 17:01, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
- Straw man —Tamfang (talk) 17:14, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
- Calling it a “straw man” actually diverts attention from the core issue — which is that the term “Dutch Caribbean” groups autonomous countries under a Dutch-branded label. That’s the concern.
- This isn’t about whether geographic labels exist. It’s about how those labels are applied and how they affect recognition, accuracy, and identity.
- “Dutch Caribbean” is not a neutral descriptor — it’s misleading and dismissive of these countries' sovereignty. That’s not a side issue. That’s the heart of the matter. Neutralwikifixer (talk) 17:33, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
- It pleases me that you recognize that your straw man about formal addresses is a distraction.
- Repeating your weak argument here will not persuade me. I see that you have been offered good advice on Talk:Dutch Caribbean.
- I respectfully suggest and request that you leave me alone. I have no power to remove the article, anyway. —Tamfang (talk) 18:02, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
- I was decent enough to inform you directly. You’ve provided no argument in response to the core issue I raised. If you don’t want to be involved, that’s your choice — but I’ll continue with the process of requesting the article’s removal.
- Good luck with your typical Dutch arrogance. It’s noted. Neutralwikifixer (talk) 18:47, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
- Have you an ethnic grievance? I am American of British and Scandinavian descent, no Dutch as far as I know. —Tamfang (talk) 19:03, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
- Is anyone urging “Curaçao, Dutch Caribbean”? —Tamfang (talk) 06:12, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
- Straw man —Tamfang (talk) 17:14, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
- South America and Latin America are not legal units either; would you delete them for that? —Tamfang (talk) 16:36, 17 April 2025 (UTC)
- All while I slept. Wow. —Tamfang (talk) 19:12, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
- Reply to Nathannah: The assumption about chatbot use avoids engaging with the content presented. Whether someone used a tool like a spellchecker or translator is irrelevant — what matters is the substance of the argument. You leave the substance of the nomination unaddressed. The nomination raised critical concerns grounded in neutrality, verifiability, and policy, as well as valid points about the legal nonexistence of “Dutch Caribbean. None of those have been refuted. It deserves to be discussed on those merits. — Neutralwikifixer (talk) 16:32, 17 April 2025 (UTC)