User talk:TaivoLinguist/Archives

New Start

Sadly, because some of my personal information was posted in an outside political forum, I've had to delete this whole page just in case there was personal information on it. I apologize to anyone who might be offended that I deleted their special post. (Taivo (talk) 11:03, 29 October 2009 (UTC))

Removal of personal info

I saw your message at FPaS's talk page. See WP:OS for details on requesting the permanent deletion of the info. Mjroots (talk) 11:14, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. (Taivo (talk) 11:29, 29 October 2009 (UTC))

K??v

Hi - I've left a long comment at Talk:Kiev; I really can't see the point of running another classic WP:RM in the same format as all the others. The arguments have all been heard before, and nothing has changed with regard to any of them, except possibly the relative frequency of usage. I feel the only way to get anything profitable out of a re-run is to make it strictly an information-gathering exercise on relative usage - hence the formatting I introduced.

Feel free to run this as another run-of-the-mill WP:RM discussion and remove the formatting if you wish. If however you also think restricting this to evidence-gathering exercise is a good idea, then it will take some concerted effort to keep the discussion focused on the matter in hand. Editors will have to be asked to restrict the grandstanding and interminable raking over old ground, and irrelevant material removed. Just an idea, your call. All the best, Knepflerle (talk) 14:13, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

The primary reason to start this at all again is that there was a serious meat puppet solicitation out there on a website that is actively campaigning with news organizations, etc. to change their policies. It just seems like a very cool, calm presentation of the facts as Wikipedia sees it and a presentation of Wikipedia's consensus on the issue is in order. (Taivo (talk) 14:22, 29 October 2009 (UTC))

(ec)That's unfortunate, but collecting usage statistics should keep things cooler than engaging in interminable discussions on transliteration and government dictat or emotive historical polemic, neither of which influence English speakers anyway!

My proposed approach is better for accountability too, because if we keep the discussion to collecting verifiable data, everyone can see exactly why we made the objective final decision we will make. And this approach negates the effect of another meatpuppet swarm - no matter how many people are invited from outside or created from sockpuppets, they can't change the objective raw facts of the English usage statistics, and they can't drown the discussion in polemic.

I really don't see what how we can lose overall, and I think it's at least worth the experiment to try and stop this discussion going the way of ther others. Knepflerle (talk) 14:37, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I like what you did at Talk:Kiev. I removed the survey and we can assemble the facts before going down the survey road. (Taivo (talk) 14:32, 29 October 2009 (UTC))

Edit-conflicted with you there! I've left the comment I'd written anyway, as it will give more explanation to anyone reading this later. Ok, many thanks for giving it a try. Let's hope it works! Knepflerle (talk) 14:39, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

For crying out loud - Talk:Kiev#Survey. It just takes one person, and so it begins... can we stop this now to give chance for the collection and discussion of evidence? Knepflerle (talk) 23:25, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

What other types of data do you think we should be getting? (Taivo (talk) 11:11, 30 October 2009 (UTC))

Egyptian Arabic: understandability

Hi Taiva, You've probably seen my search for a proofreader on the discussion page of Egyptian Arabic. As you seem to watch the article and have a background/knowledge in the field: Would you be willing to proofread the article rewrite? As I wrote on the discussion: I simply want to make sure it's understandable to the average reader by using more examples, explaining technical language, using Arabic script in addition to transliterations, etc. --Ibn Battuta (talk) 11:43, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd be happy to proofread the English text, but I am unable to proofread the Arabic text or transliterations. (Taivo (talk) 12:27, 6 November 2009 (UTC))

Thai

Thai is a Kradai language but there seems to be dispute about whether it's Austroasiatic, Austronesian, or Sino-Tibetan. What do you think? — Rlevse • Talk • 03:31, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

There is no dispute at all among linguists. Thai belongs to the Tai family (called "Kradai" here in Wikipedia) which is not genetically related to any of these groups clearly with solid evidence. There is some suggestive evidence that the Tai languages may be related to Austronesian, but any similarities between it and Sino-Tibetan and Austroasiatic are due to borrowing or areal influence. Chinese linguists have sometimes claimed that the Tai languages are distantly related to Sino-Tibetan, but the great majority of historical linguists dismiss that. (Taivo (talk) 06:53, 10 November 2009 (UTC))

So Thai split off from whatever so far back no one is really sure other than it's an Asian language? — Rlevse • Talk • 10:53, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes. There is always a certain amount of chance resemblance between any two languages or groups of languages. Let's say that figure is 5%. If two languages are closely related they may have, say, 80-90% similarity. Over time, those similarities are diminished in a steady way. After about 8000 years or so, the level of similarity drops below 5% so any actual similarity between languages is below the level of the random "noise" and it becomes impossible to detect. Modern-type human language had emerged by at least 150K years ago in Africa, so you see there's an awful lot of room for diversity to develop between languages. Southeast Asia was populated by modern humans sometime around 70,000 years ago or so. A few linguists try to link these groups (Tai, Austroasiatic, Hmong-Mien, Sino-Tibetan, Austronesian--all of which probably originated in the region of southern China/northern Indochina), but their efforts have not met with widespread acceptance because there is so much random noise and borrowing between these families. (Taivo (talk) 14:22, 10 November 2009 (UTC))

Very interesting, thanks. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:58, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

ARBCOM evidence ?

Do you plan to place the statement you gave at ANI at the resultant ARBCOM case ? I thought you statement was compelling and relevant to the case. 216.171.4.190 (talk) 23:27, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

UhOh, I didn't realise I had been logged out. I don't want to associate my user name with this IP publicly since it would reveal my location. But any checkuser can confirm that I am a regular editor in good standing. 216.171.4.190 (talk) 23:30, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I trust your status. Since you don't want this IP related to your username, I won't consult a check user. I have presented my evidence at the ARBCOM. (Taivo (talk) 00:57, 16 November 2009 (UTC))

Stop changing

Stop changing TRNC please Maverick16 (talk) 16:57, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Get a consensus before you move it. You've been warned. You are being reported for edit warring. (Taivo (talk) 16:58, 20 November 2009 (UTC))

Why do you make changes for my country name.. It is not a region name.. Whenever you say Northern cyprus.. It is like a region.. My country name is officially Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus.. Check the name People's Republic of China and Republic of China.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27s_Republic_of_China Maverick16 (talk) 18:04, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

ancient Greek kingdom

That is a very common way of refering to Macedon and considering that Alexander, Phillip and the Macedonians themselves have allready been labelled Greek I don't see the point of removing the reference in this instance. Particularly as I took care to back it up with several citations from WP:RS.--Anothroskon (talk) 22:34, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

You can find reliable sources all over the place for just about anything you want. But what is the point of focusing overmuch on "Greek"? It is plain, as you say, and is sprinkled throughout the article, so putting the word "Greek" in every sentence of the article (especially the first one) is just baiting our Macedonian editors. I suggest that you give careful attention to WP:POINT. (Taivo (talk) 22:40, 20 November 2009 (UTC))

If it is a fact then it should be mentioned prominently. Check the entry for Sparta for instance. It says "ancient Greece" in the first line, even though it is also "sprinkled" Or Classical Athens. Or any of the other classical Greek states.--Anothroskon (talk) 22:47, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to debate it here. Use the Talk:Macedonia (ancient kingdom) page. (Taivo (talk) 22:49, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Done.--Anothroskon (talk) 22:52, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

cognates

Hi Taivo,

I've tried verifying your use of the word "cognate" and, while I'm not disputing it, I've been unable to verify it explicitly. Do you have any refs that "cognate" does not mean simply that the words are related through common ancestry, but that they are directly traceable to the ancestor of the languages that contain them, so that "shirt" and "skirt" would not count as cognates? kwami (talk) 09:31, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Kwami, If I understand your question correctly, "shirt" and "skirt" are not cognates because the latter is a borrowed word in English. "Shirt" and skyrta in Old Norse are cognates, but "skirt" in English is not cognate since it was borrowed from skyrta (yes, it's a subtle, but important distinction). In the same way, "farrow" and "pork" are not cognates, but "farrow" and porque are. Once borrowing has entered into the picture, the words cease to be cognates. This means that English copper and German Kupfer are cognates with each other (both from Proto-West Germanic), but they are not cognate with Greek kypros (or whatever it was exactly) because PWG borrowed it from Latin cuprum. Here's the definition of cognate in Lyle Campbell & Mauricio Mixco, A Glossary of Historical Linguistics (2007, University of Utah Press): "A word (or morpheme) that is related to a word (morpheme) in sister languages by reason of these words (morphemes) having been inherited by the related languages from a common word (morpheme) of the proto-language from which they descend" (pg. 33). Cheers. (Taivo (talk) 12:02, 21 November 2009 (UTC))

Happy Taivo's Day!

User:Taivo has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, and therefore, I've officially declared today as Taivo's day! For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian, enjoy being the Star of the day, dear Taivo! Peace, Rlevse 00:04, 24 November 2009 (UTC) A record of your Day will always be kept here.

For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:04, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I am honored. (Taivo (talk) 05:09, 24 November 2009 (UTC))

Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Macedonia) dispute

I happened to notice the dispute at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Macedonia)#For Clicklander. While it is true that the issue has been decided and eternally re-raising the issue is not productive, I doubt deleting the offending talk page postings is the best course of action for the very reason that it gives rise to complaints like this (also, it's not one of the reasons for deleting someone's talk page post given at WP:TALKO; they do think they're improving the article by "correcting" the "error"). Has just replying to the talk page posting without deleting it been tried, with due note of the underlying point of WP:LASTWORD? Just trying to reduce the dramaz Anomie⚔ 16:14, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Deleting the nationalistic post is usually enough. This is the first time I've seen the nationalist editor argue back. This is such a sensitive issue prone to strong opinions, that leaving a post in place with argument/counter-argument just tends to exacerbate the now-dead issue. There is no perfect strategy. (Taivo (talk) 16:36, 27 November 2009 (UTC))

Single-topic nationalists often begin with a "reasonable" posting (of course all the arguments were vetted in the original decision) where they deny any nationalistic bent or allegiance. But as I see from Clicklander's last post, the single-minded nationatist eventually surfaces and his POV is revealed in living color. (Taivo (talk) 16:41, 27 November 2009 (UTC))

Personally, whenever I encounter an editor who will not listen to reason I just tell them that I do not intend to continue the conversation unless they start giving well-reasoned arguments. And then I really do cease replying. It tends to work well enough that WP:LASTWORD satirizes the opposite behavior and someone has written advice on the subject at WP:DFTT, even with nationalist editors that occasionally show up at List of country calling codes or ISO 3166-1 (the latter of which is why I watch Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Macedonia), as it is an extremely rare (perhaps the only) exception to WP:MOSMAC#Other articles and I watch in case I need to speak up on that issue).

In this case, I'd probably just make a preemptive reply to the initial nationalist screed along the lines of

The appropriate terminology to be used to refer to the various entities known as "Macedonia" has been discussed at length by the community. WP:MOSMAC describes the results of those discussions. Before continuing to press this issue, please read that page and all the linked discussions as your points have almost certainly been addressed. If you ignore this advice, your postings will be ignored as there is no purpose in constantly revisiting the issue while the political situation remains unchanged. Also be aware that all contentious edits touching upon Macedonia naming practices are subject to a 1RR restriction, meaning that if you attempt to edit war on this or other articles you will be swiftly be blocked from editing. Thank you.

Anomie⚔ 17:38, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your input, but I have a hard time assuming good faith on this guy's part. 1) He's fairly new and only edited a single article after registering before heading for Republic of Macedonia where he proceeded to do a massive replacement of "(Republic of) Macedonia" with "former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" or "FYROM". 2) He used the same Greek nationalistic arguments that have been used ad infinitem before while claiming to not be a nationalist. 3) His final comment ripped the mask away and revealed the Greek nationalist for who he was. This modus operandi isn't much different than several other single-purpose accounts that have surfaced over time to push the Greek naming agenda. While your comments above were very constructive and I will seriously consider using them in the future, sometimes subtlety is lost on the radical nationalist. Cheers. If you're an American, I hope you had a joyous holiday. (Taivo (talk) 23:04, 27 November 2009 (UTC))

I agree, it's hard to AGF with these types. I just aim for minimum drama before they go away (or start edit warring and get blocked). Anomie⚔ 01:49, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

November 2009

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours to prevent further disruption caused by your engagement in an edit war at Sangsari language. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:55, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

{{unblock|I would like to appeal this edit block. As as expert in the field it is often a problem dealing with those who have no expertise, but a flaming passion to push a POV or Fringe theory without references. It is frustrating to deal with a silent editor who refuses to discuss his or her point on the Talk Page and comments, if at all, only in edit summaries. It is also sometimes difficult to exhibit patience even after reporting a 3RR violation. Watching blatantly wrong text just sit there unedited cries out for action. None of this justifies violating 3RR and I should have waited patiently for an admin to notice my 3RR report. I actually wrote the report when the other editor was at 4RR and I was only at 2RR, but no admin was noticing the report. I have never been blocked before even when dealing with the most intransigent edit warriors. I have been a solid contributor to Wikipedia in my areas of expertise.}}

This is regrettable. It seems I came a bit late with my comments at the 3RR board. See [1] (and my previous comment in the same thread). Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:10, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's my first block. I should have just written to you right away without going through 3RR. I certainly do appreciate your words of support. It was taking quite a while for any admin to notice the 3RR report. Usually there is a nearly immediate response, but it took quite a while for anyone to notice this time. (Taivo (talk) 09:16, 29 November 2009 (UTC))

While I do understand that such situations can be frustrating, edit warring cannot be allowed. Edit wars always result from both sides firmly believing that they are right—it would be an unusual situation indeed to see one reverting to something they believe is wrong. I am always willing to offer on a first block for edit warring or 3RR an unblock on the condition that you refrain from reverting the article in question during the period that you would have been blocked, and that if you should revert again during that time frame that the block may be reset by any administrator without further warning. If this is acceptable to you, I would be willing to unblock. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 09:21, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that is acceptable. Thank you for considering the situation. (Taivo (talk) 09:25, 29 November 2009 (UTC))

Kwami

Yeah, sometimes it helps to drop other editors like Fut.Perf. or myself a line in addition to the 3RR complaint. Anyway, I put it on my watch list. kwami (talk) 15:58, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Kwami. You know quite well yourself how much "fringe" linguistics is out there. I remember when I was in the Army's Hungarian course in Monterey, the head of the Hungarian department came up to me and solemnly handed me an article in a California tourist magazine about how pre-Columbian Hungarian explorers left linguistic traces all through the native languages of California. He believed it and since he controlled my graduation all I could do was smile politely. (Taivo (talk) 16:06, 29 November 2009 (UTC))

Watching now as well. Sorry this happened. Kafka Liz (talk) 18:05, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

November 2009

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Proto-Indo-Iranian language. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. tedder (talk) 17:41, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

The other editor was blocked for warring on another page so his continued fringe POV edits have stopped. (Taivo (talk) 19:03, 29 November 2009 (UTC))

Yep. As soon as I posted it to both, that became apparent. You were still on the 3RR verge, though, and I chose to give warnings rather than use page protection. tedder (talk) 19:12, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I was just about to comment on the page protection request that it would be unnecessary, but you saw the situation as well. Several other reliable editors are now also watching Proto-Indo-Iranian so if the fringe POV pusher arrives again, I won't be alone in protecting the page. (Taivo (talk) 19:14, 29 November 2009 (UTC))

Well, if there are several interested parties, that means I can take it off my watchlist I was about to block the user when I saw they were blocked. That should solve things. tedder (talk) 19:19, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Burushaski

Hey again,

Could you keep an eye on Burushaski, and maybe comment there? There's an anon. IP that has long wanted to add to the biblio every Casule pub demonstrating that Burushaski is an IE language. C's been published in some reputable journals, and so is worth mention, but I think listing everything is going overboard unless he is ever favorably reviewed. kwami (talk) 10:12, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Just put it on my watchlist. (Taivo (talk) 14:51, 7 December 2009 (UTC))

Kiev

Hi! May I ask why my edits in Kiev entry were removed? There was one grammatical mistake, but otherwise the text was OK

Invest in knowledge (talk) 17:18, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

You spelled the name of the city "Kyiv". Reedit them and spell it "Kiev", since that's the spelling that Wikipedia uses. Otherwise there's not a problem. (Taivo (talk) 18:38, 8 December 2009 (UTC))

Shoshone

I'm wondering about your campaign against the term "Shoshone" in regards to the two Death Valley tribes. The Timbisha Shoshone Tribe uses the term Shoshone in their name and it's frequently used throughout their website, as well as in academic writings about them. "Shoshone" obviously isn't a homogeneous group of people or a precise term, but it's one that both the Death Valley Timbisha Shoshone Band of California and the Big Pine Band of Owens Valley Paiute Shoshone Indians use to describe themselves. Can you provide a references stating that the term is inappropriate? - especially a reference that would supercede the Timbisha Shoshone Tribe's own website as well as the Smithsonian's Handbook of North American Indians: Great Basin? Cheers, -Uyvsdi (talk) 02:34, 11 December 2009 (UTC)Uyvsdi

The Timbisha don't speak Shoshoni, they speak Timbisha. That alone separates them from the other groups called Shoshone. Culturally, they practiced the same western Basin hunter/gatherer lifestyle as everyone else in Nevada and eastern California. Linguistically, they were different, however. Timbisha and Shoshone are not mutually intelligible. (You can check out the references at Timbisha language.) Language is nearly always a primary divider when it comes to culture and the discussion of culture. (Taivo (talk) 02:41, 11 December 2009 (UTC))

The vast majority speak English. Language is one way of defining people, but not the only one. Shoshone and Paiute are both very fluid terms, and the tribes themselves still refer to themselves as Shoshone, so I'm wondering what source would have a greater authority than the tribes. Do you have any references? Thanks, -Uyvsdi (talk) 02:49, 11 December 2009 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Look at any linguistic classification of the Uto-Aztecan languages and you will see the clear separation between Timbisha/Panamint/Koso and Shoshoni/Shoshone (you can check out Miller's article on Numic languages in the Great Basin volume of the Handbook as an example). The linguistic division is between Beatty and Lida. The way that the current Shoshone article is written, it makes no clear distinction between the Timbisha "Shoshone" communities and the Western Shoshone communities and readers are automatically shuttled into Shoshoni language without a second thought. If the Shoshone article were rewritten in such a way that the very clear linguistic distinction between Timbisha and Shoshoni were highlighted, then I might change my opinion. But as the current article is written, it's unacceptable from a linguistic point-of-view. There are certain cultural differences as well where the Timbisha are more California-like than the Shoshone, but the main difference is linguistic. (Taivo (talk) 02:53, 11 December 2009 (UTC))

I agree that the Shoshone article is in shambles (as the majority of the Native American ethnic articles are), and I'm not trying to change your mind. I just wanted to know if the two tribes took umbrage at being referred to as "Shoshone," which I'm guessing they don't until I see reference saying otherwise. -Uyvsdi (talk)Uyvsdi

No, they don't take umbrage, but this being an encyclopedia, it is necessary to accurately portray the situation. The situation is that readers will be falsely led in a direction based on a tribal label that is inaccurate. The Timbisha used to call their language "Shoshoni", but it isn't Shoshoni. Linguists identified this problem in the 1960s and have been using different linguistic labels ever since despite the fact that speakers just said they spoke "Shoshoni" (many of them still do and confuse the heck out of novice anthropologists and linguists going to work there). Both the Northern and Southern Paiute call themselves "Paiute" despite the even more distant relationship between their languages than between Timbisha and Shoshoni. They don't call themselves "Northern" or "Southern". You can't rely on what people want to call themselves in an encyclopedia. It's important that accurate designations prevail here. Why haven't you listed the Goshute as Shoshone? They are. They speak Shoshoni and their dialect is perfectly comprehensible to speakers at Fort Hall and Ely. They are Shoshoni by every single measure that matters--unlike the Timbisha. You see, accuracy is more important than local labels. The Goshute are Shoshoni, but you don't want to label them as such. The Timbisha are not Shoshoni, but you do want to label them as such. The same is true of the Owens Valley Paiute--they're not Paiute, they're Mono. (Taivo (talk) 05:34, 11 December 2009 (UTC))

I just took a quick look at the way that Eastern Mono is being treated and it's also a mess. The "Paiutes" at Lone Pine, Bishop, and Big Pine are all Mono, not Northern Paiute. The southernmost Northern Paiute are at Bridgeport. Every "Paiute" south of that is a Mono. And having one article (Paiute) that tries to lump Northern and Southern Paiute together is a travesty. Paiute should be a disambiguation page only--there should be separate descriptions of Northern Paiute and Southern Paiute. It's going to take a while to get the mess straightened out it seems. (Taivo (talk) 05:47, 11 December 2009 (UTC))

I haven't even looked at the Goshute page. For some reason the Great Basin is completely neglected - more than any other area. I still feel tribes' views about their own identity are more pertinent that the linguistic communities' view, but let's agree to disagree. Cheers, -Uyvsdi (talk) 08:49, 11 December 2009 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Timbisha

The formation "Timbi-Sha" for the Timbisha is grammatically impossible in the language. The etymology is tim 'rock' + pisha 'paint' (from the native name of Death Valley), so the present hyphenation is impossible. I suspect that it is a typographical error in the Federal Record because the tribe itself never hyphenates its name and would, in any case, never hyphenate it in that place. (Taivo (talk) 15:33, 11 December 2009 (UTC))

The list names are per the Federal Register (errors and all). Because the list is so long, early on in that listing's creation, it was agreed that the name will always be presented as what is found in the Federal Register, and then have the entire name be a link, with the appropriate re-directs to the correct name of the tribe. For visual ease, the various sub-listings, "formerly known..." and "previously listed as ..." are on a separate line. The only liberty we have taken is maintaining any additional ancillary information that may have been on an older (since 1993) Federal Register listings that may not be in the current listing. When the Eastern Delaware lost their Federal Recognition, they were not deleted from the article, but instead commented out; when they re-gained their recognition, their entry was un-commented out. Thank you for your concern, but Federal Register's erroneous "Timbi-Sha" for the "Timbisha" will stand until this error is corrected by the US Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indain Affairs. All we can do here at Wikipedia is to ensure the there is a proper re-direct in place. CJLippert (talk) 15:59, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Subsequent Federal acts have corrected the name. I've added a footnote and references to those acts. (Taivo (talk) 16:01, 11 December 2009 (UTC))

I've moved the additional information to the Timbisha article proper. Maybe you would like to write to the Bureau of Indian Affairs serving the Timbisha and point out the error. Here is their address:

Central California Agency
Bureau of Indian Affairs
650 Capitol Mall, Suite 8-500
Sacramento, CA 95814

CJLippert (talk) 16:21, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

And what is the problem with a footnote on the list pages as well? That's what footnotes are for. (Taivo (talk) 16:54, 11 December 2009 (UTC))

3RR Violation

• You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Article. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. For the future, please wait for a third party opinion to weigh in on the dispute. Thank you. The Scythian 21:01, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Linguist List link

Hello there buddy. Why do you want that Linguist list link in there? The links are dead, they don't work. I'm reasonable, I'll listen.Dave (talk) 00:25, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

The link does work. It takes you to a page where you can choose a variety of different family tree graphics (depending on the author of the classification). It's a very useful link. I've tested that link a dozen times and it always works. Do you have Java enabled on your computer? That may be why the link doesn't work for you. (Taivo (talk) 00:29, 15 December 2009 (UTC))

Hello, TaivoLinguist. You have new messages at Eustress's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello Taivo, you seem to be interested in the Linguist List Link site itself rather than the subpage actually addressed. That seems to work OK and seems to belong there. What I am doing is moving these link formats to the recommended Wikipedia "cite" templates, which provide a uniform look and allow the user enough information so he can see what it is without having to click on every link. One relies on the information in the template rather than on the editor's description, which is apt to be opinionated and often is wrong. Here it is wrong. The subpage actually linked gives no description. Don't you think it would be a better idea to link your preferred site rather than this subpage? Then the user can look up any IE language. Right now I'm called away. In a few moments I will set up a "cite web" to the LL search site and you can take a look. If you don't want to use it then please set the link up in "cite template format" without the incorrect summary. Oh, I could not help noticing the "edit war" comments on your discussion site. I find that most "edit wars" can be avoided by discussion, but it's you call there.Dave (talk) 00:54, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not a programming type, so my references and links look more like a written paper than the techno stuff you were describing. I'll look to see what you're talking about. And concerning discussions, it takes two to discuss. Edit wars often happen when only one party is talking and the other party is not. (Taivo (talk) 05:47, 15 December 2009 (UTC))

The link wasn't pointing to the right place. I fixed it so that it points to the portal for the family trees. (Taivo (talk) 05:52, 15 December 2009 (UTC))

Thanks

I appreciate your recent edits Taivo and I'm glad we can always work together towards conciliation. Thankyou. ^Izzedine 14:29, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Why do you keep changing your mind Taivo? Izzedine 15:06, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

I haven't changed my mind. I have always opposed the addition of "Ancient Iraq" in the article on Mesopotamia. But when it was just you and me discussing, then in the absence of consensus against it, I let it ride. Now there is a clear consensus against it. (Taivo (talk) 15:11, 25 December 2009 (UTC))

Do you think we can find some conciliation? Izzedine 15:21, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

The generally accepted boundaries of Mesopotamia are not the same as the boundaries of modern Iraq, so the use of the term "Ancient Iraq" does not equal "Mesopotamia" and they are not synonyms. Write a separate article on Ancient Iraq if you see fit, but it's not the same as Mesopotamia (which includes several sites in Syria and Turkey). No one doubts that "Ancient Iraq" is a valid title for a book or Wikipedia article. But Mesopotamia is larger than Iraq. The two are not equal, so they are not synonyms. (Taivo (talk) 15:26, 25 December 2009 (UTC))

While I agree with you, there are only a couple of noted Mesopotamian sites outside Iraq's actual borders, and not very far outside too. It's worth remembering that there were Ancient Greek sites all over the southern Balkans and Anatolia, there were Ancient Egyptian sites in Sudan, Libya and up the levant coast. Another fact to be considered is that *there are* etymologies tracing the name "Iraq" to the Akkadian name for Uruk - this is verifiable, and may mean the name "Iraq" is far older than "Mesopotamia" - more than twice as old in fact. I'm absolutely not at all trying to supplant the established name "Mesopotamia" though, I just want the alternative to be included. Izzedine 16:48, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

The etymologies linking "Iraq" to "Uruk" are 100% political crap invented by the cronies of Iraq's former dictator. As such, they are not verifiable by reliable linguists. "Ancient Iraq" is not an alternative for "Mesopotamia". I have posted a request for comment on the history and geography page. Now we just wait and see what the community thinks. (Taivo (talk) 16:53, 25 December 2009 (UTC))

This is demonstrating a strong negative POV Taivo, which is a breach of one of Wikipedia's three core policies. What about the rest of what I said too? Wikipedia is not a democracy you can't just count hands in the audience Taivo, if things were that way there would be systemic bias everywhere. Izzedine 17:24, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

First, WP:NPOV only applies to the text of the articles. You also have a strong POV. On Talk Pages and during discussions, POV doesn't matter unless it is focused personally, which I have not done (unless you are one of the former dictator's linguistic cronies). The goal is to take all those POVs and determine what is the most NPOV wording in the article. That doesn't always mean "a little for everyone". Second, Wikipedia doesn't "count hands", it works on WP:CONSENSUS. That means that the community works not on counting hands in a vote, but on determining what the great (very clear) majority of editors think is best. "Democracy" says that 5 beats 4. "Consensus" says that 8 beats 1, but 5 doesn't beat 4. "Consensus" does not mean that 1 beats 3. If you actually have reliable sources (and you have not yet proven that you do), then you can sway consensus in your favor. It happens all the time here. But you have no real proof yet. You throw out "evidence" that you have not evaluated at all. That's what the other editors do on a regular basis, but you have not apparently learned how to do at this point. (Taivo (talk) 17:36, 25 December 2009 (UTC))

Mentorship Committee

I'm contacting you because your name is listed at Wikipedia:Meetup/Utah.

Please consider reviewing my edit at Wikipedia:Mentorship#Unintended consequences. In the search for a mentor deemed acceptable by ArbCom, I view this as a useful context for discussing what I have in mind.

There is no obvious congruence between your editing interests and mine, but perhaps the disjunction presents a novel opportunity.

Will you consider looking into whether you might agree to join others in a Mentorship Committee which advises me?

In any case -- even if you are disinclined to pursue the primary thrust of this diff, I wonder if I might be able to tweak your curiosity with an article about 95-year-old Patrick Lennox Tierney? He is a Japanologist academic in the field of art history, an emeritus professor of the University of Utah, a former Curator of Japanese Art at the Utah Museum of Fine Arts, and a former Commissioner of Art and Monuments during the Allied Occupation of Japan (1945-1952). I think this elderly man still lives near the University. Tierney came to my attention because the Japanese government conferred the Order of the Rising Sun, Gold Rays with Neck Ribbon in 2007.

Perhaps the most intriguing aspect of Tierney's life concerns his work for the Supreme Commander of the Allied Powers (SCAP), Gen. Douglas MacArthur. Tierney's office was near MacArthur's suite in SCAP headquarters. Tierney was an eyewitness on the day Emperor Hirohito came to offer a formal apology; but when the emperor arrived, MacArthur refused to admit him or acknowledge him. Issues which might have been addressed were allowed to remain open, with consequences which unfolded across the decades which followed. In 2006, Tierney made an effort to explain his understanding of what he had personally observed: "Apology is a very important thing in Japan. With us, we don't apologize unless we get caught with our hand in the cookie jar, but for the Japanese, there is a very strong sense of what an apology means." According to popular historian Herbert Bix in Hirohito and the Making of Modern Japan, "MacArthur's truly extraordinary measures to save Hirohito from trial as a war criminal had a lasting and profoundly distorting impact on Japanese understanding of the lost war."

Among a prospective mentor's many burdens, the most difficult would involve (a) helping me discern why or when I should apologize or (b) helping me to explain why or when I will not apologize in a wiki-context. --Tenmei (talk) 02:27, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I would be willing to participate in a mentorship committee if ArbCom deems me acceptable. I would not be willing to be a solo mentor, but as part of a committee I would be willing. While I am sometimes passionate about the subject matter I follow, I do feel that I know the difference between personal attack and polite disagreement. I read the notice about getting a committee and, if I read correctly, John Carter has volunteered to be a part. He is a very good editor and will be a good member of the mentorship committee. (Taivo (talk) 04:07, 26 December 2009 (UTC))

Thank you for your time and consideration. As a gesture of appreciation, please allow me to share a rhetorical question from the Analects of Confucius: "Is it not pleasant to learn with a constant perseverance and application?" --Tenmei (talk) 17:55, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Two rakan evoke a teachable moment, searching together for a focal point?

May I offer a proposal? Please replace your username with your signature (four tildes ~~~~) in the list of "active mentors" at User talk:Tenmei/Sub-page Alerts. This is necessary step in a constructive direction.

You may find that what I'm asking for is probably less than you imagine in the short term, or perhaps more than you anticipate in the long term. --Tenmei (talk) 07:01, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Taivo

Happy new year, dear namesake! I know, Taivo is not your real name, but it is mine. It has no meaning and I am glad to have a name without meaning. I have never contacted you before, but I'd like to ask: the username "Taivo" in Finnish wikipedia is occupied by a person who is not me but who speaks Finnish. Is it you? Do you actually speak Finnish? Taivo (talk) 15:05, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

My username, "Taivo", means 'white man' in the Timbisha language. It is the short version of my Timbisha name Nuwitaivottsi, which means "Travelling White Man". I know Hungarian, but not Finnish. (Taivo (talk) 15:08, 2 January 2010 (UTC))

Okay. Then there is three Taivos. I have registered username Taivo in Estonian, German, Russian and Simple English, in Commons and Estonian Wiktionary. Someone has registered it in Hungarian but hasn't made anything. And – if you ever need a favour, just ask. Taivo (talk) 17:28, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Taivo on the Hungarian wiki is me. --Taivo (talk) 00:34, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Cypriot Turkish vs Gibrizlija

Hi, Taivo. Could you have a look at this page please: Gibrizlija . It claims to be about a Turkic language. It seems to be a complete hoax and the current sources in the article do not meet wiki standards as they are mostly self-published websites. The page has been tagged to be merged into the article on Cypriot Turkish since November 2007. Many Thanks in advance. WillMall (talk) 01:08, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

It's not a language, it's just a dialect of Turkish and identical with Cypriot Turkish. I frown on Wikipedia articles about dialects personally, but there are nationalists that insist upon them even though they are pretty useless compared to the articles on the language they are a part of. Gibrizlija and Cypriot Turkish are the same thing. Since the majority of English language sources will call it Cypriot Turkish, voilà, that's the name that should be used with Gibrizlija as an alternate name. The "reliable sources" are crap. Turkish is generally separated into two dialects--Western Anatolian (from which Standard derives) and Eastern Anatolian (from which Cypriot apparently derives). Bernt Brendemoen, 1998, "Turkish Dialects," The Turkic Languages, Routledge, pp. 236-241. Also, "The Turks of Cyprus were settled there by the Ottoman government in the sixteenth century"--Hendrik Boeschoten, 1998, "The Speakers of Turkic Languages," The Turkic Languages, pg. 4. So either delete both articles or merge them as Cypriot Turkish. (Taivo (talk) 03:37, 3 January 2010 (UTC))

ok, thanks. WillMall (talk) 03:56, 3 January 2010 (UTC) Actually, I don't think I can do anything as an admin will probably stop a merge or deletion. WillMall (talk) 04:43, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I took the bold route and made the G article a redirect to Cypriot Turkish. Except for the history section, the two articles were nearly identical. (Taivo (talk) 04:57, 3 January 2010 (UTC))

Answering Randy in Boise

Hi, Taivo. I'm a scientist too, but I generally edit in topic areas where I'm not an expert. However, since you mention Randy in Boise on your userpage, I thought I would mention how we handle that sort of thing at the Che Guevara article, in case you might find it a helpful example. In previous discussions we've established 3 or 4 particular biographies as being the most reliable sources for the article, based on such things as the book having an extensive bibliography in the back, a review of the book appearing in JSTOR, and other criteria (as objective as possible) to establish a high level of scholarship. When someone proposes adding a theory or anecdote to the page, we either check one or more of these biographies to see whether it's mentioned, or ask the editor wanting to add it to do so. We explain that if it's not mentioned in these definitive biographies or has only a very short mention, then putting it in the article would violate WP:UNDUE, explaining that the article is a short summary of a large amount of literature about Che Guevara and that there therefore isn't room for everything. This can all be done fairly briefly by giving links to earlier discussions. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 20:54, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Awiya

Hi Taivo! I noticed that you removed the qualifying "misleadingly" from Awiya, because you deem it unnecessary. Hetzron (in the reference I attached to my edit) made it quite clear that Awiya is a very unfortunate misnomer for the language, as it means "Awi-person" in the language, just like calling the English language "Englishman". Conti Rossini only came up with that name because of lack of exposure to the language, and it is quite good to be rid of it in the literature. I agree it should be mentioned in the article, because the name was also used by Palmer in his otherwise excellent article, and readers should be able to identify it with Awngi, but still I think it is necessary to make readers aware of the inappropriateness of the name. Maybe you could consider to put the "misleadingly" in again? Landroving Linguist (talk) 14:31, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I reworded the qualifier. "Awiya" isn't misleading, but it's definitely inappropriate. Cheers. (Taivo (talk) 15:28, 4 January 2010 (UTC))

I figured it might be s.t. like that. I added it because that's what it goes by in USPID. kwami (talk) 21:31, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Northern Cyprus

Hi

I noticed you re-edited my edit back to "officially"

Can you tell me what officially means in your context please ?

I took that wording out as most countries do not officially recognise that name apart from the republic itself and Turkey

thanks Chaosdruid (talk) 22:15, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

It means that is what the official name of the country is (translated into English, of course). "Official" means the formal name that the country has adopted for itself. It has nothing to do with international relations or international organizations. That wording was the result of discussions in the past. English speakers really don't use "Turkish Republic..." in any contexts other than stating the official name. (Taivo (talk) 23:08, 6 January 2010 (UTC))

Can we at least agree to use different wording, perhaps "Its declared name" or something like that which will not confuse readers into thinking it is officially accepted as a country in its own right ? Chaosdruid (talk) 01:00, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Whether the international community accepts the validity of its independence or not, the official name of a country is the name it chooses for itself. Northern Cyprus is an independent country whether anyone else thinks so or not because it acts like a sovereign nation. It is de facto independent. As such, it has an official name. Take Macedonia, for example. It's official name is "Republic of Macedonia" even though Greece has forced the UN (and many other international organizations) to only call it "The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia". It's official name, no matter what the UN or Greece says, is "Republic of Macedonia" because the Macedonian government says that's its official name. The other is an international reference. The official name of Northern Cyprus is "Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus". It doesn't matter if anyone else wants to consider it to be independent or not--the official name is "Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus". There's no other accurate term for it. (Taivo (talk) 05:21, 7 January 2010 (UTC))

I surrender to your greater wikiperience  :¬) .... (until proven otherwise ?!? lol)

Chaosdruid (talk) 07:26, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Reverts and edits on "Northern Cyprus"

Hi

SOrry to bother you but I am having a little problem with two ip users, one you have dealt with I believe on that page.

You reverted his edits, as I would have done, and once they reappeared I reverted them again + warning for vandalism

The history shows the two ips and I have also warned the second IP user for inappropriate edit comments

I havent got enough experience of dealing with this sort of conflict so thought I would try and use your Wikiperience again ! I am worried that I would not know exactly what to do if they revert again...

thanks in anticipation...Chaosdruid (talk) 12:40, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I have reported the matter on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring to cover myself against any 3RR or warring accusations. Anyting else I should do ?

Chaosdruid (talk) 13:49, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Not for now. I contacted another interested editor to have him take a look. You already know my position on "officially" in the first sentence, but the other two IP edits just feel too POV for my taste (and, they are unsourced) so I don't like them. Whenever you get caught with an IP (or another registered editor) in a similar situation, you did the right thing--contacting another editor. Make sure you've made comments on the article's Talk Page so that your position is well documented as well as the other editor's failure to discuss the issue. Over time, you'll get to know some administrators as well. You can also ask them to protect the page. (Taivo (talk) 13:52, 8 January 2010 (UTC))

OK - cheers for the advice. I did comment on all the IP chat pages as well as putting the "you may be edit warring" notice on the last ip chat page. Also made comments on the article chat page and left it half hour until that last revert was made then reported it.

As for the "officially" matter, you showed great wisdom as well as non bitey behaviour (I have scars from other editors bites lol) and thank you for that...

Chaosdruid (talk) 14:04, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. There's an admin who's chimed in at Northern Cyprus now (User:Nev1), so the cavalry has arrived. (Taivo (talk) 14:08, 8 January 2010 (UTC))

Northern Cyprus on List of sovereign states

Good edit to follow mine up. Sounds like a middle ground to me. Outback the koala (talk) 07:58, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Indo European Languages article

I reverted to my addition of Rig-Vedic (which is not strictly sanskrit i.e classical sanskrit but the ancestor of it called vedic sanskrit). Rigvedic is the oldest attested form of vedic sanskrit and belongs much to the bronze age of a time comparable to Mycenean Greek. Also see Rigveda#Dating and historical context

Feel free to undo if you're still not convinced. :)

86.96.227.87 (talk) 22:41, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

"Attestation" means written records from that time, not just an assumption based on written records from 2000 years later. (Taivo (talk) 04:12, 27 January 2010 (UTC))

Talk:Selkirk

Hi Taivo. Could you weigh in at Talk:Selkirk where we are discussiing whether the article should mention the towns gaelic name.·Maunus·ƛ· 15:59, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Uzhhorod

(section moved to article talk page where more appropriate.) (Taivo (talk) 17:59, 31 January 2010 (UTC))

Meseems that, effectively, diacritics are appropriate for every language written in the Cyrillic alphabet (even though they are rarely used). Or so I figured after seeing the following examples [2], [3], [4], [5]. In any case I think that Cyrillic diacritics are necessary in cases where the place of the pitch accent is not predictable. --Omnipaedista (talk) 08:03, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, diacritics are found in Russian and Ukrainian dictionaries to mark stress placement, but English readers who don't know Cyrillic and Cyrillic dictionary habits wouldn't know that and would think that the diacritic marks is supposed to be there normally. Stress in the English Wikipedia should be marked in the phonetic transcription--that's where English readers will expect to find that. (Taivo (talk) 13:07, 5 February 2010 (UTC))

You removed my text.

You removed my text where I maintained that on the pages of Wikipedia treating the Ancient History operates a gang of 3-5 persons (or a single one with couple accounts) who, by acting in concert on the related subjects, try to promote removal of the name of the Ancient Macedonia replacing it by Greece, Hellas or derivates of these names.

To remove my text was a very good idea. Thanks very much indeed.Draganparis (talk) 22:07, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Nobody is saying anything

Thank you for that treatise. I trained in historical linguistics as an undergrad.

But this is just a section "Genetics of Chadic speakers" that is causing no harm, and you sound like an antagonistic collegiate, a misguided trooper. Chadic languages is not yours to defend. DinDraithou (talk) 19:47, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Chadic languages

Hi Taivo. I have previously hinted at what I am now going to say bluntly: don't use your academic credentials as an argument in content disputes. It doesn't work. Being a linguistics professor is not an argument in it self - there are many crackpot linguistics professors in the world whose titles are not worth the paper they're written on. I know you are not one of those but the only way you can make other editors know that here at wikipedia is by using rational coherent arguments and not appeals to authority. Furthermore when you bring in your credentials you invite ad hominem arguments since what you are basically doing is turning your person into an argument. This derails discussions into namecalling. It also comes off as arrogant which ticks off a lot of people. Really, you should stick to arguing by means of those sound and rational arguments based in your extensive knowledge about the topic of linguistics, that I know you base you opinions on. ·Maunus·ƛ· 07:40, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Northern Cyprus

Hi again

I have commented on the Northern Cyprus page.

You took out my commentary as NPOV

Chaosdruid (talk) 16:28, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Albanians

Hi Taivo. Do you think you could give a third opinion here as to whether a dictionary written by Stephanus of Byzantium (6th century) is a primary source or a tertiary source.--Ptolion (talk) 17:23, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion. Could you please also give an answer on the talk:albanians page about the use of the maps? Unfortunately an unregistered user removed it. sulmues (talk)--Sulmues 18:25, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Really appreciated your measured approach! Thanks. sulmues (talk)--Sulmues 21:59, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Moroni or Nephi

Hi Taivo. I cited my sources where the angle is called Nephi, by Joseph Smith himself. Should you want to look for your self, Times and Seasons Vol. III pp. 749, 753, Millennial Star, vol. 3, p.53, Millennial Star. August 1842. Vol 3 p 71, Biographical Sketches, p. 79, Pearl of Great Price, 1851 edition. Now don't be a dick and delete it again.

Hmm. An unsigned personal attack. Should I care? No. (Taivo (talk) 19:49, 10 February 2010 (UTC))

It's not an "attack" Taivo. It's a fact. I've cited the sources, you need to stop being a little dick and leave it alone.

I do believe that "dick" is a personal attack. Take the issue to the Talk Page and if you get a consensus (if your sources are good it won't be a problem), then we we add it to the article. (Taivo (talk) 20:45, 10 February 2010 (UTC))

You're welcome regarding the revert :). Also, in future consider not responding to personal attacks, most times it's best to revert and ignore. Best, - Kingpin¹³ (talk)

You're right, of course, but sometimes the trolls are just so cute and cuddly when they're little :p (Taivo (talk) 21:34, 10 February 2010 (UTC))

Don't have too many or you'll be sick :P - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 21:40, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Dealing with Fascist Vandals

Please could you consider placing warning templates {{uw-v1|Dnepropetrovsk}}, {{uw-v2|Dnepropetrovsk}}, {{uw-v3|Dnepropetrovsk}}, etc. on user talk pages when you revert vandalism to Ukrainian articles. As you have noticed some people, mainly from the United States, have been vandalising Ukrainian articles, deleting the common English name, or making hate comments about the native language of central and eastern Ukraine. I have done this for the talk pages of various vandals whose harmful edits you recently reverted.--Toddy1 (talk) 12:06, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I have put warnings on both IP talk pages. User talk:173.54.99.72 has been warned many times, with increasing severity of warning. If he/she does it again, the correct course of action would be to put a notice on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Such a report should probably also mention User talk:96.234.13.213 as a suspected sock puppet; the user appears to be the same person as 173.54.99.72 - probably one is his/her home and one his/her office.

I am not an admin.--Toddy1 (talk) 07:58, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom process

Is this something you need to know? Your name is included in a new posting at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Clerks Noticeboard#Discussion/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Tang Dynasty? As for what happens next, we'll see? --Tenmei (talk) 08:53, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

As you know, ArbCom remedies in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tang Dynasty implied a multi-step process; however, no protocols for confirming mentors were suggested. In the absence of specifics, User:Mattisse/Plan was taken as an arguably relevant procedural model. Accordingly, a draft plan and list of mentors was e-mailed to each ArbCom member and redundantly posted at WP:AC/CN. This seems not to have worked.

I have now sought "approval" at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification#Tang Dynasty. This message is necessary because the standard template requires me to confirm notifying you. --Tenmei (talk) 21:04, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom member Coren has suggested, "It would be helpful if the editors put forward as proposed mentors would chime in here before any decision is made ...."

I will follow-up with an e-mail; and I'll explain that John Carter has been inexplicably off-wiki since late December. --Tenmei (talk) 02:49, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

How mentoring will work?

As you know, Roger Davies seeks more information from the mentors about how mentoring will work.

I hope these words will help "prime" the pump. I believe that what can be done in pre-planning has been accomplished. We will be figuring it out together as the future unfolds. A restatement is straightforward:

• An initial editing strategy based on a theory of wiki-pacifism was suggested by the userpage of Leujohn in Hong Kong.
• Fasten in Germany suggested that I tentatively adopt pacifist tactics as an experiment derived from salutary premises which I posted at Wikipedia:Mentorship#Unanticipated Consequences, especially the words of a famous German:

We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them. — Albert Einstein

In the absence of any better alternative, I agreed; however, a willingness to experiment with a novel tactic represents only a superficial change. This is useful as an exploratory gambit, but not transformative. I am not persuaded that pacifist action is workable even in this experimental approach, but we'll see.

The Latin axiom qui tacet consentire videtur is mirrored in WP:Silence + WP:Consensus. In our wiki-context, I would like to find a way to construe pacifist non-confrontation ≠ WP:Silence. In resolving these seeming contradictions, the mentors' points-of-view are essential. Together we will discover otherwise unrecognized alternatives.

In the context of this specific issue, Xavexgoem has agreed to be a non-public mentor. "Finding of facts" in the decision at Tang Dynasty encompassed User talk:Xavexgoem/archive5#Seeking help in presenting thoughts clearly. Xavexgoem's experience in mediation will help remedy an arguable deficit in the composition of our small group. Core policies are the tools at hand; and Xavexgoem agreed to help connect the dots in hopes that it could benefit more than me.

Does this help you make better guesses about how mentorship will work? --Tenmei (talk) 01:31, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Utah Meetup

We're currently discussing a possible meetup in the near future, should you care to join in. Useight (talk) 15:42, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Macedonian language

I saw that you are member of the Wikiproject:Languages. I see some issues tags on Macedonian language article. Can you check them please? Greetings 1111tomica (talk) 18:53, 28 February 2010 (UTC)1111tomica1111tomica (talk) 18:53, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Other than the generic tag at the top of the article, which tags are you worried about? I looked at the article and didn't notice any right away. The fundamental problem you're going to deal with in terms of Macedonian is that it and Bulgarian are just politically motivated dialects of a single language, even closer than Ukrainian and Russian, for example. You get into the Slavic-speaking region of Greece and it's virtually impossible to tell whether a person is speaking "Macedonian" or "Bulgarian". (Taivo (talk) 23:52, 28 February 2010 (UTC))

Why did you remove my comment? I am sorry if you thought that I wanted to insult you. This was not my intention. There was nothing insulting in my comment. I simply think and said this, that your language knowledge is apparently insufficient to judge about differences of these Slave languages. I am a native speaker of another Slave language which is very close to these languages and I understand them 100% and speak and write in these languages too, so that I can explain to you the fine differences between them. As well as their relations to the Old Church Slavonic. This is very interesting subject though. Sorry again.Draganparis (talk) 07:30, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

As I said in my edit summary, I don't appreciate people who don't write English on my Talk Page. I'm a linguist so I don't need a lecture or your input on how similar or different these languages are--my knowledge is quite sufficient to judge the similarities and differences. And your very comment, "I understand them 100%" shows that these aren't really different languages in a linguistic sense, but more or less moderately divergent dialects of a single language that are divided into different "languages" only for political purposes, not linguistic purposes. (Taivo (talk) 07:44, 4 March 2010 (UTC))

OK, fine. Excuse me anyway. What is disturbing on Wikipedia pages is an immediate hostility that is felt when a discussion starts on these pages. Kind of immediate preemptive hidden hate. I am in fact French, and because of my past, I have strong affinity for the Slave world and I chose a Slave name for Wikipedia. This may of course be a reason for that atmosphere on these particular pages. The written material that I collected after all these disputes is huge and offers a lot of basis for an analysis of human communication and influences of the political and ethnic hypotheses that the people who take part in these discussions have. The last discussion that I started takes an ominous turn and there are ethical grounds that would justify that I abandon it. As you can see these are always the same names that respond in concert against an “intruder” to protect a fictive “consensus”. Thanks anyway for a substantial understanding and reasonable stance that you were able to maintain all this time. Sincerely, Draganparis (talk) 13:42, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the consensus on the page where I encountered your comments is not "fictive". I have been involved with these Macedonian-Greek issues for about a year now and can assure you that the discussions are substantive, but that when consensus is reached, it is supported by both sides of the discussion. Yes, we always look at newcomers with a jaded eye because they don't have history with us and their "contributions" are more often than not an attempt to disrupt that consensus or to swing the issue in one direction or another. Your initial comments were directed very pointedly at a Greek cabal that you thought was controlling the article. It is not true and that article is already very neutral about the "Greekness" of the ancient Macedonians. Wikipedia is open to new editors, but you cannot step into a controversial topic and claim (without a history in the discussion) that one side or the other is conspiring against the good of the article. (Taivo (talk) 14:11, 4 March 2010 (UTC))

I do not want to start this discussion here again. If you want more on this, your e-mail will be welcome. Thanks for the normal tone and normal discussion anyway.Draganparis (talk) 16:36, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I think your mother-in-law was lied too...

Hello, TaivoLinguist. You have new messages at Toddy1's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Mentoring task force

Taivo -- This text could be added to my statement at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification?

Doing nothing is an option; but what is best? My deference and patience during the six months in which ArbCom dawdled was unrewarded; and silence appears to have defined me as a dupe. Now I have endured an further three months in limbo. ArbCom radicalizes when its mission should have been to encourage quite opposite goals. --Tenmei (talk) 03:10, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Supplementary statement

In Afghanistan, an American mentor watches a graduation ceremony for women who learned to raise bees and chickens as part of a women's empowerment program

A task force is established to work on a single defined task or activity. Drawing lessons from the photo at the right: If wiki-"mentoring" is at all like teaching Afghan women to raise bees and chickens, delay produces neither honey nor eggs.

A "mentoring task Force" (MTF) for me is a more topical or timely name than "mentorship committee." The word "task" emphasises our short- and long-term objectives; and the identified volunteers have been waiting too long to begin addressing specific tasks-at-hand.

The most widely publicized examples of on-going mentoring are linked with the phrase "task force." For example, NATO's Operational Mentor and Liaison Teams (OMLTs) are an important part of its contribution towards stabilizing Afghanistan. Australia's military programme in Afghanistan has been re-named Mentoring Task Force (MTF) concurrent with deployments in 2010. The Canadian mentoring programme in Afghanistan appears controversial precisely because of allegations that the Harper governent is waiting too long to get started — see Matthew Fisher, "Canada may have painted itself into corner in Afghanistan," The Gazette (Montreal). March 12, 2010.

