User talk:Judeobasquelanguage

Your draft article, Draft:Judeo-Basque language

Hello, Judeobasquelanguage. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Judeo-Basque language".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 08:47, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

April 2020

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Ayn Rand. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. – Aranya (talk) 21:21, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Pan-Goidelicism

The article Pan-Goidelicism has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

May be WP:MADEUP but, at any rate, Google turns up absolutely nothing for this term.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Largoplazo (talk) 22:01, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your editing history

Although you have made one or two small good edits such as this one today, the majority of your contributions have had to be reverted as they are either out-and-out vandalism, or seem to be slightly more subtle attempts to disrupt, with obvious mis-readings of the text and addition of non-existent concepts. If you are truly here to help, please restrict yourself to uncontentious issues until you have read up on the basics. Please also don't add citations to templates. MichaelMaggs (talk) 12:58, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of A-Chik Tok'birim

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on A-Chik Tok'birim requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from https://omniglot.com/writing/achiktokbirim.htm. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:44, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Taking The Initiative Party moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Taking The Initiative Party, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. — Bilorv (talk) 22:19, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There seem to be enough independent citations for TTIP's significance to warrant an article now. I have moved the article back into the mainspace. --Bangalamania (talk) 18:55, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Breakthrough Party moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Breakthrough Party, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:43, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just to explain, this party is not inherently notable, as it has not won any significant elections and has no MPs etc. Its only chance of notability, therefore, is on the basis of having been covered in independent, reliable, secondary sources to sufficient extent to pass the WP:GNG requirements. The current referencing is inadequate, consisting of citations of the organisation's own website, and a single mention in a minor local paper which is more about the candidate in a by-election than coverage of the party itself. For these reasons I was first tempted to request that this be speedily deleted, but in the end decided to move it to drafts instead, so that you can continue working on it. Hope this helps. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 05:47, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 29

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of political parties in the United Kingdom, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Charles Gordon. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of English-Scots

A tag has been placed on English-Scots requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

Appears to be a Neologism made up by editor

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, pages that meet certain criteria may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Shirt58 (talk) 11:04, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Breakthrough Party2 (August 15)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Rich Smith were:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of organizations and companies). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

This appears to be a duplicate of another submission, Breakthrough Party, which is also waiting to be reviewed. To save time we will consider the other submission and not this one.

The comment the reviewer left was:

All but 1 source is primary. Another, arguably better, draft already exists at Draft:Breakthrough Party, please improve that one

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Breakthrough Party2 and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Breakthrough Party2, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

- Rich^T|C|E-Mail 21:26, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Judeobasquelanguage! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! - Rich^T|C|E-Mail 21:26, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Taking the Initiative Party for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Taking the Initiative Party is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Taking the Initiative Party until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

doktorb _words^deeds 06:05, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nationalism and Devolution

At the bottom of the Forward Wales page there are Category:Left-wing nationalist parties and Category:Welsh nationalist parties. So for that reason, and the Welsh Devolution page hadn't been created, I undid your edit, see here. Had your edit was piped as Welsh Devolution (i.e. Devolution in the United Kingdom#Wales) in the first place, as you've now done, then there'd be no reason for me to revert your original edit. HLE (talk) 19:19, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

October 2021

Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to Norn language, it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. Thank you. Mutt Lunker (talk) 11:23, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Norn language, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Mutt Lunker (talk) 11:58, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at Norn language, you may be blocked from editing. Mutt Lunker (talk) 09:12, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing from certain pages (Norn language) for a period of 72 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:00, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, Judeobasquelanguage. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on the page Breakthrough Party, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{request edit}} template);
disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to disclose a COI);
avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam#External link spamming);
do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 07:52, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:56, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Rejoin EU (Political Party)

The article Rejoin EU (Political Party) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

WP:PROMO, no credible assertion of notability on the page, my WP:BEFORE turns up only an interview in The London Economic and a similar interview in the Shropshire Star. Interviews are not significant coverage in reliable, independent sources.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

