User talk:TaivoLinguist

Welcome!

Hello, TaivoLinguist! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Gimme danger (talk) 00:51, 2 June 2008 (UTC) Getting started A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: edit a page • upload and use images Getting help Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and guidelines Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The community Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community Portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Writing articles Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Pages needing attention • Peer review Miscellaneous User name • User pages • Talk pages Clean up: General - Spam - Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Welcome, TaivoLinguist

Welcome to Wikipedia, the encyclopaedia you (yes, you!) can edit! Here are some beginning links:

• Frequently Asked Questions
• Introduction
• How to edit a page
• Community portal
• Wikipedia Help
• Make your own user page

Also, I give you some tips:

1. Feel free to edit any page. If you make a mistake in your first steps in Wikipedia, don't care: there's always someone that will fix it.
2. Experiment in the sandbox. There you can test your editing skills without disrupting any article!
3. Use ~~~~ (four tildes) for signing your comments with your nickname (set it on Special:Preferences) and timestamp on talk pages. If you don't want to add the timestamp, simply use ~~~ (three tildes).
4. If you don't know where to begin, take a look on the most recent changes or a random page.

With some time here, you'll learn all Wikipedia processes and get yourself an experimented Wikipedians.

Yours! Neigel von Teighen

Edits to Death Valley National Park

Nice addition. :) --mav 20:52, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Help Wikipedia!

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia! I saw your entry on the new user log. I wonder if I could enlist your support for some of the linguistcs articles Wikipedia is lacking or need expansion. Wikipedia linguistic articles tend to suffer from an Indo-European and especially English point of view, and many of the articles need to be expanded to encompass all languages. Meanwhile, a few articles are missing entirely, in that they have only been treated in the grammatical sense and not linguistic. Here's just a few examples:

• Tense (linguistics) is missing, only a grammar article exists.
• Aryan. A dearth of organization, riddled with apparent confusion.
• Augment. Probably needs a disambig and another article. Augment can be much more than 'an affix in Indo-European languages' and is used in a broader sense in linguistics.
• Derivation (linguistics). Could use more international examples.
• Determiner. Really should be renamed to 'Determiner (English)' or something like that. Interesting things could be said about determiners and definiteness cross-linguistically.

See many more Indo-European-centric articles that need help at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias_open_tasks#Linguistics, and see a general list of requested linguistics articles at Wikipedia:Requested_articles/Social_Sciences_and_Philosophy#Linguistics. Thanks for your help and I hope you continue to contribute!--Dmcdevit 04:34, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Numic Article

I started on a Numic article which you may want to look at, especially because I dared to use the word glottochronology. You certainly won't hurt my feelings by doing a complete re-write.

If we get to vote on what you spend your time on (in the vein of the previous post here), I vote for Great Basin languages and peoples. ;-) Toiyabe 22:10, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Your email

Hi mr. McLaughlin - just a word of caution about having your email written on your userpage: it is a certain way to attract tonnes of spammail. Most people either use wikipedias email option - or mask the email for eample spelling it out e.g. maunus+at+gmail+dot+com. or some such. ·Maunus· ·ƛ· 12:13, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. I set this page up a couple a years ago before it was a real problem. (Taivo (talk) 15:10, 10 February 2008 (UTC))

A way with words

Hello Taivo:

This is the precise comment I came here to post:

"This is why missionaries don't hand out D&C like candy,

You really have a way with words!"

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

--Now, having read the first few words of your user page, I am "laughing out loud", as the saying goes.

Your discussion on the Book of Mormon is most enlightening. What a history!

I will make a few edits there. Please see what you think. Thanks, Wanderer57 (talk) 17:50, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

A question about Uto-Aztecan prehistory

I recently stumbled upon an article by Jane Hill in which she argues a southern origin of UA. ( Hill, Jane H. (2001). "Proto-Uto-Aztecan: A Community of Cultivators in Central Mexico?". American Anthropologist 103 (4): 913-934. American Anthropological Society. ) I was wondering what kind of responses (if any) this proposal has received among uto-aztecanists? ·Maunus· ·ƛ· 09:36, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, I was one of the peer reviewers for that article when it was submitted to another journal. That journal chose not to publish the article, but Jane is a past president of the American Anthropological Association so publishing in AmAnth is pretty much automatic for her. I think there are serious problems with the proposal of a southern homeland for Uto-Aztecan. (I'm in Ukraine right now so I'm remembering it off the top of my head.) First, it is based on a single etymon--"corn"--that assumes an overblown importance in the argumentation. Second, it actually ignores native oral history. While the use of native oral history must always carry a cautionary note, it should always be addressed and not ignored. Aztec oral history uniformly says that they moved down from the north (in some stories, "the far north"). Third, the most respected historical linguists working on Uto-Aztecan uniformly see a valid relationship among the Southern Uto-Aztecan groups, but don't see such a strong reconstruction for "Northern Uto-Aztecan". Hill is a very good anthropological linguist (she's actually a good friend and was one of my tenure reviewers), but her specialty is not historical linguistics. This particular article sounds much more like linguistically suspect anthropology and less like anthropologically-supplemented linguistics. I think she's trying to prove something about corn--that the Uto-Aztecans invented corn cultivation rather than borrowing it like everyone else has argued. It's sort of a Uto-Aztecan-centrist position. The original theory actually is from one of her former anthropology graduate students (his name starts with a B, but I can't recall it exactly) who has virtually no linguistic training. The arguments he makes in his own work are rather suspect I think. Unfortunately, Hill is very influential and many Uto-Aztecanists who are not historical linguists will buy into this southern origin theory, even though the linguistic evidence points very solidly to a northern origin. (Taivo (talk) 10:27, 17 February 2008 (UTC))

That was exactly the thoughts I got on reading it. Another problem I saw with the proposal was how to explain that only Aztecan has influence from the other mesoamerican languages, and not any of the languages outside of mesoamerica. I cannot see the southern theory would account for this (short of assuming that all the other language families of mesoamerica only arrived there after the other UA braqnches left mexico, which is contrary to research on all of the families). Do you know of any rebuttals or responses that have been published?·Maunus· ·ƛ· 10:33, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

btw if you have some time to spare, I would appreciate any comments you might have about the Nahuatl article that I have been working on for a while.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 10:35, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Your comment just jogged my memory about another very serious problem with the Uto-Aztecans inventing corn cultivation--it requires the belief that a great number of Uto-Aztecan groups actually STOPPED being agriculturalists as they moved north. It's just not common at all for groups to give up agriculture once they've opened the magic box. It's a lot easier to explain how the Aztecs and Hopi adopted agriculture from their neighbors than to explain how everyone else gave it up. (Taivo (talk) 10:59, 17 February 2008 (UTC))