A Google search for the phrase "mentoring task force" produces a range non-military hits, including an American Anthropological Association report in 2009 which ends with the words "Don't Drop the ball."

I do recognize that this is a pivotal time for ArbCom as Wikipedia's future development unfolds; nevertheless, my role requires me to reiterate: "Don't drop the ball."

Editing advice

Taivo -- You may not know that PMDrive1061 agreed to be a non-public mentor.

With regret, I have to report that today's attempt to reach out for help was unclear:

A. I intended to ask for comments here about the use of formatting as a device (a) to focus my comments and (b) to limit the number of words.

B. Also, I wanted to invite PMDrive1061 to consider posting a comment at the active ArbCom thread.

Instead, my words were construed as puzzling. I tried to restate my purpose and questions here.

Do you have the time to take a look at this? Can you offer suggestions about what I might have done differently? Can you propose plausible modifications in the formatting or in the wording?

BTW, I have sent you an e-mail. --Tenmei (talk) 19:10, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Please notice my revised "2nd try" message at User talk:PMDrive1061#Mentorship — only 8 sentences + 2 quotes? It is shorter and thus better? It seems to me that I've not explained enough.

The re-thinking rationale is a variant of less is more; but in this context of initiating a working relationship, I would have thought that less is simply less. In other words, less would seem to be too little?

Like my "1st try" message, this is also puzzling but in a different way.--Tenmei (talk) 16:28, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Republic of Macedonia

You're right about this. I'll look elsewhere for the inclusion of that information. Regards, --JSimin (talk) 14:44, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism

I have reported 173.54.99.72 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism#User-reported--Toddy1 (talk) 05:25, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

It is worth noting that the block on 173.54.99.72 comes to an end on 28 April, so be prepared for some more vandalism. However if he does it again, a report to the administrators' notice board should get him an even longer block next time.--Toddy1 (talk) 11:19, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

See my request on User_talk:HJ_Mitchell#Semi-Protection on Ukrainian Articles. I think we both know that these IP editors have logged in IDs.--Toddy1 (talk) 17:30, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Number One Gripe about Wikipedia

In my experience them "Editors who are half-blood nationals who think it is their God-ordained responsibility to defend the honor of their ancestral homeland without regard to reason, responsibility, or even right, to the very last bit of their available bandwidth" you mention at your userpage are not living in Western Europe but in North America.

Thought you should know . — Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 12:55, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I've encountered them from both areas :) One of the most rabid Ukrainian nationals I've encountered in Wikipedia is in London. Fortunately, the majority of editors are decent, reasonable, well-mannered and polite individuals who register a user name and act like citizens of the world. It's only a very, very small minority of editors whose nationalistic fervor burns too brightly. Cheers. (Taivo (talk) 13:45, 16 March 2010 (UTC))

I also realized that I needed a bit of "softening" of my gripe so that most people realize it doesn't apply to them :) (Taivo (talk) 13:55, 16 March 2010 (UTC))

Glad to have been of help ! — Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 15:04, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Assyrian Neo-Aramaic

Why did you reverse my version when I implied that it is not a independent language, but a dialect and why did you remove "Turoyo" from "See Also" even though it is one language? You are aware of that Assyrian Neo-Aramaic, Chaldean Neo-Aramaic and Turoyo are all three one Neo-Aramaic language with two major dialects, a western(Turoyo) and eastern(Assyrian, Chaldean) one?--Yohanun (talk) 12:21, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Linguists consider them to be three identifiable languages with a certain level of mutual intelligibility, but clearly identifiable individual features. They are not considered to be "one Neo-Aramaic language" in a linguistic sense. They each have their own ISO 639-3 identifier. They are not treated as "one language" in the linguistic literature. (Taivo (talk) 15:25, 20 March 2010 (UTC))

Dear Mr. Taivo,

I agree with you that these are three identifiable languages, but they are different accents to the same language, namely Neo-Aramaic. When we (speakers of this language) refer to it, We refer to the written form, Syriac. This name is considered mutual, and it keeps name warring out of our articles. When you back one denomination over the other (i.e. by saying Assyrian Neo-Aramaic, Chaldean Neo-Aramaic, or Turoyo), you basically ignite a useless war that could be easily avoided by just introducing the correct name of the writing system, Syriac. --Tisqupnaia2010 (talk) 03:06, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

In the comment above, I said "the written form", when I referred to Syriac. Neo-Aramaic is written with Syriac Alphabet, So we usually say something like (Syriac: xxxxx) (e.g. Syriac: ܠܫܢܐ ܐܪܡܝܐ) to tell anyone reading it that this is Syriac Alphabet, and all three denominations in this case can read it in their own accent without killing each other over it ☺. By the way Syriac is not a dead language yet. I know many people who can still speak it!!. --Tisqupnaia2010 (talk) 03:47, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

"Dead" in the sense that Latin is: No one learns it as their first language. Of course, people learn to read and write Syriac and to "pronounce" it. When speaking of the languages of a country, one doesn't count written-only languages--only the native tongues. (Taivo (talk) 05:35, 27 March 2010 (UTC))

Assyrian and Chaldean warring

Dear Prof. Taivo, (I have just read that you're a professor)
I am sorry to have you involved in our ridiculous warring; however, you seem to have a magical touch when it comes to finding a resolution. It is for this reason that I beg you to see this article: Tel Skuf. This is the village I was born in. It is a Chaldean village in the sense that its inhabitants are Chaldean Christians (if we remove any notion of ethnicity). of course, Mr. Shmayo had to jump in and make it Assyrian. A week ago, I revised the article to make it far from ethnicity by removing any ethnic notations introduced by Chaldean and Assyrian nationalists, and then I asked for the help of an Admin: User:Beeblebrox. He blocked the page in the hopes that we could reach a mutual understanding. I do believe the answer for our problem is by removing all ethnic notions from our articles; however, I have been faced by the attacks of Nationalists. The current blocked article doesn't have any references to the ethnicity, but Mr. Shmayo (and others) still argue it.
The Admin User:Beeblebrox has asked us to get some one else to resolve this problem, and I think you're the one we need. Needless to say that because I was born in this village, my ethnic affiliation is quite important (and quite obvious in the talk page). However, I was ready to give this up so that others (who have nothing to do with this village) would stop warring.
Please help us.
Best Regards, --Tisqupnaia2010 (talk) 00:08, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I have forgot to mention that Mr. Shmayo agrees with me that this is a Chaldean Christian village (mentioned in the talk page). --Tisqupnaia2010 (talk) 00:11, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I apologize for my comments on here. I admit that I am unable to control my emotions at this moment, so I'll refrain from any inputs regarding this subject until I can write constructive entries. I have stated my proposed resolution and I am ready to back the one you proposed. I'll stay out of Wikipedia for a couple of days. Again, I apologize. --Tisqupnaia2010 (talk) 21:35, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Lower casing of "River" in river names

This is just one of the many, many instances where I do edits beyond of what people with my level of English should attempt to do. :-) Sorry for the trouble. — In fact, I have been using lower case ("river") almost systematically in Wikipedia. I guess I should stop doing that. - Best, Ev (talk) 20:42, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

We generally always capitalize "River" when it is part of the name of a river, e.g., "Nile River", "Dnieper and Dniester Rivers", etc. (Taivo (talk) 21:46, 30 March 2010 (UTC))

I will remember that. Thank you. :-) Ev (talk) 22:04, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. It applies to most other geographical features as well: "Mount Everest", "Ural Mountains", "Grand Canyon", "Po Valley", "Pacific Ocean", "Black Sea", etc. (Taivo (talk) 22:11, 30 March 2010 (UTC))

Award

		The Barnstar of Diplomacy
		In recognition of his considerable mediation efforts and oversight, I am delighted to present Taivo this award, with Thanks. ܥܝܪܐܩ (talk) 22:52, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

FAQ

If you ever fancy creating an FAQ on Ukrainian article naming that we can transclude to article and user talk pages, let me know and I'll chip in! Knepflerle (talk) 13:16, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Kharkiv

I've protected this article for one week due to edit-warring. Please note that it takes two to edit-war, and that both of you are likely to be blocked if the edit-warring continues when the protection expires. As hard as it is sometimes, report the vandalism at the appropriate noticeboard and then step back until it has been dealt with. Karanacs (talk) 14:17, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

"south west Levant"

The article we have for the geographical region including both Israel and the Palestinian territories is Palestine. nableezy - 15:33, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Happy Easter!

Happy Easter!
This year on the same day's in the East and West!

— Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 15:52, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Tel Isqof

Hello, TaivoLinguist. You have new messages at Talk:Tel_Isqof#Clarification.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

...not only in Avoiding a war but Clarification also, haha. Shmayo (talk) 12:50, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Tenmei mentorship

Your input is desired at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification#Request for clarification: Tang Dynasty. Arbitrator Risker has posed a number of questions relevant to the mentors, and members of the committee would like to see them answered. Thank you, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 19:31, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Please do not remove

Please do not remove the technical note of mine on Macedonia (ancient kingdom). Otherwise, I will be obliged to report you. Sincerely, Draganparis (talk) 09:49, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

If your rant was an actual "technical note" that's one thing, but you'll note that I'm not the only editor removing it as a waste of space. (Taivo (talk) 11:33, 9 April 2010 (UTC))

I displayed only the results of sockpuppetry investigation. If the objective is to protect the "group of four" (or even more) of collaborating editors and hide the result of sockpuppetry investigation, then of course it is "a waist of space". (I am still waiting that you remove my e-mail address from your talk page above...)Draganparis (talk) 12:08, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm all for displaying the results of sock-puppetry investigations (not really, cause it's spam). Let's see Draganparis banned twice, his several sock-puppets banned too. Me not banned nor anyone else accused by Dragan and actually cleared by check-user. Ban this troll pls already Simanos (talk) 23:14, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

If you want to remove your email address from your prior post, then do so. I don't recall ever seeing it. (Taivo (talk) 12:36, 12 April 2010 (UTC))

Rusyn language

Hi, do you have quotes from the International Encyclopedia of Linguistics confirming info added into Rusyn language? Can you please integrate those into article. Thanks. --windyhead (talk) 08:48, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

The statements are nearly exact quotes and cited. (Taivo (talk) 09:05, 11 April 2010 (UTC))

lead

it does matter because to someone who doesnt know how to read those languages, the way you have the lead currently is confusing. Copying a flawed lead from another Ukrainian city article doesn't make things clearer or better. No need to try to make the lead convoluted just because you want to have kharkov as close in centimeters to karkiv as possible.--Львівське (talk) 00:01, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Seems it's time for a cool down period cause people are getting a bit unreasonable. Please don’t get caught up to much in this it's only wikipedia . And please also keep in mind that "Kharkov" is currently not the most common English form as any English newspaper website would show you... — Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 07:59, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, if you look at the figures here, you'll see that "Kharkov" is still quite alive and well--it outstrips "Kharkiv" in both the NY Times and Google Books :) It's not going to stage a comeback, but it's not dying as fast as some would like. (Taivo (talk) 08:59, 12 April 2010 (UTC))

Not sure what these searches proof : books about WWII don't name the city "Kharkiv" since the city was not known as it then. BBC uses "Kharkiv" and seems a bigger organisation then the US-newspapers. But ok, I'm not agians a double bold name of Kharkiv in the lead. — Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 09:37, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

The reason that books about WWII are relevant is that may be the only thing that an English speaker knows about the city--the battles. If s/he wants to know more, they will be looking for "Kharkov" in Wikipedia, because that's the only name they know. Bolding the Russian name in the first sentence (as close to "Kharkiv" as possible) tells them they've arrived in the right place even though the name at the top of the page says "Kharkiv". Cheers. (Taivo (talk) 09:43, 12 April 2010 (UTC))

vKontakte.ru

I'm also on vKontakte.ru. Feel free to (and I would like it if you) ad me as a friend there! You can find my vKontakte.ru-page on my Ukrainian wikipedia userpage (I go by the same name on all wikipedia's). — Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 10:33, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Done :) (Taivo (talk) 11:02, 12 April 2010 (UTC))

Just a record-keeping section for my own notes

"Kiev" at Reuters: [6] (Taivo (talk) 19:19, 12 April 2010 (UTC))

Western Asia in airline destination lists

Why is Western Asia still being listed Southwest Asia in airline destination lists? it redirects to the WA article, but why not use the new article name when it exists, rather than have it redirect, apparently editors associated with airline project on wiki are insisting that it continue being listed as SWA for some odd reason beyond comprehension, see Lufthansa destinations same is the case in all others, editing for correction is always reverted. 119.155.79.128 (talk) 11:41, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Probably because I see no discussion or consensus-building being done on the Talk Page. (Taivo (talk) 12:36, 15 April 2010 (UTC))

Concensus was reached amongst three people who dominate airline related wiki stuff that Western Asia should continue as Southwest Asia as far as airline articles are concerned, at the same time they are adamant on using Burma country name in there as per article title instead of Myanmar which is use dby most of the world even a sit redirects to Burma article, what double standards.119.155.68.21 (talk) 15:07, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

We live by consensus here on Wikipedia. If you don't like something, then you need to change the consensus. (Taivo (talk) 16:45, 15 April 2010 (UTC))

I dont like the fact that articles having their own title have to use redirects in some cases, while actual titles are used 99% of the time here, kindly tell your co-editors to stop this stupid double-standard, because the ones handling airline articles think they are superior to everyone elses opinion even if they are wrong, so if WA is being listed as SWA then Burma should be Myanmar, thank you.116.71.86.158 (talk)

Tel Keppe

What makes you think Chaldeans are ethnicaly Assyrian? what nonsense is this? No one on earth can force this, neither you nor anyone. Chaldeans were and will always be ethnically seperate. Don't just make statements like that without a proof. You seem to be educated, this kind of games is for ignorants only. And what consensus are you talking about? no Chaldean will ever say he's an Assyrian!! Chaldeans would rather die than be named Assyrians.--King Of Babylonia (talk) 19:59, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia consensus can be found at Talk:Assyrian people with supplementary discussion at Talk:Chaldean Christians. If you try to edit outside Wikipedia's consensus, then you may be subject to blocks or bans. (Taivo (talk) 20:26, 15 April 2010 (UTC))

with all do respect, what I have found so far is the fact that "ONE" Assyrian, Shamyo, is running around all the articles and replacing "Chaldeans" with "Assyrians". The "consensus" you have been talking about is within an article whose neutrality is disputed. How could an educated man buy into such nonsense? How could you simply want to refer to an unneutral article? Reading that Article, you could easily recognize the biased tone of the writer. Beside a picture of Alqosh and a Chaldean Flag, the only time Chaldeans is mentioned is to make them Assyrians. As for my new account, I don't think that this gives you the right to ignore/question my intentions. Soon, more Chaldeans will be informed of this issue, and there will be more new accounts. Should they be simply ignored? I have seen that you're neutral. I have read the previous nonsense that Shmayo have caused. I just don't see why you keep on ignoring the fact that there were 2 Chaldeans trying to tell you to rename the "Assyrian people" article. you simply ignored them, and you believed what "ONE" Assyrian was telling you!!!--King Of Babylonia (talk) 23:29, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

"Consensus", King of Babylonia, does not consist of "convince Taivo". It consists of agreeing with other editors, both Assyrians and Chaldeans, that one statement is better supported than another or else finding an accurate compromise wording. It is not about confrontation, but about cooperation. It doesn't matter how many Chaldeans come to this place, the process is identical. As long as you fail to discuss the issue with Shmayo and the other Assyrian editors, the article will stay locked and you will be prevented from editing it. (Taivo (talk) 23:35, 15 April 2010 (UTC))

OK. I apologize for my previous comments. But let me ask you something. Do you think consensus was need by the French to prove they were not German after Germany annihilated France? Do you think the Polish needed consensus with the Germans to prove they were not Germans after Germany Annihilated Poland? Do you think that Kuwaitis needed Iraqis consensus to prove they were not Iraqis after they were annihilated by Iraq? Do you think that consensus would've ever freed these countries? I appreciate your help for being the mediator between Chaldeans and Assyrians, but you need to have an idea of what you're asking Chaldeans to do, giving up their identity.--King Of Babylonia (talk) 03:03, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

If you are unable to act in a civil manner and work toward consensus on Wikipedia with Assyrian editors, then you need to find something else to do in your spare time. (Taivo (talk) 03:07, 17 April 2010 (UTC))

Let's be frank here for a second. Your threats are not appreciated. Neither you nor anyone else can tell me what to do in my spare time. I don't think at any point I was uncivil to anyone. It is uncivil on your part to attack me in such a way. It is also uncivil on your part to jump into a civil chatting between me and Shmayo on his page. I don't think he needs a "mama" to take care of him, he has fingers to type. You don't need to throw your threats under any comment I make. It would be "civil" to just post them on my talk page once, as you did 2 minutes before you posted them all over Wikipedia!!! --King Of Babylonia (talk) 04:00, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Get real, King of Babylonia. I did not post my comments "all over Wikipedia". I posted them on your Talk Page and beneath your comment to Shmayo. You are actually on the border of incivility. Wikipedia is not the place to be making nationalistic harangues. If you want to make changes on Wikipedia to the way that Chaldeans are perceived and discussed, then you are going about it in a completely unproductive manner. You need to listen to the two other Chaldeans who have cautioned you about getting your passions under control. Wikipedia is about negotiating and coming to consensus. If that isn't something that you're interested in doing, then you do need to move on or else you will be subject to blocks and bans. That's not a "threat", it's a fact of life on Wikipedia. Your comments to Shmayo were inflammatory. That is unacceptable. And, if you read the interactions at the various places where these discussions have been happening, you will see that in working between Chaldeans and Assyrians over the last couple of months, you are not the first person that I have had to strongly caution about civility. I've cautioned editors on both sides of this issue. So sit back, get a beer, watch some TV, and cool down your passion before your intemperate words get you in trouble. (Taivo (talk) 04:12, 17 April 2010 (UTC))

Korean Language

I do not appreciate the removal of a "relevant" link on Korean Language article. I am a professional Korean translator in real life and even contributed vocabulary for the article. However, since you and someone else both feel that it is advertising, I will back off. Good luck! Galbilover (talk) 11:23, 16 April 2010 (EST)

Assyrianization

Taivo, you're active in the Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac/etc. discussions. It would be good to have another users opinion in Talk:Assyrianization concerning "the assyrianization of Syriac Christians". Unfortunately we're not reaching any good. If you have time please join the discussion. Shmayo (talk) 21:02, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Edo script

Hi Taivo,

I wonder if you can dig up anything on the Edo script. The article is based on the Cornell site in the links, which was based on an email s.o. sent them and which they've apparently never followed up on. If it's a CV syllabary, there wouldn't seem to be enough glyphs to accommodate the language. The email to the Cornell site gave a ref, but I don't know if it's accessible. If the script is real, it would be pretty neat, but I wonder if it's not just a personal project, and that if there is a traditional Edo script, if it might not be s.t. else. I've deleted several refs to it in other articles which were clearly nonsense, such as it being an ancient script unchanged for 2000 years. (Esp. given the European color scheme!) I plan on calling some Edo cultural associations Monday, in case they've heard of it.

Hey, Kwami. I think it's someone's personal project, like a conlang. It doesn't look like anything that anyone would actually use, let alone publish works in. The Edo aren't rich enough to supply every village school with a color printer (and unlimited quantities of color ink or toner) so that their children could become literate and they could enter the modern world. It's just a pet project, nothing that would ever be adopted by a native people anywhere on the planet. (Taivo (talk) 01:21, 19 April 2010 (UTC))

My impression was that it was supposed to have just been used in the royal palace, which would avoid the last criticism. I just want to make sure there isn't anyone out there who knows about it before I delete. kwami (talk) 04:35, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

English Common Usage

What exactly is English Common Usage and how do you determine it? I mean is it a poll of normal people? Scholars? What is it? Simanos (talk) 09:11, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

If you get a definitive answer to that one, we've all wasted years of argument on Wikipedia! Skinsmoke (talk) 10:01, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Look at the kinds of data I assembled for this discussion. It illustrates what kinds of data can show English common usage. It's not just guesswork. There are definitely some kinds of very good data which can show what English common usage is. You can also read the discussion at WP:COMMONNAME. (Taivo (talk) 10:41, 21 April 2010 (UTC))

I'm sorry but somehow Kiev over Kyiv is mostly a phonetic problem (Japan and Nippon?), not at all like say Hellas with Greece or similar and perhaps worse disputes (like Macedonia) Simanos (talk) 13:35, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Even if you're talking about Greece/Hellas, for example, then exactly the same processes are necessary. (And, actually, Kiev/Kyiv isn't a phonetic problem but a choice between the Ukrainian and Russian variants of the name.) Go to the NY Times website and search for "Greece", then search for "Hellas". (Without any surprise you'll find that "Hellas" is virtually non-existent.) You can also do a survey of the most common atlases and encyclopedias in English. What are the headwords? What is on the maps? In the case of Greece/Hellas, you'll still find "Hellas" virtually non-extistent. In cases like Greece/Hellas and Japan/Nippon, it's not even difficult at all to tell you what common English usage is. The CIA Factbook is a good source for common English names of countries. English speakers never use "Hellas" or "Nippon". Encyclopedias and geographical dictionaries can be used to confirm that. Similar studies were done for the recent Macedonian arbitration and showed "Macedonia" to be the overwhelming choice of English-language sources in referring to Macedonia and that "FYROM" was uncommon except in footnotes about Greece's objections. If you have a specific example that you want to check out, I would be happy to advise you on places to look and help with some of the academic search engines. (Taivo (talk) 19:07, 21 April 2010 (UTC))

I'm not saying we should rename the article Greece into Hellas. I'm just asking questions, mostly out of curiosity. That CIA factbook was used for Macedonia-FYROM too? Or some other study? Can you link to some of them? Simanos (talk) 20:13, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

The study for Macedonia was much, much more extensive than just looking at the CIA Factbook. It was even more extensive than the study I did for Kiev/Kyiv. It was part of a long discussion as part of the WP:ARBMAC2 process. The evidence is here (Taivo (talk) 20:16, 21 April 2010 (UTC))

Wikibreak

I'm going to be taking a break for a few days--taking my beloved wife to the Grand Canyon for the first time. She's dreamed of it since she was a child in Ukraine. I'll be back next week. (Taivo (talk) 15:04, 22 April 2010 (UTC))

Then I will endorse in a full reform of that page whilst you are gone. Routerone (talk) 16:35, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Yet another...

Special:Contributions/Pashko_2 - could you explain and edit as necessary? Knepflerle (talk) 23:55, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

...and suspiciously similar edits today from an IP, Special:Contributions/188.230.29.53. This admin regrettably reject an edit-warring report, thinking that this is a genuine content dispute. Knepflerle (talk) 20:52, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Mentorship

Thank you for your sensible contributions at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification. Your patience helps me to be patient too.

This is not developing in ways which seem reasonable; but there it is -- an odd mystery. I hope that frustration will not cause you to withdraw. --Tenmei (talk) 01:00, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I contacted each ArbCom member who commented on the Tang Dynasty "clarification" thread -- Smith, Coren, Davies, Risker, Carcharoth, SirFozzie, Hersfold; and in addition, I reached out to two others who commented on another thread on the same page -- Newyorkbrad, Shell. This modest effort engendered three vague, unhelpful responses:

1. Thanks for the note. We are close to deciding what to do here, so a little bit more patience and thanks for being so patient so far as this has indeed taken some time. Carcharoth (talk) 04:55, 27 April 2010
2. This is being discussed. I think I'm going to stand where I am on this, but we will see how others think. SirFozzie (talk) 03:53, 27 April 2010
3. Just in case you hadn't noticed, I haven't actually commented on your request at all. Your comments were very confusing themselves and you seem to have set up a confusing mentorship system with a large number private and public mentors. In my opinion, this is not going to go well, but as I was not around for the original case, I am deferring to the judgement of Arbiters who were there for the case and can hopefully understand a bit better what you are proposing. Shell ^babelfish 00:17, 27 April 2010

I construe Shell's comment as a suggestion that I contact each ArbCom member who participated directly in Tang Dynasty. I will give this some thought.

In each "ping", I explicitly invite ArbCom to explain to you and the other identified "mentors." For redundant clarity, my words were these: "please explain it to those who have volunteered to explain such things to me." Was it necessary to underline these words?

ArbCom's core error is two-fold: (a) failure to answer direct questions from me; and (b) failure to communicate with you. WP:Mentorship#Involuntary mentorship projects your role as some kind of ArbCom agents; but any evidence of constructive engagement is missing. This is an ArbCom-created stumbling block we need to acknowledge. --Tenmei (talk) 15:35, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your advice. I will stop posting altogether. --Tenmei (talk) 19:11, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Your comment

You wrote, "This deletion is vandalism since I've noted your other edits are clearly a POV attempt at discrediting Linguist List. Don't remove content written before citation requirements"
I have introduced no POV content whatsoever. I am now left wondering who you are, and what your connection is with LinguistList, for the answer can't be none.
Wikipedia policy is clear: all assertions must be cited to reliable sources, period.24.22.142.28 (talk) 10:31, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I have no connection with Linguist List, but that's not the issue. It's clear from the series of anti-Linguist List edits to language family articles that you have a problem with that organization. The LINGUIST List article was written before citation requirements were so strict on Wikipedia and it is good procedure to note such things as "citation needed" rather than simply deleting them. Linguist List is a respected and useful linguistics source, so your deletion of content from the article betrays your bias. Mark the passages as "citation needed" rather than deleting them. (Taivo (talk) 10:34, 27 April 2010 (UTC))

"I have no connection with Linguist List…"

“There's an anon IP that is on an anti-Linguist List crusade. He's deleting most of the article on the flimsy excuse that it's not referenced."[7]

You have got to be kidding. This is core policy; there is no "grandfather clause."24.22.142.28 (talk) 10:42, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Taivo - it seems you have some grudge against the linguist list for some reason, but wikipedias policies do not require all statements to be sourced - only statements that are controversial or likely to be challenged. Tag those for citation needed if you find them - don't simply delete them.·Maunus·ƛ· 10:43, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, I don't like their linkspam. These pages offer nothing of value, and the main point of linking them from WP is to boost their traffic. What is this, for example, but addled nonsense:

http://multitree.linguistlist.org/codes/uawd

Though the site is supposedly devoted to presenting taxonomies, this one is spectacularly and laughably incoherent: "Trans-New Guinea, Morehead and Upper Maro Rivers, Eleman, Border (Border Trans-New Guinea), Marind, Teberan-Pawaian" Besides that, there is nothing of substance, and that is the case for nearly all these spamlinks.

I came across that myself this evening on an unrelated search. It ranks high in google because of these spamlinks, which are being cultivated over here. I know of exactly no one who uses this site for scholarly research.24.22.142.28 (talk) 10:52, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

This site is not for "scholarly research", but neither is Wikipedia. If you're relying on Wikipedia for scholarly research, then you need to take your research methods class again. Wikipedia is for common, non-scholarly readers to get general information. As such, Linguist List is eminently useful and the links to the family trees on Multitree are also quite useful for non-specialists. (Taivo (talk) 10:56, 27 April 2010 (UTC))

Taivo - although I disagree with some of the IPs actions (as discussed on their talk page) I also don't think it is vandalism. An attempt (albeit misguided) to apply our policies is obviously not vandalism as per the second paragraph of WP:VANDALISM "any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism." Dpmuk (talk) 11:04, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate your attention to the article. I considered the anon IP a vandal because s/he was on an anti-Linguist List crusade (as evidenced by a number of edits over the last couple of days) so "good-faith effort" was a term I would not use. But, whether or not a vandal isn't as important as getting a handle on the situation. Thanks for your contribution to that. (Taivo (talk) 11:08, 27 April 2010 (UTC))

Taivo: Dpmuk was right to tell you that you should be much more careful about using the word "vandalism" about content edits. No edit done during dispute about content is ever vandalism. You are now involved in another dispute at Korean where you are using the term vandalism to apply to the edits of the other editor - when clearly the dispute is about how to represent the genetic classification of Korean. If you think that by calling the other editor a vandal you are protecting yourself from being blocked for breaking the 3 revert rule you are wrong - you could in fact be blocked also for using "vandal" as a personal attack on the other editor. When faced with annoying obviously baseless disruptive edits from IP's or other editors you should try to be more patient and get help from other editors (like you did in this case). I really would hate to see you being blocked for breaking 3RR. ·Maunus·ƛ· 11:18, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

RE: Myrhorod article

It is spelled the same in both Ukrainian and Russian. It is a Ukrainian city, why then should Russian spelling be added. Also, why did you remove Georgian and Latvian spelling. Though as I can see you are professor of linguistics, perhaps you don't know that Davyd Gyramishvili(one of the most well-known Gergian writers, Georgian counterpart of Taras Shevchenko) was buried in Myrhorod and many Gergians know about Myrhorod because of that. --Rkononenko (talk) 10:37, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

The city was never part of either Latvian or Georgian territory, so the names in Latvian and Georgian are equivalent to adding the Chechen name for Kiev. (Taivo (talk) 10:39, 27 April 2010 (UTC))

Are you deft? I am talking about one of the most important writers in Gergia(a country, not state in the USA) David Guramishvili lived/worked and was buried in Myrhorod. What Chechen are you talking about? --Rkononenko (talk) 10:41, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

So add the Georgian name if you think that's important, but the city is also known in English by its Russian transliteration. That's what is important. Stop vandalizing Ukrainian city articles by removing the Russian spellings. And I remind you of WP:CIVIL. (Taivo (talk) 10:42, 27 April 2010 (UTC))

Done Rkononenko (talk) 10:43, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I will say this only once more--stop removing the alternate Russian names that these Ukrainian cities are known by. (Taivo (talk) 10:47, 27 April 2010 (UTC))

What's the reference?

The majority of linguists do not even accept "Altaic" as a valid linguistic family. The readers aren't interested in any personal view. What's the reference supporting your remark?

I have posted it many times--from Campbell and Mixco's Glossary of Historical Linguistics (University of Utah Press). (Taivo (talk) 07:10, 29 April 2010 (UTC))

I read the reference but I couldn't find a phrase that telling "Most linguists reject Altaic"

Read the entry on "Altaic". I've added two more references on the Korean language page along with a couple of relevant quotes. (Taivo (talk) 07:31, 29 April 2010 (UTC))

Campbell and Mixco

What they deny is the relation between Uralic and Altaic. They don't say most linguist reject Altaic in the book. They prefer Korean as a language isolate. They belong to minor group. More linguists take Korean as Altaic.

Which page of the book "A glossary of Historical Linguistics"?

That supports your personal opnion that "MOST LINGUISTS REJECT ALTAIC HYPOTHESIS" Which page of the book? I can't find it.

It says....

A hypothesis of distant genetic relationship taking its name from the Altai mountains of central Asia; it holds that Turkic, Mongolian and Tungusic (Manchu-Tungusic), together comprising some forty languages, are genetically related. More extended versions of the Altaic hypothesis would include Korean and Japanese, sometimes also Ainu. Various scholars in the early and mid 1800s proposed classifications that would group some or all of the ‘Altaic’ languages together, but typically these were included in larger, more poorly defined proposed affiliations, such as the now abandoned Ural-Altaic hypothesis.(p.7)

Now abandoned is Ural-Altaic relation which was replaced with , not Altaic.

Eurasiatic Greenberg’s (2000, 2002) hypothesis of a distant genetic relationship that would group Indo- European, Uralic–Yukaghir, Altaic, Korean–Japanese– Ainu, Nivkh, Chukotian and Eskimo–Aleut as members of a very large ‘linguistic stock’. While there is considerable overlap in the putative members of Eurasiatic and Nostratic there are also significant differences. Eurasiatic has been sharply criticized and is largely rejected by specialists (Georg and Vovin 2003, 2005). (p. 58)

SO WHERE'S THE PHRASE THAT SUPPORTS YOUR PERSONAL OPNION THAT MOST LINGUSTS REJECT ALTAIC?

This is no "personal opinion". Read this: "Most specialists in these languages no longer believe that the three traditional supposed Altaic groups, Turkic, Mongolian and Tungusic, are related. In spite of this, Altaic does have a few dedicated followers." (page 7). That is NOT about "Ural-Altaic", but about ALTAIC. Also note on page 90-91: "Korean is often said to belong with the Altaic hypothesis, often also with Japanese, though this is not widely supported." How much more clear can it be? You're not reading the book, I don't think. (Taivo (talk) 07:53, 29 April 2010 (UTC))

Its page 7. And its unequivocal. The Altaic hypothesis is not very commonly accepted. Sorry.·Maunus·ƛ· 09:42, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

April 2010

1. I noticed the message you recently left to a newcomer. Please remember: do not bite the newcomers. If you see someone make a common mistake, try to politely point out what they did wrong and how to correct it. Thank you.
2. Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we must insist that you assume good faith while interacting with other editors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.

   You could have simply pointed to the references instead of taking a snarky tone with a new guy.--LDSFaithFighter2009 13:45, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

You're no "new guy". New guys don't know how to use these templates. (Taivo (talk) 13:47, 30 April 2010 (UTC))

I won't argue over this as to if I'm new or not, any admin can tell that I've not posted often. It isn't hard to look up warning template and copy and paste.--LDSFaithFighter2009 13:52, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Whatever. As a "new guy", the first thing you need to learn is that your POV is not everyone else's POV. Wikipedia's goal is to be balanced in its presentation of religious topics. The Book of Mormon article has been carefully constructed by BOTH Mormons and non-Mormons to be as balanced in its presentation as possible. It's not a missionary tract, nor should it be. It presents criticisms of the BOM (whether you believe the criticisms or not) that are in the literature. That's what Wikipedia does--"This is X. Believers think A. Critics think B." (Taivo (talk) 13:57, 30 April 2010 (UTC))

As you are only interested in your continued incivility, I will simply refrain from speaking to you. Please cease contacting me. --LDSFaithFighter2009 14:01, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Interesting. Nothing in my last post was uncivil and it was you who contacted me. (Taivo (talk) 14:03, 30 April 2010 (UTC))

The capital of Ukraine is the City of Kyiv - Article 20 of Ukrainian Constitution

Article 20 - The capital of Ukraine is the City of Kyiv - http://www.rada.gov.ua/const/conengl.htm#r1

Saying that google finds more for Kiev than Kyiv and it's the main reason to igore change to Wikipedia articles conserning Kyiv - makes no sense. In your logic we should next change ukrainian constitution due to google search result. Of course in USSR Kyiv in every foreign press was spelled as Kiev. As a result it caused a habit to spell name of the capital of Ukraine in wrong way even up to day, but we are not living in USSR anymore. We are living in independent Ukraine and the capital of this country is Kyiv.

But this is the English wikipedia - neither Russian or Ukranian spelling rules are followed, only Wikipedia naming policy.·Maunus·ƛ· 18:21, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I am familiar with wiki rules and this rules dont take into attention that some names that are now commonly are used in English due to some historical circustamces are wrong --SWC (talk) 19:26, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

But "wrong" here is a matter of opinion, not of fact. Factually wrong would be to say the capital of the Ukraine is Cracow. — kwami (talk) 19:31, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

The normal English word for Киев is Kiev, not Kyiv; to the native inhabitants, the place is called Київ or Киев. This situation is far from unique. The native inhabitants of Antwerp, call it Antwerpen, whilst people from the capital of Belgium call it Anvers.--Toddy1 (talk) 20:35, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

It seems that no one reads my first arguments of favour of Kyiv. I am native inhabitant and for me normal is Київ - Kyiv, not Kiev or Киев.--SWC (talk) 20:48, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

You don't have an argument in favor of "Kyiv", that's why we've ignored it. Common English usage is "Kiev". And my wife is a Ukrainian, too, but for her Киев "Kiev" is normal. But in the English Wikipedia it doesn't matter what Ukrainians call it, it only matters what English speakers call it. And for them, it's still overwhelmingly "Kiev". (Taivo (talk) 20:51, 2 May 2010 (UTC))

I watched all the American reporting of the riot in the Rada chamber last week and I didn't hear or read a single solitary news article that had "Kyiv". They were all, universally, using "Kiev"--both spoken and written. That's just another proof that English speakers still overwhelmingly use "Kiev". That's all that matters to Wikipedia. (Taivo (talk) 20:56, 2 May 2010 (UTC))

SWC - for you normal is to speak in 'Ukrainian' language, so you use Київ. But that is the Ukrainian language word, not the English language word. Transliterating Ukrainian language words into English does not produce a better English word than the English word.--Toddy1 (talk) 05:20, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I like that, Toddy1--"Transliterating Ukrainian into English doesn't produce a better English word than the English word."  :) Cheers. (Taivo (talk) 05:55, 3 May 2010 (UTC))

Undid Revision

Tagging along here since it's relevant. You undid the following revision.

The official spelling of the city's name is "Kyiv", as per the transliteration released by Rada, Ukrainian parliament, and as is stated in Chapter 1, Article 20 of the Constitution of Ukraine.

Your comment was: "The article already says the Ukrainian name is Kyiv." The article does not mention that. The article states Kiev/Kyiv and offers a Ukrainian translation, but does not state that Kyiv is the official transliteration. Please explain your reasoning.(Stepanstas (talk) 22:02, 13 July 2010 (UTC))

The article clearly says that the Ukrainian name of the city is "Kyiv". Article 20 of the Ukrainian constitution only says that the capital is "Київ", it does not say that it is the official spelling or that "Kyiv" is the official transliteration into the Roman alphabet. Putting such trivial information in the article is a clear example of WP:POINT and not really necessary or encyclopedic content. The article says that Kiev is the capital of Ukraine, that is exactly (and only) what the constitution says. Compare the articles on Warsaw or Prague, where the common English names don't match the native names. Do you find similar statements about spelling and transliteration as to what you want to insert at Kiev? No. I seriously doubt that Ukrainian nationalists spend a tenth as much time trying to get the Russian Wikipedia to spell the name Київ instead of Киев. Just as Киев is the name of the city in Russian, Kiev is the name of the city in English. --Taivo (talk) 23:03, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tang Dynasty

Resolved by motion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification that:

1) Tenmei (talk · contribs) may edit Wikipedia under the guidance of his self-declared mentors (Nihonjoe (talk · contribs), Kraftlos (talk · contribs), Coppertwig (talk · contribs), Leujohn (talk · contribs), Jmh649 (talk · contribs), McDoobAU93 (talk · contribs)). The period of mentorship will last six months from the date on which this motion passes, although it may be extended with the agreement of Tenmei and one or more mentors. Tenmei is strongly encouraged to seek advice and guidance from his mentors regularly. Should they deem it necessary, Tenmei's mentors may return to the Arbitration Committee for clarification of any editing restrictions or questions with respect to the terms of mentorship. Editors who come into conflict with Tenmei are advised to contact the mentor(s) either publicly or via email.

2) Tenmei is reminded of the remedies from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tang Dynasty that apply to him. Specifically:

• Tenmei is topic-banned from Inner Asia during the Tang Dynasty for a period of six months. He is permitted to comment on the talkpage, so long as he does so in a civil fashion. (The six-month period will commence from the date on which this motion passes.)
• Tenmei is instructed not to interact with or comment with regard to Teeninvestor or Caspian blue on any page of Wikipedia, except in the course of legitimate dispute resolution initiated by others.

For the Arbitration Committee, AGK 15:33, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

• Discuss this

Dab hatnotes

About [8]: the guy actually has a point. I just found out today that WP:DAB actually says: "To link to a disambiguation page (rather than to a page whose topic is a specific meaning), link to the title that includes the text "(disambiguation)", even if that's a redirect – for example, link to the redirect America (disambiguation) rather than the target page at "America"." Just FWIW. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:54, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I read that sentence, too, and the more natural understanding is that you link to a title that contains the word "(disambiguation)". That would imply that if the disambiguation page doesn't contain the word "disambiguation", then you wouldn't use it. The actual wording of the policy is ambiguous if some understand it to mean that the hat text always must say (disambiguation) and other understand it to mean "link to the page that contains the title (disambiguation)". But overall Wikipolicy is to make the links match the actual titles they link to as far as possible. (Taivo (talk) 17:03, 11 May 2010 (UTC))

Ah, I was reading in a different place and see the precise wording that you mention. Imagine that--different instructions at different places in Wikipedia :p (Taivo (talk) 17:06, 11 May 2010 (UTC))

Assessing

I made a type-o – the horrors. -Uyvsdi (talk) 02:09, 14 May 2010 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Cenwin88lee

Hi Taivo, I notice you've reverted Cenwin88lee's edits on the Western world article. I'm currently getting quite frustrated by this editor as he continues to ignore my repeated pleas to please not delete well-sourced information from articles, often entire sections, for no apparent reason. In its place, he often adds paragraphs of unsourced (possibly OR) information. In one particular case, Singapore English, he continues to remove the {{fact}} tags that I've added. Although I've been at Wikipedia since 2001, I'm unfortunately very busy these days with translation work and so can only find time to edit every couple of weeks, but every time I'm back I notice something more he's done. I was wondering if you might have any ideas on what I could do about this, seeing as he seems to ignore me. --ಠ_ಠ node.ue ಠ_ಠ (talk) 23:10, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

FM talk page

Please don't take my post following yours on the FM talk page as disagreeing with you. You make valid points. My position is simply that WP:RS requires more than just finding something on the web. kcylsnavS{^screech_harrass} 22:04, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry. I take no offense. People with thin skins shouldn't be editing Wikipedia ;) --Taivo (talk) 23:22, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Utah meetup this next weekend

Some of us are going to try to meetup at the CONduit art show this coming weekend (May 28-30). You are welcome to to come and meetup any time, though we can discuss a specific time here. You can see a great art show, too! ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 02:56, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Italic

The only paper source I have access to provides a different list of sound changes from proto-Italic to Latin, one that seems to make more sense. If it has been "disproven" (inasmuch as theories about languages from 4000 years ago can be proven in the first place) then I think we should find the source that has the correct information and link to that. Do you happen to know how Latin ended up with b in liberi when the proto-Italic form is believed to have had dʰ ? —Soap— 21:04, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually I just remembered something about Latin changing s to theta and then on to b in some positions. I'm still a bit unsure if the sound change list we have on the article now is the only one that has support from scholars, but the liber/lider idea is not really a good objection if there is other evidence for theta changing to b. —Soap— 21:08, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay I got my questions answered on another website now, sorry for the interruption. —Soap— 21:23, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I just love it when students answer their own email questions before I've even read them :) Cheers. --Taivo (talk) 22:28, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Are the so-called 'Dnepropetrovsk maniacs' notable people from Dnepropetrovsk?

Please could you contribute your views on this at the article talk page.. Let us try to understand each other's point of view before making further edits.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 20.133.0.13 (talk) 12:38, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Sealed Portion

Please look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Sealed Portion of the Book of Mormon. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 17:40, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

• Question Mr Taivo, would a book review issued by the Association for Mormon Letters be considered a non-trival reference that would help establish the notablility of a new book? Prsaucer1958 (talk) 12:58, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

The book would still fail the requirement for "multiple, non-trivial" sources. --Taivo (talk) 14:42, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Russia Buryat language

Hi Taivo! I'd like to contact you offline on this matter. Can you write me an email? G Purevdorj (talk) 09:31, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Seeking feedback on a possible future RfA bid (Richwales)

Hi. I'm considering a possible future "request for adminship" (RfA) bid. I've written up some draft Q&A material (see here), and if you would be willing to have a look at it, I'd be grateful for any feedback you might want to offer. I'm bringing this to your attention because you and I have worked together on the Northern Cyprus page, so you may have some insights into how I do on Wikipedia. If you think I need to say more in my Q&A about Northern Cyprus editing issues, or if you have other questions you think I ought to address, please let me know. Thanks. Richwales (talk) 07:40, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 18:14, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Descents

Hi Taivo

Sorry - I posted the message twice as wasn't expecting anyone to answer too quickly - you know it can sometimes take weeks on Ukrainian topics lol

Anyway here is the other discussion Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ukraine#What_is_a_.22Descent.22 - I will post your reply there as well and maybe you can answer a little more on the subject there - for example are there only the two and are descents only in Kiev? :¬)

Chaosdruid (talk) 01:13, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Helenaworld

Probably advisable to keep an eye on Helenaworld (talk · contribs). Richwales (talk) 04:42, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

And a new user's first edit and edit summary are identical to a banned user's edits? Happens all the time... --Taivo (talk) 11:00, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

And hopefully that's what is happening in this case. Time will tell, I suppose. Richwales (talk) 16:08, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot to turn the sarcasm light on ;) I'm guessing that in about two days we'll see very clearly that this is just another sock. --Taivo (talk) 18:59, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I think that the Justice Forever sock parade includes both User:Helenaworld and User:Cratosian, but the edits from these so far are not disruptive. If they get disruptive, then I think there's enough evidence from both of them to prove they are socks. --Taivo (talk) 17:49, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

One last note about bortschtschsch

Lol section closed so pasting here- things can get a little crazy in Wikiworld :¬)

Hope you enjoy these:

A nice little treat... ...and something to wash it down with :¬)

Chaosdruid (talk) 13:57, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Ahhhhh. Much appreciated. Thanks ! --Taivo (talk) 15:42, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Hey, I wanted to thank you for your thorough comments on the Borsch/Borscht debate. They provided a lot of important evidence that convinced many people it should be moved back to Borscht. -Krasnoludek (talk) 16:38, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. My actual preference outside Wikipedia is "borsch", but Wikipedia's policies are pretty clear. --Taivo (talk) 16:39, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Do you how do the Poles pronounce it ? Chaosdruid (talk) 14:47, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

In Polish it's spelled barszcz, which would make it a direct transliteration from Eastern Slavic of the consonant Щ, pronounced something like baršč in very careful speech. But since people don't speak in careful speech normally, in most dialects of Ukrainian šč (Щ) is pronounced š (either short or long), but in some dialects it has become št (thus, ЩО > šo or što)). I don't have a good reference for Polish phonetics, but I would guess that some of the same processes go on in colloquial speech, reducing szcz to š and speculatively to št (as it has in some Ukrainian dialects). Thus, while the "correct" Ukrainian pronunciation has "borsch", dialectally it does occur as "borscht". Thus Yiddish acquired the form from one of these "borscht" dialects and thus we got English "borscht". --Taivo (talk) 15:28, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

But, as with all things there are other issues. In Czech, the word is bršt'. The Proto-Slavic form would have been *brščь < *brst-jь with normal consonant gradation of tjь. --Taivo (talk) 17:43, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I notice, however, that this Czech form doesn't match what is in Wikipedia for Czech. I got the Czech form from both Fasmer's Этимологический Словарь Русского Языка and Borys' Słownik Etymologiczny Języka Polskiego. --Taivo (talk) 17:54, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

My Shorter Oxford dixtionary (two huge volumes 2,672 pages lol) has it as "Borsch, Bortsch" Chaosdruid (talk) 07:40, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Ukrainian

Thanks for that - my father always thought that the "Iron Curtain" would never come down and he didn't think there was any point in teaching us Ukraimian - its a shame really :¬( In later life he made us a set of cassettes called "Learn Urainian with Dad" lol, but he died soon afterwards and as I didn't know any other Ukrainian speakers it was too difficult : I really wish I had learnt now...

Thanks for the heads upon that ! Chaosdruid (talk) 14:45, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

My stepdaughter speaks both Ukrainian and Russian fluently. She speaks Russian all the time with her mother and reads Russian books, but next year when we're in Ukraine we're going to pick up some novels in Ukrainian as well so she can keep that up. She understands how important it will be for her to be truly trilingual. --Taivo (talk) 15:31, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppet ?

Hi

I'm starting to think that there may be another puppet - Markiyan/Delamol/Stepanstas ?

Chaosdruid (talk) 02:31, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

It's possible, but Stepanstas has been editing for awhile in non-Ukrainian topic areas. User:Markiyan is from London, however, and User:Stepanstas seems to be from the U.S. --Taivo (talk) 04:11, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I sees your point, maybe I was reading too much into it from the Markyan bit - I was more thinking the other two Delamol (native Uk box[9])/Stepanstas but once I saw Delamol was a sock of Markiyan I maybe got that bit wrong, though Delamol does claim not to be a Markyan sock - if ukrainian is first lang I can see why that would be possible if Markyan is English.

I just noticed this gem though [10] "I am going to add but don't think its valid" lol

Chaosdruid (talk) 07:17, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Markiyan was (is) a Ukrainian expat living in London and his English (especially when he was riled up) wasn't always perfect. I'm totally convinced that if Delamol wasn't a sock, he was a meat puppet, since that's what got Markiyan his lifetime ban. Here's Markiyan's (Marko) website. And here is his call for meat puppets. Notice also the personal threats in the discussion that follows. The site has been inactive since January, though. --Taivo (talk) 08:31, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh my word ! That is not so good - really nice response from you btw - now I understand how it all got to where it did

THx for that it was enlightening. Chaosdruid (talk) 15:24, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Cherrypicked self-conflicting source about greek language minority in Macedonia

Will not stay on an encyclopedia. Ever! see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Republic_of_Macedonia#Fantomatic_Languages_in_Macedonia

Thank you

Thanks :) Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 15:34, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

AWB edits

Hi

Thanks for correcting the "oviets" to "Soviets" in Lviv - I guess AWB is not infallible, although I suspect it may have been this bluetooth keyboard problem again. There is a delay after clicking the mouse pointer in a sentence before the flashing cursor appears and so if I click somewhere to delete a character and then press delete it will delete where the cursor was flashing and not where I just clicked the mouse.

It also gives me severe typing dyslexia often putting letters in words out of order even though I know I typed them correctly. Another classic is the "ther eare" where the letter appears after the space bar hit. I spend a lot of unecessary time correcting the bloody thing lol - it gets worse as the wiki session gets longer and more and more is stored in the cache and sometimes like right now I can count to 3 before the cursor appears where I clicked the mouse pointer...

Chaosdruid (talk) 18:35, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Most of the time I prefer working on the good old desktop with wires connecting everything to the CPU :) The technology edges aren't always very strong. --Taivo (talk) 19:26, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Yemeni Arabic

I am discussing this at User talk:Angr currently. Outback the koala (talk) 19:37, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, this came up earlier in a very similar case; here. That case ended up at mediation which is ongoing currently. Outback the koala (talk) 21:48, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

East Africa Mediation

Thank you for lending the mediation your thoughts on the matter, I would ask though that, if you plan to continue to participate, you make an opening statement on the casepage. Ronk01 talk, 14:06, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

East Africa Mediation

Please avoid editing the sections in dispute throughout the course of mediation. Ronk01 talk, 02:07, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, TaivoLinguist. You have new messages at Ronk01's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

East Africa Mediation

Thank you for your opening statement Ronk01 talk, 04:00, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Questionnaire for East Africa Mediation

Firstly, I promise that this will be the last of my annoying talk page messages for now. Secondly, I would ask all participants to please answer the three questions on the mediation casepage. Thank you. (This message sent as a batch to all participants.) Ronk01 talk, 04:04, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

East Africa Mediation

I need to be sure that you are all willing to compromise your positions in order to make this mediation work because, as you all know compromise is essential to dispute resolution. Ronk01 talk, 00:43, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I am willing to compromise, but the first option (ignoring Somaliland altogether) is unacceptable. The other options can be worked with. --Taivo (talk) 00:48, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Stop it it must be stop. It is the evil.

