Could you look at this edit to Cendol? [1] First, is the addition of Malay correct? If so, the link is not like the link to Indonesian, so I don't know if it's right. CorinneSD (talk) 14:52, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'd rm the link to Indonesian, and probably the ifood translation, which is not likely to be reliable. (I don't have my Malay dict w me.) — kwami (talk) 04:37, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
well. noone gives damn if you don't recognize my map as true. rename back my file now!it is just thesis and there are references in description! you don't have right to be so unfair! keep your opinions in your mind and rename my file back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IrakliGuna (talk • contribs) 11:12, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Read WP:RS. Label your map a hypothesis by a particular author if you wish, but don't make claims that are not supported by the literature. — kwami (talk) 17:34, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I made that request, at the target name. The parentheses were just to hold the article until it could be moved back. — kwami (talk) 01:23, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"restore article name after vandal moves to e.g. "T language" and intentional misspellings" - I don't see that the moves were vandal moves, nor that there were intentional misspellings.
Also edit warring about numbers from sources is not justified by policies. Eldizzino (talk) 00:41, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That editor moved the article to a misspelling after his previous move was reverted for being the same misspelling.
As for the numbers, there's such thing as common sense. If a source taken literally is nonsense, the info should be edited to be sensible. Same as if a source said the Tarascan state was in Mexico, when it should say it was a neighbor to Mexico or in what is now Mexico. — kwami (talk) 00:45, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Again, watch your language and behavior. [2]. Eldizzino (talk) 15:54, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You should take your own advice. If you post bullshit on an article, I will call you out for it. — kwami (talk) 20:42, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The proposal has been open for a while, and I would like your opinion on how to proceed, particularly with the one oppose vote that hasn't addressed my response (and who is now on an indeterminate wikibreak). Should I RfC for more consensus, go ahead with the merge, or not go ahead with the merge? Wugapodes (talk) 23:54, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'd go forward with it. User Eldizzino isn't familiar with the requirements for WP articles. — kwami (talk) 03:39, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, please stop vandalizing my username, nor Zack90 or other users are related to me, I asked Zack90 once, and it turned out we both got busted by a duck test but as you see on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Mjbmr/Archive it says "Inconclusive", also please remove newly content was added to Luri language, Minjai is Northern Luri means Central, which is wrong, please also undo other edits you think are related to me, I'm not responsible for any of them, beside Zack90 is not answering my emails. Mjbmr (talk) 18:39, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I never touched your user name. — kwami (talk) 20:56, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted your edits. You make the OR claim that Russian sounds occur in German and you don't seem to understand what a heptagraph is -- it's not just a sequence of seven letters. — kwami (talk) 19:07, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Geography of Pluto has been nominated for Did You Know[edit]
Hello, Kwamikagami. I've nominated Geography of Pluto, an article you either created or significantly contributed to, to appear on Wikipedia's Main Page as part of Did you know. You can see the hook and the discussion here. You are welcome to participate! Thank you. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 07:45, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The Caucasus Greeks page was so called after extensive discussion on how best to translate designations of the community by themselves and others. In English 'Caucasian' is confusing as this is used as a semi- scientific term to designate all so- called 'white' peoples whether or not they have an actual link to the Caucasus. In Turkish, on the other hand, the geographic designation is exactly what is used for both Caucasus Greeks (Kavkaz Rum) and Pontic Greeks (Pontus Rum), and also reflects how other minorities from the Caucasus are referred to, eg Caucasus Jews and Caucasus Germans, again the English adjective 'Caucasian' is not used here so as to avoid confusion. To English speakers Caucasian Greeks suggests that these are the Greeks who are 'white' in contrast to those who are not, rather than that these are the Greeks from the South Caucasus. If possible, can you please therefore revert your edits of the Caucasus Greeks page. Thank you
A Gounaris (talk) 10:13, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've restored the RM consensus. Kwami, I'll AGF on this one that you didn't see there had already been a discussion on the talk page, but really these controversial moves by you happen way too often. Jenks24 (talk) 14:07, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Wasn't aware of the discussion. — kwami (talk) 20:43, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking of Tagalog, do you know why Sanskrit and Pali are not X language as well? I never understood that, especially since Sanskrit is a descriptor, "Perfected", referring to "speech, language" - it's literally missing the language part. Ogresssmash! 05:44, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's a matter of disambiguation in English. Sanskrit and Pali refer only to the language, or to things associated with the language. Tagalog, on the other hand, is named after the people and is inherently ambiguous. Our preference at NCLANG is to chose the root common to the people and the language and to disambiguate: e.g. Swahili people and Swahili language. However, if we were to go with the derived forms, Waswahili and Kiswahili, there would be no need to add "people" or "language". — kwami (talk) 17:28, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please remove this personal attack immediately.--Cúchullaint/c 18:00, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a personal attack to comment on your behaviour. You're being a hypocrite, and it's entirely appropriate for me to call you out on it. I will change it to you're being a hypocrite though so as not to suggest this is your general character. — kwami (talk) 18:04, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
For those of you watching this page, this is about a badly closed move of Tagalog language to "Tagalog", which several linguists here have been trying to get reversed. In case you're interested in chiming in. — kwami (talk) 18:46, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your comments on French Sign Language family page do not make sense. All languages and relations have been cited to the best of human knowledge, using a heavy reliance on Glottolog and Ethnologue. The updated page not only holds the old page's information but also updates information and clarifies the topic. It is well established that the French Sign Language language family is a language family that exists and is a notable topic, but by your logic, the current page with its citations (of which, the new page uses and then has many more) should be deleted and has no place on Wikipedia.
What sorts of verification are needed at this point? What can be done to resolve this?
Please read WP:RS. Ethnologue is not a source because it does not classify sign languages. Glottolog does, but it contradicts your claims. You need a source that actually supports what you say. I'd love it if you could find one: I don't think there's much out there.
There's no need to toss out the article, as the version you found is, I believe, supported by the refs that it uses. (Correct me if I'm wrong.)
BTW, Glottolog does not provide a source for its classification of LSFic. It would thus appear to be a primary source by an author who is not an expert on the subject, and should be treated with caution. — kwami (talk) 18:31, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also, people will often say a SL belongs to a particular family because they find a source saying it was influenced by a member of that family. But English was influenced by French, and that doesn't make it a Romance language. For classification, we need a source that distinguishes descent from contact. Unfortunately, there are few that do: SLs are notoriously difficult to classify. Wittmann sees no reason to believe that BSL actually descends from FSL, rather than having been influenced by FSL in a contact situation. Also, for the name "Libras", you would need to demonstrate that this is the name of the language in English. So far, all English sources I've found call in BSL. — kwami (talk) 22:05, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is your only warning; if you purposefully and blatantly harass a fellow Wikipedian again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. wL<speak·check> 19:30, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain. How, for example, is defending myself against attack at ANI "harassing"? How is it harassment to call someone out on inappropriate behaviour, when other editors have made the same criticisms without you warning them? Is it just using "impolite" words like "hypocritical"? — kwami (talk) 19:39, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)To expand what was written on ANI, one of the accusations against you are how you are violating NPA. Regardless of what the other person said, calling someone a hypocrite is disparaging and against NPA. Per WP:NPA"Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done. When in doubt, comment on the article's content without referring to its contributor at all." --wL<speak·check> 19:54, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@WikiLeon: I redacted that comment when he requested it, making it about his behaviour rather than his person, but he continued to object. Is it "harassment" to object to someone's inappropriate behaviour? — kwami (talk) 19:56, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Thanks, his comments will be responded to on ANI... But a suggestion: to make it more clear to others that this is retracted, would you please strike (<s>...</s>) over your comment? --wL<speak·check> 20:09, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done. And toned it down a bit further (adj rather than noun, which strikes me at least as being less personal). — kwami (talk) 20:35, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Summary for future ref: This was about an (inadvertent) PA that I redacted, at his request, before Cúchullain filed the ANI complaint. WikiLeon appears to agree that the other "PA"s Cúchullain objected to were not. — kwami (talk) 22:14, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted the two you mentioned. Can you do the others yourself? If not, you can raise the issue at WP:ANI or make a list at WP:RM. — kwami (talk) 03:16, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Geography of Pluto has been nominated for Did You Know[edit]
Hello, Kwamikagami. Geography of Pluto, an article you either created or significantly contributed to, has been nominated to appear on Wikipedia's Main Page as part of Did you know. You can see the hook and the discussion here. You are welcome to participate! Thank you. APersonBot (talk!) 19:39, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The link from Earth is ambiguous. A dab page shouldn't rd to a specific article. I moved the dab to the dedicated page (copy-paste move, but I doubt that matters here). — kwami (talk) 23:06, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Kwami, what do you think of this edit to Amer Fort? [3] The source is You-tube. CorinneSD (talk) 23:45, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
YouTube sources in general run into issues with WP:USERGENERATED and WP:SELFPUBLISHED. Besides that, it seems to be a video of a light show that might have educational components, but the description doesn't really state where the information is coming from so I doubt it's reliable. Wugapodes (talk) 00:19, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi kwami, your recent edit maintains that these two characters "have been devised for the IPA," which is untrue. Rather, U+A7B5 was devised for African languages, and U+AB53 for German dialectology. I think that WP should never use them for IPA, for this will lead to reports of "no search results" even when what you are looking for is actually there. It's like reverting to legacy encodings in spite of Unicode, in which only the Greek characters β and χ may be used. LiliCharlie (talk) 00:04, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You're correct the wording should be changed. Latin forms have been devised for the IPA, though, as shown by the refs, even if that wasn't the motivation in Unicode. — kwami (talk) 01:23, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, I'm still not quite satisfied with the wording. Unicode only encodes abstract characters, not the shapes (aka glyphs) representing them. Though it is true that in the Unicode code charts U+A7B5 and U+AB53 are represented by glyphs that seem suitable for IPA, they are not characters to be used for that purpose. And my references to Michael Everson's and John Wells's blogs are not about (ab)using random Unicode characters, but about Unicode disunification, something that Unicode tries to avoid to maintain stability of the encoding, but which did happen to 䀹 (U+4039) and 鿃 (U+9FC3) (causing the semantics and the code chart glyph of U+4039 to be changed). LiliCharlie (talk) 02:15, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the wording should be changed. I'll leave it to you, since you're more familiar with the sources. I didn't like the old implication that there was no Latin assimilation of these letters in the IPA. — kwami (talk) 02:18, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You are edit warring over SSM in the US. I'm reverting your edit. You are not even reading the source, obviously, since you keep changing the number of TX counties to 5 when it is SIX. Please use the talk page if you wish to discuss the changes first. Njsustain (talk) 00:27, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, the number has been updated to five, which you would know if you read the ref I added. And your dates are wrong. And you are reading implications into the text which are not there. — kwami (talk) 00:29, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I will examine the source, but there is no evidence that the reason American Samoa is not recognizing "because its residents are US Nationals at birth". While they are, it is OR that that is the reason they aren't recognizing (yet). And that the residents of jurisdictions which license SSM are US Citizens is also completely irrelevant. People who aren't US citizens (including same-sex couples) can get licensed in the US even if they are nationals of other countries, so citizenship is completely immaterial to the passage. Please do not add this irrelevance and conjecture back into the passages. Njsustain (talk) 00:34, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, it looks like the same source to me. July 24. 5 texas counties do not recognize, and 1 cannot be confirmed to be recognize. By my calculations that is SIX. And as for "why" American Samoa doesn't recognize... well, there is that sentence there explaining that they are looking into it. We don't have to say why they don't recognize. The fact is they don't, and that is all the reason we need to say "excepting American Samoa." Njsustain (talk) 00:38, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say it was because they're not citizens, you read that in yourself, though if you follow the news you'll see that's where the uncertainty come in. It is correct to say that all territories whose residents are US citizens are issuing SSM licenses. Your objections are based on a logical fallacy: association does not imply causation.
You'd see there are no unconfirmed counties in Texas, if you'd look under Texas.
Your 'as of' date is also wrong. In Texas, for example, the information dates from between July 9 and July 24. — kwami (talk) 00:43, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I see 1 unconfirmed in TX. That is the table on the website the link is bringing me to. If you are looking at a different website, could you please post the link here so we can see where the confusion lies? Regarding the "fallacy"... I really cannot see what you are talking about. While people are bringing up the fact that at birth Samoans are not citizens, that is not necessarily the reason the territory may not be required to follow the ruling. American Samoa is an unincorporated territory... the citizenship status is a cause of THAT, not the cause of the failure to recognize Obergefell. And again, citizenship in the proper states is not necessary to receive a license. It's all entirely besides the point. They don't recognize in AS, period, we don't need to try to explain why... it's not WP's place to speculate. Njsustain (talk) 00:49, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Click on "local government response by state" and check under the tab for Texas. The total is five. If I link, it just takes you to the main page.
You misunderstand what I wrote. There are five inhabited territories, excluding Wake. In four of those, the inhabitants are US citizens. In those same four, SSM licenses are being issues. It is therefore correct to say that all territories whose residents are US citizens are issuing SSM licenses. That make it easier to remember which is which. I said nothing about the reason for this, nothing about citizenship being required, nothing about visitors from other places, nothing about the territory being incorporated (none of them are officially incorporated). — kwami (talk) 00:56, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The numbers will be updated on July 31 so it can remain "dubious" until then or you may change them. In regards to the territories, assuming everyone automatically knows which territories residents are citizens by birth as being a pneumonic is, well... ridiculous, I'm sorry. It's all territories other than AS... that is perfectly simple. Putting the citizenship in is irrelevant and certainly doesn't make it any clearer as to which territories recognize SSM.