Ethiopian Languages

Thank you for your recent interest in Ethiopian languages. There are still some articles that need to be created, and you seem to be taking care of this - very good! Also you have definitely improved some of the existing language stubs. I have a question with regard to your edits on Awngi and Xamtanga: You have removed the lowest-level genetic classifications from these - what prompted you to do so? I have no objections to this in principle, because these classifications seem to have very little significance for non-specialists on Central Cushitic languages. On the other hand, these classifications are documented in the Ethnologue, and that is something I would use as a guideline as to what to include in a language article and what not. On the same line of inquiry, you seem to be following the stance that an entry on a language should follow the naming in the Ethnologue - this at least is the message you send by moving Kambata to Kambaata. I agree with you on this, but not everyone does, at least not in the Ethiopian context. If you want to look at a discussion on this, visit User talk:Yom#Wolaytta vs. Welayta language. Do you have something to contribute there? Landroving Linguist (talk) 07:26, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

• No worries, it is not that easy to offend me. Your rationale to use only subgroups if they have more than one member makes a lot of sense, so your explanation helped me to understand your move, and I agree with it. In principle, ISO 639-3 and Ethnologue use the same nomenclature, but ISO 639-3 gets updates on an annual basis while Ethnologue gets updated only once in three years or so, even the internet version. The next edition (appears 2009) will show Kunfäl to be a dialect of Awngi. Thanks again for doing all these templates and stubs and categories. This is tedious work, especially when your internet connection is slow, like here in Ethiopia, so to see someone doing this at lightning speed from the US is wonderful! All the best to you! Landroving Linguist (talk) 08:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Mormon links

Thanks. Most of the links were barely related to the book in the first place, and one video was posted three times with two rebuttals and even a rebuttal of the rebuttal. Ratatosk Jones (talk) 08:20, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Dalbys

Not quite the same tree. David Dalby and I met and talked a few years ago, and he gave me a copy of the Linguasphere Register which I also use often, but we aren't related. Andrew Dalby 19:29, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Cameroonian languages

Hi, Taivo! I've noticed that you're adding lots of articles related to Cameroonian languages, so thanks a lot! There are a ton of them left that don't have articles. I do have a couple of minor requests, though. If you intend to make any more of these, would you mind adding them to Category:Languages of Cameroon, using {{Cameroon-stub}} as well as {{lang-stub}}, and putting a link to them at List of Cameroon-related topics? That'd save me a lot of trouble. Thanks! — Dulcem (talk) 23:45, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Dulcem. I'm working my way through ISO 639-3 and over the course of the next couple of years I plan to make at least a stub for every language that doesn't already have an article/stub. I'm trying to make some sort of common interface and use of the templates so that all the languages have some sort of common playing field for further revisions. I'll try to remember to do these things you asked, but I can't guarantee I'll be completely successful since I'm sometimes making stubs pretty mechanically (for example, Biu-Mandara A.5 required 18 stubs and Biu-Mandara A.8 required 12) and to keep from going crazy I skip from one language family to another and from one geographic region to another. I hope the stubs are useful. Cheers (Taivo (talk) 02:42, 29 February 2008 (UTC))

OK, whenever you can remember, that'd be great. The ones you forget will show up at User:AlexNewArtBot/CameroonSearchResult, which I monitor, so I can fix 'em up. Thanks for your work! — Dulcem (talk) 14:40, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Moving pages

Hi, I noticed you moving a page by cut and paste. To conform with the GFDL pages must preserve their edit history, so should be moved using the move function - cutting and pasting does not preserve the edit history - please see Help:Moving a page for more information. Thanks.--Alf ^melmac 07:57, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I'll reform myself :) At least they all have been done with redirects so people can find the old stuff.(Taivo (talk) 08:00, 1 March 2008 (UTC))

... language

A few years ago it was agreed that 'language' should only be added to the titles of language articles that could otherwise be vague adjectives referring to other cultural aspects apart from language. For instance 'Danish' needs to be qualified, so we have Danish language. Sanskrit does not need qualification, so we have it as is. I'm sure this is buried somewhere in Wikipedia:Manual of Style. So, I hope you won't mind if I revert your move to Bohtan Neo-Aramaic, which falls in the latter camp. Thanks. — Gareth Hughes (talk) 00:01, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, not a problem. I'm working through several geographic areas at once and it's quite common in Africa to find articles that refer ambiguously to "Yaaku", for example. I'm always a little uncertain when dealing with established articles, especially the excellent set you have written that are associated with the Aramaic group. Hope I didn't offend. (Taivo (talk) 05:12, 2 March 2008 (UTC))

West Chadic A.2 languages

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of West Chadic A.2 languages, and it appears to be very similar to another wikipedia page: West Chadic A languages. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 19:37, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

West Chadic B.3 languages

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of West Chadic B.3 languages, and it appears to be very similar to another wikipedia page: West Chadic B languages. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 01:22, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Church of the Assumption-Rivne.JPG

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:Church of the Assumption-Rivne.JPG. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Polly (Parrot) 03:21, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

re Book of Mormon

I feel most privileged by our several exchanges of comments and information, most recently at Talk:Book of Mormon#Number of Languages. Thank you. Wanderer57 (talk) 05:23, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

West Chadic B.3 languages

You may copy text from another article, however, in order to comply with GFDL, it is required that you mention the first article in the edit summary (preferably) or on the talk page of the article you are creating. The Evil Spartan (talk) 16:27, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Something Useful?

• Wannabe Kate tool, to check your number of edits.

Tradition of Writing Personal Follow-up

I'll try to explain more completely. 1) ALL languages are spoken/oral languages (we'll exclude signed languages) so ALL languages are "historically spoken-only" since writing is a recent invention. 2) Writing is a historically recent invention that has only ever been applied to a minority of the world's languages. Out of about 7000 languages still spoken or spoken until recently, only about 1000 (at the most) have any kind of writing tradition and only about two hundred of them have a writing tradition prior to the 20th century. 3) So, "spoken-only" is actually the majority of the world's languages and is, therefore, the default situation--writing is exceptional. 4) The very phrase "spoken-only" sounds prejudicial, that they are somehow deficient as languages. "Poor Rotokas, it's only a spoken language." 5) As someone who has worked intimately with speakers of a language that has no written tradition, I can sympathize with their sensitivity about "writing" and the extremely high value they place on oral tradition and the poor learning skills of the younger generation "because everything is written down for them--they don't have to use their brains to remember things". 6) The reason that the Book of Mormon is on audio cassette is NOT because of speaking, but because of the lack of writing--writing is the problem, NOT speaking, therefore "spoken-only" focuses attention on the WRONG end of the scale and on the WRONG issue. There is NOTHING unclear about "lack of a writing tradition", but linguists grind their teeth every single time they read ill-advised phrases such as "oral language", "spoken-only", etc. It sounds SO Judeo-Euro-Arabo-Sino-Indo-centric. It ALWAYS sounds like "poor little unwritten languages, aren't they cute?" Even "unwritten" is better than "spoken-only", but all languages can be written, the key element is that they aren't written, not that they can't be. OK, I'm on a roll, but I'm not going to compromise on this. The problem is NOT "speaking", but "writing", therefore the phrase MUST reflect the problem and include the root "write" and not the root "speak" in the solution. (Taivo (talk) 18:14, 12 March 2008 (UTC))