LOL [11]. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:16, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

ROFLMAO!!! --Taivo (talk) 18:56, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Ukrainian language

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at WP:ANI regarding insisting on info which is not in source. The thread is Experienced user insisting on info which is not in source.The discussion is about the topic Ukrainian language. Thank you. --windyhead (talk) 21:03, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I left the coment on the talk page, but it seems silly to someone intimately familiar with both the Russian and Ukrainian languages to claim that they are "mutually intelligible." My Russian naanny, and Russian (from Russia) in-laws understand very little Ukrainian when they hear it, and prior to my own massive exposure to Russian (living there for awhile, etc.) I, a native Ukrainian speaker, could undrstand very little of that language. I think you are assuming that because people (such as Soviet-raised Ukrainians or Russians living in Ukraine) who have ben exposed to each other's languages can understand each other, then the languages themselves are mutually understandable. However, Polish is about as understandable to Ukrainians as is Russian. Take a simple expression - "It's hot outside." In Ukrainian, "Дуже спекотно." In Russian, "Очень жарко." Ukrainian "yes" - "tak", Russian "da". Yes many words are similar but are the languages mutually intelligible? Would a Russian with no exposure to Ukrainian understand a conversation, a monologue, be able to read a book? No, of course not. I haven't checked the sources in question, claiming that the Ukrainian and Russian languages are the same, but I can't help but wonder if they are politically motivated.Faustian (talk) 21:51, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

See my comment here. Of course, there are differences just as there are lexical, phonological, and grammatical differences between dialects of any language. I would be unable to understand anyone from Aberdeen, Scotland at first hearing as well. Indeed, I lived in North Carolina for a year and still had a hard time understand the rural dialects around there. But we still were speaking one language. "Mutual intelligibility" in a complex dialect situation doesn't mean that you understand everything that every speaker of every dialect of that language says without living in the area. It means that exposure alone over a relatively short time is sufficient to get communication flowing. --Taivo (talk) 21:57, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

"Yes, I know what an adjective is"

So that the record may remain intact, "Taivo", your posting on my "talk page" and my reply:

"At Aramaic language you changed "language family" to "linguistic family" with an edit summary to the effect: "Doesn't anyone know what an adjective is?" Yes, I know what an adjective is--it is a word that modifies a noun or nominal phrase. Nouns in English can often function as adjectives (e.g. "railroad track", "family jewels", etc.). The phrase "language family" is standard usage in the linguistic literature. "Language family" means a family containing languages on the analogy of "coin purse". "Linguistic family" is not used in the literature at all in this sense. The Sapirs (father Edward, son David) might be called a "linguistic family" since the son followed in the father's footsteps as a linguist. Contemporary English is not nearly so constrained (and never was actually) as our secondary school teachers 40 years ago led us to believe. It is a vibrant and ever-changing language. --Taivo (talk) 15:27, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

A singular noun can be used as an adjective, particularly if the noun lack an adjectival form; "language" does not. But, yes, "Taivo", my native tongue is changing rapidly. I regret that most of those changes reduce the precision and subtlety of an extraordinary language. Firstorm (talk) 15:38, 28 July 2010 (UTC)"

Firstorm (talk) 17:26, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Your personal behavior accusations

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Taivo (talk · contribs) harassing, posting empty accusations and personal epithets. Thank you. --windyhead (talk) 20:17, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Surzhyk

Taivo, you reverted my corrections as a POV. However, have you even read the references to that article? Here is a quote from one of them:

“ Surzhyk is viewed by many as pidginization of the Ukrainian language engendered by Russia’s century-long oppression of Ukraine. ”

So, tell me, how were corrections really POV? And how is Surzhyk is being defined as a Ukrainian language? There are some thoughts, yes, I agree, but all of them are simply opinions. Surzhyk is not fully defined yet to claim it as a dialect of the Ukrainian language. Surzhyk is, however, a result of heavy Russification. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 23:28, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Reference - How do Ukrainians communicate? by Ilona Podolyan (in English) Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 23:29, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

One of the forms that excellently present the policies of Russification by the Russian government were the Valuyev circular and Ems Ukaz. It is a historical fact, not POV. Alas, no other well preserved documents survived, however, they did exist. Russification to extent the subject but farther did not, however, was against the Ukrainian language, but rather was applied throughout the coutry, but Valuyev's circular claimed that the Ukrainian language "does not existed and never did". Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 23:35, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Your quote says it all: Surzhyk is a Russification of Ukrainian, not the other way round. Thus, your edit made Surzhyk a Russian-based tongue, but it is Ukrainian-based. The rest of your edit (which did not include a reference), was highly POV in terms of blaming Ukrainians for the status of Russian. Perhaps it was your English, but it didn't make a lot of sense to me and sounded anti-Ukrainian without need. Perhaps you should write out what you want to insert into the article, then we can make sure it makes sense and is exactly what is needed in the article. --Taivo (talk) 00:01, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok

You are going to tire yourself out. You said to throw DNFTT your way at some point. There's a line between good discussion and a deteriorating, repetitive argument, and it's being flirted with. Waiting for others to cmmt wont really help though, because all parties have been where you are now. It is a slow process. My advise; chill for a bit, then get back to it. Outback the koala (talk) 03:58, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I hear ya. Thanks. --Taivo (talk) 04:11, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Ukraine article

Hi

I have just reverted some major seemingly POV edits on Ukraine.

The editor placed a new map of the Kievan Rus and then massively edited the Ukraine article to show that the Rus were never in WEstern Ukraine. Can you please check it out and ensure that my reversions were in fact correct.

I would not normally ask for a second opinion but this is a rather large set of edits and I want to make sure I have done it correctly.

Thanks Chaosdruid (talk) 19:12, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Berber languages

Hello,

You reverted [12] a small correction that I made on the article Berber languages. Maybe you supposed that it was a vandalism? Sorry if it seems to be so...

The term Chelha is the name in Moroccan Arabic for this language, you can find explanations about it here, here and here, here it is explained that Chelha refers to the Tachelhit dialect. Your edit/revert isn't false, but I think that it is important to write that Shilha is the English name. In this case, the brackets have to be removed to indicate that it is about the English name, not another local appellation ;).

For the Tarifit dialect, Riff refers to the area where it is spoken [13], not to the dialect itself, while Riffi is the Arabic name for this dialect. In this case, I don't agree with your revert.

Omar-Toons (talk) 15:32, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

This isn't the Arabic or Moroccan Wikipedia, it is the English Wikipedia. Alternate names in English always take precedence. "Shilha" and "Riff" are the most common English names for these two languages. --Taivo (talk) 19:46, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Who talks about Arabic/Moroccan WP? :)

You're right for Shilha :) Then, as I wrote before, the brackets should be removed if it is the English alternate name :) (The use of brackets/italic means that it is a non-English denomination, and it is not the case here).

But for "Riff", sorry but I can't agree with you. A rapid search on Google Scholar shows the same information shared by the different results [14]: "Tarifit or Rifian, dialect of the Riff Mountains", and even on Google Web, the term "Riff" is never used for the language, it is only used for the area. Then, it should be replaced by "Riffian" :)

Omar-Toons (talk) 01:08, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

You are wrong on "Riff". It is the most common name in linguistics materials. "Tarifit" has only very recently begun to show up. Google searches are not very reliable and they must be used with great care. They never, in and of themselves, constitute evidence, but only corroborating evidence. The linguistics literature in English up until just a few years ago strongly favored "Riff". "Riff" must remain as an alternate term for the language. "Rifian" and "Tarifit" are also alternate names and becoming more common, but "Riff" is the most common in English linguistic literature and must remain. --Taivo (talk) 04:09, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Do you have any source (pref. scholar type)?

Omar-Toons (talk) 15:48, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

• William Bright, 1992, "Berber Languages", International Encyclopedia of Linguistics, Oxford, vol. 1, pg. 174: "Riff (Tarifit)"
• Merritt Ruhlen, 1991, A Guide to the World's Languages, Volume 1: Classification, Stanford, pg. 320: "Riff"
• Anatole V. Lyovin, 1997, An Introduction to the Languages of the World, Oxford, pg. 188 "Tarifit or Riff"

These should be enough to show the frequency of "Riff" in English before the last few years, especially in encyclopedic materials. --Taivo (talk) 22:57, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I strongly disagree, the most commonly use, Arifa or Riffia or Ariffia in English.(Uchronicle (talk) 06:24, 26 August 2010 (UTC))

Shilha is not an English Word (like Omar-Toons: "Google Search is not reliable") Tachelhit is the most commonly used word in English. A possible alternative could well be (Chelyh or Chily). I would like to remind you that most Berber Language studies are under the name Tamazight . A unified Standard Tamazight (the National Standard Tamazight Language of Morocco) regulated by IRCAM Royal institute of the Amazigh culture in both cities Agadir and Rabat, Morocco.(Uchronicle (talk) 06:54, 26 August 2010 (UTC))

No you are wrong. I've provided evidence and you just talk. --Taivo (talk) 09:22, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Classification by typology?=

Hi

It looks like the user Barefact (see the Ossetian language talkpage for a reminder or his website ([[15]]) is adding lots of languages to "agglunitative languages". However Agglunitative is a typological feature not a language. It even exists to much lesser extent in English. For example:"Argument", "Argumentive", "argumentively", or "relent", "relentless", "relentlessness", or "man", "manly", "manliness"... There is a theory among some of these fringeview points agglunitative languages are from the same root. Even in terms of typology, for example Australic languages add suffix,prefix whereas say hungarian has only prefix. I am not sure on what basis the user adds Ossetians. The aim of such a category might not have been done for scientific purposes. For example Persian has agglunitative features in terms of word-making. Even more than say Turkish. Because to a root word, one can add prefix, middlefix and postfix, whereas in Turkish it is prefix. So it seems this sort of typological classification (even if it has to do with grammar) is not used for language classifications. That is comparative linguistics has already done away with it. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 19:09, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

3RR notice

I've reported you to the 3RR noticeboard. Did you notice you've performed practically the same revert 5 times today? ...comments? ~BFizz 22:13, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

On the basis of this edit I have decided that you have now accepted advice on this, and will avoid edit warring in future. I have therefore decided that the report can be closed without further action. It is important that you avoid edit warring in future, and follow the accepted procedure if you believe there is a problem. My decision is based on the assumption that you will do this. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:18, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Old South Arabian Languages

Hello Taivo, it seems you were interested in the Mehri language a while ago, I noticed some discussions about the origin of the language, I've added a note if you would like to read it here [[16]]. Thanks. --Mahaodeh (talk) 09:23, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

aorist

Hi Taivo,

I'm in an argument at Talk:Aorist over whether the Classical Greek aorist was a tense or aspect, or if there were two, a tense and an aspect, because the aorist indicative is trad. called the "aorist tense", and the aorist root of the verb (or all forms derived from it) are called the "aorist aspect". It's unclear whether it's PFV or past PFV, but it certainly doesn't seem to be a tense. Do you know anything about it? — kwami (talk) 23:39, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Most grammars of Greek are, of course, written traditionally and use the term "tense" indiscriminately. However, I have a fairly "transformational" grammar of Greek: Eugene Van Ness Goetchius, 1965, The Language of the New Testament, Charles Scribner's. On page 75 he writes:

In the previous lesson we found that, in the present and future tenses, English verbs have separate sets of forms to express the two aspects of action we have called "indefinite" and "progressive," but that Greek verbs have only one set of forms in each of these tenses to express both of these aspects; i.e.,
λύω corresponds to both I loose ("indefinite aspect") and I am loosing ("progressive aspect")
and
λύσω corresponds to both I shall loose ("indefinite aspect") and I shall be loosing ("progressive aspect")
For indicating action in past time, however, Greek verbs have two sets of forms. Forms of one kind usually express the aspect we have called "progressive"; these forms make up the tense called the imperfect. Forms of the second kind usually express the "indefinite" aspect; these forms make up the tense called the aorist (< Gk ἀόριστος, indefinite).

I'm not a Greek specialist, but that seems to be as clear a description as there is. From that description it seems that both aorist and imperfect are combination tense/aspect--both past tense, distinguished by their aspect. --Taivo (talk) 01:12, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Here's another quote from James Morwood, 2001, Oxford Grammar of Classical Greek, Oxford, pp. 60-61:

imperfect tense - this tense usually expresses continuous or repeated or incomplete action in the past....
aorist tense - this tense simply tells us that a single event happened in the past...
Outside the aorist indicative and its participles..., i.e. in imperatives, infinitives, subjunctives and optatives, the aorist does not tell us the time at which the action happened. It tells us that it was a single event, and the event can take place in the present and the future as well as the past. Thus ἐλθέ (aorist imperative) δεῦρο means 'Come here (and be quick about it)!' The imperfect tense, which usually suggests that the action should be seen as a continuing process, makes a helpful contrast with this use of the aorist to convey a single crisp event. We refer to the distinction between ways of expressing events and actions as aspect.

This seems to indicate that aorist is an aspect when non-finite or in non-indicative mood, but otherwise is past tense by default. --Taivo (talk) 01:32, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!

Hmm, I commented on this, but must not have saved it. The first quote is nice and clear; it's good enough, perhaps convince the other editor to change the article from "the aorist is not considered a tense by some modern linguists" to "many modern linguists", when he has provided no evidence that the "tense" is anything but a traditional label. A lot of argument over an obvious point. — kwami (talk) 01:52, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Having been directed here by kwami, I think we would both welcome your input on whether the Aorist article in its current form addresses the relevant concerns. -- Radagast3 (talk) 05:02, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Other than the comment on Bulgarian belonging in the text (it's a remnant of reworking), and the profitable use I could make of your citations here and others on the talk page, would you make any substantial corrections or modifications to this version of the lede? (Just the lede.) Radagast is backtracking on the little progress we've made, so I'd like to know if you and I at least are on the same page. — kwami (talk) 00:28, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

That version looks good to me. I have no real qualms or modifications to make. It states the case quite well as far as I'm concerned. --Taivo (talk) 01:38, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Language infobox information

OK. I understand that SIL's ISO 639-3 definition should be used as the primary link. However, it would be very good to put Ethnologue information somewhere at the infobox. It gives the minimum of scholarly approved information about the most of the world's languages. Any idea? --millosh (talk (meta:)) 14:27, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

We don't have to worry about it because when you click on the ISO 639-3 link, the ISO page automatically has an Ethnologue entry link at the bottom. --Taivo (talk) 15:11, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah, thanks! I am using those pages for years and I simply didn't notice it :) --millosh (talk (meta:)) 21:17, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Keep the temperature below 30 C

"leave the personal attacks at home in China. We avoid such things in the English [why just English? this is inter-wiki policy] Wikipedia." and no, I do not live in the Sinosphere and never have. do not comment on what you do not know. and Benlisquare explained how that could be a personal attack. a racist attack is worse than an ideological attack. keep them to yourself. you have already shown some of your darkest colours. if you delete this comment, I will continue to revert it until you back down. ---何献龙4993 (talk) 21:08, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

users are allowed to delete all comments on their talk pages - it is to be interpreted as a sign that the message has been read. Edit warring with an editor on their own talkpage "until they back down" is only going to get you blocked.·Maunus·ƛ· 21:11, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

oh I thought otherwise. in April I tried deleting one of my comments on my page and it was a no go. sorry. ---何献龙4993 (talk) 21:18, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Someone must have been confused - the rules for user talk pages are here Wikipedia:TALK#User_talk_pages·Maunus·ƛ· 01:47, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

It's surprising that we are not hearing more about sources on the issue of Standard Mandarin versus Modern Standard Chinese.

I haven't checked the article history exhaustively, but my recollection is that once upon a time the article Standard Mandarin included the bolded term Modern Standard Chinese in the first sentence of the lede, and that was noncontroversial. Then one day I surfed by, and discovered that term had vanished, so I edited it back in. That started a round of edit-and-revert, even after I brought up discussion of the issue on the talk page. Now the discussion has ramified far beyond my dread of ideological warfare. (Meanwhile, I see that a Wikipedian with administrator powers has done just the edit I couldn't do without it being reverted in the first sentence of the lede.) I'm sorry you got dragged into that. I appreciate your scholarly citations. It's especially troublesome to see someone bring personal insults into the discussion and not bring in any verifiable sources in any language. All over Wikipedia, I am dismayed to notice, every article needs more sources, and all editors need to be reminded to turn to sources to improve Wikipedia. Thanks for your part in that. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 01:59, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Egyptian Arabic

What is this? Egyptian Arabic is spoken by virtually all of Egypt's 76 million inhabitants... Why do you insist on removing the 76 million number?[17] --Mahmudmasri (talk) 17:06, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

48 — 53 million as a native language; from 53,990,000 to 76 million (inside or outside of Egypt)

• Did you notice the semicolon? --Mahmudmasri (talk) 17:12, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Ethnologue mentioned people outside of Egypt :) --Mahmudmasri (talk) 17:14, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but Ethnologue's worldwide number is 53,990,000. The 76 million cited in the UCLA paper isn't a precise figure on number of people speaking Egyptian Arabic (either as first or second language), but only a figure for the population of Egypt. We can't extrapolate the population of Egypt as the number of speakers (first or second) of Egyptian Arabic. We need a figure that says X people speak Egyptian Arabic as first or second language. I hope I understood your question.  :) --Taivo (talk) 17:40, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Oops, I have sent a comment @ Talk:Egyptian Arabic already. Aha, I understand what you wrote now. The number 76 million could not be precise, but you shouldn't remove the number. You could have rephrased the statement, because from your edit summaries, they explained that you are removing the number because the template doesn't contain the non-native speaker. The statement at UCLA doesn't fabricate numbers. Virtually all Egyptian citizens can speak Egyptian Arabic, either natively or as a second language. If you were Egyptian, living in Egypt, you would have been sure of that. Southern Egyptians can speak Egyptian Arabic & understand Northerners, but Northerners don't have to (fully) understand Southerners. It is because Egyptian Arabic is a Prestige dialect. It is the lingua franca of Egypt. UCLA didn't make a bizarre claim so that it would be unreasonably rejected. Thanks. --Mahmudmasri (talk) 18:04, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to respond over at Talk:Egyptian Arabic. --Taivo (talk) 18:10, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

No answer @ [18]. --Mahmudmasri (talk) 06:01, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Lviv

Hi, could you tell Faustian to use the sources correctly? On the Lviv page he is trying to claim that the Polish forces made a pogrom when in fact the source he is using is arguing the exact opposite, that it was not a pogrom. How are such things allowed on wikipedia!? Agoodhistorian (talk) 18:12, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

The sources states 340 innocent civilians were kiled. You deleted that part also when you reverted. Why? The only reason it may not have been a pogrom, the source says, is because more Christians than Jews were killed. But, the source states, it is conceivable that two events occurred: a pogrom against the Jewish population and killings of Ukrainians. So the source is not stating "the exact opposite." You seem to be misstating what the source says (btw it's verifiable with the link to googlebooks I provided)Faustian (talk) 23:01, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

AN3

Be prepared to explain your fourth reversion, topping a continuing series, at WP:AN3Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:00, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

closed --Taivo (talk) 04:21, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Storing a permanent link

For my own reference: [19] (the AN/I concerning PMAnderson's incivility) --Taivo (talk) 13:43, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

lol u beat me again !

Hi m8

Long time no see (enforced absence due to flu, pc virus and internet issues unfortunately)

I have already posted on their page I was going to revert the changes by the IP on the Ukraine page before I clicked "revert" but by the time i posted on their page you already did it lol

Hope you are well :¬)

Chaosdruid (talk) 19:28, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I hope that the flu didn't keep you down too much. --Taivo (talk) 19:45, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Nah - weird bit was my pc coming out in sympathy lol : Worst part was my ISP not fixing my internet line for two weeks

Ah well - all is ok now and should be back to normal

How are things with you ?

Chaosdruid (talk) 20:03, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm well, thanks. Glad to see you're up and running again. --Taivo (talk) 20:32, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

if this were an olive branch …

would that be too Greek? Thanks for understanding my point about how difficult it can be to express or read tone on a talk page (you know this from experience), and for accepting my little attempt at humor. I would just point out that PMA would look silly with a flirtatious fan. Cynwolfe (talk) 21:24, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I had no problem with your statement for two big reasons: 1) you don't have a history of incivility, indeed, you have been exceptionally polite, and I don't foresee your comment as the start of a pattern; and 2) you couched it in such a way that I could very easily imagine you sitting across the table from me with a bemused look. PMAnderson's posts fail on both counts. --Taivo (talk) 21:29, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Boundedness (linguistics)

Hey, I created the page Boundedness (linguistics), based on your description of the term on the Aorist talk page. Feel free to correct any errors or add more explanation. — Eru·tuon 23:29, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Reformed Egyptian

Hello, Taivo. It doesn't really hurt my ego that you deleted everything I added, however to be fair you might wish to consult Pigpen cipher and perhaps even S. Brent Morris's book "The Folger Manuscript: The Cryptanalysis and Interpretation of an American Masonic Manuscript (Vol 23 of the Masonic bookclub)". http://www.themasonictrowel.com/articles/manuscripts/manuscripts/folger_manuscript/the_folger_manuscript_lecture.htm 69.151.66.141 (talk) 06:13, 14 January 2013 (UTC)Cmkeating2

First, the Folger manuscript does not use the "Enochian script". Second, Morris doesn't mention Reformed Egyptian at all. Third, the Folger manuscript appears to be a one-off attempt and was not in actual use. Fourth, most of these attempts to link Freemasonry with "occult scripts" are written by anti-Masons and are not based on actual fact, only speculation. --Taivo (talk) 09:03, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

• Points one and two were never in contention, points three and four noted.

Armenian language

Hi. Re Nysinotbad's constant edit warring and false claims, I suggest you report him for edit warring if he continues to make the same edit. I have placed yet another warning on his talk page. He was banned for a week the last time. Here is a direct link to the archived prior complaint.μηδείς (talk) 03:14, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I won't hesitate if he keeps it up. --Taivo (talk) 04:59, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I suggest that instead of responding to the comments of the IP user, who is obviously Nyisnotbad violating his block, that you simply delete them. (You can delete them, and then simply make a statement if you like.) Enough of this behavior, and he will be sanctioned for bypassing the block.μηδείς (talk) 21:09, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Would you look at Aryamahasattva's latest edits to this article? He has added a claim that a reference to Aramni/Armani on the Naram Sin Stele of 2300 BC refers definitively to the Armenians. I find no scholarly backing for that claim. See the Mallory and Horowitz sources I have added to the talk page. Aryamahasattva is arguing that the wikipedia article he has linked to is a source. That article simply arrives at a dead link for its only ref, and on line hits for his POV are obviously non scholarly wikis and nationalist POV fringe articles. I tried playing nice this time, he doesn't seem to get it. I have a third revert available, but would rather he hear from a third party first.μηδείς (talk) 23:36, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I restored the referenced material in the origins section of Armenian language about the Armenians being mentioned explicitly in Xenophon 900 years before their oldest surviving text and copied in some referenced material about them being identified by I Diakonov with the Mushki from Mallor's Encyclopedia. Aryamahasattva deleted this again saying that I cannot "use wikipedia as a source." I.e., he does not understand the difference between a citation itself, and where you found the citation. Please take a look at the diff, http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Armenian_language&action=historysubmit&diff=397130755&oldid=397052802 and let me know if you think his deletion of my material should stand.μηδείς (talk) 17:49, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I agree with his comment that the article is about the Armenian language and the ethnic speculation isn't really relevant. I don't think DNA evidence should be on urheimat or proto-language articles either. --Taivo (talk) 19:19, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I will only restore the Xenophon reference, because it is explicit, and qualifies the Meshrob Matots comment, which makes it seek like they appeared out of nowhere. As for the DNA evidence, are you complaining about this article or elsewhere? I haven't added any such material myself.μηδείς (talk) 03:33, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

The genetics comment was about other articles, not Armenian language. --Taivo (talk) 04:08, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

FYI, I reported User:Saguamundi to User talk:EdJohnston about the recent edits.μηδείς (talk) 00:44, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

you know who on linguistics

Hi Taivo, I'm beginning to have my suspicions that Fellowscientist might be you-know-who from past debates. Am I being paranoid?Comhreir (talk) 23:09, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

No, you're not being paranoid. I have the same suspicions. --Taivo (talk) 00:10, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Most depressing.Comhreir (talk) 03:02, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm still waiting to hear what this means. Fellowscientist (talk) 11:47, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to talk to you about the PSL article bit. A little intrigued actually. Can I have your phone number? I know this sounds bizarre - but I think I know this girl, Supriya. I've heard someone talking about this page. Fellowscientist (talk) 14:36, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Just have a look at this. Fellowscientist (talk) 14:41, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I need your number because I need you to give a statement about Supriya. I'd like the university officials to be alerted about her. This is crucial if we want her out forever. (One of the reasons for me to start this discussion on PSL was because I was hoping Supriya would be tempted and rejoin in to the conversation. We need to trap her. If you pretend to comply to having an article on PSL and incorporating it, I think she will...this will help us get hold of her.) Please delete this message and the one on the talkpage soon or she'll get warned. Fellowscientist (talk) 10:21, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Ukrainians en.svg

Hi, I've noted that you've try to made a scholar text addition to the Ukrainian language article. I think it would be usefull for you to note that the file Ukrainians en.svg - [20] depict a false claims over Ukrainian language scope.

• 1897 and 1926 Censuses does not cover Romania, Austro-Hungarian Monarchy, and Poland. 1897 Census does not claim about ukrainian language nor identify Don Cossacks as "ukrainians"

Don Cossacks spoke Ukrainian back then (as indicated by their census choices), they ethnically identified as Don Cossacks, however.--Львівське (talk) 20:53, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

• Atlas of the Ukrainian history (1914-1939) - ISBN 978-9669-538192. Ukrainians in the first half of 20th century - - there no such map [21] at this school book
• [[22]] seems to be strange to use 1941 USSR map for "the early 20th century" - also it's hard to treat it as WP:RS. Can you suggest a solution,ThanksJo0doe (talk) 10:15, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing inherently unreliable about using Soviet era sources. Their science was often just as good as Western science at the same time. I see nothing at all wrong with the map. It seems to be well-sourced. --Taivo (talk) 19:30, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

1941 map does not say that is map "Ukrainian language and Ukrainians with their neighbours in the early 20th century. The rest mentioned sources does not have information which claimed as existed on it - see figures [23] and mapping [24] . ThanksJo0doe (talk) 12:31, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but you haven't proven that the map is inaccurate. It is based on multiple reliable sources as far as I can tell. --Taivo (talk) 12:34, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

As I try to explaine "multiple reliable sources" ( 1897 and 1926 Censuses does ) i.e. does not provide such kind of information which claimed as existed in it. Here listed a two map for school - 1941 and 2006 year of publishing - both of them does not claim as to be a representation of the ethnic and lingual borders "in the early 20th century". I hope I can able to explaine a difference between 1941 and early 20th century and atlas for school and reliable sources/ Thanks Jo0doe (talk) 12:42, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

The map is indeed correct. It doesn't show the volume, just the extent of the language at that time. It's historically relevant and as accurate as other maps I've seen on language.--Львівське (talk) 20:51, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

October 2010

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. In particular the three-revert rule states that making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording and content that gains consensus among editors. If unsuccessful then do not edit war even if you believe you are right. Post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.
3RR in 27h (2RR in 30 minutes!) on the article Croatian language. 13:02 4 Oct[25], 13:32 [26]4 Oct-16:11 5 Oct [27]. Kubura (talk) 04:02, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

What a joke! 3RR in 27 hours? This is only after I posted an opinion on the Talk Page that disagreed with his nationalistic propaganda. --Taivo (talk) 05:08, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, Taivo, it is also unfair that you suggest I'm impostering another user. You've not just been edit warring, you see. You are also being very prejudiced and uncooperative with the linguistics editing. Reverting all my edits is not always something I'll bear silently. It isn't fair that you do so. Fellowscientist (talk) 19:38, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

"Fair" has nothing to do with it. Your proposed edits have been discussed many times before on the Talk:Linguistics page and there is broad consensus that semiotics, stylistics, et al. are not linguistics and don't belong there. --Taivo (talk) 20:33, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm very sorry, but this is the first time I remember discussing this. Please don't confuse me with other users. I have been taught stylistics (am working on my PHD in stylistic variations in Middle English) as part of my linguistics program. As for functionalism, how can you say it is not part of linguistics? This is absurd. Fellowscientist (talk) 22:17, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Read back through the archives of the Talk Page. --Taivo (talk) 22:23, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd see [28] before responding to latest comment by Ali Pasha. I've been reading through all the talk page debates and edit summaries, you might need to take it to some sort of arbitration, I don't think that either "side" will concede soon (for various reasons). I'm trying not to get involved on the talk page myself... Chipmunkdavis (talk) 11:16, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Notice of WP:ARBMAC

Please note that the article Croatian language and other articles relating to the Balkans fall under the ruling of WP:ARBMAC. Note in particular Wikipedia:ARBMAC#Discretionary sanctions, which states

"Any uninvolved administrator may, on their own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if that editor fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, the expected standards of behavior, or the normal editorial process. The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; restrictions on reverts; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project. Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision."

Repeated blanket reversions, repeatedly and knowingly restoring material with large amounts of poor English and grammatical errors, and repeated introduction of material rejected by consensus all fall below the expected standards of behaviour at this project. Kubura (talk) 23:30, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Hey Taivo, why did you post Kubura's grapeshot of WP:ARBMAC on my talkpage? I'm fully aware of his tactics and regular (mis)invoking of protocol/etiquette reminders on Wikipedia but there's no need to pollute my page too! ;-) Vput (talk) 01:28, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Nothing personal, Vput. Everyone needed to have their page polluted a little--like that Hungarian "mud" ;) --Taivo (talk) 01:35, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

All right, all right :-). Seriously it's bad enough that Kubura has a habit of weighing down discussions by running behind the standards of Wikipedia or trying to play the victim when trying to defend some of his methodologically-unsound reasoning/edits (I did see him trying to invalidate edits by those who have debunked or poked holes in his nationally-colored edits with that bogus warning about overstepping 3RR / 24 hrs. when it was really 3RR in 27 hrs.). Just don't do it to me, eh? I've done my best to extract straight and relevant content from the load of nationalist gobbledygook piling up on the talk pages of SC and Croatian. Vput (talk) 05:35, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for "talking" to him on his talk page.  :) It's hard enough dealing with the issues on the Talk Page without someone running around outside on the lawn shouting at the neighbors. --Taivo (talk) 05:40, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Explain

...your comment on the linguistics talkpage? Fellowscientist (talk) 15:48, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, TaivoLinguist. You have new messages at Kubura's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Filipino

Hey Taivo,

A similar problem might be cropping up at Filipino language, which I have said is a standardized register of Tagalog, only to be reverted to say it's a separate language. — kwami (talk) 05:35, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I put it on my watchlist. --Taivo (talk) 05:39, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Preemptive edit

In a similar line of thinking to the reword of your comment yesterday, I've tweaked your comment to preempt responses that tangentially focus on disagreements to your presuppositions about what is and is not a language. If you feel this is untoward, I won't have any hard feelings if you revert it. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 17:30, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

That was a good idea to add (macro) in parens. You're right, it would just open the door to other tangential arguments otherwise. --Taivo (talk) 17:38, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

You Got Some 'Splainin' to do, Lucy

You want to explain this? I find any further evidence of you posting edits to anyone's page under someone else's name, I will personally take you to ANI myself. Consider this an only warning, do not ever post any statement on any page and sign it with any name but your own. If you do, you will be reported and you will be blocked. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:19, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I have found further evidence of your posting under someone else's name and brought it to the attention of an admin. I will let them decide if this should go to ANI. You need to post an explanation before hand. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:28, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

ROFLMAO. You've got a burr under your saddle and an agenda. If you spent 5 minutes investigating Kubura, you would find that he posted that on the pages of those who opposed his POV, but not on the pages of anyone who agreed with him. I simply copied it and posted it verbatim on his friends' pages as well. If you read this you would see that it was taken with a grain of salt anyway. You will also see here that I told User:Kubura exactly what I did. I simply copied the entire post and didn't bother erasing any part of it. --Taivo (talk) 04:32, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

You have about five minutes to post a satisfactory explanation before I block you for violating WP:TALKNO by posting text allegedly signed by another editor. Jclemens (talk) 04:37, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

See above. You'll note that I did not write the post. I simply copied this and pasted it on the pages of the involved editors that Kubura neglected to inform. --Taivo (talk) 04:43, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

You did so without an edit summary, and without any in-text commentary surrounding your actions. On the face of it, that's a violation of WP:TALKNO, an impersonation of another editor. Consider this a single warning: doing so again will be cause for you to be blocked. If Kubura violated WP:CANVASS by selective notification, then bring his misbehavior up in an appropriate forum or dispute resolution process--do not take it upon yourself to "fix" the problem you perceive. Jclemens (talk) 04:52, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Understood. --Taivo (talk) 04:54, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

ANI

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:40, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Re:Notice of WP:ARBMAC

I would like to know why did you wrote this message to me. What was unacceptable in my contribution to this discussion? It may be just a simple message to note me, but why do you think I don't know that? I believe it's Wikipedia:Assume good faith, but it could be also a hidden threat. I wrote that to you because you wrote to me Kubura should told me that. He didn't bring me here, I opened my account here in 2008 and not now just because of this discussion. --Flopy (talk) 07:21, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

It was just a notice. No one has done anything. The notice was verbatim and was posted in several other places. You were not singled out. --Taivo (talk) 07:25, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Still, it was unacceptable [29]. I simply copied his post and placed it on the pages of his friends as well. Who do you know I am Kubura's friend? Read that. --Flopy (talk) 07:34, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Taivo, how should I interpret your message on my talk page? As assuming good faith? Please stop spamming my talk page, thank you! --Roberta F. (talk) 09:08, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

3RR

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Serbo-Croatian language. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. In particular the three-revert rule states that making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording and content that gains consensus among editors. If unsuccessful then do not edit war even if you believe you are right. Post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. --89.172.201.168 (talk) 00:06, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Rather pathetic that the sole edit in the history of this account is to post this block warning. — kwami (talk) 00:16, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I have looked at the edits on the Serbo-Croatian page and see no 3RR violation or anything near 3RR, so I have struck the warning. Please disregard it. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:29, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

"SC" - questions

OK, I am interesting to know following because to be honest I am historian, not the linguist (although I could call myself linguist because I also studied German). In english speaking countries and linguistic science does the term "SC" have any other conotations than linguistic, then this is what is disturbing me and many Croats. In Yugoslavia Croatian national feelings have been surpressed and many people were in jail because of that. "SC" is for many in Croatia until today the bad symbol for this time of our history (as a historian at least I know something about that). I actually accept your last message about feelings but you also should have sensitivity and some knowledge of history of Southeastern Europe. The language here was a very important/crucial sing for national identity in time of germanisation, magyarisation and italianization in croatian countries during the centuries under foreign rulers. USA or GB didn't have such historical experience (they, especial the UK were assimilators), we had. "SC" in Yugodlavia really meant this: it was not only about the unifivation of the language than also about the unification of Croats and Serbs which was without success (just because of many differences between as) and ended in bloody war in 1990-s. So, are there eccept linguistc any other conotations or not? You or kwami may answer that in discussions but I would like to read it here clearly once again. Could you ask kwami also to anwer me? I only discussed, didn't reverted or make any changes in articles. I discusses civilised and gave my sources and argumentation and it's on you accept it or not. Thanks! --Flopy (talk) 20:14, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

You are quite correct, Flopy, that you were never involved in any of the edit warring. In English, the term "Serbo-Croatian" only refers to the language. It has no other meanings. There are two ways that the term is used to refer to the language. The first is to refer to the official standard language based on Shtokavian that is now broken down into standard Bosnian, Croatian, and Serbian. The second is to refer to all the dialects of the western branch of South Slavic that are not Slovenian, that is, to Shtokavian, Kajkavian, and Chakavian as a unit. It's not always 100% certain whether a particular author is or is not including Kajkavian and Chakavian in "Serbo-Croatian", but it always includes Shtokavian and the three national varieties of Bosnian, Croatian, and Serbian. There are no ethnic overtones to the term "Serbo-Croatian" in English, it is simply a linguistic term. --Taivo (talk) 21:51, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

That agrees with my understanding, Flopy, including a large amount of recent reading up on English sources because of this debate. There simply are no ethnic or imperial overtones to the phrase in English; "Serbo-Croatian" just means Serbian plus Croatian, and now plus Bosnian, as a language. It's politically, historically, and ethnically neutral to us. Usage was of course reinforced during the Yugoslav decades, but long before that it was the only term in English for the abstand language, the kind of thing that an English speaker would study in school. (No university is going to offer separate courses in Serbian and Croatian, just as none offer separate courses in Hindi and Urdu, or in Malaysian and Indonesian.) The Foreign Service Institute at the US Dept. of State still calls its language course "Serbo-Croatian", I presume (OR) because their target audience is Americans who aren't going to be offended.

Remember too that for most English speakers, at least in the US and UK, the Serbs were the bad guys in the Balkan wars, and sympathies were first with the Croats, then with the Bosniaks, and then with the Albanians. We also have a culturally ingrained tendency to identify with the underdog, and Serbs were never seen as the underdog. I don't know of any American who is sympathetic to Serbian attempts to dominate their neighbors; coverage of Serbia in the US media was almost entirely negative. It's just that we don't see language as having anything to do with it: alphabet, religion, history, but not language.

I understand that many Croats may find the term offensive, and if we had a viable alternate, we would probably take it to avoid offense. But it seems that there is no viable alternate apart from awkward paraphrases like BCMS (or should it be SCBM? we could have an argument over that too!) But when you start getting into editing an article in order to avoid offending people, rather than to objectively describe what it thought or known, things quickly become problematic. Yes, for Serbs, even back in 1850, the Neoštokavian standard was apparently part of a dream of assimilating all SS peoples, or at least assimilating Croats and Muslims. But then for Croats it was apparently part of a dream of unifying the divergent dialects (arguably languages) that make up Croatian. What if we were to start hearing from Čakavian activists, who were upset at forced assimilation at the hands of Štokavian speakers and insisted that "Croatian never existed! It is forced assimilation! Čakavian is a South Slavic language! You are a stooge for Štokavian militants! You are stealing our history! Čakavian is not Štokavian!!!" Should we then move Croatian language to Čakavian-Kajkavian-Štokavian? I don't know if that sounds ridiculous to you, but that's how the "Croatian is not Serbo-Croatian!!" diatribes sound to me and I imagine to most English speakers, for whom Serbs and Croats are simply indistinguishable peoples in the Balkans who seem to fight all the time.

That said, if we had a discussion on renaming Serbo-Croatian, like Vodomar's started, rather than denials of its existence and wild, seemingly paranoid accusations about us being secret Serbian agents, it might go somewhere. I don't know if a request to move would succeed or not, but I think everyone would see it as a legitimate debate. The current debate, on the other hand, probably strikes most English speakers as ludicrous, the rantings of (well, no polite term comes to mind), and not something to be taken seriously. — kwami (talk) 22:23, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Taivo, and especially Kwami I am satisfied with your answer. So, no other meanings than pure linguistic. I believe you, have no reason not to believe. In the article there is only a piece of the sentence why is the term "SC" controversial for Croats:..though this term is controversial for native speakers. Is it possibile to write just a little more (why is it controversial)? I am never exclusive in discussion and I tend to finde a compromis. I think that would be a good compromise, at least for me and I am also sure for some other native speaker. Some user would/will probably criticize me but it doesn't matter. So, yes it is offensive for the majoritiy Croats and my well intentioned advice to you is: if you ever are going to visit Croatia (which I can hardly recommend to you) don't make mention of "SC" :-) --Flopy (talk) 11:12, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

We had a little more, but it was deleted, I think because it was thought to be too offtrack for the lead. If you have a suggested wording, that would be helpful. But if we got into very much detail it would need to be a separate section, and that would strike me as being off topic for the Croatian language article. We do cover some of the issues at Serbo-Croatian#History of linguistic issues. Maybe we could link to that? You might want to review it to make sure we've got it right: it's hard to understand political sensitivities at this distance. Anyway, if you wish to reword the lede or the SC language issues section, you'd probably do a better job than I would.

I've always wanted to visit the historic towns on the Dalmatian coast, so maybe I will get to Croatia some day. Actually, I think you can make a pretty good argument that Serbian is a variant of Croatian (the time depth and linguistic diversity is in Croatia, rather like England for English); maybe that would be a more popular opinion than telling people they're speaking SC! — kwami (talk) 11:56, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Kwami, that we should have a link to the History of linguistic issues section at Serbo-Croatian. That does seem to be part of a good solution. --Taivo (talk) 12:18, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

First of all sorry for "which I can hardly recommend to you", I meant "what I warmly can recommend to you". My level of English is intermediate and sometimes I do mistakes:)I think it should be a little more than now but as my English is not so good (you see I do mistakes) I don't think it would be a good idea that I write something. I gave you the reasons why (political, symbol of communist repression in Yugoslavia and Serbian hegemony in Kingdom of Yugoslavia), pehaps you could reword. Also the link to History of linguistic issues is good idea but I think not on the end than in the section where is the piece of sentence I mentioned. Kwami I can only to say you welcome but I don't think it would be a more popular opinion that Serbian is a variant of Croatian (perhaps only for extreme rightists) than that they are three separate languages. But, you can try;) --Flopy (talk) 12:41, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Since you've asked for my input, I'll put it out here but Taivo and kwami have dealt with certain parts of how I see the matter. In addition I think that expansion of the sociolinguistic aspects of BCMS/SC is worth working on (if it expands further, perhaps it should be expressed as an independent article since the article on the language itself should focus on "boring" topics like phonology, morphology and lexis).

To reiterate, Serbo-Croatian can bear three meanings to me. For most of us in the Anglosphere who have little or no connection to the Balkans, Serbo-Croatian refers to language only (1st meaning). Less commonly it can be used as an adjective denoting something involving both Serbs and Croats or Serbia and Croatia (e.g. "Serbo-Croatian political relations", "Serbo-Croatian projects on infrastructure"). The third meaning can be "official standard language of Yugoslavia that was biased towards the Serbian variant" but this only occurs to me and other native speakers of English only IF we have ties to the former Yugoslavia or have studied something about the region (I'm aware of this third meaning only because I've studied some BCMS/SC before but that was long ago i sada govorim malo BHS/SH).

Although I (and some other native English speakers such as Taivo, kwami and Aeusoes1) are aware of the symbolism in the term "Serbo-Croatian", the symbolism is meaningful to people from the Balkans. Based on our experience with English (not to mention French, German, Portuguese or Spanish), there is nothing unusual or "wrong" about different people (or groups who identify themselves as different) who use virtually the same language. The concept of a pluricentric language applies quite neatly to what happens and is observed. It hardly bothers anyone. Canadians and Americans know that they are different people but don't care that they speak variants of the same language primarily because both sides recognize differences in other areas. Flopy since you know some German, you're probably aware of the treatment of German in Austria and German in Germany. There is a detectable difference in how Austrians and Germans can perceive each other and themselves BUT neither Austrians nor Germans perceive their sense of being to be diminished by using variants of the same language. I think that there is also a greater sense of mental security which removes the need of cherishing the idea that language is the primary marker of identity (although it's interesting to remember that the idea of language as the core of a nation (narod) was synthesized by the German philosopher Johann G. Herder in the 18th century).

In addition the idea of language being the primary marker of a nation ignores large communities where the members' status depends on place of birth (e.g. you're an American just because you were born in the geographical entity called "The United States of America". It doesn't matter much what the religion (if applicable), ethnic consciousness or native language of your parents are, although there is nothing stopping anyone from viewing him/herself as a follower of a certain faith or member of a certain ethnic group or speaker of any language). Many of us in the English-speaking world come from such an environment (think of Australia, Canada, and the USA in particular).

Anyway to bring the discussion back to the linguistic side, you notice that I often use BCMS/SC because I acknowledge that the language is being used here as a marker for national identity AND a term representing a collection of variants drawing on the same sub-dialect. Where I do have a problem is the blatant subordination of language to national interests or political preferences to the exclusion of reference that's less political or less nationalized. By definition national interests are often of little importance to outsiders (that's why they're called "national" interests!). Why should potential users/students of BCMS/SC who have no relations to the ex-Yugoslavia automatically feel pressured to align with the sociolinguistic perceptions of native speakers? By the same token, Croats in ESL classes should not be insulted or ignored if they do not understand or refuse to participate in debates over which form of English is more prestigious. In other words, students in an ESL class shouldn't be insulted or looked down upon by people who criticize American foreign policy (or are anti-American) because they're learning and using standard American English. Even the term "English" can theoretically be viewed as pejorative since it makes no comment on the fact that "English" (i.e. something pertaining to Anglia or England) refers to the native language of people who have no connection to England in the first place (e.g. many Americans of Irish descent could theoretically take offense to the term "English" because of the nominal or etymological connection to England. The USA emerged as new "country" after the War of Independence from (1776-1783) while relations between the Irish and the English have been sometimes rocky). In the English-speaking world, we have no obstacle to or problem with seeing different ethnic groups from ex-Yugoslavia and generally try to respect the ethnic awareness (since most English-speaking countries today are made up of recent immigrants, there's nothing shocking about terms such as "Serbian-American", "Bosnian-Canadian" or "Croatian-Australian"). At the same time the insistence that different ethnic groups must also speak distinct languages (regardless of the degree of mutual intelligibility or virtual identity in many of the linguistic characteristics used) is puzzling (if not mind-blowing or frowned upon) because one would think that new immigrants to a country should be grateful to live in an environment where being in the "wrong" ethnic group or speaking "the enemy's language" is not going to mean fines, imprisonment or worse.

If you want to discuss this topic further, feel free. I don't mind. It is just that I think that the politicized arguments are often actually offensive because they've been used to push for what I see as destructive or harmful policies (e.g. the nationalist Serbian interpretation of Vuk's simplistic reasoning that ANYONE who natively speaks any Shtokavian (sub-)dialect must be a Serb just like him; the nationalist Croatian interpretation that because Croats and Serbs are acknowledged by everyone to be different people/ethnic groups, therefore they must also speak different languages (but I ignore those nationalist Serbs who like to use the term "Catholic Serbs"); the nationalist Bosnian interpretation that the Croats and Serbs "stole" one of "their" dialects because of the reliance on Eastern Herzegovinian in creating the standard languages). Vput (talk) 17:27, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Vput, thank you (hvala) for your detailed answer. You three explained me the attitude of "english speaking" linguistic. We in Croatia will allways have different attitude and connect that with national and political feelings. "SC" as a symbol for repression and denying of our national identity. The problem are Štambuk (with his provocative messages), Director and some other users who deliberately put tension high in order to show to the native speakers that many Croats are intolerant nationalist and that there is no sense to discuss with us. They have their own private reasons for that (Štambuk is blocked indefinitly on hr.wiki, and after that he became an active user here and since that time we have such discussions here, that was not before) and I am sure you are aware of it. Most of you have no connections to Balkan and Štambuk is using that to tell you lies about "nationalist Croats". But I am sure you are aware of that. I am trying to undesteand your attitudes and I just would like that you try to undesteand the attitudes of somebody who is coming form that area of the world. Nothing more and nothing less. Unlike some other I didn't come here to yelling that you all are against Croats, I came here civilized to read your arguments and that you read mine and not exclusivistic characterize us as "nationalistic". I made some compromise proposals for the article, kwami allready did some changes, but it could be more. Just a little more. Do I want to much? --Flopy (talk) 20:00, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

If you are leery of changing the article because of your English (which I sympathize with: I'm insecure about my ability to write in other languages too), you can always propose changes or additions on the talk page and one of us can add it in with the appropriate corrections to your English. That would also ensure that non-Croats don't see it as overly political.

Vput's comment about the Irish is relevant. There was a lot of bad blood between the Irish and the English (saying "the English" with an Irish accent is even almost an ethnic slur sometimes), due to a long history of imperialism, exploitation, and events such as the Irish potato famine, yet the Irish have no problem with calling their language "English". (Almost no-one speaks Irish anymore.) The Scots sometimes call what they speak a separate language, but I think that's because it's so divergent that it needs a separate dictionary, and outsiders can hardly understand it. — kwami (talk) 00:31, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Your 13 October edit to Kiev

Please could you explain why you made the edit to Kiev - Undid revision 390546751 by A.h. king on 19:11, 13 October 2010. The photos are the same. Is the problem that the photo was improperly uploaded to commons? See -[30]. --Toddy1 (talk) 19:30, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

It's pretty automatic when I see Kiev > Kyiv. --Taivo (talk) 19:45, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

ANI/User:Kubura

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Keristrasza (talk) 13:13, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Algic

Please, See http://www.ethnologue.com/show_family.asp?subid=681-16 What is this: "A. Eastern Algonquian" ??? It's true: A. Plains Algonquian; B. Central Algonquian; C. Eastern Algonquian --Kmoksy (talk) 19:52, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Ethnologue uses an out-of-date classification for Algic. Contemporary Algonquian scholars do not divide the family up geographically. Only Eastern Algonquian is a genetic node. For example, Mithun does not separate Plains and Central, only Eastern. --Taivo (talk) 22:28, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Notification

A proposal to change the layout and sorting criteria of the article List of sovereign states has been finalised and submitted for consensus.

As you were previously involved in the discussion for this change, I thought I would inform you of the final proposal. Please provide comments here. Nightw 13:19, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

RFM

I've opened up a WP:RFM for List of sovereign states at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/List of sovereign states. Please indicate whether you agree or don't agree to mediation there. TDL (talk) 00:40, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Request for mediation of List of sovereign states

A request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to List of sovereign states was recently filed. As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. The process of mediation is entirely voluntary and focuses exclusively on the content issues over which there is disagreement. Please review the request page and the guide to mediation requests and then indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you would agree to participate. Discussion relating to the mediation request welcome at the case talk page. Thank you, AGK 21:50, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, TaivoLinguist. You have new messages at Chipmunkdavis's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:59, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Apologies

Hey. I thought I'd let you know that I'm going to be travelling until early January, so I won't really be able to really contribute to either of those mediation cases with which we're involved. It looks as though things are getting moving again on the Somaliland one, so good luck! Nightw 15:40, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Re:Austronesian languages

If "since a reader will search in vain for any reference to German." is part of your objection, then a few words could be added explaining about the first use of the word. It already has a sentence on the etymology in the intro; it can just be fuller. "Austronesian" is not a proper name because those are a subset of nouns whereas "Austronesian" is an adjective. It also differs from proper names such as are not found in a dictionary. "Austronesian" can be found in a dictionary. How to quantify this difference I do not know but there clearly is a difference. Also, Berlin being in the German loanwords category wouldn't tell you much; it's to be expected. On the other hand, Austronesian languages being part of the German loanwords category shows that Germans were the first to study the languages which is something people might not know. Munci (talk) 14:20, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

"Austronesian" is, indeed, a proper name since it has a specific, identifiable references to a group of languages. I don't know where you got the idea that it was not. It is always capitalized. That's a pretty darn good indication for even a lay reader that a term is a proper name. And I don't know where you got the idea that a proper name cannot be used as an adjective--"Polish sausage", "Russian vodka", "Hamburg dockyards", etc. No one is denying that Germans were among the first to study these languages, but that doesn't make the term "Austronesian" a loanword. It is built from Latin/Greek roots just like Micronesia, Polynesia, etc. that mean "South Islands". So, if anything, it's not a German loanword, but a Latin/Greek loanword. The use of "German loanword" in this case is totally inappropriate. --Taivo (talk) 14:38, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I got that idea from looking up the wikipedia article I linked above, the Oxford, Collins and Chambers dictionaries. They all said proper name=proper noun. Anyway, "Russian vodka" is different from "Hamburg dockyards" because the former is an adjective and the latter is an adjectival use of the noun. But it doesn't matter that much anyway. Munci (talk) 13:33, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Balkans sanctions warning

The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose, at their own discretion, sanctions on any editor working on pages broadly related to the Balkans if the editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. If you engage in further inappropriate behavior in this area, you may be placed under sanctions including blocks, a revert limitation or an article ban. The committee's full decision can be read at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia#Final decision.

