A paper coauthored by Voegelin, titled "Seneca I", is cited on Seneca language. I can't confirm that that paper exists, but it would presumably show that Voegelin did work on at least one Iroquoian language. —swpbT19:21, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
He also has a paper cited on Siouan languages, "Internal Relationships of Siouan Languages". It seems there's ample evidence he did work on both language families. I'm re-adding the categories accordingly. —swpbT19:32, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Re. [1]: While you may be technically correct, I've studied linguistics (primarily in Norwegian though), and I've never really come across "daughter" being used this way. I'm not saying it's not, just that it's kind of rare. In any case, I think using "language" in that sentence makes it clearer, so I don't see the need to insist on using "daughter". Jon Harald Søby (talk) 22:07, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's not rare at all in English historical linguistics. "Daughter language", for example, is an entry in Campbell & Mixco's A Glossary of Historical Linguistics (pg. 39) without any notice that it's an unusual construction at all. Indeed, we speak normally of the "mother tongue" as the original language. "Daughter" is the normal word used in English historical linguistics for the descendants of a common ancestor. Nothing unusual about it whatsoever. --Taivo (talk) 00:09, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, we call a group of related languages a family. The mother/daughter/sister/cousin metaphor is part of the overall metaphor for language relatedness in English. Other references include David Crystal, A Dictionary of linguistics & Phonetics (pg. 176, family): "A 'family' of languages is the set of languages deriving from a common ancestor, or 'parent', e.g. the Indo-European (IE) family consists of the 'daughter' languages Sanskrit, Greek...". P.H. Matthews, Oxford Concise Dictionary of Linguistics (pg. 92, daughter): "1. Any of the later languages that develop separately from a single earlier language. E.g. French and Spanish are 'daughter languages' in relation to Latin." "Daughter" is, quite simply, the most common term used in English to describe the descendant of a parent language. --Taivo (talk) 00:23, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The source is reliable. It seems more that you do not like it, or you not know about this topic at all. The southern theory is well known in Korea. Also all edits from me are sourced. Also the revert of koreanic language was to the version before I made an edit. So it seems that you are reverting all the time sourced content. Explain me why and what is wrong on the source?
Here look:
1.: asiasociety.org/education/korean-language
2.: linguistics.byu.edu/classes/ling450ch/reports/Korean.html
3.: aboutworldlanguages.com/Korean
Also there are much more parts in wikipedia with even no source and no one reverts it. And when someone reverts it it get rereverted...
It is a fact that scientists/linguists be life that Austronesian people arrived on the Korean peninsula.
The word "source" when citing sources on Wikipedia has three related meanings:
The piece of work itself (the article, book)
The creator of the work (the writer, journalist)
The publisher of the work (for example, Random House or Cambridge University Press)
Any of the three can affect reliability. Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both. These qualifications should be demonstrable to other people.
http://linguistics.byu.edu/classes/Ling450ch/reports/korean.html :
References
Chun-u, Kim. (1983). The Making of the Korean Language. In Korean National Commission for UNESCO, The Korean Language (13-42). Korea: The Si-ya-yong-o-sa Publishers, Inc.
Ohno, Susumu. (1970). The Origen of the Japanese Language. Kodusai Bunka Shinkokai, Tokyo.
Sang-ok, Yi. (1983). The Theory of Altaic Languages and Korean. In Korean National Commission for UNESCO, The Korean Language (43-54). Korea: The Si-ya-yong-o-sa Publishers, Inc.
Woong, Huh. (1983). The Development of the Korean Language. In Korean National Commission for UNESCO, The Korean Language (1-12). Korea: The Si-ya-yong-o-sa Publishers, Inc.
Korean Overseas Information Services. (1990). A Handbook of Korea. (p.45-55 ). Seoul, Korea.
Despite your ranting, you failed to comprehend what I said or to understand Wikipedia's guidelines on reliable sources. Reliable sources are not links to class notes that might be based on other sources. Reliable sources are the SOURCES, not the class notes that might use those sources. Use the original sources if you want to pass the reliable source test, not someone's class notes. --Taivo (talk) 21:42, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, Taivo, but I think you are wrong about the last edit on Slavic speakers of Greek Macedonia. The event was part of a systematic inhumane terror against a minority group whose rights were violated on the basis of pseudoscientifc propaganda despite the international conventions of which Greece is a party, it is significant enough and described here
I have one more concern. Recently one user wrote a new fringe lead of the article Ancient Macedonians and claims that his unsuitable edits should stay there only because he nominated it for GA status, reverted arrogantly the unstable version without consensus from other editors and said "enough". He pushed the view that the Macedonian language was a Greek dialect and that the Macedonians were solely a Greek tribe, which I have plenty of sources to disagree with, both primary and secondary.--Judist (talk) 06:25, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have been following your responses in this talkpage, where you have proven to be extremely skilled and eloquent in your arguments. This one was the most striking ever: link, which embodies a classic characteristic which is very commonly seen among non-neutral editors, but is rarely described as eloquently as you did there. Please, you shouldn't be surprised if other editors (such as me) start copying your fine writing skills elsewhere to make up for their lacking skills! " SILENTRESIDENT12:56, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Shoshoni has an underlying diphthong /ai/. It is pronounced both as [ai] and [e]. All surface [e] reflect underlying /ai/. --Taivo (talk) 20:34, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, you need to learn how to post on another editor's talk page. I had to fix your post so that it wasn't just placed randomly on the page where you put it. --Taivo (talk) 20:35, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.Judist (talk) 11:04, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry but Wikipedia has policies and I had to report the violation of the 3RR. I am always reported for that, Regards.Judist (talk) 11:04, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I just have urged the Admins on the Noticeboard to dismiss without any hesitation this retaliatory filling by User:Judist against User:TaivoLinguist. With this AN filling against Taivo and the recent ARBMAC warning against me, Judist is dangerously close to WP:HARASSing those editors who couldn't agree and consent to his POV edits and disruptions. --SILENTRESIDENT11:24, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have found errors in almost all of the phonological inventories provided by FDomanico. Just having a source is not enough - the source has to be reliable AND the text entered has to correspond with the source says. Mackie for example does not posit a kw phoneme for Piscataway, this phoneme seems to have been gratuitously added by Fdomanico. I suggest double checking all information added by this user.·maunus · snunɐɯ·06:33, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Taivo, I don't have access to Ester Martinez dictionary of Ohkay Owingeh Tewa which Fdomanico is using for the phonology at Tewa language. If you have access to the book maybe you could check it.·maunus · snunɐɯ·05:31, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
User:Maunus, this is where I found the link to the book by Esther Martinez, http://www.santafedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Tewa_Language. Recently I've tried to incorporate the phoneme description within the site, according to all of my knowledge if the entire IPA symbol chart. Also for my information regarding the Atakapa language, I am aware the Albert Gatschet's information on the language was quite inaccurate, but there exists a book " A Dictionary of the Atakapa Language", as well as an entry in International Journal of American Linguistics (1929), by John R. Swanton. Hopefully his information on the language is correct. Please let me know. Fdomanico51997 (talk) 16:59, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You cannot use literature that you have not yourself seen in this way. You cannot cite Ester Martinez second hand. The Santafedia is not a reliable source, just like wikipedia is not. Swanton wrote before the concept of the phoneme was established, so his information has to be taken with caution and perhaps should not be used for setting up phoneme inventories at all (unless a more contemporary phonologist has done a reanalysis).·maunus · snunɐɯ·17:45, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
User:Fdomanico51997, User:Maunus is absolutely right. SantaFedia is not a reliable source any more than Wikipedia is a reliable source. If you haven't actually looked at the Ester Martinez dictionary, then you cannot cite it. That's the simple bottom line. --Taivo (talk) 18:12, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As far as the phonemic inventory of Atakapa language is concerned, even the Handbook (Southeast volume) states that the premodern orthography prevents the accurate analysis of the phonology of Atakapa. I've removed the phonology section of the article because there is, literally, no reliable source to base it on. --Taivo (talk) 19:07, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It was first used by Daniel Jones in 1917, and subsequently developed by Trubetzkoy and Jakobson, but was not fully developed and entrenched in phonological theory untill the 1930s. The rule to follow is that unless the source explicitly that it is a phoneme inventory, then we do not present it as such. If it says "sounds" for example, then it is probably not representing phonemes. ·maunus · snunɐɯ·07:44, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And to add to what Maunus wrote, some extinct languages have had their phonemes scientifically reconstructed through meticulous linguistic analysis. In that case, it's acceptable to talk about phoneme inventories with an appropriate link to the scholarly work wherein the phonemic inventory was reconstructed and a clear label that it is a reconstructed inventory. The phonemic inventory of Powhatan has been reconstructed, but that of Atakapa has not. --Taivo (talk) 14:44, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is to inform you that an attempt is being made to overturn an RfC that you commented on
This is to inform you that an attempt is being made to overturn an RfC that you commented on (2 RfCs, actually, one less than six months ago and another a year ago). The new RfC is at:
The result of that RfC was "unambiguously in favour of omitting the parameter altogether for 'none' " and despite the RfC title, additionally found that "There's no obvious reason why this would not apply to historical or fictional characters, institutions etc.", and that nonreligions listed in the religion entry should be removed when found "in any article".
The second RfC that this new RfC is trying to overturn is:
The result of that RfC was that the "in all Wikipedia articles, without exception, nonreligions should not be listed in the Religion= parameter of the infobox.".
My contribution is as follows:
"There is absolutely no proof that Ancient Macedonian was a different language from Ancient Greek: the fact that sometimes Ancient Macedonian words (from Hesychius' glossary) "reveal voiced stops where Greek shows voiceless aspirates", meaning b,d,g, instead of ph, th, kh is analogous to a similar, yet not identical phenomenon that occurs in German, i.e. within the same language, between dialects of the same language: Low German lopen vs. (High/literary/standard) German laufen, Low German riek, German reich. This Ancient Macedonian shift constitutes by no means a proof that Ancient Macedonian was no Ancient Greek dialect."
This in no POV, those who say Ancient Macedonian was not Greek base their theory on the above consonant shift.
We do not add a citation for these name changes in Ukraine from Rada action last spring as part of the decommunization process. Compare Kamianske, for example. --Taivo (talk) 17:22, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you recently removed maintenance templates from Wikipedia. When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Please see Help:Maintenance template removal for further information on when maintenance templates should or should not be removed. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been reverted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Please do not remove [citation needed] tags.Sb2001talk page17:28, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.
Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!
Thankyou for giving sign that IP is vandalizing the page Korean language. I gave given him the final (4im) warning, but if he continues to do so, please tell me or send to WP:ARV. Anyways Thankyou once again. You have proved yourself best anti-vandalizer. Thanks for improving Wikipedia. SahabAliwadia14:00, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've fully protected this article so that consensus may be determined on the article talk page. If, after the protection expires, one side or the other in this dispute attempts to edit the article without consensus on the contentious point I will begin blocking accounts. Tiderolls17:24, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, Altaic and other discredited stuff is creeping up in the article on the Japanese language. It's in serious need of some slash-and-burn editing to dispose of the non-specialist editors posting their pet tripe on it. If you can spare the time? Thanks - HammerFilmFan
Hello, TaivoLinguist. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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.
Hello, I remember our talk back then and I think time has come for the realisation of the idea of making a Linguist's (or Language) Barnstar. What do you think? --❤ SILENTRESIDENT ❤21:51, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This barnstar is given to recognize linguistic contributions to Wikipedia, to let people know that their valuable work on linguistic-related content and the understanding of languages is seen and appreciated. It seems the "formal" procedures for recommending a new Barnstar have been closed - or at least the following page can no longer be used for this purpose.
I have created the Language/Linguist Barnstar which uses the Multi-language icon found on the main page, which I believe is a neat way to reflect Wikipedia's accessibility to all different languages as well as International English Wikipedia's valuable information about all these languages on articles created for them on its international english language (I can provide original PSD document if needed). --❤ SILENTRESIDENT ❤22:15, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I could appreciate if you drop your anti-Greek tone for once
I could appreciate if you drop your anti-Greek tone for once. Could this be too hard for you?
It is obvious that the political developments in the region coincide with the increases of vandal activity in Wikipedia, and that is true about every ethnicity. I understand your frustration when it comes to having to defend articles from Greek vandals, but to comment on the Editor's ethnicity in Wikipedia is inappropriate, the least. Despite linking to Republic of Macedonia's article, your comment on NeiN's page gave me the unfortunate impression that you are referring to Greek editors in general and not just vandals. -- ❤ SILENTRESIDENT ❤01:00, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am certainly not anti-Greek and if you looked at my complete edit history you'd see that I am just as cognizant of Macedonian and (in the case of Cyprus) Turkish nationalism. You just notice it at the moment because Greek nationalism is running at a fever-pitch and it is the Greek POV pushing which is taking a hit. My comments to Neil were specifically focused on the moment at hand. The reverse is true during periods when Macedonians or Turks are running on high octane. It is extreme nationalism of any kind that I oppose, not Greeks or Macedonians or Turks. The only nationalism that I admit to an imbalance is Ukrainian versus Russian, although even then, Ukrainian nationalists have accused me of being a pro-Russian shill because of my "go-slow" approach to decommunizing Wikipedia's Ukraine articles. --Taivo (talk) 04:49, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your quick checking and monitoring of the Shoshoni page, but I wanted to discuss with you the question of Shoshoni spoken in California.