I think you know a lot about linguistics, so I compliment you on that. While not pertinent info for the talk page, I just wanted to note that I found it kind of ironic that you emphasize science's findings on the weaknesses perpetuated by written languages when the Book of Mormon (whose article we were discussing) would argue otherwise. Joseph Fielding Smith also taught, "It was not until after man rebelled and rejected the word of God that he fell into mental degeneracy, and lost the power to converse in written language. Man was intelligent in the beginning, and understood many fundamental truths, but when he refused to receive divine guidance, the Spirit of the Lord withdrew, and then he was left alone and became a savage, for the light in him was turned to darkness." ) I just found this dichotomy interesting and would be interested in learning your thoughts in light of science and the Gospel (according to the LDS Church). Thanks! --Eustress (talk) 19:30, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I don't consider the Book of Mormon to be either historical or a work of divine inspiration, so I have no comment on the unscientific statement that men knew how to write in the beginning and then forgot. Writing was only invented after modern human languages had been in existence for at least a hundred thousand years. (Taivo (talk) 19:36, 12 March 2008 (UTC))

Ah, you're really asking about whether intelligence is greater for people with written languages versus those without written languages. The evidence is that people are equally intelligent whether dealing with a written language or not. There's not a shred of real evidence that illiterate people are less intelligent or capable than literate people. Obviously, testing methods must be different, but the results are the same. Intelligence is channelled in different ways, but the same intelligence is at work. (Taivo (talk) 19:47, 12 March 2008 (UTC))

Let me give you just one example of that intelligence. It happened roughly about 50,000 years ago in Europe. It was an invention that had no precursor in nature. By that I mean that it was an invention of man's that he didn't just copy from a model in nature. But our world changed by the genius of that invention. It was inventing the eye in the needle. Before, skins were basically used in whatever shape they came in and attached together with great difficulty by pushing sinew thread through large holes along the edges. It was not easy to do and the seams were not overly secure. After, people could shape the skins and attached their edges together with great accuracy and tightness because the holes could be small since the thread followed the needle through the material. Skins of different types could now be sewn together--something warm like fox on the inside and something waterproof like sealskin on the outside. The eye of the needle changed the world and allowed men to conquer parts of the planet that were unavailable to them before. Prehistory is filled with examples of invention of these types. Illiterate South and Middle Americans build massive stone cities without writing (Mayan writing only affected a small area). Illiterate Africans forged iron. Illiterate Australians lived in one of the harshest environments on the planet with an astounding level of memory. Literacy allows us to preserve numbers--that was its earliest and is still its primary use. That allows a different type of invention to occur. But it did not change the level of intelligence. (Taivo (talk) 20:24, 12 March 2008 (UTC))

Your language articles

Hi Taivo and thanks for your work on Chadic languages. But please don't list titles that haven't been effectively used: in the "references" section should be mentioned only the sources that are effectively consulted and used to build the article. Also, there is no need to put so many categories: if you put "East Chadic languages", that covers also "Chadic languages" and "Afro-Asiatic languages", as the first mentioned is already a subcategory and sub-sub-category of the other two. Thanks again for your work, and ciao.--Aldux (talk) 20:53, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I disagree with you about the references section. I often look to Wikipedia articles to locate bibliography. Even if a source hasn't actually been used in the contruction of the article, it can still be highly useful for others starting on their research quest. I teach at a university and many of my students start their research at Wikipedia, so why not include things that can take them to the next step? (Taivo (talk) 20:58, 16 March 2008 (UTC))

I don't think, however, that "everything" needs to listed, there I agree with you. But for a language article it's important for there to be at least a grammar and, maybe, dictionary listed if they are available, even if that grammar was not consulted for the article. In the absence of a grammar, items that deal separately with phonology, morphology, syntax, etc. are appropriate. If there is only one published source for a language (a common occurrence), then it should be listed. (Taivo (talk) 21:12, 16 March 2008 (UTC))

If you feel like offering some titles to a reader who wants to make further research, really there is no problem; but in these cases you should distinguish the sources used and not used, by putting the latter in a "further reading" section. Don't you agree?--Aldux (talk) 21:56, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, please keep in mind the issue of categorization. For example, if every language was placed in a single category, this category would rapidly become of no utility; thus, we use subcategories, and laguages spoken in Chad are as a rule placed in "Languages of Chad" instead of "Languages of Africa", and for the same reason Chadic languages are not inserted in an enormous Afro-Asiatic category.--Aldux (talk) 22:51, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah! A "terminological" issue--References versus Further Reading. LOL. In my field we just lump them all together under "References"--either "I referred to them" or "You can refer to them". But if it will help you sleep better... ;) I'm actually pleasantly surprised that someone is actually looking at the obscure languages of Chad (and someone else is watching Cameroon--his particular desire is to make sure that enough stubs are in place). I figured 99% of all the stubs I placed would never be seen by another human. (Taivo (talk) 00:47, 17 March 2008 (UTC))

Please observe civility, if you don't mind. Especially from an educator, I would have expected something better.--Aldux (talk) 17:58, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I am casual here on the talk pages--that means friendly banter. I am from the western U.S. and that means irony, word play, mild sarcasm, etc. There were no insults. If you read carefully, you will note the compliment as well. (Taivo (talk) 18:02, 18 March 2008 (UTC))

Forgive me if I've reacted too automatically; it's probably that I took it bad as I'm not so young any more, and I earn my leaving in a way not very dissimular from yours, even if not through linguistics, of which I admit my great ignorance. I've only covered them in my effort to system and classify Chad-related articles. Sorry again if I offended you, and thanks for the effort you are employing in creating articles on little known African languages, especially since Africa in general is badly covered in wikipedia. Bye,--Aldux (talk) 18:21, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Buriat vs. Buryat

Hi, is there a specific reason why you use the "Buriat" spelling in your recent related language articles? Both WP:RUS and WP:MON would mandate "Buryat", which has previously been used quite consistently. Unless you have compelling arguments to deviate from the established naming conventions, I'd suggest you use the standard form as well.

I also just noticed that in the running text of Buryat language, "Chinese Buryat" is used instead of "China Buriat" etc.. My guess is that you chose "China Buriat language" as a page title because Ethnologue uses the title "Buriat, China". If so, then I think it would be better to use page titles either of the form "Chinese Buryat language" or "Buryat language (China)". There are other WP naming conventions that cover questions like that, which I could dig up if it helps you understand the motivation for either variant. --Latebird (talk) 08:10, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't follow Ethnologue, but ISO 639-3, which is quickly becoming the standard (Ethnologue is deferring completely to ISO 639-3 in the next edition). WP should be adapting to this growing standard as well, but I know that there are other, nationalistic issues involved. I don't have any personal preference for Buryat or Buriat, but I think that the template box should read Buriat because it focuses on ISO 639-3 usage, at least in the bottom section. On the pages I created, I used Buriat consistently. Someone else authored the Buryat language page and I simply deferred the text on his page to his usage (although I used the ISO 639-3 standard in the template box. (Taivo (talk) 14:17, 20 March 2008 (UTC))