I am giving you and everybody else involved in the Croatian disputes notice that I intend to crack down on the incivility that fills the current disputes. Any comment that attributes bad motives to an editor or otherwise insults an editor is going to draw a block. This will happen even if the incivility is in response to incivility from another editor. The appropriate response to that is to complain, not to respond in kind. I intend to apply this to everybody involved. According to the WP:ARBMAC sanctions, editors can only be blocked if they have been notified of the sanctions. You can find a list of the editors who have been notified at WP:ARBMAC#Log of warnings. If I have missed anybody, please bring it to my intention. I am very serious about this. Looie496 (talk) 03:02, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

(You haven't sinned to the same degree as others, but I intend to be completely evenhanded about this. Statements such as "You are blinded by your POV and unable to see scientific sources. I agree with Kwami, this is pointless. You have no interest in a referenced scientifically-sound encyclopedia. Please return to the Croatian Wikipedia where you can be back with your own kind", which you wrote to Kubura, are not going to be acceptable. Looie496 (talk) 03:02, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Can you weigh in on WP:RS at Archaeology and the Book of Mormon?

We could use some cool heads at Archaeology and the Book of Mormon. I am trying to overhaul the article, (maybe a bit too much for comfort of other editors - and I admit I have my biases - but I am trying to get the article to adhere to WP policy, particularly WP:RS), and I sense an edit war brewing. --Descartes1979 (talk) 23:08, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I added it to my watchlist. --Taivo (talk) 23:49, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Chenoua language a primary branch of Northern Berber?

Hi Taivo,

according to all other places in Wikipedia, Chenoua is a sub-sub-branch of Zenati, itself a sub-branch of Northern Berber. So why did you put it as a primary branch into the infobox here? I would have removed it from the infobox right away, but I first wanted to know if perhaps there is a reason that I'm missing. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 20:38, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Because I haven't seen any sources that place it within any of the branches of Zenati. Ethnologue places it as a top-level branch (or, actually, as unclassified) so that is the only source that I've seen. Do you have a reliable source that places it elsewhere within Zenati? --Taivo (talk) 20:47, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

No idea where exactly the classification used in Wikipedia elsewhere (including the above article itself, outside the infobox) comes from. For Chenoua specifically, I've found this source. I can't access Kossmann (1999), which should provide further detail. I'm no specialist on Berber, I just noticed the inconsistence. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 21:11, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I looked at my copy of Kossmann and he doesn't really build a subgrouping of Zenati except in general terms. He lists the languages in groups, which are somewhat geographic, but doesn't specifically claim that they are genetic groupings. He groups Chenoua with Beni Snous and Menacer as a group of languages in Northwest Algeria. But in Ethnologue, Beni Snous and Menacer are not listed, but Chenoua is listed as an independent branch of Zenati. So listing Chenoua separately is justified if Beni Snous and Menacer are included in it, but not necessarily if they are independently listed. But just because one article in Wikipedia says X doesn't mean that another article can't say Y. After all, WP:OTHERSTUFF.  :)) --Taivo (talk) 23:14, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

But shouldn't at least every article be internally consistent?

Also, you're still missing the point (look at the section header): In all sources but Ethnologue, Chenoua is listed as a sub-branch of Zenati, not Northern Berber (at least not as primary sub-branch). They state that it is part of the Zenati group, not co-ordinate with it. Therefore, Ethnologue and the infobox are simply wrong, or at least at variance with the judgment of the specialists, which should weigh more heavily. Ethnologue's classifications are notoriously unreliable. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 23:31, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

First, the classifications in Ethnologue are not "notoriously unreliable". They are notorious uneven. There is a difference. Some of their classifications are very reliable. It all depends on whether scholars on a particular language family are working closely with SIL to revise the classifications or ignoring them because they are missionaries and they despise missionaries. So please avoid the generalizations concerning Ethnologue. Some things they do very well. Other things they don't have the help available to do very well. Second, there are four basic sources that mention or seem to imply Chenoua in classifications. 1) Ruhlen 1976 mentions "Sheliff Basin" as part of Zenati; Chenoua may be part of his "Sheliff Basin". 2) Linguasphere (2000) lists "Menasser-Metmata" as part of North Berber with a note that it is part of NW Zenati; Chenoua may be part of its "Menasser-Metmata". 3) Kossmann (1999) mentions a NW Algeria group of Zenati consisting of Beni Snous, Menacer, and Chenoua. 4) Ethnologue lists Chenoua as a separate node of North Berber. None of these NW Algerian groups has had a lot of study so we are stuck with inferring the presence of Chenoua when it is not overtly mentioned. Based on this, and without further more specific references, it should be placed in Zenati. --Taivo (talk) 03:02, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

But then, WHY do you keep it as a SEPARATE branch from Zenati in the infobox? That's what I've been asking all along. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 23:31, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Change it. I won't stop you. --Taivo (talk) 00:41, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Linguistics

I have an issue with your edit, sir. I believe there is a 3RR rule that you are violating. Squarrels (talk) 07:44, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Please count more accurately (I only reverted your edit twice) and read WP:BRD. After I reverted you the first time, you should have taken the issue up on the Talk Page to get consensus rather than making the same edit a second time. --Taivo (talk) 10:53, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

/* Folk etymology */

I would normally think you, and the OED, were correct, but there's that first quote from the ELL that's bothering me. What do you make of it? — kwami (talk) 19:31, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

There are nearly always outlying data points. If there were more support for the folkloric meaning of "folk etymology", then it would be part of a pattern. But an isolated reference, which may be more of a translation error than anything else, doesn't make a convincing case. We don't know the German model for his comment--it could be that the compounded German term may be "folk etymology" in the strict sense, but a non-compounded form may be "false etymology". (That is a pure guess.) But one aberrant data point when there are a hundred non-aberrant points is "fringe" and wouldn't really even constitute an alternative meaning. Taivo (talk) 20:28, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Hey, I deleted this comment of yours:

*Oppose. The linguistic term is the oldest and primary usage and is very clearly-defined and standardized. The folkloric usage of the phrase is not consistent, not universally-defined, not standardized, and is just one option out of several for defining the phenomenon. For example, the book The F Word (Jesse Sheidlower, 2nd ed, 1999, Random House) doesn't use the phrase "folk etymology" a single time in the 24-page introduction, despite the fact that this word probably has more "folk etymologies" than any other single word in the English language. --Taivo (talk) 19:43, 21 November 2010 (UTC),

from the discussion on Folk etymology because the section in which you commented (and which I have now archived) was actually a mooted discussion from the deleted Folk etymology (folklore page.μηδείς (talk) 22:59, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Could you account for your eliminating my additions to the article on Linguistics?

Hi Taivo, I'm a bit new to Wikipedia as an editor, so I hope you'll explain to me why the addition about Russian/Ukrainian scholar was dismissed in the article on Linguistics. Why should a linguist of Russian or Ukrainian origin be considered unnecessary? There's not a word in the article on the scholars with such backgrounds, but you can't decline the Russian's and Ukrainian's contribution to Linguistics on the whole. Isn't it slightly bias? I don't mean to sound offensive or whatever, perhaps only a bit surprised. Hope to hear from you soon, AK IM OP (talk) 16:31, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with the nationality of the scholar. The issue is that the article linguistics isn't about philosophy or peripheral issues to linguistics. Philosophy + linguistics is not a recognized combination among linguists. If you feel strongly that the issue is relevant, then discuss it on the talk page first and get a consensus for the addition. I'm not convinced that it is relevant to linguistics. --Taivo (talk) 18:16, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

i to y

Hi

I have just given a warning to a renamer, Rkononenko.User_talk:Rkononenko#Myrhorod_or_Mirgorod, User_talk:Rkononenko#Kyiv_.2F_Kiev, [31] & [32]

He has been changing "i" to "y" again. I have given him a level four final warning for [33] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bilhoro d_Kyivsky&diff=prev&oldid=396533977] :

"You have been asked many times to NOT change the "i" to "y" in names. Changing Kiev to Kyiv when it is NOT the "Official name", or "Kievsky" to "Kyivsky"

Was I correct or did I miss a debate on naming policy and these changes and page moves were OK (I do not want to give someone a bad warning !

thanks :¬) Chaosdruid (talk) 20:32, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

This guy has been pushing the nationalist envelope for months now. I don't think the warning was excessive. (I moved the pages back.) --Taivo (talk) 21:27, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Cool - that's what I thought  :¬) AFter I read the Kharkiv responses I was a little unsure and also wanted to alert everyone that had dealt with him in the past that he was feeling "safe" to do his "special work"

Chaosdruid (talk) 00:21, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

ANI re DavidOaks

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

I am required to notify you that you were mentioned in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Canvassing_and_edit_warring_by_User:DavidOaks_at_Folk_etymology

μηδείς (talk) 21:51, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

The original complex ANI against DavidOaks was archived without comment. I have reopened it here in regards only to his votestacking. μηδείς (talk) 21:37, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Upon refiling the complaint for canvassing one editor seemed to think I was accusing him of conspiring with DavidOaks and an admin assumed Oaks was notifying interested parties from all fields. They have reopened the complaint for comments here. An opinion on the nonsilliness of the issue there would be helpful. μηδείς (talk) 05:09, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

LOL

Am I the only one who feels that posters on the Croatian language page who take the position it is a language use "LOL" a lot? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:19, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Usage of non-Roman scripts in Redirects and DABs

As a linguist, you may be interested in giving your input in this discussion regarding the usage of non-Roman in redirects and disambiguation pages. --HXL's Roundtable, and Record 17:15, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

обласного or областного and i to y

Hi

I would appreciate some input here from more Ukrainian speakers/readers

thanks Chaosdruid (talk) 17:49, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Onondaga dumping over 30K of text into Archaeology and the Book of Mormon

Thought you would be interested - Onondaga is repeatedly trying to dump over 30K of irrelevant material into Archaeology and the Book of Mormon

Standard MANDARIN

I have attempted to keep my head this time, but your repeated distortions have tempted me to bite further than I did the last time around. And you shouldn't come to a debate at all with this kind of arrogance, which I am sure you normally don't display while teaching. I have never seen someone be so insincere at reading others' comments to the full extent before replying. You did eventually, but your insistence on hitting us (opposition) over the head when some of us have expressed recognition of common usage before getting to anything else is unacceptable. And this time, I am more serious; moreover, I have better tasks on WP than to participate in a discussion that will stall, if not, be renewed, citing lack of broad consensus, which I doubt your viewpoint will ever gain.
The opposition's argument does not have only "I don't like it", though you like to portray it as such. maybe you should go trolling around the PRC, ROC, and China pages arguing for "China" to be re-directed to either the PRC or the ROC. Of course people will not "like it". that's what disagreement is. you know this, but use it as a lame excuse to sweep our arguments away. The opposition's argument can be summed up really as NPOV and accuracy, the former of which is why you shouldn't troll around asking for a re-direct from China to PRC; despite NCON "dictating" that 'China' re-direct to PRC, we have POV here. and don't pull up "other stuff". this is NOT a deletion discussion. --HXL's Roundtable, and Record 07:46, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

But you have made NO arguments whatsoever in opposition. Not a single one. Not a single one of you has said anything along the lines of "I don't agree because...., with this evidence". Not a single one of you. --Taivo (talk) 11:39, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

if that is your standard of making an argument, then that is pathetic. To be blunt, and you have admitted this, you are delving into an area that you know not enough about. Enough with your ridiculous excuses, which amount to nothing more than propaganda. I think it reasonable to conclude that you won't accept or consider it given your deficiency of knowledge in this region. I will continue to assail you on this page until you withdraw that accusation. --HXL's Roundtable, and Record 13:45, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Whatever, especially if your arguments are only based on personal POV rather than on actual evidence. You have admitted over and over that my evidence is overwhelming enough to make my point. But in the face of overwhelming evidence, you provide none. I'd say that's a poor excuse for a reason. Your argument still boils down to "I don't like it". What evidence do you have for any other reason? None. The most common name for this language in English is "Standard Chinese". You admit that. WP:NCON, which is Wikipedia policy, dictates that most common English usage prevails in naming articles. You admit that. So since you admit that all the relevant evidence points to "Standard Chinese", your arguments have no basis other than "I don't like it." Prove otherwise. --Taivo (talk) 14:10, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Croatian language article

I saw your participation in the Croatian language article and thought that you would be interested in this: [34] -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 12:02, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Nikolayev (Ukraine)

Please could you have a look at the article on Nikolayev (Ukraine). I am not happy with the most recent edit to it. But I am aware that my view that the English name is Nikolayev or Nikolaev Airport is not one tolerated on Wikipedia (especially by people from Canada and USA whose grandparents fought for the Germans in the Great Patriotic War).--Toddy1 (talk) 17:37, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

The Russian versions should never be removed from cities in Ukraine. --Taivo (talk) 00:07, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Re: Template:Infobox Language

I noticed that this template is putting "{{#ifexpr:1+1!=1|" at the top of pages. Is this due to something you've done this template? I'd simply revert it to an older, presumably stable, version but from the revision notes it appears you ahve been trying to fix one existing problem & I don't want to undo that just to fix another. Especially since I'm not familiar with the template programming language. -- llywrch (talk) 21:28, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

At some point in the last couple of months someone edited the template and the list of states where languages are spoken disappeared and no longer listed them (even though they were still in the wikitext). --Taivo (talk) 01:52, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Utah Meetup 2011

Hello, TaivoLinguist. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Meetup/Utah.
Message added 16:43, 22 December 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Kyiv or Kiev

I beg to consider again the question Kiev/naming that was addressed in October 2009. This question can have international legal consequences.

This is not "nationalistic pressure to change the title". It's international relations.

When I studied English, Kyiv was Kiev . But, everything flows, nothing stands still...

Best regards,

--Pavlo1 (talk) 15:11, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

You are welcome to address the issue again, but you need to actually read the evidence that was gathered last year. The usage of Kiev versus Kyiv in English has not changed since then. The issue has nothing to do with international relations, but only common English usage. The evidence that Kiev is still the most common English spelling is still overwhelming. English speakers have not changed in a year and what their governments say doesn't make one bit of difference. Examine the evidence from last year before you waste your time making another proposal. It is your job to convince the editors with supporting evidence that common English usage has changed. Government positions are irrelevant, only common English usage matters in Wikipedia. (See WP:NCON) --Taivo (talk) 16:23, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I wonder how the "nationalistic" wikipedia editors would feel if the English government tried to impose its chosen spellings on the Ukrainian language? What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

It also puzzles me that that these "Ukrainian nationalists" tend to live in America, Canada, Australia (basically former English colonies). Surely if these people are so nationalistic, they would want to live in Ukraine? That way they could attempt to speak Ukrainian all time. Why do these people who have very little connection with Ukraine seek to impose their spelling of personal names and place names on people from Ukraine, ignoring the preferences of the people themselves?

Why is it that "nationalistic" wikipedia editors do not like Jews from Ukraine who emigrate to the west listed as Ukrainian-Americans?--Toddy1 (talk) 20:30, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, indeed, my dear Ukrainian friend :) This happens often in all the articles subject to nationalism--the expatriots are often more strongly nationalistic than the actual citizens. --Taivo (talk) 21:01, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

On this topic, do you think Guangzhou would be better at Canton? I don't know of anyone who calls it "Guangzhou" in English (at least in spoken English), and even Cantonese-speaking Chinese-Americans call it "Canton". But in writing I do often see "Guangzhou". — kwami (talk) 21:43, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Of course English names like Peking, Canton, and Chung King should be used.--Toddy1 (talk) 08:30, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

By the way this wonderful link was placed on Talk:Kharkov by user Butko - Books Ngram Viewer. It compares usage over time. There was an article about this type of Google tool in last Friday's edition fo the The Economist.--Toddy1 (talk) 08:30, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

---

Dear Taivo. I respect your healthy conservatism. However, in this case, your position creates a conflict between the wikirules "Сommon English" and "Authoritative source". I must insist on re-examination of this issue.

Do not get me wrong. This article was not written for you and me (we know what is Kiev and what is Kyiv). The article is addressed for the thousands of Wikipedias readers from Brazil, South Africa, India, etc. who want to visit Ukraine. They will travel to Kiev, but will arrive (bad surprise) in Kyiv!

Welcome to Kyiv.

Happy editing. --Pavlo1 (talk) 09:46, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

No the place name is written Київ. Perhaps we should just abolish English spelling and use only Ukrainian language spelling?--Toddy1 (talk) 10:52, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I studied English, including in the Newport's Naval Staff College... In your opinion, my friends, the U.S. naval officers use "the Ukrainian language spelling" special for me? --Pavlo1 (talk) 11:52, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Pavlo1, as I said above, you are welcome to readdress the issue, but I doubt that the situation has changed and Wikipedia is, by WP:NCON bound by the principle of common English usage. English usage hasn't really changed in a year. But if you want to gather the evidence from media sources, etc., knock yourself out. But examine the evidence gathered last year and see how high the bar has been placed before you offer one or two things from government sources. --Taivo (talk) 15:39, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

---

O.K. Maybe you're right. This is not my topic. But...

Repeat. Wikipedia exists primarily for the people. This is a information guide (I think so). People need to know how to address a letter to Kiev or Kiyv, where to take the ticket, how to fill out visa documents, in the end.

I propose a compromise solution: in the first part of the article should be a section about the official (in use) name of the city. As will be known as section - does not matter, I'm talking about that the man got into city, looking for pointers understood that it is there where he wants.

Section "History of Kiev's name in English" will not replace it. It has a purely academic value.

Personal request. Why change Kyiv to Kiev in the other articles? For example: if the author wrote about the ship, which was built at the shipyard "Leninska Kuznya" Plant Joint Stock Co, he uses the official address of the plant — Ukraine, Kyiv, 29-A Electrikov Street, or short Kyiv. Am I wrong?

P.S. In my speech to protection of the term Kyiv I suggested just two (from my point of view, the most authoritative sources) examples, because you have rejected all other options, previously proposed.

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year.

--Pavlo1 (talk) 18:31, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I haven't "rejected" anything, but you have put too much emphasis on official government sources. Official government sources are only one of the pieces of evidence used to determine common English usage. That's my point--that government sources are no more important than any other source or piece of evidence. All are of equal value and since the majority of sources show that "Kiev" is still the most common English spelling, the government sources do not have the weight by themselves to change anything here. The article on Kiev already shows the alternate Ukrainian form of the name in the very first sentence in bold type. That is quite sufficient. Wikipedia isn't a travel guide, so mixing "Kiev" and "Kyiv" in the article (and throughout Wikipedia) is unacceptable. "Kiev" is the most common English usage, so it is the standard form that should be found throughout Wikipedia. --Taivo (talk) 19:53, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Krivoy Rog

Please could you add Krivoy Rog to your watchlist. It had been vandalised, and the English-language name deleted in November, but nobody noticed.

Best wishes for 2011, though I fear that myself and most other people 2011 will be a very bleak year.--Toddy1 (talk) 17:06, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Happy Holidays!

Happy new year to you and З Різдвом Христовим!
— Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 20:41, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Update on an old case

Hey mate! Just to keep you updated, I've just re-added Somaliland to the East Africa page following that rediculous mediation case we had. Let's hope it sticks. In order to help with this, I've requested an upload of that photo from Danlaycock, so that we might include the image on the page. The Somali language page still appears to be stable.

I just wanted to make sure that some progress came out of that case. Anyway, I'll keep you posted... Cheers, Nightw 03:09, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Good show. Thanks for the heads-up. --Taivo (talk) 04:11, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

It didn't stick. Any ideas? Nightw 04:59, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

POV

Your edits on the East Africa article are simply unacceptable. You can clearly see and have been told repeatedly that the part of the intro that you keep adding the Somaliland region of Somalia to refers to the actual territories in the U.N. geoscheme:

East Africa or Eastern Africa is the easterly region of the African continent, variably defined by geography or geopolitics. In the UN scheme of geographic regions, 19 territories constitute Eastern Africa:

Per the U.N. website itself, the secessionist Somaliland region of Somalia most certainly is not a part of its geoscheme. Alluding to some agreement you may have reached with other like-minded editors cannot change that. Wikipedia functions first and foremost according to reliable sources, not original research. I'm asking you politely to stop adding untruths to the article. Next time, it's off to AN/I. Middayexpress (talk) 00:21, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Did you actually read the addition? It does not include Somaliland as a full member. And just because you refused to be a part of the arbitration process doesn't mean that you can set the agenda for the rest. A consensus was reached to include Somaliland. That was the result of the arbitration. --Taivo (talk) 01:29, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Irrelevant. Somaliland was already included in the article. But that apparently wasn't good enough, since you then attempted to add it to the section of the article exclusively reserved for actual countries that are a part of the U.N.'s geoscheme. And that, of course, still most certainly does not include the Somaliland region [35]. This unfortunately makes your edit [36] very much original research. Middayexpress (talk) 01:38, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

The consensus in the arbitration was that Somaliland should be added, but as a parenthetical remark. All I added was the parenthetical remark that was the result of the discussion at the arbitration. Perhaps you should read WP:CONSENSUS before traveling solo down this road. --Taivo (talk) 01:40, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

...and the Somaliland region was already added as a parenthetical remark. But that still apparently wasn't good enough, since you then attempted to add it [37] to the section of the article exclusively reserved for actual countries that are a part of the U.N.'s geoscheme. And that, of course, still most certainly does not include the Somaliland region [38]. This likewise unfortunately makes your edit very much original research. End of story. Middayexpress (talk) 02:09, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand the meaning of WP:OR and WP:NPOV. --Taivo (talk) 02:36, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

FYI...you're name has come up at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Geoscheme as a result of this issue. Or more precisely, a discussion of anonymous "open supporters of Somaliland", which I presume is you, has come up. TDL (talk) 22:20, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. Middayexpress didn't bother to notify anyone else. --Taivo (talk) 22:49, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Autopatrolled

Hello, this is just to let you know that I have granted you the "autopatrolled" permission. This won't affect your editing, it just automatically marks any page you create as patrolled, benefiting new page patrollers. Please remember:

• This permission does not give you any special status or authority
• Submission of inappropriate material may lead to its removal
• You may wish to display the {{Autopatrolled}} top icon and/or the {{User wikipedia/autopatrolled}} userbox on your user page
• If, for any reason, you decide you do not want the permission, let me know and I can remove it

If you have any questions about the permission, don't hesitate to ask. Otherwise, happy editing! Acalamari 14:00, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Rus' (region)

Please could you have a look at the article on Rus' (region). I think whoever wrote either the article, or the English translations used as sources in the article has mistranslated the word for Norsemen as Norman. In English, they do not have the same meaning. So when the article starts talking about Normanist Treory and Anti-Normanist theory, they are using what I think are the wrong words. Unfortunately the terms "Normanist Treory" and "Anti-Normanist theory" are fairly wdiespread on the internet.--Toddy1 (talk) 22:27, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Would you write Arabic without writing it in Arabic?

But what is “Egyptian writing?” Is it simply hieroglyphics? Is it Demotic? That, to me, is the question. As AFAIK the Coptic Wikipedia is the only variety of Egyptian with its own WP, I figured it might couldn’t hurt to include it under the larger umbrella of “Egyptian language.”

And Internet chatters write Arabic all the time without writing it in Arabic. ;) What about Maltese? —Wiki Wikardo 20:07, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Help please

Taivo, I have reported some IP users I believe to be the same person for abusive language. See Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts#IP editor 24.0.177.155.2F70.111.133.184. However someone has asked for a translation of the abusive language from Ukrainian to English. Please could you help both in saying what it says, and why some words are offensive (for example the word he uses for Russian people).--Toddy1 (talk) 21:21, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't speak Ukrainian, Toddy1. Sorry. --Taivo (talk) 22:18, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

STOP ENGAGING IN UNSCHOLARLY AGENDA AND EDIT WARRING

Taivo, if you don't speak Ukrainian, how in the world do you posit yourself as an authority on Ukrainian linguistics? Please stop your anti-Ukrainian agenda. I have provided references for Kyiv Pechersk Lavra being the correct English transliteration from Ukrainian. Please stop deleting it without discussion. Sanya3 (talk) 09:06, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't take a speaking knowledge of Ukrainian to read Ukrainian and understand what is and is not a correct transliteration of a name. Since you provided references for your "incorrect" transliteration, then it can stand. --Taivo (talk) 13:56, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

List of sovereign states

It seems we've finally found a mediator for this case. Please see the discussion here and indicate whether you consent to mediation. Thanks. TDL (talk) 23:20, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Big text

Hi m8

They were on the Ukraine page, not the Kiev page yet. I'll put them on there as well right now :¬) Chaosdruid (talk) 07:25, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

South Caucasian Languages

Thanks for correcting me. I was in a hurry and I replaced with "kartvelian" even those names that I should not have. Best.--ComtesseDeMingrélie 02:00, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

List of sovereign states - sorting criteria

The initial MEDCAB mediator got busy and a second mediator is willing to take the case, but we need to re-state our acceptance/decline. Please see the discussion here and indicate whether you consent to mediation or not. Please, even if you don't expect to participate (because of lack of time or other reason) - state your acceptance/non-acceptance of the mediation process - so that we don't have to wait for unaccounted for users. Thanks. Alinor (talk) 18:30, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Can't you tell the difference between an intervention and an invasion?

You reverted me at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Cyprus . I have gotten used to taking reverts on the chin and forgetting about them. But I have to inform you that what happened on the island is only described as an intervention by the Republic of Turkey and its sphere of influence. Your revert supports the Republic of Turkey's POV and does not support consensus. The Army of the Republic of Turkey has been on the island for 37 years. That is not an intervention. It is an invasion with a fully-intended intended permanent occupation. The United Nations recognises it as an invasion. Now what on earth is your reason for calling it an "intervention"?  Nipsonanomhmata  ^(Talk) 12:32, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Take it to Talk:Northern Cyprus if you want to discuss. --Taivo (talk) 12:59, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

You need to discuss a one word reversion? I'm game if you are but don't keep me waiting because I'll come right back here.  Nipsonanomhmata  ^(Talk) 01:32, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

That word can be highly charged. Read WP:BRD. That says that if someone reverts your edit, you take it to the Talk Page and get a consensus. Take it to the Talk Page. --Taivo (talk) 02:02, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

This is not some "game" - please do not think that something can be discussed in a short period of time such as half an hour. Consensus on these matters, and do not forget that these pages are much argued over and contentious, can take some time.

I would appreciate it if in future you allowed more time than half an hour before deciding that the matter is settled. (and I am saying that to all concerned!) Chaosdruid (talk) 05:50, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I am also a little confused as to this discussion here over "tested the theory" - it seems that there is some hidden agenda perhaps? Chaosdruid (talk) 06:00, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

This is the "theory" that he was testing. --Taivo (talk) 06:04, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Ah ok, I hate it when lengthy discussions occur in edit summaries lol, thanks for clarifying. Hope all is well with you and yours btw! Time for bed as sun will be up in about 30 mins :¬) Chaosdruid (talk) 06:10, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Georgia (country) currently uses "invasion" in its description of Russia's acitons in the 2008 war. Standardise one way or the other? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 06:11, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Most of the English language press probably uses "invasion" for both the Ossetian incursion and the Northern Cyprus incursion. That's probably the search term that most English speakers will use (a criterion of WP:NCON). But the editors of Turkish POV might object. --Taivo (talk) 06:14, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Well I have posted some definitions and reasoning at the talk page, but I suspect that Russia's motives were more A1 and A2 than B anything Chaosdruid (talk) 06:18, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Russia's motives for anything are always A1 and/or A2 ;) --Taivo (talk) 06:21, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

This was the justification given by another editor about the reason for the word "invasion", if that helps. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 06:21, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Totally random Question

I notice on your userpage you have a passing interest in linguistics; I was wondering if you know anything about the Dutch/Flemish debate? It came up on Dutch people, but I didn't really have the background to deal with it, as far as language goes. Let me know if you interested, but know you might walk into a trap of ethnic conflict... Outback the koala (talk) 00:57, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I've walked into those traps before. Dutch and Flemish are varieties of a single language. --Taivo (talk) 02:03, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Beja language

Hi, You reverted this edit I made[39]. May I ask why?

The piece is sourced:

On the contrary, the French linguist Didier Morin (2001) has made an attempt to

bridge the gap between Beja and another branch of Cushitic, namely Low-Land East Cushitic and in particular Afar and Saho, the linguistic hypothesis being historically grounded on the

fact that the three languages where once geographically contiguious.[40]

Wadaad (talk) 23:53, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

The reference is virtually hearsay in an article that isn't really about the historical relationships of Beja. It's a brief one-off sentence. Additionally, the theory is not widely accepted among Afroasianists--mentioning it is a violation of WP:UNDUE. --Taivo (talk) 07:20, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

The reference is not 'hearsay'. It refers to a study published by Didier Morin in 2001. Wadaad (talk) 07:35, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

The Wikipedia reference therefore should not be to a one-sentence reference in a work that does not focus on historical linguistics, but to the actual work where the theory is proposed. However, a single reference to a theory that is not widely accepted must be very carefully weighed and is subject to the restrictions of WP:UNDUE. The majority of linguists do not accept a special relationship between Beja and Afar-Saho. --Taivo (talk) 08:39, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Sun and moon letters

Of course, these names are not very common for European science, but they were accepted many years ago. May be you can event the new nomination? Or shall I turn back this information without these words?

You need to use accurate linguistic terminology, not archaic references. "Sun and moon letters" will not be accepted. --Taivo (talk) 17:31, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Russian names in wikipedia articles of Ukrainians

Didn't you propose once to include the Russian Cyrillic version of peoples names in every biographical Ukrainian-article? In Talk:Mila Kunis#Signficant changes to article I proposed to put her Ukrainian Cyrillic version of her name in the Early life section of her article and Ruslana's Russian Cyrillic version of her name in her Early life section of her article. This might be a good thing to do this for every biographical Ukrainian-article for people born in the USSR. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 20:38, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

This should be discussed/decided by a majority of all Ukraine Wikiproject members of course, maybe the old discussion (I couldn't find it on your talkpage archive) should be reopened and this proposal of mine can be made a standard someday... Unfortunately, as you know, I'm a bit pressed with time... — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 21:00, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Please help editing the Introduction section of List of Ukrainians

The current version of the Introduction promotes anti-Ukrainian and anti-Western POVs echoing the Russian propaganda - e.g. the (unreferenced) statements that Ukrainians have always been a minority in Ukraine, silencing the mentioning of the anti-Ukrainian genocide committed by Moscow communists, etc etc

No. The sentence says that Ukrainians have generally been the minority in the urban centers. It does not say that Ukrainians were the minority in the country. Mentioning all the anti-Polish and anti-Russian stuff is pointless and simply pushes a POV. The current text is more NPOV. --Taivo (talk) 03:43, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

To bring the text up to date, I have added NPOV wording about the Holodomor and Russification of eastern Ukraine. --Taivo (talk) 03:55, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Kievan Rus' -> Rus

Hi

Hope all is well, and sorry to maybe drag you into this one ;¬)

I don't know the extent of your historical knowledge, but you may be able to contribute to this discussion. It is getting a little out of hand with reverts and edits massively changing the history of Ukraine in articles so needs some sort of consensus found.

Chaosdruid (talk) 21:13, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

List of heads by country

Based on your participation in WikiProject Countries/Lists of countries#Territories, I believe you'd also be interested to share your opinion and ideas at Talk:List of current heads of state and heads of government. 203.198.25.115 (talk) 13:28, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Zaporozhye edit war

We need to resolve the edit war over the article on on Zaporozhye between Taivo and Zas2000. I have gone through your differences sentence by sentence, and created a structure where you can explain them in a way that a mediator can understand. Please can you add comments, citations, etc. to Talk:Zaporizhia#Please_can_we_stop_this_edit_warring_and_make_a_compromise.--Toddy1 (talk) 06:58, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Potential violation of 3RR

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Taivo_reported_by_User:Nipsonanomhmata_.28Result:_.29  Nipsonanomhmata  ^(Talk) 16:00, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Sumero-Dravidian discussion

Hello Taivo, I noticed, that you removed my referenced content in the Sumerian langue article. Care to discuss it on the talkpage? Else I´ll be forced to rev Thanks.--Wangond (talk) 17:07, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

My edit summary says it all. The vast majority of Sumerian scholars and historical linguists treat Sumerian as a language isolate. Any purported connections to other groups are fringe positions and are not to be given undue emphasis. If we give a paragraph to your Dravidian connection then every other fringe position must also be given equal weight and readers will get the idea that some or all of them are valid positions within the linguistic community. Your characterization of "many scholars" is pure baloney. There may be one or two scholars who are toying with Sumerian as related to Dravidian, but the use of "many" is a lie. If you insist on trotting out your "references", then I'll just have to overwhelm you with a sample of the references that debunk any connection between Sumerian and anything else. Remember to read WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE before continuing down this fruitless path. --Taivo (talk) 17:18, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I would definitely contest your fringe assumption on Sumero-Dravidian, but I won´t contest the prominent opinion of the isolate status. The Sumero-Dravidian connection is a well established scholarly opinion compared with the other "candidates".--Wangond (talk) 17:37, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Not really "well established". It may be "well-established" among those who are proponents of the connection, but outside that very small group, it is not "well established" at all. It is, indeed, fringe. When your source makes statements like "It has been found, that the entire Sumerian vocabulary of the pre-Gudean period was identitical, both phonetically and semantically, with the roots of the living Dravidian languages of India, including the first six numerals, demonstratives and the words for mother (amma) and father (appa)" it is clear that the source is complete non-linguistic hogwash. Related languages are never "identical, both phonetically and semantically" unless they are the same language. This is clearly being pushed by some Indian nationalist group, whose modus operandi is to establish the most ancient links possible for Dravidian nationalist purposes. It's not real linguistics at all, but a pseudo-linguistic political agenda. --Taivo (talk) 17:54, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, TaivoLinguist. You have new messages at Talk:Most difficult language to learn.
Message added 16:53, 10 April 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

It looks like we've reached a deadlock with the proposed move to "Difficulty of learning languages". I would appreciate your input on what to do next. All the best. — Mr. Stradivarius (drop me a line) 16:53, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi again Taivo. Do you want to chip in at this discussion? If not I'll try and work out a consensus with Rjanag and the others. All the best. — Mr. Stradivarius (drop me a line) 03:25, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Aaah, jokes

You just had me literally choking on my lunch over that pen joke... Nightw 10:18, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Glad to be of service :) --Taivo (talk) 17:14, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Zaporozhye

• On Monday and Tuesday I went through the various sources provided by Movses, to build the Zaporozhye population table. In the early hours of Wednesday morning a Spanish IP accessed my Yahoo email account, sent spam messages to everyone on my address book, and deleted the last 14 months worth of sent messages. This may just be a co-incidence - but please be careful with the URLs used as sources.--Toddy1 (talk) 12:55, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

• When you revert Zas2000's edits, please some of the time send him a message explaining why you did it. His English is limited, and by making an extra effort with him we could avoid edit warring - see the message I received from another users yesterday.--Toddy1 (talk) 12:55, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Please could you look at this diff. I put the original Russian name Волчьего Горла because it seemed more useful to the non-Russian speaking reader who might want to find more information on it, and therefore needs some help knowing what the Russian phrase is. However our friend thinks that a translation of the name in English is better. As it is a place name, I am not sure that it matters what the name originally meant. What do you think?--Toddy1 (talk) 17:14, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

There is a second message for you on Talk:Zaporizhia#Kichkas/Kichkassky bridge--Toddy1 (talk) 05:50, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Freedom House

Just a heads up, Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Freedom House, I'm not going to comment for now, just watch and see how it goes. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:27, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Karipuna(s)

Hi Taivo,

Wanna check that Ethn. hasn't messed up. We say that "The substratum language of Karipúna Creole is Karipúna, a now extinct mixed language with Galibi vocabulary and Palikur syntax", but Ethn. now has that Karipuna language as Tupian VI, along with another language called Karipuna. The idea that Garifuna passed through Karipuna Creole is dubious if the creole is Tupian-French rather than Carib-Arawak. ?? (I know nothing of this area.)

— kwami (talk) 11:01, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I'll check up on it. There are a couple different languages labelled Karipuna in the literature. As I recall one Panoan and one Tupi, but I'll see what the sources say. --Taivo (talk) 12:02, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I just created a stub for Carabayo language, only to realize that it may be the same as Yuri language (Amazon). Maybe that's why Yuri isn't listed in Ethnologue? And LingList may have just gotten confused over the names. Merge? — kwami (talk) 00:12, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

What makes you think they are the same? Ethnologue places Carabayo here, while the map in Campbell places Yuri further east in Brazil (with only a tiny bit crossing the Colombian border. It would be nice to have a single source listing both entities, but the maps we have do not coincide. I suspect you're looking at the map in Asher and Moseley (or Moseley and Asher). The evidence to collapse them is ambiguous at best. --Taivo (talk) 02:19, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Sources give Yuri as an alt name for Carabayo, and Carabayo as an alt name for Yuri. They're spoken along the same region of the Caquetá River – unless of course someone got them mixed up, and gave the Yuri info for Carabayo or v.v. because of a confusion over the names. I'll put what I can find in the merge discussion. — kwami (talk) 05:40, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Just a heads up

I noticed you have encountered anon IPs from the California(LA) area[41]. These are most likely sockpuppets/meatpuppets of Phoenicians8, who has also attacked other articles to ensure his POV, regardless of sources/references. Just thought you should know. Take care. --Kansas Bear (talk) 06:44, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I suspected that the two anon IPs were socks. I've requested semi-protection for the page in question (Armenian language). --Taivo (talk) 06:47, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Warning to Taivo, you have exceeded your 3 reverts allowed in a day and will be blocked if this happens again. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:19, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

WP:3RR doesn't count if you're dealing with sock puppets: [42]. --Taivo (talk) 14:31, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

You would have been on safer ground if you had templated the talk page of the user you were reverting. It is not that much more work to put {{subst: uw-del1|Armenian_language}}--~~~~ on his talk page. It also makes it easier to justify a block on him/her later on.--Toddy1 (talk) 17:10, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Levantine Arabic

Taivo, I am not encouraged by your approach to editing. It seems to me that your claim of Wikipedia using variables rather than dialects is unwarranted because my survey of several linguistic articles proves otherwise.

Further, all my editing is, or soon will be appropriately referenced where it counts, while the previous edition of the article was not, and your promise of doing so is not a reason to revert my editing.

Also, you seem to be unprepared to discuss this on the article talk page, which is unhelpful to say the least because it is the first act of Wikipedia's editing conflict resolution policy.

I am going to reinstate my editing while I look into the issue further, and I urge you to restrain yourself from escalating the editing conflict further for now. You seem to have enough conflicts on your hands as it is for the time being Koakhtzvigad (talk) 12:13, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

And where is your "cooperative editing strategy"? Where did you initiate a discussion on the Talk Page over your changes to the artice? WP:POT. --Taivo (talk) 14:28, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

There was nothing to discuss, and still isn't from my perspective. I'm editing, i.e. improving the article according to the policies found in Wikipedia, you on the other hand are just reverting, something I consider a mildly vandalistic expression of WP:POV. For example you keep saying "we" don't use dialects in Wikipedia, but you have not stated who these "we" are, or when this decision was made, where, and why. Understand? Koakhtzvigad (talk) 15:50, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

You don't know Wikipedia policies obviously. Read WP:BRD. When you edit and someone reverts you, you enter into a discussion and build a consensus BEFORE you edit again. Understand? You obviously don't. Discuss the issue. Take your edits to the Talk Page before making them again. --Taivo (talk) 17:18, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Baltic languages

Hi, thanks for cleaning up that mess. I'd also welcome if you'd take a look at the issue debated at Talk:Balto-Slavic languages. (It admittedly won't be an easy job commenting on the opinions of someone who's behaving like that and who after the slightest disagreement with him resorts to vicious personal attacks ("dirty, imperialist Slavs") the way he does). But well, if you have some time and dare, please take a look, erhaps you can offer us further insight. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 13:54, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Possible

You might possibly be interested in remarks I have made in the Talk page of the article on Balto-Slavic.

Good Work......!!

Dear Taivo,

I really like your profile, honestly I really love languages too, I am crazy about language wanted to be the one who can speak more then 100 languages, I want to registered my name in Guinness Book of World Record in languages anyways very pleasure talking to you please keep in touch to expand and make wikipedia more awesome...!!!

Regards, --Faizanalivarya (talk) 04:37, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Witotoan or Tukanoan

Kaufman lists Andoquero, Coeruna, Nonuya, Koihoma as Witotoan. Multitree only includes Coeruna and Nonuya; the only Andoquero and Koihoma they have are synonyms for Carapana[43] and Orejon,[44] both Tukanoan. Ethnologue does not list those names as synonyms.[45][46] Our Witoto article warns that Witotoan Koihoma is distinct from Tukanoan Koihoma, but does not mention a problem with Andoquero. In our Indig. American lang article, we list all four as isolates/unclassified, suggesting that someone thought they were more than Tukanoan synonyms. Any idea how I should address Andoquero and Koihoma? (I've only got a dozen red links to go for S. Am., though a couple more should be added.) — kwami (talk) 07:12, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I'll look at it in the next day or two when I get the chance. --Taivo (talk) 07:46, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Yikes. Check out Gamela language. I'd been leaving this language for last because I figured, as one of the "only Greenberg would dare classify" languages, there'd be little to say about it. But when I looked up the LingList code, I found they had it as umo (Umotina). But this is a Bororoan language, and they still have it as an isolate (note, not unclassified). Has there been a discovery in some archive recently? Is this a mistake? (There are three Bororoan languages, and they list three, but two of them are Bororo!) If you don't know, I'll write them and ask. — kwami (talk) 10:37, 8 May 2011 (UTC) Okay, it was just a mistake. — kwami (talk) 01:26, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Lingusitic Expertice requested

Could you offer an opinion here: [47]. thanks..Faustian (talk) 15:09, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Tucker East Sudanic 1940

Hi Taivo,

Do you have access to Tucker (1940)? I see he proposed C.Sudanic and some Ubanguian langs as part of the group, but was it also E.Sudanic? — kwami (talk) 03:43, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

No, I don't have ready access to it. I'd have to get it through interlibrary loan. I've got a copy of Tucker & Bryan 1966 and he doesn't even mention "Eastern Sudanic". --Taivo (talk) 04:21, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Probably not worth the effort. I'll see what I can dig up, but for now I've just deleted the comment. Thanks! — kwami (talk) 04:39, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Indo-European languages

What does "ine" mean, and why was it so important for you to use the undo feature instead of actually using an edit summary that explained why my edit was wrong? 216.93.212.245 (talk) 21:45, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

"ine" is the ISO 639-5 three-letter code for Indo-European languages. If you don't understand an entry in the templates, you should click on the links to find the answer rather than simply deleting something you don't understand. --Taivo (talk) 06:02, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Response to your post

First of all, I'm not sure this is how one responds to messages on user pages, so forgive me if I'm supposed to be doing it some other way.

I have to admit it's a little difficult for me to know how to approach the BoM articles that are explicitly polemical (Book of Mormon anachronisms comes to mind). It seems disingenuous to argue that the very existence of these articles is not due to a POV. That doesn't discredit its merit of existing, however, it just makes the POV issue a little more difficult to deal with than, say, a history topic that isn't by its nature polemical. I'm fine with adding all sorts of material, as long as the critical responses get a free pass as being "objective," whereas the apologetic responses are all biased.

Consequently, for a piece that is polemical by its nature, placing apologetic commentary does not seem out-of-place when critical commentary is similarly there, (especially, in the case of the "Book of Mormon anachronisms" the introduction explicitly states "The list below summarizes perspectives... by Mormon apologists, and rebuttals." If there is a section on apologetic response, then adding more material seems legitimate to me. If we're going to take up space on words that problematize the BoM's claims, then it seems to make sense to have space for words that take the other approach in an article of this type. I understand your concern about my placing it in a way that ruined the flow, next time I'll try to place it in the explicitly labelled "apologetic" section.

I wholeheartedly agree with you about the "some believers won't accept anything as "balanced" that doesn't unequivocally state that the BOM is true history," however, I've also seen some cases where non-believers won't accept anything as "neutral" that doesn't make everything to do with Mormonism out to be a complete satanic fraud. We both have to deal with such people in our camps.

Minor note, "When you read something in FAIR or FARMS or the Maxwell Institute, before you get all excited and head to Wikipedia to show the world that the BOM is true," sounds like a stereotype you have of some of us (which has probably been confirmed in the past); you should get to know some of us more. I'm not trying to prove anything (most Mormons in my generation aren't).

I know pages like this are the result of a careful consensus, and I didn't want to step on any toes. I do think I had some valid information, but accept your criticism of my placement, etc., and will try to find a way to do so in a matter that is more agreeable.

All the best.Kant66 (talk) 07:07, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Question in Rfc

Saw what you were getting at. I rephrased the question and removed your comment as I think it's been resolved. Is this correct? Nightw 17:19, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, much, much better. A simple, straightforward question. --Taivo (talk) 18:42, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Discussion at Category talk:Arabic languages#Note on dialects

You are invited to join the discussion at Category talk:Arabic languages#Note on dialects. Fayenatic (talk) 09:49, 2 July 2011 (UTC) (Using {{pls}})

Reformed Egyptian

I wonder who our 'new editor' is. Dougweller (talk) 20:21, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, indeed. Three edits at Reformed Egyptian and his response sure doesn't sound like a newbie :p --Taivo (talk) 20:27, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Hungarian at List of Sovereign States

It is quite funny to explain me the "importance of Hungarian in Romania", as if I where from... Croatia, with no idea about Romania nor Hungary. Then, why not add names in other languages for France and Germany; the latter has a very important Turkish minority, no? And Hungary? Does it not have ties to Austria (German), or other minorities? Why this double standard, and include Hhungarian in all possible places, weather it is propper or impropper to include it there? I repeat my question: WHY THE DOUBLE STANDARD? --ES Vic (talk) 09:40, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Yet again: WHY THE DOUBLE STANDARD? that is quite hard to understand, no? I tripped to this page accidentally, and I don't see why a list would present such a great topic to "present interest" as you have said. Furthermore, on the "historical significance" basis, why is there no Russian in the Armenia or Azerbaijan entry? Is it that Russia (and USSR) hat no historical influence there? Have the allmighty Wikipedia historians already sorted that out as long time ago and as fast and as undeniable as in the Romanian case? That I do wonder. If all the other controversial issues would have been sorted out THE SAME WAY, I would have left this page the way I found it. --ES Vic (talk) 19:00, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'm not denying anything, don't jump to interesting conclusions! I am just willing to remove the image of some sort of former colony (as The Philipines once was) that this language attracts to all the sorounding countries... except Austria. I browsed the archive, as you sugested, and I saw that you are the only one so keen in keeping Hungarian wherever possible; that raises questions to me, especially with the "don't trust Romanian statistics/officials regarding the number of Hungarians" idea I found belonging to you somewhere in that archive. You might hate and mock Romania for all the reasons in the world, but doing that on Wikipedia, isn't an action included in some random acronyms stating the breaking (or at least bending) of a rule? i don;t think that we should engage in linguistic issues, as the origin of the word uca in Hungarian... Just don't make people buy internationalistic BS if they are not willing to do so! --ES Vic (talk) 19:44, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

And what does this say about your point of view: "Transylvania was a part of Hungary and inhabited solely by Hungarians for centuries longer than it's been part of Romania."? Are you a fan of Eduard Rösler? Because, allthough you don't admit it, your opinions are at least as biased as mine. --ES Vic (talk) 07:06, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

You really should read other books regarding the ethnic structure in Romania and, for your own pleasure, in Transilvania particulary. You have started by reading the laws; that is good. Don't talk about something you don't know! See you when Russia annexes Ukraine! --ES Vic (talk) 10:33, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Dealing with unconstructive edits

Thank you for reverting the unconstructive edits made by 24.81.6.248. It would be helpful though if you were to use the templates available for dealing with such users on his/her talk page. This helps Wikipedia to build up a picture of how such editors are behaving, which can be using in deciding whether to block them. Do not worry, there is no cause for action this time - another user has placed the relevant notices on User: 24.81.6.248's talk page.

Next time, when you revert unconstructive edits made by this user, please spend a few extra minutes placing notices on the user's talk page.--Toddy1 (talk) 09:45, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Annoying IP Vandal 68.36.49.223 from New Jersey vandalised articles on Rovno, Chernigov, Sumy, and Cherkassy on 5 September, and Cherkassy again on 6 September. Thanks for reverting his vandalism to the article on Sumy. I have incremented the warnings on his/her talk page to level 3, so if he/she does so again tonight he/she is entitled to a level 4 warning. Please could you look out for this annoying vandal. As you can see from Special:Contributions/68.36.49.223, this seems to be a vandalism-only user, so if he/she keeps it up, we may be able to get him/her blocked.--Toddy1 (talk) 18:49, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Sewerage

In England sewerage is a common word, just like cat and dog. Maybe in Americanese it is not understood?--Toddy1 (talk) 07:10, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I have never seen that word before your use. It's not just uncommon in the U.S., as far as I know, it's unknown except, perhaps, by civil engineers. --Taivo (talk) 09:28, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps this is one of those words that is normal in one language, but rare in the other, where a different word is commonly used - like pavement/sidewalk, lift/elevator, slum/downtown.--Toddy1 (talk) 09:59, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Supreme Constitutional Court of Cyprus (SCCC) and High Court of Cyprus (HCC) dissolved and Supreme Court of Cyprus (SCC) founded

Taivo, why did you delete referenced info here: http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Northern_Cyprus&diff=441524490&oldid=441487447 ?