I also see 10 counties in AL are not issuing to any couples. That's 10 out of 24 total for the country. That is less than 50%, so saying "usually" is incorrect. Njsustain (talk) 00:54, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not issuing to SS couples only: one county in Texas. Not issuing to anyone: one county in KY and ten in AL. That makes it 1l out of 12, or 92% of the time. That's not just "usually", but verges on "almost always". — kwami (talk) 00:58, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Again, the numbers will be updated soon. I still don't see the big deal about sometimes/usually. But whatever. If you think it's 11/12 you may as well update all the numbers and say "all but one". Njsustain (talk) 01:03, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
One county in AL and two in KY are unconfirmed, so we can't say "all but one". — kwami (talk) 01:05, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Moving forward, since you are putting updated information in there, the % of the population in or not in counties is not accurate any longer. I don't think it's really necessary anyway. 99.84, 99.90... what difference does it make anyway if we're listing the number of (low populated) counties. I would recommend just removing that number, but won't interfere with your edits in that paragraph at this point. Njsustain (talk) 01:08, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I think it's important when you say "all couples" that you say "including opposite-sex couples". Since the article is about same-sex marriage, I feel it's necessary to say that explicitly. But like I said, I'm not going to interfere in that paragraph at this point. Njsustain (talk) 01:10, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
How's it now? — kwami (talk) 01:50, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely accurate and unambiguous. Naturally the engineer in me wants to make the information on the county situation more organized, like in some kind of chart perhaps, but since there will be new data in 4 days I don't think I'll attempt anything and will wait to see the new numbers before even thinking about what might be the best way to do it. I also want to point out that the further information on that website was not obvious, so I'm sorry that there was a misunderstanding about it. Njsustain (talk) 02:01, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, couldn't help myself: How is this?
According to information collected by Ballotpedia, as of July 24, 2015, 23 total counties in Alabama, Kentucky, and Texas are not yet known to be issuing licenses to same-sex couples for various reasons:
Not issuing any marriage licenses: AL(10), KY(1)
Refusing licenses to same-sex couples only: (1: Irion County, TX)
Unknown/unclear: AL(1), KY(2)
Delayed: AL(1), KY(3), TX(4). These eight counties claim they will issue once paperwork or software is updated, but it may be a stalling tactic.
Sounds good, with one exception: I don't think all 8 'delayed' have said they "will" issue. Some have, but AFAICT others have merely said they can't issue because of paperwork/software, but refuse to make a commitment as to whether they will once the paperwork/software is worked out. — kwami (talk) 03:34, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. I'm also working on an actual table in my sandbox, which may or many not be warranted once the new data comes out on the 31st. Njsustain (talk) 03:36, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The "only" is a bit awkward tagged on the end. Maybe "issuing licenses but refusing same-sex couples"? — kwami (talk) 04:09, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad the table in my sandbox was useful. Can you please explain the ranges in the total columns? There's no indication in the article why the totals are reported as such rather than the ostensible total. Njsustain (talk) 19:29, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see, the lower number is not including the "unknown" row. Perhaps that row should be in Italics or something? 19:31, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
I see there was an edit war at Template:C-cmn. I'm here to provide the source so that it doesn't get reverted again. This is also the source I use for the generic a. The source is [4] page 69 - the treatment is the same as wei and you; page 67 for the generic a form. Cheers.--Officer781 (talk) 14:55, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have added entries for -iu, -ui and -un so that editors can have the choice over whether to transcribe them similarly or differently. Ideally it should be iu, ui and un for first and second tone and wei, you and wen for third and fourth, according to the source above.--Officer781 (talk) 15:06, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's not up to me. Whatever people agree on on the IPA key talk page is fine. The key just needs to agree with the output from the template. Also, [a] isn't very close to the 'u' in 'cut'. — kwami (talk) 17:08, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The Planemos category and the Solar System objects in hydrostatic equilibrium category are separate categories.
Planemos is for non-planets and non-dwarf planets, as well as planets outside our solar system. The hydrostatic equilibrium category is for all Solar System objects, including planets, in hydrostatic equilibrium. They are separate categories. DN-boards1 (talk) 19:29, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, they are not. Planets have planetary mass and are therefore planemos. Haven't we already had this conversation? The only difference between the categories is that one is restricted to the Solar System, but since all known extrasolar substellar objects are planemos, that's a trivial difference already solved by exoplanet being under planet, which is under planemo.
There's also the contradiction in categorizing 'possible' DPs as being in HE, when if that were true they would simply be DPs. If they're only possibly DPs, they're only possibly in HE. — kwami (talk) 19:31, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello admin, as per recent closure of move discussion you decided to move the page to Elara. Is it really possible when there is hardly any clear consensus regarding move. Most of people opposed move, I mean what we look for in such discussion? quantity or quality? I think your decision is really controversial, still I have no more concern regarding this issue. But other people can object the move. I think result should have been "no clear consensus", because we see no consensus for moving the page. Thank you. --Human3015Send WikiLove 21:03, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WP is not a democracy. We don't decide these things by a vote. The comments in the discussion of that malformed request centered around nationalism and ethnicity, which are irrelevant and which I therefor disregarded. (Much of the opposition was over the lack of the dab "(monarch)", which was fixed.) What is important is what name the king goes by in English reliable sources. AFAICT, that is "Elara" by a large margin. If you wish to contest my decision, please do so per WP naming policy by showing that English RS's prefer "Ellalan" over "Elara". — kwami (talk) 21:08, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's got another day to run (I've been clearing up the backlog), and you might not like my decision! I'll comment on what I've found so far. — kwami (talk) 22:07, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are mistaken. The base name goes to the dabpage. Both the album and the song are equally significant and popular. --George Ho (talk) 22:08, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The base name currently does link to the dab page. Perhaps the dab page should be moved, but there were reasonable objections to doing that in the RfM. We might want the song there with a hatnote to the dab page. The move request was backlogged, so we might need a separate discussion for the dab page. — kwami (talk) 22:21, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You're no longer an administrator, but I don't know how you still have to do the rollback or something like that. The album was just as popular as the song, and the same for the other way around. I'm going to propose making the song a primary topic in talk page if you insist. --George Ho (talk) 22:30, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I could move them by making a request to get the current page out of the way. I don't insist either way: either the dab page or the song could be at the primary name. I would favor the latter as more semantically justified (the album is named for the song), but it may be that WP precedent favors the former. I'd have to see the data.
I think that we could use some guidance at WP:AT for albums named after songs. — kwami (talk) 22:37, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, how about rewriting closing rationale as "no consensus for the song as primary, but no prejudice to proposing that the song be the primary topic." Some voters convince a closer not to make the song primary. --George Ho (talk) 22:35, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't propose making the song primary, so that would be an odd thing to say. I think it's clear that I would favor such a move, so I don't see how my closure could be used to oppose it. — kwami (talk) 22:37, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've done it now (separately), so the song won't take over the base title yet. George Ho (talk) 22:38, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You closed this discussion as "moved" but the page wasn't moved. I'm not sure if it was an oversight, technical limitation, or you meant "not moved", but regardless just a heads up. Wugapodes (talk) 00:25, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The move is pending admin revocation of the page protection. Might take a bit. — kwami (talk) 00:31, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. Also I read above and want to thank you for working on the backlog. It's a thankless job, but something that needs help with. Have a barnstar for your work.
The Original Barnstar
For working to help close RfCs and reduce the backlog. Wugapodes (talk) 00:54, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! And yeah, I've just about had it for the day. — kwami (talk) 01:13, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Kwamikagami. I know Kalenjin is NOT a single language and I never wrote this- instead I wrote that it is a macrolanguage that comprises of nine dialects of varying degrees of mutual intelligibility (note: this means some of them might not even be mutually intelligiible, which I DID say in the "varieties" section, where I presented the results of a study on this - and I included it in the references) and I added a hyperlink to the word macrolanguage. Macrolanguage is a technical term used by ethnologue, it is not a term I invented. There is even a wikipedia article on what macrolanguage codes mean (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_639_macrolanguage). If you search for "Kalenjin language" in Ethnologue, the following comes up: https://www.ethnologue.com/language/kln. This, as you can see, includes the 9 dialects that I had in my wikipedia article, and which you removed. By the way, all this information is from the (2015) edition while in your version you cite the (2013) edition of Ethnologue. So, please read those before you write that other people write "nonsense" in your review summaries...
So, from reading Ethnologue, Glottolog, Toweett (1979) and Creider (1989), my understanding is that "Kalenjin languages" (plural) is a genetic classification, which includes the languages of Tanzania, whereas "Kalenjin language" is the name given to the Kenyan dialects only. Since there is already an article on wikipedia on "Kalenjin languages" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalenjin_languages), and since in Kenya "Kalenjin language" is seen as a single language (as you yourself wrote in the introduction to the article, it is the use of this term that politically unified the Kalenjin peoples), I thought it was appropriate to include in the article what people mean when they refer to Kalenjin as a single language.
Moreover, you write Nandi is the principal dialect, which is just wrong, since Kipsigis has almost twice as many speakers (see ethnologue if you don't believe me). And you do include Kipsigis in your varieties, so it's not that you think it's not part of "Nandi-Markweta" (which is just an internal genetic subdivision of Kalenjin languages, on which people do not agree. for example, glottolog and ethnologue have a different internal classification of Kalenjin as a branch).
Also, you say that Kalenjin people make up 18% of the population (but you don't have a reference for it). According to the wikipedia page on Kalenjin people, they make up 12% of the population, but I didn't have time to verify it, so I just deleted that part, since I thought it was not essential.
You also say that "The Kenyan conception of Kalenjin includes Kipsigis and Terik but not Markweta, ". I don't know where you got this from since there is no reference but 1) the wikipedia page on Kalenjin peoples does include Markweta, 2) my best friend is a Kipsigis who lives in Kenya and told me that the Markweta (whom they call Marakwet in Kenya) are Kalenjin. I know number (2) is not the best evidence for you, but give me your evidence for writing what you wrote. Also, wikipedia has an article on Marakwet people (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marakwet_people) and says they are Kalenjin.
As for moving the page, "Kalenjin language" actually redirects you to this page, and when I tried to move it I got the message that this page already exists (probably because of the redirect link? I have never moved a page before so I don't know the details).
In sum, since in Kenya "Kalenjin language" refers to 9 very specific dialects/languages, and ethnologue recognizes that and classifies this as a macrolanguage (you like it or not, ethnologgue does), and since there is another page anyway about the GENETIC term "Kalenjin languages", I thought it was appropriate to modify the article in the way I did. To make it clear, my main objective was to include the grammatical features of these languages, and I did my best given the knowledge I have, to present facts from different dialects (so I included Kipsigis, Nandi, and Tugen). I did not want to include this information say in the article about Nandi (which would have been easier because I would have avoided these lengthy discussions about sth that to me doesn't seem controversial given the sources I have cited) is that despite what you think, "Kalenjin language" is used a lot in linguistics to refer to the Kenyan dialects (I am a professional linguist, who has spent quite a lot of time lately reading about and studying this language), and it is more likely for a student interested in the grammatical structure of this language to look up this term instead of Nandi. Moreover, some of the dialects are so close that the general sketch of the grammar (since I only included a very general sketch) applies to all of them.
I am a linguist, whose only goal was to facilitate the access to knowledge about the dialects known as the Kalenjin language. I have given my sources for all my claims (and btw these sources were there in my edits, I don't think such a lengthy response to you should be necessary), unlike some of your claims in the relevant parts (eg. Markweta, or Nandi being the principal dialect...). So I would greatly appreciate it if you restored my edits. ...Maria.kouneli (talk) 19:09, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
First, "macrolanguage" is not a linguistic term, and should be avoided. It's only used for organizing ISO codes, which is largely irrelevant to most WP articles. The relevant link would be to dialect continuum, assuming that's applicable.
Nandi might have been called the "principal" dialect because it's the most important socially, or the best studied, I don't know. No problem with you removing that. However, if there is a prestige dialect of Kalenjin, that should be mentioned.
I'll take your word that Markweta is considered Kalenjin by speakers (i.e., that speakers are ethnically Kalenjin), but that is probably irrelevant (see below).
It's inappropriate to say the article is about "Nandi-Markweta" and then talk about "Kalenjin" -- the article title should reflect what the article is about. Since you appear to know what you're doing, and Kalenjin is perhaps borderline between being a language and being a small family, would you prefer it to be moved to "Kalenjin language" (singular), as you suggested? Easy enough, though it might take a few days to get the redirect out of the way. If we did that, then most of the individual articles (such as Naandi language) should probably be deleted and turned into redirects to Kalenjin, with their ISO codes and populations summarized in the infobox there. Maybe one or two would be worth keeping separate, unless you feel you can adequately merge their info into the Kalenjin article. We don't need a separate article for every ISO code -- we don't follow ISO in other language articles.
The question then is whether to follow Distefano (1985), the source used by Glottolog, in excluding Markweta from Kalenjin proper. Whether it's conceived of as Kalenjin by speakers is irrelevant: IMO if our sources state that Kalenjin and Markweta do not form a valid clade, then we should not lump them together. Since I don't recall Markweta examples in your grammatical description, that shouldn't be a problem. If we do that, then after moving we should turn Nandi-Markweta into a redirect to "Kalenjin languages" (plural) after moving the article to Kalenjin singular. If you think you have a better or more up-to-date classification than the one Glottolog uses, we could use that instead. We should also modify Kalenjin-plural to reflect whichever classification we go with.