Blocked

You have been blocked for violating our no personal attacks policy in addition to disruptive editing and edit warring. And performing person attacks while logged out in order to avoid scrutiny as User:92.40.179.17 is not acceptable. Canterbury Tail talk 19:45, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for making personal attacks towards other editors. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

they are racist though

Increasing your block for doubling down and calling other editors racist. Canterbury Tail talk 20:09, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Harmony Party UK for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Harmony Party UK is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harmony Party UK until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Curbon7 (talk) 05:22, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

May 2022

Hi Judeobasquelanguage! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor at North Germanic languages that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia – it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. In addition, why do you seem to be editing logged out on IP ‎86.30.52.72? TylerBurden (talk) 05:56, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

thats just because wikipedia is weird and keeps logging me out for no reason, It wasn't intentional vandalism I just felt the map made out that Dalecarlian and Gutnish Weren't languages, and felt it weird that Dalecarlian and Gutnish weren't on the map but Extinct north Germanic Languages were., like I don't want it to come across any of my edits are in bad faith Judeobasquelanguage (talk) 08:32, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No don't worry, I don't think your edits were in bad faith. Like the notice said it's just that you marked your edit as minor when it was not a minor edit. I see, try to make sure you're logged in when editing as otherwise it can seem like WP:SOCK which could get your account blocked if you're not careful. I see you've done much work with Gotland and Gutnish and I appreciate your efforts, which is why it would be an extra shame to see you get in trouble. Have a look at the settings and see if there's anything there that's logging you out of your account. TylerBurden (talk) 12:26, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I understand Judeobasquelanguage (talk) 15:37, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hold on, when asked about this the last time it was insistent that the IP address was a sibling living at the same house and not yourself editing logged out. So there's a disparity here. Canterbury Tail talk 16:01, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That is true, there is aswell, I don't see how that contradicts anything? Judeobasquelanguage (talk) 21:00, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to Slavic languages, it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. Thank you. Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:44, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm SamWilson989. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, List of cities in the United Kingdom, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. SamWilson989 (talk) 22:23, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Manx language into Southern Manx Dialect. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 00:05, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agnean language moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Agnean language, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. scope_creep^Talk 11:31, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Essex dialect

Hi @Judeobasquelanguage: How goes it. I came across your Essex dialect and even though it was created about 4 minutes ago, I reverted it as I reviewing it as part of the WP:NPP review process. The thing didn't have a lede and looked half finished. I think it is probably. Would it perhaps be better creating the article in sandbox first, on your user page. I see I draftified your Draft:Agnean language article. The only think was that was wrong with it, is it had no proper references, the 2nd ref a couple of word with no context attached to then. It might be taking a look at WP:REFB, which explains how to create full size references. The bare urls references are not acceptable in 2022. Everybody expects to see full size references. I hope that help. If you can fix your Draft:Agnean language article, give me a shout and I will promote it back into mainspace for you. Hope that helps. scope_creep^Talk 16:45, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at WP:MOS. Your lede must open with Essex Dialect is a .... scope_creep^Talk 16:47, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It may be unfinished but I believe it shouldn't redirect to that page if any page, it should redirect to east anglian as the page it directs too, as the page it currently directs too doesn't talk much abut it and sort of implies its extinct when its not, I'm only trying to make my dialect more visible, its like one of the only english dialects not to have a page, I hope you can understand why I am so insistant and desperate to have my dialect put up on wikipedia, and I wouldn't mind some help with it, as someone with ADHD. cheers, Judeobasquelanguage (talk) 16:50, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What is the Trudgill (2001) reference, it needs expanded. There is no info on it. It also need a reference for the lede. Trying to get your stuff onto Wikipedia while ignoring policies is not the way to go. Wikipedia isn't a social media destination, forum or some other kind of hosting site. It is an encyclopedia for readers. scope_creep^Talk 17:05, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I couldnt find a proper link so i didnt know hoe to go about it, the only links i could get were straight to pdf downloads of it Judeobasquelanguage (talk) 17:52, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What is the link you found, or the page on which you found the pdf? MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:39, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced and comment on content