The pages Russia Buriat language ISO 639-3 usage, Mongolia Buriat language ISO 639-3 usage, and China Buriat ISO 639-3 usage language should remain labelled the way they are since that follows ISO 639-3 usage. Changing Buriat to Buryat is probably OK, but not "China" to "Chinese" or "(China)" since that is farther off the mark of ISO 639-3 usage. As a reminder "IS" = "International Standard". (Taivo (talk) 14:23, 20 March 2008 (UTC))

I agree that when presenting the ISO categorisation in infoboxes, ISO names should also be used for consistency. But I don't think that ISO naming is a good enough reason to deviate from Wikipedia conventions in naming articles. Wikipedia documents established knowledge, not growing standards. Once most other literature has switched to ISO naming, then those names will have become common English use and we'll of course follow as well. But until then, the ISO is just one voice among others. Using a different spelling for 3 articles out of dozens will just confuse readers without serving any useful purpose. Don't worry, I know what their acronym means, but I doubt it is their purpose to redefine the way we use the English language. Their choice of spelling may be just random chance (unless you know more about that). Btw: How established is the "China Buryat" form in literature outside of ISO? --Latebird (talk) 04:02, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

The English literature doesn't distinguish the three Buriats (that's one reason why ISO 639-3 places them in a single macrolanguage), so the only English language standard is ISO 639-3. English-language sources simply refer to a single "Buriat". In actual fact, the three are distinguished mainly by the source of loanwords and literacy traditions rather than mutual unintelligibility. It's basically the same reasoning that distinguishes Bosnian, Serbian, and Croatian in ISO 639-3. Thus in The Mongolic Languages (Janhunen, ed.) and Languages of the Soviet Union (Comrie), the two main English-language sources for information about Mongolic, Buriat is treated as a unit. I don't know of any English-language source that distinguishes them other than Ethnologue and ISO 639-3, thus "English usage" is "China Buriat", "Russia Buriat", "Mongolia Buriat". Personally, I would prefer "Chinese Buriat", etc., but that's not what has been used in the ISO, so I have adapted. As I stated above, I don't have any energy on Buryat versus Buriat. (Taivo (talk) 04:50, 21 March 2008 (UTC))

That then begs the question about the justification for three extra articles. Basically, all the relevant information can be summarized in the one sentence of explanation about loan words you wrote above and placed in the Buryat language article. What information do the three extra articles offer beyond that? --Latebird (talk) 06:17, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

They are stubs for future expansion, just as there are articles for Bosnian, Serbian, and Croatian. They are there for the future since ISO 639-3 has identified them as three distinct speech varieties. I am creating stubs for future expansion for a lot of languages. Next year there could be a grammar of Chinese Buriat published and there would be a place in Wikipedia for information. For example, the Cyrillic orthography on Buryat language is not appropriate for China Buriat, but only for Russia Buriat where the language is official (I can't speak for Mongolia Buriat on that issue). There are also different sociolinguistic situations and historical, loan word issues which can be addressed for each of the three language varieties, just as there are for Bosnian, Serbian, and Croatian. There are hundreds of language stubs in Wikipedia waiting for expansion that only contain the paragraph from Ethnologue. I have a huge linguistic bibliography on languages of the world and I am constantly using language stubs to add bibliography to Wikipedia. Without the stub, there's no place for people to add items such as this. In addition, if you look at Linguist List for each of the Buriat varieties, you will find three different lists of linguists working on them--one linguist on all three lists, one linguist on two lists. (Taivo (talk) 08:46, 21 March 2008 (UTC))

Well, it's not like nobody else could create those articles, if they had any actual information to go into them. In other words, they can be merged without loss of information or utility. --Latebird (talk) 12:09, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I have written a prominent Mongolian linguist friend and asked specifically what bibliography, features, etc. will distinguish the three varieties. He will provide better advice. This is an issue for linguists to decide. I guess I wonder why you are so averse to stubs for growth. They are extremely common in language areas. Over much of Africa, the Pacific and the Americas, there are hundreds of stubs for future growth and linguists welcome them. They point up where the work still needs to be done. (Taivo (talk) 12:48, 21 March 2008 (UTC))

Um no, that's not really a linguist question so far, but a matter of Wikipedia policy. If your friend actually adds individual information to those articles, then that will of course change the situation. My argument is that zero-information stubs don't really foster growth, they only "simulate" it (empty calories in terms of article count). More importantly, they frustrate readers who click a link to find no information over what they already had on the linking page. This frustration is not at all reduced by the fact that there are many such stubs. I understand that some people think stubs would encourage people to add information, but in practise I've seen that happening only in very rare cases, and almost never with such obscure topics. Somehow I also doubt that linguists need stubs to figure out where there is information missing on Wikipedia. Generally put, I'd prioritize convenience for readers high above convenience for editors. --Latebird (talk) 00:59, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, since these are articles of interest only to linguists.... But let me put it to you another way. I have worked through ISO 639-3 languages in several other parts of the world where others have "vested interests"--both linguists and non-linguists like yourself. You are the first to have a problem. You are the first who does not think that stubs for growth are good. I don't think "Wikipedia policy" is different for Chad as opposed to China. Now, your argument about "more information on the mother page" versus no information on the daughter pages is specious in this particular case--the only information on the Buriat language page is the orthography chart, which is actually only applicable to Russia Buriat. Most of the links are also only relevant to Russia Buriat. The dozen or so grammars of Russia Buriat are not even listed. If the page were even half a dozen paragraphs long, you would have a valid argument, but right now, the Buriat language page is nothing more than a stub itself. But we will wait until a specialist on these languages weighs in. (Taivo (talk) 01:34, 22 March 2008 (UTC))

An Invite to join Saskatchewan WikiProject

Hi, you are graciously extended an invitation to join the Saskatchewan WikiProject! The Saskatchewan WikiProject is a fairly new WikiProject. We are a group of editors who are dedicated to creating, revising, and expanding articles, lists, categories, and Wikiprojects, to do with anything Saskatchewan.

As you have shown an interest in Western Ojibwa language - Woods Cree language we thought you might like to take an interest in this growing WikiProject.

Please assist with any ongoing requests

You might like to take an extra interest in our To Do list

Another project dedicated to Saskatchewan is the Saskatchewan Roads and Highways Wikiproject

Also, a descendant project for Saskatchewan is the WikiProject Saskatchewan Communities & Neighbourhoods

We look forward to welcoming you to the project! SriMesh | talk 22:15, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Azerbaijani

No source except Ethnologue says North Azerbaijani differs from South Azerbaijani to a degree where they can be considered two languages. There's a difference in terms of them being two perfectly mutually intelligible dialects. Please provide more reliable sources. 99.226.143.206 (talk) 04:54, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