Also, since sources state that Kipsigis is more distant that the other varieties are to each other, it should perhaps also be kept out of Kalenjin proper. That would require some modification of your edits. I don't know how intelligible it is -- if intelligibility is low, we should probably follow our sources in excluding it; if intelligibility is good, then I see no problem including it.
Oh, and this discussion should probably be copied to the article talk page for future reference. — kwami (talk) 21:35, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Copying this over. Please continue this discussion there if you get my email. — kwami (talk) 02:36, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So ... Ellalan was moved, and then moved back. Can you explain what is going on? Ogresssmash! 04:54, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't moved back. I couldn't move it in the first place because it was move-protected. (I asked you your input while the move was pending.) That was resolved and I moved it just a minute ago. — kwami (talk) 04:57, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The vote was opposed and you moved it anyway. Ogresssmash! 06:15, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WP isn't a democracy. The oppose votes were for reasons of nationalism, which are irrelevant. I asked you about your comments, because you were one of the few people who made relevant comments, but you couldn't remember why you made them, and I couldn't replicate your findings. So I went by COMMONNAME, which is "Elara", and instructed voters who disagree to demonstrate that I got the common name wrong, rather than making irrelevant claims over which nationality should get precedence. — kwami (talk) 21:23, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Kwami, and thanks for your contributions. A couple of general editing suggestions for you to consider:
Please make a habit of providing an edit summary when you make a change to an article. Doing so makes it easier for your colleagues here to understand the intention of your edit.
Plus, it will be easier for you and your co-editors to collaborate on articles if, instead of making multiple consecutive edits in rapid succession on an article, you use the "Show preview" button to view your changes incrementally before finally saving the page once you're satisfied with your edits. This keeps the page history of the article less cluttered.
Thanks in advance for considering these suggestions. Erictalk 19:48, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Edit summaries: long-standing bad habit. Sometimes I do better.
Multiple edits: WP fails at upload too often (maybe 1 time in 2 or 3, more often for long edits) for that to be practical. It's extremely frustrating to lose a lot of work, and I often won't bother to repeat it. I solve that by making incremental edits, so that I don't mind repeating them when the edit gets lost. — kwami (talk) 20:05, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Copying your edit to the clipboard before saving/previewing solves this issue. If WP screws up, you simply paste your edit. Peter238 (talk) 20:42, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Unless I'm editing more than one article at a time, as I frequently am. — kwami (talk) 20:45, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yikes, that's a high upload failure rate. I have not experienced that--I wonder what's causing it. Do you always edit using the same connection? Not my area of expertise, but I'm wondering if it's a stability issue with your internet connection. Erictalk 21:10, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't noticed that it's a particular connection. Other users have complained about this too. Seems to have started this year. — kwami (talk) 21:18, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Is it a red banner at top that says "loss of session data"? I get that a lot, but don't lose my edits; I just have to hit save a second time. If not then this isn't a problem I've seen before. Wugapodes (talk) 23:06, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that's it. Usually I can save, but not always. And sometimes I hit 'save' and move on to the next tab, not noticing that the save didn't go through. — kwami (talk) 23:08, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Next time it happens look through the box again to see if your edits are still there and try saving again. It works for me when I get that. I don't know how to stop it from appearing, but it's a workaround of sorts. Wugapodes (talk) 23:13, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think my problem is that I close the tab or backtrack and go in a different direction so that I can't get back to where the edit would be. Sometimes I don't notice until later when I find my edit is missing and I'm not in the page history. — kwami (talk) 23:36, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello - would you please explain your finding of consensus at Talk:Greyshirt_(comics)#Requested_move_20_July_2015. 4-3 seems a bit close for consensus where there are policy arguments on both sides, especially for a non-admin close. Thanks. Dohn joe (talk) 23:17, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A minor comic-book character vs a historical Nazi party -- not the primary use. But feel free to reopen the discussion. — kwami (talk) 23:34, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That may be your opinion, but I don't think it reflects the consensus (or lack) of the discussion. As to reopening, that's a bit tricky now that the post-close moves have been made. If you would un-close the discussion and leave a note, that would seem to be the best way forward, unless you have a better suggestion. Dohn joe (talk) 23:53, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Though WP is not a democracy, the vote was 5:2 (or maybe 4½:2½). That seems a reasonable consensus to me, and the arguments were reasonable. But I'm not an admin; there's no problem with you reopening the discussion. — kwami (talk) 00:00, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It seems a pretty clear 4:3. In any event, I'll work to restore the discussion. Thanks. Dohn joe (talk) 00:13, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't notice you were the same person as the ½. You seemed okay with making the other article primary, which would require first closing the discussion an "moved". So yeah, if you're opposed, it is 4:3. Not that it's a vote. — kwami (talk) 00:45, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Kwami - I was just looking at the article on the Bronze Age, and I read the section on Pontic-Caspian steppe. I came across this sentence, which did not seem to fit with the other sentences, either in terms of the flow of meaning or in terms of the quality of the writing:
It's seemed more of as an areal term to cover several smaller related archaeological cultures.
If you think it makes a useful point and should stay there, can you fix the grammar of the sentence? Also, it is not really clear to what the initial "it" refers. CorinneSD (talk) 00:29, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
How's that? — kwami (talk) 00:42, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your move of Gangsta. to Gangsta (manga) was extremely inappropriate: per WP:RMNAC, for a non-admin to move a page, consensus must be clear, which it was not. Also, while the relevant policies are currently the subject of a discussion, there is currently nothing forbidding the use of a period as disambiguation. I suggest you either revert your move or ask someone who can to do so. Your close essentially amounts to a WP:SUPERVOTE. Also, you failed to move the talk page. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 01:34, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's pretty clear: WP guidelines support the move. There is plenty of precedent and supporting detail in the guidelines. — kwami (talk) 01:41, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please see the comment about the Talk page. Gangsta. was moved, but there is something in the way of the Talk:Gangsta. move. —BarrelProof (talk) 02:27, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Don't see a comment. Requested the target talk page be moved out of the way. — kwami (talk) 02:35, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I was referring to the above remark that says "you failed to move the talk page." It sounds like you're aware of the issue and have some plan to fix it. —BarrelProof (talk) 03:16, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Out of curiosity, which guidelines do you feel support your move? It was also a poor decision to move the page when a) there was no clear consensus and b) supporters were split between Gangsta (manga) and Gangsta. (manga). G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 09:45, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Specifically, which guidelines override WP:COMMONNAME and WP:SMALLDETAILS to support your move? Depending on your answer (or lack thereof) I may consider opening a move review. I hope you don't mind. (By the way, ignore my peremptory tone in my first comment. I was just wrapping up my editing for the day when I saw your close, and was in a hurry to reply.) G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 11:08, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
COMMONNAME does not apply to style: whether a name is capitalized or italic or whatever is a separate issue, covered i.a. by the MOS. (People keep claiming it does apply, but consensus has long been that it does not, and there are statements to that effect somewhere in our guidelines.) As for SMALLDETAILS, I found several opinions that a period is not an adequate dab, and all similar articles I could find omit the period from the article name. I was therefore going on precedent. — kwami (talk) 21:39, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
An editor has asked for a Move review of Gangsta (manga). Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 17:08, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Copy-edited the lead. Need to review the claims of a Punic substratum; I seem to remember there was some dispute over that. — kwami (talk) 17:10, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your review, the work is finished now. The Punic substratum was proved by Abdou Elimam. You were right when you entered in edit war with the editor a few months ago because it did not involve any citation and reference for that. This is solved in this review. As for the fact that Neo-Punic is more phonetic, this was not written by me. However, this means that silent letters are dropped in Neo-Punic. Feel free to review all the work and comment it deeply. --Csisc (talk) 12:51, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Kwami - I was looking at the article about the River Exe, and when I read the first sentence in the section River Exe#Topography,
The river's name is an anglicisation of the Latin isca, itself a modified form of a Brittonic root meaning "water" or, more exactly, "abounding in fish"
I wondered if the Greek word for fish, something like icthys or ikhthus, were related to the Latin isca, and, if so, why it wouldn't be mentioned here.
Also, when I read the third sentence,
It seems to be a cognate of pysg (pl. of pysgod), the Welsh word for 'fish'
I thought of Latin pisces and wondered why that was not mentioned. CorinneSD (talk) 02:14, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming the etymology is right, all but the Greek are related. Latin isca, though, is a Celtic borrowing, thus the mention of Welsh. We could mention that English "fish" is also a reflex. It's a matter of how much detail is too much, I think. I think the Greek is a different root, though. — kwami (talk) 02:38, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think that etymology is wrong, as the only Celtic language that would have a cognate is Irish uisce, Scottish Gaelic uisge "water" (as in "whiskey") and there is no sign whatsoever of the loss of p on the Isle of Britain; it happens in parts of the Continent sometimes and in the Irish group, full stop, never ever on Britain. Does anyone you know have access to Rankovičić's Etymological Dictionary of Proto-Celtic? It or the French language one that preceded it probably have Exe in it. (I'm now 4100 miles from Harvard as the crow flies.) Ogresssmash! 02:56, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Could it be consonant mutation? Cf. Afon Wysg (River Usk).
Matasović? Yeah, you can get it online at Library Genesis. — kwami (talk) 03:05, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Lol, Matasović, correct. Yeah I reckon it's just the Exeter equivalent of Afon Wysg, which would be from ēsk. No mutation necessary for "water", only for "fish". I might be able to find my consonant changes book but I don't think it'll have the Exe. Ogresssmash! 03:09, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Should probably mark both articles as dubious if the 'fish' etymology doesn't hold up, then. — kwami (talk) 03:15, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Do you feel like tagging? I'm logging off for now because I have a fever. My left arm for this one French book whose name I forget that covered toponymy and cleaved nicely to Matasović for confirmation that the proto-Celtic data was correct... Ugh. Maybe I'll use Hollis today if I am feeling better. Ogresssmash! 20:20, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be afraid to tag it without seeing what you're seeing. Won't matter if we hold off until you're feeling better -- the claims have been there for years. Get well soon. — kwami (talk) 20:23, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect the "more exactly" part was added later (maybe even by me!) from the River Usk article. So the "fish" stuff can be removed from the Exe article as SYNTH. The only thing that would required verification then would be Welsh (or Brittonic?) Wysk from ~ pysg. Also, pysg is not plural. Rather, pysgod is singulative. — kwami (talk) 20:29, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wow! Such an interesting discussion. Kwami, what does "singulative" mean? I'm amazed that isca, even if it is borrowed from Brittonic, is unrelated to icthys. If, as I thought, Celtics were at one point living all across mid- to southern Europe, why couldn't there have been a word for fish or water that was used in that whole area? CorinneSD (talk) 22:12, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Singulative is a linguistic term for an ending or form that has the opposite effect of a plural ending: Welsh pysg is the base form and means "fish (plural)", whereas pysgod has the singulative -od and therefore means "fish (singular)". Singulatives are common in the Brittonic languages. Ogresssmash! 22:15, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh. Thank you, Ogress! I hope you feel better soon. I have another question. Is there any chance "Exe" in "River Exe" could be the same word as "Aix", as in "Aix-en-Provence" in France? I believe that, when not followed by a word beginning in a vowel, "Aix" is pronounced "Ex" or "Exe". CorinneSD (talk) 22:21, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Idk if I should put this on the talk page at Wysk but Matasovic does not have Exe (I'll keep digging in my fever) and states on page 128 (emphasis mine):
*fēsko- 'fish' [Noun] GOID: Olr. íasc [o m] PIE: *pi(k')sk'o- 'trout, fish' (IEW: 796) COGN: Lat. piscis, OE fisc ETYM: W river-name Wysg could reflect *fēskā (Sims-Williams 2006: 80). Cf. also Gaul, river-name Isca, which would be from *fiska. The vocalism of Olr. íasc requires that we start from PIE *pey(k')sk'o- (the cluster *ksk may have been dissimilated to *sk as in *prk'sk'-: > PCelt. *farsk- 'ask'). REF: EIEC 604, de Bernardo Stempel 1999: 43, 523, Sims-Williams 2006: 80f.