After resignation of the president of SCCC, SCCC stopped to exist. Supreme Court of Cyprus (SCC) was formed by merging SCCC and High Court of Cyprus and undertook the jurisdiction and powers of the SCCC and HCC: http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/search.asp Orams v. Cyprus]Tick all on the left pane; Application No: 27841/07; click Search: The Administration of Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Law 33/1964 (“Law 33/64”). Brasilian Prince (talk) 13:12, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I deleted because I trust DrK's judgement. --Taivo (talk) 14:34, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I just saw your reply Taivo. Coming from you it is a great honour. Thank you. Best wishes. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 15:14, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

List of sovereign states

But why Portuguese is listed as language of Equatorial Guinea? According to criteria “The names of the items in the list are given in English, as well as in the official, national, major minority, and historically important languages of the state.” Portuguese is not official language of Equatorial Guinea, is not national language of Equatorial Guinea, is not minority language in Equatorial Guinea, and is not historically important languages of Equatorial Guinea. IP editor has add Portuguese without any sources, without any discussion and without any sense [48] and this mistake is listed since 2009 (see information about Portuguese in language section in Equatorial Guinea). So what I must discuss if I correct obviously false information? Aotearoa (talk) 05:34, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

It's not false information at all. The islands that belong to Equatorial Guinea in the Gulf of Guinea were part of Portugal in the past. --Taivo (talk) 05:47, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

So Fernando Po was Portuguese colony till 1778. For 230 years Portuguese is not language of this country. If such languages are important, than plenty of languages should be added – e.g. Turkish, German, Italian to Greece; Dutch to Sri Lanka, German to Papua-New Guinea. Latvian to Trinidad and Tobago and of course English to Equatorial Guinea (from 1827 to 1843 Fernando Po was British). Aotearoa (talk) 06:26, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Just off that section of the Equatorial Guinea article it seems to me Portuguese is a very important language in the country. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 07:53, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Usually editors bitch because they can't add some fringe information to an article. Under languages at List of sovereign states our most common problem is that editors want to remove information. Go figure. --Taivo (talk) 11:21, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Not sure if you are the correct person to ask -

Are you fluent in Hungarian? If so - what is the gist of the point of the following video - is it based in reality? Or is it a propagandist work?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iqOdVc6Jd5c

My Magyar is nil, so was curious. Thanks. HammerFilmFan (talk) 18:21, 8 August 2011 (UTC) HammerFilmFan

My Hungarian is marketplace, so this is a bit beyond my skill level. --Taivo (talk) 04:17, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Talk: List of sovereign states

I have a suspicion NelsonSudan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) may be a sock of Alinor. Ladril (talk) 16:36, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

He certainly writes the same volume of garbage. --Taivo (talk) 06:29, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Doubt it. Alinor's almost definitely vanished judging by all the unanswered deletion nominations on his talk page. Instead from looking at these edits [49][50] I'd say he's the infamous Tobias Conradi. I've asked Golbez to take a look. Nightw 09:46, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Well you know how to brighten a feller's morning. And wow, I had no clue he had a constant string of SSP reports. I'll probably take a look later. --Golbez (talk) 12:40, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I am not a sock puppet. NelsonSudan (talk) 18:02, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I happen to be one for vigorous debate; thrashing issues out. That might ruffle feathers....but it is bona fide. I don't deserve to be singled out and bullied like it looks like you guys are suggesting. My contributions aren't "rubbish" either. NelsonSudan (talk) 18:20, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't have any friends here.........and don't really want friends, just to be treated fairly and have each contribution assessed on its merits. NelsonSudan (talk) 18:23, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Another thing....Check my edit history carefully around the Tobias Conradi thing and you'll see I came across him because I was involved in a disn. re Dominion of India (still am). I think Mr TC wanted to participate because he left a message on the notice board page but it was removed..........Frankly, the involvement of other editors was barely existant...like so many things that people don't get involved in.......So I certainly wanted to hear whatever Mr TC had to say....So then I discovered he was "Permanently banned" (quite possibly because some group ganged up on him....which I now feel, incidentally give your disn. here, might happen to me) and I took up his case. That's that explained. I really feel the kind of talk you have had here is bad faith talk....trying to find some way of getting me blocked as a sock puppet. Its worrying for me naturally. NelsonSudan (talk) 19:55, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Ethnic promoted edits to articles on Transylvania

I am rather concerned that a user has made and is editing large numbers of articles related to Transylvania to remove Hungarian elements from them [51]. Individually all the edits can probably be defended. Please could you have a look. We have all the problems of Ukrainian nationalist extremists deleting names they do not like from articles on places in Ukraine; this looks similar - but from a Romanian nationalist extremist POV. I would value a second opinion on this.--Toddy1 (talk) 13:45, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. --Taivo (talk) 23:50, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, you have an answer on my talk page. Adrian (talk) 06:53, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, you have an answer on my talk page. Adrian (talk) 09:07, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Talkback 3

Hello, you have an answer on my talk page. I have found the link to the consensus and hope everything is ok now. Adrian (talk) 06:30, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello, you have a message on my talk page. Adrian (talk) 19:45, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello, please put my talk page on your watch-list because like this I am "bombarding" messages :). Adrian (talk) 20:06, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you, but about this edit there[52] is a clear consensus by the Administrator [53] for the lead section not to include the "or" version.Adrian (talk) 20:19, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

The link doesn`t take you to the right section (don`t know why). The consensus you can find on that link, from the list of sections, section 42 Hungarian names of Romanian places , subsection 42.2 Time to close this. Adrian (talk) 20:22, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Your page is already on my watchlist :) --Taivo (talk) 20:24, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry, but I provided you with the link for the rule against the "or" form. Why did you repeated this edit [54] ? Adrian (talk) 20:38, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Because that wasn't the overt consensus in the previous discussion, which was to include the Hungarian form in italics if it was under 20% and bolded if it was over. The "summary" provided in the link you showed me was not an accurate summary of the apparent consensus that emerged in that other discussion you linked to. --Taivo (talk) 20:41, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but not in "or" form. That was never accepted. It is to be included in standard form " Sighisoara (Hungarian XXX), (German XXX) is a place in Romania, along etc...". The new consensus I provided you links for is stating exactly about this issue (in what form to be written) and it is written by an Administrator. Why is this a problem now? Adrian (talk) 20:46, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Iadrian yu is correct. As far as I know, the "or" version is only used when there are two different names in the same language. Thus the Shepherdswell article, although it says "Shepherdswell (also Sibertswold)..." could say "Shepherdswell, or Sibertswold,..." Mjroots (talk) 05:23, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Taivo, you seem to have misread what I wrote. For the record, if you are engaging in discussion and not edit-warring at the same time, there will be no need for any admins to take any action. It's when one side insists on keep reverting the article to their preferred state whilst a discussion is going on, or being attemped, that action is necessary. FWIW, I think that alternative names in different languages are useful, particularly so when those alternative names are now historic, such as Danzig, Memel, Lourenço Marques etc. Mjroots (talk) 16:48, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Mjroots - please try to be more even-handed when threatening admin action against editors who insist "on keep reverting the article to their preferred state whilst a discussion is going on". I am fairly certain that admin action is not needed against either Taivo or Adrian or me. There is a discussion going on. It may be bad tempered and punctuated by statements that I am a vandal and should be taken to ANI, but it is nevertheless a reasonable discussion, which is producing better understanding and will probably result in small improvements to Wikipedia.--Toddy1 (talk) 17:51, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. The "preferred state" happened to be the status quo ante and per WP:BRD, I reverted Iadrian yu's edit. To his credit he was willing to let the previous text stand until the conclusion of our discussion. --Taivo (talk) 20:55, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

What is the Problem

That there are 2-4 Mil. Kurds speaking Zazaki doesent mean anything about the Zazaki ethnicity being Kurdish or not! The source says that some Kurds speak Zazaki just like some Kurds could speak Arabic or English.Sagapane (talk) 04:44, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Are you ok? Arent you able to understand that it is indeed important to be mentioned that some million Kurds speak a language called Zazaki? This doesent has to say anything about the language or classification of the Zaza People.Sagapane (talk) 13:30, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that you don't understand what you're reading or the purpose of the article. Your source, which is not a reliable source by Wikipedia standards is not about ethnicity and the comment you are trying to hitch your argument to is simply a throwaway line in a footnote about how many people speak Zazaki, not really about their ethnicity. If the source were reliable, and the source was about ethnicity in particular, you would have a good source, but the article is still only about the language, not the ethnicity of some or all of its speakers. Zazaki is not a Kurdish language, even though its speakers may identify themselves as Kurds. It gets confusing to our readers to see the term "Kurd" in the article, since this would lead them to assume that this language is a dialect or variety of Kurdish. It is not. So we leave the meaningless, improperly sourced, and potentially confusing remarks about ethnicity out of articles such as this since they add nothing to the content of the language article. Go to the Zaza people page and talk about Kurds all you want. I don't care. But leave the ethnicity pushing off the language page. Clear enough? Can you understand that? You're the one confused, not me. --Taivo (talk) 16:43, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Shilha

Hi Taivo,

There's a proposal to move Shilha people to Chleuh or similar, if you're interested. Currently the same name is used as in the language article. — kwami (talk) 18:08, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Draft for RFC

Finally got that draft done today. It's at Talk:List of sovereign states/Discussion of criteria. Nightw 11:50, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Greek Slavic

Hi Taivo,

Any advice on how to handle the repeated idiocy of what to call Greek Slavic in articles on place names? I don't know if that's been settled anywhere. — kwami (talk) 06:05, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

There is a current discussion at Macedonian language on that very issue. It becomes one of nationalistic POV very quickly. Even if you use "Greek Slavic" you are still in a quandary over where to link that :p The map at Macedonian language calls it "Macedonian", but Bulgarians as well as Greek POV pushers have a hard time accepting that. --Taivo (talk) 11:55, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Telugu language

Hi Taivo,

If you're around, could you comment at Telugu? Randy from Boise is visiting. — kwami (talk) 05:14, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

It is utterly incomprehensible what garbage the internet lays on our doorstep :p Anyone with a couple bucks to spare can post anything they want and the gullible masses suck it up like mother's milk. --Taivo (talk) 07:02, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

At least he didn't say there were any skeletons involved. — kwami (talk) 07:08, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Serer language & Fula language

*Sigh*. Now we've got a Serer racist saying that mentioning Fula alongside Serer "desecrates" the articles. He's deleting the Serer–Fula node from the info boxes, and I just know this is going to turn into another edit war. — kwami (talk) 09:27, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

BTW, Ethnologue has Wolof closest to Fula, but evidently that's a misreading of the data. Details in the articles. — kwami (talk) 09:35, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

The chapter on Atlantic languages in Bendor-Samuel's manual on Niger-Congo also places Wolof and Fula closer based on lexicostatistics. Most of the classification of Atlantic has been based on lexicostatistics, but the problem (admitted by specialists) is that the cognate percentages in the Atlantic group are typically low. Wolof and Fula have a 37% shared rate while Serer is 25% with those two. My library isn't strong on Niger-Congo, but every other source I looked at places Wolof and Fula closer together with Serer the next closest. This apparently goes back to David Sapir's classification in the 1970s (everyone seems to cite him as the ultimate source). Ethnologue's data base programming is messed up in this little group, but they are simply following the standard classification: Fula-Wolof + Serer. I really don't know where the Serer-Fula grouping comes from. I wrote this without reading Wikipedia's articles on the languages, but simply based on the standard sources. I'll read the articles now. --Taivo (talk) 14:00, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I really wish that people would stop removing sources from the references list, or start actually putting the references they cite in the References List :( (Sapir 1971) etc. is dutifully cited in the Serer language article, but does not appear in the references list. --Taivo (talk) 14:03, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Actually, Sapir said the opposite. I think the error crept in with Wilson, who verbally said it was Fula–Serer, but in a graph got the 37% and 25% switched and had Fula–Wolof. (He didn't do any new stats.) Since then, most sources have copied the graph, though a few follow the text, often citing Sapir directly. Serere has done the first classification since Sapir (tho still stats), and confirms Sapir (at least on this point: much of the rest is different). Serere's well-published & respected in Atlantic languages, so I've been updating the articles to reflect him. — kwami (talk) 14:09, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

(ec)This is from David Sapir's contribution to Volume 7 of Current Trends in Linguistics from 1971. My library doesn't have it, but if yours does, then it can probably be checked pretty quickly. It's a pretty common work in libraries of universities that host a full linguistics department (I have always assumed that you're at one of those). --Taivo (talk) 14:11, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

OK. Wouldn't be the first time that numbers got switched and then copied ad infinitum. Africa isn't in my "realm" so I simply rely on the standard published handbooks. --Taivo (talk) 14:13, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

If you know what those references to Serere are, then it would be good to add them to the articles. As it is, there is no bibliographical information to guide the reader who actually wants to check the articles out :p --Taivo (talk) 14:19, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Added the ref to Sapir. No, I don't have access to a library, unfortunately. Just what I have myself or can find online. — kwami (talk) 15:12, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Guess it's always interesting the little stories and biographies we ascribe the other anonymous editors here. --Taivo (talk) 15:15, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Stratfor Source on Ukraine page

Hello! I have posted some questions regarding the Stratfor source on the Ukraine article talk page. Your thoughts would be greatly appreciated. Qe2 (talk) 08:17, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Telugu

Don't editwar, it can get you blocked even when you're right. I am keeping an eye on the page now. Best.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:45, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. And, of course, Nagarjuna reverted within moments of you posting on his Talk Page. --Taivo (talk) 03:51, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

For which reason he will not be bothering anyone on wikipedia for the next 72 hours. I'll be on the look out when he comes back. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 04:06, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Someone needs to revert his last revision, however. --Taivo (talk) 04:09, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

i hope the new citation is good enoughRevharder (talk) 19:00, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Dnipro River

Hi, I've posted some proposed changes to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Dnieper_River#Name, could you please take a look and if it's can be changed advise what to do next ;) Thanks.

I ignore editors who don't sign their posts. --Taivo (talk) 11:09, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Hindistani

If you don't mind, could you comment at Hindi-Urdu? We have an editor who edit warred over deleting the name Hindustani some months ago with the argument that it's offensive to Muslims (despite it being a Muslim name) because Pakistan is an independent country. He eventually settled for a POV tag on the article, saying that Pakistani language authorities don't use the term, so we can't either. I left the tag and forgot about it, but yesterday another editor reviewed the debate, decided there was no reason to have a POV tag since there isn't any real debate, and deleted it. The original editor is now edit warring over keeping the tag. We do keep tags where there's some substantial disagreement, but I don't see any substance here. — kwami (talk) 20:23, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Proto-Romanian language

Could you please have a look at the discussion User:Daizus and I are having at Talk:Proto-Romanian language? --Florian Blaschke (talk) 21:35, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

disruptive editings by Hassanhn5

I saw that this user was blocked and then unblocked. u tried to explain him, but i feel that it had fallen on deaf ears. please check his recent disruptive editings by Hassanhn5 (talk) . i think some more needs to be done in his case. regards. --dBigXray (talk) 00:24, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

now he has edited my talk pages and is warning me of Getting Blocked. it seems that he is not happy that i have reported this incident. I am glad that Wiki allows even the Persons who get blocked themselves, to block others. regards--dBigXray (talk) 09:49, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Honestly, I'm not interested in Hassanhn5's editing. I'm only interested in articles that are within my field of expertise, principally linguistic. His other editing is outside that, so it's up to other editors to monitor his activity. --Taivo (talk) 12:06, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Language

Hi Taivo. I am thinking that our article on Language should be an FA, would you like to help me with this? I think a section on the world's languages and language families would be an excellent and necessary addition. It should very briefly summarize the world's linguistic diversity and the classification into families. It should be about the size of the section about "Language and it's parts" and it should have subsections describing variety in terms of language families and in terms of typology and perhaps in terms of linguistic areas. I am asking other Language specialists for help as well on writing sections for the article on their topics of specialization. I think the article deserves to be better. Thanks!·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:12, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

PIE language

OK, this is not worth it for one adjective, however sorely that may be needed. You win. Djathinkimacowboy 19:56, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Carrier language

Hi,

I don't have the refs to check this out. S.o. supplied an inventory, but the writing system uses underscores to distinguish laminal from apical affricates/fricatives, which we're missing. I assume that's phonemic, but don't want to augment the table just based on the orthography.

Also, are you aware of any orthographies that use gemination to indicate ejectives? Esp. of voiced letters: bb, dd, jj, gg, etc. Bringhurst Haida does (though voiceless), and I see Unicode does for Carrier syllabics (including a ⟨jj⟩). Just wondering if that's part of a wider tradition.

— kwami (talk) 06:17, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't have anything on the contemporary writing system, but we don't want to adapt the phonemic inventory to an orthography. Phonemically, there is no "apical/laminal" series distinction in the descriptions. There is alveolar and alveopalatal in the contemporary phonemic system. In the earliest grammatical treatise, from the end of the 19th and the beginning of the 20th century, there was a distinction, probably between dental and alveolar (laminal and apical ?), but that distinction was leveled by the end of the 20th century. The precise time of leveling is unknown. In 1976, the leveling was complete among younger speakers, but even in the earliest description, there was rampant evidence that the distinction was being neutralized even then. The latest phonemic description includes the laminal/dental series only in parentheses. In a 1981 list of phonemic segments, the dental/laminal series is said to be found in only the "very oldest speakers". By now, it is most likely extinct. I would not separate it out since it is probably gone. Bill Poser's article on noun classification in 2001 uses the underline, but states that it is only found in the most conservative speech. I wonder, however, how much load this distinction carries even in conservative speech where one finds in successive examples the word for "all" beginning with an alveolar in one sentence and with a dental in the very next sentence, with the only difference being the noun classification suffix on the two forms. --Taivo (talk) 23:09, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. I'll add a comment to that effect. — kwami (talk) 15:29, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Dnepropetrovsk - request for comment

If you have time please could you comment on whether the article on the city of Dnepropetrovsk should have a list of mayors as part of the article, or whether the list should be a separate article. The list can be seen in old versions of the article, but was deleted on 18 November.

Please post your comments at Talk:Dnepropetrovsk#List of mayors and political chiefs of the city administration.--Toddy1 (talk) 10:33, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Altaic and Turkic languages

Hi. I saw you edited my recent edits and your summary about that. One question: we can not add Altaic as family color, because the theory is not widely accepted or it's controversial? Is it wrong to classify Turkic languages and dialects as a subdivision/sub family of Altaic? Or we need to wait for more linguistic research about this? Thanks. Winter Gaze (talk) 16:03, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

We have a color for "Altaic" just as we have a color for other non-genetic groups such as "Papuan" and "American" in order to keep the number of colors at a manageable level. But most linguists have never been convinced of the validity of "Altaic" as a genetic group and the majority of linguists simply view it as a Sprachbund. I doubt that further research will reveal anything more convincing. The notion of "Altaic" has been around for 60-something (or more) years and has failed to convince the majority of historical linguists in that time. It's not like we're dealing with unknown languages and simply lack enough data. "Altaic" is likely never to be demonstrated to be a valid genetic grouping. --Taivo (talk) 17:14, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

OK. I must review my edits/contributions in the Turkic languages articles to edit/revert my previous edits. Winter Gaze (talk) 17:32, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Your review is needed and important

All of these language articles redirected and their names changed recently:

• Iranian languages
• Eastern Iranian languages
• Western Iranian languages
• Proto-Iranian language

And much more. See this user's work. Winter Gaze (talk) 15:17, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi. The term "Iranic" is also used in some academic sources (e.g. see THIS) and it's not as confusing with the Iranian nationality. MassaGetae(talk) 15:46, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

"Some" is not "the majority". The majority of sources in English continue to use "Iranian". If you think you have a case, then initiate a Request for Move. Do not unilaterally move these articles. --Taivo (talk) 15:47, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Massagetae, as I wrote in your talk pages, all of your redirects need to be discussed in the articles talk page. Editors' votes are very important before redirect. Winter Gaze (talk) 15:55, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Yay & Yoy

Hi Taivo,

I think I remember a comment of yours somewhere about confusion of the Tai languages Yay and Yoy, and it might be relevant to the Northern Tai languages article. Can you remember what it was? — kwami (talk) 19:19, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

December 2011

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for your disruption caused by edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule at Iraqi Turkmens. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Magog the Ogre (talk) 09:24, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

TaivoLinguist (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

This is not an appeal, per se, because I did, indeed, violate 3RR. It is a question of why I received a 48-hour block, but the other editor involved received only a 24-hour block. Since neither of us actually filed a report about the other, I'm curious why my block is twice as long. --Taivo (talk) 11:04, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Decline reason:

See WP:NOTTHEM. I can't comment on the other editor, but you've been blocked before for edit warring, and therefore should know better.  An optimist on the run! 12:02, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I've cut the block to 24 hrs, since no reason was given for it being twice as long as the other editor, and I don't see any significant difference between them, except that the other editor was edit warring against two editors, and Taivo against one. I don't see how NOTTHEM is relevant: comparable behaviour should result in comparable sanctions. — kwami (talk) 12:37, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

The time has expired, but I'm still being listed as blocked. --Taivo (talk) 13:16, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

TaivoLinguist (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

My 24-hour block (see Kwami's note above) has expired, but I'm still being blocked as if my block was still 48 hours --Taivo (talk) 13:20, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Accept reason:

The admin mis-typed the block expiration date, so you should have been automatically unblocked a couple hours ago. Oh well, I've manually unblocked you. Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:30, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

It probably should have remained as 48 hours ... based on your block log, and the concept of escalating blocks. In other words, because you know better because of past blocks, you're blocked for longer than another editor. I will not action the above (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:40, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Bwilkins' assessment. That said, the block was adjusted, but the date parameter seems to be off (Friday is 16 December, not 15 December) so this might be a technical error more than anything else. In any event, don't edit war - though the block may or may not have been reversed (!), the next one proceeds from the 48 hour timeframe, meaning that you'll be looking at a week or more. Do be careful. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 16:16, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I've posted a request at the Administrator's Noticeboard, purely on the technical issue of what the hell happened with this block and its reduction. FYI. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 16:24, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your help, Reaper Eternal, for the unblock and thank you, Ultraexactzz, for bringing this problem up at the Administrator's Noticeboard. --Taivo (talk) 16:36, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

• Can I point out what a really bad idea it is to return to edit warring immediately after being blocked? By all means please quit it. Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:09, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I simply reverted to a stable version that preceded the edit war until we can come to consensus. --Taivo (talk) 02:09, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

And you didn't make a similar post on Turko's page because? He was the first to revert. --Taivo (talk) 02:20, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

This continually comes down to the greatest weakness of Wikipedia--specialists must continually kowtow to the demands of non-specialist nationalist POV-pushers. If you examine the page, you will see that Turko is using non-linguistic political and ethnographic sources to make linguistic claims and ignoring my actual linguistic sources. See WP:RANDY. --Taivo (talk) 02:44, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Still, it's difficult for most admins to distinguish you from Randy. Probably best to bring this to the attention of a knowledgeable admin who can either jump in and block Randy if he persists, or protect the article until he goes away.

BTW, isn't Randy correct in the case of the Peloponnesian War? All the participants that have been found to date have been skeletons, and many of them have had swords! — kwami (talk) 04:12, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh my. It's late and I started looking for the "Like" button :p --Taivo (talk) 06:48, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Of course I left a similar message at his talk page. If you'd bothered to give more than a two second look you would have realized that. Once again, WP:NOTTHEM applies, even outside the context of you currently being blocked. Magog the Ogre (talk) 14:15, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I just went back and looked and you edit warred more since I placed my message on the page. I've blocked you for 96 hours. Please consider in the future making use of WP:3O rather than ramming your point of view through by edit warring, after half a dozen people have told you it's not acceptable. Magog the Ogre (talk) 14:19, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

No, I didn't. Look at the edits, they were working toward a compromise wording. That's not edit warring. Editing is not edit warring. --Taivo (talk) 18:06, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

And actually look at the history. Turko85 reverted three times before your warning to me and I only reverted once along with Toddy1 prior to your warning and not after. Ridiculous. --Taivo (talk) 19:07, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

TaivoLinguist (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

This block is unjustified and excessive. Magog's comment that I edit warred after he placed his comment is simply false. Look at the actual edits and time stamps--there was no editing on the article whatsoever for the previous five hours (and was none after the warning). (Warning placed 0100 on the 18th [time stamps are strangely off, this may have been at 1800 on the 17th]; last edit occurred 2000 on the 17th.) [Because of problem with time stamps, there may have been a couple hours of constructive edits on the text, during which time the present compromise text was written.] He has punished me (alone) for what he perceived was happening before he placed his warning without actually reading the edits or matching the edits with what was on the Talk Page. Wikipedia's optimal process is WP:BRD. But some editors, like Turko85 will simply not follow that process. They insist on reverting and placing their text in the article simply because they proposed it on the Talk Page (sometimes). Sometimes that is the process that results. Consensus isn't reached on the Talk Page, but in the article by multiple revisions. 1) Immediately after coming off my block I did nothing, waiting for the other editor to discuss issues on the Talk Page. 2) The other editor then reverted back to his version without coming to any kind of consensus on the Talk Page. He simply posted his reasons on the Talk Page and reverted without waiting for discussion or trying to build any kind of consensus. 3) Toddy1 then reverted him and urged him to discuss on Talk Page. 4) Turko85 then reverted Toddy1 without getting consensus as Toddy suggested. 5) I then reverted to encourage a discussion. 6) Thinking that a better option would be to revert back to a position BEFORE the edit war, I, in essence, extended that one revert to a larger period of time so as to start from a fresh slate before either of us had done anything. What might look like two reverts was actually just one--going back to an earlier point in time. 7) The other editor reverted this as well. Then, if you look carefully, we no longer reverted, but began, piece-by-piece to edit the article into a compromise form. The other editor refused to discuss edits on the Talk Page before editing, so that is the pattern that both of us fell into. There were no more reversions, only editing until it seems that a fairly stable version has resulted (I assume that since he made no more revisions). While the process was not optimal (some editors like Turko85 simply refuse to discuss to consensus before editing), it stopped being an edit war and has resulted in an acceptable text. But even before Magog's warning, Turko85 had reverted three times to my and Toddy's one each. Is this really an appropriate block and who really initiated the edit warring after the block? Not me. Taivo (talk) 16:32, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Based on this statement, you a) clearly do not understand what a revert is, and b) you continue to feel justified in your actions. Either way, this is 100% disruptive, and against the spirit of Wikipedia - especially after having been recently blocked for the same thing. As Wikipedia's preventative measures work on an escalating basis, it appears that you have just shy of 96 hours to read WP:REVERT, WP:EW, and most importantly WP:DR. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:27, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I will not decline your request as, frankly, I will not make a judgement on whose sources and where they're placed trumps the other. Good grief...you were just blocked for edit warring and you return to the article and begin discussion in edit summaries. This practice is counterproductive at best and disruptive at worst. Please take the advice of an outside observer; discussion takes place on the article talk page. Additionally, discussion is not a free pass to edit war. There's no doubt in my mind that you know more of the subject matter than I but, looking at the article revision history, I almost don't care. The readers of this project deserve better from those that are supposed to know the subject. Tiderolls 19:59, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Discussing on the Talk Page only works when both parties take that route. I was perfectly willing to discuss and come to a consensus there (as I have done on countless other pages), but when one party simply posts on the Talk Page and then makes the edit he/she declares without any effort at consensus building, then the ideal system breaks down and editing continues on the article. --Taivo (talk) 22:39, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

But back to the block. There was no edit warring occurring when Magog issued his block for "warring after his warning." Editing (without reverting) is not edit warring. It's clear that the other editor accepted my changes because when he/she did revert one of my changes, he/she did not revert all of them. Magog's reasons for this block are unfounded. --Taivo (talk) 22:43, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

This is what I see: after Magog gave his warnings,[55][56] Turko85 made a complete revert here. Taivo accepted this (despite it being dubious IMO), and added Turko's wording (slightly modified) and refs back to the body here. That is not edit warring on Taivo's part so far as I can see. Taivo then deleted a paragraph here, which I don't see as being a revert (though perhaps I've just missed it), which Turko then reverted here, objecting on the talk page that this is a quotation from one of his sources .[57] Taivo then accepted it apart from its last sentence.[58] That is, Turko has edit warred over two major parts of the text since the warning, and Taivo has accepted these edits apart from reverting the quote, "their dialect differs sharply from neighboring Irano-Turkic varieties such as South Azeri", which they were discussing this on the talk page.

I think Taivo should have gone to s.o. else about this, but the edit warring was largely on Turko's side. Taivo, if I unblock you, will you leave this article alone for the 96 hrs you would have been blocked, and come to User:Toddy1, myself, or some other editor if Turko should revert you after that point, as if it were WP:1RR? — kwami (talk) 04:32, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes. BTW, I agree with Kwami's edits to Iraqi Turkmen. --Taivo (talk) 08:53, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Unblocked. I should have added WP:BOLD in there, but since you have yourself quoted it, I didn't think to make it explicit. So, 1RR & BOLD when dealing with Turko85 on that article, okay? I've offered Turko85 the same terms. — kwami (talk) 05:53, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Thank you, Kwami. --Taivo (talk) 14:22, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

The reason why I blocked for 96 hours is this: per WP:EW, "A 'revert' means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part." This edit [59] was a partial revert of this edit [60]. If you can agree that this was wrong, I will reduce the block length to 24 hours based off the fact that it was only a partial revert and you were attempting to compromise much more than the other editor. Magog the Ogre (talk) 11:33, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Magog, you've got to be kidding me. By your definition of "revert", then any compromise text editing is a "revert". By your definition changing "and I saw the the horses" to "and I saw the horses" would be a "revert" and subject to a block. And 96 hours for a "partial revert"? Please read the resulting text of the paragraph in question carefully. It wasn't a revert since the substance of Turco85's content was still there. I removed some extraneous wording that had little to do with the actual content of the paragraph. But if you want to call it a revert, then OK, it's a "revert". I will call it a revert if you insist, but I will not call it "wrong" since it was an honest attempt at achieving a compromise text that maintained Turco85's content, but made it more neutral in tone. Even Kwami's analysis above showed that I was accepting Turco85's content save for the last sentence. That is the nature of proper Wikipedia editing, we work to achieve a text that is acceptable to both. Some editors will work well on the Talk Page, but Turco85 refused to work on the Talk Page before inserting text into the article. If you look at Kwami's later editing of the paragraph in question, you will notice that he completely rewrote it, so my very slight editing of Turco85's text cannot really be considered "wrong" since I was working with Turco85's text much more closely. I accepted the previous block with equanimity only questioning the duration because that had, indeed, descended into edit warring and I violated WP:3RR. But this one is unwarranted since I was working toward compromise. I think that your overliteral reading of WP:EW is incorrect in this case. I'll let you call it a "revert" if you insist, but what I did was not "wrong". Even you admit that I was attempting to compromise. If what you really want to hear is that I violated your overliteral reading of Wikipedia policy by "reverting" that is different than being "wrong". By your interpretation of Wikipedia's WP:EW policy, following your warning I partially "reverted" one of Turco85's reverts by eliminating one sentence and part of another and rewording some text in order to seek a compromise. Was that worth 96 hours? I've already served 24. --Taivo (talk) 12:30, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

TaivoLinguist (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

There was no revert following Magog's warning. There was a compromise edit that has since been completely rewritten by another admin. If a 96-hour block was for "edit warring after warning", then it is false. Read kwamikagami's analysis above--he does not call that edit a revert. Wilkins and Magog have simply ignored what happened after the warning and have not addressed the actual content of the edit--that it retained the other editor's content while adjusting wording. Wilkins and Magog have had interactions with me in the past and I don't trust their impartiality at this time. Would another admin, who has never had a previous interaction with me, please read the edit in question and kwamikagami's analysis and then determine whether that is worth a 96-hour block. Wilkins accuses me of "disruption", but since my edits to the article were accepted by the other editor as compromises and left in place, where is the disruption? --Taivo (talk) 19:36, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Accept reason:

I believe Taivo is good to his word above (1RR/BOLD re. Turko85). I made the offer before his request was refused above. I will make the same offer to the other editor. — kwami (talk) 05:39, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Personally I think that the block on the two editors was premature - it would have been better to wait and see, and only block one of them after a clear breach of the 3 revert rule.

I gave the other editor a 3 revert rule warning - but before he/she had a chance to react, the admin blocked both of them. This seemed unfair to both of them.

I had intended to give User:Taivo a similar warning message - but as far as I could tell he/she had only done one revert, so I did not think it appropriate to give him/her such a warning.

When Taivo's unblock is considered, please could consideration also be given to unblocking the other editor too.--Toddy1 (talk) 20:41, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Constituent (linguistics)#Phrase structure and dependency structure

Hi Taivo. There is some dispute about Constituent (linguistics)#Phrase structure and dependency structure (talkpage thread here) and I was wondering if you might be able to offer an outside opinion (if it's appropriate for me to ask). Best, rʨanaɢ (talk) 07:03, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Response from tjo3ya

Thank you for sharing your thoughts and experiences with me. I am indeed pondering what you write. In many cases, I would disagree with the evaluator who discounts work on Wikipedia as "a waste of time". Wikipedia is reaching an audience that dwarfs all other modes of media when it comes to the dissemination of ideas and knowledge (regardless of the quality of that knowledge). While you may forbid your students from citing Wikipedia, you can rest assured that they are reading it. It is simply too convenient and easy. It is certainly much easier than going to the library to check out a book. If a student comes across "bracketing paradox", for instance, he/she can call up the Wikipedia article in 5 seconds.

I am revising the section on constituency and dependency along the lines you suggest (but the trees are being included). I'll have it up on the discussion page in a couple of hours. Hopefully you can provide some feedback that will get us to consensus.

Best, Tim

P.S. I'd still like to know your identity.

While they may be looking at Wikipedia for simply answers, anything requiring citing in a paper should be from an authoritative source, of course. And you might be surprised at how much anti-Wikipedia prejudice is out there among our colleagues. Just be careful. --Taivo (talk) 20:40, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Tjo3ya, it's not very appropriate to repeatedly ask Wikipedia editors divulge their identity. On Wikipedia, arguments or article edits are judged by their own content and sources supporting them, not by the real-life credentials of the editor making them. No editor is required to divulge their identity. rʨanaɢ (talk) 15:48, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Patronizing

Taivo,

Your advice is patronizing, especially when it is unsolicited and appears on the main discussion page. You are more experienced at Wikipedia; that is obvious. But you apparently know nothing about DG, and you also have little oversight about what constituency tests tell us about constituent structure, otherwise you would have been more cautious and more knowledgable about how you characterized DG and the original section that is under dispute. Like Rjanag, you first seemed to claim that individual words are not necessarily constituents in phrase structure grammars. Further, your claim that "unimportance" vs. "importance" is due to a typo is ridiculous.

If you want to have a pissing contest, let's do it here on our talk pages. I will let you have the last word on the discussion page in this regard. My main interest is to reach a compromise. Hopefully you will not block the draft that has now been banged together.

Finally, if you are who you say are (e.g. an associate professor of linguistics who has taught in the Ukraine), then you probably have a significant body of knowledge that I could learn from, and conversely, I bet I have a significant background that might be beneficial for you (as a contact perhaps). In this regard, we should get over this dispute.

Best, Tim - 21:00, 5 January 2012[61]

So you never make typos, or change your thought in midsentence and fail to correct everything that went before to match it? Your ridiculous accusation is simply childish. And the original issue was not whether constituents can never be individual words, but your original wording that only individual words are constituents. Since you've reworded the text to clarify that all subnodes are also constituents, notice how that issue is gone now? --Taivo (talk) 22:14, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

But the real issue of my comment on the article talk page was about outing. Wikipedia takes this issue very, very seriously and I still don't think you've quite understood the consequences. --Taivo (talk) 22:27, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Macedonian

I'll block that editor if they continue to edit war at Macedonian, but I think the point is a good one. Yes, the hat note lets the reader know that the article is not about Ancient Macedonian, but the naive reader might still think there's a connection, just as there is between Ancient and Modern Greek, or Old English and Modern English. (Anyone who understands what "Paleo-Balkan" means wouldn't need the explanation anyway.) Also, a link to the classification section would bypass the hat note. IMO it would be a good idea to make it clear that the languages are not related, esp. as there as still pubs floating around claiming that they are. (Though I haven't seen that for a while: have the nationalists given up?) — kwami (talk) 12:48, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

As you are well aware, this is one of the articles that are very sensitive to nationalists, so anything must be sensitive. I think a repeated hatnote in the classification section will satisfy the Greeks without offending the Macedonians. --Taivo (talk) 12:50, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, a hat note just saying the article is about the modern language wouldn't address the claim that it descends from the ancient one. IMO we need to be clear that there is no connection. — kwami (talk) 12:57, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

That's where you get into the nationalist issues. The sentence must be extremely carefully worded. A Greek editor will make sure to denigrate the Macedonians and a Macedonian editor will make sure that the Macedonian claim to Greece is foremost. IstorMacedonian's text was inflammatory and pro-Greek. I'd rather see some discussion on the Talk Page and an agreement before anything is placed in the article. I'm gone today and can't write anything now or discuss until tomorrow. I've placed a hat note for now. --Taivo (talk) 13:00, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree that IstorMacedonian's wording was unacceptable. I was thinking of s.t. along the lines of 'no connection to Ancient Mac.' — kwami (talk) 13:44, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

That's probably fine although not exactly accurate since they're both Indo-European. Probably "no close relationship"? --Taivo (talk) 13:48, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I took your wording from the talk page.

BTW, I put in a move request at talk:Kolkata (to 'Calcutta') if you would like to comment. — kwami (talk) 02:00, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Taa phonology

Just saw your note at Taa language. Added a ref to the paper the inventory was taken from. — kwami (talk) 16:43, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

BTW, would you happen to have access to a source with the inventory of ǂHoan? I have the clicks from a couple sources, but no-one seems to bother with the rest of it. It's a rather important language for phonological typology. I would imagine Chris Collins has published s.t. — kwami (talk) 19:46, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I've never seen one. Like you, all I've ever seen is an inventory of the clicks and an article on syntax. But I've never seen anything more than that. But the references here and here look promising for the near future. --Taivo (talk) 20:53, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Bosnian language

Dear Taivo,

like you I am also an academic, in the natural sciences, and I hate to see Wikipedia abused as a vent for skewed nationalist politics. It is no surprise either that certain Serbs and some Croat currents oppose the separate identity and language of the Bosnian/Bosniak people; beliefs which inter alia culminated in the Srebrenica genocide in Bosnia 17 years ago. Regarding the issue of language, it is important to underline that Serbo-Croatian was constructed as a political umbrella term within former Yugoslavia strongly favoring Serb and Croat interests while leaving out the Bosniaks politically discriminated, also withdrawing their choice for "Bosnians/Bosniaks" in population censuses while instead introducing "Muslims by nationality". The bottom line is, historically, Serbo-Croatian is not a proper language or even a valid term any longer, however further (incorrect) use is fiercely pushed by Serb and Croat individuals as to undermine the actual validity of the Bosnian language, which is officially recognized as its own language and not as part of another. It is therefore highly incorrect and erroneous to maintain that "Bosnian is a form of Serbo-Croatian" as currently attempted by a number of editors. It may however be acceptable to write that Bosnian language is sometimes still refereed to as Serbo-Croatian, but only if stressing that this is unofficial, defunct and incorrect. I appreciate and hope for your help. Thank you.

Interestingly I just discovered that you are one of the individuals promoting the misleading mentioning of Serbo-Croatian in the Bosnian language article. This leaves me very disappointed given your supposed academic background. You are fundamentally mistaken that Serbo-Croatian is used in the English language as a name given to B/S/C. Nowhere is this considered accurate any longer (for which I can provide you with a heap of sources). Obviously the factual description of a language in a Wikipedia article should reflect the official conditions as opposed to unofficial contextual use. I also urge you to not underestimate my editorial capacity on Wikipedia, despite my lack of user account I have a previous editing history on Wikipedia stretching 7 years. And this battle should not be too difficult considering you are contending what is pretty much an axiom by now.

This is just nationalistic drivel. The truth is that Croatian, Serbian, Bosnian, and Montenegrin are nearly entirely mutually intelligible, all four standard languages are even based on a single dialect of Serbo-Croatian. They are "separate languages" by religio-nationalistic labels only, not by linguistic fact. "Serbo-Croatian" is the term most commonly used in English for the language that comprises the non-Slovenian West South Slavic dialects. --Taivo (talk) 23:18, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Block warning

Stop deleting sourced material, as you have at ǂHoan language, or I will ask to have you blocked. — kwami (talk) 11:24, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not "deleting sourced material", but rewording it to make it more linguistically acceptable and accurate. --Taivo (talk) 11:34, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

You don't know what you're talking about, Randy. Of the three languages you added, two are extinct and one is already mentioned. So we still have only two. Which is why we follow sources rather than engaging in OR. — kwami (talk) 11:59, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

LOL. "Extinct" isn't the issue. You're simply being inflexible and stubborn and refusing to admit when you have become fixated on an issue and not willing to see the forest for the tree. "You don't know what you're talking about"? LOL. You've told me yourself that you're not a linguist, therefore who doesn't know what they're talking about? --Taivo (talk) 12:01, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Of course 'extinct' is the issue. What else do you think the point of this discussion is? I've also never told you I'm not a linguist. — kwami (talk) 12:07, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

If you want to specify "living" then you must specify that if Miller does and then we can make the further comment that at least two other recently extinct languages also included them. And, yes, you told me recently in another exchange that you are not a linguist, but it doesn't matter to Wikipedia. But you still need to follow acceptable linguistic practices, which is not to get fixated on precise numbers. --Taivo (talk) 12:28, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

The present tense specifies that they are living languages. Otherwise Basque is not an isolate / is not the only isolate in Europe (depending on which sources you choose). Otherwise we are not the only member of our genus.

You misread or misremembered my statement.

Precise numbers are fine when we have precise numbers. Avoiding them out of some sense of false humility is not scientific, and is a disservice to our readers. — kwami (talk) 13:04, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Serbo-Croatian

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Croatian_language "Croatian is the collective name for the standard language and dialects spoken by Croats."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serbian_language "Serbian is a form of Serbo-Croatian spoken by Serbs." (this is not correct).

If Croatian is "the collective name for the standard language and dialects spoken by Croats", then "Serbian is the collective name for the standard language and dialects spoken by Serbs." Serbian language is much older than Serbo-Croatian, so it cannot be a form of Serbo-Croatian. Also, it is an official language in Serbia, Bosnia Herzegovina and Montenegro: http:/upwiki/wikipedia/commons/c/c0/Map_of_Serbian_language_-_official_or_recognized.PNG

Apparently you failed the read the whole first paragraph of Croatian language: "They are varieties of the Serbo-Croatian language, along with Serbian, Bosnian, and Montenegrin." --Taivo (talk) 20:21, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but seems nothing wrong in IP´s edit, as he didn´t removed any sourced content. Both languages have the same relation to Serbo-Croatian, so there is no reason for one to have a different intro from the other. FkpCascais (talk) 21:22, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

BTW, move request Talk:Yangon → Rangoon, if you're interested. "Yangon, Burma" is a little weird, IMO. — kwami (talk) 22:28, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello

Hi Taivo, first of all I'd like to wish you a happy new year. I am writing to you in regards to the language of the Iraqi Turkmens. First of all, do you have any objections to me writing in the info box of the Iraqi Turkmens that they use Istanbul Turkish for writing? Secondly, I believe that we should also clarify their language with the article: Languages of Iraq as it currently just says "south Azeri". Moreover, we should also do this in the article: Iraq. I look foward to hearing from you.Turco85 (Talk) 16:06, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

IP vandals

I really wish that you would place warning templates on the talk pages of IP vandals such as User talk:68.36.49.223 when you revert their edits. If you increment the warning templates, these people get blocked and go away for a while. You know perfectly well that their edits are vandalism, as shown in your edit summary at [62] Warning templates can be found at Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace.--Toddy1 (talk) 10:06, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I just forget about it when I see 10 articles to revert :p Sorry. --Taivo (talk) 11:10, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely not. These edits were not vandalism: WP:NOTVAND. You can warn for civility issues if they apply, but vandalism, not so much. Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:51, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

• This edit was not vandalism.[63]
• This edit was not vandalism either.[64] It was a polemic - this is English language Wikipedia; it should have been posted in English. As he/she made 8 such comments I asked him to stop posting polemical comments in a foreign language.
• This edit was vandalism.[65] The person from New Jersey has repeatedly made such edits under this and other IPs. He/she has been blocked for such edits before. He/she does understand that such edits are not OK, and that if he wants such changes made, he/she needs to persuade people to adopt them by using the talk page. He/she also understands that this is about as likely to happen as persuading people to drop all mention of Obama's presidency from Obama's biography. That is why he/she uses vandalism.--Toddy1 (talk) 07:31, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Did you read the link I gave? POV pushing, edit warring, stubbornness, and poor usage of sourcing aren't vandalism. Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:24, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Linguistics editors

Hi,

I've seen your comments on another user's talk page -- someone who has a particularly strong appetite for haphazardly editing linguistics articles and articles about languages and grammar yet who (if he even is a linguist) is consistently incorrect. He generally goes in and changes simple usable articles to his own opinion with huge numbers of strange examples that are usually either incorrect, incorrectly analyzed, or just have nothing to do with the topic at hand. Mostly though, as you've pointed out, he feels his right is to change the edits of others and to either revert to his versions without discussion, or to hijack every discussion (along with a couple of other editors each time) away from linguistics and toward some theory that every wikipedia article on linguistics should be based not on linguistics but rather on a consensus of which version is "correct" among wikipedia contributors who are not linguists and who admittedly have little more than lay knowledge of the topic being decided.

How this person has become an administrator I have no clue but I do truly believe (as a linguist and someone who is an expert on many of the things he is constantly altering) that unless some controls can be placed on him (and less so on the two or three others he seems to function in tandem with) that the very hard work linguists have put into giving language articles on wikipedia some semblance of accuracy and legitimacy (which were completely absent just a few years ago) shall be wasted and the quality of this website yet again lost.

I understand that wikipedia in general believes that expert opinions should not necessarily come from experts, but in the case of linguistics, when you have a majority of contributors and editors being admitted non-linguists, there's a serious problem. Drew.ward (talk) 05:05, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

SIL categorisation of NENA

Hello Taivo, I have serious concerns with the way SIL is being used in Wikipedia to categorise North Eastern Neo-Aramaic varieties. They show little understanding of the geographical and religious distribution of those dialects. Furthermore, I have read a number of books and articles by specialists none of which even mentions those names. Do you have any thoughts concerning this issue? Cambridge has an extensive project that can be used instead. Regards, Rafy talk 15:49, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

The problem with SIL is that it is a community effort in many ways. For language families (such as Semitic) where they do not have an active missionary presence, they are dependent on scholars from outside the organization to help them revise and amend both their own classification system and the ISO 639-3 coding system. They don't have dedicated staff for every language family in the world. With that said, if you know scholars who specialize in the Aramaic group, please encourage them to contact SIL and enter into a dialogue about revisions. As far as Wikipedia is concerned, we must rely on published sources for these kinds of issues. Until Cambridge publishes something, we have the SIL classification and categorization scheme. The international standard scheme is ISO 639-3 and that categorization scheme is administered by SIL with input from others. ISO 639-3 is our standard usage because it is being increasingly used by international organizations for coding language information and for libraries for cataloging their collections. So unless ISO 639-3 is changed, then that is the system we use. Scholars with knowledge of a better classification scheme work with SIL and the staff who administer ISO 639-3, then it can be amended. I have worked with them profitably on many occasions, but I am not an Aramaic specialist and there has been no detailed categorization of Aramaic varieties published to compete with the SIL scheme, so that's what ISO 639-3 uses. Wikipedia must profitably use ISO 639-3 since that is the most widely used standard for coding and categorization. --Taivo (talk) 17:17, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I see, we will probably have to wait for the next ISO update to see some improvements since more research have been done the last years. Would it be OK to state that these dialects simply correspond with existent ISO codes and do not necessarily reflect the actual distribution. For example I always wondered why does Koy Sanjaq Syriac language have its own standard since it is barely distinguishable from the dialect of Ankawa for example, which I assume belongs to Chaldean Neo-Aramaic, while Karemlesh and Bakhdida with their unique dialects are still with no apparent ISO code.--Rafy talk 17:29, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

That's probably a valid strategy--that these entries correspond with ISO 639-3 divisions and are being revised. I'd love to see a comprehensive reworking of the Aramaic varieties, but organizing 50 something different community varieties in a linguistically sound fashion must indeed be a daunting task. I didn't look closely, but these must also take into account the dialects in Israel. I assume that they are not ignoring those communities. --Taivo (talk) 21:34, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for you answer, I was thinking about writing articles on non-ISO NENA dialects which might not conform to the current standard and I though of asking a linguist before.--Rafy talk 13:11, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

If you have a recent linguistic source, it's fine to go with that instead of Ethnologue. We have many articles where ISO codes are combined or split up, and others where there is no ISO code at all (we even have a category for such articles: most of these are extinct with almost no documentation, but a few have simply been overlooked). There are also several hundred pending changes to Ethnologue, though I don't recall Aramaic among them. You could also check Multitree; they are not a reliable source, but they do sometimes assign sub-ISO3 codes (though not consistently). (There's also Linguasphere, but that would probably have been added in by now.) You also might want to write to the editor of Ethnologue and ask if they have revised their classification since E16, or what the source is for their existing classification. — kwami (talk) 04:20, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I will try and contact someone from Ethnologue. I wouldn't describe myself as someone wth an "academic" knowledge in linguistics, in real life I study Electronical Engineering so that wouldn't bring much credibility to me. However, as a native speaker I find the way Christian NENA dialects are categorised very confusing. I understand now that koy sanjaq and senaya acquired its ISO code because a researcher who published some works over them dialect was also affiliated with SIL. I have noticed that several books on NENA conform to the categorisation of the University of Cambridge found here. Here is another good reference which is more or less identical to the first one. Both sources are more reliable than Ethnologue imho--Rafy talk 21:41, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Consensus

The talk between 2 users is not a consensus ( or somebody can say it is consensus between 2 users).This is the reason why on this page polemics were non-stopped. Try to found real consensus (have a look at least to other interwiki, which solve this matter) instead to be a watchman on this page ( as I found on history of this page). 88.218.184.176 (talk) 09:59, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you need counting lessons? There are three users in that discussion (actually that is only the most recent consensus, it had been discussed before). And of those three discussants, one was Greek and two were neutral. All three agreed to the current ordering. Indeed, since it is YOU who are trying to change the consensus, it is YOU who must build a new consensus. On the Talk Page first. --Taivo (talk) 12:38, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Chadic languages

Just a heads up, there are no Chadic languages spoken in Chad. So don't revert the article on Chadic languages.

Wrong. I won't revert since Kwami got there first. --Taivo (talk) 06:05, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Undoing of my edit

Here, you undid an edit I made. While I agree with you that the stuff in the Book of Mormon is completely inaccurate and a load of hooey, I fear we can't say that not a single non-Mormon believes in its factuality...even if just one person in the entire world thought it, the statement as written would be inaccurate. Hence the word "virtually". As a historian, I avoid talking in unproven absolutes. Oh, and you also removed an "a" farther down the page that needed to be added. Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 01:08, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

As of this time, there is zero non-Mormon support in sources. Once I'm shown one non-Mormon source that supports it, then we can write "virtually", but as long as there are zero sources, then we can leave "virtually" out. It's about sources. --Taivo (talk) 03:14, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Another problem editor

Please could you keep an eye on the article on the Odessa Numismatics Museum, as it is coming under repeated attack, by a user who suffers from the "that is how you spell it in Ukrainian, so that is how you must spell it in English" fallacy.--Toddy1 (talk) 20:16, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution survey

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello TaivoLinguist. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click HERE to participate. Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 11:17, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Advise please

The article on Rinat Akhmetov starts as follows:

Rinat Leonidovych Akhmetov (Ukrainian: Рінат Леонідович Ахметов, Russian: Ринат Леонидович Ахметов, Tatar: Ренат Леонид улы Әхмәтов; born on 21 September 1966) is a Ukrainian businessman and oligarch.

But in Donetsk, his first name is spelled 'Renat' in English. Please can you advise on how to word this.--Toddy1 (talk) 11:34, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I would simply add "also known as Renat..." --Taivo (talk) 13:32, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks.--Toddy1 (talk) 13:42, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Jassic

Hi Taivo,

I found an ISO code for "Yassic", an extinct Iranian language of Hungary, that would presumably be Jassic. However, the date given on LingList is off by 800 years, and they have "Jassic" as a dialect of Ossete. LL often has multiple codes for a language from not recognizing alt spellings, but the date would require a separate error. Any idea? — kwami (talk) 05:31, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

The LL date is simply wrong. They probably meant something like "extinct in the 15th century", but typed 5 instead of 15. The Magyars didn't even enter the Alföld until 896, so the 5th century date isn't even possible. "Yassic" and "Jassic" (j = [j] in Hungarian) are the same thing. --Taivo (talk) 06:29, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, I recognized they were the same name, but there could have been more than one people called by that name. And "Hungary" could have meant where modern Hungary is, well before the Magyar arrived. But this should be certain enough. — kwami (talk) 06:37, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

LL has corrected the error. — kwami (talk) 06:51, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Ignorant tag remover

STOP REMOVING TAGS !!! [66] Only because you cannot imagine, you have no right to remove this! HTML2011 (talk) 12:58, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Any editor can remove a tag if he feels it should go. No single editor "owns" Wikipedia. HammerFilmFan (talk) 17:51, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Akkadian influence on modern Arabic varieties

Arabic dialects of many words borrowed from the ancient Semitic languages In fact, the main difference between standard Arabic and Arabic dialects is the result of Arabic dialects influenced by the ancient Semitic languages Or that most speakers of modern Arabic Semites are descendants of Arabists. Ashrf1979 (talk) 09:23, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Akkadian went extinct about 1000 BCE. You've got to prove that the "ancient Semitic" language of 1000 BCE somehow influenced the Arabic dialects 1500 years later. And that influence would have been on Pre-Classical Arabic anyway, not on the modern dialects, so adding these things to the entries on the modern dialects isn't relevant. --Taivo (talk) 12:22, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

The words that I chose is not used in classical Arabic,I think that the history of Akkadian language extinction is not 1000 BC. Because in the fourth century AD Nestorian monk from Iraq visited the Beth Qatraye , He said the South Beth Qatraye There monastery of 200 monks read their prayers in Chaldean. Nestorian monk knows the difference between Arabic and Aramaic and Chaldean. I have read this information in an article in Arabic about the history of Assyrian Church I know you probably do not speak Arabic, but perhaps can translate. وفي القرن الرابع الميلادي أنشأ عبد يشوع الناسك في جنوبي قطر ديراً باسم مار توما، زاره نحو سنة 390 م مار يونان الناسك أحد تلاميذ مار أوجين، فوجده آهلاً بمئتي راهب. فأقام فيه ثمة مدة يقضي الصلوات مع الرهبان بالكلدانية*30. http://www.kaldaya.net/2012/Articles/02/12_Feb04_NoriMando.html Ashrf1979 (talk) 09:53, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Akkadian evolved into Babylonian and Assyrian and both were extinct as spoken languages by the 6th century BCE. The Assyrian church has NOTHING to do with ancient Assyrian and the Akkadian language. The modern Assyrian language is a variety of Aramaic, as is Chaldean. It's not my job to read your Arabic. It's your job to find an English translation. --Taivo (talk) 13:29, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

وفي القرن الرابع الميلادي أنشأ عبد يشوع الناسك في جنوبي قطر ديراً باسم مار توما، زاره نحو سنة 390 م مار يونان الناسك أحد تلاميذ مار أوجين، فوجده آهلاً بمئتي راهب. فأقام فيه ثمة مدة يقضي الصلوات مع الرهبان بالكلدانية*30. سير الشهداء والقديسين الأب بولس بيجان ج 1 ص 486 _ 488 (In the fourth century hermit Abdeshua founded Monastery in the south Beth Qatraye the name of St. Thomas It Was Visited in the year 390 by St. Younan hermit one pupils of Saint Eugene he found 200 a monks at the monastery where he settled for praying with them in Chaldean) Ashrf1979 (talk) 18:46, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Chaldean is NOT Akkadian. It is Aramaic. --Taivo (talk) 19:19, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

What proves that the Chaldean is not a dialect of Akkadian language Perhaps these monks Descendants of the Chaldean priests They used the Chaldean language in worship Because Strabo spoke of the Chaldean exiles from Babylon who live in the city of Gerhae located south of QatifAshrf1979 (talk) 07:20, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

The valid majority of reliable scholarly sources. Any other questions? HammerFilmFan (talk) 14:58, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Help at Russian phonology

A little birdie told me that you might be able to contribute to the discussion at Russian phonology. There's some dispute about consonant clusters in Russian. Since the talk page may evoke a WP:TLDR glaze in your eyes, here are the main areas of contention between myself and the other user involved, Dale Chock

• Are the tables of permissible consonant clusters relevant/notable? I think they are, Dale thinks they're trivial.
• What are the limitations of consonant clusters? I'm having trouble verifying that more than four consonants is permissible.