And ISO 639-3, the international standard. They are separated in the same way that Bosnian, Serbian, and Croatian are separated, but still under a single macrolanguage--by speaker preference and different literary traditions. There is at least one grammar that deals with South Azerbaijani separately from North Azerbaijani: Sooman Noah Lee. 1996. "A Grammar of Iranian Azerbaijani," University of Sussex PhD dissertation. And they are NOT "perfectly mutually intelligible dialects" if there are different writing systems, and different sets of borrowed words (from different donor languages). The whole issue of "mutual intelligibility" is overblown sometimes. Bosnian, Serbian, and Croatian have a high degree of mutual intelligibility, but have differing writing systems, so are listed as separate varieties of a single macrolanguage. Urdu and Hindi share a fair degree of mutual intelligibility, but speakers cannot read what the other writes. There are a number of cases in the ISO 639-3 standard where this is the case. Indeed, Ukrainian, Russian, and Belorusian share a high degree of mutual intelligibility and Ukrainian speakers have a certain level of mutual intelligibility with even Polish, but no one would place them in a single language entry. It is not an uncommon linguistic practice to separate speech varieties with as much difference as North and South Azerbaijani--different writing systems. "Spoken Azerbaijanian may be divided into three main groups: (a) northern Azerbaijanian, spoken in the Republic of Azerbaijan, (b) southern Azerbaijanian, spoken in northwest Iran, and (c) east Anatolian dialects of Turkey" (Claus Schönig. 1998. "Azerbaijanian," The Turkic Languages. London: Routledge. Pg 260). And I will ask you, "Who are you?" Are you a real Wikipedia editor, or just an anonymous number? Are you even a trained linguist? I don't mean to be rude, but right now you are an unknown anonymous user. (Taivo (talk) 05:16, 1 April 2008 (UTC))

And from the Azerbaijani language article: "Speakers of various dialects normally do not have problems understanding each other. However minor problems may occur between Azerbaijani-speakers from the Caucasus and Iran, as some of the words used by the latter that are of Persian or Arabic origin may be unknown to the former." This is NOT "perfectly mutually intelligible". (Taivo (talk) 09:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC))

Let me ask you this: how conversant are you in Azerbaijani? Because none of the sources you have provided makes the comparisons you are making (i.e. Bosnian vs. Serbian, Hindi vs. Urdu). There is a high degree of controversy and political propaganda around the current separation of Bosnian and Serbian, and it has only been around since the 1990s, so your example is not apt. As for Urdu and Hindi, they historically developed under differing literary traditions, which trace roots to cultural, religous and political characteristics of the region. Azerbaijani developed as a written (let alone spoken) language long before there were any political borders between the Caucasus and Iran, long before the script in Caucasian Azerbaijan changed to Roman and long before there were any linguistic influences of Russian in the region. It was not until the Soviet period in the 1920s and 1930s that Azerbaijani in the Caucasus officially switched to the Roman script and started acquiring some Russian loanwords (mainly technical and scientific terms of Greek and Latin origin most of which are known to Iranian Azeris via French, i.e. for 'television' Azeris in the Caucasus would say televiziya whereas Iranian Azeris would say televizyon; none of the Swadesh terms differs for Caucasian and Iranian Azerbaijani). The excerpt from the article talks of 'minor problems', and 'minor problems' generally do not make dialects qualify to being called 'languages'. I can talk of 'minor problems' in intelligibility when I compare two English dialects from London. Your own source (Schönig) doesn't even call those 'groups' languages. Even Wikipedia places articles in both Roman-scripted Azerbaijani and Arabic-scripted Azerbaijani in the same project: az:Bakı and az:باکی.

Let's not focus on my 'anonymity'. Being anonymous does not undermine my right to make edits and bring up facts. 99.226.143.206 (talk) 04:03, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

You need to realize that there are good linguistically-based reasons for separating North Azerbaijani and South Azerbaijani. There is, certainly, a degree of mutual intelligibility between them--I have said nothing otherwise. They are varieties of a single macrolanguage. The term "macrolanguage" means that there is a level of intercommunication possible between them, but not complete. Complete intercommunication requires two things--first, mutually intelligible speech varieties. This requirement is met by the two Azerbaijanis, that's why you can learn to speak North Azerbaijani (which all the textbooks are based on) and be understood in Iran. But the second part of the equation is that they can read each other's writing systems. The two varieties of Azerbaijani do not meet this criteria since they have different writing systems and have had different writing systems throughout the lifetimes of nearly all speakers of these languages. North Azerbaijani and South Azerbaijani are separated into two varieties of the macrolanguage Azerbaijani by ISO 639-3, the international standard, which is presided over by international linguists who objectively evaluate the evidence for and against merging/splitting speech varieties. Look at Ukrainian and Russian as a good example of how two speech varieties of what is basically one language can be treated individually. They even use the same alphabet (although with minor differences). I live in Ukraine and all the time I hear conversations between one person speaking Russian and one person speaking Ukrainian. You can also look at the different varieties of Arabic--they are separated in ISO 639-3 even though many of them are mutually intelligible. They are not called separate languages, but varieties. Don't get hung up on the "separate language" thing. South and North Azerbaijani are not separate languages, but separate varieties of a single macrolanguage based on different writing systems. Wikipedia is being adapted to address the ISO 639-3 system with at least a stub for future development for each named variety. Azerbaijani is not being treated differently. If you disagree with the ISO 639-3 evaluation of Azerbaijani then you can propose a change to the standard if you have linguistic evidence to back it up. It's a simple process and I have done it for about a dozen languages over the years. My question would be for you to provide the evidence that the differences between them are slight. Look at the dissertation on Iranian Azerbaijani cited on the South Azerbaijani page. In the next few months I will be using that dissertation to spell out the dialectal differences in the South Azerbaijani article. I have no political axe grind here, I'm working with the International Standard. (Taivo (talk) 06:27, 2 April 2008 (UTC))

I'm sorry, but I have reasons to doubt your competence in what you are trying to argue here. I really don't think you have any idea of how dialects of Azerbaijani are perceived by their speakers. Simply because having lived in Ukraine, you make anti-linguistic statements such as calling Russian and Ukrainian "basically one language." What you are witnessing might be instances of people speaking Surzhyk, or even plain Russian, as most of Ukraine has experienced a great deal of Russification. Because being able to speak Russian at a native-speaker level, I have a hard time imagining a functional and lengthy conversation where one speaks Russian and the other one speaks Ukrainian. There is more intelligibility between Azerbaijani and Turkish, than between Ukrainian and Russian, let alone dialects of Azerbaijani.

Azerbaijani is not a macrolanguage. It is simply a language, that has its own dialects, which vary from region to region, just like in the case with any other language. Having different writing systems is just not enough to separate two groups of dialects of the same language into "microlanguages." For your information, in 1939—91 Azeri in the Caucasus officially used Cyrillic script. And right now there's a growing generation of people who can't read it. According to you, we found ourselves another Azerbaijani language within a "macrolanguage." How about we start an article and call it "North Azerbaijani That Uses Cyrillic Script"? Give me a break.