You've been asked before, but please stop adding unsourced material to Wikipedia. It seems you're adding a lot of information lately where you are the source, which doesn't meet WP:RS. If you're adding alternative names, dialects, other languages etc. they need to be sourced. You are persistently adding unsourced material despite being asked to do so on many occasions. Additionally this edit and the comment around it are not suitable for Wikipedia, comment on the edit not the person. It could constitute a personal attack and I know you've read the policies around this as you've been informed of them before. Canterbury Tail talk 15:28, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Because they are claiming to know more about the town i grew up in its history and all that than me, thats an attack to me, i will take that personally Judeobasquelanguage (talk) 22:49, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Judeobasquelanguage, on Wikipedia we always try to assume good faith when we're reviewing other editors' work and their comments on talk pages. I understand how frustrating it can be when you know someone else is wrong but they can only go on the independent, verifiable sources you provide. You'll very quickly get yourself into edit wars and be blocked (as you have been before) if you continue to add unsourced material and attack other editors. Please listen to @Canterbury Tail. Best of luck with your future edits, it'll be great to see more Essex history on Wikipedia. SamWilson989 (talk) 23:04, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I do try to but in this instance it was impossible to see any good faith behind it.

I got alot of books around essex history and the dialects around east anglia aswell, some stuff here is just common knowledge aswell so stuff that is common knowledge here, is always a bit harder to source because well its not gonna be on any news story or written down much aha! Judeobasquelanguage (talk) 23:09, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Totally know what that feels like! It's hard but necessary with a site like this with so many users from such different backgrounds and countries. That's great that you've got lots of books - makes life so much easier when discussing a claim with someone when you have a book that backs you up. SamWilson989 (talk) 23:11, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed Judeobasquelanguage (talk) 23:13, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Copying Text from One Article to Another

This has been mentioned earlier on your page, while it is acceptable to reuse text from one article when creating or improving an article, it must be attributed. Using the {{Copied}} template on the target article's talk page is a simple way to handle this. I have added that notice to Lycaonian language, but please be sure to include such notices on other articles where you have copied from one page to another. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 15:03, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Attacks again

Really? You have already been blocked once for calling other editors racist and making accusatory comments, and you make this edit summary? Coupled with other comments like this one it's starting to seem like you're unable to contribute in a collaborative environment such as Wikipedia. Add in edits such as this and this and it's clear you don't have the temperament for this. Then take into account your continued warnings for adding unsourced content and how many of your edits have been reverted by many many users I'm wondering if this is just a competence failure. So I'm giving you a final warning now as clear as I can

if you continue to edit war over articles
if you ever label an edit as xenophobic, racist, politically motivated or any variant of this or
if you continue to add unsourced edits

You will be blocked. Canterbury Tail talk 13:57, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If someone makes out any dialect is illegitimate or not worthy of documentation, if i said that the Ter Sami language wasn't worthy of documenation, that would be offensive to the sami community, why cant you see that edit wasn't in good faith! Judeobasquelanguage (talk) 14:06, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but this was blatant, I jump the gun sometimes but that guy literally said my dialect wasn't worthy of a wikipedia page on its own when literally every other dialect of english seems to have one. Judeobasquelanguage (talk) 14:08, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Its hard to assume good faith when so many edits are done in bad faith. Judeobasquelanguage (talk) 14:11, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How do you know the edit was done in bad faith? "Restoring old revision; this stub barely constitutes anything substantial" is a far way from saying a dialect isn't worthy of being on Wikipedia. Additionally I don't see where you discussed this with the editor in question as you're supposed to when your edit is reverted, rather than just responding with claims of xenophobia and getting involved in edit warring. Canterbury Tail talk 19:11, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

it was the guy who removed everything i had written saying it wasn't substantial, it had more than alot of pages that are still up so i feel it was my dialect a target by him Judeobasquelanguage (talk) 23:08, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