It is true that McLaughlin does not mention California among the range of the language. However, Gould and Loether state explicitly that Shoshoni is spoken in California in their book, and several maps also indicate a (small) area in southeastern California where Western Shoshoni is spoken.
Perhaps there is some confusion in these sources between Shoshoni and Timbisha, but can you confirm that this is the case? The conflicting sources are concerning, as both books seem credible, and I'd like to come to a consensus with you.
(User:Phloxfire) The problem is that Dayley (1989a and b) called his dictionary and grammar of Timbisha, "Tümpisa Shoshone". It is not Shoshoni proper, but Timbisha. The range of Shoshoni never extended into California. Ever. That was always Timbisha territory. Campbell's book was poorly edited in the place where he mentions Shoshoni, but his book is not as reliable a source as sources that specifically deal with Shoshoni and Central Numic. Gould says that it extends into California, but she also considers Comanche to be "Southern Shoshoni". She considers all three Central Numic languages to be "Shoshoni". The sources are clear once you remove Gould and Loether and Campbell from the mix. There is no Shoshoni in California. John McLaughlin Shoshoni Grammar (2012, Lincom); Richley H. Crapo Big Smokey Valley Shoshoni (1976, Desert Research Institute); Beverly Crum and Jon Dayley Western Shoshoni Grammar (1993, Boise State University); Jon P. Dayley Tümpisa (Panamint) Shoshone Grammar (1989, University of California Press); Wick R. Miller "Sketch of Shoshone, a Uto-Aztecan Language", Handbook of North American Indians, Volume 17, Languages (1996, Smithsonian, pp. 693-720). There simply is no real debate on the issue among specialists. Gould's view is a unique one, supporting her own particular position that all three Central Numic languages are one language. The majority of scholars on Shoshoni and Central Numic languages exclude Shoshoni from California, reserving that area that is sometimes mistakenly lumped into "Western Shoshoni" by nonlinguists for anthropological reasons to Timbisha. There simply is no debate. I will revert your change again since the majority of reliable sources clearly place Timbisha in California, but not Shoshoni. --Taivo (talk) 11:34, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarification, Taivo. That's an odd stance for Gould to take, but I'm glad so much of the literature otherwise seems to agree. So Timbisha in California, no Shoshoni proper - that checks out.
Gould is a native speaker and this is a very common stance among native speakers. I have heard speakers of all seven Numic languages tell each other, when whites are in the room, "We all speak the same [Numic] language." But they don't. When they have to talk amongst themselves they always switch to English. --Taivo (talk) 22:21, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I'm not sure I get the point about redlinks being discouraged. Unless these topics aren't notable and an article is unlikely to ever be created, I don't see the problem with them. See WP:REDLINK for a fuller explanation. Thanks! – Uanfala (talk)02:50, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redlinks have always been discouraged on the pages that I've been involved with (by most of the editors involved, not just me). They are, more often than not, speculative pages that may or may not have any real basis in either notability or reality. Take the two redlinks that were placed on Washo language. The "California sprachbund" is problematic for two reasons. First, it's only partially defined and there are no real scholarly works that address it. Second, Americanists don't use the term "sprachbund" as a proper name for the areas of Native North America. The "Great Basin sprachbund" is problematic for an entirely different reason--except for Washo on the edge--the so-called "sprachbund" is actually a well-defined genetic language group, the Numic group of Uto-Aztecan. So calling the Great Basin a "sprachbund" is linguistically inaccurate since it's a genetically-defined group, not an areally defined group. So one of the redlinks has a remote chance of ever becoming blue and the other redlink has no chance unless you simply link to the Numic languages page. --Taivo (talk) 03:04, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, if there's no chance of these ever becoming articles and if section links to Linguistic areas of the Americas can be seen as misleading, then redlinks indeed don't make sense. But if the term "sprachbund" is problematic, you might want to further edit it out of the text? Just one afterthought about redlinks in general: I've also seen plenty of people being averse to redlinks, but I've never seen any rationale given for this aversion and it's squarely against the guidelines. I guess it might have to do with the overall rarity of redlinks in many areas: there are so many articles here, people probably assume that anything notable enough will have already had an article created. – Uanfala (talk)03:15, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That Linguistic areas of the Americas listing is based entirely on a single work, Sherzer 1976, and is not widely cited as definitive on the topic. Probably a full third to half of the languages of Native North America had not even been described at the time of its publication. It is based, for example, on only four of the seven Numic languages and Washo for describing the Great Basin. Come to think of it, I recall that he actually includes Comanche in the Plains area, even though it was only recently intrusive there from the Great Basin. "Linguistic area" is, indeed, more widely used in Americanist literature, but we're certainly not rubes, ignorant of the meaning of "sprachbund". We know very well what it means and the technical linguistic sense of it, we're just averse to naming regions of Native American languages with a German term. --Taivo (talk) 10:24, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Taivo, I happened to find your source for the phonology of the Atakapa language on JSTOR. I believe it was "Phonologic Formulas for Atakapa-Chitimacha". However, I am a bit confused because the chart within the source showed a combined phonology of Chitimacha and Atakapa. Also, I am not sure if Atakapa really has /ʃ/ or /x/ fricatives. I also had recently contacted the Facebook page dedicated to the Atakapa language project about a month ago. Based on their analyses (which may not be complete yet), they showed vocabulary words having one of those two fricatives. Again, I don't know if the language actually has them. Fdomanico51997 (talk) 22:50, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I saw your reversion on the Ute Dialect page--I have since clarified the phonology section to state that T. Givon's description is of the southern Ute dialect. I should note that prior to my original edit, the phonology section did not cite a source, and so I was not able to acertain which dialect the original chart and text referred to, although since the original word examples for vowel length were the same as those given in Givon's grammar for Southern Ute, I can only assume it was also describing Southern Ute. Please let me know if there is a better way have this information on the page, or if you have the source for the original chart and text/source that it refers to the other dialects. Thank you!
I completely understand your concerns and will refrain from using census data in the future. I do know that, in some cases like that of Dakota, the actual number of speakers and the purported number of speakers in the census are vastly different. How do I get good language data, as Ethnologue is not always a reliable source and government data is inaccurate? Can you point me towards some sources more reliable than the ones I have been using? Thank you for letting me know though! C1MM (talk) 01:43, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Reliable speaker data is not always available, it just depends on how recently an actual linguist has been working on the language intimately enough to know the situation. Ethnologue, however, is more reliable as a whole than US Census data. Ethnologue isn't perfect in all situations, of course, but it's usually much closer than government data since linguists are involved in correcting Ethnologue. There simply is no perfectly reliable source (and never will be), so we have to choose sources that are, on average, more reliable than those that are, on average, less reliable. --Taivo (talk) 02:18, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've been doing ample amounts of research to find an available good source for the Northern Sotho (Sepedi) language of South Africa. The phonology for the consonants and vowels section for the Northern Sotho language page is missing, so I've been wanting to know what the phonology of the Sepedi language is so I will be able to contribute information to the Northern Sotho page. What available reliable sources are there to obtain the phonological information? I've been trying to obtain an ILL for various book sources, but haven't had any luck. Any information provided would be grateful. Thanks Fdomanico51997 (talk) 19:20, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Fdomanico51997:: This is the best on-line source for finding references to languages: Glottolog. If you're looking for "easy" on-line references they don't always exist and you simply must rely on ILL for the best sources. --Taivo (talk) 00:09, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"No known L1 speakers" means an extinct language. "Reawakening" in Ethnologue is a political fiction for the sake of local community pride, but isn't a realistic assessment. Ethnologue is not the final word on survival (and ISO 639-3 is just Ethnologue in different clothes, not an independent source). --Taivo (talk) 19:54, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that Ethnologue is not the final word on survival (nor is ELCat), but I do wonder how Manx and Cornish have managed to fly under the radar as politically fictitious languages for so long. Should I go through Wikipedia and mark Cornish and Manx as extinct? Plandu (talk) 20:03, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not involved with either Cornish or Manx pages, so you'll have to deal with those editors. But when it comes to Native America, there are different political forces at work that cause Ethnologue to mark languages as "Reawakening" when they aren't really. Cornish and Manx both have individuals who are fluent enough that they are capable of writing books and media. There are local signs being produced in Cornish and Manx as I understand (I'm not a specialist that that part of the world though). No such L2 fluency exists within the Tunica community. --Taivo (talk) 20:07, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your explanation. There are such varying criteria depending on who is asked. Would love to talk to you more about this topic. Plandu (talk) 20:12, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The name is transliterated correctly, but translation is not that easy: there is a rhetorical question which loses its meaning when translated to English, so I translated what it means, not a literal translation. Can you propose a better translation? --TohaomgTohaomg (talk) 12:41, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And, by the way, reverting is done when edit is obviously vandal or nonsense, otherwise it should be cancelled with giving explanation in edit summary. I kindly ask you not to abuse your revert rights any more. --TohaomgTohaomg (talk) 12:44, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The whole thing is a fraud, so don't revert edits pointing this out. Joseph Smith was a tall-tale teller, and the thing is an utter joke. Do you believe in this fraud? If you do, don't edit a factual encyclopedia with your fraud. 79.71.16.195 (talk) 20:38, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You are, of course, a religious bigot and shouldn't be editing Wikipedia if you can't maintain WP:NPOV. If you don't understand what NPOV is, then you certainly need to find another hobby somewhere else. --Taivo (talk) 20:53, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
79.71.16.195 should note that Taivo is opposed to Mormonism, but he feels obliged to make a show of neutrality.
Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion pages. Doing so won't stop the discussion from taking place. You are, however, welcome to comment about the proposed deletion on the appropriate page. Thank you. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 09:44, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I don't have the time to read twenty pages of Wikilawtext to find the answer. Your link just takes me to page 1, from which there are interminable links to other pages and no simple, "Do X." --Taivo (talk) 12:25, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. The page was not deleted, but turned into a disambiguation page. The article content was moved to other pages. --Taivo (talk) 12:33, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The page is a disambiguation page for a label that signifies nothing. A category is inappropriate. The three pages that the page links to should be categorized because they are meaningful. But the label "Paiute" is an empty term. No one should be coming to this page without moving on to one of the other pages. --Taivo (talk) 22:49, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is not a real page, just a disambiguation page with a brief description. Categorization would be misleading since this is a false "tribe", not a real one. --Taivo (talk) 05:34, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Your creation of a dab, splitting off into Northern and Southern, has created a huge number of disambiguation issues. Someone with your expertise in distinguishing between the two might be more able to distinguish which article those dabs should be directed to. Thanks. Onel5969TT me11:12, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have tons of time to dedicate to fixing the links, but am working my way through them one-by-one as I get a little free time here and there. It won't be fixed overnight. In the meantime, if there are pages that especially concern you, please let me know and I'll fix them before I fix others. --Taivo (talk) 12:33, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. I'm going through them as well and picking off the low-hanging fruit. But there are quite a few where I can't easily discern what the right target is. I'm tagging them with a dn tag, so other editors might be able to make the right choice. Onel5969TT me13:23, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Seeking feedback on a guide for students who edit articles in cultural anthropology
Hi TaivoLinguist, Wiki Education is developing a guide to help students edit articles related to cultural anthropology and we'd love to hear what experienced users think of our draft so far. I've solicited feedback on a few WikiProjects, including WikiProject:Anthropology, but haven't heard much yet. I wanted to reach out personally to experienced editors who have an interest in these topics to see if they'd provide feedback. Essentially, the guide is meant to supplement other resources that students consult, such as an interactive training and basic editing brochures. It would be great to get any feedback on the draft by April 18th. Would you be interested in taking a look? Thanks for considering! Cassidy (Wiki Ed) (talk) 18:11, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Let me know what you think of this proposed transition from Siculo Arabic to Maltese [3]. This might be true to part of the Maltese population, the rest being previously Arabic speakers or later Arabized new settlers. Droveaxle (talk) 07:40, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there. I appreciate if you don't think that's a reliable source; it seemed to confirm what some unsourced information elsewhere said so I figured it might be reliable. Anyway, can you find me one please then? As for the rest being "only remembered (and rarely used) by the oldest members of the groups", I feel like I already got that across, no? Wolfdog (talk) 16:18, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
Any sources? Wolfdog (talk) 15:14, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
User:Wolfdog, What page are you talking about? I edit dozens of pages a week, sometimes on a single day, and I can't remember every little edit and comment I make and on which page I make them. --Taivo (talk) 16:26, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, well this was from 3 June, when I made an edit to Indigenous languages of the Americas as follows: "Nearly 200 of these languages are still spoken today in North America, though they are heavily endangered, with not even 40 percent used by young adults or children.[1]"
References
^Ahtone, Tristan (2017). "[inthesetimes.com/rural-america/entry/19945/talk-on-the-rez-english-prosody-and-the-native-american-accent Talk on the Rez]". In These Times. In These Time and the Institute for Public Affairs.