I must warn you that Dale has a habit of focusing his comments on contributors rather than on content and has a generally harsh tone. But if you can help out, I would greatly appreciate it. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 01:07, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Curonian

Hi Taivo,

An editor is telling me that Curonian is too poorly known for us to even be able to classify it as Baltic or Finnic. There may be a problem with sourcing there, but we have a potentially bigger problem: the Curonian grammar article. Obviously, if it had Baltic inflections, as that article shows, it was a Baltic language, but I notice the grammar is "reconstructed", based partly on "New Curonian", which suggests that perhaps someone invented a grammar for it to prove it was Baltic. Do you know anything about this? — kwami (talk) 07:02, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

As far as I know, the "Curonian grammar" is pure hypothetical baloney. There isn't enough of Curonian to say anything about grammar and it looks like the inventor was a Baltic POV pusher promoting "Baltic purity" perhaps. The article Curonian grammar should either be deleted as Fringe or clearly labelled as such. There are no references listed so it may even qualify as WP:OR. But OR or not, it's a fantasy to think that we can say anything at all about Curonian when the only evidence is substrate data. The supporters of that article should either put up their sources or let the article go away. --Taivo (talk) 10:27, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I nominated it for deletion. --Taivo (talk) 10:40, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I deleted it. If there's anything to it, we can always resurrect it. — kwami (talk) 10:46, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Oceanic

The reason I deleted was that we have that info (their classification) in the sub-articles. If we give all the details for them, we should probably give all the details for the other classification too, and with a family of 500 languages, that quickly becomes unmanageable.

We should probably merge some of the sub-articles, though. Any ideas on which we should keep, and which not? — kwami (talk) 00:59, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Civility

Hi,

Editors are wrong sometimes. It's OK to correct them, but please refrain from calling them "idiots".

Thank you for understanding. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 06:56, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Dravidian languages

Mr. Tavio might be a Assistant professor in linguistics, but it does not seem that you know something about dravidian languages. I am not a stupid to post all the dravidian languages are derived from tamil. Want to learn more, do some research or come down to south india and you will get to learn something with evidences around.I help you to get trace and my friend is also a linguistic. Give me chance to teach you also some be behavioral to not to call others comment as "Idiot"--Karthiksabaasha (talk) 07:04, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Kathirksabaasha, you clearly don't know any linguistics since you make comments like "all the Dravidian languages are derived form Tamil". This is simply bad linguistics. Actually, it is "non-linguistics" and totally unscientific and no self-respecting Dravidian scholar (a linguist, not a nationalist propagandist) would make any such comment. (And I mean ACTUAL linguists, like Krishnamurti [The Dravidian Languages (2003, Cambridge)], ["Telugu" The Dravidian Languages (1998, Routledge, 202-240)]; and Ramanarasimham ["Old Telugu" The Dravidian Languages (1998, Routledge, 181-201)]). Telugu, like Tamil, is descended from Proto-Dravidian, the ancestor language of all the Dravidian languages, not from "Tamil" or any of the other extant Dravidian languages. --Taivo (talk) 12:24, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

As you said I will be back soon with strong proof. Thank you.--Karthiksabaasha (talk) 13:07, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

There is no scientific linguistic proof for anything you have written at Telugu language. Zero. If you continue to add unscientific nonsense to that article you will continue to be reverted. Unless you learn the difference between science and stupid nationalistic nonsense, that is. --Taivo (talk) 14:04, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

He'll be gone for a long, long time I fear, searching for 'strong proof.'  :-D HammerFilmFan (talk) 15:00, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Dravidian languages

Hi Tavio, NeilN has given me time & chance to prove that all the Dravidian languages are derived from Tamil only. This is not a nationalistic nonsense but the truth. As you are authorized in the position to revert or warn someone putting irrelevant/ unknown unproven messages, you should try to ask them to prove their message with proper evidence, if they don't, then all you can do is to just abandon the user and not to keep on using the terms Non-Sense, stupid or idiots over them. I stopped adding things on Telugu since I got reverted thrice and I am following NeilN. Soon I will prove that I am right. All you have to watch whether Am I bringing proper evidence or not. Not to scold me. Stop your messages over me. Just Wait and see. Hope you understand. "Not everyone is Right and Not everyone is Wrong too" Behave yourself.--Karthiksabaasha (talk) 15:34, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, until you provide such proof, Taivo is right in reverting you. — kwami (talk) 16:25, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Tavio. Now I know the rules and regulations of Wikipedia clearly. As I requested earlier, try to speak up politely, Erase the intention from your brain that I am forcing some thing. I was doing that without knowing Wiki's rules and regulations properly. You just wait and see and I am not going to edit something on the main page. OK. Otherwise, I am just querying things to NeilN.--Karthiksabaasha (talk) 04:06, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for that buddy. Will spell your name properly hereafter.--Karthiksabaasha (talk) 04:27, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

JUST BE PATIENCE

Taivo. Please be patience. Bhadriraju Krishnamurti, Sanford B. Steever are not only in this world to prove about dravidian language. Ok I tell you in brief. Bhadriraju krishnamurti is not from Tamil and he has hidden some truth. Sanford B Steever is not even basically from India. Tell me one thing clearly, why are you being so enthusiastic to come against me after all I accept my mistake of editing on the main page. WAIT AND SEE. --Karthiksabaasha (talk) 04:43, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

So you have now made clear that you have a political agenda to push--since the number one Dravidian scholar in the whole world is not Tamil, but Telugu, then you will discount his learned opinion, even though every historical linguist on the planet considers him to be one of the most important voices in the study of the Dravidian languages. It doesn't matter one bit whether a scholar is Telugu or Tamil or American or Tahitian or Swahili. If they are among the most important Dravidian specialists in the world, then that is all that matters. I can tell right now that you are going to bring forward garbage political sources that are pushing a Tamil political agenda in the disguise of "science". There are no more reliable sources than the two works which I have cited, which are cited by virtually every Dravidian specialist. I assure you that for every Tamil political source you cite, I will have ten scientific sources that will back up the simple fact that Tamil, Telugu, Tulu, Kannada etc. all descend from Proto-Dravidian and not from "Tamil". And the reason I am trying to discourage you from this unscientific course you have set for yourself is that it is a waste of everyone's time every time that an unscientific non-linguist like yourself comes along to push a political agenda or repeat the political propaganda that he was taught in school. You simply have nothing scientific to offer and it will take time to convince you that you have nothing scientific to offer. --Taivo (talk) 05:40, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Dônđäc

Hi Taivo,

We have a problem at Dônđäc. It started with that silly founder-effect article in Science. There was an equally silly reply, which attempted to show that SE Asia has greater phonemic diversity than Africa, by removing the simplifications of WALS. They may have abandoned WALS's attempt at keeping the sample representative, but more worryingly, they double count tones in Asian languages, and count allophones as phonemes at least in this one case. (There are 20 Dônđäc vowel qualities, but some occur only in open syllables, and others only in checked syllables, just like the tones.) The authors of the paper never claim that this is the largest vowel inventory in the world, but that's what it's being made out to be in the article. (They also do not provide their sources.) Unfortunately, the link we used to have for Dônđäc vowels has gone dead, we never had a proper ref, and I don't know where to retrieve it. [found the link. will work on it.] — kwami (talk) 18:20, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Kwami, I'm away from home until Monday, so don't have ready access to many references and not a lot of time to dabble. But if there is still a problem on Monday, I'll jump in with both feet. There are always problems when non-specialists misinterpret the UPSID or WALS databases and draw absolute conclusions based on only representative data bases. --Taivo (talk) 23:27, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I think it's okay now. I expanded the article based on the recovered link, and archived it for future reference. — kwami (talk) 05:33, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, maybe not. Since Dônđäc (Jinhui) has different vowel qualities in open and closed syllables, there are 20 allophones, and the editor is insisting that this means it has the largest inventory in the world. There is a Science article that repeats the 20-vowel claim without noting this, but AFACT they don't claim it's the largest in the world. — kwami (talk) 21:09, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Charles F. Voegelin

I just realized his article was a miserable stub - which was a shame. Do you perhaps know of any good biographical sources about him?·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:35, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Um, Maunus, is this where you really wanted to post this question? --Taivo (talk) 17:41, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Nope, I must have clicked on the wrong link to your talkpage. :) Moving there/here. Sorry!·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:49, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I know that when he died an obituary and bibliography appeared in the Bulletin of the Society for the Study of the Indigenous Languages of the Americas. There might have been a bio in one (or all) of these: Language, International Journal of American Linguistics, Anthropological Linguistics. --Taivo (talk) 18:54, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Here's the info on the one in American Anthropologist. --Taivo (talk) 18:56, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks - meanwhile I'd found Kinkade's obituary in AA, but I can't find the SSILA one or one from SLA. If you have a chance to read my expansion for errors it'd be great. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:00, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Vandals

Please try to template vandals when you revert them. It helps get them blocked.--Toddy1 (talk) 17:06, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I always forget. It's usually about 4 in the morning when I'm doing my vandal pruning :p --Taivo (talk) 17:27, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Burushaski

Yes, the name is "Burushaski", but "Burushaski language" is redundant, isn't it? Or should we maybe have "Burushaski people" as well? — kwami (talk) 02:14, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

There are a whole lot of language names in English that include the morpheme "language" in the native name, so I wouldn't spend two seconds worrying about the "redundancy". (Probably half of the common English names for languages in South America fall into this category.) English speakers don't know that "-ki" means "language", so "Burushaski language" isn't redundant in English. --Taivo (talk) 03:02, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

'nationalistic vandalism'

Could you stop painting this as a war against nationalism? It's a linguistic, and even common use dispute; no need to escalate this over a single letter.--Львівське (говорити) 06:05, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Interesting Interview with a Linguist Re; Ukrainian Language

Posted this on the UKrainian language talkpage; thought you might be interested: [67].Faustian (talk) 13:39, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Very interesting article about Surzhyk. Thanks for the link :) --Taivo (talk) 18:07, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

please have a look at Classification-Korean language

Someone's been mucking this up with 'Altaic' hypotheses while the entire section ignores that linguists overwhelmingly consider it an isolate. Needs expert adjustment. You, Kwami, etc.? Thanks. HammerFilmFan (talk) 14:37, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Most of the text was fine, but the "Language Isolate" position has been de-emphasized. I re-emphasized it. --Taivo (talk) 15:28, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

What do you think of Template:Altaic languages? It is placed on the bottom of all five linked articles, and previously a lot more. I think it's an attempt to normalize the "Altaic" classification as fact. If not TfD'd away altogether, shouldn't it at least be removed from the Korean and/or Japonic articles? Shrigley (talk) 16:53, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed it. If someone proposes a TfD, I'll probably support it, although there may be some legitimate arguments to support it even though it is hypothetical. --Taivo (talk) 17:26, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

Thanks for keeping Reformed Egyptian in your radar. John Foxe (talk) 18:55, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Citation formatting

The formatting of a citation has nothing to do with whether it is a publication or not, using a citation template is simply the preferred way of citing any source in wikipedia, also those that are not formal publications - because it makes it easier to format and link to by using different link generating syntax in the articles. Also, PhD dissertations do count as "publications" in regards to Wikipedia because they are both reviewed and generally available to the public - in this sense they are neither primary sources nor selfpublished. The only good argument not to format the dissertation in a citation template is that the other citations aren't formatted that way- but it would make more sense to format those as well. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:51, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

If a source is being cited multiple times in an article, there are advantages to formatting a citation, but when a source isn't cited even once, and other identical sources in the biblio are not formatted, then there is a problem. --Taivo (talk) 16:31, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

And, actually, had the editor who reformatted Lamb's dissertation actually reformatted all the references, I probably wouldn't have noticed. But when he/she reformatted only one out of three, that always looks suspicious. --Taivo (talk) 17:16, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Suspicious of what? That is how wikipedia progresses - little by little.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:42, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm a little confused as to how exactly dissertations are not publications. Is there an AGF issue here? — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 20:33, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Publications are published by a publisher for wide distribution--that's what "published" means. Dissertations are not written for wide distribution and not distributed. Granted, some are posted on the internet and most are available on-demand through University Microfilms or ProQuest, but they were not produced with that in mind, while publications were. There is a very clear distinction in academia between publications and dissertations. I've met Sydney Lamb and his dissertation is highly respected in the field (I've read it several times and list it regularly in bibliographies), but it's still not published. And "suspicious" is probably not exactly the right word, but why would an editor reformat only one reference that is identical to the reference right next to it and is not referenced anywhere else in the article? While there isn't anything "criminal" about having two identical references that look different from one another, it's not consistent and looks amateurish. --Taivo (talk) 20:49, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Maybe he just had four minutes before getting on a plane? Or he planned to do all of it but his daughter fell down the stairs and he had to take her to the hospital. Or his wife called and said dinner was served and then he forgot what he was doing. If we start reverting stuff that is actually helpful because it could have been even more helpful then we have a long way to go. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:02, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I can certainly sympathize with these reasons, but if that happened to me and someone reverted my half-done editing, I would have no complaints. We want our encyclopedia to look as nice as possible and half-done work should be reverted until it is completed (unless, of course, there is a note on the Talk Page that says, "I'm working on it and will get it finished as soon as possible"). And this particular edit wasn't "helpful" in the sense that it improved anything in the article. It was simply a formatting change without any other improvement. And since it made two identical references right next to each other on the same page look different with different formatting, then it's arguable whether "helpful" is the correct adjective. I assume good faith on the editor's part, but that doesn't always mean "helpful". As I said above, had the editor reformatted everything so that there was consistency in appearance, I wouldn't have said anything. But half-done work that is only cosmetic isn't an improvement. --Taivo (talk) 21:08, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I hope that my recent revert is an improvement. If we decide to expand the article we can use those references as linked in line references just by adding the ref=harv parameter. This is really useful for long articles so that the reader can just click on the inline parenthetical short reference (Lamb 1958) and it will take him to the full title. You can see how nicely it works in Totonacan languages. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:17, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Looks fine to me and is consistent. Thanks. (I don't use the templates because it's just another piece of technology that I can live without.) --Taivo (talk) 21:21, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

removed a suspect reference in the Indus Valley Civ lang (Harappan) article

Hello Taivo and Kwami,

While I am by profession a nuc. eng/elec. eng., I minored in history and have made that my major hobby in retirement. I would never claim to be anything even remotely approaching an expert in any linguistics field, but I've read quite a bit on the history of various civilizations, and can often 'smell a rat' with some of these edits on Wiki.

I removed a drive-by addition in this article that referenced the Tamil language as related to the language spoken by the Indus River civilization because the reference was a private paper (Word doc) on a website.

If I have erred, please replace it. It was added in March 2012 to the article. Thanks. HammerFilmFan (talk) 22:08, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Great Andamanese language names

The language is called both Cari or "Aka-Cari" in references. Now "Aka-Cari" would be acceptable but is is not English, and "Aka-Cari language" is silly (like "Rio Amazonas River" or "Pulau Karimun Island"). Please return it to "Cari language". Ditto for the other nine. All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 07:06, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

No, you don't seem to understand. We use the common name found in English. The majority of linguistic sources on these languages include "Aka(r)" in the name, Aka-Bea, Akar-Bale, etc. It doesn't matter one tiny bit that "Aka(r)" means "language" in that language. We only care about the common English name and the most common forms used for these languages in English sources includes the prefix. If you want a list of references to prove this to you, I'll provide them, but we go by the names found in English. Half the language names in South America also include morphemes that mean "language" or "speech", but we don't remove those either. We use the language names most commonly found in English sources and most recognizable to English speakers using Wikipedia. Even ISO 639-3 uses the A-Pucikwar, Akar-Bale, and Aka-Bo forms. The evidence is simply conclusive that these prefixes are part of the English common names for these languages. I will not change them back. If you think you have a point, then initiate a Request for Move and I'll assemble the evidence that will prove this to you. --Taivo (talk) 07:18, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I have better things to do. All the best. --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 07:24, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Boa Senior

In the obituary [68] she is called "Boa Senior". I believe it is important to spell it out, both because it is standard WP practice ("Mount Everest" never "Mt. Everest") and because it is not obvious what "Sr." stands for (could be another language, abbrev name, etc.). All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 07:12, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

The obituary is wrong. If you read all the actual materials written about Boa Sr. it is ALWAYS written Sr. We had this discussion a couple of years ago when she died and the consensus was to use Sr. and not spell it out. At no point is this spelled out. It should remain Sr. I don't know where that obituary comes from, but it's just a .pdf on a website and not from a reliable source. --Taivo (talk) 07:18, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Just for reference, this is the place we discussed her name. --Taivo (talk) 07:29, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

And,also for reference, here are some legit sources with the spelled out name:

• Boa Senior dies at 85, and with her a language and a culture, Digital Journal
• Last speaker of ancient language of Bo dies in India, BBC News
• Ancient Andaman tribe dies out, Al Jazeera
• With Boa die tribe & tongue Demise of Andaman lady marks end of a society, The Telegraph, Calcutta
• 65,000-YEAR-OLD LANGUAGE GOES EXTINCT, Discovery News
• Ancient Indian language dies out, By Alastair Lawson, BBC News
• Boa Senior, la dernière à parler la langue « Bo », vient de mourir, RFI
• The day Bo died, Polyglossic blog
• Vanquished voices, The Hindu magazine
• Save dying languages..., The New Indian Express
• Bo tribe extinct, Radio Netherlands Worldwide
• One year after extinction of Bo, Andaman tribe in danger, Thaindian News
• Ancient tribe dies out in India's Andaman islands, The Times of Earth
• Volksstam Andamanen volledig uitgestorven na overlijden laatste stamlid, Survival International

and many more... Enjoy ;-) --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 08:03, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

All of these sources are basically one and the same source--the obituary of Boa Sr. and not independent sources. One source repeated over and over in the world's media is not multiple sources. Here is the definitive source for the life of Boa Sr.: [69]. Dr. Abbi never spells out "Sr." If, however, you feel strongly about spelling out "Senior", then initiate a Move Request at Boa Sr. and we can discuss it and get other viewpoints. --Taivo (talk) 08:13, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Again, thanks, I will go play somewhere else. All the best (really), --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 08:20, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I would also point out that we don't spell out "Jr." or "Sr." as a rule anyway: Martin Luther King Jr.. --Taivo (talk) 11:05, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Little Russia

Please could you have a look at the article on Little Russia. I think it needs reviewing by someone with a broader perspective than I have.--Toddy1 (talk) 12:48, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

why dıd you undo my contrıbutıon?

Akselwikia (talk) 19:48, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I undo many contributions that are unsourced or pushing a POV. Where was your edit? I don't read minds. --Taivo (talk) 19:50, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Invite to WikiProject Indigenous languages of California

Hello! I've seen you around on Indigenous languages of California articles ... Would you consider becoming a member of WikiProject Indigenous languages of California, a WikiProject which aims to expand and improve coverage of Indigenous languages of California on Wikipedia? Please feel free to join us. --Djembayz (talk) 14:22, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Taivo is vandalizing user´s suggestions on talk pages

On what grounds have you deleted name suggestions for "famous Ukrainians?" in section culture and statesmen? You should apologize and restore before I will report your vandalism activities.

85.220.91.50 (talk) 10:23, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

You "name suggestions" were hidden in extended anti-Russian rants that are inappropriate in Wikipedia. I told you on that page how to proceed--slowly, one-by-one, without the politicization of every individual, with our primary users' interests foremost in mind. --Taivo (talk) 15:23, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for defending me this past week. I appreciate it.

BTW, someone has for the 2nd time edited Dahalo language and Aweer language to claim that there is ling evidence of the origin of both; I dn know about Aweer, but it's not a ling source, and AFAIK the claim that Aweer has clicks is nonsense, so the whole thing's a bit dubious. (Non-ling sources s.t. use 'click' for 'ejective'.) Would appreciate if you could keep your eye on them.

Am cutting back, but there are still a few Randies I want to resolve, and this could end up being another. — kwami (talk) 20:18, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. I've put both of them on my watchlist. --Taivo (talk) 01:30, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Amendment request declined

This is a courtesy notification that an amendment request you were named in has been declined.

For the Arbitration Committee, Lord Roem (talk) 17:32, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

ISO 639

I shouted to get his attention. I don't know where the discussion is now. -- Evertype·✆ 11:24, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I know. The discussion has moved to here. Kwami has agreed that the ISO 639-3 link should go to the ISO 639-3 official code page and that it should not redirect to either Ethnologue or LinguistList and that the "maintenance" wording was incorrect. Thanks for your valuable support in ensuring that Kwami understood that neither Ethnologue nor LinguistList have any official role in assigning or maintaining ISO 639-3. I'm sure that some of the wording on Ethnologue's site is confusing, but as you and I know, the official wording at at the ISO 639-3 site is, well, official, and overrides anything that either Ethnologue or LinguistList might say. --Taivo (talk) 11:53, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

question

Hey,

Any idea what "open-rounded (labialized)" and "close-rounded (labialized)" refer to? Superscript œ indicates the former in the Ext-IPA, but I can't find anything that defines the terms. Don't know if it's the degree of aperture, or a synonym for endo- or exo-labial. — kwami (talk) 07:38, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

It's an interesting use of "open" and "closed". It's certainly not standard and not well-defined. It apparently refers to the size of the labial aperture, but, as I said, it's certainly not standard. Sometimes phoneticians get into the hyperactive mode of trying to rigidly label every single variant of a phone rather than letting the big picture be clear and uncluttered. --Taivo (talk) 18:28, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

It's from speech pathology, so it may be important there. Was wondering if it might be useful for regular speech. — kwami (talk) 00:55, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Ah. Phonetics for speech pathology is a whole different animal from linguistic phonetics. I had to teach a class one semester in phonetics for speech pathology. I had to unlearn and relearn a whole bunch of things for that class. --Taivo (talk) 04:24, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Mind keeping an eye on Zotung language, Cushitic languages, and Lowland East Cushitic languages? — kwami (talk) 23:58, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Added to my watchlist. --Taivo (talk) 13:40, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

And East Cushitic, South Cushitic (plus any comments if you like).

And Old Azeri. It never ends! — kwami (talk) 18:27, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

... Potwari

and Lahnda languages (same 'panjistani' stuff breaking links)

The IPs making those edits typically do have a dozen at once at articles like Western Panjabi language, Jhelum, etc.

Hamari Boli = Hindi-Urdu Reinvented!

Guardian of Hamari Boli

Most sincere gratitude for your invaluable contributions to Hindi-Urdu related articles on English Wikipedia. Forever indebted to you -and wikipedia of course- for telling it like it is.. Amazing how you never gave up and went thru all the troubles dealing with zealots. Bravo! You're one of the inspirations that led to the genesis of http://www.HamariBoli.com edge.walker (talk) 21:59, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Have you seen

the discussion at ANI which in part relates to the misleading use of Kramer as in the one you just reverted? Dougweller (talk) 20:55, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Can't remember heading, I think it starts with an attack on Kurdo777 who in fact has been removing the Kramer ref as false. Dougweller (talk) 21:08, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Please see here: [70]..the user is adamant about Sumerian being Turkish.. should wikipedia tolerate users who use multiple socks to put fringe views?--96.255.251.165 (talk) 22:38, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Sumerian language.. Can you please clean that fringe section. I suggest we really do name it "fringe theories" or "controversial non-academically accepted theories" --96.255.251.165 (talk) 03:08, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Ancient Macedonian language

Please take time to have a look at the recent changes made to the section of "Ancient Macedonian as Hellenic language" on the Talk page of Ancient Macedonian language. I ask you to inform me on your views, concerns and your assumption. Itisonlyone (talk) 00:33, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Kafka and German translation

Hi Taivo. I was wondering if you might be interesting in helping on Franz Kafka, the discussion is here: Talk:Franz_Kafka#Syntax. The part of the article it is talking about is Franz_Kafka#Translation_problems_to_English. We'd like to get this article to FA. Thank you.PumpkinSky talk 02:30, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Multiple sock users messing up multiple pages

Hi, the same guy that was vandalizing Sumerian language a while back [71] has managed to damage multiple pages including Tarkhan (see analysis of the sources he inserted in the talkpage), Turkic peoples, Gok Turks, Nart Saga, and Khatun with flimy linguistic theories. He either uses fringe sources, or manipulates sources or sources that have no speciality (like American heritage dictionary rather than say Peter Golden..).. Here is his new ip: [72]. I was wondering if you can fix these pages. I am not going to continously bother with such a user [73] who is adding all these sorts of fringe theories. Thank you --96.255.251.165 (talk) 20:02, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

"No meandering rivers"

[74] I have seen such "meandering rivers" be the reason to delete more general categories if one of its subcategories is present on a page on different (less sensitive) topics present in Wikipedia. If you insist that Category:Serbo-Croatian language be directly accessible from the pages about its standards forms (which I would understand), could you please add it to Croatian language, Bosnian language, and Serbian language? --JorisvS (talk) 23:14, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, TaivoLinguist. You have new messages at Talk:Montenegrin language.
Message added 00:46, 6 September 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Altaic colouration

Hi! Kwamikagami and I were having a discussion here about the infobox colouration of Altaic languages, and we were wondering your take on the matter. Given that Altaic is such a contentious classification, I was wondering if it wouldn't be a better idea to use different infobox colourations for the various constituent families rather than giving undue weight to the Altaic hypothesis by using one colour for it. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 03:14, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikimedia Indigenous Languages

Good day, I saw your contributions on the subject of Native American languages and would like to invite you to the recently created Wikimedia Indigenous Languages, an international body to promote and support the use of small and endangered languages on Wikimedia projects. Thanks, Amqui (talk) 20:15, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

congratulations on your elevation to "Taiko" by user AurgelmirCro ......

What will you do now that you are supreme retired regent of the Japanese armies?  :-) (I advise using the Samurai in attacking the Balkan nationalists who continue to drive us crazy on those talk pages-oh, if were only that easy!)HammerFilmFan (talk) 15:07, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Punjabi

Hi you are repeatedly changing the edits of these two dialects of Punjabi, i can speak both of them along with standard punjabi because i am native speaker of these dialects. u keep classifing them as Lehnda instead of my continous edits as Punjabi..for your kind information Lehnda is Punjabi word for westeren dialects of Punjabi...How can any forigner language expert who cant speak these dialects can classify them as an separate language only on the basis of 200 to 300 word comparison..there is only 10% minor changes in between and each dialect speaker can very easily communicate with other dialect speaker...these all dialects are mutually understandable...i have put a table in the support which is only high lighting the few differences in words in these 3 dialects....IF YOU HAVE ANY FURTHER OBJECTION THEN EITHER learn these dialects then challenge my edits OR classify AUSTRAILIAN, US , BRTISH, South African english as different languages...GOD HELP YOU — Preceding unsigned comment added by LanguageXpert (talk • contribs) 17:13, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

You need sources to support your claims, because other native speakers say just the opposite. Several editors are reverting you, not just me, because you have not proven your claim. (For that matter, Panjabi and Hindi transition into each other as well: Does that mean Panjabi is a dialect of Hindi?) You may very well be right, but we still need sources. — kwami (talk) 17:17, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Reply to KWAMI....wt is the authencity of a reference if i provide...a book then wt is the dame guarentee that book is a true reflection of reality..STILL i m providing u reference....Book name: 3 HINDUSTANI LANGUAGES Page 99 Author: Doctor K S BEDI...Book name: PUNJABI LISANIYAT (LANGUISTIST) Page 142 Author: Shehbaz Malik...Book name: SHORT HISTORY OF PUNJABI LITERATURE Page 17 Author: Qureshi Ahmed Hussain..Book name: URDU IN PUNJAB Page 76 Author: Hafiz Mehmood Shirani....i challenge u to research by learning these dialects (NOT LANGUAGES) and then analyse my claim...Problem wid 1920 research by geirison (A FOREIGN WHO CANT SPEAK THESE) were that he compared 200 words list of EASTEREN punjab's (INDIAN PUNJAB) punjabi which is full of SANSIKRAT with.... ARABIC PERSION MIXED SAREIKI and HINKO...bt reality has changed after india pakistan creation....now LAHORE's STANDARD punjabi is full of ARABIC PERSION WORDS so if we compare all three dialects then only difference is future tense....so sir,dialects exist for every languages... as i mentioned AUSTRAILIAN, US , BRTISH, South African english so dont classify a dialect as an language......THANX

These aren't reliable scientific linguistic works and your "personal knowledge" is also not a valid reliable source. The actual linguistic literature is fairly consistent in its classification. --Taivo (talk) 19:26, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Your continual edit warring is unacceptable Wikipedia behavior. If you want to convince other editors of your position then stop edit warring, go the Talk Pages of the article, discuss the issue, and build a consensus for the changes. Edit warring is doing nothing to promote your position. --Taivo (talk) 19:30, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

TBBT

Thanks for chipping into the argument with aussieguy on the Raj debunkle. I wish I hadnt started it now, I cant believe, in this day and age of all that going on in the world that people like him are so bothered about such a minor fact that they think must NOT be included into the precious article, they should get a life. Like you said, this aint no great work. It aint going to be carved into stone, it may aswell be carved into sawdust in a windy room for all its worth!! thanks 4 the input and good editing. Markdarrly (talk) 02:07, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Serbo-Croatian map

Historical Atlas of the World, ed. by R. R. Palmer (Yale University) [assisted by six others from separate universities], Rand McNally, ç1965 - page 30 'Languages of Europe 13th Century' - copyright violations aside, it would be wonderful to be able to use this. The resulting torrent of POV objections would be most entertaining. :-) HammerFilmFan (talk) 15:19, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

You like hitting a hornet's nest with a stick? :) --Taivo (talk) 19:26, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

reg. Telugu Language

Hi Taivo,

Could you please take up any reverting process a bit more professional? Hope a discussion would be appreciable before you revert anything. Taking up the reverting this way not only means that you are defaming our respect over the language but you are also subduing and curbing a language's credibility and goodwill at an international level.

Could you please revert back to me.

Thanks & regards, B Ram

Perhaps you should take up the article on Telugu with more scientific legitimacy rather than alphabet silliness. Alphabets are not "better or worse" and a vote at an "alphabet olympics" does not make it so. Adding such a silly and completely unscientific and irrelevant comment into the article demeans the seriousness of the discussion. We have fought hard to keep this article scientific and not full of the nonsense that nationalists have sought to fill it with--"Telugu is the sweetest tongue", "Telugu is the most musical tongue", etc. There is absolutely nothing absolute or scientific about some vote done at a "language olympics". Believe me, I would be "defaming" Telugu if I let such unscientific silliness stand in the article. But content should be discussed at Talk:Telugu language. That's the problem here. This alphabet silliness has simply been added to the article and after it was reverted, rather than following Wikipedia policy at WP:BRD to discuss and gain consensus, it was simply added back in over and over. It is the original editor's job to justify the addition and build a consensus. --Taivo (talk) 15:39, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Taivo, So did you mean, you discussed already with the original editor before deleting the edition on the page? Otherwise (if you haven't discussed), your statement means that, you won't be having any problem if I discuss with the original editor and arrive at a consensus whether the article should be on the page or not. Hope you won't have any hard feelings with whatsoever decission we arrive at. Now that the discussion involves the original editor, hope I needn't have to talk to you again. Will get back to you if the original editor doesn't respond to me in a day. Thank you for your support Taivo.

Regards, B Ram

You don't seem to understand the way that Wikipedia works. The original editor needs to go to the Talk Page, state his/her case, and then EVERYONE who is interested will discuss whether or not this piece of unscientific trivia even deserves mention. That includes me as well. Consensus means everyone, not just you and X. --Taivo (talk) 16:51, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Azerbaijani language

Care to comment on this revert? The "Türk ʿAcämī" monicker used by Bellér-Hann may be somewhat of an affectation (Google Search does not show it used anywhere else, at least not in the spellings I can think of, in Latin alphabet languages); but her book is a serious study of the attested early forms of the Turkic language(s) of Iran (i.e., the predecessor(s) of today's Azerbaijani, as she says), and I would not mind introducing a few key facts from that study. Specifically mentioning Tārīkh-i Khaṭā'ī in this article (as opposed to History of the Azerbaijani language, which we of course don't have) may be somewhat of WP:UNDUE, but Bellér-Hann views it as important because it is among the few known major works in the language of that early (pre-Safavid) period. -- Vmenkov (talk) 05:16, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

First, it simply wasn't clear that the reference was to, and second, the variant names weren't really necessary at that point in the article. Perhaps getting more clarity on the Talk Page would help. --Taivo (talk) 06:05, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Dyirringany language

Could you take a look? I'm going to start running into 3RR. Thanks. — kwami (talk) 07:48, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Intro

Taivo, please see my reply to your recent revert on K's talk page. Praxis Icosahedron (talk) 06:25, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Please find the discussion over at the talk page of the bs article. If you're keen on reverting edits I also hope you're prepared to offer some input to the discussion. Praxis Icosahedron (talk) 06:41, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Saraiki Language

There is need to improve this page. I indicated the region of Saraiki Speaking areas, also a map. I also wrote about dialects of this language. Kindly help me to improve this article, please.

Your edits are not based on reliable sources. --Taivo (talk) 15:45, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

What is your problem Mr Taivo. can you explain the grounds for reverting with out any reference. dont miss use your edit chair for fun and reverse only you can proof the edits wrong as suppourted by published material. REGARDZZZZZ Frenchdreamer (talk) 18:13, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

This material is just a rehash of other discredited material and isn't supported by reliable linguistic sources. --Taivo (talk) 20:25, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Y not you use Talk page to justify your reverts point by point by thourgh logic see how others are also complaining and you keep repeating automated replies for example "isn't supported by reliable linguistic sources". For your kind information their are thousands of IPs available on different internet cafes in our country so if you will keep reverting with out logic point by point i will keep correcting the article. its great fun... BEST OF LUCK for your hard work LanguageXpert (talk) 11:53, 2 November 2012 (UTC) kindly see the matter and finalize as soon as possible. Saraiki language also must be shown immediately in the map of Languages of Pakistan.

Dear Taive, look in to matter, see changes made by user Saraikistan, in Saraiki language.

Dear 182.186.9.98 ! Its Taivo not Taive, any ways you are consistently reverting my edits and editing the article with out any basis. I told you that you should not involve in edit war and instead of editing directly to the article use talk page and develop WP consensus. Regards Saraikistan (talk) 12:34, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

saraiki dialect is redundant with the Riasti dialect, Shah puri dialect,Multani dialect, Multani language, Thalochi dialect, Thalochi ,Derawali dialect articles. I suggest merging these articles , as the all these are same. And also be Redirected to Saraiki language. Also Jhangvi dialect is dialect of Saraiki. Kindly See these External Links http://www.ethnologue.com/show_language.asp?code=skr http://globalrecordings.net/en/language/16338

Move request pertaining to Ivory Coast sub-articles

– Fayenatic London 15:23, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Serbian Language

Kosovo isn't considered a country yet, therefore there is no need to place it under the "Official Language In" section. However, if you are so desperate to have Serbia in pieces, then you might as well place Vojvodina in that section as well......

In Wikipedia, we consider Kosovo to be a country, but place its name in italics. --Taivo (talk) 23:46, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Does that tell somebody that isn't familiar with it that it means that the status of Kosovo is disputed? Otherwise you need to place a small number or letter that redirects to somewhere else on the page explaining the Kosovo issue.

Need some advice on Tongva people

Kwami suggested I ask you about this.

The endonym "Tongva" is only attested from a single source (Merriam), but it has been taken up by several groups of that heritage as an alternative to "Gabrielino", which is an exonym that some of them find offensive because of the California Mission period. Another group is now asserting that "Kizh" (which is also the Gabrielino word for "house") is the correct endonym. The source for that, a German work (along with some anecdotal reports evidently without sources) is no worse than the source for Tongva. All of these tribal groups are in conflict over legitimacy and gambling, so there is a lot of POV pushing, but it seems to me that the NPOV approach is to rename the article Gabrielino people and discuss the two endonyms. Does that approach seem reasonable?--Curtis Clark (talk) 16:18, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Replied on Kwami's page. --Taivo (talk) 00:32, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

"Consensus" on Bosnian article

I'm afraid you might have crossed the line with your last revert on the Bosnian language. Perhaps you should try to disengage and stop viewing the article as your personal property. My edits clearly serve to only improve the article, increase its explanatory value and under no circumstances to disturb any consensus. Praxis Icosahedron (talk) 13:17, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

I have explained this in depth to you at the Bosnian language talk page. Praxis Icosahedron (talk) 13:27, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Hindi

I've hit 3RR reverting IPs who are trying to revert the recent move. Requested page protection, but it hasn't gone through yet. Can you take a look? — kwami (talk) 21:10, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Why remove useful info about Sevastopol?

Why remove links to articles about the history of the city? They may not be useful to some, but they are useful to others, especially those interested in history. Please restore the links (or provide a fuller explanation justifying their deletion). Thank you. M2545 (talk) 22:11, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

These are neither useful nor scholarly links. We don't just link to anything at all that says "Sevastopol" in the title. --Taivo (talk) 00:27, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I see the links as both useful and reliable. While not scholarly sources, they are reputable and certainly non-commercial. I would like to bring in a third party to help resolve this dispute, as I think we can agree that "useful information" can vary from reader to reader. Please let me know your thoughts on bringing in other opinions. M2545 (talk) 23:17, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

These contain no useful information since they are all outdated and non-scholarly. You're just spamming useless links on all these pages. --Taivo (talk) 00:14, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I disagree, and again suggest bringing in others to help resolve the matter. M2545 (talk) 14:29, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

The books probably contain lots of useful information that would improve the part of the articles on the histories of the various cities. However, "inserting book listings into reference sections [of articles] although the book is not used as the source of any information in the article" is contrary to Wikipedia policy. See WP:BOOKSPAM. By all means use the information in the books to improve the articles, and cite the books as sources. If you do not have time to do this for all the articles you want to edit, just do those you can. But please no more spam, however well intentioned.--Toddy1 (talk) 14:42, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Reverting spam

I noticed that you have been reverting some of M2545's spam edits and I have left an augmented template message on User talk:M2545 about his spamming. He/she is making lots of these edits. If you revert him/her again, please could you template him/her, so we can get him/her to actually use the sources being cited, not merely spam links to them. There is a nice selection at Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace.--Toddy1 (talk) 22:35, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for not being more diligent about applying templates. Sometimes I just get busy doing three different things and forget to do the third one :p --Taivo (talk) 15:09, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Dude, Chill!

Taivo,

I've never done this before, but I'm going to ask you personally to just chill out - this is just a website. Every answer you write to my post seems to be so full of anger that it can't be healthy.

I will often disagree with you, and you with me. It happens. It will happen in the future, probably a lot. But we're both here to make this place better, not insult each other.

Please, chill! - User:Horlo (talk) 08:47, 22 November 2012

Horlo, our only interaction is at Kiev, where you are pushing your POV in the face of combined opposition and engaging in a slow-motion, single-minded edit war against WP:CONSENSUS, WP:NPOV, WP:COMMONNAME, WP:USER, and plain common sense. What you perceive to be "anger" is simply frustration against someone who apparently doesn't care. --Taivo (talk) 09:06, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Can you help?

I know that you are an expert in linguistics; if you get a chance, could you take a look at Pluricentric language? The article in its current state is rather tragic, and when I wandered in to read, I was startled to discover that there was no section on English (although there was one on Valencian viz Catalan). I discovered that it was vaporized by an IP editor last week, with a long comment on the talk page. I reverted the edit and responded, but I am no linguist (I do pretty well with English, but not only can I not effectively speak in other languages, I cannot understand some of my husband's more technical explanations of differences between English and Spanish, French, Italian, and Russian, all of which he speaks fluently). I have no idea whether my revert was appropriate or not, but you would probably have a better idea. Could you take a look at that article and the talk page (particularly the last section) and apply a flamethrower to whatever in that article is nonsense? If you do, I promise that I will never unprotect Kiev. (big grin) Thanks. Horologium (talk) 20:36, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Deal :) --Taivo (talk) 21:00, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Taivo, this is the guy who bumped against you on the Pluricentric language page's section on English. I have added a last comment to Talk:Pluricentric_language#Explanation_of_why_I_deleted_the_section_in_English,_along_with_the_original_text. The reason for bring this up on your Talk page is that I did find you to be rather exasperating, and hope that my feedback is useful. During our 'discussions' I was building up a mental picture of you as being a curmudgeonly old duffer who was not very good at comprehending complex English, and I resented having to take so much time to explain things to you. It was only after we had finished our edit war that I was smart enough to view your home page, and learn the actual reality is that you are a proflic expert who hates "running afoul of the 'Randy in Boise' trap", and perhaps thus scanned over my writing as though I was a recalcitrant incompetent without bothering to comprehend it. (afaik, no version of the article stuff I wrote was wrong, and I don't think I made any false claims on the Talk page either - you just failed to read it with an open mind.) Unfortunately, whether a duffer or impatient, the effect is the same, and you have rather burnt me out from Wikipedia (although I'm sure I will be back one day, albeit next time with an account (I had one a few years ago, but forgot its password)). I feel churlish complaining like this to you, because my own conduct was very misleading, and because I recognise that you are most likely very useful to WP (I haven't stopped to review your other work), but I do think it could be useful for you and others to notice that on this occasion you were incorrectly obstructionist. Er, Cheers eh. Rock on NPOV, and all who sail in her.

user Markoni1010 -

Hi. See the bottom of: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Serbs#.22The_Serbian_language_is_considered_a_standardized_register_of_Serbo-Croatian.22 - has this guy created a single-purpose acct, you think? HammerFilmFan (talk) 14:49, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

If it looks like a duck, and walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's a duck. :p --Taivo (talk) 15:44, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, TaivoLinguist. You have new messages at Talk:Hindi.
Message added 17:59, 13 December 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

§§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 17:59, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Coptic

Although this evidently wasn't what our recent edit warrior was talking about, I'm curious: Do you have any idea what this is about? Are our sources wrong in stating it went extinct, or were the 19th-century revitalization efforts perhaps successful? — kwami (talk) 01:22, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

There's just no reliable evidence that Coptic is anyone's first language. I've found that lots of Copts like to claim that they use Coptic exclusively in the home, but there is simply no reliable evidence that it is more than the liturgical language used in the home. You know how newspaper reporters are when it comes to believing what people tell them about language use without scientific examination or skepticism. None of the Copts who have complained over the years have brought forward any reliable source. It may very well be that there are about as many "native speakers" of Coptic as there are "native speakers" of Cornish or Esperanto, but there's no reliable source saying so. --Taivo (talk) 01:51, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Loprieno & Müller's chapter on Ancient Egyptian and Coptic in The Afroasiatic Languages (2012, Cambridge) is pretty unequivocal that Coptic went extinct and it's now only a liturgical language. They don't give it any wiggle room. --Taivo (talk) 22:07, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm finding refs of families that have tried reviving the language, and use it at home, sometimes for several generations, but it's not clear how fluent they are or that it's actually the native language of the children. — kwami (talk) 03:35, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Due to the recent violence against Copts in Egypt following the bigot/dictator Morsi's election, you may see a movement towards Copts 'reviving' the use of Coptic at home as their primary language. It will be interesting to follow events of this kind.HammerFilmFan (talk) 13:17, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Hindustani/Hindi-Urdu

The way the ELL2 uses the terms, Hindustani is the broader definition, either the entire history of the language, or including modern colloquial forms (such as you get in Bollywood). Hindi-Urdu is specifically the modern standard, taking Standard Hindi and Standard Urdu together. Khariboli was established as the base of Hindustani fairly recently, while Hindi-Urdu is specifically Khariboli. — kwami (talk) 03:07, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

With the way we use it in Wikipedia, Hindi-Urdu is only the two standard languages. --Taivo (talk) 05:28, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Is it? The article should be moved to 'Hindustani', then, as it's about the language as a whole. — kwami (talk) 07:52, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Accent (dialect)

Thought you might have an opinion as to where this should be located; none of the dabs I can think of are quite right. — kwami (talk) 22:49, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

It looks fine where it is--under "speech and language" at Accent (disambiguation). --Taivo (talk) 00:04, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

IvanOS

IvanOS has been pushing his "Serbo-Croatian does not exist" nonsense on more articles, see his list of contributions. --JorisvS (talk) 18:55, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

JorisvS

JorisvS was the first to change this [75] , [76] no one asked, no one is not advised, not explain your changes on the talk page. You should revert to its original state. It is not right what you did.--Sokac121 (talk) 20:46, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Your message is unclear. Who are you talking to? What point are you trying to make? HammerFilmFan (talk) 13:55, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

interesting note

http://www.wral.com/polish-is-2nd-most-spoken-language-in-england/12041561/ HammerFilmFan (talk) 13:52, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not at all surprised. I had a Polish girlfriend a few years ago who spent several summers working in Britain. --Taivo (talk) 15:18, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Macedonian

It would be very useful if you see what I actually changed. Is it POV to correct the sentences according to the original source (I copy -paste the sentences that other users added to the article)? Also I corrected Macedonian transliteration, which you saw it as a POV as well. Finally, I added Serbian (again according the source provided) and it is POV, right? Best--MacedonianBoy (talk) 22:58, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I did, indeed, read what you wrote and saw a general trend toward minimizing Bulgarian issues and denigrating the idea that Macedonian is a dialect of Bulgarian. Macedonian is not a variety of Serbian and has not been considered so in linguistic circles--it has always been linked to Bulgarian. Unfortunately, when you mix perhaps valid corrections in with edits that are POV, it becomes impossible to revert the POV edits without also reverting everything else. --Taivo (talk) 23:39, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Let's begin. I mentioned Serbian because: 1) Misirkov himself states that Bitola-Prilep dialects should be basis of the Standard Macedonian because these dialects are distinct enough from Bulgarian and Macedonian (Misirkov, 1903). 2) this thesis of Misirkov is widely accepted by the linguists that study Macedonian, and 3) this is mentioned in the next sentence where I have added Serbian. It is not true that Macedonian have only been considered as Bulgarian (mostly by Bulgarians), Serbians considered it as South Serbian dialect prior its codification (this is also mentioned in the article, see Karadzic). Regarding the introduction, it aims to say that the name is controversial in Greece and the distinctiveness in Bulgaria. By adding the word "where" it better links the "distinctiveness thesis" with the clause "Macedonian sometimes being regarded as a variety or a dialect of Bulgarian." The Bulgarian claims, as you can see, are too much mentioned in the article, even though I did not even try to remove them. It gives us an impression that the article is used to prove how Macedonian is Bulgarian (see Geographical distribution and Classification). It even goes deeper, it includes theories how the language is called by unknown number of speakers in unknown locations in Greece. However, you can see that I did not even bother editing this useless paragraphs. I just wanted to write the original sentences that are used as a source, nothing else. I accidentally opened the Google Books and saw it. --MacedonianBoy (talk) 00:15, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm talking contemporary linguists, not 19th century postulations. There are a great many contemporary linguists who either 1) list Macedonian and Bulgarian as mutually intelligible varieties of a single language (as Serbian, Croatian and Bosnian are mutually intelligible varieties of a different language called Serbo-Croatian) or 2) list Macedonian and Bulgarian as very, very closely related languages. No contemporary linguists link Macedonian to Serbo-Croatian. There are plenty of reliable sources from the 21st century and very late 20th century for this linkage, I don't have to dig into the 19th century to find them. --Taivo (talk) 03:47, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Today, as you say, only Bulgarian linguists claim that Macedonian is the "third literary form". Otherwise, there is no doubt that it is separate language. Those authors (non-Bulgarians) that claim that Macedonian is a dialect either cite Bulgarian linguists or study Bulgarian themselves. Therefore, the sentence and the source in the introduction (which is modern publications) it clearly states in Bulgaria it is considered as a dialect. For more, Victor Friedman and Christina Kramer. I see you prefer Bulgarian :) BTW, the section where I mentioned Serbian is about late 19 and early 20 c.--MacedonianBoy (talk) 07:53, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

No, that's not actually true. That's just Macedonian POV pushing that only Bulgarian linguists see the close, special relationship between the two dialects/languages. And at no point am I saying that the article should stop calling them separate languages, since the majority of linguists do, indeed, list them separately, but there is still a significant number of linguists, who are not all Bulgarian, who point to the fuzziness of the language boundary between the two. Serbian is not even in the mix since Serbian is clearly and unequivocally part of Serbo-Croatian and not Macedonian-Bulgarian. Reducing the link between Macedonian and Bulgarian from where it now stands in the article is dishonest to the linguistic sources. --Taivo (talk) 11:28, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I see your point, but there are some points that I'd not agree with. Macedonian as a language only in Bulgaria is called "Third Bulgarian literary form" (the first being Bulgarian, the second Banat Bulgarian according to them). Considering a language as a dialect and having no clear border between the dialects is not the same. These two things are completely different. For example, if you say "Moldovan is a variety of Romanian" you may be right because these two standards are almost identical. On the other hand, if you say that there is not clear border between the Dutch and German dialects, you are again right but this does not mean that Dutch and German are two standards of the same language, but simply some dialects form dialect continuum. This is my point. It is acceptable (linguistically and politically) to say that there is not clear division between Macedonian and Bulgarian dialects (its the same thing between Macedonian and Serbian dialect and Serbian and Bulgarian dialects), but incorrect is the consideration that Macedonian and Bulgarian are dialects of one language. There are few non-Bulgarian linguists that claim Macedonian is a dialect, the rest are Bulgarians. Almost all publications state that (only) in Bulgaria the language is seen as a dialect, everywhere else is different story. And again, no one opposes the fact the these two languages are close, you misunderstood it. I do claim that all South Slavic languages are very close, it's linguistic fact. Macedonians can speak, write, read and understand Serbo-Croatian without a single lesson at school. I would not be wrong if I say Macedonians have more problems with written Standard Bulgarian.--MacedonianBoy (talk) 12:51, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

You're arguing against someone else, MacedonianBoy. I have said already that the majority of contemporary linguists list Macedonian and Bulgarian as separate languages. But there are reliable non-Bulgarian linguists who mark the difference between language and dialect differently and call them dialects of a single language and these linguists you want to ignore in your edits to the article. That's my point. The article already treats this as the minority position, but you want to eliminate it altogether. The article is quite fine as it is now. It is NPOV, it calls Macedonian a language, it states that some linguists call it a dialect of Bulgarian. That's the scientific fact. I'm done arguing with you here because you have a single political focus rather than a scientific one. I will continue to revert your attempts to denigrate those linguists who treat the two languages as one, since they are reliable linguists, even though in the minority. There is no one, clear unambiguous way to differentiate between languages and divergent dialects, so to have some linguists look at data and say they show one language and some other linguists look at the same data and say they show two languages is not at all surprising or rare. Get over it. --Taivo (talk) 15:30, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I did not say I do mind the Bulgarian linguists, in fact I do not care about it. It was interesting for me your statement that I want to eliminate the Bulgarian theses, which is not true. --MacedonianBoy (talk) 17:52, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Nivkh language

Do you know if anything's been done to record this lang extensively, or a if a comprehensive dictionary has been made? I have a curiosity about "saving" these paleo-language remnants such as this and what's left of the indigenous North American languages. Recently there was a piece on public radio about trying to save the plains "Indian" languages before they are gone altogether. HammerFilmFan (talk) 16:31, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Ministry of the U.S. Center for World Mission ..... - Joshua project?

http://www.joshuaproject.net/languages.php?rol3=srp

This is a website calculating all of the ethnic groups and their native languages around the world. The figure on Serbian language here is something over 11 million as well. But could this website be considered and used as a reliable source? (Правичност (talk) 06:26, 10 February 2013 (UTC))

No, this website would not be considered a reliable source. It doesn't clearly distinguish between ethnic information and linguistic information. It's goal isn't reliable linguistic information. --Taivo (talk) 08:58, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Aizi

Hi Taivo,

Any idea where they get the idea that Apro is Kwa rather than Kru? I notice that Ethnologue reports some of their findings, but doesn't reflect that claim. — kwami (talk) 22:19, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

They have actually done fieldwork among the Aizi, so I'd be more likely to trust their assessment. Following the a-prwe dialect, Linguasphere has the note "classification to be reviewed; although the community is technically "Edeyi" [Aizi], this inner-language may need to be classified within a separate outer-language or net, and perhaps even separate chain or set." Here's another source that places Apromou with the Kwa rather than the Kru. I imagine that the primary sources are in French and not available on the internet. --Taivo (talk) 00:18, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! — kwami (talk) 00:35, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Bosnian

When was it decided that the article on Bosnian should really only be the article on standard Bosnian? Should we not then change its name to Standard Bosnian, because as far as I know "Bosnian" refers to a linguistic corpus and tradition irrespective of standardization or not? I'm not flattered by the bureaucracy, but I do hope for, and will partake in, the expansion of a neutral article on Serbo-Croatian Praxis Icosahedron (talk) 18:17, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

This is part of a growing consensus that started at the Croatian language article. --Taivo (talk) 18:51, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

As far as I can tell the article on Croatian, and especially Serbian, speaks of literary heritage that predates any standardization and which would by your logic in fact belong to Serbo-Croatian? The standards as they exist today, are based on historical notions and distinctions (indeed the three (Bosnia, Croatia, Serbia) are historically separate states which would over the course of time develop independent literary heritages). There is nothing inherently wrong for this to be highlighted in the individual articles, and already is in the Serbian one under "Serbian Literature". As such the standardization of B/S/C could just as easily be seen as the culmination of historical distinctions which were unsuccessfully flattened out during Yugoslavia. At the very least, one cannot seriously claim that the notion of a standardized Bosnian language was merely the result of recent socio-political events, when it is in fact based on historical connotations. I also believe it would be awkward to present all the historical regionalisms of 'Serbo-Croatian' within one and the same article; this would technically involve lengthy separate Bosnian, Serbian and Croatian subsections. We might just as well ease the informative load by channeling some of it to the individual articles where it would make better sense. Whatever the case, I strongly insist on providing at the very least a small historical background to the distinct linguistic heritage of Bosnia and Herzegovina within the article on Bosnian, as this is intrinsically related to the emergence of standardized Bosnian language itself.Praxis Icosahedron (talk) 19:20, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

This notion that standard Croatian, Serbian, and Bosnian are "different languages" is a political myth. They are not only the same language, but based on the same dialect of that language. We are trying to collapse the history of that language (Serbo-Croatian) into one consistent discussion in one place, not scattered around as if these mutually intelligible ethnic varieties are different things. --Taivo (talk) 00:51, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Serbs - Total population ~ 3 questions/requests

1.) Could you change the number of total population atleast to 10,5 million, as it was before? -(this article puts the same figure: http://www.blic.rs/Vesti/Drustvo/266353/Cetiri-miliona-Srba-naslo-uhlebljenje-u-inostranstvu).