Here's something that might interest you and, mind you, one of the authors of this article from 1993 is an Iranian Azeri, the other one is a Caucasian Azeri:

"Despite the separation into what is commonly referred to as “Northern and Southern Azerbaijan,” the Azerbaijani language has remained basically the same. Azerbaijanis of Iran are able to carry on long conversations with Azerbaijanis of the Republic of Azerbaijan with very little difficulty." [1] 99.226.143.206 (talk) 06:34, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I never said that there was no mutual intelligibility between the two varieties of Azerbaijani. And you don't need to be getting angry about it. I have much more experience in situations of near-complete mutual intelligibility from around the world than just what I have mentioned here, so don't question my competence at looking at what happens between speakers and how the International Standard is applied based on literacy and mutual intelligibility. You still have not addressed the primary issue--that ISO 639-3, the INTERNATIONAL STANDARD, treats North and South Azerbaijani as two different varieties of the Azerbaijani macrolanguage. Take your arguments up with the ISO 639-3 authorities and propose the merger of the two varieties into a single language and get rid of the macrolanguage. It's a straightforward process to propose a change--ISO 639-3 home page. Get ISO 639-3 to change their evaluation of the linguistic situation between North and South Azerbaijani. Bring your linguistic facts and present your case in a change request. I'm not the person to direct your outrage at. I'm simply bringing Wikipedia into compliance with the International Standard. The next annual evaluation of change requests is in January 2009. At that time, I'll download the new ISO and make whatever changes need to be made to Wikipedia's language articles to reflect the new standard. (Taivo (talk) 10:53, 4 April 2008 (UTC))

And the comment about Ukrainian and Russian was not "anti-linguistic". You don't know the linguistic literature on the subject. It is the usual practice in discussing mutual intelligibility vis a vis language differentiation to count Ukrainian and Russian as a single language (along with Belorusian) (for example, Voegelin & Voegelin 1976, Dalby 1999, etc.). And unless you live in Ukraine and witness the speech patterns here between native speakers of Russian and Ukrainian, your "I can't imagine" doesn't really count as "evidence". The older generation of Ukrainian speakers do not use the mixed variety you mention, that's the people I'm talking about--the "purists". My fiancee is a native speaker of Russian and can communicate with Ukrainians speaking native Ukrainian--it's not perfect, but it's good and functional. Mutual intelligibility is a continuum, not an absolute. And both Ukrainian and Russian speakers report that they can understand basic Polish as well. That's something that they're "not supposed to do" if we go by every language classification ever created for Slavic languages. (Taivo (talk) 13:23, 4 April 2008 (UTC))

And if you are in any doubt about the different identities of North and South Azerbaijani, just look at the revert war going on between a North and South Azerbaijani over what to call the language in Iran in the Azerbaijani language article. It just proves that these two linguistic communities have different ideas about who they are--they may be able to talk to one another, but they don't think of their language as a single monolith. (Taivo (talk) 17:23, 6 April 2008 (UTC))

To someone well-deserving

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		For your extraordinary scrutiny, precision, and community service. Cheers! Eustress (talk) 15:15, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

You do a lot of good NPOV work on The Book of Mormon and many other articles. Keep up the good work! --Eustress (talk) 15:15, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you (Taivo (talk) 18:14, 5 April 2008 (UTC))

Hopìikwa Lavàytutuveni

I have created an article about the Hopi Dictionary: Hopìikwa Lavàytutuveni. I know that you have reviewed the volume in Anthropological Linguistics, a journal that is currently not available to me, so I thought you might have something to add to the article. ·Maunus· ·ƛ· 13:40, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Skill testing question

Hello Taivo:

This little question arises from a article I became interested in.

Considering only languages which have a tradition of writing,

do all those languages have an alphabet?

and are there any of those languages where the alphabet does not have a set order?

Thank you, Wanderer57 (talk) 21:13, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Not all languages use an alphabet. Japanese uses a syllabary, Chinese uses a logographic system. And some writing systems that are called "alphabets" by the uninitiated are not alphabets in the technical sense (one symbol per consonant, one symbol per vowel), but are abugidas (Ethiopic, Amharic), abjads (Arabic, Hebrew), or alphasyllabaries (Sanskrit and most writing systems of Southeast Asia based historically on Sanskrit). I'm not aware of any language that uses an alphabet, an abjad, an abugida, or an alphasyllabary that does not have a specific order to the system. All the syllabaries that I am aware of also have a fixed order. I'm not sure about how Chinese dictionaries are organized, so I can't speak for the world's only logographic system. We don't know if Ancient Egyptian had a fixed order. Fixed order makes dictionaries possible. (Taivo (talk) 00:42, 18 April 2008 (UTC))

Mehri

I added a tag requesting citations for the article. That was so whoever originally added the info could back it up. If they didn't back it up after awhile, take the tag down and delete the information. -- Al™ 06:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Unsigned Posts

Unsigned posts are generally the work of the untrained, unskilled, uneducated, and ignorant. I will continue to delete unsigned malicious vandalism on this page. Facts don't lie and don't need unsigned posts to assert them without reference. (Taivo (talk) 15:24, 21 April 2008 (UTC))

You don't delete posts on the Talk page

Actually, you can delete your own comments. Cbdorsett (talk) 04:18, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Of course, but you can't delete other's comments. Physcially, you can, but it's not appropriate. (Your own talk page, of course, is an exception, I think.) When I reverted that deletion on a talk page, were you deleting your own comment? It didn't look like it. (Taivo (talk) 08:06, 5 May 2008 (UTC))

Ahem

If you don't still have chaps watchlisted, you might want to. Montanabw^(talk) 05:39, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm getting too pissed off at this whole situation to stay rational without some neutral third parties around to help me keep my cool. Appreciate your willingness to hang in there. Got a giggle out of your "LDS" comment, too, because I simply cannot hear that acronym any more without being reminded of Captain Kirk in Star Trek IV calling LSD "LDS." And being in Montana, well, we aren't Southern Idaho or Utah as far as religious demographics, but yeah, I get it. We have many non-LDS "refugees" from Utah living here! (and a lot of LDS "refugees" too, actually!) LOL! Montanabw^(talk) 07:26, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Book of Mormon article edits

Greetings - My apologies for stirring up the pot. My intention was to add what I thought was a useful bit of information regarding the number of changes to the BoM text compared to the number of changes to the New Testament text. I'll put that up in the article's talk section when I have a free moment. DWmFrancis (talk) 14:34, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid you won't get far because you are comparing apples and oranges. The BOM is a unit that can be traced from a single source in 1830 (the first printed edition). That single source has been subject to X number of changes in 178 years of editing and printing. The NT is NOT a single source. It is composed of multiple copies (the Greek manuscripts, of which there are several hundred) of multiple documents (the 20-some-odd books of the N.T.). You can't even reasonably compare one book of the NT with the BOM because we do not have the original author's copy of any of the books. There is also the problem of time-depth. It is entirely different comparing 178 years of a document's history after the printing press to 1900 years of a document's history, 1400 of which were before the printing press. Any comparison is absolutely meaningless since you are comparing totally different things. I will oppose any such comparison being placed in the BOM article because it is irrelevant. (Taivo (talk) 16:16, 14 May 2008 (UTC))

Your user page (formatting)

Try using {{clear}}. Read about it at template:clear. Cbdorsett (talk) 03:33, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I like the compact way my user page looks. That "clear" wiki makes pages look like a third grader did the page layout. (Taivo (talk) 10:59, 18 May 2008 (UTC))

Talk:Maltese language

You started up the discussion of the Lexicology v Grammar sections; do you think it would be possible if you could help us conclude on the discussion there. (See my comment there). Thanks. MagdelenaDiArco (talk) 12:11, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

This was the closest barnstar I could find to what I was trying to find, Lol.