You reverted my edit and left the following edit summary: This is not accurate and is not based on a reliable source. "Still spoken" implies daily use. Only a handful are in daily use, the rest are only remembered (and rarely used) by the oldest members of the groups. Your correction could well be true, but can you tell me where you got this information from so I can provide the page with better info and a better source? Wolfdog (talk) 21:15, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a professional linguist and this is simply axiomatic in the field. It's like a geographer constantly having to say "the earth isn't flat, it's round". The very definition of "spoken" is "used". The vast majority of Native American language in North America and most in South America are "remembered", but not in daily use. A more accurate wording would be that approximately 200 in North America have one or more speakers. That's different than saying they "are spoken". But from my experience as a specialist in Native America, 200 sounds awfully high even if we are counting "one or more speakers". That source is still not a reliable one. --Taivo (talk) 22:40, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I appreciate your knowledge on this and am not personally worried about your own credibility as an editor. I'm just worried that an unsourced sentence to that effect can be easily removed. Just wondering if you knew some source that made this plainly obvious. And I didn't mean to quibble over words like "spoken" or "used"; I'm happy to use a wording like "hav[ing] one or more speakers". Wolfdog (talk) 23:21, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that there is no really accurate count. The US Census is a self-identification document and includes hundreds of speakers of these languages who might know a few words and thereby call themselves "speakers". Only qualified linguists who can accurately determine the competency of speakers can make speaker surveys. If I come across some number that is more reliable than not, I'll put it in, but until then using inaccurate numbers are worse than no number at all. --Taivo (talk) 00:36, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Why delete everything I put, with extensive academic articles? Please, if you want to delete some parts that you feel are not in line with consensus (as you say Wikipedia talks still dont agree, contrary to linguists, that Chakavian is a separate language), delete only those parts and not a work of hours which is methodical and academically right/referenced.
All things Serbo-Croatian are controversial in Wikipedia and major revisions require discussion on the Talk Page--it doesn't matter how long you worked on it. You must discuss and reach WP:CONSENSUS on the Talk Page if there are any objections. You also fail to understand the meaning of "Serbo-Croatian". It is not just Shtokavian, but encompasses all the dialects of non-Slovenian West South Slavic. That is a standard linguistic usage (outside the Balkans among neutral linguists). Recently Kajkavian has been removed for sound linguistic reasons (since it is an intermediate form between Slovenian and Serbo-Croatian). Chakavian, however, is still considered to be one of the two constituent dialects of Serbo-Croatian along with Shtokavian. --Taivo (talk) 19:20, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is not, except by nationalist circles, which you for some reason consider to be "sound linguistic reasons". The two most exposed and definitely most famous/quoted living linguists of today in Croatia consider it a language of its own: Josip Silic, Snjezana Kordic. And still I don't understand why you don't undo only the 1 "controversial" part, but have to undo all others which are not controversial too, it's so unkind and unfair.
1) Croatian linguists are not politically neutral and if you had any experience editing in Wikipedia's Balkans articles you would know that. 2) I don't see much of anything in your edits that isn't about your fundamental misunderstanding about the position of Chakavian and the meaning of the term "Serbo-Croatian", so they are all controversial. --Taivo (talk) 15:10, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I see that you reverted my edit for a "See also" on the Paiute page. I am guessing that I am not the only one that got confused when they got to that page when looking for the Paiute of Utah...
Sorry, but this discussion determined that Paiute would not be a disambiguation page, but a set index page. As such it is a combination guide and definition, but not a full-blown article with a list of every page that includes the word "Paiute". These individual pages must be linked to either Northern Paiute people or Southern Paiute people since there is no such entity as "Paiute". If you look at the Paiute Tribe of Utah page, you will see that it is clearly labelled and linked to Southern Paiute. --Taivo (talk) 16:49, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Will that mess of an article ever be "fixed"? Altaic is "widely accepted"??? Ha. Also, a long diatribe about the politics of Ba'athist Iraq that really has nothing to do with the language. I know it is a losing battle with the pan-Turk editors, but good Lord ... HammerFilmFan (talk) 15:10, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I love when an anon editor writes "They suck big donkey d...s" and the registered user who reverts it writes "reverting possible vandalism" or "reverting good faith edit" in the edit summary. Possible vandalism? LOL. --Taivo (talk) 08:08, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Why? Anything you have to say you can say here. There is a good reason why we protect our privacy with editors we don't know. --Taivo (talk) 17:55, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Οκ. I have read Pericle's answer. I must have not seen it beforehand. the Macedonians spoke Greek and were every bit as Greek in ethnicity as any other part of Greece. Therefore I ask you, why do you not see the Macedonians as Greeks?--Robandrew (talk) 18:36, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
I do hope I get an answer? --92.15.197.246 (talk) 19:31, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The lead to the article is quite clear and the language section makes it even more clear. If you're still uncertain, then read Ancient Macedonian language as well for more detail. The Macedonians spoke either a dialect of Greek or a language that was closely related to Greek. There is solid evidence for both points of view. If they didn't speak Greek, then you can't say they were Greeks. Officially, the government used Koine Greek, but that wasn't the vernacular, the common language. It wasn't until a few centuries later that the local Macedonian dialect/language went extinct to be replaced by Koine Greek. Read the Ancient Macedonian language article for the evidence and a long list of reliable sources. It is this scholarly uncertainty as to the language of the common people that makes a categorical statement "The ancient Macedonians were Greek" impossible to make honestly. That is why we leave the ambiguity in the article. Pushing an exclusively Greek point of view is a violation of WP:NPOV and ignores a large number of reliable sources. --Taivo (talk) 21:48, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We have discussed this at various ancient Macedonian articles over and over and over again and the current wording is a WP:CONSENSUS. Pay attention to Pericles. He's right, it is a dead issue, decided long ago by Wikipedia's editors as the most neutral wording. --Taivo (talk) 21:50, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Right Taivo, Good morning. If you have checked my post on the forum in the Ancient Macedonia page you would have realise this was all a work of my 13 year old brother.
However, I'd still like to ask you something: There is no evidence that Ancient Macedonians actually had there on language; all documents found are Greek with, at most, a twist. That is indicative of a dialect, not separate language. Here are some answers to the question "What languages did the Ancient Macedonians speak?"
"All in all, the language of the Macedonians was a distinct and particular form of Greek, resistant to outside influences and conservative in pronunciation. It remained so until the 4th century BC when it was almost totally submerged by the flood tide of standardized Greek."(Nicholas Hammond, British scholar and expert on Macedon, "A History of Macedonia" Vol. ii, 550-336 BC)
“The Pella curse tablet has been judged to be the most important ancient testimony to substantiate that Macedonian was a north-western Greek and mainly a Doric dialect.” (Roisman, Worthington, 2010, "A Companion to Ancient Macedonia", p. 95)
"In favour of the Greek identity of the ancient Macedonians is what we know of their language (Doric Greek), their place names, names of the months and many of their personal names especially royal names which are Greek in root and form. This tells us that they did not merely use Greek as a lingua franca but spoke it as natives, though with a local accent." (Richard Stoneman, Honorary Professor of Greek, Exeter University)
Also;
The elite would speak nicely Attic Greek as soon as it became fashionable in the 5th century bC. Before that, just Doric Greek.
The man-in-the-street ? Doric Greek from the very beginning of the Macedonian kingdom (8th century bC), and even earlier. There is not a single word of evidence that they did not speak Greek.
I'd like you, personally to counter that with evidence you can post here.
Read Ancient Macedonian language. You will find that scholarly opinion about the Macedonian VERNACULAR (the common language, for which there is lexical and phonological evidence) varies widely. I'm not going to rehash the evidence here when you can read it for yourself. --Taivo (talk) 06:45, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have recently shown interest in the Balkans. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect: any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or any page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Rise of Macedon. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Points to note:
Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
Heavy going, isn't it? I've seen similar WP:POV-pushing on Assyrian- and Turkic-related topics too; not only on Wikipedia, but also on another popular website. A dear friend, now no longer with us, spent her last days moderating yet another site for Ukraine-related garbage.
If you would ever like input from an independent editor on issues such as these, feel free to {{ping}} me. I will support you if I think that you are right, and I will slap you down if I think that you are wrong. It is only WP:CANVASSing if you're trying to recruit known cheerleaders. Narky Blert (talk) 21:55, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You are, of course, perfectly right. I agree that it's always better for an uninvolved party to close, and if one of the active parties had objected, they would be entirely justified in reverting the close. I would have said a couple of Mea culpas in penance to the Wikipedia demigods who enforce the rules. But this time none of the combatants has said a word so it must have been a welcome "mercy killing". --Taivo (talk) 09:39, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I added the link to List of Gospels because the Book of Mormon was included on that list under the "Modern Gospels" section. I did not add the Book of Mormon to the List of Gospels, just added a reciprocal link to the Book of Mormon. Some apparently consider it Gospel so it deserves inclusion. Unless there is a definite reason to remove the link, please revert your edit. I'm assuming good faith, so I will not revert the edit myself - cheers - Epinoia (talk) 01:09, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This might be premature, but I, a mere anonymous IP, have tangled with another anonymous IP at the Dyeus article over the PIE forms. Might I ask you to glance at the recent edit history and to edit/leave a note on the talk page as you see fit?
Hello, TaivoLinguist. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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.
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. IE linguist (talk) 18:36, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on a biased choice of users' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote—in order to influence Slavic speakers of Greek Macedonia. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. Thank you. By the way, I think it's very unlikely you will get blocked. But, I do wish you would be more tolerant of people who do not share your viewpoints.MPS1992 (talk) 05:05, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for being understanding about my understanding. I think that if I ever had time to get properly involved with the Balkans disagreements and related matters -- about which I have very strong opinions, of course -- I would be so busy disagreeing with so many different people at once, that no-one would have the slightest idea what I was talking about from one moment to the next. MPS1992 (talk) 05:14, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please be careful about what you say to people. Some remarks can easily be misinterpreted, or viewed as harassment. Wikipedia is a supportive environment, where contributors should feel comfortable and safe while editing. Thank you. Jingiby (talk) 08:32, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am positive somehow, that the Prespa Agreement is going to be a milestone in ending once and for all this dispute about Macedonia. I feel I want to ask everyone here in Wikipedia to pray that the Agreement passes from the Parliament this week. That will be such a relief and a shinning light in these dark times for the entire region. Question is: What about WP:MOSMAC? Will there be a need for it to be updated or can it stay as such? I feel this may be in need for a update to avoid disruptive editors citing it to refer to the Republic of Macedonia by a name other than its new constitutional name (assuming that the ratification is successful; the Prespa Agreement is expected to go into force by the end of this month, January 2019, after its ratification this week in RoM and next 2 weeks in Greece). --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)22:49, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
User:SilentResident, my preference would be to change WP:MOSMAC without a lot of fanfare and if the Prespa Agreement is finalized then I hope that the nationalist nonsense (on both sides) can accept the new world. Going through official arbitration is a HUGE hassle (as one who participated in WP:ARBMAC). Let's try for the least amount of effort first. --Taivo (talk) 23:13, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Taivo! Perhaps you would be intersted in helping me with adding subtitles to the video that is used to illustrate Borscht? I already asked for help at [Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ukraine]], but there doesn't seem to be much traffic over there. What I need is a transcription, in Ukrainian, of what is being said in the video. I can read Ukrainian, but don't undertand spoken Ukrainian very well. Once I have a transcription, then I can translate it into English and the subtitles. Would you like to work on it? — Kpalion(talk)13:12, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! You seem to be quite involved in Serbo-Croatian stuff. How do you think this should be presented? I believe Wikipedia uses "Croatian" as a term for the Croatian standard of Shtokavian, while this editor insists on using some idiosyncratic definition which includes Kajkavian, Chakavian and all Shtokavian (i.e. "Serbo-Croatian" in the terminology I'm familiar with). Is this okay? Just thought you might want to look at this. 2A01:11BF:610:8B00:3142:3957:AEA9:EDF (talk) 17:36, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm personally okay with the current lede. I posted that as a response to Sorabino's edits to Serbian and Croatian, thinking he would be able to rewrite it better and put forward something more linguistically sound than his nationalist POV, but it doesn't seem like he's actually willing to cooperate. --Nama.Asal (talk) 09:46, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed after looking at it more carefully that it was for Croatian and not for Serbo-Croatian. I agree, he's not willing to cooperate. --Taivo (talk) 10:59, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think ANI was really necessary - there are other problems too, as I explained in my comments - but then again I'm perhaps not seeing the whole story. At any rate, I'd like to provide my input by reviewing Serbo-Croatian because - first and foremost - it might benefit the article, but it also may help with the dispute. For that, I need at least a couple more days. GregorB (talk) 20:10, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. I know that the Sociolinguistics section needs serious attention, not just because of repetitious wording, but because the original author was clearly not a native speaker of English. Any observations you have would be most welcome. (I'm not in a rush actually--I'll be away on business over the weekend and don't know the quality of the hotel's internet.) --Taivo (talk) 20:19, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I saw that you reverted an edit at List of linguists with the summary NO. If a person doesn't even have a Wikipedia page, they are not notable. The two adds that the IP user made both include the Wikidata links, at which I can see there are pages in six other wikis for Ibn Jinni and arwiki for Hamza Al-Mozainy. WP:CSC says Red-linked entries are acceptable if the entry is verifiably a member of the listed group, and it is reasonable to expect an article could be forthcoming in the future., which seems to apply here, no? —[AlanM1(talk)]—15:12, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"An article in the future" means nothing, especially when the proponents of an entry don't seem to be English speakers (they left a message for me on the Arabic Wikipedia in Arabic). So it's not "reasonable to expect" an article in this case. We've been very solid in the past on this list removing redlinked entries. --Taivo (talk) 15:35, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We would like to ask to correct the transliteration of the city name.