Considering that the total number in infobox is calculated only by few countries that are inside the infobox (even those exceed 10 mil.) and theres no number for "other countries of the world" (Despite some European countries (like Netherlands) for example...) There is no data on Central, Latin America, Africa, Asia at all) ... not mentioning that 315.000 figure in Turkey thats not counted in ("315.000 people can claim serbian descent"- as its cited in the lower part of infobox)

2.) Or in other way could you put that number estimation a bit wider at 10 - 11/12 million for example? - like the Croats article has ((lower - 7.5 mil. and 8.4 mil. - higher est.) - out of which up to 4,5 mil. are in Balkans).

3.) I would also recommend that flags and figures on countries like Netherlands, South African Republic, United Arab Emirates, New Zealand, Brazil and Argentina should be included in infobox - as these are also one of the lands that are known for sizeable or significant Serbian communities.

I ask you this, because 10 million estimation is definetly the lowest possible one (with only few (mostly European) countries included into the total figure from infobox). (Правичност (talk) 21:55, 11 February 2013 (UTC))

No. We use a reliable linguistic source for the sum of Serbian speakers, not a "calculation" from non-linguistic sources. We've been over this a dozen times already. We don't fill the infoboxes with flags. They are not appropriate in language articles. --Taivo (talk) 00:49, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, you missunderstood, i wasnt talking about "Serbian language" article... i was talking about the "Serbs" article (about ethnic group). Please check it again. (Правичност (talk) 01:03, 12 February 2013 (UTC))

I'm a linguist so I try not to get involved with ethnic group articles if possible. --Taivo (talk) 01:13, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

oh i see, well thnx anyway (Правичност (talk) 01:51, 12 February 2013 (UTC))

Unidentified varieties of Mixtec

Hi Taivo,

Any idea what Coatzingo & Malinaltepec Mixtec in Bradley (1968) correspond to? (At Classification of Mixtec dialects#Bradley (1968, 1970).)

Also, do you known if a DB of the principal language names in Voegelin² is available? — kwami (talk) 10:26, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Do you have FileMaker Pro? I digitized the entries in Vsquared for my personal use based on main label. Send me an email and I'll send you either the FileMaker database itself or an Excel export copy. I'll have to check up on the Mixtec question later today. --Taivo (talk) 14:34, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Done. Thanks. No rush. — kwami (talk) 16:21, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! Understood. — kwami (talk) 05:34, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Neither "coatzingo" nor "malinaltepec" are found in either Vsquared or Linguasphere--either as dialect names or as placenames. --Taivo (talk) 15:46, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Malinaltepec is a location usually known as a place where Tlapanec/Meph'aa is spoken. They may well be a Mixtec community there as well.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:02, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

How to deal with non-linguist editor pushing his ethnicity-based viewpoint on the "Silesian language"

Hello Taivo. I'm a linguistics Ph.D. student, and like you I've sometimes gotten sucked into the morass of loopiness that seems to surround all linguistic topics having anything to do with Eastern Europe. You seem to be a veteran here and I wonder if you can help me or give me some advice.

Could you look over the recent changes to Slavic languages (and associated talk page) and help me figure out how to deal with an edit war over the nature of the "Silesian language"? In this conflict we have on one side me plus several other editors (some of whom seem to be long-time contributors to Eastern-Europe-related topics, e.g. JorisV and Volunteer Marek), and on the other we have one extremely tenacious single-purpose Silesian editor (Franek K.). He reverts my changes almost instantly, regularly behaves in an uncivil fashion, and invents his own version of what NPOV, "reliable sources", "verifiability" and "original reserach" mean in order to suit his own purposes. He seems quite willing to edit-war until he gets his POV to "stick" through simply exhausting everyone else, and has done the same thing on several other pages (e.g. Polish language, Dialects of the Polish language, and the misnamed Silesian language).

From my perspective, the sources are pretty clear, and this is what I've written in the article. Basically, the linguistic sources indicate that Silesian is a Polish dialect, but there is an ongoing movement among Silesians to get their speech declared as a separate language for political-ethnic reasons, whose biggest achievement to date has been getting ISO 639-3 to add an entry for the "Silesian language" (based on academic support from a single scholar, a certain Tomasz Kamusella who is himself Silesian, has a political science background but no linguistics background, and seems to have dedicated himself almost single-handedly to Silesian-language activism). However, if you think there's some merit to Franek's views then I'll certainly incorporate whatever you think has merit. Benwing (talk) 11:19, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Please note that opinions about Silesian between people are different, also between linguists (although I admit that the more linguists considered Silesian as a dialect - I do not hide this, however, not all linguists). Also important is the opinion of people using the language, the organizations of a given language, opinions by sociolinguist, opinions by linguist organizations, politicians etc. At this stage, you can not decide that Silesian is a dialect or Silesian is a language; in the current situation neutral version is Silesian is a language or a dialect. Wikipedia is neutral, if there are different opinions, should be show all. User Benwing pushing only one POV-version - a dialect of Polish, data about Lach dialect of Silesian (according to few sources, dialect of the Czech language), opinions by linguistic organizations, political issue for Silesian begins stir, so, Benwing remove the data about Lach, opinions by linguistic organizations, political issue for Silesian + sources, all data that may disqualify his opinion of Silesian as a dialect of Polish. Cleverly manipulated. Franek K. (talk) 11:10, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Actually, Franek, your linguistic evidence is quite poor and the "Silesian is a language" position is still strictly a political/nationalistic one. Those are precisely the opinions that matter least in the question of linguistic affiliation. From a strictly unbiased scientific point of view, Silesian is a dialect of Polish. --Taivo (talk) 13:49, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Croatian language map

Taivo,

the map upon which you are insisting is ALREADY USED in the article. Look at the French map, or the German one, they show a map of the language's use, NOT its dialects. Please explain how an equivalent map in the equivalent section of the Croatian language page is inappropriate, especially when the map you replaced it with is already used in the article? --OettingerCroat (talk) 00:52, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

The map you wish to use is a map of Standard Croatian usage, while this article is about "Croatian" in a broader sense. There is a difference. --Taivo (talk) 09:50, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

But Taivo, the map used for French and German is also talking about the official use of French and German, not about French and German dialects. Same thing with Serbian, look at their map. Why can't the same type of map be used for Croatian as is used for these other languages? That is what I am asking you. --OettingerCroat (talk) 14:21, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

The difference between the Serbian and Croatian articles is that the Serbian article is ONLY about the standard language, since there is no dialect variation in Serbian, unlike what we call "Croatian". I originally wanted the Croatian language article to be only about the standard language and then Chakavian and Kajkavian would have their own articles, but the Croatian editors refused. So we have what we have. I would suggest opening a discussion on the Talk Page at Croatian language (that's where this discussion should be anyway, not on someone's personal Talk Page). If a consensus agrees that your map is better then that's that. --Taivo (talk) 15:18, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Please stop

It appears that you are edit warring at Kajkavian dialect. Please bring your concerns to the article talk page or seek other remedies offered by dispute resolution. Tiderolls 23:33, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

The dispute has been resolved. Just another anon POV pusher. If I'm around I'll revert it next time. — kwami (talk) 01:00, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

• Hi, Taivo. I've responded to your message on my user talk. Tiderolls 10:53, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

RFC at WikiProject Freemasonry

This is going out to all who are listed as active members of WikiProject:Freemasonry. We are attempting to determine the "consensus of the project" on an issue relating to categorization. Please see: WT:WikiProject Freemasonry#Dispute over instructions at Category:Freemasons and share your opinion. Thanks. Blueboar (talk) 12:23, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Bhojpuri

Hi Taivo,

Nother edit war at Bhojpuri.[77] For all I know the speaker pop really is twice what we have, but I'd like to see a better sources than a newspaper. — kwami (talk) 06:43, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

I put it on my watchlist. --Taivo (talk) 13:15, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. — kwami (talk) 22:15, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

not a forum??

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Republic_of_Macedonia it seems that you try to find excuses to remove anything you disagree with from the talk pages.How convenient to remove anything you want with the accusation of writing like a forum.Justify the exact reason what i wrote is inappropriate for wiki talk or i'll revert. If then,you revert again with fake excuses i will report you for edit-warring and abuse

You apparently didn't read WP:MOSMAC or else you refuse to accept the consensus of other editors in your campaign to "unname" Macedonia. --Taivo (talk) 13:11, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Are you kidding?A decision you took 4 years ago when opinions were inadequately represented? Anyway,i want to know why you remove opinions from the talk pages. You don't have the right to do that,especially the constructive ones. I was in the spirit of wiki. Try answering opinions instead of removing them.Also,you keep calling the country "macedonia",something not objective at all,inappropriate for wiki administrator.You are biased and shouldn't be in charge of these pages ,better manage other pages

Actually, removing the continual "FYROM" rants from the Talk Page that seek to ignore WP:MOSMAC is not uncalled for and is done all the time at Republic of Macedonia. Your opinion concerning Macedonia is clearly based upon a Greek bias and not really relevant to improving the the quality of the article, which is the only purpose of the Talk Page. If you want to revisit the issue of whether to call Macedonia "Macedonia" or not, then the Talk Page at Republic of Macedonia is not the place. We will not change the name of the article or the name of Macedonia based on your prejudice against it on the Talk Page. --Taivo (talk) 13:26, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Of course it was constructive.You're calling rants anything you disagree with,removing them because there has been taken a different decision in the past,that's pretty authoritarian,no you don't have the right to do that. Either you like it or not,discussion about the pages will go on. "This isn't the appropriate place",what is the appropriate place then,my backyard? You're talking about bias when i'm not biased at all,i try to be as objective as possible,you are the one calling the country macedonia,make some self-critique

Read WP:MOSMAC. Read the note at the top of the Talk Page that it is not a forum for discussing the name of Macedonia. End of subject. --Taivo (talk) 04:36, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Ok then,i will write it there, and we also should put a link to the top of the talk page where the notice about the decision lies,so that people know where to go to discuss the subject and not fall into misunderstandings like me. 94.70.76.52

There are ALREADY notes on both issues. --Taivo (talk) 18:53, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

No,the note is on the old decision,and people won't know where to go to talk about another decision

Ah, the wasteland where unproductive nationalists go to push their POV so that the rest of us can ignore them and do constructive work. --Taivo (talk) 19:53, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Kaskian

And an edit war at Kaskian language, of all things. I'm at 3RR. — kwami (talk) 22:34, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Biased information at the article Urdu?

Hello Sir! Hope you are completely fine. I am Wamiq, the user whose edit at Urdu was labelled as biased. May I please ask you which of my sentences were biased? I will be very grateful to you for your answer. You see, I actually want to know if there was a genuine flaw in the way I presented information there. Hope you will surely tell me that, Sir. Regards.

—Syɛd Шαмiq Aнмɛd Hαsнмi (тαlк) 17:14, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I suspect his point was that you added a lot of detail that belongs in the body. The lead is supposed to be a summary of the body. You probably also have a problem with WP:Peacock, though with appropriate sources some of that might be acceptable in the appropriate section. Personally, I have a problem with you claiming Hindi and Urdu share the same Indic base. Urdu and Bengali share an Indic base, while MSHindi is a register of Urdu: they're effectively the same language. — kwami (talk) 18:25, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Right. "Peacock" was the word I was looking for, but didn't pull from my brain. --Taivo (talk) 19:27, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Was the whole contribution like a "Peacock", Taivo?? Discussion to be continued at the article's Talk. Faizan -Let's talk!

---

Hello, TaivoLinguist. You have new messages at Talk:Urdu.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thanks!

—Syɛd Шαмiq Aнмɛd Hαsнмi (тαlк) 12:37, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Somali language

Hi Taivo. Firstly, Somali is the only Cushitic language that is spoken in the Somaliland region (as in Puntland); so adding it to the Lowland East Cushitic languages page was overkill any way you slice it. You also did not have an absolute consensus but a rough one, if that. That was also years ago. Somaliland has since been repeatedly removed from the parameter by multiple different users, so that should tell you something about how solid that consensus was to begin with. Also, have a look at WP:KOOLAID ("consensus can change"). Regards, Middayexpress (talk) 17:33, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

About "Serbo-Croatian" in your article "Kajkavian dialect"

Hi, Taivo. For the last two days I have been re-editing your article about the Kajkavian dialect (where it says Serbo-Croatian I have changed it to Croatian). I am new to Wikipedia and and so I haven't learned the rules yet. Out of respect for you as a linguist I will stop re-editing the article, but first I must state my opinion about the so called "Serbo-Croatian" language. I come from Croatia, but I am not a nationalist. By re-editing your article, I only represent the opinion of Croatian linguists who do not acknowledge the Serbo-Croatian language which is a political and yugo-communist linguistic creation created in 1954. As such, it doesn't have linguistic, but political foundations. It was because of the Yugoslav propaganda that it became accepted in the West. I personally think that Croatian linguists (whose opinion I support) know Croatian language better than you or other Western linguists who talk about the so-called Serbo-Croatian language. Only your article states that Kajkavian dialect is a Serbo-Croatian dialect while other articles talk about a Croatian dialect. Are they all wrong and only yours is true? I think you should question your opinion. -Marko Leljak

Croatian linguists of course don't want to use "Serbo-Croatian" for political reasons. In English the most common name for the non-Slovenian West South Slavic language, which consists of Kajkavian, Chakavian, and Shtokavian dialects, is "Serbo-Croatian". "Croatian" only refers to the variety of Shtokavian that is used as the standard language of Croatia. Kajkavian is not a dialect of Croatian, it is a dialect of Serbo-Croatian. We have discussed this on Wikipedia multiple times with Croatian nationalists. You cannot trust Croatian linguists because they have a political agenda to push. Non-Croatian western linguists are far more neutral in the matter. --Taivo (talk) 20:22, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

It is indeed sad how the Western lignuists trust yugo-communist Serbian propaganda. But OK, it is your opinion and I do not wish to discuss it anymore.

It is not "Serbian propaganda", that comment simply brands you as an unscientific nationalist. Western linguists are NPOV, unlike both Croatian and Serbian linguists in general. --Taivo (talk) 01:18, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

About the Azeri article.

How can it not be a reliable linguistic source?, it is from Iranica, one of the most reliable places for sources. --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:00, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

You're not a linguist, are you? The labels "Old", "Middle", "Modern" always refer to historical periods of a single language, not to some different language. Thus, if you lived in 1600 English, you would be speaking "Early Modern English" just like everyone else. Once speakers cross that arbitrary line of 1700, they all then speak "Modern English". There isn't some grammatical test to determine whether someone is caught in a time warp and is still speaking Early Modern English in 1750. Same with "Old Azeri". It's not a separate language from Modern Azeri, it's a time measurement. Before 1600, all Azeris spoke "Old Azeri". After that date all Azeris speak "Modern Azeri". --Taivo (talk) 16:12, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Oops. I appear to have misunderstood what "Old Azeri" meant--that it's not a historical period of Azeri, but is the Iranian language that predated the Turkic invasion. I have reverted my deletion. --Taivo (talk) 16:33, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

May 2013

Please stop. Continuing to remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia without resolving the problem that the template refers to, may be considered disruptive editing. Further edits of this type may result in your account being blocked from editing.  Dravidian  Hero  00:10, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Your "dispute" is utterly groundless and based on your own bigotry. --Taivo (talk) 00:48, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

ǂHoan vs ǂ’Amkoe

The two people working on this language, Collins and Gruber, both now call it ǂ’Amkoe, as ǂHoan is simply the dialect that most of the research has been done on, and is not appropriate for other dialects. ǂ’Amkoe just means "people", like the names of other languages in the area. Gueldemann in his forthcoming overview of Khoisan classification also states that ǂ’Amkoe is the preferred name, despite his general preference not to introduce new terms into a confusing situation. — kwami (talk) 20:09, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. LOL. Khoisan passed "confusing" so long ago that confusing is the default state now :p --Taivo (talk) 20:34, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Any objection to moving it per Collins, Gruber, & Güldemann? — kwami (talk) 04:32, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

None. --Taivo (talk) 04:37, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

ANI

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.-- Dravidian  Hero  20:44, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Malto

I have not reverted the merger. However, I do expect it to be done correctly, so I have reverted your duplication of the article. — kwami (talk) 19:15, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Since 99% of us don't know how to paste two histories into one article, then would you be so kind as to do it yourself? --Taivo (talk) 19:48, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

He's tagged Sauria Paharia language‎ for move. Need it to stay there so that an admin comes along to move it, I guess. — Lfdder (talk) 19:58, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, I'd rather the issue stay "mostly fixed" until someone can come by to fix it properly. I don't want to give Dravidianhero any excuse to wake up. --Taivo (talk) 20:04, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't think we need to operate in fear of Dravidianhero. :-) — Lfdder (talk) 20:11, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, we can leave it there until it gets moved properly. It's been there for years; it's not going to cause any harm to have it there a few more days. Copy–past moves are a real pain in the ass for the admin: If there are any edits to the article between now and the move, then they will need to be merged into the page history. It's so much easier to just keep the article in one place and move it with its page history. — kwami (talk) 22:08, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

"Until an admin who can delete articles can do this, then the manual merge consensus takes priority" — no, it does not, but the article has been merged regardless, so this objection is spurious.

Also, by moving the talk page you closed the move request, claiming that it was carried out when it was not. — kwami (talk) 22:20, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Heaven forbid that we do anything on Wikipedia without painstakingly maneuvering through the morass of Wikipedia regulations and filling out every form in triplicate. --Taivo (talk) 22:25, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Heaven forbid we do anything simply. Moving a page is simple: You just click "move" and put in the new name. Splitting the history and then merging it again, as you want to do, is doing the work in triplicate. — kwami (talk) 22:36, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Not sure what exactly is the benefit of preserving the log of an article with not more than a hundred words (99 of which have more or less been copy-pasted from Ethnologue). But I can't say I've ever bothered to read all the rules. So, y'know, I'm just going with it. — Lfdder (talk) 22:31, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

It shows that the article (or half the article) has existed for several years, rather than having been created yesterday, and it shows which editors were involved it in. The old page history is probably never going to be used – I doubt the history is used in 90% of our articles except for reverting vandalism and poor editing – but it may prove to be useful some day. Doesn't do any harm to keep it. — kwami (talk) 22:36, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

They're taking their sweet time. — Lfdder (talk) 10:41, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

That's part of the admin code of conduct ;) --Taivo (talk) 14:47, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

I put an uncontested-deletion request on the target page so the article could be moved, and within a few hours it was. Might be coincidence, but that usually gets a faster response than a move request. (The article doesn't always get moved, but there's nothing stopping one of us from moving it once the target is deleted.) — kwami (talk) 05:10, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Notice

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:Lfdder and accusations in lie. Thank you.   little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  12:39, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Love history & culture? Get involved in WikiProject World Digital Library!

World Digital Library Wikipedia Partnership - We need you!

Hi TaivoLinguist! I'm the Wikipedian In Residence at the World Digital Library, a project of the Library of Congress and UNESCO. I'm recruiting Wikipedians who are passionate about history & culture to participate in improving Wikipedia using the WDL's vast free online resources. Participants can earn our awesome WDL barnstar and help to disseminate free knowledge from over 100 libraries in 7 different languages. Multilingual editors are welcome! (But being multilingual is not a requirement.) Please sign up to participate here. Thanks for editing Wikipedia and I look forward to working with you! SarahStierch (talk) 22:21, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

please address if you can - Elamite

I wrote in the lead for Elamite Language that it is considered a language isolate. A "fringe believer" changed this to: " Classification of Elamite is disputed, it is sometimes considered a language isolate, although classification as Afroasiatic has been considered.[1] " From what I understand that 'dispute' is perhaps 10,000 to one ?? This guy can put that somewhere down in the article but re-worded (not disputed, some think or words to that effect), I don't think this should go in the lead, but the vast majority opinion, correct? Thanks! Oops - I wasn't logged in. HammerFilmFan (talk) 15:15, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Looks like Kwami put a good edit in the article to 'fix' it.HammerFilmFan (talk) 03:10, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

question on Old Babylonian

Taivo I know you are more of a "slavic" kinda professor but -

I was wondering what the Linguist opinion is on the known pronunciation of "Old Babylonian" would have been in the days of the Chaldean-dynast revived New Babylonian Empire; Nabonidas's obsession with the ancient past might have resulted in him gathering scribes/scholars of his day to determine the spoken language? Surely the priest-scholars-scribes would have been able to see that old cuneiform texts were different in language "structure" than modern Babylonian - like Olde English versus 18th century English - and wondered? I realize this is a question that is loaded with assumptions, but I am curious to when the dearth of pronunciation of the original language was "lost" due to decline/invasions/etc.

Thanks, Hammer (aka Brian)HammerFilmFan (talk) 17:35, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm not a specialist on ancient Semitic, but I did find this quote in the chapter on Akkadian and Eblaite in the Cambridge Encyclopedia of the World's Ancient Languages: "Old Babylonian is often considered by modern scholars as the classical phase of Akkadian, not only because of the remarkable uniformity of its grammar, but also because literature and scholarship flourished during this period. Old Babylonian is extremly [sic] well-preserved, and nearly all major text genres...are attested for it. Indeed, the scribes of subsequent periods, in both Babylonia and Assyria, evidently regarded Old Babylonian as a classical language as well, as witnessed by the rise of Standard Babylonian--a contrived, nonspoken dialect of the first millennium which was based on archaic Old Babylonian features and used for the composition and transmission of literary works such as Gilgameš and Enūma Eliš as well as for many Assyrian and Babylonian royal inscriptions." --Taivo (talk) 20:46, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Serbian language

The source is already on the talk page, check it out... majority of editors agree its a good source. Actually it seems you are the only editor confronting it, which i dont understand. (Правичност (talk) 21:06, 12 August 2013 (UTC))

It's the same reason I've objected from the beginning--it's not a linguistic survey and you're trying to replace a reliable linguistic source with a political one. --Taivo (talk) 16:46, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

It is a reliable source and you know it yourself.. which for example states number of serbian speakers in serbia more correctly (same to the figure of census) than your linguistic source which lowers the same figure by 2 million less and places an imaginery 300,000 speakers in albania (instead of less than 3000). I think you are rather being ingorant and think you own wikipedia, you refuse to reach concensus, but rather stubbornly worship ethnologue as it was a source given by god himself, even if you know the figures it gives are far uncorrect which is not only a case for serbian language issue. (Правичност (talk) 13:45, 14 August 2013 (UTC))

Keeping this text for future use

Finding random lookalike words in any two languages on the planet is child's play. I once compared 33 words from Ghanonnga (Solomon Islands) to Timbisha (Death Valley, California) and found 11 of them looked alike. There is no question that these languages are completely unrelated and have never had any contact whatsoever. So what's going on? First, at issue is the basic statistics of the number of sounds used in any two languages and the frequency of those sounds within those languages. It's too complicated to go into precise detail here, but when you've got 10,000 words in the dictionary of each language and only 20-25 sounds in each language, where only 10 of those sounds are very common, the math is simply child's play to see the rate of possible chance. Second, when you compare words for "rock" and "rock", that's fine and you can better control for coincidence. But when you compare "rock" to "rock, stone, cliff, mountain, boulder, gravel, mineral, dirt, etc." then you introduce HUGE amounts of coincidental possibility for finding random matches. For example, in Timbisha, the word for "rock" is tɨmpi and BINGO! s-ton-e ~ tɨm-pi pops right out. So that's the problem. I'm not surprised that someone looking at Akkadian and German finds some random similarity between portions of German schlafen and Akkadian šalalu 'sleep'. And to bring Hungarian into the discussion of Indo-European and Akkadian is complete nonsense because Hungarian is totally unrelated to either Indo-European or Akkadian. It's just random noise in the mix and neither systematic nor scientific. It is the kind of pseudo-linguistics that linguists are constantly having to put down from people who wake up one morning and say, "Hey, the word for 'bone' in Greek is osteon and the word for 'bone' in Mohawk is 'ostyən'!" --Taivo (talk) 17:00, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

− Proto-Indo-European was most likely being spoken north of the Black Sea (I don't buy the Anatolian origin) at about the time of Sumerian and the oldest layers of Akkadian. Therefore, any borrowing (not a "relationship" and not "related words") that took place would NOT be between individual IE languages, but between Akkadian and the proto-language. Therefore what you would find is, for example, if a word dheky were borrowed into Akkadian as dek or deky, it would show up in English as de, in Slavic languages as deš, in Indic languages as dheš, in Greek as thek, in French as fek, all with the standard PIE sound changes to get into that language. These lookalikes don't fit that pattern at all, they are just random. There is simply no relationship. And any "relationship" between Indo-European and Akkadian would NOT be between Akkadian and Indo-European but between Akkadian's ancestor language--Proto-Afro-Asiatic, which was spoken at least 2 millennia before in Africa. So positing a relationship between Indo-European and Akkadian is simply non-linguistic, unscientific, nonsense. You need to read some actual textbooks on historical linguistics. I can tell from your question and your misuse of the word "related" that you don't understand the issues involved. --Taivo (talk) 05:23, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

− One last note before Til Eulenspiegel deletes this thread. Linguists have been studying Akkadian for over a century now. Many, if not most, of those linguists also know one or more Indo-European languages and have been trained in historical linguistics and the study of Proto-Indo-European. If there were any connection whatsoever between Akkadian and Indo-European it would have been seen and described by now. We didn't have to wait for an untrained anonymous Wikipedia editor to make that "discovery". --Taivo (talk) 11:47, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Bitching here now;)

Dear Taivo,

Following your polite) request, I've been bold enough to add a summarizing paragraph for a controversial topic which recent Kiev history is. Which explains my previous reluctance to do so. Please note that I now reserve my right to come bitching here again every time I need your editing, sourcing and dispute resoluting help with that) Two can play that game) Wishes, Ukrained2012 (talk) 21:27, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Blah, blah, blah. Writing it yourself wasn't so hard now, was it? --Taivo (talk) 23:45, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

We'll see how long a stable neutral version would stand. Knocking on a wood) Ukrained2012 (talk) 00:57, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

And thank you. Ukrained2012 (talk) 01:00, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Unexplained content removal - Comanche talk page

In the future, please refrain from deleting my contributions to article talk pages, like you unjustly did here. Azx2 19:08, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Nothing unjust about it, it's just racist claptrap. --Taivo (talk) 21:34, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Igbo language

Hey,

Could you help with this? Ukabia is edit-warring, basically saying references don't count if he doesn't believe them. — kwami (talk) 07:21, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Serbo-Croatian articles in category Linguistic controversies

Hi,

I added articles Croatian language, Bosnian language, Montenegrin language, Serbian language, Controversy over linguistic and ethnic identity in Montenegro, Serbo-Croatian kinship, Comparison of standard Bosnian, Croatian and Serbian, Declaration on the Status and Name of the Croatian Literary Language and Croatian linguistic purism in Category:Linguistic controversies. Although I am not linguist and can not provide relevant opinion, it seems to me that these are controversial linguistic topics. Regardless of that, User:Timbouctou deleted my edits with explanations that this are not controversial topics (see). Can you please give your opinion on that topic? If I have a good point, you're a linguist? All the best.--MirkoS18 (talk) 18:02, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

From a linguistic standpoint, they are not controversial at all. The only controversy is political, not linguistic. --Taivo (talk) 03:50, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Tunebo

Do you have any refs on Tunebo? I'm trying to ID the lects found in the lit with those in Ethnologue. A couple ID's depend on LingList, but then they ID'd one as Buglere in Panama, and they've got many of the other names repeated in each article, so I can't trust them. It would be nice to know which are varieties of the four extant languages, and which are additional extinct languages, rather than just unattached names. (I can't access Grondona, if they're any help.) — kwami (talk) 09:53, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't want to repeat what you already have. Do you have Adelaar & Muysken The Languages of the Andes? If not, I'll type out their paragraph. I've also got a copy of Loukotka's Classification of South American Indian Languages if you think that might be helpful. Without going through the indexes of IJAL, that's all I have (Key's book includes virtually nothing on Tunebo). --Taivo (talk) 14:35, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I have both, thanks. Neither is particularly helpful. Fabre has a summary of several lists of languages, but they're difficult to cross-ref to each other or to the ISO names. MultiTree has assigned the ISO codes to various varieties, but not always convincingly. — kwami (talk) 17:05, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

South America is especially tricky because of the extinct languages, both with and without data, and the mix of toponyms, exonyms, endonyms, and Hispano-nyms. --Taivo (talk) 17:41, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Uralic languages at ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

μηδείς (talk) 20:17, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Serbo-Croatian

Hi Taivo. If you really think that Torlakian is a dialect of Serbo-Croatian, then please cite reliable sources to support it. Please note that there is a separate article about the dialect, in which the problem with its classification is advertised in a pretty neutral way. To say the classification of these dialects solely as Serbo-Croatian is disputed means that most of the linguists agree it's a dialect of Serbo-Croatian with some who oppose this idea, which is not true and illustrates an extreme POV in the context of the issue. Since you mention on your user page that you're a student in linguistics, you might be interested to read some of the works by Friedman, Fisiak, Hickey and Brown, who find strong association of these dialects to the Balkan sprachbund, shared with Macedonian and Bulgarian but not with Serbo-Croatian. In addition, you may also try to use the concept of language evolution in the Indo-European languages, according to which the languages tend to lose the grammatical cases but not vice versa. Hence, if the Torlakian dialects were part of the Old-Shtokavian dialect which eventually evolved into the Shtokavian dialect as a basis for today's Serbo-Croatian, as proposed by most of the Serbian linguists who classify the dialects as Serbian, then this explanation sharply diverges from the linguistics theory. Best regards and please don't threaten me!--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 00:43, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

No one has threatened you. I placed a standard warning label on your Talk Page as you were about to violate edit warring policies. You have been warned before, so this should be nothing new to you. "Disputed" means no such tight definition as you claim. It means simply means that some scholars say "Yes" and other scholars say "No". There are no percentages or majority rules involved. Take the discussion to Talk:Serbo-Croatian and discuss without edit warring. Per WP:BRD you need to build a consensus for your edit before simply removing information. --Taivo (talk) 00:51, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

If you say so, then feel free to do the same in the articles about Macedonian and Bulgarian, but it's much better to remove it completely since Wikipedia is not a place to develop politically motivated theories. Only Serbian linguists say it's part of Serbian (even Croatian linguists don't agree), only Macedonian linguists say it's part of Macedonian and only Bulgarian linguists say it's part of Bulgarian, while all of the world-renowned linguists make a thorough examination of these dialects to conclude that it's very difficult and incorrect to classify them as part of any of these three languages. If you simply dump the opinions of the neutral scholars to replace with those supported of political reasons, trust me that Wikipedia will no longer remain a place with quality, neutral and reliable information available. I'm a native speaker of Macedonian, who is completely fluent in Bulgarian and Serbo-Croatian, but don't support any of the politically motivated opinions of the linguists from my region and tend to agree that the classification to any of these three languages is impossible.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 01:15, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I think that's covered in the dialect section. Feel free to expand if you feel it's needed. But a POV tag for the entire article because of an entry in the infobox is inappropriate, and we don't cite the infobox anyway, because it's supposed to be a summary of the text. If there's something wrong with the text, tag that. And as for "only Serbian linguists", Comrie & Corbett (2002) treat it as a dialect of Shtokavian. — kwami (talk) 02:48, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

This should be discussed at Talk:Serbo-Croatian rather than here, Kiril Simeonovski. --Taivo (talk) 03:52, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Torlakian dialects

Hi Taivo. You can find my most recent proposal to solve the problem here. Feel free to comment on it. Best regards.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 19:35, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Now I see your point, but it's simply impossible to compare languages and dialects. If there is no existing article about the dialects of Serbo-Croatian, then feel free to create one instead of making a non-sense comparison. Best.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:40, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

There is not an article on dialects of Serbo-Croatian. There are articles on dialects of Macedonian and Bulgarian. If you want to create an article on dialects of Serbo-Croatian, then create one yourself. I am simply working with the articles that exist at this time. But because there are three different articles, then you need to build consensuses on three different articles. --Taivo (talk) 21:52, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

To compare languages and dialects is like to compare apples and oranges. If you're knowledgeable enough, you should surely know how to distinguish the one from the other. And please refrain from being indolent and ignorant about this issue. Leaving comments that you're "simply working with the articles that exist at this time" does not assume good faith and will not solve the problem. I need someone who will collaborate on my most recent proposal. If you don't like to do it, then I'll have to change it myself. Best regards.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:04, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Let's hear it, how do you distinguish the two? — Lfdder (talk) 00:47, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

The best linguists in the world can't reliably or consistently distinguish languages from dialects. And, Kiril, you are confusing Wikipedia article titles with reality. Perhaps you should walk away from your computer once in a while. Where we place the information about Torlakian doesn't make it a language or a dialect, it is simply placing it in the right Wikipedia article. It's got nothing to do with whether Torlakian is actually a dialect or a language in the real world. --Taivo (talk) 03:09, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

And, Kiril, you clearly don't understand the Wikipedia process of WP:BRD. Read it before you edit again. It means that if you propose a change and someone (anyone) reverts you, you do not keep trying to push the edit in the article and demand that people justify their revert. It means that if you are reverted, you have to justify the change on the Talk Page and build a consensus for the change before you edit the article again. You have the process backwards. "I need someone who will collaborate on my most recent proposal" is simply more evidence that you don't understand WP:CONSENSUS and WP:BRD. Just because you have an idea, doesn't mean that you get to implement it without building a consensus first. You don't seem to understand WP:AGF either. It also doesn't mean that if you have an idea you can implement it over the objections of other editors. If you persist in your stubbornness, there are editors who might very well report you for disruptive editing. --Taivo (talk) 03:14, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Uhm, Taivo, you are aware you just broke 3RR too? You might want to be careful, as it's now listed at WP:AN3. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:56, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Your sneaky game against me and the block only gave me inspiration to meet your ignorant behaviour that you're "simply working with the articles that exist at this time" and thus create the article on Dialects of Serbo-Croatian. You're welcome to come back and discuss it on the talk page on Serbo-Croatian once again. Best regards.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 01:35, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Read WP:NPA. And perhaps you didn't notice that it wasn't me who reported you. Indeed, I warned you that someone else might. But you ignored me and all my warnings about WP:BRD. Apparently you have learned nothing new. --Taivo (talk) 03:28, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

This is not a personal attack and sorry if you understood it as such. I know that you didn't report me and that's another business with that user, but you sent him regards on his talk page which is far from being a fair and tollerant behaviour if you're thankful for blocking other users. My intent once again for a dozenth time is not to illustrate any point, but to answer the requests that I received from readers who were complaining that some articles on Wikipedia contain disputed facts. When I came here to do it, I was blocked. That's all. So, please come back on the talk page to discuss the validity of adding link to the newly generated article Dialects of Serbo-Croatian instead all of these dialects as it's the case with the articles on Macedonian and Bulgarian. You mentioned yourself that you're working on the existing article and now there is such an article. Best regards.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:58, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

You were blocked because you refused to learn or to follow long-established rules of how to get things done. You were blocked because you ignored the warnings of others and proceeded to do what you wanted to do without working to build any WP:CONSENSUS. If you follow that path again, you will be blocked again for a longer period of time. And "sneaky game", "ignorant behavior" are indeed personal attacks. If you don't think they are personal attacks, then perhaps you need to reconsider your participation in the English Wikipedia. --Taivo (talk) 10:48, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorry if you got it wrong, but personal attack for me as well is to see that someone is content with my block and is even thankful in public about it. But our business here is not to compare our egos and to collaborate on improving content's quality. You still didn't answer on my call to consider the inclusion of the article I've recently created. Best. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:23, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Groundless revert of an edit to tweak the content in the article's infobox". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 16 November 2013.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 20:31, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Population inflation

... this time at Polish language, in case you're interested. — kwami (talk) 13:38, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Comanche

Hi, I've just reverted your recent edit to Comanche as changing (White Eagle) to (Coyote's Vagina) seemed rather odd. But then I took a look at your user page ... so, perhaps you could enlighten me about the name and maybe redo the edit with an explanation and/or supporting reference. Thanks, Vsmith (talk) 13:41, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Ach ... never mind, I just took a look at Isa-tai and restored your edit. Too quick on the trigger there - sorry 'bout that. Vsmith (talk) 13:51, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Useful study

Hi Taivo, I posted the following at Ivan Štambuk's page, but I think that you, kwami and JorisvS could find this useful too when countering Balkan nationalists defecating on the talk pages and articles involving BCS.

--- "Hi Ivan, I was directed to a paper describing an experiment done a few years ago by an American linguist, John Bailyn, concerning Croatian and Serbian. He basically had Croats translate several Serbian texts and found that the results support the single-language hypothesis on analysis of grammar alone because of the lack of modification done to the texts. No doubt this is another blow to the nationalist braintrust on Croatian Wikipedia that continually resorts to ad hominems and non-linguistic argumentation to preserve the image of Croatian and Serbian being different languages like Dutch and German or Danish and Swedish. The study is at https://linguistics.stonybrook.edu/sites/default/files/uploads/u5/publications/JSLBCS2.pdf" ---

LAuburger (talk)

Check your

email. Dougweller (talk) 14:41, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning Groundless revert of an edit to tweak the content in the article's infobox, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, Sunray (talk) 02:52, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

ANI discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:09, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Arbitration request

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Serbo-Croatian infobox dispute and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks,--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 01:50, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Arbitration request

The arbitration request naming you as a party has been [78] declined by the Committee. The comments at the request may be useful in moving forward. For the Arbitration Committee, Rschen7754 22:21, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

IE

Hi Taivo,

You made a comment in an old discussion that "Indo-European" ... preserves a very archaic bifurcation into "Indian world" and "European world". Sort of leaves out Iranian, Armenian, Anatolian, etc. Actually, I don't think it reflects any such bifurcation. "Indo-Germanic" was coined in 1810 for the languages "from the Ganges to Iceland", simply reflecting its geographic extent. Celtic was not yet known to be IE, but Iceland was still the western extreme, so that might not have mattered. Bopp preferred "Indo-European", and "Indo-Germanic" seems to have fallen out of favor outside of Germany some time around the world wars, though I can't tell if anti-German sentiment played a role. (It's still "Indo-Germanic" in Germany.) So AFAICT it doesn't reflect an archaic bifurcation any more than Uto-Aztecan or Oto-Manguean do. — kwami (talk) 02:38, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I think you hit the nail on the head with "old discussion". I can't remember what the issue was or why I made the comment. Context is everything :) --Taivo (talk) 21:23, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

It was in the discussion to move the Tai–Kadai article to its current name, where you said that it wasn't the only family name to reflect an obsolete classification. It's not important any more, I just came across it again and thought the point might be relevant in the future. — kwami (talk) 23:03, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Middle Persian

Would you happen to know or have an opinion about this statement, "Middle Persian was highly inluenced by the Aramaic language. It is estimated that about half of its vocabulary was Semitic in origin."? It was recently added to the Middle Persian article.[79] --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:59, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

I doubt the "half" part, but the rest is certainly true. Aramaic was the lingua franca of the Persian empire and Mesopotamia until the rise of Arabic. --Taivo (talk) 22:03, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Cool. So besides the "half part", do you know of a reference that supports, "Middle Persian was highly influenced by the Aramaic language."? --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:10, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Lithuanian language

Please read this section: Talk:Lithuanian language#Suggestion: Adding an IE words comparison table to this article, and write your opinion. Zyma (talk) 17:49, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Taivo, still waiting for your answer. Please answer on my talkpage or Talk:Lithuanian language. Thanks. --Zyma (talk) 11:21, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Bosnian language

The term is of convenience [80]. Please find another forum to dispute the encyclopedia Britannica. Further attempts to disrupt a proper, reliably cited, elucidated understanding of the term will only take this matter to the noticeboard. POV-hijacking of the article will not be tolerated. Praxis Icosahedron ϡ (TALK) 22:13, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

@Taivo: Actually, I don't mind "term of convenience", since that's what it seems to me to be: A hybrid name due to the lack of an acceptable unitary name, sometimes replaced w BCMS etc. But I see no point to the note: if s.o. dn know what SC is, that's what the link is for. This just seems to be Praxis getting upset that "Bosnian" isn't part of the name. Shall we just delete the note altogether? I don't see how it adds anything to the article. — kwami (talk) 07:15, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Inappropriate backstage deliberations. There's a relevant talk page for this. Let me remind you of Wikipedia:Ownership of articles. Kwami's claims have been refuted. Bias in the style of "it doesn't seem necessary so let's get rid of it" won't do either. Praxis Icosahedron ϡ (TALK) 16:25, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Praxis, Encyclopedia is not a reliable LINGUISTIC source. It is a general source, but when actual linguistic sources exist, then it is of secondary quality. And I don't appreciate your attempts at stupid wikilawyering. If Kwami and I want to have a discussion on my talk page, then we will. --Taivo (talk) 14:57, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Fine. It's all over with now anyways. Let's just move on. Praxis Icosahedron ϡ (TALK) 21:04, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Silesian language

(Lechitic languages / West Slavic languages) Could you please help on this?--Sobiepan (talk) 01:01, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Administrator explicitly said that you should calmly discuss, the revert in this edit-war leads to blockage account. Franek K. (talk) 01:20, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I suspect that Sobiepan's contributions need to be investigated. This is not a one-off incident over whether Silesian is a language or a dialect but, rather, part of a distinctly POV-push for the Polonization of content in a multitude of articles. I'd be happy to introduce a number of dubious & misleading changes flying under the radar (such as slipping WP:OR links contrary to the sourced content). --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:12, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

1. Dear Iryna , please check it on Slavic languages, 2. Pomerania was inhabited by Pomeranians a Lechitic tribe (a subgroup of the Poles), so the language they spoke was West slavic 3. Your last edits could be considered Wikihounding...--Sobiepan (talk) 07:44, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Please take care as to which policies and guidelines you invoke. Checking a user's special contributions after detecting POV blanking and misleading linking on several of your own watchlist pages is not Wikihounding, but a common sense check, or: "done carefully, and with good cause... Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles." Considering the fact that I'd never had an encounter with you before yesterday, I'm wondering how I could be understood to be hounding you.

Judging by the context of your 'adjustment' to 'po more', I have to say that your explanation strikes me as being less than honest.
1. You did not leave an edit summary;
2. You changed the link to 'West Slavic', but left the text as 'Slavic';
3. I know several Slavic languages and know that the term is not exclusively West Slavic. Nevertheless, I checked the cited source which explicitly used the term 'Slavic'.

I have no interest in 'hounding' you but, after your exchange with me on my talk page yesterday, should I see any changes made by you on any articles on my watchlist, I will be checking them thoroughly to ensure that you don't accidentally slip unreferenced information into cited text. It's common sense. Thank you for your patience and understanding. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:27, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Rûm and Southwest Paleohispanic script

Would you happen to have some information regarding these two articles? I have not been able to find much in the way of reliable sources. --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:31, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Revert on Uto-Aztecan languages

Hi, would you please explain your revert on Uto-Aztecan languages? Thanks Rjwilmsi 08:23, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Date of information is relevant for websites, where the information may change over time (such as Wikipedia). It is unnecessary and irrelevant for published scientific journals where the articles exist on paper and never change. --Taivo (talk) 10:20, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

"date": I assume you mean the |accessdate= parameter? I agree that |accessdate= is not relevant for a scientific journal as it's a stable source (whether printed or online). However, my edit added |doi=, not dates, so I'm unclear? Thanks Rjwilmsi 10:27, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

No, not "access date". "Date of information" is completely immaterial and irrelevant to a printed scientific journal where the information never changes. It is irrelevant. (Ever notice that is is never a part of scientific referencing in printed works?) --Taivo (talk) 22:41, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

You mean digital object identifier? You seem to be confused as to the purpose of the field. Thanks Rjwilmsi 22:47, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I stand corrected. (Or, rather, sit.) --Taivo (talk) 03:34, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

OK, good that we cleared that up. So I'll reinstate my edit on the article then? Rjwilmsi 18:40, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

I think Manaus already has. For most of my life "DOI" has meant "date of information". Wikipedia's choice of acronym is rather unfortunate. --Taivo (talk) 16:21, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Retroflexes in Ukrainian

Hi, Taivo.

I try to find what is the correct IPA responses for Ukrainian š, ž, č and dž. All the sources I've seen use /ʃ/, /ʒ/, /t͡ʃ/, /d͡ʒ/ as you edited (however most of Ukrainian sources don't use IPA). But as a native Ukrainian speaker I hear that these sounds are incorrect. For instance, /ʃ/ and /ʒ/ correspond for Polish ś and ź which are much softer than Ukrainian š and ž. In return /ʂ/ and /ʐ/ sound very close to Ukrainian sounds and correspond to Polish sz and ż, and that makes sense.

But /ʈ͡ʂ/ and /ɖ͡ʐ/ seem to be harder than Ukrainian sounds as they correspond to Belarusian/Polish č/cz and dž/dż. However /t͡ʃ/ and /d͡ʒ/ seem to be softer in return.

I understand that my ear is not an argument for an encyclopedic discussion but this disparity sounds very rough (like /ʃɑ/ = шя instead of ша, /ʒɑ/ = жя instead of жа, /t͡ʃɑ/ = чя instead of ча, /d͡ʒɑ/ = джя instead of джа).

So, do you know some reliable sources for IPA for Ukrainian and what arguments do the use in these cases? --Dƶoxar (talk) 22:50, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Ignore your personal ideas and what you think the sounds in Polish represent. In Wikipedia, we use reliable sources and the Pugh and Press grammar of Ukrainian uses the IPA symbols that I put in. The Zilyns'kyj phonetic description of Ukrainian also uses the equivalents of the IPA symbols ʃ, ʒ, t͡ʃ, and d͡ʒ (which are š, ž, č, and dž). (I'm a linguist, I know what I'm talking about.) The sources are entirely uniform. Your perception of the sound of ʂ and ʐ is wrong as these sounds do not occur in Ukrainian at all (nor do they occur in the other East Slavic dialects--Russian, Belarusan, and Rusyn). --Taivo (talk) 23:26, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you.--Dƶoxar (talk) 06:06, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi, it's me again. Sorry for bother you, but there is a small conflict around the IPA for Ukrainian. If you have couple of minutes, just check last edits by User:Wlad Sokolowskiy of the Ukrainian phonology. We discuss this on his talk page. Thanks.--Dƶoxar (talk) 14:54, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of Rendille–Boni languages for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Rendille–Boni languages is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

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

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

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!. This is not to imply any issue with your behavior. You tried to reason with another editor. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:53, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Thought there was something fishy...