So that's Matasovic. Aix is from Latin Aquae Sextiae, actually... Ogresssmash! 22:22, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed, then, at least as a reasonable supposition. Good to know. — kwami (talk) 22:32, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Corinne, with thousands of words apiece in scores of languages, we're going to see quite frequently resemblances that are merely coincidental. English [tu] and Korean [tul] for "two", for example. Or Latin [turtur] and Hadza [hututu] for "turtle dove" (both presumably onomatopoeia, reanalyzed as "turtle" in English). Take any two languages, and you're going to find words which look like they must be related but aren't. That's why people work out regular sound correspondences. — kwami (talk) 22:32, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just read them. They're in different places. But both are just the "water" if the articles are correct. — kwami (talk) 22:35, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Kwami. Could I ask you to review your closes of these articles? You are correct identifying that there are plenty of "Results of" articles, but they only exist as a child article of the main election article (the example cited in the RM of Results of the 2013 Malaysian general election by parliamentary constituency is a child of Malaysian general election, 2013). If the state articles are moved to the proposed titles, it creates a child article without a parent. As I stated in my comments, the moves are acceptable as long as a parent is created. Cheers, Number57 08:26, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be best to ask an admin who is familiar with election articles to review my close. — kwami (talk) 21:25, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am an admin who is familiar with election articles, hence raising the concerns about your close not being in line with normal practice. Cheers, Number57 23:50, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Any chance of a response? Cheers, Number57 08:51, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, didn't see your comment. I'm not that familiar with out election coverage. If my close was not consistent with how we treat other election articles, then by all means reopen it. Or move it. I'm not attached to my decision, I have no stake in it, I was merely trying to clean out our MR backlog. — kwami (talk) 18:13, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As I commented (although didn't !vote） I would not feel comfortable reopening the debate or moving the article back. Please can you do so? Cheers, Number57 09:10, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Can you explain why you removed the text about voice-onset time in stop contrasts from the pre-voicing article? The phenomenon described in pre-voicing, i.e. the relative timing of consonant articulation and the start of voicing (laryngeal pulsing), appears to be the same as that described in voice-onset time. In fact, it's covered more thoroughly in the voice-onset time article, so I'd almost like to propose a merger of the two articles. I don't think it has anything to do with whether the speaker is using modal voice or not, as you can pre-voice (or use any other voice-onset time) in any vocal register. Thanks. Vejlenser (talk) 15:54, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That paragraph was about simple voicing and so was off-topic. Prevoicing is something different, where the voicing begins before the occlusion. Your paragraph was like adding a paragraph on aspiration to our preaspiration article and claiming they were the same thing.
If some sources use the term "prevoicing" to simply mean negative onset time, we can add a dab note, but that's not what the article is about.
It may be reasonable to merge with the VOT article. However, you cannot define prevoicing in terms of VOT, because that only measures the onset of voicing relative to the release. — kwami (talk) 18:11, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm now reading and copyediting the article on River Parrett. I have a question about some etymology in River Parrett#History. The second sentence reads,
Priestley-Evans suggests, "Parrett has been said to be a form of the Welsh pared, a partition, and that it was the name which the Welsh people of Somerset and Devon gave to that river because it was at one time the dividing line between themselves and the Saxons".
When I read that, I couldn't help but think of the Spanish word for "wall": pared. Are these cognates? CorinneSD (talk) 22:17, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's even closer than that. Pared is (I think) an interior wall, while mur is an external wall -- like Spanish pared and muro. There's also gwal, which I suspect is the native word. Rather than being Spanish loans, I would assume that they're Latin, and went similar sound changes in Spanish and Welsh. Now, is parwyden 'wall, side' also Latin? — kwami (talk) 23:41, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I don't know, but it doesn't look anything like Latin. CorinneSD (talk) 23:55, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The word for "wall" in Persian is de-var. The "var" part (rhyming with "far") looks similar to the "wal" in gwal (and the letter for "v" is sometimes pronounced like "w"), or even the "par" in pared (or am I guessing too much)? CorinneSD (talk) 00:04, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The Latin pariete isn't too far off. The English and Welsh also look alike, though this English is from Latin. Easy to have coincidental look-alikes. — kwami (talk) 01:31, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
CorinneSD I looked into it halfheartedly and the Persian appears to be from something like *dēgawāra, itself a deverbal of *daiz "to plaster with mud", so I don't think there is any relation. In fact, the Persian word is actually related to the Greek word teikhos "wall" and the English word "dough". Ogresssmash! 21:31, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As you edited Serer people quite a bit in the past, there's a tagging issue I brought to RSN concerning Serer history, which I think uses material from that article. See [[WP:RSN#Are [dubious – discuss] and [opinion] tags appropriate for these quotes by reliable sources?]] - can't make that link work, so[5]. Doug Weller (talk) 20:40, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you, there are (to the best of my knowledge) no English words that end like this. The closest thing I can think of are adopted French words, such as "passé". But "djembe" is not an English word. It's the French spelling of a Malinke word. I'm concerned that changing the phonetics to {{IPAc-enei}} will perpetuate the mis-pronunciation. Can you comment on Talk:Djembe please, so other people can contribute too? MichiHenning (talk) 06:08, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Seeking your advice on some Ghana-related articles.[edit]
Greetings, Kwamikagami! I noticed that you'd recently engaged with Fusus over at Kumasi and I was wondering if you might be interested in looking into some of his/her edits. In recent days, Fusus has made a number of really large edits, adding tens of thousands of bites to articles like Kumasi, Ashanti region, and Ashanti people. Frankly, it's a bit difficult to know where to begin wading through all these additions, but I've noticed in them a consistent use of idiosyncratic English, as well as dubious information that looks more like puffery to me than anything else. I'd revert the edits outright, but I'm concerned that (a). they might have substance to them, buried beneath the stylistic issues and (b). they must have taken a heck of a lot of effort to put together. So, as a more experienced Wikipedian than myself, I was wondering what you would advise doing on the matter. I've reached out to Fusus and am awaiting a response from that quarter. One of the things I suggested to him/her was that we could go to WikiProject Ghana and see if we couldn't get a collaborative effort together to clean up the effected articles while retaining valid information added by Fusus. Does this sound like something that would be viable? Or is this a situation where the edits need to just be reverted? I tried going into the Kumasi article by myself to clean it up manually, but the scale of the necessary fixes was overwhelming.
Sorry for the long post here. If you have the time to advise me, I'd greatly appreciate it, but if not, that's fine too; I understand that you are a busy Wikipedian. Best wishes, Tigercompanion25 (talk) 17:13, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like you're taking the right approach. If there are copy-vio problems just revert. If it's just a matter of style, you can tag for copy-editing. We have a tag {{peacock}} for puffery where there might be good info to salvage, but you don't have the time or resources (or desire) to sort the wheat from the chaff. I don't know how much traffic WP Ghana gets, but if the additions aren't outright falsehoods, I won't hurt to let them sit until you get someone's attention. — kwami (talk) 17:38, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Linked to Ashantiland, which may be a problematic article. I seem to recall edit-wars over that topic, but the article only dates to 2015. — kwami (talk) 17:45, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, Kwamikagami, thank you for the excellent advice. What I think I'll do is put up some of the relevant tags at the effected articles and give Fusus a chance to respond, then head over to WikiProject Ghana and see if there's interest there. If it won't hurt to let them sit, then there's no rush. Best wishes, Tigercompanion25 (talk) 17:55, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As provided in your peer review, the Punic Substratum should not be adopted in the work. We have dropped it.
As said, the morphology and Domains of Use parts should be written in separate works. We have done that. However, we need your help in summarizing the parts about them in Tunisian Arabic as done in GA works. We apply you to review the scripts part.
Hi Kwamikagami! In Mapidian language and Mawayana language there is a citation "Hicks 2002" but no complete reference and I wasn't able to retrieve it. I acknowledge the author is Richard Hicks (SIL) but I wasn't able to find his bibliography to check for the cited resource. Would you be able to provide the complete reference for me? --SynConlanger (talk) 11:57, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Probably a p.c. to the Ethnologue editors, since he's not listed in their biblio. I ref'd Ethnologue. You could write to the editor for details. — kwami (talk) 16:47, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the answer! After writing to you I checked it too and I had the same thought. --SynConlanger (talk) 17:29, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Indi language is deleted, please make the move. I could do it myself, but you can give a better move rationale than me. Regards. --Tito Dutta (talk) 04:30, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. — kwami (talk) 20:25, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Kwami. I am extremely concerned by your attempted close of the discussion at Talk:Burkinabé in a way that no contributor of the debate had !voted for. This looks entirely like an attempt at a WP:SUPERVOTE, which is confirmed by the fact that you subsequently !voted for this option after your close was reversed.
Added to my concerns about your close of the discussions on the Malaysian election articles (which you failed to answer), I am afraid that I would like to suggest that you refrain from closing RMs that are not unanimous (or near unanimous) until you become an admin. Number57 18:34, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What are you talking about? The spelling I chose was suggested by the proposer themself. The fact that they later disowned it is immaterial. It's also not a vote: when people make spurious arguments, as some did, those arguments *should* be ignored. And of course I voted for the same form: I had evaluated the arguments and sources when I closed the request, and what made sense to me then still made sense when the request was reopened. The fact that you consider rationality to be 'confirmation' of fraudulent behaviour suggests that you are too irrational to be meddling in such things. — kwami (talk) 18:54, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
AjaxSmack proposed moving to Burkinabè. Both contributors (before your close) supported this. Burkinabe was mentioned as a potential option, but was not the proposal (nor was it supported by the contributors). You are of course correct in noting that this is not a vote and that the strength of arguments is more important than numbers, but in this case no-one actually made the argument for the accent-less version, so your close was clearly a supervote.
As for turning this into an attack against my rationality, I suggest you take the comments on board. I have no problem taking this to the wider community if you refuse to recognise there is a problem here. Number57 19:12, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's ridiculous. Ajax suggested changing é to è or e. The first responder supported. The second supported è, saying it was "correct", though of course all three forms are correct. The original argument was incoherent, confusing Pulaar with French, neither of which is relevant to English. So we have three votes to change with two spurious arguments, the RfM is in backlog with no ongoing discussion. I made what I felt was the rational choice based on WP guidelines. I also suggested that if anyone thinks the close was infelicitous, it should be reopened with notice at relevant projects. There was nothing inappropriate in any of that. As for leaving it for an admin to close, no admin was closing it. It was in backlog.
Ajax then reopened because I was unable to effect the move, not because the close was invalid. When he did, I was not going to be the one to close again, so I voted, and of course I argued for the POV I arrived at when reviewing the request. That's rational, but you seem to think that rational behaviour is inappropriate on WP. Tell me one thing in the course of my action that was actually inappropriate. As for the problem here, it is you. You attack me (according to your definition of "attack") and order me around because I acted consistently, arguing that consistent behaviour is somehow proof of misbehaviour. You are being irrational, and you should not make frivolous demands of other editors. If you don't like how I close a RfM, you are free to reopen it. That's how things work here. — kwami (talk) 19:32, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Again: closing in favour of an option that no-one had actively supported is inappropriate. AjaxSmack did not propose moving it to the unaccented version, they only mentioned it as a potential option (hence why they also said your close was inappropriate) Number57 19:40, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please show me the guideline that says that. This RfM was in backlog with no ongoing discussion, and I closed to the best option given the poor quality of the existing discussion.
Which is why anyone can reopen a non-admin closure. I even suggested that they do so, but this time post at wikiprojects -- which is exactly what Ajax did. The reasons he gave me were that I should wait for further input (no further input was forthcoming) and that I shouldn't close if I couldn't effect the move (but of course I didn't discover that until I tried). I got thanks for clearing up the RfM backlog. If a couple RfM's got reopened, so what? Perhaps they could benefit from the further attention. I was told clearing out the RfM backlog was a thankless job. Now I see what they meant. Before you criticize, I suggest you clear out the RfM backlog to the best of your ability and see if any irrational accusations of inappropriate behaviour are directed your way. — kwami (talk) 19:52, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have spent a good deal of my time clearing RM backlogs and am fully aware that it is a thankless task – I have received criticism from people who didn't like the close. However, the difference is that the criticism I received was from people who had been involved in the discussion and whose !vote had been the opposite to my close. On the other hand my comments towards you are from someone uninvolved in the discussion and who doesn't have an opinion on the topic being discussed.
Finally, if you need to be pointed to a guideline that says "Do not close a discussion in a way that no-one suggested or discussed" then I think it is quite clear you are not suited to closing such discussions. I will raise this with the wider community. Number57 20:18, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you're going to make an accusation, bring evidence. If you have no evidence, don't make an accusation. If you need to be told that, you have no business here. — kwami (talk) 20:40, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
1) You are misquoting Ethnologue site in Hindi numbers. The site https://www.ethnologue.com/language/hin shows 260,333,620 total native speakers 2001 and L2 users: 120,000,000 in India (Wiesenfeld 1999).
2) You removed reference to Hindi newspaper readership. Hindi newspapers have 36.5% of daily newspaper circulation in India and 7 Hindi newspapers are in top 20 circulation in India. "Weekly Data". Audit Bureau of Circulations. 2014. Retrieved 18 August 2015.
3) The page Hindi is getting redirect from Hindi language, Modern Standard Hindi, Hindi. Do you know the difference ? What is your suggestion for putting articles about all 3 topics in same page?
We're not misquoting Ethnologue. The current edition is based on the Indian census, which confuses Hindi with other languages (as the census itself indicates but Ethnologue does not.)
I have no problem with the newspaper stats. Put them back if you like.