Argumentation:
In accordance with the decision of the executive committee of the Zaporizhzhya City Council, dated August 28, 2017, No.476, the transliteration of the spelling of the geographical name of the city of Zaporizhzhia on maps and other publications in Latin was approved as - "Zaporizhzhia" [6], in accordance with the Resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine dated January 27, 2010 N 55 "On the ordering of transliteration of the Ukrainian alphabet in Latin "(which is valid).
Unfortunately, my editing has been rejected.
At this time, mistakes occur oftenly while using the Latin name of the city. I consider it would be appropriate to prescribe the correct name of the city in English in the article.
What do you feel is the best course of action for me to take regarding Eswatini? I'm thinking about starting a discussion there about how the name change from Swaziland was rather premature, but due to visual stuff and my blindness I have a hard time with templates and what not.
Also I do want to note that due to e-mail issues an dhaving been hacked several years back I won't be creating an account until I have some thigns looked at.
Sorry guys for the lack of account but yeah.
Anyway, what is your suggestion for going forward with Eswatini? I do see how some people feel that renaming SwazilandEswatini but not Kiev to Kyiv looks a bit unfair, as I fee lboth Kyiv and Eswatini do not meet commonname, but I don't know. Maybe I'm missing something.
I recently removed a speedy delete tag that you had placed on User talk:Deepkang. I do not think that User talk:Deepkang fits any of the speedy deletion criteria because WP:UP allows "limited autobiographical content" and I do not see an infobox as exceeding that. Also, we do not normally delete the main user talk page of an editor. I request that you consider not re-tagging User talk:Deepkang for speedy deletion without discussing the matter on the appropriate talk page. DES(talk)DESiegel Contribs15:33, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
User:DESiegel, I did not make that edit. I don't know what's going on, but that edit was not me. If you click on my User Contributions, you will see that I made no such edit. --Taivo (talk) 15:39, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
User:DESiegel, if you click on the "contribs" portion of the tag on that diff, you will be directed to this page, which is quite different from my own User contributions page here. When I first began editing in the English Wikipedia, I was Taivo. But then when all the international wikis standardized their editor names about a decade ago, there was another Taivo somewhere who had seniority, so I changed my editor name to TaivoLinguist. This is very strange (and the first time it's happened). Are you an admin who can fix this? --Taivo (talk) 15:48, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)I am an admin, but dependingt on what the issue is, i may or may not be able to fix this. If there is a simple redirect, that will be easy. I will look into it.
It looks as if when you were renamed years ago redirects were created from your old name to your new name, and now the new Tavio has started to edit here. I have removed the redirects and welcomed to other user. My apologies for the confusion. DES(talk)DESiegel Contribs16:02, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Really? Because while it may seem obvious to you, it was rather confusing to me, considering that there at least four ways that the word "Macedonia" can be understood, and it made sense to actually state which was which on a map that depicts two of them but not the other two. But whatevah. A loose necktie (talk) 11:11, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Khirurg (talk) 17:51, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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.
I am asking as a courtesy that you reopen the discussion on the moratorium at Kyiv. As an involved editor it was inappropriate for you to close this discussion only 22 days after it began. Especially, since the discussion was ill-constructed and chaotic. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 13:08, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There is no article called "Kyiv". You were not involved in the discussion at Talk:Kiev and, as far as I have been able to tell, you have never participated in Ukraine topics. What is your interest there? I might ask, "A courtesy to whom?" None of the participants objected at the time or in the week since the moratorium was established. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 13:18, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Disarrangement of phonological tables on various North American language pages
I'm not sure if you have been noticing, but there have been a lot of disarrangements on the phonology sections of many pages of North American languages. They are been done by these "student editors" all of which are from California State University, Los Angeles. If you see any of them, please tell them to stop messing around with the phonological charts. They recently did it to the Kiliwa language, and I had to undo each of their mess-ups of the phonological chart. Fdom5997 (talk) 02:10, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. I don't follow any of the pages where this happened, but it seems that someone in the linguistics program at CSULA might be pushing an "anti-phonology" agenda for phonemic inventories. I'll keep my eye open and dig around a little to see if there is an underlying (pardon the pun) motivation for the movement. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 08:33, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Amen to that, Taivo! Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:06, 26 January 2020 (UTC) [Feel free to transcribe that to your 'boasts': obviously a little simplistic, but truly deserved. I think it's what we soon all become - if not already are - when we get an account an vow to follow the Wikipedia 5 pillar plan! There is no NPOV outside of empirical fact, which is what makes it a fantastic exercise in debate, and picking out the YouTube and forum buffoons at a single glance.][reply]
I've been working alongside you for years on a tiny number of mutual articles and, having become aware of your academic knowledge, and the integrity with which you balance all factors demonstrates before making any decisions or commenting on an issue. You follow the spirit of Wikipedia with diligence and intelligence. I ought to know: I'm always turning to you for sage advice! Please keep it up. Wiki needs you. Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:08, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Why the Croatian linguists, including those from Serbia, Montenegro and Bosnia and Herzegovina say Serbo-Croatian language doesn't exist, including also my former Croatian teacher, while some linguists from outside say it exists? What you think about that? Also, I'm from Croatia. -Space2006 (talk) 10:45, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Since Bosnian, Croatian, Serbian, and Montenegrin are mutually intelligible, they comprise a single language. That language is usually called "Serbo-Croatian" by linguists. That name doesn't refer to the national standard used in the former country of Yugoslavia, it refers to the linguistic entity that is the single language spoken by Bosnians, Croatians, Serbians, and Montenegrins. That language has been codified and standardized in four different ways in the modern states of Bosnia, Croatia, Serbia, and Montenegro that differ from the way that it was codified in the former Yugoslavia as "Serbo-Croatian". But codification of four slightly different variants of a single spoken language doesn't make four different languages. They are still one language, codification doesn't make new languages except for nationalistic and political purposes. Thus, since the codified "Serbo-Croatian" is no longer a nationally-authorized codification of the very real language, nationalists claim that it no longer exists. The codification no longer exists, but the actual language is still alive and well in all its spoken variants. Because of the confusion between the codification called "Serbo-Croatian" and the actual language called "Serbo-Croatian" and the nationalistic passions that flare with the word "Serbo-Croatian", linguists are slowly starting to switch the language label to something like "Bosnian-Croatian-Serbian" (abbreviated BCS) or some other variant, but there is no standard form used in the scientific literature yet and "Serbo-Croatian" is still the most common term in the literature. So there is only one spoken language--"Serbo-Croatian". Four different mutually-intelligible variants (not even different enough to realistically be called "dialects") of this language have been codified (standardized) in the four countries of Bosnia, Croatia, Serbia, and Montenegro with the labels "Bosnian", "Croatian", "Serbian", and "Montenegrin". Wikipedia follows scientific usage, not political usage, and calls this single language "Serbo-Croatian". --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 11:22, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Taivo! I understand that you wanted to retract your comment, but just removing it is not the recommended way. I was actually preparing a comment when the text I was commenting on suddenly disappeared. Striking it out with <del>...</del> would have been better. Anyway, no big deal. Regards! --T*U (talk) 10:11, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Macedonian language, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bulgarian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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.)
Just noticed semi-recent shenanigans in the lede: " .... however, some linguists hypothesize that Elamite and the Dravidian languages of India belong to the same language family.[6] In accordance with geographical and archaeological matches, some historians argue that the Elamites comprise a large portion of the ancestors of the modern day Lurs[7] whose language, Luri, split from Middle Persian, which Potts disagree[8] ..." -- can you address? The cite is to some philosophy prof, I believe(!) bad grammar, also ... Thanks - HFF
Then talk about it in the article, we're not going to turn the infobox into a catalogue of every country that has a Ukrainian or Russian restaurant. This has been explained to you and other many times over the years. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 20:51, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ukrainian or Russian restaurant? What? Have you read this book? It is called Estonian Tastes and Traditions. Estonian people cook and eat borsch at home, not in a Ukrainian or Russian restaurant. Fugitive from New York (talk) 21:15, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"we're not going to turn the infobox into a catalogue of every country that has a Ukrainian or Russian restaurant." Did you write this? How does this relate to Estonia? Fugitive from New York (talk) 18:18, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you missed the very first thing I wrote: "Then talk about it in the article". Perhaps you missed my edit summaries: "This is not mentioned in the article" --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 19:53, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I got interested and ran the text of the article linked to through Google Translate:
The Ukrainian Ministry of Foreign Affairs will engage in projects to improve content on the Wikipedia online encyclopedia. This also applies to versions in languages other than Ukrainian.
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine and the association "Wikimedia Ukraine" intend to start joint projects aimed at "engaging as many people as possible to fill Wikipedia with information about Ukraine," the Unian agency said on Wednesday citing the press service of the Ukrainian Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
The cooperation of Ukrainian diplomats and Wikipedia aims to "counteract misinformation about Ukraine and disseminate information about this country in different languages on Wikipedia."
The cooperation of Ukrainian diplomats and Wikipedia aims to "counteract misinformation about Ukraine and disseminate information about this country in different languages on Wikipedia."
As stated by Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmytro Kułeba, Wikipedia articles are a source of information for millions of people around the world, "so it is very important that the information about Ukraine in this encyclopedia be as objective and accurate as possible." He justified the involvement of the Ukrainian Ministry of Foreign Affairs in improving Wikipedia by saying that the strategic task of Ukrainian diplomacy is "to defend the truth and counteract misinformation."
The first stage of cooperation will be the start of the online marathon "Ukrainian diplomacy month". Within a month, the authors of Ukrainian-language Wikipedia will fill in the gaps and correct inaccuracies regarding "Russian aggression, Ukraine's integration with the EU and NATO, relations with other countries, activities in international organizations and public diplomacy." The marathon will start in May.
I might have had lengthy discussions around disputes with you in the past and I still do not share your views on some topics but I appreciate your scientific approach and way of thinking in every comment refined with your advanced knowledge in linguistics. You are definitely an editor of the kind that Wikipedia needs to have more. Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 16:37, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
He seems to be attempting to continue his campaign by editing while logged out. Shouldn't he get at least a short term block for that? --Khajidha (talk) 19:46, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In case you missed it: 08:37, 28 May 2020 Creffett talk contribs changed block settings for Viktor O. Ledenyov talk contribs with an expiration time of indefinite (account creation blocked) (Abusing multiple accounts: Please see: w:en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Viktor O. Ledenyov - upgrading to indef per discussion) --Khajidha (talk) 23:40, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
File:Taras Shevchenko Statue in Rivne.JPG listed for discussion
Not sure if this should be brought to WP:ANI or directly to WP:ARBCOM, because as some other user has commented this involves private evidence (though strictly speaking, we are not responsible that other people may be ripping off our replies and calling us things publicly at Twitter lmao). But maybe input from ANI could be gathered to ascertain whether the RM should be summarily closed as disruptive in such a canvassing situation? I think there's enough on-wiki evidence to support that anyways, though my main concerns are on the disruption being caused by the RM rather than on any particular desire to see any consequence being imposed on the canvassers. Impru20talk09:14, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in Eastern Europe or the Balkans. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
Some of your comments today at Kiev were about conduct rather than content. This can escalate a fraught discussion. Consider reframing comments like this by omitting things like the first sentence which personalizes it. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:55, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Regarding your edit summary here: “Sorry, but I didn't understand that this was a page where only the pro-Kyiv faction could contribute.” I am sorry you feel aggrieved, but that is not a fair comment. I’d like that page to fairly represent the situation regarding usage in up-to-date, reliable sources, as the guidelines on page titles recommend. That means including your “faction.”