June 2022

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Doric Greek. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Demetrios1993 (talk) 06:49, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

you should of done the research its everywhere its not my own research https://www.academia.edu/5297260/Greek_and_Griko_in_Salento https://www.greeknewsonline.com/who-are-the-griki-and-what-is-their-language/ https://en-academic.com/dic.nsf/enwiki/488547 https://byzantinemporia.com/griko/https://www.bookworld.gr/gr/book/bkid/66899/meletes-neoellinikis-dialektologias read meletes neoellinikis dialektologias Judeobasquelanguage (talk) 11:44, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You need to treat very seriously Canterbury Tail's warning that you will be blocked if you continue to add unsourced edits. "Unsourced" doesn't mean that no sources can be found. It means that – whether your information came from a reliable source or not – you failed to include a proper in-line citation. You know perfectly well how to do that, and you've been told multiple times that adding information without citing your source is simply not acceptable. You made the Doric Greek edit before the warning above, so this isn't a new issue, but you will be extremely careful from now on I hope. MichaelMaggs (talk) 13:24, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I posted my sources.... Judeobasquelanguage (talk) 13:31, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I can't speak for the others, but I know I personally would find it much more helpful if you included them in-line with the text when you add something to an article as it allows other editors to immediately check whether something is reliably sourced or if it is indeed original research. This is something we all try to do here on Wikipedia and it makes life so much easier rather than getting into scraps with other editors. Best, SamWilson989 (talk) 16:54, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I mean i do put my sources up, meletes neoellinikis dialektologias is a linguistics study that lumps italiot greek as a doric descendant and i put a question mark because its debated still. Judeobasquelanguage (talk) 21:41, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I should have done my own research for a claim you tried to add in an article? No buddy, you ought to provide a reliable source for every claim you add, otherwise you violate the policy of WP:Verifiability. Having read some of the previous discussions, i see that you have been warned again. Therefore, please share with me the exact quotes that supposedly support the claim you tried to include in the article Doric Greek; that is, Italiot Greek (currently a stub without a single reference) being classified as a Doric Greek subgroup. You used the following two references:

Douri, Angeliki; De Santis, Dario (2015). "Griko and Modern Greek in Grecìa Salentina: an overview". L'Idomeneo (19): 187–198. ISSN 2038-0313.
Istituto della Enciclopedia italiana, Commission of the European Communities, eds. (1986). Linguistic minorities in countries belonging to the European Community: Summary Report. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities. p. 87. ISBN 9789282558508.

On page 187 by Douri & De Santis (2015) we read the following about Griko, which doesn't say anything about a Doric classification:

2. Origins and history of Griko: A long-standing debate over the origins of Griko has produced two main theories for the origins of Griko. According to the first theory, developed by Giuseppe Morosi in 1870, Griko originated from the Hellenistic koine when, in the Byzantine era (around 1000 AD), waves of immigrants arrived from Greece in Salento. Some decades after Morosi, G. Rohlfs, in the wake of Hatzidakis (1892), claimed instead that Griko was a local variety of Greek evolved directly from the Ancient Greek spoken in the colonies of Magna Graecia.

You did share a quote from the 1986 "Summary Report", but it doesn't claim any Doric classification either:

In Italy, Greek (known locally as Griko) is spoken today in two small linguistic islands of southern Italy…The dialects of these two linguistic islands correspond for the most part, as regards morphology, phonetics, syntax and lexis to the neoclassical dialects of Greece, but they also present some interesting archaic characteristics. This has led to much discussion on the origins of the Greek-speaking community in southern Italy: according to some scholars (G. Morosi and C. Battisti), Greek in this area is not a direct continuation of the ancient Greek community but is due to Byzantine domination (535-1071); whereas for other scholars (Rohlfs, etc.), the Greek community of southern Italy is directly linked to the community of Magna Grecia.

As for the five additional sources that you shared above, let's review them quickly:

The essay by Vladimir Panov and Ekaterina Golovko (link), doesn't say anything about Griko being classified as a Doric Greek dialect. It's also not a reliable source, as it is a self-published essay; and even if you were to use the justification of "established subject-matter expert[s]" that the policy mentions, the aforementioned authors don't seem to have been established experts when they published this.
The interview of Angelyn Balodimas-Bartolomei (link) also doesn't say anything about Italiot Greek being classified as a Doric Greek dialect; just that Griko is composed of ancient Greek, Byzantine Greek, Italian, and Mediterranean loan words, with many archaic Doric features, and bearing a strong affinity to Modern Greek.
The "en-academic.com" article (link) reproduces a 2010 version of the Griko language Wikipedia article. Such sources are unacceptable per WP:CIRCULAR.
The website "byzantinemporia.com" is a blog, and thus the article (link) is unreliable, as it comes from a self-published source. By the way, the only relevant information it shares is that Griko has characteristics from both Medieval Greek and Doric Greek.
The book Μελέτες Νεοελληνικής Διαλεκτολογίας (2004) by Konstantinos M. Minas is a reliable source. However, which page mentions what you claim? Actually, provide the exact quote.