We're not merging 3 topics. The page is about Modern Standard Hindi and only Modern Standard Hindi. I don't like calling it just "Hindi" myself, but people have argued that MSH is the primary use of the word "Hindi". You can make a move request if you like. — kwami (talk) 01:07, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your RV is unfounded since my edit was following the debate in the talk page. Did you take a look at it, before?--Dans (talk) 18:00, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Kwami, could you point me to a discussion of the two different pronunciations of the letter "h" in English? House, horse, history vs. honor, hour. Thanks. Corinne (talk) 17:57, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The OED, in the article on h, says,
"In late Latin, and in the Romanic languages, the aspirate [= etymological /h/] was no longer pronounced, and consequently often not written; in modern Italian it is entirely omitted, as in eretico, istorico, orribile. In Old French similarly the mute h was originally not written, and it was in this form that many Old French words, such as abit, able, eir, erbe, eritage, onest, onor or onur, ure or oure, ympne, were originally adopted in English. From this stage we derive the still existing forms able, ability, arbour (= erbere), ostler. But at a later period, imitation of the Latin spelling, by scribes who knew that language, gradually led to the restitution of h in the writing of most of these words in French, and thence also in English. In French, the h, though thus artificially reinstated in spelling, remained mute; but in England it was gradually, after the usage of the native words, restored in pronunciation, so that at the present day only a very few words, viz. heir, honest, honour, hour, with their derivatives, remain with h mute; though others, such as herb, humble, humour, were so treated very recently, and are by some people still; and hostler (also spelt ostler) is so pronounced by the majority. A trace of the former muteness or weakness of h in other words is also seen in the still prevalent practice of using an before words with initial h, not accented on the first syllable, as heretical, historical, humane, hypotenuse, and in such archaic forms as 'mine host', and the biblical 'an Hebrew'. In the [Middle English] period, during which h was being gradually reinstated in words from Old French, these show great variety of spelling, the same word appearing now with, and now without h; this uncertainty reacted upon other words beginning with a vowel, so that these also often received an initial h (due probably in some instances, as habundant, to a mistaken notion of their etymology). This spelling has been permanently established in the words hermit and hostage, among others."
They then have info on aitch-dropping that I added to that article. — kwami (talk) 19:09, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Kwami, for this interesting information. I also read the information on "aitch-dropping" and found that interesting, too. (I wondered whether the use of "aitch" in "aitch-dropping" should be explained. It's obvious to native speakers but may not be obvious to non-native speakers.) The reason I was asking you this is because I found some inconsistencies in two articles, so I posted a question about it at User talk:Sminthopsis84#Herbaceous plant. You might be interested in that discussion. Corinne (talk) 22:18, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Whether the h was or was not pronounced when old texts have "an h..." is difficult to tell. For example, when I was a student at Cambridge (England) in the late 1960s and early 1970s, older academics pronounced history and historian without the h so naturally wrote "an historian", but I haven't heard this pronunciation for years over here. What does sound very odd to me is to hear a priest using the 1662 prayer book service and saying, e.g., "an humble and contrite heart" pronouncing the h in both words, whereas it should be "an 'umble" or else "a humble". Peter coxhead (talk) 09:46, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Peter coxhead The one that gets me is "an yuman being", makes me boil. It's common in New Jersey and the mid-Atlantic USA and they drop the haitch only in human, humans, humanity. AN YUMAN BEEYIN. I'm no prescriptivist but it breaks phonetic rules of English twice. It's hard to say, even, you have to be so deliberate. Ogresssmash! 10:38, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Corinne Notable is the British insistence on the presence of h in herb as in that article, which is unusual: usually the United States has an haitch and UK/Commonwealth do not when there is a conflict between the two. Ogresssmash! 10:40, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This edit summary, describing me as a "POV warrior falsely claiming consensus" is totally unacceptable, since I'm as far from a "POV-warrior" as anyone can get here. I spend most of my time here on Wikipedia (account since 2006, ~30K edits) fighting POV-pushers, fringe pushers and sneaky vandals, and do not accept being accused of being a POV-warrior, and the consensus i claim exist can be seen on the talk page, where a number of regular editors agreed that it's better to not have any number at all in the article than to have the very dubious Ethnologue number there. For an insult like this I would normally demand an apology, but I don't think you're capable of apologising for the mistakes you make, or even capable of realising that you have made a mistake. Thomas.W talk 16:34, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You've been edit-warring against people like Maunus who know what they're talking about, with no argument supporting your POV. When you support your POV with edit-warring rather than debate, then you're a POV-warrior. I suppose people will have to see for themselves whether there was any consensus back in 2008. Consensus isn't a vote, and when people on one side are demonstrably ignorant, then that side cannot be taken seriously. IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid argument on WP. I don't see any consensus for 2008, but regardless there certainly isn't one today. Find a source that actually supports your side, then we'll have something substantial to talk about. Whatever you think of me, Maunus will have no problem accepting that he's wrong if you can demonstrate it. — kwami (talk) 17:24, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, I haven't been edit-warring against "people like Maunus". I removed the dubious Ethnologue figure after a discussion had been started on the talk page, a discussion which Maunus joined, without reverting my edit, apparently accepting that a number of other editors didn't feel it should be there. The only one who has reverted me is you, without joining the discussion, or even bothering to read it before reverting, judging by the fact that I had to point you to it, with link and all. So the way you have handled this does not give me a favourable impression of you, to say the least. Thomas.W talk 18:22, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't about who edited what in 2007. This is about 2015. Vedum deleted the figure, Maunus reverted him, then you reverted Maunus. So I was correct when I said that you have edit-warred with Maunus. As for me not being in the discussion, reality is the opposite of your claims: you reverted without discussion, and I started the discussion. You responded by pointing out a non-existent "consensus" and claiming that Maunus agrees with you despite the fact that you reverted him. There is no consensus to remove the figure. You don't like it, but that's not a legitimate argument. We are an encyclopedia, and we go by sources. We have a source for the figure. If you can find a better source, or a source showing that the one we're using is wrong or unreliable, then please share. I really do not care what the population is. We simply follow sources. — kwami (talk) 19:38, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) "2007"? You obviously still haven't read the discussion, because apart from the very first post in that thread all posts in the thread are from 15-23 August 2015. And I removed the Ethnologue figure on 18 August 2015, with no-one objecting until you suddenly burst onto the scene today, almost two weeks after the Ethnologue guesstimate had been removed, and a full week after the last post in that thread. Accusing me of being a "POV-warrior falsely claiming consensus" while you're the one who is so far off target that it is almost unbelievable. Sheesh. Why don't you just admit that you screwed up, selfrevert, and get it over with, because this is getting more and more embarassing for you for every post you make... Thomas.W talk 19:55, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, my bad. I saw the date "2008" and didn't notice the change after that, as I was skimming the arguments. But it still should be obvious to you that there is no consensus. We have several people making ignorant arguments, based on a misunderstanding of what a dialect or accent even are, and the one professional linguist expecting us to follow sources per WP policy. So no, there is no consensus to delete sourced information that you don't like. — kwami (talk) 20:15, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What gives you the right to describe other editors as "ignorant" and just dismiss their views and opinions? Thomas.W talk 20:19, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There is a difference between fact and opinion. You have a right to your opinions. But facts are not opinions. Claiming the world is flat is ignorant; if you say have a right to your "opinion" it's still ignorant. — kwami (talk) 21:00, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No-one is claiming that the world is flat, what people are saying is that the Ethnologue figures for Scanian have been totally off the mark both in 1998 (1.5 million) and in 2002 (80,000), the former being more than the total number of people living in the geographical area where the (basically rural) Scanian dialect potentially could be spoken and the latter being just a guesstimate not based on anything, for the simple reason that there are no statistics available, not from anywhere (the official line in Sweden is that the Scanian dialect doesn't exist, so there's no need for statistics). And that it is better to not have any figure for number of speakers than a figure from Ethnologue that isn't correct. Proper sources are almost everything, but when there are no realistic sources available it is better to not include material than to include material that is sourced but obviously wrong/unreliable. Thomas.W talk 21:27, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Again, unsupported claims do not count for anything. What is your evidence that the figure is "just a guesstimate not based on anything"? Your argument appears to be that your personal beliefs trump sources you disagree with. Again, as Maunus put it, please argue your case with sources. — kwami (talk) 21:42, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What part of "there are no sources, not anywhere" was it that you didn't see? And since there are no sources, and never have been any AFAIK (languages/dialects aren't registered in Sweden, not anywhere, and never have been AFAIK), Ethnologue can't have based their figure on anything but wild guesses. Swingning wildly while doing so, from 1.5 million to 80K in four years. And I'm still waiting for an apology for the totally inappropriate edit summary. Thomas.W talk 21:54, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ethnologue is a source, obviously. As for changing their figure, that is presumably because they realized the earlier figure was in error. New editions change claims and figures all the time -- that's one reason we have new editions.
As for an apology, you reverted people three times with spurious justification. That is, your edit-warring was POV-based rather than evidence-based. In my book "POV-warrior" is a reasonable description of that. — kwami (talk) 22:18, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The first figure (1,5 million) came from a non-existing "institute". The next one (80,000) had no source at all. THEN they realized that it was an error and removed the "language" all together. It is much better not to mention any number at all, as nobody seems to know. This is not a question of "POV". It is question about not to spread highly dubious information. --Vedum (talk) 07:02, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You don't have a clue, do you? The retirement of an ISO code is done because the language does not exist or is not distinct. It has nothing to do with population. If they do not have a population estimate, they simply say that. — kwami (talk) 17:35, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) I'm not much aware about the topic on which this edit war has happened but according to my perception Thomas.W is not "POV Warrior", we can simply undo his edit if we disagree with him but calling him "POV Warrior" would be harsh on him. Even I don't agree on many edits made by Thomas.W but still I think he usually work on the basis of sources to which I usually don't have access. But anyway, Kwami is also very sensible and experienced editors, I just hope that two very well oriented editors should not have any unnecessary dispute or bad faith regarding each other. Thank you. --Human3015Send WikiLove 14:58, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You reverted me on List of tallest mountains in the Solar System. I tried to be more specific than « Maxwell Montes » which is not a mountain but a massif and added « Skadi Mons » which is a moutain. For an example, for Earth, it's not written « Himalayas » (the massif) but « Mount Everest » (the moutain). How should I do it?
That's exactly what we should do. I just didn't understand. How I would handle it is to make Skadi Mons as the entry, and then maybe add in parentheses (one of the Maxwell Montes). You'll have a red link, which isn't good, so create a link from Skadi Mons to the article on Maxwell Montes, and make sure that that article discusses Skadi Mons sufficiently for readers to understand. Or, if you like, create a new article on Skadi Mons, though you should make mention of it in and link to it from Maxwell Montes as well.
Hi Kwamikagami. You added info about the right angle ⟨˹⟩ being used as a symbol for release burst in No audible release a while back [7]. Do you have a reference for it? Where kind I find more info on the symbol? --Moyogo/ (talk)
It's in the IPA Handbook: "open corner" for "release/burst". It's "not IPA usage", but is still assigned an IPA number, 490. I suppose it's a nonstandard IPA symbol. It's AFII code is E218. They do not list a UCS/Unicode code in the Handbook, so I'm not sure if it's supported by Unicode. The symbol I used is part of a geometric series, which is the closest I could come. — kwami (talk) 17:24, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Why should i be blocked? Southern Lurish Language is still a living Language and in three wikipedias has page but in this wiki not. Why you dont want that this page being built ?Biramilur (talk) 08:07, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't block you.
I have no problem with an article on Southern Luri. I do have a problem with filling it with bullshit. At Luri language the accounts of the two varieties are interwoven, so I don't see much point in separating them, but I would support separate articles if they were better than the single article we have now. There's lots of reliable sources on Luri, so it wouldn't be difficult to write well-sourced material. — kwami (talk) 15:30, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Re Origin of hangul. I think it is an overreach to put forth the statement "the entering tone is not a tone" as a statement of linguistic ground truth, as opposed to a fact about an analysis. This is one of the star examples in Yuen-Ren Chao's The non-uniqueness of phonemic solutions of phonetic systems. In the modern Western phonemic analysis, yes, entering tone is conditioned by the coda stop. But in the ancient far Eastern one, as expressed for instance in the rime tables, the stop allophones of the underlying coda nasals are conditioned by the entering tone, which is phonemic; this is structurally equally valid! And the synchronic phonetics little favour one of these over the other. (To me the unquestioning acceptance of the first analysis seems to have a Eurocentric cast to it: how could a mere tone be superordinate to a good ol' segment?) 4pq1injbok (talk) 20:23, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is one of translation. Sheng is not "tone". It's translated that way either because people are lazy or because they don't want to get into jargon with an audience that might not understand it. The stop codas may have phonological correspondences with tone, but phonetically [k] is no more a tone than [m] is a phonetic vowel in rhythm. The comment is there because the four sheng are commonly translated as four tones, which implies that if one is unmarked, there needs to be three tone marks. Hangul got away with just two because the third sheng is a final stop, which were already in the alphabet.
There is a similar problem with translating fangyu as "dialect": the two are not equivalent. ("Topolect" has been proposed as a solution.) — kwami (talk) 20:37, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The place for discussing things is on the talk page of the article[edit]
Instead of issuing threats it is preferable to discuss things on the talk page of the article. In the meantime I reversed your edit because "removed bullshit" is not a satisfactory explanation to removing information from WP. ContactBasemetalhere 19:43, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
When there is no evidence for a claim, and you remove that warning so as not to "confuse" the "slow-witted", you are engaged in bullshit and I will revert you as a bullshitter. Similarly with the position that anyone who challenges you is a "busy-body". Since you are the one promoting the claim, it's up to you to justify it on the talk page per WP:BOLD rather than edit-warring over it. If you continue your nonsense, I will ask to have you blocked. — kwami (talk) 19:48, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What claim is there no evidence for? ContactBasemetalhere 19:55, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Unfortunately Vendryes, who was in no way a scholar of Korean, puts forward no source or justification for his assertion."