But I don’t think your addition of a Google search link represented “Reuters,” as you labelled it, and the search results I saw were misleading, as they had content written before the period you stated, and non-Reuters content, etc. They only demonstrated why WP:COMMONNAME discourages the use of raw Google searches.
The fact that the Book of Mormon is one of the most translated books in the world is fact, not hyperbole. It has been translated into over a hundred languages. This is documented, and you removed it, because of your personal prejudices. You also reverted to an out of date reference which dates from the early 2000s. Thanks for that
Sorry, I speak in plain English, not arcane abbreviations. Please do likewise. It's pretty clear what happened here, i.e. you only glanced at the article and made a snap decision.
I notice you also removed several modern editions of the book. Again, no relevance to claims of hyperbole and padding. More factual information, which one can independently verify.
Thank you for reminding me why Wikipedia has headed down the toilet in the last few years. Next time spend a bit more time reading article content, and less on WP:Whatever please.-213.205.241.175 (talk) 17:28, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't like Wikipedia, and are unwilling to understand the editing process by clicking on links to policies, then don't edit here. It's a simple remedy for your bile. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 17:34, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You removed factual material as "hyperbole". The BoM is in the top twenty of translated books of all time if you wish to stand by this website. I don't consider Wikipedia particularly reliable, but it is probably right on that score.
Wikipedia is a poorly run bureaucratic mess where vandalism stays up for years and facts get removed. There was a major howler in the biography of Alec Guinness for at least five years, which no one corrected. I could name others. I can't stand what Wikipedia has become. However, social media and Google etc are turning it into the ready reference for many people so that's why I feel persuaded to say something. -213.205.241.175 (talk) 17:46, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
User:VladOz I'm not really a specialist on foods. I can't remember how I got involved in the Borscht article, but it wasn't because of the food. I think someone asked me, as a linguist interested in Eastern Europe, about the conflict between "Borsch" and "Borscht" as the English form and the title of the Wikipedia article. But it was many years ago. It's interesting that everyone calls them pierogi (or something like that) except for Ukraine. My wife is a Russian speaker from Ukraine and she doesn't use the Russian word, but the Ukrainian word. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 18:29, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for what you are doing at Talk:Kiev. I posted a message on the subject of errors with using Ngrams on that page.[7]
One of the problems of the Google Books Ngram facility is that it is easy to make mistakes with it.
One editor suggested this Ngram, but for 2019: this gives 3,161 for kiev excluding chicken kiev and dynamo kiev, and 2,263 for kyiv excluding dynamo kyiv. It also gives an error message: "Case-insensitive searches and compositions cannot be combined. Ignoring case-insensitive option."
Computer error messages worry me. They often indicate that the results people think they are getting are not the results they are actually getting. (It is rather like buying an airline ticket to Boston, and ending up in Massachusetts when you wanted to go to Lincolnshire and not realising your error when you get there.)
I also remembered the point you made in discussions about the common name in English of Ukrainian cities, and as the Ngram facility has a button for English, compared with American English and British English. Though smoothing can be a great facility, if people think that usage is changing from year to year, looking at results without smoothing seemed prudent.
The link I used for the combination Ngram was this.
The 2019 default-smoothed frequencies of capitalised Kiev/Kyiv (1,257,970 and 532,131) are much greater than for Chicken Kiev/Kyiv (7,227 and 116) and Dynamo Kiev/Kyiv (4,097 and 2,617). So as long as people are capitalising correctly, it is not that important if people forget to exclude the food and the sports team.
Case sensitive
2019
English
American English
British English
Smooth 0
Smooth 3
Smooth 0
Smooth 3
Smooth 0
Smooth 3
kiev
3,110
4,831
867
1,815
8,529
13,563
kyiv
175
2,263
347
271
0
0
% kyiv
5%
32%
29%
13%
0%
0%
Kiev
1,236,214
1,257,970
1,429,016
1,272,304
1,936,230
1,828,199
Kyiv
506,130
532,131
536,141
501,558
426,427
833,403
% Kyiv
29%
30%
27%
28%
18%
31%
Dynamo Kiev
3,207
4,097
1,318
3,154
17,783
13,333
Dynamo Kyiv
1,916
2,617
494
1,774
5,799
5,659
% Kyiv
37%
39%
27%
36%
25%
30%
Chicken Kiev
9,162
7,227
17,298
10,702
18,169
13,909
Chicken Kyiv
42
116
% Kyiv
0%
2%
0%
0%
0%
0%
(Kiev - ((Chicken Kiev) - (Dynamo Kiev)))
1,230,259
1,254,840
1,413,035
1,264,753
1,925,843
1,813,261
(Kyiv - ((Chicken Kyiv) - (Dynamo Kyiv)))
508,004
534,632
536,635
503,331
432,225
839,062
% Kyiv
29%
30%
28%
28%
18%
32%
Calculated from the above figures for comparison with Google's combined results
I had already raised the issue at User_talk:Barkeep49#IP's_behaviour_at_Talk:Kiev. This is just the last in a string of unilateral edits from this IP user showing an absolute reckless behaviour on the issue. They seem to have no remorse at manipulating others' comments nor at refactoring Talk:Kiev the way they see as most favourable to their interests, while clamping down on anyone not supportive of those (such as when they casted unfounded aspersions on both me and BMK). This is just a very unpleasant behaviour. Impru20talk18:45, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I know Wikipedia tells us that we should assume good faith, but some of the time it is best to assume that you are dealing with a sockpuppet troll. Sometimes this assumption turns out to be correct, and sometimes incorrect. The aim of a troll is to bait you into saying things that will make you look bad, so that all your many good comments will ignored. Wikipedia rules make it very hard to voice suspicions without risk to yourself, so it is usually best to say nothing and appear to be friendly and to assume good faith, until you have evidence for WP:AE, WP:ANI, or WP:SPI.-- Toddy1(talk)09:44, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I meant disputed as many Bulgarians (heck, even most Slavs) do not recognize the existence of the Macedonian language. I am Bulgarian, and everyone that I know think the Macedonian people are just brainwashed Bulgarians => the language does not exist. So, I added "disputed". Please tell me how I am wrong. BonsMans1 (talk) 18:57, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Objective linguists almost universally treat Standard Macedonian as a different language from Bulgarian. The "disputed" tag is for situations, like Altaic, where objective linguists line up on both sides of an issue. In this case, the only linguists who dispute separating Macedonian from Bulgarian are Bulgarian. Bulgarian linguists cannot in this case be counted as "objective", just like Greek linguists dealing with the Ancient Macedonian language. The relation of Ancient Macedonian to Ancient Greek is another example of a dispute relationship among objective (non-Greek, non-Macedonian) linguists--it is either a dialect of Ancient Greek or a closely-related but separate language from Ancient Greek. Your political POV and nationalistic racism against Macedonians is completely unwelcome on Wikipedia. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 21:46, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Tavio. In the time since I restored the partial ban on the IP, I see that there have 127 edits made to Talk:Kiev, of which 24 are from you. I suspect if I were to sort by bytes it would be an even larger percentage. At this point I think you've made your case and I would ask that you let others continue the discussion, so you do not bludgeon the discussion. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:32, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really care about whether the page is named "Kiev" or "Kyiv", really. The two positions were perfectly defensible. I'm rather outraged at how some of these arguments have been pushed: with off-wiki canvassing in July, then now with overt personal attacks, aspersion-casting, bludgeoning and even some behaviours that could be close to personal harassment (by singling out specific editors in the discussion and addressing every one of their comments, mostly with accusation-ridden replies). I've been involved in many lengthy and difficult discussions in my almost 9 years in Wikipedia, but I think this is the first time I've seen such a level of obsession and dirty play on the part of a minor group of users in order for their goal to be accomplished. For now, my only interest on the issue is for the accusations describing me as being willing to racially discriminate anyone or of promoting "bigotry and racism" are stricken or withdrawn (the discussion may be over, but those are still there for anyone to come and see, and that's disgusting). Impru20talk10:32, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Impru20I agree that this has been the ugliest debate in the 11 years that I've been active in the Kiev-movement debates. I attribute it entirely to one user--the anon IP/sockpuppet/troll who started it minutes after the previous moratorium expired. Without his constant poison, this debate would have remained a lot more civil. It would have reached the same conclusion, but would have been much more civil. One of the reasons that I pushed to close the RM is to disappoint him in his desire to continue editing. I'm just going to ignore his bullshit posting. The admins are smarter than to take seriously isolated comments from eleven years of editing. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 12:44, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nonetheless, it's true that, probably, you got yourself too heavily involved there (though I acknowledge this is somewhat misleading, since for example over half of my 131 comments there involve having to defend myself from unwarranted attacks, as well as the addressing of the canvassing issue in July). Impru20talk13:42, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I imagine that the editors who so wanted the move are now discovering that there are hundreds of pages with links, names, etc. that now have to be changed and moved. The only thing worse than not getting what you want is getting what you want ;) --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 17:18, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There are bots and bot-type editors that will do this badly, and I expect them to do that. The trouble is that they tend to change titles of sources, quotations and sometimes URLs.
It is likely that there will be a name purge. This happened to lots of articles after the Ukrainian Government did its big change of place names in May 2016. If you spent time in an archive going through handwritten records and try to check the spelling of place names, the deletion of old names by nationalistic editors greatly devalues Wikipedia as a resource. (Handwriting is not always clear, so it can be most useful to search the internet for what I think the writing says.)
If "it has been the form through history until (and including) now", the recent change of the article's name contradicts to our policy.
Note, I am not discussing the renaming, I am just pointing your attention at the fact that the article's name and this section are incompatible. And the section is well sourced, relevant to the article, and factually correct. --Paul Siebert (talk) 01:20, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There is no contradiction at all. The recent change of name (if you read the detailed discussion at Talk:Kyiv) is based on the trajectory of the name "Kyiv" becoming more and more common and being the name preferred by Ukraine and Ukrainians. The evidence is still clear that "Kiev" is more commonly used, but "Kyiv" is becoming the form preferred in style guides. "Kiev" is by no means extinct or in danger of becoming extinct. It doesn't matter one bit that the statement and the article's name are "incompatible" to you. What matters is the fact of the matter. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 01:27, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Meanwhile, I already pointed out that popularity of alternative names of many European cities (Praha, Beograd, Munchen, Koln etc) started to increase in the XX century, however, each of them reached some maximum, and stabilized at some level below their old English names. No evidenced have been presented that the situation with "Kyiv" will be different, and it is quite likely that "Kyiv" will stabilise at the present level (which is below that of "Kiev").
I'm not trying to justify what happened, just describing the result and the arguments that swayed a majority of editors to prefer "Kyiv" (in addition to unpunished canvassing and raising the nationalist flag on various extra-Wikipedia websites by editors and even the Ukrainian government). I personally opposed the move to Kyiv, but when the closing admin made the decision that a move was justified, I accepted it. As you have correctly pointed out, many of the arguments were in violation of well-established policies or guidelines. But the result is what it is. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 05:51, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The more I am looking at the renaming discussion, the more I realize the policy and guidelines were violated. I am not sure that was the closing admin's fault, because they were not supposed to do their own research; the decision was a result of insufficient arguments presented by "Kiev" proponents, especially their inability to point at the obvious fact that the search engine results were obtained not in accordance with teh procedure described in guidelines, and at other technical problems. Therefore, the renaming is by no means final. I am going to return to that issue next September.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:16, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I just got tired of the overwhelming flood of nationalists assaulting anyone who tried to argue Wikipedia policy and search results. I was literally spending three to four hours every day working on the issue and it was too much. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 23:08, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding your last comment at the article's talk page, it is not a good place for discussion of user's behavioural issues. I don't think you want to have problems, because AE is very time consuming and unpleasant process. It is better to remove it before someone commented on it.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:27, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've finally had my fill of counter-factual nationalist editing at places like Kyiv, Macedonia (ancient kingdom), and the like and have removed about 200 pages from my watchlist. If you have a specific request for my opinion at a page that I'm no longer watching, post it here, but I'm not going to guarantee that I care. The last straw? When a sockpuppet was allowed to edit unhindered for three weeks at a controversial request for move. He was allowed to accumulate and publish all the evidence upon which the move was based, illegally canvass for support among nationalists outside Wikipedia, argue for the move vociferously and make personal attacks freely against his opponents, and then not be banned until the very end. Long-time editors like myself knew exactly what was happening and that he was a sockpuppet, but admins did nothing to stop the attack on Wikipedia. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 08:46, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Taivo, it seems you overestimate admins' capabilities. They are just humble mortals, who have no sacred knowledge. Admins (when they are acting as admins, not as editors) have no previous knowledge about the subject of the dispute. They can act when properly informed, but they cannot do their own research of facts and evidences: that would make them involved users, which automatically deprives them from an access to administrative tools in the area of the dispute. I looked through the Kiev RM discussion, and I think the closing admin almost correctly summarized the discussion. The admin correctly noted that the number of votes was not a decisive factor, but the arguments of Kyiv supporters were more convincing. The problem is that the arguments presented by Kiev supporters appeared to be insufficient. However, that doesn't mean all arguments were presented. Unfortunately, I was too busy in September, and I learned about that RM only post factum. I see many flaws in the arguments presented by Kyiv supporters, which directly contradict to guidelines and/or policy, and some arguments that could be presented by Kiev supporters (but never presented). However, it would be unfair to expect the closing admins to dive that deeply into this matter. It was a responsibility of Kiev supporters to identify and show the flaws in their opponengts' argumentation. However, they failed to do that. I am going to do this job next September, and meanwhile, the goal is to preserve the "Name" section in the Kiev article in the present form. Actually, your participation would be extremely helpful.