In summary, everything you add in Wikipedia has to be based on reliable sources, not on your own personal analysis or synthesis of published material in order to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources. Also, even if a linguistic variety might have been influenced by, let's say Doric Greek, it doesn't mean that it is classified as Doric Greek. Last, just because the current versions of Italiot Greek (again, without any reference) and Griko language mention a possible Doric classification, it doesn't mean that you can go to other articles and include similar information by making the assumption that these claims are factual. Both of these articles need some cleanup, and the latter needs factual verification, despite the fact that even its relevant section doesn't really mention anything about a Doric Greek classification; just some influence. Personally, i couldn't care less if the claim you make is correct after all. The main reason i am writing you all these is to help you understand the policies and guidelines you ought to be following. Demetrios1993 (talk) 12:09, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

why are other questionable things allowed with a question mark, also for read page 323 onwards on that book, https://imgur.com/a/eM3Oe30 heres some quotes Judeobasquelanguage (talk) 19:04, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No reliable source has been provided that explicitly classifies Griko or Italiot Greek as a Doric dialect or dialects. Page 323 of which book? If you are referring to the excerpts you shared above, no page is visible and i don't even know the title of the book. Furthermore, neither of those two isolated excerpts verify what you claimed; only some Doric phonetic elements are mentioned in the second excerpt. I am still waiting for an actual quote from Μελέτες Νεοελληνικής Διαλεκτολογίας (2004) by Konstantinos M. Minas, that supports your claim; the chapter about southern Italy is covered on pages 552-599. Demetrios1993 (talk) 17:57, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I literally posted them in a book! https://imgur.com/a/eM3Oe30 ITS ON THIS LINK Judeobasquelanguage (talk) 14:23, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

what you are saying is you won't believe an image of the book unless i write it out word for word? Judeobasquelanguage (talk) 14:25, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

those books are the very same book! Judeobasquelanguage (talk) 14:27, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

https://wiki.mercator-research.eu/languages:griko_in_italy

There are two theories as what the origins of Griko are. The Magna Grecia theory is supported by Greek linguists stating that Griko is derived from Doric Greek while the Byzantine Theory is supported by Italian linguists stating that Griko is derived from the Ionic-Attic variety of Greek.

https://eprints.soas.ac.uk/35590/1/Zeikos%20SOAS%20WPL%202021-09-21.pdf

there are not many historical records or artefacts that can help linguists identify its ancestry. However, there are two theories, one supported by Greek linguists, the Magna Grecia theory which states that Griko is derived from the Doric dialect of Ancient Greek as spoken in the colonies of Magna Grecia, and a second one supported by Italian linguists, the Byzantine’ theory which states that Griko is derived from the Hellenistic Koine spoken in the Byzantine era, which was based on the Athenian dialect Judeobasquelanguage (talk) 14:36, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the "imgur.com" link you shared shows two excerpts that don't support what you claimed. Did i say anything about not believing what the two photographs show? The answer is no. Furthermore, you didn't even provide the title and page/pages of the book, that includes these excerpts. Are these from Μελέτες Νεοελληνικής Διαλεκτολογίας (2004) by Konstantinos M. Minas?

Now, let's quickly review the two new sources you shared.