Also, this was in 1921. Has anyone notable since cited Vendryes for this claim? If not, what's the point of mentioning it? We can't compare his conclusions with Ledyard's, as apparently all we have is an aside in a text on another topic. — kwami (talk) 20:12, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
First of all I don't really know how much Vendryes knew or didn't know about Korean. I had just included that as a warning. I had assumed he was not specializing in Korean as I know he was mostly a specialist of IE but frankly I'm in no position to judge of his competence in the field of Korean. And while it is true that his claim is not backed up with any reference that is no requirement for it to be taken seriously. There is no requirement that quotations from encyclopedias, dictionaries or other second hand sources are first traced for their own sources (and so on, recursively, as the case may be) for them to be included in WP. All that is required is that the quote emanates from a RS and Vendryes's book, a classic on language, certainly fits the description. Also there is no requirement that someone else cites it for it to be considered a RS. In any case, if you claim that Vendryes's book is not a RS as understood in WP then you should present your objection in those terms. The point of mentioning Vendryes's claim is that it was an early (maybe the earliest?) claim that Hangul had something to do (albeit remotely) with Indic writing systems. As such it deserves to be mentioned in any treatment of the history of the scholarship on the origin of Hangul. The same applies in any field. We'll see if other editors agree when I have the time to initiate a discussion regarding this point on the talk page of the article. BTW, I apologize if you felt offended by my edit summary. Since you've been on WP for quite some time I had thought you had grown a thick skin. I personally don't take those things very seriously but if it offended you then, again, I apologize. ContactBasemetalhere 20:39, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Pradeep, we've had consensus on these issues for years. If you want to change the consensus, do so on talk. WP:TRUTH is not a valid reason for an edit, and certainly not for an edit-war. — kwami (talk) 23:40, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The move that you made was not to Leonese dialect, but to the unexpected form Leonese dialect () with an empty pair of brackets at the end. A bit before you left your message to me, another user left me a message thanking me for moving Leonese dialect () to Leonese language, so there seems to be 2 opinions on this. If the name Leonese dialect is best, discussion will agree with it. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 08:11, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No. Per WP:BOLD, it's up to you to justify the move, not up to those opposed to it to arrange a RfM to revert it. I couldn't simply revert your move because you gummed it up so that was not possible. — kwami (talk) 17:18, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your account has been granted the "template editor" user permission, allowing you to edit templates and modules that have been protected with template protection. It also allows you to bypass the title blacklist, giving you the ability to create and edit edit notices.
You can use this user right to perform maintenance, answer edit requests, and make any other simple and generally uncontroversial edits to templates, modules, and edit notices. You can also use it to enact more complex or controversial edits, after those edits are first made to a test sandbox, and their technical reliability as well as their consensus among other informed editors has been established.
Before you use this user right, please read Wikipedia:Template editor and make sure you understand its contents. In particular, you should read the section on wise template editing and the criteria for revocation. This user right gives you access to some of Wikipedia's most important templates and modules; it is critical that you edit them wisely and that you only make edits that are backed up by consensus. It is also very important that no one else be allowed to access your account, so you should consider taking a few moments to secure your password.
If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.
Hi Kwamikagami. What is the purpose of Template:Two-dabs? It isn't transcluded on any pages, and it appears to be a cleanup template that informs the reader that there isn't anything to clean up. If there are only two topics which a term is ambiguous for and neither of the topics is a primary topic, then a disambiguation page is warranted (per WP:TWODABS). By design, cleanup templates should be temporary and be about fixable issues. A disambiguation page having two ambiguous, non-primary topics is not an issue that needs to be fixed. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 18:29, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a cleanup template, it's a message template. We have constant edit-wars with people who think TWODABS forbids WP from having dab pages with two links; no matter how often people point out that it doesn't say that, they engage in edit-warring or insist on starting multiple time-wasting move requests to resolve the perceived problem. I created this to help with such problems, but forgot we had it when I could have used it. — kwami (talk) 20:11, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Does the term "pre-palatal" unambiguously refer to alveolo-palatals, or is it also used to describe palato-alveolars? Laver (1994:136) uses "pre-palatal" to describe consonants articulated in the place "between palatal and alveolo-palatal" (are those even possible? I thought it was an either/or distinction.) On the other hand, for both Jensen (2004:30) and Esling (2010:693) "pre-palatal" is synonymous with "alveolo-palatal". I haven't found a source that uses "pre-palatal" as synonymous with "palato-alveolar", but to me, the description of Maastrichtian Limburgish postalveolars sounds somewhat ambiguous; Gussenhoven & Aarts (1999:156) say that "/c,ʃ,ʒ,ɲ/ are pre-palatal, articulated with the tongue against the post-alveolar place of articulation, the tip being held down." Would it be OR to say that these are alveolo-palatal [c͇,ɕ,ʑ,ɲ͇]? Peter238 (talk) 14:55, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
How far front is "pre" will depend on the author. It's like trying to figure out what "stop" means. Usually it means up to but not as far as the next named articulation. (E.g. "pre-velar" will hopefully mean in front of velar but not so far front as palatal.) But when we get to sibilants in the postaleolar region tongue shape may be just as important as position, if not more so, so "pre-palatal" could mean post-alveolar with a palatal tongue shape. And I suspect that's what Gussenhoven & Aarts mean: since they define "pre-palatal" for us, as "blade of the tongue against the post-alveolar place of articulation", it would seem they're trying to say laminal post-alveolar. I wouldn't transcribe that with ⟨c͇⟩, which to me would suggest the dorsum of the tongue contacting the alveolar ridge.
Anyway, how is alveolo-palatal different in place from palato-alveolar? Ladefoged & Maddieson in SOWL say s.t. about alveolo-palatals being palatalized post-alveolars, so maybe a close transcription of the Limburgish would be ⟨t̠ʲ,ɕ,ʑ,n̠ʲ⟩ (with the yod implying laminal articulation: [t̠̻ʲ,ɕ,ʑ,n̠̻ʲ] if you really want to be clear).
Also, the phonology can have an effect, though that doesn't seem to be the case here. Sounds might be called prepalatal if they form a natural class other dorsals, even though articulatorily they're post-alveolar. Hopefully the author would make that clear, but you never know. — kwami (talk) 19:46, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I'll go with "laminal post-alveolar" then. Alveolo-palatal is not a different place of articulation than palato-alveolar, it's just more strongly palatalized than palato-alveolar. At least that's what the SOWL says. Peter238 (talk) 21:00, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, sorry for disturbing you. Perhaps you know whether khira sagara is the same as chhena payesh? If yes, could ou comment on Talk:Khira sagara? --Off-shell (talk) 19:51, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, no idea. — kwami (talk) 20:03, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Kwami, why is there an apostrophe before the initial "A" in 'Acre in the Acre, Israel#Etymology section of Acre, Israel? I believe the apostrophe represents an initial "ain" in Arabic, but why would the Arabic name for the city be used there? Also, you might like to look at two "dubious – discuss" tags in that section. Corinne (talk) 01:28, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's also the ain of Hebrew. I don't see "Acre" written w an apostrophe, though. — kwami (talk) 01:39, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, you're right. It's 'Akka. I guess that's an Egyptian name. I wonder what the apostrophe represented. Sorry, Kwami. It's late and I've been editing for hours. I guess my eyes are getting tired. Corinne (talk) 02:29, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I don't think the apostrophe is normal in Egyptian transliteration. — kwami (talk) 20:01, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit-warring on Swiss Standard German. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:39, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[block not reviewed until after it had expired.] Reason: I had already stopped reverting the article, despite the other editor being on the wrong side of BOLD. Since I was no longer engaging in the dispute, the block serves no purpose. (Unless it's punitive, which it's not supposed to be.) In the comments of the ANI discussion (which was started after I'd signed off), the recommendation was that no-one be blocked. I have other articles to edit that have nothing to do with this. — kwami (talk) 17:06, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not taking sides or condoning any particular editor's behavior, but concerning the block, I agree with Kwami that this was a bad block. His last revert was almost 24 hrs before the block was initiated and in his edit summary, he indicated he would pursue alternate means (i.e. not reverting any further). It's been a while since I read the guidelines for blocking, but I assume they're still meant to be preventative not punitive. This feels punitive and serves no preventative purpose that I can see.--William ThweattTalkContribs 03:26, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with WilliamThweatt. A block for EW that has long since already stopped is purely punitive, but blocks are supposed to be preventative. — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 11:43, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thirded. The last edit he made was 15 hours before the block, and in the intervening period he edited other pages. This block would be more understandable if the block was levied 15-30m after the last edit, but 15 hours between last edit and block, especially when the editor has been editing other pages within that span? That's stale. —Jeremyv^_^vBori! 05:57, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Belated response, both to your email and the comments here.
The notion that the report was stale, and the block was not "preventative", is certainly one I shall consider. I may post at Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring and see what criteria other administrators use when determining if a report is stale or not.
Speaking generally, I don't think you can simply write off a block as "punitive" just because the user had already moved away from the page in question. (For example, it may be the AN3 report itself which caused the user to reconsider their actions.)
According to the policy, 3RR is a bright line rule and in my opinion should be enforced as such. There is simply no excuse for a seasoned editor like Kwamikagami to exceed 3RR in any circumstance.
You can argue the case that the block is helping to prevent the next incident of edit warring; declining to block could send the unintentional message that edit warring is okay.
On a more personal note, it was just a few weeks ago that I visited your userpage, looked admiringly over your contributions and wondered why you weren't an admin. (I'm not familiar with all the history, and don't want to be, but hope to be able to welcome you back one day.) See you round — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:19, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@MSGJ: "a bright line rule" – except that I did not violate 3RR. — kwami (talk) 21:31, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Kwamikagami, thanks for explaining this. I didn't see an edit summary in the first edit and could not conclude, without additional information, what sort of errors were being caused (I didn't see any on the old version). I understand this now. What I'm not quite sure about is what exactly you mean by an "independent pronunciation" (Wikipedia/Google isn't telling me much). Could you please explain this? Thanks, Airplaneman ✈ 01:30, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I meant that the pronunciation is the same as the word "Kashmir"/"Cashmere". It's easier on the reader to say it's pronounced like that word that to make them decipher our phonetic transcription in order to realize, "Oh, they mean 'Kashmir'. Why didn't they just say that?". Another time it's easier to just give the words in for initialisms. I just fixed one where they spelled out "LTD" in IPA. — kwami (talk) 01:35, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Makes sense. I ask the following with no passive aggressive intent: may you please use edit summaries? It really helps when someone like me may interpret incorrectly an action you made that was totally legitimate. Best, Airplaneman ✈ 01:43, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that's a bad habit. — kwami (talk) 01:46, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Kwami. I'm trying to improve Black American Sign Language to FA quality and would appreciate your input at the peer review since you not only know a good deal about sign linguistics, but have also been through the FA process before. Thanks. Wugapodes (talk) 20:44, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Telugu nouns are inflected for number (singular, plural), gender (masculine, feminine, and neuter) and case (nominative, accusative, genitive, dative, vocative, instrumental, and locative).
Telugu has three genders: masculine, feminine, and neutral.
In the first sentence it has "masculine, feminine, and neuter" and the second one it says, "masculine, feminine, and neutral". Should the third item be the same in both sentences? Corinne (talk) 16:56, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure the volume of Charon is just 0.0008 that of Earth? Huritisho 01:39, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Never said it was. — kwami (talk) 01:49, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You modified that value, so you should know. Also, a reference cannot be a calculation or a link to an wikipedia article Huritisho 02:05, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Then it was a typo.
No idea what you're talking about with the second comment. — kwami (talk) 02:06, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A reference is where you cite a source for the information. Your own crazy calculations are not a reference to anything Huritisho 02:09, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Still no idea what you're talking about. — kwami (talk) 02:11, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Then stop editing and stop giving things for others to do Huritisho 02:24, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't know what you're talking about. Before you edit war yourself, you should take it to the talk page. And if you can't do arithmetic on a calculator, you shouldn't be editing articles like these. — kwami (talk) 02:28, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you do calculations yourself, you're breaking the rule of "no original research" (look it up, I don't want to find the link). Huritisho 02:45, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We've been doing the calcs ourselves for a decade. If you want to change that, take it up w Wikiproject Astronomy. — kwami (talk) 02:49, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Double sharp: Hm sure. His calculations just seemed dubious to me, among other issues that are now past. Huritisho 07:54, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
How can simple arithmetic be "dubious"? It's just volPluto ÷ volEarth. If you can't check that calculation, even with the built-in calculator you have on your computer, you have no business deciding which figures are correct. — kwami (talk) 19:37, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it can be both. Categories are not absolute. — kwami (talk) 04:22, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
They're inconsistent. And I see you like to edit war. I won't bother reverting you, but you've introduced errors into Wikipedia I hope you are satisfied. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 04:52, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Following sources is not an "error". It doesn't matter if they're inconsistent. Some classify it as a Border language, others leave it unclassified. It is therefore appropriate for us to include it in both categories. — kwami (talk) 05:01, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Bollocks! Just because one source says X and another says not-X means we put them in both categories is about most absurd rationale I have heard in a while. Your editing and your comments on my talk page seem to show that you're WP:NOTHERE, just edit warring for the sake of it. I suggest you re-consider why you do this before you get yourself into more trouble with the community. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:29, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
When sources contradict each other, we reflect that. We don't choose the one we like best and ignore the other -- that would be OR. I don't edit war just for the sake of it: If you make a bad edit, I will revert it, and if you violate WP policy by insisting on your edit without consensus, we have a problem. — kwami (talk) 22:09, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to get into trouble because you don't understand what vandalism is. You deleted a category (by your definition, you committed vandalism), and I disagreed so I reverted you. If you want to argue for your change, do so on the talk page. That's what it's for.