With regard to the sockpuppet case: I don't know what you are talking about, but I know that admins are expected to use CU tools only after they have been properly requested to do that. However, as soon as a sockpupped has been identified, all its contributions can be reverted, which may affect all decisions made with sock's participation (if its participation significantly affected their outcome). That is just a technical job, so your emotional reaction is quite understandable but is absolutely not productive. Similarly, if some off-wiki canvassing took place, why that question was not brought to arbitrators attention? If I knew about that, I would addressed to ArbCom (if the case had important consequences). Usually, any case of off-wiki canvassing is thoroughly examined by ArbCom, and that may lead to bans or prolonged blocks. However, it is not admin's or arbitrators job to identify such cases, that is our job.
If you will allow various nationalists to expel you from the areas of your interest, Wikpedia may lose a good and intelligent contributor. Don't make a harm to Wikipedia, don't quit so easily. Please, don't give up.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:16, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
User:Paul Siebert, thank you for your kind response. The anon IP whose contributions you see throughout the move discussion, whose evidence constituted 90% of the movers' case, and who was eventually blocked at the end, was clearly a sockpuppet. Several of us non-admins were warning the admins who would show up about the anon IP being an SPA sockpuppet and doing illegal canvassing outside Wikipedia. A case was filed on one of the admin noticeboards, but it took forever to adjudicate and no admin really pushed at it to get it moving along expeditiously. By the time that the RM was being decided all the sock's posts and evidence were still being used as the primary evidence for the move. Many of us who had been active in the past presenting evidence against the move were being shouted down regularly by the swarm of nationalists and canvassed SPA accounts as well as the anon IP who was extremely aggressive. The anon IP also had the full-throated support of a certain admin who you suggested earlier that I not call out by name. I'm simply tired of the nationalistic furor that these topics in Eastern Europe (I was also active on the whole issue of Macedonia's name) stir up and the time that I was wasting in them, sometimes fruitfully, sometimes not. I'm not leaving Wikipedia, but just retreating for now into my Western US Native American language and culture academic specialty. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 21:51, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Taking into account that sockpuppetry and of-wiki canvassing is a serious violation, and keeping in mind that "Kyiv/Kiev" issue has important political implications and mayh negatively affect Wikipedia's reputation, I think these evidences should be discussed with ArbCom. If you have evidences about involvement of admins in that activity (or of an indirect support of it), that may also be discussed with ArbCom. Can you drop me the diffs? I would like to take a look at all of that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:52, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I looked through the last RM, and I don't think the situation is as dramatic as you describe. The canvassing issue was acknowledged, and I am not sure it had any effect, for the closing admin explicitly explained that they didn't count votes. If canvassing brought fresh arguments, that is not a big problem: it doesn't matter where strong arguments are coming from, if people are incapable of addressing them, that is their fault.
I would say, canvassing could be a problem if a closing admin said: 80 votes for Kyiv, 50 votes for Kiev, so the article will be renamed. That didn't work like that: the admin clearly explained that they find the arguments of Kyiv supporters more convincing. That is normal, and I would not see any drama in that.
The only unclear thing is the anonymous sock: who is a sockmaster, and why their posts were not removed? But that is not a big problem either: I do not find its contribution decisive.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:29, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
User:Paul Siebert, thank you for your concern, but I just don't want to take the time to gather the diffs and make a case. The article was moved and it's not going to be moved back, despite the errors in administering the article. I don't think that the uninvolved closing admin was acting in bad faith, but the whole process was painful to watch as the anon IP ran amok. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 05:58, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Taivo, while I haven't been involved in this specific issue, I understand the situation. It's difficult and frustrating, and Wikipedia's structures don't really handle the problem well. There's simple not enough admins familiar with these issues, despite the discretionary sanctions involved. I've gone the same route before, pulling out of areas that are simply unmanageable, and even out of Wikipedia completely. It helped me. Your voice has always been useful and productive in the Eastern European spaces we've crossed paths in, but Wikipedia should feel enjoyable and productive, and it's a shame it's often not. CMD (talk) 05:07, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
User:Chipmunkdavis thank you for the kind words. Like you, I think I just need a break from anything controversial. In the articles that I'm keeping on my watchlist, I'm actually one of the world's leading authorities in the real world, so it's pretty low stress. Maybe once the batteries are recharged, I'll venture forth into the wider world again. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 05:58, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Again, please, do not comment on other users unless that is absolutely necessary (in this case, it is not). Unfortunately, NPA violations are treated much more seriously by admins than NOR violations (probably, because they are much easier to deal with).--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:18, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reminder. I edited my initial response to be Wikipedia-appropriate. I just finished reading the complaint and am glad that El_C took it on. He knows what happened the best and it would be difficult to recreate the environment at Talk:Kiev/Talk:Kyiv that led to the issue. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 20:35, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Paul Siebert:, I must say that I have found a pleasure in editing recently the small number of pages which I'm following these days. Fewer than a half dozen watchlist notifications a day and none particularly "eventful". But there has been an anon IP troll stalking me the last couple of days calling me a nationalist troll that doesn't know anything about scientific linguistics. Seeing the timing between the topic ban and when the IP started posting messages on my Talk Page makes me curious, but not enough to investigate. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 20:43, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You are a linguist, so you may try to check who is the master of that anonymous sock by comparison of some linguistic similarities (someone told me that my ethnicity can be deduced from the way I misplace "a" and "the"). At least, the sockmaster seems strongly anti Russian (I mean not the nation, but the country). That is not too informative, but ... --Paul Siebert (talk) 23:36, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Another question is usage of Kyiv in articles. Whereas I am not going to question the validity of the recent RfC (I'll do that later), the results of that RfC are not applicable to the usage of the English word "Kiev" in the article. The article still contains the statement that "Kiev" is the English name for the city (this statement is properly sourced, and it was not challenged by anyone). In connection to that, I am wondering what policy can prevent us to use this English word in the English Wikipedia article (except the in title and in the cases when official name of the city is used in the same form as it was used in some official documents).--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:23, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Um, maybe I'm completely unaware of how WP even works and all, but... who gave you the right to just out and delete my comments? If you consider them wrongly misplaced, maybe moving them to appropriate paragraphs would've been a more logical edit? I sincerely regard this as an action at least owning a personal apology from your part, as you've clearly disrupted a consensus I was trying to reach on that talk page. Regards, --Whydoesitfeelsogood (talk) 03:57, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Whydoesitfeelsogood:WP:TPO says "Generally, you should not break up another editor's text by interleaving your own replies to individual points. This confuses who said what and obscures the original editor's intent. In your own posts, you may wish to use the {{Talk quotation}} or {{Talkquote}} templates to quote others' posts." Your edit did this, so it got reverted. Have a nice day.-- Toddy1(talk)09:03, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would call this "protecting" the article Borscht. Weird that blocking editors for warring is allowed, but protecting articles like this doesn't bring out a warning in itself. Why protecting? Because, for starters, you did not revert my edits in Shchi, yet you aggressively revert every edit to Borscht what wipes out "Ukraine" from it. Remember, edit warring implies more than one editor, so you are right now as much "in the wrong" as I am. Cheers ;), --Whydoesitfeelsogood (talk) 16:22, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
First, I did not revert your edits in Shchi because I don't follow that article and I don't follow you around. Second, you agreed to participate in a discussion BEFORE you edited the text, an agreement that you proceeded to violate with your first edit after the agreement. Third, read WP:BRD. You clearly have not. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 16:46, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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.
Hi. Why did you revert my edit on Big Red Meat? Antelope Hills links to a disambiguation page, which is certainly not intended. Are the Antelope Hills in Colorado not the Antelope Hills which are meant here? If so, you should simply make it link to the correct page. But just looking at the geography of the journey described, I don't see which other Antelope Hills they could be. Lennart97 (talk) 23:26, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Lennart97:, there is no article at Antelope Hills (Colorado). Until there is one, then there should either be no link at all or a link to a disambiguation page (where you might include a link or unlinked note to "Antelope Hills (Colorado)". But we try to avoid redlinked "false links" wherever possible. I know that there are other redlinks in this article, but they should be removed when someone gets a few minutes. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 02:09, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reply. What you describe here is a personal opinion, not Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia:Red link describes why it is, in fact, useful to include red links for topics that are notable and should have an article. Also, Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links describes why links to disambiguation pages are almost never desirable. Anyway, I've unlinked Antelope Hills at Big Red Meat and added "in Colorado", so at least it's clear to the reader now where those hills are. I hope that works for you. Lennart97 (talk) 13:20, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I assure you that I am far from the only editor who will edit out redlinks. There are many articles about the Comanche where overzealous editors (one in particular) have linked every single name, most of them redlinked and most of them not notable enough for an article on their own. Cheers and best wishes for the new year. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 23:28, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your contributions to the project! I am not its active participant, and therefore I'm grateful to those who are. I hope that 2021 will allow you make even more! -- Ата(talk)10:18, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The classification section has had a major overhaul 'away' from language isolate - I don't know if there has been a shift/consensus in the linguist world or not - does it need correcting? Thanks. HammerFilmFan (talk) 15:01, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@HammerFilmFan: I don't have Japanese on my watchlist, but I looked at it and it actually looks fine. I think that one thing you might have noticed is that we no longer talk about Japanese as a language isolate, but as a part of a small family including the dozen or so Ryukyuan languages. But the reality is actually the same as it's always been. Japanese linguists always considered the Ryukyuan languages to be dialects of Japanese for sociolinguistic reasons, so talking about Japanese as an isolate language arose based on that Japanese tradition. But as non-Japanese linguists became more aware of the distinctiveness of Ryukyuan, it became clear that it was (at first) a language separate from, but completely related to, Japanese. Now Ryukyuan is known to be a string of closely-related languages as a sister group to the Japanese monolith. We often still see Japanese referred to in texts as an "isolate", but that's just outdated habit and a holdover from when Ryukyuan was subsumed under the label "Japanese". Japanese is part of a small language family known as "Japonic" or "Japanese-Ryukyuan". --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 16:05, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Dthomsen8: Wikipedia policies concerning red links can be found at WP:RED. In general, I remove red links when the topic of the red link is not notable enough to sustain an article on its own. Good red links are generally at emerging topics where the main article is not mature enough to have all of its subtopics well-fleshed-out. At mature articles, red links are too often excessive. Not every single person named in a long article, and especially not in a short article about an obscure topic, is worthy of an article. I edit a lot in Native American topics and some articles, especially based on 19th century events, mention Natives who are only mentioned once in the historical record. They don't merit separate articles since almost nothing is known about them. This would be an example of a misuse of red links if every single name mentioned at a particular battle or treaty negotiation was marked as a Wikilink. Most of them would be red links and would forever remain so (in the absence of any further documentation coming to light). List of linguists is another place where red links are usually inappropriate without an underlying article about that individual already being written. I'm a linguist in real life, but I certainly don't merit a Wikipedia article and therefore don't merit a red link at the list article. There are those editors who are liberal with their use of red links, but I'm not one of them. Red links distract from reading. There are times where they are necessary, as I said, in emerging articles or topics where a set of subarticles are certainly appropriate. But in most of the articles where I edit, they are not appropriate IMHO. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 21:14, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Cynthia Ann Parker: Please explain your reversion of my edit
I made several changes to the article on Cynthia Ann Parker based on information in the book by S.C. Gwynne. I would like to understand why you reverted everything. Do you not think Gwynne is an acceptable source? His book appears to be quite well-researched. Thanks - I'm still relatively new at this, and just trying to understand.--CMtemCA (talk) 23:22, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
User:CMtemCA. Gwynne is not considered to be a reliable source by specialists in Comanche. He wrote a popular book with lots of lurid quotes from 19th-century racist white accounts that sought to paint the Comanche as the demons of the plains. It's a piece of garbage. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 02:24, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. If your edit summary had reflected the changes you actually made, I'd have not reverted. I suspected an inadvertent deletion. You and I disagree about the definition of murder as reflected in reliable sources, but it was not my intention to quibble. I hoped I was catching a dropped ball (which we all do from time to time). If I can be at all helpful, feel invited to call on me. BusterD (talk) 01:41, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We have an ongoing debate about the content of the summary and the infobox on the talk page. As you have an expertise in linguistics and a long experience on Wikipedia, it would be great to have your opinion.