		The Rosetta Barnstar
		For the rewrite of the grammar and lexicology sections of the Maltese language page. Well done. MagdelenaDiArco (talk) 14:52, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Literary Arabic

Please see my comments on Talk:Literary Arabic. I see that you have made multiple reverts of certain anonymous authors. Many of your posts advise those authors to discuss the issue on the talk page, but you have not done so yourself. I'd like to see the rationale behind the edits of both sides. Cbdorsett (talk) 03:44, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Categorization of Language Articles

Hi -- I'm sorting out all the stubs you've created (great work by the way) and I noticed that most of them are listed under multiple categories. Could you please list them under just the bottom level category? My reasoning for asking this is tht categorization works a little bit like a filing cabinet where you open up to the level you want -- file everything under everything and it doesn't organize any longer. Let me know if you have thoughts or objections (my talkpage please). Aelfthrytha (talk) 04:20, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm uncomfortable with your tone. Could you please turn it down a little bit? I can agree with your point about possibly keeping the large language families within the Afro-Asiatic category. However, when the Afro-Asiatic category has within it categories named after the language families that I removed, I don't think it makes them any harder to find. Could you please point to any other cleanup you find problematic? I'd like to fully understand what you disagree with so perhaps we could work cooperatively. Aelfthrytha (talk) 04:29, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean for the language family or group articles, or for all the individual articles? Haven't been any other categories I edited that I recall, so shouldn't be a problem other places. Aelfthrytha (talk) 05:28, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree that the lower levels weren't affected -- lower levels were affected by my edits because there were individual language articles found in every possible category from Afro-Asiatic down. Aelfthrytha (talk) 14:35, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Again, I am uncomfortable with your tone. Please be polite. I agree that there were some mistakes, but I maintain that I did more good than harm -- originally there were more than 200 articles in the Afro-Asiatic category referring to individual languages, and every individual language was under everything else. Is there anything left you'd like to discuss? Aelfthrytha (talk) 23:44, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Akkadian language cats

I created a category for Akkadian language-related articles and moved the article's categories to the new category. It wasn't vandalism. IansAwesomePizza (talk) 16:30, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

It's sometimes hard to tell the difference between legitimate attempts to organize the confusion and vandalism to promote a point-of-view. In this case, all the category links between Akkadian and the Semitic languages were lost. (Taivo (talk) 16:46, 2 June 2008 (UTC))

The Ak Lang category links to the Semitic languages. IansAwesomePizza (talk) 17:06, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I think that the Byzantine maze of links that people must follow to go from an article like Akkadian language to Afro-Asiatic is silly. (Taivo (talk) 01:26, 3 June 2008 (UTC))

Well, the first sentence in the article, as well as the infobox all link to Afro-Asiatic. IansAwesomePizza (talk) 15:16, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Image:Church of the Assumption-Rivne.JPG

A tag has been placed on Image:Church of the Assumption-Rivne.JPG requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I8 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is available as a bit-for-bit identical copy on the Wikimedia Commons under the same name, or all references to the image on Wikipedia have been updated to point to the title used at Commons.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on [[ Talk:Image:Church of the Assumption-Rivne.JPG|the talk page]] explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Sdrtirs (talk) 11:44, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: Wrong "Speedy Deletion"

You performed a "speedy deletion" on Church of the Assumption-Rivne.jpg without even reading my reasons for keeping the image. The image you deleted was NOT a "bit-for-bit" copy of the image in Wikicommons. If you had read my comments on every relevant talk page you would have known that the images were NOT identical (I took BOTH photos) and that the image on Wikicommons was an inferior image to the one you deleted. I demand that you undo the speedy deletion and do what I asked you to do--replace the Wikicommons image with the superior image which you deleted. I don't know how to "replace" images in Wikicommons. (Taivo (talk) 04:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC))

Since you asked oh-so-nicely:

• Image:Church of the Assumption-Rivne.JPG
• Image:Church of the Assumption-Rivne2.jpg
• Image:Church of the Assumption-Rivne3.jpg

If none of those is the "superior image" you were referring to, then I'm sorry but you'll have to learn how to upload things on Commons yourself. Melesse (talk) 05:20, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

My "oh-so-nicely" is AFTER I had carefully posted a comment according to instructions everywhere that the Wikipedia speedy deletion notice called for and my image WAS STILL DELETED. Image -2 is the correct one to keep. The other two can be deleted. (Taivo (talk) 09:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC))

Reply.

Well, if I understand correctly, perhaps a phrase like this might work: "Though most scholars agree that the Coptic language is extinct,^{<several reliable sources here>} there are some who dispute this.^{More reliable sources.} · AndonicO ^Engage. 10:00, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

That would definitely be an improvement, although it's not "scholars" who dispute this. Perhaps: "Though scholars agree that the Coptic language is extinct, there are sources that dispute this." I've never read a scholar who disputed the extinction of Coptic, only these various journalistic sources offered by Troy et al. There have been attempts to revive Coptic, so there may be modern speakers of the language although this has not been confirmed by scholars. What scholars agree on is that there is no continuation from the past even if there are modern speakers. The situation mirrors somewhat the case with Cornish. There are speakers (although the "nativeness" of the speech is debatable) of Cornish, but no one disputes that the language went extinct. I just noticed that there is a speaker number on the Cornish page, but I have the same doubts about putting a number there as I have about putting a number here--verification. At least with Cornish there is a more public degree of verification and analysis than there is with Coptic revival. (Taivo (talk) 10:59, 9 June 2008 (UTC))

Then it would probably be best as: "Though scholars agree that the Coptic language is extinct, there are some who dispute this." Putting "sources" in there sounds a bit awkward. · AndonicO ^Engage.

Sounds good to me. What's the next step? (Taivo (talk) 20:40, 9 June 2008 (UTC))

Propose it on the talk page of the article (if you haven't already), and see if others agree with you, and if there are any changes they'd like to make. · AndonicO ^Engage. 01:32, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

From what I can see, the others in this dispute are in "stall" mode. (Taivo (talk) 19:55, 16 June 2008 (UTC))

There has been an agreement reached on the Coptic language page. Can we get it unlocked to insert the compromise text? (Taivo (talk) 03:22, 17 June 2008 (UTC))

Alright, done. Glad you worked it out. · AndonicO ^Engage. 09:38, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

English on Talkpages

I was suggesting that people who actually understand (and have studied) Maltese contribute to the 'Maltese Language' page, rather than remaining aloof of the entire Wikipedia project. I'll keep my comments in English since so many non-speakers seem to have some sort of interest: and as you've said, this is the English (language) Wiki after all. golden bells, pomegranates, prunes & prisms (talk) 06:15, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Soqotri Classification

Hi, Taivo. It means "ber farangiyya" in Soqotri like I am, too. There is a hard trend to see Soqotri as a West Semitic, like Prof. Alexander Militarev in Moscow does (his Semitic tree is hand-made due to the Russian publication conditions up today, but he is a real McCoy in Afrasian). Mutargim Mutargim (talk) 10:10, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I know that it is a growing trend and I am familiar with Militarev. The problem is that it hasn't appeared in print yet. Wikipedia policy is pretty standard that things must either appear in print or on authoritative scientific websites. (Taivo (talk) 11:34, 17 June 2008 (UTC))