The website "wiki.mercator-research.eu" is a tertiary source; per WP:PSTS, "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources." But that is not the main issue here. The quote you shared above gives as reference the article "Greek in contact with Romance" (2019) by Angela Ralli; it will appear in "The Oxford Encyclopedia of Romance Linguistics". It turns out that this quote fails verification. In fact, Ralli (2019) writes the following:

Alternative hypotheses on the origin of the Greek language in South Italy have been formulated: a) The continuity hypothesis, according to which Greek never stopped being spoken in South Italy (Rohlfs, 1974, 1977; Caratzas, 1958); b) the Byzantine hypothesis, which proposes that the origins of the language are to be found in Byzantine Greek (Battisti, 1927;Parlangeli, 1953); c) the revised continuity hypothesis, following which the archaic features of the language support the continuity hypothesis, but Greek and Romance in this area were in a situation of bilingualism resulting to an osmosis of the two languages (Fanciullo 1996, 2008). Today, the position accepted by most scholars is that Griko and Greko are essentially dialects of Modern Greek which emerged from the Hellenistic Koine, participated in the evolution of the language till the late medieval period, but the number of archaic features in their vocabulary and structure attest the uninterrupted presence of Greek since ancient times (Ledgeway, 1998; Manolessou, 2005; Horrocks, 2010).

There is no mention of any Doric classificaiton. Just so you know, the Ancient Greek of southern Italy or Magna Graecia wasn't just Doric, but Ionic as well. And besides that, the author clearly states that there is consensus among most modern scholars, that the dialects of Italiot Greek are Modern Greek, which emerged from Hellenistic Koine. This means that per WP:OLDSOURCES and WP:UNDUE, the classification that should be used is Modern Greek.

As for the second source, this is an article by Paris Zeikos, who is the same author that misinterpreted Ralli (2019); mentioned above. You can see his name listed here, as the contributor of that article. Furthermore, he doesn't give any reference to support the claim that Greek linguists support the theory of Italiot Greek being derived from the Doric of Magna Graecia. Douri & De Santis (2015), cited at the end of the paragraph, after the "Hellenistic Koine theory", make no mention of Doric. And even if that claim is correct, who are these Greek linguists, and are they modern? If they aren't, WP:OLDSOURCES applies. However, that is not main observation here. Zeikos himself doesn't support the Doric classification. In that very same essay you shared he concludes with the following:

In conclusion Griko seems to have retained a vast majority of the Modern Greek verbal morphology as verbs appear to work in the same way as Modern Greek, despite the long contact with Italian. This is based on Griko being obviously typologically closer to Modern Greek, which is due to both languages being derived from a common ancestor. The findings in this paper suggest that the only influence of Italian regarding verbal morphology on Griko is on the present perfect, where Griko either selects auxiliary verb éxo 'to have' or ime 'to be' following the Romance model of auxiliary verb selection and on the progressive aspect, where Griko uses the grammaticalized particle ste 'stand', which is borrowed from Italian from the verb stare 'to stay'. This suggest that language contact and language change can take place, but with different degrees of intensity as in Griko, which has maintained a lot of Modern Greek elements in the language, as it is seen in the verbal morphology.

So, his findings complement the aforementioned Modern Greek classification. Demetrios1993 (talk) 12:09, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

you misunderstand what im adding it for, that people have disputed that classification in the past, otherwise you should personally delete the gallo-brittonic languages page, the greco-phrygian page, the ancient macedonian page anything that was ever hypothetical should be removed from wikipedia Judeobasquelanguage (talk) 00:13, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gerhard Rohlfs wikipedia page even states "Italiot-Greek is a direct descendant of the language originally spoken by the Greek colonists of Magna Grecia. He first advanced this theory in his book Griechen und Romanen in Unteritalien (1924)" Judeobasquelanguage (talk) 00:16, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your rationale, but it is wrong. Once again, please familiarize yourself with WP:OLDSOURCES and WP:UNDUE. Furthermore, i wrote to you that the Ancient Greek of southern Italy or Magna Graecia wasn't just Doric, but Ionic as well. Claiming that this suggestion pertains to Doric is a violation of WP:SYNTHESIS. Besides that, the section this Wikipedia quote is taken from doesn't include any inline citations, and even if valid, Rohlfs (1924) falls under WP:OLDSOURCES. These policies and guidelines have already been mentioned above, but you don't seem to have read or understood them yet. Demetrios1993 (talk) 11:19, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