Thanks for taking the time to give your opinion. As there was a wide consensus from contributors + other third party opinions, I implemented most of the suggested changes. WatanWatan2020, who did not take part in the discussion reverted them all. I have no idea how to deal with this kind of behavior. Do you have any suggestion? A455bcd9 (talk) 14:20, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Hello!
Look, i say "beet sour". You say "it's all about beets".
But even that reply mixes up "traditions" with "modern" borscht variations.
I have a "wall of text" for you regarding such complex matters as traditional soups evolving into names for soups with an ingredient X while believed to originate from country Y
Next time you defend a "wp:consensus", please elaborate, and provide links: deliver the discussion which have led to the consensus. You could've help by a great margin back in 2021 had you delivered a link to the discussion which have predceeded this very consensus.
At this point, I have spent WAY TOO MANY TIME to understand the Ukraine-supporting factology behind the origin of beet borscht. I feel frustrated, in a sense, because all I wanted is to see the "original" borscht. If it has an origin, it should have an "original" version, right?
Worst thing is, in early 2021, Borscht article was combining too many things at once (beet borscht, non-beet borscht, variations of borschts, a picture of shchi for some reason...) without proper segmentation of different entities.
Overall thoughts:
short answers for questions regarding long articles
no invitation to previous, archived discussions to acknowledge a consensus as something "understandeable", verifiable.
bad ergonomics of inserting Ukraine-related data (mixes up with neighbouring not-so-related data, hard to navigate).
The archives are in fully accessible for any editor to read. It's not my job to do your homework for you. Skim back through the archive indexes to find the discussions about the origin of the article's wording. You also have to remember that this is the English Wikipedia, so that means that we're defining what the English term "borscht" means, not what it means in Polish or Belarusian or Chinese. The history section can cover all the international variants that English speakers have never heard of, but when it comes to the origin of what English speakers know as "borscht", that's the beet version almost exclusively. Look up the meaning of "borscht" in nearly any English language dictionary or encyclopedia and the word "beet" will be in the first sentence. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 13:06, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I accept that; thanfs for clearing things up. I shouldn't blame you for bad ergonomics of the "archive" buttons, after all.
The history section can cover all the international variants that English speakers have never heard of
Thanks, that's important for me: I wanted to unravel how "borscht" lost it sourness in Russian cuisine some day. Guess it will go in "in USSR" part.
Hello! I decided to "do my homework" and expand the "history" section, despite being late at work.
>The history section can cover all the international variants that English speakers have never heard of, but when it comes to the origin of what English speakers know as "borscht", that's the beet version almost exclusively
Apparently, it turns out, there is an important mention in a mass-produced "cyclopedia of householding": it mentions 3 different borscht recipes. Non-national main recipe would imply the optionality of sourness source (vinegar). I think this is where borscht as a sour soup parted ways with Soviet borscht: the latter got simplified in lieu of Zastoi, where even tomatoes would be a "deficit". 81.89.66.133 (talk) 18:45, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding to your comment on "linguistic crossroad" on Altaic languages, I took that definition from Sprachbund's lead sentence. There is another definition offered there, an "area of linguistic convergence". Maybe that is more accurate? If neither is correct, would you help to improve Sprachbund's lead sentence? -- love.wh07:51, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi TaivoLinguist,
I nominated Levantine Article for FAC. As you contributed to this article in the past (and looked at it when we had a conflict with another user) and given your expertise in linguistics, I thought you could be interested in reviewing it. Thanks for any help you can provide. A455bcd9 (talk) 14:29, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How's thing's? Hope all is good. :) I remember from way back you had an editing interest in the Slavophone community in Greece and may possibly have an answer for a i have. I can't remember where exactly or which editors it was that said or wrote it, but some time back going from memory, there was mention of a set formula agreed to in wiki many years ago as to how to place Macedonian/Bulgarian toponyms to villages in Greek Macedonia, where applicable. If you have the link to where that was decided (so i can refer to if the need arises), it would be much appreciated. I have created some articles of recent date and a few will probably need those placenames added. Best. Resnjari (talk) 14:56, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi TaivoLinguist, I'm sorry to have had to revert you but the quality of this article is being seriously harmed by the addition of poorly-sourced (eg "Elrond's Library", not a reliable source) or wholly unsourced materials.
The use of phrases like "below" or "in the table" is not a substitute for a citation; in any case, a claim about a list of languages requires a single source. It would be better simply to rely on the table to make its statement without editorial interpretation. The use of words like "presumably" is wholly unacceptable as WP:OR. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:35, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Elrond's Library is considered by Tolkienists and collectors to be the most reliable source of information because its creator, Yvan Stralzyk, had devoted years tracking down the history of translation. While not an academic, he is definitely considered to be "the man", at least up through 2019 when he "retired" from active collecting. There is no other more accurate or complete source. HarperCollins' web page was from 2007, far out of date. I did remove "presumably" (although it is common knowledge among collectors). --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 20:41, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Taivo, I hope you are doing well. I have a conundrum.
I found a reference that states the Hunnic language that states it has strong ties to Old Bulgarian and Chuvash.
"It[Hunnic] was not a Turkic language, but one between Turkic and Mongolian, probably close to the former than the latter. The language had strong ties to Old Bulgarian and to modern Chuvash." --"The Hunnic Language of the Attila Clan", Omeljan Pritsak, Harvard Ukrainian Studies, Vol. 6, No. 4 (December 1982), page 470.
User:Kansas Bear, "Old Bulgarian" and "Old Church Slavonic" are often used synonymously although Slavicists can probably draw a fine distinction between them (see under Alternative Names). The Bolgarian language (also check out the Alternative Names here) is an unrelated Turkic language although it is sometimes also known as "Old Bulgarian". You've just got to be very careful with the sources. In the case you mention above, it is clearly a reference to the Bolgarian Turkic language and not to the Bulgarian Slavic language. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 23:14, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
One easy way to tell is if the text is centered in southeastern Europe in the Balkans, it's the Slavic Bulgarian language, but if the text is centered north of the Caspian Sea on the western edge of Asia, it's the Turkic Bolgarian language. There are problems like through around the world with languages that share the same name. "Mono", for example, is the name of (at least) three different unrelated languages on three different continents: the western US of North America, the Congo Basin of Africa, and the western Pacific of Oceania. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 03:46, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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.
'Mir Haven' was warned in June 2022 of an indef block if blah-blah-blah, so any more disruptions at Serbo-Croatian should be immediately mentioned at ANI. -HammerFilmFan 74.37.206.38 (talk) 14:00, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Taking a look back at your comments in opposition to the Kiev -> Kyiv move.
just shut up and let the process play out rather than saying the same thing over and over and over and over and over as if the other editors were stupid or willing to change their point of view
So you may ask a clearly rhetorical[dubious – discuss] question, but it is inappropriate for someone to respond to it in a clear way? The answer to this rhetorical question is no, that's silly. Let's see the part of the comment from @Coffeeandcrumbs that earned your above response:
Per WP:AT, Wikipedia article titles are "based on how reliable English-language sources refer to the article's subject" and not on what some arbitrary, unprovable, collection of native speakers use to refer to the subject.
So the question is, at what point do we follow the evolving use in serious reliable sources, and for how long do we cling to the version preferred by Russia? The Washington Post and Wall Street Journal have changed, Breitbart hasn't, where along that continuum do we stand?
It is true that what is determined by consensus to be the name used by reliable sources is more relevant than your personal impression of what native speakers of English might call Kyiv. It is true that consensus emerged among reliable sources by 2020 around Kyiv. And it is true that the most prominent English-language sources that still used Kiev in 2020 were partisan pro-Russian sources like (the unreliable) Breitbart. It's not true that to point this out is tantamount to accusing you of being a pro-Russian partisan. And your response to @Coffeeandcrumbs was obviously uncivil.
I believe the support side was more supported by the facts despite the sources and concerns provided by the oppose side, but I believe the oppose side was hamstrung in its effort to build consensus by focusing on worries about offwiki canvassing and nationalism rather than addressing the soundness of the supporters' arguments. Often people become caught up in a conflict and conflate one person's sincere disagreement with another's actual malfeasance.
I agree with you, Tahoma probably came from Sahaptin, while Tacoma probably came from Lushootseed (In the old days, Bs were Ms). Thanks for cleaning that other stuff up too! PersusjCP (talk) 19:12, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In English, both "office" and "term" imply a formal position with a fixed process for selection and governing. That is as far from the pre-reservation Native context as you can get. There were no "votes", no processes for formal succession, no term limits, etc. People followed who they wanted and weren't bound by "X is the chief". The majority of decisions at the tribal level were generally made by consensus anyway so the traditional concept of "office" is meaningless in that context. I don't care whether the Infobox has X, Y, or Z. Defining Native American pre-reservation leadership in that sense is white racism and ignores the facts of the matter. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 15:11, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So why is eg the |lead=1860–1875 there with two years if there was no selection process? It does seem to apply that they started leading on that year and stopped leading on the second year. Perhaps they should be removed if the whole concept is meaningless.--Aurictalk15:36, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You are assuming that leading from one time to another is the same as a "term". It is not. A term of office is a defined period. Native American leadership dates are actually just estimates of when that particular man held more influence in a tribe for particular purposes than not. There was no formal selection process, there was simply a rough period of time during which they had more relative influence in communal decision making than others. No leader "retired" at the end of a term, their influence simply waned over time and another's influence grew. "Term" implies that there was a fixed period with fixed dates. Marking the beginning and ending of a "term" is a lie when relating to Native American leadership among the Plains tribes. Did you notice that almost all of the "dates" are either 0's or 5's? That's because they are just arbitrary dates to give you a rough time frame during which their influence was at its greatest. You simply cannot honestly apply European norms of politics to Native American leadership in the pre-reservation period. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 19:02, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to go through all of the Native American articles where you've made this change because not all Native American tribes were identical, but for the Plains and Great Basin tribes, the two areas where I am a professional specialist, what I have described is the norm. Before continuing to use your bot to edit all Native American tribes to look like European principalities, I suggest that you consult some actual ethnographies to understand the fundamental differences between typical Native American leadership and European patterns. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 19:07, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Finally, and fatally, imposing Eurocentric fixed terminology to Native American leadership runs into a brick wall with the simple fact that you are dealing with pre-literate societies. There are no records to determine actual dates even if the tribes had used some sort of fixed process for changing leadership. The dates that we have are based on which Comanche leaders (there was never just one for any band) showed up for irregularly-spaced "peace conferences" with the American government. Sometimes "leaders" showed up after their overall influence in councils had waned and young leaders didn't show up at all. So these "dates" are simply records of who showed up for peace conferences or who was mentioned by other leaders when they didn't show up. There was no accuracy whatsoever. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 19:21, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I understand now. Also, I am not using a bot, this is me editing. If there is no |lead= in the infobox, the error doesn't manifest.--Aurictalk21:35, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Quanah Parker was on the borderline between the old ways and the new. He led his people as chief before leading them onto the reservation. At that time, the issue of "chief" was more Euro-centered with fixed appointments and terms. If listing a "term" for him, it should not begin prior to his time on the reservation and his official appointment. TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 07:53, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Bump. There's a new variant of borscht on the talk page: a Prussian "beetenbarscht", where beet is supposed to be sweetened before adding it to the rest of the soup. 81.89.66.133 (talk) 08:39, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
“It can’t in English” is an overstatement, as the parent tsunami article notes, and many Japanese plural forms are used directly in English. However, in this case it could go either way. I reverted to the non-s form since it was used in a GA and presumably vetted, and was not, as was presumed by the previous editor, a mistake. Acroterion(talk)03:35, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt that "many Japanese plural forms are used directly in English" despite what the article says (without a reference to any reliable source). Indeed, the parent article uses only the plural "tsunamis". And, just because an article is or has been a GA doesn't mean that it's not without tiny errors of grammar or spelling. I don't know who added that comment about Japanese plurals, but without examples from a reliable source that says it's OK, it's better to keep our forms mainstream. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 03:48, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It’s not something I’m prepared to speak about with much conviction, but I’ve not seen a lot of appended plural Ss in English use of Japanese terms, and it strikes me as odd. “Samurai,” for instance. But in any case, it’s not clear-cut, and I’m fine either way. Acroterion(talk)03:55, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot speak for every borrowed word from Japanese, but the Oxford English Dictionary's examples include several sentences with "tsunami" in a plural context and it is always "tsunamis". The OED will typically list exceptional forms that do not follow English plural conventions, but it does not even mention an s-less option for the plural of "tsunami". --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 12:34, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! You seem to be one of the few other people engaged in actively cleaning up WP:UNDUE issues in a lot of articles, and I'm starting to run up against a point where I don't think I can effect change without a lot more input. There seems to have been a multi-year effort to normalize a lot of more fringe linguistics on Wikipedia, which has resulted in quite a lot of pages existing both outside of scholarly consensus and regular checks by Wikipedian linguists. To be clear I'm not calling this a conspiracy, rather I think a lack of clarity as to exactly how fringe certain theories are has resulted in non-experts editing away as if they are accepted by scholarly consensus, or are 'controversial' yet still have some degree of wider acceptance.