Thanks for catching this. I thought it looked ridiculously verbose and couldn't remember anything outside of the original, simple caption. Talk about taking your eye off the ball for a second... --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:41, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

It's very easy to miss those little edits at the front end of a string of "problematic" edits. Done it myself a million or two times. --Taivo (talk) 11:25, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Need your assistance

Would the Turkmen language have been in use or used by the Seljuq Empire? I have reverted Azerbaijani language term for the Seljuq Empire article since according to the Azerbaijani language article, "By the beginning of the 16th century, it had become the dominant language of the region, and was a spoken language in the court of the Safavid Empire.". Any suggestions? --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:27, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Book of Mormon Accolades

The accolades that were added are significant and I believe it should be restroed. The Library of Congress is a very selective library run by the United States government. Its collection of 100 books that shaped america is a significant accolade. Likewise, Book Magazine, considered the Rolling Stone Magazine of the book world, selected The Book of Mormon as one of only twenty books that changed America. From a historical sense, this seems accurate since The Book of Mormon prompted the conversion and movement of LDS pioneers who walked across America and into the unsettled West, creating the settlements and outposts that would lead to the settling of much of the West including Las Vegas, most of Utah, most of Idaho, etc.--24.234.114.67 (talk) 15:33, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Those are not "accolades". Accolades are praise. These are simply lists that recognize historical significance. That can be stated in a single sentence in the text (if it's not already). --Taivo (talk) 05:34, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Taivo

Hey mate, it's Russavia here, you should know that someone has started Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Taivo but has failed to notify you about it. As you know CU should not be used for fishing under any circumstances, but you should possibly pipe in at the SPI, and after it is rejected (as should be done) you should request for it to be deleted as an attack page :) 69.80.53.69 (talk) 16:18, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

great stuff Stevepeterson (talk) 05:18, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Granting permission TAG for deleted images

Granting permission for deleted images to be restored

Dear Taivo,

I hope you can help me with a serious ongoing issue.

I am waiting to submit a family history of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Farooq_Family however it has come to my attention that you have removed the uploaded images after sending an image permission to wikicommon allowing the rights of the images to by used.

I wish to provide the licence tags below as the heir of a long dead photographer. I wish to submit

and also {{PD-heirs}} – for works released into the public domain by the heirs of the creator.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Farooq_Family Previous account name: Eminenceinvest New account name: s.raza Open ticker: Ticket#2014090410015943

I hope you will accept the provided tags and kindly restore all of my photos.

Please note the Family seal File:Arms-Logo-(for-approval-v1).jpg is a seal,logo and File:Abdulkarim Farooq.jpg is a painting.

Kind regards, S.raza

I have no idea what you are talking about. --Taivo (talk) 08:40, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

PEACE

Taivo, lets make peace. Although I feel extremely offended by your personal attacks and insults, I forgive you and I hope that you will do the same to me too. I will be fine if you don't, too. Life is too short to be wasted on WP edit wars. Warm regards, Steve Stevepeterson (talk) 08:48, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Edit Warning

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.

Unami vowels

Can you have a look at Unami language#Vowels? Currently, the text is contradicting itself as to the transcription of the short high-back vowel. Does Goddard use /o/ or /u/? --Florian Blaschke (talk) 14:15, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

The reason I'm asking you is this edit. My suspicion is that Goddard 1997 uses /u/ and Goddard 1979 /o/, explaining the discrepance in the text. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 14:20, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

I'll check it out when I get home tonight. All my books are at the house. --Taivo (talk) 14:58, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Alert

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding the Balkans, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

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.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.

Robert McClenon (talk) 14:46, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

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:Taivo reported by User:DMacks (Result: ). Thank you. DMacks (talk) 17:19, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Alexander the Great

Stevepeterson is pushing the ancient greek kingdom in Alexander the Great article, again. Macedonia (talk) 07:33, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Apologies Accepted

No worries, apologies accepted. :) Luxure (talk) 23:07, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Lviv

To: https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Lviv&oldid=628327638

Bruno Abakanowicz - he had his habilitation and assistanship in Lwow

Adam Didur - studied in Lwow

Benedykt Dybowski - professor of University in Lwow, he died in Lwow and was buried in Lwow. He received the title of honorably citizen of Lwow in 1929.

Artur Grottger - he lived and worked in Lwow between 1848 - 1852. He was buried in Lwow.

Jan Kasprowicz - he lived for 36 years in Lwow

Wojciech Kilar - he was born in Lwow and lived there for 13 years

Ignacy Lukasiewicz - lived in Lwow between 1846-48 and 1852-54. He has monument with his name in Lwow

Kornel Makuszynski - lived in Lwow between 1898 -1908 (studied and worked there)

Ignacy Moscicki - professor of Technical University in Lwow (1912-1922), rector of the same university 1925-26

Jan Parandowski - born in Lwow, lived there for 34 years

Jakub Parnas - lived in Lwow since his 15 until 57 years old

Wojciech Pszoniak - born in Lwow

Kazimierz Sosnkowski - lived in Lwow betwen 1907 - 1914 Marcus19771107 (talk) 13:41, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

If they were born or lived the majority of their life in Lviv and are buried in Lviv, then that is OK, but just because they passed through Lviv or went to college in Lviv or worked for a few years in Lviv is not enough. I'm not from Los Angeles even though I worked there for a time. --Taivo (talk) 16:25, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

You're right, but you should also applied the same rule to the other people cited in this article (and their presence were approved) - many of them also 'only' studied or work in Lwow for a while.16:34, 5 October 2014 (UTC)Marcus19771107 (talk)

It's all about consensus. Check them yourself and delete them if they don't meet these criteria. If anyone else objects then you can start a discussion on the Talk Page. You came along at a time when hyper-Polish-nationalists have been pushing an agenda. If your goal is to make the article on Lviv into a Polish whine session, then you'll face stiff opposition. But if you honestly want to be fair to both Polish and Ukrainian interests on the page, then go ahead and see what other editors think. The first problem that you will need to overcome is to stop calling it "Lwów" and start calling it by its current name--Lviv. --Taivo (talk) 17:33, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I only wanted to add some famous (hmm, how should I say this in English - Lvivian ??) which I knew about. I am not familiar with Ukrainian history so I am not eligible to remove or add any person of this nationality. It was only a matter of criteria which should be applied, and of which I was unaware. Anyway, this is so trivial topic there is no sense to fight over (with 5 people there will be probably 6 different opinion). If nobody has an objection, I will leave it with the current status. Thanks Taivo for the help ! Marcus19771107 (talk) 18:00, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Can you assist, please?

Please see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Laz_people#Language_contradiction_-_need_a_Subject_Matter_Expert_here_.... HammerFilmFan (talk) 07:56, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Lugansk

Please could you use Talk:Lugansk to explain your repeated deletions of POV material. If you do not, then you lay yourself open to accusations of edit warring over the article on Lugansk. The same applies to your deletions of the same POV material in the article on Donetsk if you find that you need to delete it repeatedly.

It is important to remember the kind of people you are dealing with.-- Toddy1 (talk) 07:56, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion involving the page on Lugansk. at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Ukrainecriziz reported by User:Toddy1 (Result: ) regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. -- Toddy1 (talk) 21:23, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Eastern Europe sanctions alert

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding Eastern Europe, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

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.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.

--Bbb23 (talk) 21:33, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Editor has restored link to an attack page

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Editor has restored link to an attack page regarding a recently restored link to an attack page that attacks you.-- Toddy1 (talk) 23:02, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Where is this (direct link)? I cannot find it. HammerFilmFan (talk) 19:55, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Here's where the original complaint is archived. The link in the complaint goes here. Following the link to the Ukrainian Wikipedia, we end up here. The offending editor has since been permanently blocked as a sock of another disruptive editor (who was also permanently blocked). Since we have no control over the Ukrainian Wikipedia, the attack list is still there. --Taivo (talk) 20:09, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I was going to aid you in the case but sounds like it has been taken care of, and just about every non-English Wiki is subject to some pretty crazy stuff going on, unfortunately.HammerFilmFan (talk) 05:27, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Sumerian language article

I've removed crap, and added 3 RS's for Sumerian being an Isolate, but my RS's are historical rather than linguistic [ since I don't have linguistic textbooks, :-) ] - could you add one source to the main body under Classification from a linguist? Just to nail the point home. Thanks HammerFilmFan (talk) 19:46, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Done. Added a good linguistic source to both the infobox and the main body. --Taivo (talk) 20:01, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much - may the women from Robert Palmer's "Addicted to Love" video visit you with the heads of Balkan nationalist anon-IP whackies on pikes as a pre-amble to showing you physical affection.  :-) HammerFilmFan (talk) 05:24, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't think my good Ukrainian wife would allow that last part ;) --Taivo (talk) 06:08, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

J, T, & K - please have a fresh look at Etruscan language article - isolate?

Hitting all three of you with the same msg - just recently had a look at this article, and it is mixing 'language isolate' (which everything I've ever known about it via historical sources says it is) with very recent published theories that it no longer is, or is confusingly seemingly stating it no longer is. Please look at the Classification section and correct or re-word it to make it more clear. Also, a couple of new studies has never in my field = "majority consensus opinion." Thanks. HammerFilmFan (talk) 22:48, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Happy New Year Taivo!

Happy New Year!

Taivo,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:17, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2015}} to user talk pages.

Дякую. З новим роком !! --Taivo (talk) 03:53, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Borscht and Ukraine

Please step back from your current style of editing and discussion relating to borscht and compare them with articles like pizza, hamburger, potato chip, apple pie, french fries and even Bratwurst.

You are clearly making an effort to make borscht into a more nationalist issue than necessary. All of the above examples have very obvious origins, but they do not focus on origins, nor give special treatment to the country of origin. That's because they are about dishes, not cuisine history.

There is obviously contentious editing from both pro-Ukrainian and pro-Russian editors. Neither are being neutral, though, and I'm sensing that you are also taking sides here.

Peter ^Isotalo 17:48, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Randy is on the Loose

At Talk:Indo-Aryan migration hypothesis and Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Proposed_Hypothesis.2FTheory_as_fact.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:20, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Added my two cents. Pretty much duplicates what you and others who actually know what they are talking about have said. I really hate the religious/nationalist fanatics :p --Taivo (talk) 21:34, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks

File:Indo-European migrations v02.03.png		The Wikipedia Indo-European Award
		Thanks. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:24, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

RfC on "Indigenous Aryans"

I've opened an RfC at Talk:Indigenous Aryans#RfC: the "Indigenous Aryans" theory is fringe-theory. Let's keep it civilised. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:35, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

David Gordon White

See comment of Joshua Jonathan about David Gordon White being a top scholar. How familiar are you with indology?VictoriaGrayson^Talk 12:32, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Indology != History of Yoga.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:06, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree wtih Maunus. The guy is apparently neither an archeologist nor a linguist. Religion does not equal history--it is the study of myth and legend. You might as well pick up Beowulf and consider it a history of the Danes. --Taivo (talk) 14:55, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

IA

Taivo, you had seen the edit history?[81] I have not inserted even 3 sentences, so it is not me who extended the page. I hope you will rephrase your ANI report. Bladesmulti (talk) 03:54, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Korean language article - classification section

Lots of Altaic bru-ha-ha, but little about it being a language isolate. HammerFilmFan (talk) 22:19, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

User:HammerFilmFan I tried to fix it a bit. --Taivo (talk) 03:16, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Altaic

Hi Taivo.

Longstanding consensus to give Altaic as the highest node for its constituent clades, with some sort of caveat, but not to list it for individual languages. (Actually, consensus was to keep it for the major languages -- Turkish, Mongol, Korean, and Japanese, -- but we can probably move away from that now without much problem.) — kwami (talk) 03:30, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Hey, Kwami.

I do think that we need to move away from Altaic, especially for the two "marginal" groups. Since we last discussed it several years ago, Altaic has simply fallen out of favor even more than it was. It's gained no new support to replace the limited support that it had. Only the Starostin group still has any love for Altaic other than as an areal grouping. The RfC at Japonic languages was starting to look pretty solid against using Altaic. --Taivo (talk) 04:55, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I have no problem with that, if that's what the current the state of the lit is. But I think we should revisit the issue on a single talk page, and advertize at the WP:lang project. We could discuss deleting the fairly useless navbox at the same time. — kwami (talk) 05:26, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I have initiated a new RfC at Japonic languages, since that's where most of the discussion was and was actually the focus of all the comments for the "color" question there. --Taivo (talk) 08:19, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Saw this after commenting there. If we're going to discuss the issue at a peripheral location, we should at least advertize where people are likely to see it. This isn't my area, so it's hard for me to evaluate, but there are some seemingly quite knowledgeable editors who might miss the discussion. — kwami (talk) 17:51, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I assume it will show up on the Languages/Linguistics boards. I'll post a like at Altaic languages. --Taivo (talk) 19:27, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

BUT. If you read the instructions at the infobox template, the highest level that should be listed is the highest level generally recognized. It says nothing about controversial listings. --Taivo (talk) 19:30, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

The instructions are neither very detailed nor entirely consistent. If we explicitly allowed for controversial groups, we'd probably have arguments over Nostratic and Amerind. But in practice we do include questionable mainstream proposals, such as those in Campbell's classification of South American languages. Admittedly, Altaic is a bit different, because it's dubious despite being well researched while many of the South American proposals are dubious because the languages are poorly documented and few people have worked on their classification. So I could certainly see treating the two cases differently. I wouldn't argue for including Ural-Altaic, as that's clearly obsolete. I just don't know where the academic community currently stands with Altaic. Also, if Macro-Altaic is the version currently favored by those who adhere to Altaic, as we decided last time, then we should treat Turkic, Mongolic, and Tungusic the same as Koreanic and Japonic, regardless of which way we go. — kwami (talk) 20:14, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

ALL linguistic classifications of Slavic that include East Slavic show this. It is not subject to debate

1. I'm not discussing any classifications.
2. I have quoted other Wikipedia articles, I'm not a linguist to look for the sources but there are multiple problems which you refuse to discuss. Xx234 (talk) 08:32, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

But linguistic classification is a statement of linguistic descent. They are one and the same. --Taivo (talk) 09:15, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Altaic (cont.)

You might want to edit the intro and info box of Dravido-Korean languages re. the status of Altaic. — kwami (talk) 23:15, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Yahad-In Unum

Hi Taivo!

Thanks for your message on my talk page. I disagree with you regarding reliability of this source and am unsure regarding COI. Y-I U is not a "personal website" but a recognized NGO in that field. Dialogue has started with the user at ANI, and I have started a thread on the reliable sources noticeboard (WP:RSN#Use of Yahad-In Unum regarding that source. Feel free to comment there, and await second opinions. I take responsibility for reinstalling some of the info you deleted from the articles. Please don't revert them or make more reverts on the matter until we have consensus on the matter and I'll do the same. Thanks! Susuman77 (talk) 15:39, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

please see when you have time .......

https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Language_isolate&oldid=prev&diff=651901153

I reverted back to what my edit said. If it needs further adjustment by you as an SME, please do? Thanks. HammerFilmFan (talk) 01:26, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Your account will be renamed

Hello,

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called Taivo. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Taivo~enwiki that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name. If you think you might own all of the accounts with this name and this message is in error, please visit Special:MergeAccount to check and attach all of your accounts to prevent them from being renamed.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours,
Keegan Peterzell
Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation

02:57, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

3RR warning

You are at 3 reverts on the article on the Crimea. If you need to do more reverts on that page in the next 24 hours, do not do them; instead post on the article talk page recommending a revert.-- Toddy1 (talk) 21:15, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Ancient Macedonian Language

Hi Taivo

I noticed that you have undone my corrections. I understand your comments about 'ancient Macedonian's' Greek origins being clarified further down, but your quote is misleading and leaves out the fact that Borza is clearly speculating. In the Shadow of Olympus, 1992, p.94: 'It should not surprise us if a variety of dialects were used - with writing in standard dialects of Greek and some patois in a language or dialect the knowledge of which is beyond recovery. One can only speculate that the dialect (Macedonian) declined with the rise in use of standard koine Greek' Borza is speculating, he makes that very clear. Moreover, you delete the very unambiguous citation from Horrocks (p.79) only to quote one from Horrocks which is much more ambiguous. Both your citations are misleading and insufficient. Neither historian is implying what you are implying. If you are going to propound this thesis, then it seems only right that you provide at least two quotes that unambiguously defend the position of a paleo Balkan language which became extinct in the fourth century BC.

This belongs on the article Talk Page. Not here. --Taivo (talk) 05:57, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

deleting links to LL-Map

Hi Taivo,

Since LL-Map has been offline for some time, I'm deleting all the links you added when you created the Chadic language articles. If LL-Map ever comes back, we could code the info box to support it, which will allow us to centrally update the url when it changes. We could have every box with an ISO code generate a link to LL-Map if we like. — kwami (talk) 18:17, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. --Taivo (talk) 18:32, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Merger proposal

Hello Taivo, I've proposed a merger on Cibak language to Kibaku language, since that is the terminology used in the first written dictionary of the language. What do you think-- which is more important, to use the local term, or the Ethnologue term? --Djembayz (talk) 13:55, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

What is more important is common English usage. When both Ethnologue and Glottolog use Cibak, then that's the term that should be used. --Taivo (talk) 14:31, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Would you like to merge it to Cibak then? Please feel free to do this if you know how.--Djembayz (talk) 02:14, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Macedonia

Hi, Taivo. Thank you for your consideration with my case in Talk:Macedonia. I was responding to the user Dr.K., when you posted your edit, but I assure you that I read it, and think you're right to a point. But, I'll still hold my position that the case with Macedonia just objects the WP:COMMONNAME convention, and it's a result of just persistent and blatant arguments by what seems Greek editors on the site. Anyway, thank you for your time, and just wanted to say that it felt nice someone non-Greek to swiftly respond to the thread. - Phill24th (talk). 22:42, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Anyway, thank you for your time, and just wanted to say that it felt nice someone non-Greek to swiftly respond to the thread. Yes, nothing feels better than some cheap Greek-bashing. But in an issue that was decided by a wide community discussion and was ARBCOM-assisted, it is just so much gratuitous AGF-defying ethnic-based profiling editing abuse. By the way sorry Taivo for the intrusion and my warmest greetings to you. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 22:58, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

'Greek-bashing'? - Phill24th (talk). 23:09, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

You want me to give you a link to a dictionary? Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 23:11, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

And my warmest greetings back, Dr.K.. I hope my comment about Greek editors didn't sound like Greek-bashing, but a simple statement of fact. ARBMAC was hard work for all of us and sometimes new editors on the scene just want to wake sleeping dragons with no real idea of what that entails. --Taivo (talk) 01:40, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi Taivo. Thank you for your kind words, which are reciprocated, of course, to the fullest. :) Sorry for the delay in replying but I am travelling right now. Take care. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 10:18, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Linguistics main page?

Hi Taivo, I see you were helpfully trying to keep the main Linguistics entry in a good state last year, with your edit [82]. I wonder if we couldn't work together to essentially restore the page to that version. Unfortunately, the page has degraded quite a bit in the meantime, and it looks like it'd be a lot of effort to get it back to that. Mundart (talk) 15:19, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Isolated Languages

This term can be contreversial. Mostly signes a temporary situtation caused by insufficient research. In fact, any human languages could not be isolated. Other way of thinking gives way to idea of isolated languages, races and, racism. It is obvious, because you cannot give any references for your (subjective) ideas. However, I supply the article with reliable references. You may do the same, or you should not any more editions. We dont argue about the political side-effects of Ural-Altaic theories but, still we may learn about linguistic studies. There are tangible proofs about the roots of Sumerian language. And you cannot hide these from the wiki members.The article is lack of references and a caution message is above it. Why dont you try to fix it, if you really concern wiki and knowledge of humanity? Otherwise, I dont even want to think about your intentions. Please abide the principles of wiki. Or just take a look at them in policy pages, if you havent done yet. Okurogluselo (talk) 23:44, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

No, it is not "controversial" at all. You don't understand what it actually means. An "language isolate" is a language that has had enough research conducted on it to prove that it isn't related to anything else. You are thinking of an "unclassified language". You need to get your terms straight. Your claims about Sumerian have been utterly rejected by virtually every reputable scholar and there are plenty of references on the pages in question if you only bothered to read them. --Taivo (talk) 23:50, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

I understand it well, you can be sure, "unclassified" is another issue. Consequently, there are a serious lack of references in the article about "isolated language". Researches can never be considered as "enough" if a problem exists. This is science, or we should live in stone ages harmony still. I propose it should be the term for a temporary reconciliation about unsolved issue, i.e. roots of language, just means, further research are needed,or there are no sufficient proofs until now. There are many theories about the relatives of Sumerian, and Ural-Altaic approach is only one of these. Once, it was dominant theory, now it is not. But it doesnt mean it is completely useless, anymore. Still the theory survives, because it is relased from the political campaigns in 19th and 20th centuries. So it is worth to be expressed in the pages.

Anyway, I like your some contributions to the article, you have done really well. I will not use the term "controversial". Thank you. Okurogluselo (talk) 01:26, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

There is no controversy. The Ural-Altaic material violates both WP:FRINGE and WP:WEIGHT. It is universally rejected by historical linguists and therefore is not "controversial". The article is quite adequately referenced. You are the only editor who thinks otherwise and the only reason you think that is because you want to create room for your rejected Ural-Altaic nonsense. --Taivo (talk) 02:33, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Language isolate

I saw this recent edit to Language isolate and all the back-and-forth edits.[83] I thought I'd let you know I'd support a revert of this edit based only on the way it is written. I only know a bit about linguistics, but I know a lot about good writing. I cannot make a determination about the content, but perhaps you'll agree that the writing in this added material is poor. I could edit the writing to improve the clarity, perhaps working with an editor with more knowledge of linguistics such as yourself, but I will wait and see whether the edit stays in the article. Let me know if you'd like me to undo the edit. CorinneSD (talk) 01:45, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

That edit has no place in the article since it violates both WP:FRINGE and WP:WEIGHT. It represents a completely rejected point of view. --Taivo (talk) 02:31, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Legitimacy of Altaic

Hi. I noticed you reverted my edit indicating the tentative classification of Turkic as a branch of the controversial Altaic family. I do agree that the classification is not universally accepted, but I dispute that Altaic is "almost universally rejected." As far as I know, the support towards Altaic in the linguistic world is about fifty-fifty. Due to the high level of support, I believe it to be reasonable to include the Altaic classification on all its generally accepted sub-branches, including Turkic and Mongolic, with its uncertainty indicated by a question mark. What are your thoughts? Aardwolf A380 (talk) 22:42, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Aardwolf A380, you are mistaken about the 50-50. That may have been true 50 years ago, but it is certainly not true today. Virtually every historical linguist who specializes in these languages (and they are the ones who count the most) has rejected Altaic as a genetic classification and only a shrinking number of fringe adherents remain. A consensus was reached several months ago that all use of "Altaic" in the infobox would be removed. --Taivo (talk) 23:43, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

TavioLinguist, doesn't that then set a precedent for the removal of all controversial classifications from family infoboxes (for instance, the citing of Dene-Yeniseian in the infoboxes of the Na-Dene and Yeniseian language families)?

Regards Aardwolf A380 (talk) 01:15, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Each case must be resolved by the editors who are interested in that page or language grouping. Dene-Yeneseian is a newer proposal so there may be different considerations involved. There must be a separate consensus reached for each grouping. I am only speaking for Altaic, which has been discarded over the decades. --Taivo (talk) 01:19, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Mongols

Hi Taivo. I unfortunately have this article on my watchlist, and currently there is a talk page discussion (and occasional edit warring) occuring. I might be wrong, but I did not get an impression that the two sides (i) understand eash other (ii) understand what they are talking about. I guess we need an expert and you seem to be an excellent candidate. I would appreciate very much if you could have a look at the lowest couple of topics at the talk page. (Note that this is my personal iniciative, I was not asked by other users, and they do not know about it unless they watch your talk page). It would be great if you could find some time. Thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:55, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Borscht / Borsch / Borshch disambiguation

Hi Taivo, do you realize that neither BORSCHT nor Viktor Borshch are mentioned in Borsch (disambiguation)? And they shouldn't be because Borsch (disambiguation) is only concerned with words that are spelled borsch, not borscht or borshch. After your last edit, searching for either BORSCHT nor Viktor Borshch is seriously hindered. Per WP:SIMILAR, it is not necessary to create a disambiguation page if there are only two topics that potentially share the same title. It doesn't matter that BORSCHT or Viktor Borshch are little known to you; the role of hat notes is precisely to direct readers to more obscure topics they might be looking for. I don't want to edit war with you, so I'm asking you to revert your last edit yourself. — Kpalion^(talk) 06:47, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Actually, you can expand the scope of the disambiguation page. It is simply bad style to have multiple hat notes on a page when there is already a disambiguation page that can serve the function. Simply add some alternate spellings to the already existing disambiguation page. A hat note leading to an utterly obscure and unknown person is especially unnecessary. Indeed, I would argue that there is no reason why Viktor Borshch should even have a Wikipedia page. He is utterly unnotable. But, as I started this comment with, the two articles that you want hat notes for can very easily be accommodated on the existing disambiguation page since they are minor spelling variations only. --Taivo (talk) 08:04, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

OK, I've made the changes according to your suggestion. Let's see how this works. — Kpalion^(talk) 11:14, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Tunisian Arabic

Dear User,

As you are one of the contributors to Tunisian Arabic. You are kindly asked to review the part about Domains of Use and adjust it directly or through comments in the talk page of Tunisian Arabic.

Yours Sincerely,

--Csisc (talk) 13:07, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Your revert on articles of Ukrainian city

TaivoLinguist, I urge you to get familiar with the WP:P-NUK (Naming conventions). Please, explain your recent reverts on articles for Ukrainian cities. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 23:34, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

I urge you to become familiar with WP:CONSENSUS. It has been a long-standing consensus on these articles to list both the Ukrainian and Russian names. --Taivo (talk) 03:30, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Since WP:P-NUK was your very recent creation with just one other editor, it cannot be considered to have any force whatsoever to override the pre-existing consensus that has prevailed for years. Nice try, but no cigar. --Taivo (talk) 03:41, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

WP:P-NUK only applies to article titles, not to article content or infoboxes according to the primary author of the guideline: [84] --Taivo (talk) 05:57, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Recent Reversion on the Macedonian page

Hello Taivo. You recently reverted an edit on the Macedonian page. Generally, when people, revert edits, they give a reason for it. Since you failed to do so, I decided to message you directly and ask for what purpose you did this before reverting it.Rogue Commander (talk) 20:30, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Your repeated references to "Vardar Macedonia" are heavily POV and against the spirit of WP:MOSMAC. --Taivo (talk) 21:51, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't really see how the additions I made actually violate that policy. Since these are the only references to these regions or their names on that page, and Pirin Macedonia is referenced not far away from those references and is already on the same page. These aren't particularly controversial terms, and are links to pages that are actually relevant to the subject. These are simply alternate terms for these Macedonia's. Nothing really worth reverting or directly violating any policy, even the one you link too, which is really a naming policy in regards to pages and the naming of the countries, not the regions.Rogue Commander (talk) 22:15, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

"Vardar Macedonia" is controversial and is not neutral. Just ask Macedonians how "neutral" they consider it to be. Start a discussion on the article Talk Page, I won't discuss it further here. If you can build a consensus for its inclusion in the article, then so be it. --Taivo (talk) 23:24, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Khmelnytsky article

If you have a moment (and energy) to spare, I'd be grateful if you could weigh in on content being re-added under discussion here. Thanks! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:51, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Altaic languages

You did realize that by reverting me, you reverted your own version, right?--Ymblanter (talk) 13:19, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Oops. I woke up too early. Thanks for pointing that out. --Taivo (talk) 14:34, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Sure, no problem.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:53, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Tagalog

Talk:Tagalog move request to restore the old location, if you're interested. — kwami (talk) 04:16, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Ukraine

Hi! Act Zluky (Act of Unification), the UPR and WUPR - extremely important events should be reflected in the preamble. --Бучач-Львів (talk) 11:03, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Take this to Talk:Ukraine, not here. --Taivo (talk) 12:34, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Behavioural issues at Talk Tagalog Requested move 25 July 2015

At Talk:Tagalog#Requested move 25 July 2015 you have raised behavioural issues.

Please discuss these at User talk:Andrewa#Behavioural issues at Talk Tagalog Requested move 25 July 2015. TIA. Andrewa (talk) 22:20, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Concerning to Crimea and other territories or countries

If we aknowledge that the whole international community defends that Crimea belongs to Russia (since they have a most countries favouring it than denying it), so surely we should assume that the State of Palestine is an independent state (since the same happens concerning to the state of Palestine). I don't give any priviledge to the votes of USA over the votes of Malawi. So, either the status of Palestine is corrected or the Crimean status follows the same path. Greetings! Viet-hoian1 (talk) 02:32, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

This doesn't belong on my Talk Page. Discuss at Talk:Crimea. --Taivo (talk) 03:22, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Languages/ethnic groups

Yes, the discussion at WP:NCLANG should only cover languages, so I don't understand why ethnic group articles are being moved and completely useless disambiguation pages with only two links (language+ethnic groups) are being created. After this has been discussed year after year. -Uyvsdi (talk) 01:03, 19 August 2015 (UTC)Uyvsdi

I don't understand either. Too often Kwami uses a bulldozer when a hand trowel is all that is needed. --Taivo (talk) 01:39, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Scanian dialect

If you want to offer an opinion, there's a protracted argument over whether we should use the Ethnologue figure for the population, which is apparently all there is. — kwami (talk) 20:31, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Yulia Tymoshenko

The decision of the European court confirmed the link.There are also links about Russian aggression in Ukraine.In the judgment of the European Court says that Tymoshenko was a political prisoner.Regarding the Russian aggression, Tymoshenko's even created his battalion, which was fighting in the East of Ukraine.Please do not remove this important information/--Gal777 (talk) 08:08, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't matter. If the WP:CONSENSUS is to not add this, then you cannot add it. You are edit warring and will be blocked. You seem to be ignorant of Wikipedia policy. In any case, this discussion belongs at Talk:Yulia Tymoshenko. --Taivo (talk) 08:37, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Sakha language move

Thanks for moving Sakha language to Yakut language. Sorry for the confusion by moving the page back. Can you also move Talk:Sakha language to Talk:Yakut language? I reverted my original move because I am unable to replace the talk page at Talk:Yakut language.

Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:10, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

It needs to be done by an administrator because there was an old, old edit at the original Talk:Yakut language. --Taivo (talk) 00:11, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Name changes in Ukraine

TaivoLinguist, Luhansk used to be called Voroshilovgrad, in case you did not know. And it is part of the Soviet name changes of populated places in Ukraine. How is that not a name change? Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 09:30, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Moreover, Soviet toponymy category is important as part of decommunization process in Ukraine. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 09:32, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Would you please be kind to explain me your reverts on those matters? Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 09:34, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Nearly every city in the world has been called something different at one time or another, it is a meaningless category because it doesn't distinguish between names that were changed in the Medieval period and names that were changed in Soviet times. Rivne, for example, has had the same name for centuries (Rowne, Rovno, and Rivne are all the same name, just in three languages). Indeed, according to the article Rivne, the city has never had a different name since its first mention in 1269. Changing from Polish to Russian to Ukrainian is not a "name change", it's a language change. Even today, if you are speaking Russian, you call it Rovno. If you are speaking Polish, you call it Rowne. If you are speaking Ukrainian, you call it Rivne. It's the same name, in use since the 13th century. And as far as "decommunization", none of these places have changed their names as a result of this (yet). --Taivo (talk) 09:37, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

I see. You are arguing about language change. I do agree that there is no point of arguing about changing Kiev to Kyiv or Odessa to Odesa due to the fact that there is no legal background. However Rivne was officially confirmed as such by the resolution of Verkhovna Rada back in 1991 [85]. Just because the article says that the name has never changed, it simply means that some people in Wikipedia community for some reason choose not to acknowledge it. Denial however, how they say, is not only a river in Africa. If your arguments about language in cases with Rivne and Ternopil do have a point to some extent, cases with city name changes like Luhansk, Donetsk, Alchevsk, that were called completely different during Soviet times and were named so as part of the Soviet propaganda, I do not understand. Those cities eventually returned to their original name as part of decommunization, particularly Alchevsk, while Donetsk was renamed as part of deStalinization. Your statement that nearly every city in the world has been called something different could be easily argued. Also toponyms such as Kirov, Sverdlov, Yuzhnoukrainsk, Yuzhne, Dzerzhynsk has nothing to do with Ukraine and are part of Russification process. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 10:27, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

So what you need to do is develop a more tightly focused category that isn't just "This city uses the Ukrainian form instead of the Polish/Russian form now" (like Rivne and Kyiv). Those cases aren't "name changes". When Yekaterinaberg became Dnipropetrovsk, that's a name change, and a name change directly related to Sovietization. So refine your categories to "Soviet era name changes" or "Decommunization name changes" or something like that and I'll have no problem with it. But "decommunization" is not Dnepropetrovsk to Dnipropetrovsk or Rovno to Rivne. --Taivo (talk) 14:21, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

'former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia' /'Talk:Macedonia naming dispute'.

Dear Taivo, thanks a lot for your comment - help 'former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia' on the page 'Talk:Macedonia naming dispute'. Now people can easily understand the issue here. 77.46.206.215 (talk) 15:23, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Seconding. Made me smile. Kafka Liz (talk) 15:48, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Maybe someone should propose improving article “Macedonia naming dispute” by adding reference “Legal Aspects of Provisional Name for Macedonia”, by AJIL, explaining how the No-Name State became UN member, loosing its state name after admission to the United Nations.77.46.206.215 (talk) 18:03, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

I doubt that would solve the problems, 77, though I like the idea. Kafka Liz (talk),

Dear Taivo, I will not further discuss that article. Thanks for your very good contribution on the matter. And thank you for your patience and help. 77.46.206.215 (talk) 21:58, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Just saying

Hey,

I'm not gonna war about this, so feel free to remove it again, but imho, it can make a valuable addition (as in making a part of wider section/niche of Wikipedian activity) apart from the obvious fact that its inseparable from Russian history and ethnicity (incl. modern day). Feel free to do with it whatever you want. Bests - LouisAragon (talk) 03:24, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

It's about Ukrainians, not Russians or Russian history. --Taivo (talk) 09:51, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Macedonia (name)

I read your comments in the relative articles. If there is a dispute, then both sides are responsible, because there is always the chance of compromise. The connection of Greek Macedonia with the Ancient Macedonia is mainly geographical. Nobody believes that he is a true descendant of Alexander the Great. It seems that many citizents of the "Republique of Macedonia",once lived in Greek Macedonia. Many citizents of Greece were thrown from Turkey,and they named some cities or districts "New Makri", "New Smyrna" etc. In my opinion one solution would be "New Macedonia", like "New Mexico". If there is no distinction, the dispute will continue foreve.Jestmoon(talk) 14:32, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

There is no dispute at all! This is a question of recognition of the state! When Macedonia obtain 140 countries, it will bring matter to UNGA and designation FYROM will be replaced with constituional name Republic of Macedonia. And that was the strategy and still is of Macedonia. (You proposal for New Macedonia was allready refused by Greece.).93.87.242.190 (talk) 22:53, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

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) 12:58, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

AUO

I just clicked on the link in the infobox, that leads to http://multitree.org/codes/auo...

I undid my changes because I double checked this page after receiving this mail from Ethnologue, I had contacted them to tell them to put the link to MultiTree on the SIL page of the code auo :

I now have a response for the missing link from the ISO 639-3 site (http://www-01.sil.org/iso639-3/documentation.asp?id=auo) to the LinguistList information (http://multitree.org/codes/auo).

If you look closely at the LinguistList information, you will see that there is some confusion there with the Tirio languages in Papua New Guinea. Since the information on the LinguistList (MultiTree) site was problematic, the link was not established.

With regards,

Charles Fennig

Managing Editor

www.ethnologue.com

Now, I won't fight for this. If you think that a link to a page saying that :

Name:Tirio
Type:Language
Alternate Names:Auyokawa; Auyakawa; Awiaka; Auyo; Auyok
Once Spoken in:Nigeria
Code:auo
Code Standard:ISO 639-3
Documentation:SIL
Families:Trans-New Guinea
Parent Subgroup:Tirio Family; Tirio (tiri)

is legitimate in the Auyokawa article, it is your problem now.

Thank you anyway to mean that I don't know what I am doing when I check my edits. Şÿℵדαχ₮ɘɼɾ๏ʁ 19:34, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

My apologies for the bluntness of my edit summary. When you go directly from the Multilink search page to auo, the information is correct. It is only when you click on the "details" link below the Auyokawa reference that you get to the problematic page. The problem with the Auyokawa link is that while all the other information on the page and the bibliographical information is accurate for Auyokawa, the language name (Tirio) and family connection (Trans-New Guinea) are incorrect. It seems to be a programming/database error rather than a linking error. --Taivo (talk) 20:17, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

December 2015

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Indo-Aryan migration theory. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.
I really think edit summaries make a poor discussion forum. Kautilya3 (talk) 23:39, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Cherkassy

Please could you add the redirect page Cherkassy to your watch list.-- Toddy1 (talk) 13:13, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Done. --Taivo (talk) 13:24, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Season's greets!

Iryna Harpy (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas6}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Problematic User

I see you have dealt with BobNash before. He is continuing with vandalism. How do I report him so he ceases? Stariradio (talk) 03:00, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

It depends on what he is doing. WP:ANI for some kinds of things, WP:3RR for others. --Taivo (talk) 03:06, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Sorry about deleting your comment

I was having trouble with my computer, didn´t notice anything wrong at the time. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:08, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

You're forgiven. --Taivo (talk) 09:40, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Maghrebi

Hi Taivo I noticed you switched back the tittle of the page to Maghrebi Arabic, I don't agree with you with that move since the Maghrebi is quite different from MSA or Middle Eastern Arabic in general, It's a language influenced by many other languages (Berber, Old Arabic and French Spanish Italian languages) it has a very big Berber stratum , and it's btw unintelligible with the Middle Eastern Arabic specially the Moroccan or Algerian variant. If it was a super related to MSA or even MEA don't you think there should be some common vocabulary and terms between the tree ? Tsarisco (talk) 04:44, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand linguistics. No one is saying that Maghrebi and MSA are mutually intelligible, but they are both part of the broader Arabic system. We are also guided by WP:COMMONNAME which clearly dictates that articles are named after the most commonly used term in English for a language. Since Maghrebi is part of the Arabic system, it is almost always called "Maghrebi Arabic" or "Western Arabic". If you disagree, then you are free to initiate a Request for Comment at Talk:Maghrebi Arabic. This discussion should be happening there and not here. --Taivo (talk) 08:29, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

A Question

Hello, I apologize for bothering you. I don't know if it's your topic, but as someone very active on wp:Ukraine and a linguist, I wondered if you know anyone who's handy with the Ruthenian language. I'd really like to have Bohdan Khmelnytsky's name spelled in the original. Many thanks anyway and again, my apologies.AddMore der Zweite (talk) 13:46, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm not very familiar with the historical work being done in East Slavic. Good luck in your search. --Taivo (talk) 15:40, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bishop Paiute Tribe, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Mono and Mono language. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 15:24, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Judeo-Berber

Hi Taivo,

According to Hammarström (2015), this is just Jews who speak Berber, not a distinct language. — kwami (talk) 02:57, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Not according to Joseph Chetrit, 2016, "Jewish Berber," Handbook of Jewish Langauges, ed. Lily Kahn & Aaron D. Rubin, Leiden: Brill, pages118-129. That's a more recent and more specialized source than Glottolog. --Taivo (talk) 03:02, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

There is also Joseph Chetrit, forthcoming, "Jewish Berber, Its Uses and Its Texts in Morocco," The Jewish Languages: An International Handbook, ed. Benjamin Hary and Yaron Matras, Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter. --Taivo (talk) 03:10, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Harald cites Chetrit that "Judeo-Berber" is simply Berber spoken by Jews, not a distinct language: "there is now a detailed investigation revealing that there was no normed Jewish variety that differed from the corresponding non-Jewish Berber (Chetrit 2007)." That text is Diglossie, Hybridation et Diversité intra-linguistique: Etudes socio-pragmatiques sur les langues juives, le judéo-arabe et le judéo-berbère. — kwami (talk) 03:17, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Throughout Chetrit 2016 he cites Judeo-Berber as distinct from Berber. At no point does he say that Judeo-Berber is just Berber spoken by Jews. He treats it entirely as distinct. Here's a typical example, "Jews used Berber and Jewish Berber (in addition to Judeo-Arabic) for petty commerce and other professional activities conducted among their Berber clientele." (pg 118). That's on the first page. Such clear statements of distinction occur throughout the chapter. He also mentions monolingual Jewish Berber communities. In 2016, he makes no such conclusion about the absence of norming being a mark of a "non-language", so his earlier conclusion is now questionable (unless the "non-language" conclusion is Hammarström's). He includes 9 phonological markers of Judeo-Berber. In all respects, the 2016 work treats Judeo-Berber as an identifiable language, based heavily on Berber (obviously), but with its own distinct character and sociolinguistic existence. He mentions that it is almost extinct. --Taivo (talk) 03:30, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Reformed Egytian revision undo 710131507

Wondering what the basis was for the undo of this additional information regarding 4 additional Book of Mormon 'reformed Egyptian' characters recently identified in historically documented sources. I have reversed it pending an answer, editors are required to give some basis based on Wikipedia policy so the revision can be modified if possible to conform with Wikipedia policy. Revorgjr (talk) 16:51, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

If another editor reverts your edit, per WP:BRD you are required to get a consensus on the article's Talk Page BEFORE putting your material back in the article. Explain on Talk Page and get consensus for the addition before putting your edit back in place. --Taivo (talk) 18:07, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

OK, thanks Revorgjr (talk) 18:21, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Berehove/Berehovo/Beregovo

Please could you add the article currently called Berehove to your watch list; the same IP editor you reverted on some other Ukrainian cities targets that one too. The city website calls it Beregovo in English. Google search gives about 200-220 hits for each of the three main Latin script versions of the name.-- Toddy1 (talk) 07:48, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Will do. I wasn't as sure about that one when I saw it, so I left it. --Taivo (talk) 11:35, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

two names, not a mess

Hi, buddy. Well just wanted to tell you to take at look at the map. You got it? Got the pushpin detail? Can you please repeat "two names, not a mess"?. Bye, xoxoxo |2A01:E34:EC1C:1260:BC95:9BF5:80EA:EFE6 (talk) 14:02, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Do you have a legitimate, well-stated comment? --Taivo (talk) 14:29, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Genetics for ethnic groups RfC

In case you're interested in voicing your opinion, there's an RfC being held here. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:46, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Page number in Webster's citation at Borscht

Hi Taivo, do you still have access to Webster's New International Dictionary of the English Language, second edition? Could you please provide the page number where the etymology for "borscht" is given as coming from "Little Russian borshch"? — Kpalion^(talk) 22:44, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

It's in my office. I'll be there on Monday and look it up then. --Taivo (talk) 03:10, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Wasatch Front Wicnic 2016

Please join the discussion regarding a Wasatch Front Wicnic for 2016. We'd love to have you come. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 23:55, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Request for Comment

Hi. Please write your opinion here:

• Talk:Tajik language#Wondering

Thanks. --Wario-Man (talk) 14:43, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, it seems the wikilink redirects to wrong section ("Tajik language in Russia"), it should link to "Wondering". Because I need your opinion for that section. Anyway, thanks for your contribution. Regards. --Wario-Man (talk) 05:34, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Boa Sr

Hello, TaivoLinguist. As per your comments here, I have requested that Boa Sr. be moved to Boa Sr. I do not know why you removed your own comments, as you did here, but it was not an especially helpful thing to have done. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:04, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

User:FreeKnowledgeCreator, My apologies, but I realized that while I think I was correct in requesting it, I didn't feel like engaging in any kind of fight over it or justifying it or explaining why my views had changed between 2010 and 2012, etc. Thanks for seeing to this. --Taivo (talk) 03:11, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Washo Language". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 27 August 2016.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 19:04, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning Washo Language, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 23:11, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Washo

You clearly are in the right, but the editor seems to be likely to be a Washo student so please be a little less assertive with them and a little more pedagogical. Including the wordings from the sources is good, but often i find that some basic education in phonological theory is required to make an effective argument with non-linguists who often don't distinguish between phonetics and phonology or even between sounds and letters.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 09:05, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. As you know, dealing with "beginners" is a weak spot for me. That's one of the reasons I called for some help. --Taivo (talk) 09:10, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Flags on Ukrainian regions articles

I just want to add direction to the articles of each regions of Ukraine. I just want to because people may not know what flags of each counties/oblasts/provinces bordering them. This is not vandalism. I'm not cluttering them. Why did you considered the flags cluttering the presentation? This is just adding directions. You stated that they are for "specific uses" like what for example? 174.113.214.250 (talk) 00:33, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Adding directions is fine, but adding flags for all the oblasts is pointless decoration and clutter. See Do not use subnational flags without direct relevance for guidance. This is an irrelevant use of subnational flags. --Taivo (talk) 00:42, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

So you should do the right thing and remove all the flag clutter that you have inappropriately placed. --Taivo (talk) 00:47, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

I have edited the articles of the Ukrainian oblasts with no flags on it. Is that gonna work? 174.113.214.250 (talk) 07:23, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

The graphic itself isn't the problem, so the answer is "Yes". --Taivo (talk) 09:32, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Gilaki/Mazandarani and South Caucasian languages (Nasidze et al.)

Hi Taivo, I wondered whether you could help me and out and state your opinion about a particular aspect of this research;

According to Nasidze et al. (2006), the Gilaks/Mazandaranis are "paternally" (I'm just putting it simplistically here) closest to the groups of the (South) Caucasus, while "maternally" they are so to the neighboring Iranian groups. Regarding linguistics, which back the Caucasian-origin hypothesis up, the ancestors of the Gilaks/Mazandaranis originally spoke a Caucasian language, which eventually got replaced by an Iranian language; the present-day Gilaki and Mazandarani languages. Now regarding that, Nasidze et al. adds;

"Linguistic evidence supports this scenario, in that the Gilaki and Mazandarani languages (but not other Iranian languages) share certain typological features with Caucasian languages (...) Presumably the ancestors of the Gilaki and Mazandarani spoke a Caucasian language; therefore, their original Caucasian language must have been replaced by the local Iranian language under the above scenario. Indeed, typological analysis of the Gilaki and Mazandarani languages does indicate some sharing of features with south Caucasian languages."

With South Caucasian languages, they refer to this group of languages right, right?. The authors specifically distinguish between Iranian languages, and Caucasian languages throughout the article, so it cant possible refer to languages such as Armenian or Azeri (which are nowadays spoken in the South Caucasus region). Do you think I got it right there? Bests - LouisAragon (talk) 16:25, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

I read the Nasidze article and it's not "South Caucasian" but "south Caucasian". In other words, there is not a linguistic tag placed on "south Caucasian" and the origin of the southern Caucasian DNA. They do not indicate which group of south Caucasian languages that Gilaki/Mazandarani share features with, but since Azeri is Turkic and Armenian is Indo-European, they are probably precluded from being involved. (Azeri is very recent in the Caucasus anyway, probably long after the Gilaki adopted an Iranian language.) There are several different linguistic groups in the Caucasus that are neither Indo-European nor Turkic. They share certain typological features so it's probably impossible to identify the Gilaki/Mazandarani Caucasian substrate. But it's undoubtedly not either Armenian or Azeri. --Taivo (talk) 16:52, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Other names of Lviv

There were few "official" names of Lviv during its history used in English: Lviv, Lwów, Lvov and Lemberg. Leopolis was oftenly used but never "official". All of them are still in use by respective languages (Polish, Russian, German and Spanish). What is the reason to distinguish the Polish name of the city ignoring the others?--Dƶoxar (talk) 19:58, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

This discussion should be at Talk:Lviv, not on my talk page if you want more than a cursory answer. The infobox is for primary alternate names, not for every alternate name for the city in every language. Since Lviv has spent the majority of its "life" with primarily a Ukrainian and Polish population those are the only two appropriate names for the infobox. Other names can occur in the first sentence, but not in the infobox. --Taivo (talk) 20:08, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

You cancelled both of my edits, so that why I ask you. Concerning your argument, well, for the majority of Lviv history there were more Jews than Ukrainians. So, this distinguishing of the Polish name seems to be very controversial. Especially, considering such examples as Ternopil (no other Polish name), Przemyśl (no other Ukrainian name), Riga (no other Russian name) and many other articles where "Other name" of the city is not used at all.--Dƶoxar (talk) 20:27, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Dƶoxar, you've been asked to take it to the article's talk page. This is not a closed cabinet discussion between yourself and Taivo. There are other editors involved in the article, and CON for Lwów has been longstanding. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:33, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Welcome.--Dƶoxar (talk) 20:37, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, TaivoLinguist. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. Mdann52 (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Belated season's greetings

I forgot to wish you the usual suspects this year... so I'm sending a belated line-up. Pick and choose, or take 'em all for 2017! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:54, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you

		The Barnstar of Integrity
		For tireless NPOV and courtesy on Talk:Macedonia (ancient kingdom). Richard Keatinge (talk) 17:59, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Kajkavian language

Greetings,

It appears there has been a misunderstanding on the Croatian language article. My edit has been reverted because apparently Kajkavian belongs in a Serbo-Croatian language group. Kajkavian has a history of being supressed which resulted in a situation it was in until a year or two ago. Luckily Kajkavian today is an internationally accepted language, accepted as a part of the Western-Slavic language group but certainly not the Serbo-Croatian one.

If you would be so kind, I would ask that you revert your change.

A few resources for my arguments:
Hammarström, Harald; Forkel, Robert; Haspelmath, Martin; Bank, Sebastian, eds. (2016). "Kajkavian". Glottolog 2.7. Jena: Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History.
Ivšić, Stjepan (1996). Lisac, Josip, ed. Jezik Hrvata kajkavaca (New ed.). Zaprešić: Matica hrvatska.
Ronelle Alexander (15 August 2006). Bosnian, Croatian, Serbian, a Grammar: With Sociolinguistic Commentary. Univ of Wisconsin Press. pp. 388–. ISBN 978-0-299-21193-6.
Robert Lindsay. "Mutual Intelligibility of Languages in the Slavic Family". academia.edu. Retrieved 25 February 2015.
Robert D. Greenberg (25 March 2004). Language and Identity in the Balkans: Serbo-Croatian and Its Disintegration. Oxford University Press. pp. 28–. ISBN 978-0-19-151455-5.

With regards, Selska žganica (talk) 16:16, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Russian and other

I have no idea why you have twice deleted my 'Russian and other (Slavic languages)'. You give no reason. It seems perfectly OK to me. There is a very good reason for keeping it in, namely that some people may not recognise the phrase 'Slavic languages', being not so familiar with them as you are; and there is no point in making them click on the link to find out. Are you denying that Russian is a Slavic language? Kanjuzi (talk) 13:00, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Twice? Just once. When a language family as a whole is mentioned, singling one out implies that it is somehow more characteristic of the family than other languages in the group. --Taivo (talk) 13:10, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Well, that doesn't seem the implication, namely that Russian is more typical - it's just that Russian is better known than other Slavonic languages and so could be seen as representative of the group. Look at this Google ngram for example: ngram, which indicates that Russian language is much more commonly mentioned than Polish or Bulgarian (and doubtless than Serbo-Croatian and Bulgarian). I don't think it would be wrong to say 'Italian and other Romance languages'. Perhaps I could say 'Russian, Polish, and other Slavic languages'. How would that do? The fact is, that if you just put 'Slavic languages' some people might not know what you mean. When I write Wikipedia articles I always try to keep in mind that my readers might be Chinese or Indian for example, and not have the same cultural background. But if you write 'Russian and other Slavic languages' they will know immediately. If need be I will open a discussion on the Talk page and see what the consensus is. Kanjuzi (talk) 17:15, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

If a reader doesn't know what a Slavic language is, they can click on the link. In linguistics articles we don't list a representative language for every language family we mention. Articles would become unwieldy if that were the case. It doesn't matter whether you think Russian is more important or more searched for or not. You put Russian there and the Poles will want Polish and the Ukrainians will want Ukrainian and the Serbs will want Serbian. Then you get the arguments about which Slavic language is the most typical when it comes to perfective aspect. Leave it out. --Taivo (talk) 17:48, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

OK I'll put the point on the talk page (after copying your paragraph above). Thanks for the reply. Kanjuzi (talk) 18:56, 19 February 2017 (UTC)