I've been reviewing your edits, and most of them are beneficial. But you have an extremely narrow view of what is appropriate, one that does not accommodate the messiness of the real world. Not everything is black and white.
Your assertion that if we can't choose a single category for an article (because that would be OR) we must delete them all is, to quote a comment I saw recently, the "most absurd rationale I have heard in a while". It suggests you need to review the basic concepts of Wikipedia, such as WP:TRUTH. — kwami (talk) 02:51, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Arabic language your complining that im being false at what the number I put on Arabic There are 420 million Arabic speakers so stop lying ok dude the article itself says there are 420million Arabic speakers Arabic is one language not many languages im an Arabic speaker and I know the numbers so don't ever correct me ArabAmazigh12 (talk) 19:34, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Read WP:TRUTH and provide sources for your claims. Falsifying a source is fraud. — kwami (talk) 19:37, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reference to Geoff Lindsey's analysis of cardinal vowels in the Open front unrounded vowel article. On the talk page of the article, I've started a discussion on how appropriate it is to characterize the "extra-open unrounded vowel" as central. – Simo Kaupinmäki (talk) 12:45, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. I have not cared to follow that ranty dispute very closely, but was not intending to step on any toes or re-open old wounds. I really have no opinion on the matter, I just don't like it when infoboxes do not agree with article text. If the Altaic hypothesis is considered fringe, it needs to be identified as such more clearly, in all the affected articles, per WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE. If it is not actually fringe, but not yet a majority-held theory, then it needs to be properly addressed in the infobox, pretty much exactly the way I did it, because declaration of the proposed Altaic subfamilies as root families of the world's languages if this is not the actual scientific consensus among linguists is a serious WP:POV problem and misleading to readers. I don't care at all which the correct answer is, I only know that the present half-assed situation is not viable. It has to be clarified and normalized in one direction or the other, or we do not have proper agreement between infoboxes and their articles. Actually, I'll just raise this at WT:LING. — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 05:01, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@SMcCandlish: No, it's not fringe, it just hasn't been demonstrated despite a century of trying.
I've gotten into edit wars over trying to present balanced accounts in info boxes, e.g. for the Celtic languages with Continental/Insular vs. P Celtic/Q Celtic. The info box almost never reflects the text when there's a serious difference of opinion in the classification of more the better-frequented articles, though I've gotten away with it in articles hardly anyone reviews. Consensus seems to be that it would be too much info for the box. I disagree, but there's only so much I can do. As for this particular case, the presentation of Altaic has been reduced over the years. It used to be that the articles for the constituent families would mention Altaic in their info boxes but the individual languages would not, but several months ago there was consensus to remove even that. — kwami (talk) 06:23, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you on presenting both Cont/Ins and P/Q with regard to Celtic (then again, I grew up with P/Q, and have not been fully convinced of the C/I theory). I have raised the issue at WP:LING, so I guess we'll see if it gets any traction. I'm presenting it, as above, as a reader confusion and WP:UNDUE or WP:NPOV issue, not a prefer this answer vs that one issue. — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 06:28, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It seems pretty clear to me that Insular is not a legitimate node (no-one claims that Continental is), whereas there's a reasonable case to be made for P-Celtic (again, I don't think anyone claims Q-Celtic is a clade). But mostly I just think when there's a difference in classification that takes up a lot of the lit that we should reflect that in the box. — kwami (talk) 06:40, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The images have not yet been downlinked from the spacecraft, but New Horizons best spatial resolution of Kerberos
Why did you re-add this in the article? The image has already been downlinked, and it is in the article infobox. Also, your other changes seem kind of disruptive Huritisho 05:39, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I was reverting recent bullshit. If some good edits got caught up in that, go ahead and restore them. — kwami (talk) 05:42, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What you reverted was not "bullshit". For example, "Kerberos appears to have a double-lobed shape, approximately 7.4 mi (11.9 km) across in its long dimension and 2.8 mi (4.5 km) in its shortest dimension.[15]" this is a good addition and it is well cited. Why did you revert that? Huritisho 05:45, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted to before the falsified references. Again, if good edits got caught up in the revert, feel free to restore them. Though there's no need for a quotation: a summary or paraphrase is fine. — kwami (talk) 05:50, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hm sure, no problem. Yes, indeed you removed a few valid references of updated content, but I'll re-do them and keep the other information (Rudy's references apparently are false). Cheers, Huritisho 15:13, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done, I readded information that is properly sourced. You can check the refs yourself. Cheers, Huritisho 15:23, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In Moons of Pluto, I've readded the images of styx and kerberos in the compilation. I'm not saying you were wrong in reverting Rudy's edits, but you should be more careful when reverting because you can also revert good contributions along with the wrong/unverifiable information. Cheers, Huritisho 15:56, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't going to sort through it all. Didn't have time, really. — kwami (talk) 17:02, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sir, This is with regard to your article List_of_languages_by_number_of_native_speakers. In the said article hindi is given 4th place with 290 million people speakinh hindi. This is not correct and data seems to be old as taken from 1991 census. The data from 2001 census coducted by Govt. of India says that hindi is spoken by 422 million people in India alone. I quote the verifiable source "http://www.censusindia.gov.in/Census_Data_2001/Census_Data_Online/Language/Statement4.aspx". This data is also old as the language data of 2011 census is not disclosed as yet. Further erstwhile India i.e. Pakistan and Bangladesh also have hindi native speakers in huge numbers. Nepal, Bhutan are the similar other countries. Moreover the immigrants from India to U.S., U.K., Saudi Arabia and so many other countries also use hindi as their mother tongue. All these facts need be given recognition to make this article more factual and informative. Request you to do the same.Rajatbindalbly (talk) 13:20, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Kwami. See this and this for multiple previous attempts to make the user understand that Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, and not a place to get publicity for self-published home-made "reports" by hobby-linguists... Thomas.W talk 13:47, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Rajatbindalbly: That's the wrong "Hindi". The article is about Modern Standard Hindi, as it explains in the lead. The census data is for anyone who calls their language "Hindi", which is not the same thing. — kwami (talk) 18:26, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Kwami Sir, Hindi is only hindi and there is no language called hindustani. Nowhere it is taught. The data is about the no. of people who reported their mother tongue as hindi.Here in this article "List of language by number of native speakers" do not differentiate hindi and hindustani as seperate languages. The confusion may arise due to the fact that hindi may be spoken directly as you hear in news, but it is spoken with different accent also. Change of accent and style will not change its basic feature of hindi. I request that census 2001 data may be given credentials. I also submit that the truthfullness of the fact can be verified by anyone by visiting India.Rajatbindalbly (talk) 13:06, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Since this is a linguistics article, we go by what the linguists say. What you call "accents" are defined as separate languages. And of course Hindustani is a language - unless you want to admit that "Hindi" is really just an accent of Urdu. — kwami (talk) 18:28, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A language is a combination of dialect and script spoken in large area having its own text and literature for a large period of time. It has its own grammer and other technical aspects to make it perfect. Sub language is a dialect which is developed through main language and having literature, script and grammer in developing stage. As soon as it will mature it may have a separate status of independent language. A dialect is a speech or speaking language originated from main language having no text, literature or script of its own. Dialect, sub language are all clubbed under language when we speak about term language. Kindly see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialect. Bhojpuri, magadhi, avadhi and other are the dialects of hindi having no independent status. These have originated from hindi as main language. So whenever you will ask a person speaking bhojpuri he will tell you hindi as his native language. Please see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhojpuri_language. Please see this https://www.ethnologue.com/statistics/size.. here chinese is shown to have a group of 13 languages.Arabic is a language grouping 19 languages.Malay as a group of 9 languages.Even if we take english it is spoken differently in U.K. and U.S.Please also see this http://www.britannica.com/topic/Hindi-language.Hindi in census 2001 is shown as a group of several dialects recognizing hindi as main language.Rajatbindalbly (talk) 10:46, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
please also see this सन् 1998 के पूर्व, मातृभाषियों की संख्या की दृष्टि से विश्व में सर्वाधिक बोली जाने वाली भाषाओं के जो आँकड़े मिलते थे, उनमें हिन्दी को तीसरा स्थान दिया जाता था। सन् 1997 में सैन्सस ऑफ़ इंडिया का भारतीय भाषाओं के विश्लेषण का ग्रन्थ प्रकाशित होने तथा संसार की भाषाओं की रिपोर्ट तैयार करने के लिए यूनेस्को द्वारा सन् 1998 में भेजी गई यूनेस्को प्रश्नावली के आधार पर उन्हें भारत सरकार के केन्द्रीय हिन्दी संस्थान के तत्कालीन निदेशक प्रोफेसर महावीर सरन जैन द्वारा भेजी गई विस्तृत रिपोर्ट के बाद अब विश्व स्तर पर यह स्वीकृत है कि मातृभाषियों की संख्या की दृष्टि से संसार की भाषाओं में चीनी भाषा के बाद हिन्दी का दूसरा स्थान है। चीनी भाषा के बोलने वालों की संख्या हिन्दी भाषा से अधिक है किन्तु चीनी भाषा का प्रयोग क्षेत्र हिन्दी की अपेक्षा सीमित है। अंग्रेज़ी भाषा का प्रयोग क्षेत्र हिन्दी की अपेक्षा अधिक है किन्तु मातृभाषियों की संख्या अंग्रेज़ी भाषियों से अधिक है। source hindi wikipedia https://hi.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E0%A4%B9%E0%A4%BF%E0%A4%A8%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%A6%E0%A5%80#.E0.A4.87.E0.A4.A4.E0.A4.BF.E0.A4.B9.E0.A4.BE.E0.A4.B8_.E0.A4.95.E0.A5.8D.E0.A4.B0.E0.A4.AERajatbindalbly (talk) 10:58, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Urdu came in India by invasion of Mughals in 1526 A.D. hindi was used in India since time immemorial and specifically there are written proof in 1000 A.D. And if you say that "Hindustani" is a language then fine give "Hindustani" language the status of 2nd largest spoken language in the world.Rajatbindalbly (talk) 10:58, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's not what "language" means. — kwami (talk) 05:22, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted your change. I deliberately chose 'gh' to emphasize that the 'g' is hard, as the documentation of template:respell suggests. To say that GIF is pronounced GIF (especially in that context) conveys not quite enough information. -- Elphion (talk) 04:50, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Case of the input is immaterial: the template explicitly ignores case. It determines stress exclusively by the syllabification of the input. -- Elphion (talk) 15:45, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you use the wrong case the template generates a tracking error. This was done because people generally have no idea what they're doing and often get it wrong. If they're able to align cells with caps rather than with syllables, then they probably got it right; if not, the transcription needs to be reviewed. Sometimes the transcriptions are so confused that I can't decipher them and simply delete. — kwami (talk) 20:38, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I didn't take that from the documentation. Point 5 of the documentation should be reworded to encourage people to use the correct case, and that otherwise someone has to check it. Sorry for the kerfuffle. -- Elphion (talk) 21:13, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Kwami, haven't seen you around fro some time, hope all is well with you. I would really like you to go and think about this.Ngangela is a language continuum, just like German or Serbo-Croat, it was not invented by a missionary. There are maps going back centuries in numerous sources showing the Ganguela/ Ganguella/ Nganguela/ Ngangela and their place in Angola. Emil Pearson translated the Bible into Luchazin in 1963. How could he invent a language to publish a Bible in the 60s, when Domingos Vieira Baião had already published a Nganguela grammar and the Dicionário ganguela-português: língua falada nas regiões Cubango, Nhemba e Luchaze, Provincia de Angola in 1939?. It is only Papstein who maintains that Pearson "created" Ngangela "by mixing elements". Where, besides Papstein do we have corroboration of this information? Also, who is Papstein? The most you will find about him is about his travel book on the Sudan, but where are there references to his work in other researchers' work? Regards, Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 07:10, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fine. If you have linguistic sources to support that, we can change the article to match. But that's not what you wrote in the article. If we have no reliable sources the article can be deleted. — kwami (talk) 08:21, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Since people have been arguing over this article for years without decent sources, you say he translated into Luchazi, and both Maho 2009 and Ethnologue say Ngangela is Nyemba, which we include under Lucazi, I redirected the article to Lucazi. We might instead want to redirect to Chokwe–Luchazi languages. — kwami (talk) 08:32, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You are right, I did add to the confusion, my apologies. Instead of being WP:BOLD, I was trying to retain a modified reference to Pearson (removing that he "created" it to "used" it, as a way to appease the other camp, which feels very strong about putting the blame on him for lending credibility to Ngannguela, leading to it being picked as one of Angola's national languages. That was the wrong way to go about it. I am happy with the solution you found. When I find the time to go through the literature that I have collected, I will review it, discuss it and if necessary make whatever changes are deemed appropriate. Thanks for your help. Regards, Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 14:35, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Rui Gabriel Correia: Since the name is a bit ambiguous, what is the national language? Is it Nyemba? We should add Guthrie numbers to the national languages section of Languages of Angola to make sure there is no mix-up.
Done. Chose H.16a for Kongo, assuming it's the local variety, but if that's wrong please fix. — kwami (talk) 20:26, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Kwami. In Angola, the national language is Gangela, that is the name used by the Language Institute and the name used by radio and tv for that language during the national languages services. As of Kongo, in Cabinda it would be Western Kongo, H.16d, tradionally known as Fiote, now mostly called Ibinda. Don't know if you want to add more than one code per language, we might create a precedent that could become unmanageable. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 22:46, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Rui Gabriel Correia: Are you saying there's only one national language, Gangela? And is in Nyemba (K.12b) or Luchazi?