So you continue to play the people are anti-language (anti-dialect now) and are calling things and side calling people racist again while logged out (and don't try the "it's my brother" card, it's quite clear it's you.) This is a pattern you've been warned about many times but continue with. You are clearly not capable of editing on collaborative project and have been blocked indefinitely. Wikipedia is clearly not a place you're capable of editing in a collaborative or competent way. Canterbury Tail talk 21:06, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I mean I have a brother, we are on the same IP, also you do not understand how disrespectful you have been to essex culture Judeobasquelanguage (talk) 22:51, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't actually call him a racist i said his comment did have racist connotations to this Londonistan Judeobasquelanguage (talk) 22:53, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you are happy to enable racism and oppose those opposing racism thats a you problem, but i will not have my dialect slandered Judeobasquelanguage (talk) 22:53, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

He compared my dialect to a british form of ebonics, why is Suffolk dialect and Norfolk dialect allowed a page but the third major East Anglian Dialect not? Im all for being collaborative but he compared my dialect to it being literally nothing, saying it was like a city accent, If i removed the canada page and redirected it to the state of Washington and said it wasn't worthy of being noted and that the dialect was just a black new york accent you'd take offence, you would see thats a bad faith comparison. Judeobasquelanguage (talk) 23:03, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Even when i put so much fucking effort into the page it got undone, and compared to some city dialect. when its actually very important here, you ever think trying to keep the status quo can be regressive... Judeobasquelanguage (talk) 23:05, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Collaboration is a two way street, but if you are to insult part of my identity in the proccess thats not collaboration. Judeobasquelanguage (talk) 23:06, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Wolfdog you have no shame and you should be ashamed of yourself for cultural vandalism, the one thing wikipedia is best at [1][2][3] Judeobasquelanguage (talk) 23:11, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A) thank you for admitting it was you who made those comments on the IP. B) I’ve never said, mentioned or done anything about Essex culture or language C) an Essex dialect has nothing to do with race and D) you were given very clear warnings above about what would get you blocked if you didn’t smarten up your edits and you ignored them. Canterbury Tail talk 00:40, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

His comment "West Chelmsford English spoken among Black Britons" is a reference to the Londonistan mantra that areas around london and london itself are no-longer white and have been taken over by immigrants and putting down my dialect to be some ethnic slang like ebonics, and even then its still discrimination, like quite literally, I put more work into that page than any other page, and he kept undoing it for a regressive status quo, arguing that out of the 3 Dialects of East anglian Essex should be excluded, it is cultural vandalism to argue another culture isn't worthy of being documented, it is cultural vandalism to exclude a singular dialect when all the other dialects have a page, his edits were targeted at essex specifically, evidenced by his history, it is easy to come to the conclusion he just doesn't like my culture, which is fine but he shouldn't resort to cultural vandalism Judeobasquelanguage (talk) 02:00, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I will not be responding here any further. If you wish to make an unblock request you can do so by following the instructions below. If you do however I suggest focusing on how your edits lead to this, not what other people did. Canterbury Tail talk 11:09, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I mean you can hardly say hes innocent in this, what he did was disrespectful to my culture and my dialect and disrespecting peoples culture isn't for the sake of status quo shouldn't be what wikipedia is about, acsite that schools use, teachers use, shouldn't be turning a blind eye to stuff like this...... what you were asking of me was unfair, You were asking me to accept slander of my dialect and culture for the sake of good faith! if people aren't doing edits in good faith and talk down about my dialect. I bet User:Wolfdog didn't even read the article i wrote... because I worked very hard on that article...

Answer me this question? Why is Norfolk dialect and Suffolk dialect allowed their own page, but Essex Dialect? Relative to a "North New York City Suburbs english dialect"? Judeobasquelanguage (talk) 12:07, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You aren't responding because you know what I'm saying is true. Judeobasquelanguage (talk) 12:16, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

If you continue to use this talkpage as a platform from which to abuse other editors, we will remove your access to it. Edits here should be confined to policy-compliant unblock requests. Acroterion (talk) 12:19, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not abusing atleast not trying to, theres a misunderstanding here. Judeobasquelanguage (talk) 12:25, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

UTRS appeal #59771

is closed. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:26, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't get round to sending another one soz Judeobasquelanguage (talk) 11:52, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Agnean language

Hello, Judeobasquelanguage. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Agnean language, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 09:40, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]