A good example of this is this template, which seems to largely be a collection of both spurious and serious topics clumped under one umbrella, which does little to clarify which are spurious and which are actually seeing more serious acceptance (even from a minority of scholars). However, in the absence of the average wikipedian being a full-on linguist, it gets a bit touchy when you try to address something in an article which is essentially a fringe theory but for which a rat king of tangled articles exist creating a false perception of scholarly status. See my recent afd of Allan R. Bomhard and the discussions around it, for example (a lot of people calling him a "controversial academic" due to references of him as such before a whole host of articles were corrected to point out that he was not, in a classical sense, an academic). This is particularly troubling for articles which are even more spurious than Altaic, such as those relating to Nostratic or even articles which probably shouldn't exist at all, such as Proto-Dené-Caucasian roots.
I don't actually know how to proceed when domain knowledge seems required to address the veracity of articles and several fringe articles have been presented as mainstream so long that they're being used to prop up other fringe articles, and since you can't exactly collapse a whole house of cards at once on here that's a wee bit of a problem. Any insight would be greatly appreciated! Warrenmck (talk) 23:31, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Privetik, you said "regional labels should be matched by regional labels". Cite a Wikipedia rule that orders editors to write it that way. If there is no such rule I will appeal to widespread usage of "Eastern Europe and Russia" across English Wikipedia and beyond. 178.121.21.220 (talk) 09:30, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
One could also argue that since borscht is so popular in Shanghai, "Northern Asia" would be better, but the issue with such solution is that Shanghai lays outside Northern Asia. "Northeast Asia" is also a misnomer, since it doesn't include Shanghai as well. 178.121.21.220 (talk) 09:39, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You have a factual problem with using "Russia" as a synonym of "Northern Asia"--Russia is bigger than Northern Asia being both in Eastern Europe and Northern Asia. It is also stylistically incorrect in general when listing REGIONS to mix in labels are not labels for REGIONS. If we were listing COUNTRIES, then "Russia" is appropriate. But when listing REGIONS, "Russia" is not because "Russia" is not a continental region and is never labelled as such. But further, "borscht" is found in Mongolia, thus your substitution of "Russia" for "Northern Asia" is factually incorrect even without the stylistically improper mixing of countries and regions. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 14:29, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
File:Symon Petliura Monument-Rivne.jpg listed for discussion
When I say there is "no 3D FoP in Ukraine", "FoP" is referring to freedom of panorama. I suggest you read commons:Commons:Freedom of panorama and Wikipedia:Freedom of panorama for some background information, but freedom of panorama is basically an exception that allows you to photograph buildings without having to worry about copyright.
If you are interested in our Utah Wiknic on Sunday, August 27, 2023, please visit Wikipedia:Meetup/Utah/Wiknic 2023 and add your response. Regrets are fine, and help to quiet the sound of crickets. Not in the Utah area? Check out the Great North American Wiknic!
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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.
Hello TaivoLinguist. In you recent revert of my edit on the Serbo-Croatian article, you mentioned it is not a commonly used term. While Serbo-Croatian appears to be the commonly used term, Croato-Serbian seems significant enough as even in the infobox “hrvatskosrpski” (Croato-Serbian) is denoted in the line “srpskohrvatski / hrvatskosrpski” right under the Serbo-Croatian term. So it seemed logical to me. Why would it be less worthy or common an alternative than “Serbo-Croat-Bosnian (SCB), Bosnian-Croatian-Serbian (BCS), and Bosnian-Croatian-Montenegrin-Serbian (BCMS)”? I’m a bit confused on this reasoning.
Britannica also states “Croato-Serbian” as a direct alternative which seems to imply it is a commonly known alternative term. “In 1945 the victorious communist-led Partisans under Josip Broz Tito reestablished Yugoslavia. The new government at first treated Croatian and Serbian as separate languages, alongside Slovene and newly standardized Macedonian. But soon it began pressing for a unified Serbo-Croatian (or Croato-Serbian).” Here is another example were both are stated as if commonly interchangeable.”Some 17m people in Bosnia, Serbia, Croatia and Montenegro speak variations of what used to be called Serbo-Croatian or Croato-Serbian.” Hence why I went ahead with the edit and didn’t figure it would be contested really.
Also you mentioned that a few of the other alternative names in the lead are unnecessary. Which specifically were you referring to? Cheers. OyMosby (talk) 16:00, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
According to WP:LEAD, only "significant alternative names" should appear in the lead sentence. Other names can, and should, occur in the "Name" section. The title of the article is still the most common name used and the others are scattered without any consensus on what might replace S-C, therefore none of them should occur in the lead sentence as far as I'm concerned and they all should be listed at the front of the Name section. The fact that there is a name in the Croatian language that begins with hrvatsko- is immaterial because the English Wikipedia is based on English language usage only. "Serbo-Croatian" is presently and historically the primary name used by linguists, and there is no consensus on what the "new" name should be that includes "Bosnian" (no English-speaking linguists are using "Montenegrin" at this time because Montenegrin doesn't differ from Serbian as much as Bosnian and Croatian do). I have a grammar of the language that puts them in alphabetical order (BCS), but all the other grammars and book chapters in my library are just S-C. The problem is that someone writing for Bosnians or as a Bosnian will use BCS, a Serbian will use SCB or SBC, and a Croatian will use CBS or CSB. There is simply no generally accepted version that is more popular than any other. So clutter in the lead sentence is death to Wikipedia. All "clutter" should be placed in the section where it belongs, in this case, in the Name section. And I caution you against using Britannica as some sort of authority above and beyond all others. It's not. It's no more authoritative than the New York Times as far as Wikipedia is concerned. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 10:59, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cute. I started out in Wikipedia in 2007 (or 2008) as simply "Taivo", which is the Comanche word for "white man". Then about 2010, Wikipedia decided to integrate all their non-English wikis into one and someone in Korea had prior ownership of "Taivo", so I just added "Linguist" because that's what my PhD is in and what I teach at the university. But I am not, of course, the only linguist active in Wikipedia ;) --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 08:16, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(leaves an apology note on borscht on the talk page)(visits this page)
Whoa! Outsmarted by a linguist indeed. Of course it was cute of me to assume "Taivo" is supposed to be your IRL name. Context:
Taivo is a male given name in Estonia, an ex-USSR republic with own incredible drama of rejecting the Soviet legacy, as well as modern Russian "guest workers". And - unfortunately - a bunch of stuck-in-between Russians-but-actually-Soviets, who had never really cared about this whole "nationality" thing before statues flew.2A00:1FA0:2CF:194E:0:2D:9ED7:4701 (talk) 18:16, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for correcting the etymology of my hometown's name! I went far too long without knowing the Goshute origins. You do great work, and I hope your knowledge serves you well for the rest of your life. :)
Hi TaivoLinguist, I see you know several partial sources for the List of translations of LOTR. It would certainly be helpful if those were added to the article. In addition, it's best not to feed the trolls at AfD - as you can see, they love talking, never listen, and always hope to spin things out to cause delay or worse. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:45, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The sources are certainly useful, but I find the lengthy AfD debate really alarming; this is because if discussions are ongoing, the AfD is relisted for further weeks. No use crying over spilt milk, but the less we talk there the better. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:23, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again. The "redlinks" you mention in your edit comments are all live interlanguage links, and it is certainly acceptable (especially in a language article!) to use these on Wikipedia. Their redness is limited to English Wikipedia, and if you or anyone else feels like translating the articles, then they'll become standard blue wikilinks. I don't see any good reason to delete navigable and informative links, but I'm happy to discuss the matter. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:08, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is considered bad editing to link outside the English Wikipedia and to have redlinks in articles if there is no article in the English Wikipedia. Articles in other wikis are irrelevant to English speakers. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 21:11, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's a completely normal and culturally natural formulation. It doesn't have to follow "region+region" as you suggest. "Northern Asia" suggests that borscht is equally popular in, say, North Korea and Mongolia.Essence of nightshade (talk) 02:20, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is no more confusing that saying "Eastern Europe," which also includes Greece. But your whole argument is moot because borscht is, indeed, popular in Mongolia and China (called "Luosong soup" in China). --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 13:04, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From my understanding, Luosong soup doesn't have beets. In this talk page edit, you argue that versions without beets shouldn't be called Borscht.
Also, Greece is not part of Eastern Europe in English language usage; rather it's called Southern Europe. In contrast, Northern Asia" is not a thing in English, just East Asia and South Asia. In context, it strikes me as a way to avoid saying "Russia".Essence of nightshade (talk) 20:49, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have a degree in Geography and "Northern Asia" or "North Asia" absolutely IS a thing. It's a thing as much as "South Asia" and "East Asia. See Brittanica where "North Asia" is the very first division of Asia that is covered in the article. Only lazy geographers who don't care about accuracy try to use "russia" as a substitute. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 21:13, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't address the fact that you went far out of your way to stress that borscht-like sour soups without beets should not be called "borscht" in English. You even got another editor to draft a new article based upon this beet-red line. I agree, but here you are saying the opposite about Luosong soup in order to keep "Russia" our of the lead. We both know why, and I probably agree with your politics here, but they don't belong in an article about Borscht.Essence of nightshade (talk) 22:56, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say anything about Luosong soup because you were right. You want me to stand on my rooftop and shout it? BUT, beet-based borscht is popular in Mongolia. But it doesn't matter because when comparing region to region, "North Asia" is a well-established and commonly-used term for the northern half of Asia. I didn't have to go any further than Wikipedia itself and Britannica to illustrate that. When listing items in conjoined clauses it's always stylistically better to combine like items and not mix things needlessly. But borscht in Mongolia, even without including the Slavic-style sour soup in China, negates the use of a single country's name to describe the region. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 23:08, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The current version of Borscht says nothing about Mongolia. I looked around on google to find something about Mongolian borscht, but came up with only scraps. Sure, you can get borscht there, but then you can get it here in the United States, too…or perhaps I should say "Central North America"…
I will find the reference (EDIT: [8], just one of several good sites), but your construction is bad. Eastern Europe, North Asia is the only acceptable construction. The individual countries are listed in the infobox. Now instead of a well-formed conjoined clause, you're just trying to push "russia" into a place of prominence that it doesn't deserve. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 01:35, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The entire talk page is filled with mentions of Russia, categories related to Russia, etc. Mongolia? Nothing until here on this talk page, just now. Ask an average American where Borscht comes from and he will answer "Russia'. Even if it is part of Mongolian cuisine as you say, this would be due to the influence of Russia. It's completely warranted to emphasize that this borscht is common to Eastern Europe generally, including Ukraine, and its good that the article does that, but not to erase Russia from the picture. No one is saying that Putin or Stalin invented Borscht.Essence of nightshade (talk) 01:52, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
NO ONE is erasing russia. But russia doesn't deserve special status by becoming a region of the world rather than a state. russia is mentioned equally with every other country in the infobox (Ukraine is the origin country so it gets top billing, of course). You're just fretting because russia doesn't get to be more than it is. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 05:42, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And another point is well worth making. Except for a thin strip of land about 10 miles on either side of the railroad, the North Asian part of russia isn't very much "russian" anyway. It's inhabited by Turkic, Mongolic, Uralic, and Tungusic tribes who still herd their reindeer and live off the land like their ancestors have done for millennia. So saying that North Asia is "russian" is a complete exaggeration of reality. Many of those villages off the railroad consist of a russian administrator surrounded by native people. That doesn't make the town "russian". --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 05:46, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please, you shouldn't be surprised if other editors (such as me) start copying your fine writing skills elsewhere to make up for their lacking skills! 
" SILENTRESIDENT 12:56, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you recently removed maintenance templates from Wikipedia. When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Please see Help:Maintenance template removal for further information on when maintenance templates should or should not be removed. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been reverted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Please do not remove [citation needed] tags. Sb2001 talk page 17:28, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
and Tunica's ISO-639-3 entry for the most recent information on the Tunica language. Plandu (talk) 18:44, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion pages. Doing so won't stop the discussion from taking place. You are, however, welcome to comment about the proposed deletion on the appropriate page. Thank you. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 09:44, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
Done AfD now closed correctly. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 12:40, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Rise of Macedon. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on a biased choice of users' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote—in order to influence Slavic speakers of Greek Macedonia. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. Thank you. By the way, I think it's very unlikely you will get blocked. But, I do wish you would be more tolerant of people who do not share your viewpoints. MPS1992 (talk) 05:05, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