Is Kongo just for Cabinda, or is in a national language in the main part of Angola? — kwami (talk) 22:52, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I thought your question "Since the name is a bit ambiguous, what is the national language? Is it Nyemba?" referred to which name to use for the Ngangela language/ group/ continuum/ . Nyemba is certainly one of the terms/ names used, but there is no agreement as to whether it is fully synonymous with Ngangela, or covers only some of the 'dialects'. Still in other classifications, Nyemba is listed as one of the many dialects of Ganguela, as can be seen here in 2.1.8 (and table "Quadro n:7").
The national languages are 12, 14, 20 .... depending on how you carve it up and who does the carving (see below, Kongo and Ibinda). ILN (the language institute, formerly INL) drags its feet, probably not to rouse sentiments about excluding anyone that might feel that theirs is a language and not a dialect. You will find plenty of news items about "announcements" of what authotrities intend doing about national languages, but you will struggle to find anything on what they have done. Same goes for any official list of the language and the hierachy. The so-called "six national languages" were chosen on the basis of number of speakers and accorded the status of "language of widespread use".
Then it becomes more confusing when they select "six languages" to be studied, with spelling rules to be developed for each "on an experimental basis". These two sets of "six" get mixed up in the media and even by ministers! and linguists and inevitably here - eg, Mbunda being one of the latter six, while it is a language spoken by a small minority, within the Ngangela group. Why it was picked — from what I have read somewhere — has in part to do with widening divergences that have developed over time in the spelling used in Angola and the spelling used in Zambia. In fact, of the six being studied to develop spelling rules, two are the biggest langauges, the other four are, like mbunda, trans-boundary.
Then, in 2005, the National Institute for Research and Development of Education (INIDE) announced that it would start introducing SIX national languages at primary education, see "Quadro nº 4" That table is also informative with regards to your question on Kongo - There are less Ibinda speakers than speakers of other dialects of Kongo, but Ibinda is spoken in Cabinda, which, geo-politically carry a certain weight (not least the pro-independence movements in the exclave). Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 01:03, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks. That explains why everyone always seems so confused. I'll note in the article that Angola's national languages aren't clearly defined. Feel free to fix if I got anything wrong. — kwami (talk) 01:50, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Notice of No Original Research Noticeboard discussion[edit]
National Radio Broasdcaster in Angola transmits 14 national languages[edit]
Hi Kwami
I have been having such annoying bad luck with my internet it is driving me crazy. Sometimes it works like a jet fighter, at other times like a hot air balloon on a cold day. When it is flying, I quickly open as many tabs as I find relating to a subject, only to discover when I go look at them that the connection slowed to a trickle and all the tabs are ‘dead’. So I leave them there until the connection decides to pick up again.
Dear Kwami, I know you are very busy and do hundreds of edits each day. But Wikipedia is a collaborative effort, and therefore I'd like to urge you take the ten seconds it takes to fill in the explanation line under your edits, so that people get an idea why you are doing them? In particular, in your recent edits on the Dullay languages, I find your questionmarked references to some Gaba language cryptic, to say the least, even more so as you are not referring to any sources. If I don't see more on that soon, I might see myself forced to revert. Landroving Linguist (talk) 05:31, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ooops, sorry, I didn't read your edits carefully before I reacted. They are actually not cryptic at all. My apologies. Landroving Linguist (talk) 05:34, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think, although I'm not certain, that this report is about you. BMK (talk) 20:09, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is about you, and I've moved it from AN to AN/I. You can find it here. BMK (talk) 20:22, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And it did go somewhere that might be of interest to you, though further action on your part is not required. Happy editing! —GrammarFascistcontribstalk 05:01, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I hope his English ability was not the reason for his block. That can always be cleaned up. The problem IMO is falsifying data, whether or not intentionally. — kwami (talk) 07:10, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that the Hajong language is an indo-aryan language, because some of the words are completely different from Indo aryan languages. In Hajong language river is gang but in other indo aryan languages its something else, whereas in Korean gang means river. There are more words in Hajong Language that match with Altaic languages especially Koreanic Languages, so why is it considered an Eastern Indo-aryan Language?--Diarchy Hajong (talk) 13:45, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
First, etymologically gang isn't Korean, it's Chinese 江. Second, gang *is* the Indic word for "river": cf. Ganges. They're just coincidentally similar in English: the Chinese is something like [kaŋ] and the Indic is [ɡəŋɡaː].
As for why Hajong is Eastern Indic, I don't know enough, but it's clearly Indo-European. Consider the pronouns moi 'I' and toi 'thou' with French moi and toi, English me and thee, Russian menja and tebja. Our article notes that the case system seems Tibeto-Burman, however, so perhaps it's the result of language shift or mixture, I don't know. But not with "Altaic", which after a century of trying still hasn't been demonstrated. — kwami (talk) 17:52, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The Hajong word for river is gang pronounced as gaŋ 강. I is moi 머이 similar to Chinese woi. But I don't know why the Hajong language is considered Indo-Aryan, they have mongoloid facial features and the main land Indians call the Hajongs Chinese. Even the patin worn by Hajong women is not like the indian sari but is wrapped around like the Korean Chima. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Diarchy Hajong (talk • contribs) 12:52, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You're writing in English, but your user name suggests you aren't Germanic. Does that mean English isn't a Germanic language? Does the similarity between French moi and Mandarin woo mean that French is a Chinese dialect? — kwami (talk) 21:14, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Kwamikagami:,
You said, "appears to be another falsified ref. Not a dict anyway." I didn't understand, what should I do? I'm a native speaker of that language!
Amara (talk)
@Amara-Amaziɣ: From what I can tell, it's doubtful you're a native speaker. Standard Moroccan Berber has no native speakers because it's an artificial standard. If I'm wrong, then the article probably shouldn't exist at all. Please provide a source and we can merge it into the proper language article.
I couldn't find your reference. What made me doubt that it even exists is that it's supposedly in French but has a title in English. Unlikely.
We don't give lists of vocabulary in our language articles. Such things belong at Wikitionary or Wikibooks. Actually, if it's just the numerals that would be okay, but we'd need a ref that they're the official forms in Morocco and not just in one Moroccan Berber language or another. What's more important for this article though is how the language was standardized: Does it have a set phonological inventory? Set alphabet and orthography? Are there grammatical compromises between the various Moroccan varieties? Etc. — kwami (talk) 22:42, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.
While I basically agree with everything you said here, directly calling other editors "bullshitters" is much more clearly transgressive of WP:ARBATC#All parties reminded than anything I said in the logical quotation dispute with Darkfrog24, yet I got a several-month topic ban for it. Various admins are "on the prowl" for MoS/AT regulars to ban/block, and there's a frequent perception that some of the regulars are combative and hostile to MoS non-regulars, including on obscure content-presentation issues like this one. So, namecalling paints targets on all of us. It's not really necessary to call someone an idiot or full of shit to demonstrate that it's the case. >;-) — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 14:25, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]
Odd that you felt the need to post spurious "reverts", and didn't bother to report the user who's actually at 3RR. — kwami (talk) 23:41, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You've already warned him. I've given him the link to the AN3 board like it says in the big red box--Lerdthenerdwiki defender 00:32, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I said. You supposedly reported him, but only linked to my edits despite him being at 3RR. That, along with the fake "reverts" you posted suggests bias on your part. Perhaps you should change the "wiki" in your signature to something else. — kwami (talk) 02:29, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:49, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(First DYK right now). Now there's a name that needs some smart person to add the IPA: Unique pronunciation, not English, not French, not Italian - see House of Broglie. Awien (talk) 15:16, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I need some help in transcribing the pronunciation of scientific names. They are Latin or Latinate Greek names pronounced according to English rules. Unfortunately, a lot of them cannot be found in usual dictionaries (Jones, Kenyon-Knott, Wells and so on). Could you suggest me a reliable textbook? I've found something surfing the web, but that's a complete mess, it's hard to find two sources giving the same transcription, e.g. for Tabebuia chrysotricha.--Carnby (talk) 22:07, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I don't know of a good universal ref. I've used local guides (e.g. Sunset guide to western US gardening). Chrysotricha is easy because it's just Greco-Latin (see traditional English pronunciation of Latin), but pseudo-Latin names like Tabebuia are tricky. I gave it a shot based on what you already had, as the two transcriptions didn't agree and weren't likely English. — kwami (talk) 22:44, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've found botanical sites that give a more Latinate pronuciation than what you had, which was more like Portuguese, and changed it accordingly. Perhaps both are used, I don't know. — kwami (talk) 22:52, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, at least now it looks a lot better. Thank you.--Carnby (talk) 23:09, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Something seems to be happening at Luri language and some related pages again. Editors Shadegan and Gomada seem to be in some kind of dispute. I recall that you were involved in some of the related prior discussions. (It looks like we weren't always agreeing with each other at the time, but I'm not sure that matters at the moment.) Could you please take a look? —BarrelProof (talk) 07:03, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, please look at this and this (related) edit too. It's important to look at sources. For example, the user:Shadegan added , Erik John Anonby as a so-called source which supports Laki belongs to Luri language. But if you read pages 19 and 20, you can see a comparison of Pish-e Kuh Laki with Kurdish and Luri. After that the author says: Pish-e Kuh Laki is aligned with Kurdish rather than Luri. There is distortion of information. Thanks.--Gomada (talk) 14:36, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Kwami, do you agree with this edit to Pine? [9]Corinne (talk) 00:37, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like it's more-or-less correct. The OED has ME firr(e) from either OE *fyre or ON fyri- (combining form). — kwami (talk) 01:38, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
hello. can I have your personal mail? I had a question about my thesis which is about one of nomadic peoples languages. thank you.Bbadree (talk) 18:39, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just click "email this user" on the left side of this page. — kwami (talk) 22:21, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Kwamikagami. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
. please see. thanks.Bbadree (talk) 19:04, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it can remain one article, just indicating the two distinct historical origins of the current form of the dialect. However, this is something I don't really have time to invest in, right now. Bab-a-lot (talk) 12:46, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it's been on my to-do list for way too long too. — kwami (talk) 22:05, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Kwami! How are you doing? Wishing you a merry christmas as well as already a happy new year, just in case we might not speak each other after this. :-)
I just wanted to let you know, I added info regarding the Old Persian cuneiform clay tablet found at Gherla, Romania, in 1937 to the page. Odd that it wasnt added already. Should it also be added to the list of countries where Old Persian text was found in general? Im asking this as some nations that are added to the Old Persian cuneiform page, are not mentioned on the Old Persian language page, as well as vice versa. Was there a reason for this? As you're our pro regarding everything related to languages, I thought I'd better hop by, just in case. Let me know your opinion and I'll make sure Gherla, Romania, is added correctly to the other articles as well. Oh, almost forgot, lastly, can we use material from this page as well for this 1937 cuneform as additional info? Bests - LouisAragon (talk) 18:31, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Louis. Merry Christmas.
I've never heard of the Gherla text. Looks legit.
As for sourcing, that would depend on whether Livius.org is a RS. I have no idea. You can always use their sources, of course. — kwami (talk) 20:32, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Kwami, yeah, it's legit for sure, just I wasn't sure whether all nations where Persian cuneiform was found should also be mentioned on the Old Persian language page, as well as vice versa. That was my main concern basically. As I don't know whether all Old Persian texts that were found were de facto written in cuneiform (do you know this?). I believe Livius.org is entirely RS but I might check that up later with some mods who specifically focus on checking such stuff, just in case. And otherwise I can indeed take the sources it has provided, as you correctly suggested. - LouisAragon (talk) 00:11, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Kwamikagami:, I added Romania and Armenia to the list of places where old Persian is found based on what I mentioned above, as old Persian cuneiform was found in both places. Do you agree with this deduction? (I'm sure about Romania, wanted moreso your opinion regarding Armenia). Bests - LouisAragon (talk) 23:35, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, no idea about Armenia. If it's thought to be a later import into Romania, then IMO that's a bit of a cheat. Maybe a note in the mention? — kwami (talk) 03:59, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Kwami, how are you? I've just noticed you have erased the Catalanic Community. In my opinion you are right about your decision, however I think the Catalan-speaking community should have a neutral term that hasn't been so much politicised. The regionalists (and linguistic separatists) have disconnected many of us from the reality (i.e. the Països Catalans) in the last two decades. I support the concept of Països Catalans, but the new Valencianism is cautious about this subject. They support a re-connection with the rest of Catalan areas, but not a full integration yet. — Jɑuмe(dis-me) 06:26, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
These radicals have damaged a lot the Valencian language, they also made our television channel go bankrupt with their corruption. — Jɑuмe(dis-me) 07:01, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The issue should be handled via a move request, and the most common term in reliable English sources will usually be chosen. Articles should never be duplicated just because someone objects to their name. — kwami (talk) 21:41, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
. You can see the hook and the discussion here. You are welcome to participate! Thank you. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 07:45, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Cúchullain t/c 18:17, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
This is your only warning; if you purposefully and blatantly harass a fellow Wikipedian again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. wL<speak·check> 19:30, 25 July 2015 (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. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Kwamikagami reported by User:ZH8000 (Result: ). Thank you. ZH8000 (talk) 10:53, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Please stop your disruptive editing. You are continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did to Hindi language and Punjabi language. (unsigned comment by user:PradeepBoston)