It was in print, but in Russian in Yushmanov N.V. Izbrannyje trudy. (The Selected Works). "Vostochnaya Literatura", Moscow, 1998, pps 108-111 (p. 110 is this very A.Militarev's Semitic Tree sceme - Olga Frolova publication). MutargimMutargim (talk) 11:48, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

OK. Until it becomes more widely available, the language in the article is OK. It presents the view, but without the imprimatur of final authority. (Taivo (talk) 11:50, 17 June 2008 (UTC))

OK. You are right. Mutargim Mutargim (talk) 12:04, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Maltese-related articles

You recently reverted my edit on Siculo-Arabic[2]. It's clear that both of us mean well (despite User:Kalindoscopy's claim that my edit is "further proof" of my "dubious agenda"[3]), and I can see why you thought it was inaccurate - the vast majority of Siculo-Arabic's speakers were in Sicily, and the language went extinct there, only surviving on the tiny island of Malta - but I feel we should mention in the infobox that the language did at least survive. Perhaps we should say something like "Largely extinct by the 14th century, remnants evolved into Maltese", as on the Sogdian page? On another issue, I made this edit on the Culture of Malta article, as I thought many readers would not understand why it was only the spoken language (and it was a bit like saying, "Anglo-Saxon influence on the British Isles is evident in the spoken form of English"). However, Kalindoscopy reverted my "unhelpful editing". What do you think? Lastly, is it me or is the sentence "the original Italic, Phoenician and Byzantine population from the Roman period was further bolstered by other European elements over a period of 440 years" on the Maltese people article completely meaningless?--Yolgnu (talk) 03:46, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Please respond. I am in dire need of a second opinion.--Yolgnu (talk) 07:34, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Indeed Taivo, it would be helpful to have an informed opinion: there's something of a mini-debate on the Maltese People discussion page. If you find that bolstering Yolgnu is the way to go, that might be interesting to see too. golden bells, pomegranates, prunes & prisms (talk) 10:20, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I've been distracted lately by other matters. I will respond this evening. (Taivo (talk) 13:37, 24 June 2008 (UTC))

I hope that you are both watching this page. I don't know which pages have which information so I'll just blanket comment here. I made a comment on the Maltese People page concerning the issue of what the statement "X% of the population speaks Y language" means in a Wikipedia sense and in the broader linguistic sense. I changed the wording on some page that said "the original population of X, Y, and Z". That statement was a poorly worded one--the ORIGINAL population was ONLY the first people on the island, not including every subsequent addition. So I just said "the population was further enhanced". That is a correct statement. A laundry list of additions (which, curiously, did not include Arabs) is not helpful. I also made the wording on the Maltese language page match the wording on the Sogdian language page. That is an accurate assessment. (Taivo (talk) 17:12, 24 June 2008 (UTC))

Thanks for your contribution. golden bells, pomegranates, prunes & prisms (talk) 17:47, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your response, Taivo, but we still need a second opinion for the dispute on Culture of Malta. Kalindoscopy insists on saying that Arab influence is evident in "the spoken form of the Maltese language", but I think it should just be "the Maltese language", period; however, Kalindoscopy describes this "unhelpful editing" as "mutilating articles". As I said, I think Kalindoscopy's version is equivalent to saying "Anglo-Saxon influence is evident in the spoken form of the English language" or "Aztec influence is evident in the spoken form of the Nahuatl language". Language and orthography are completely different things.--Yolgnu (talk) 07:14, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

In some languages it makes sense to talk about the difference between the "spoken language" and the "written language", but only in those cases where there are GRAMMATICAL differences between the two. In the case of Maltese, it makes no sense whatsoever to distinguish between the "spoken language" and the "written language" because the two are IDENTICAL. It doesn't matter whether Maltese is written with the Roman alphabet, the Greek alphabet, the Arabic alphabet, or the Japanese syllabary, it is still the same language--a Semitic one derived from Siculo-Arabic. So the statement "Arab influence is still evident in the Maltese language" is absolutely true. The addition of "spoken form" is actually misleading in the sense that it implies that written Maltese is somehow different than spoken Maltese. It isn't. (Taivo (talk) 16:02, 26 June 2008 (UTC))

Thanks once again for offering your opinion. As a matter of interest, are you a speaker of Maltese/student of the language? You've contributed to the quite a few relevant articles. golden bells, pomegranates, prunes & prisms (talk) 21:18, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your prompt response, Taivo.--Yolgnu (talk) 21:24, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

To answer your question, I am a professor of Linguistics. I've read articles and book chapters on Maltese, so I'm generally familiar with the structures and sound system of the language. (Taivo (talk) 03:31, 27 June 2008 (UTC))

We're still having a dispute over the Overview section of the Culture of Malta article[4]. The article speaks of the "ascendancy of Latin European influence"; since ascendancy means "domination", I think this is POV (it would be more suited to the Gallo-Roman article), especially since the Maltese are still speaking a Semitic language. I feel "ascendancy" should be changed to "increase", but Kalindoscopy won't allow it. The other issue is the unsourced statement that the increase in Latin European influence and subsequent decline in Semitic influence "may be an innate response to frequent national calamities", followed by detailed examples of raids and sackings of Malta by Muslims. I feel this is a radical theory; the Maltese were influenced by Latin Europeans because they were occupied by them for 800 years, not because they chose to be influenced. This is original research and should be removed. Kalindoscopy, however, argues that since it "details frequent national calamities, I don't think further citations are needed." What Kalindoscopy doesn't understand is that an example is not a citation.--Yolgnu (talk) 00:18, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you again for your prompt assistance.--Yolgnu (talk) 04:32, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Taivo: having read through your edits I find them as unsuitable as the ones Yolgnu attempted. I'm not sure why he keeps appealing to you as an authority.. I appreciate that out of the three of us, you are the more experienced, but don't see how that gives you carte blanche to make sweeping edits; especially uncited ones [or those without any example/precedence :)]. With that said, your contributions to the Siculo-Arabic article were very helpful indeed. golden bells, pomegranates, prunes & prisms (talk) 07:24, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

How cowardly, saying "Taivo, it would be helpful to have an informed opinion. If you find that bolstering Yolgnu is the way to go, that might be interesting to see too" and then refusing to accept his opinion when he supports me.--Yolgnu (talk) 08:07, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Yolgnu, I've called you a craven coward before and regret my harshness. I see now that people like you need a softer touch. My comment seeking his opinion was related to a specific incident, nothing more. If you want to continue taking it out of context, be my guest. ALSO: He is supporting your opinion/edit/information, not YOU. That sort of insecurity, I feel, has undescored much of our communication. golden bells, pomegranates, prunes & prisms (talk) 08:13, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Guys, if you want to have a fistfight do it on someone else's page. I don't have an ax to grind either way. I'm not Maltese, I'm not Arabic, I'm not Sicilian, I'm an Irish-American. I edited the Culture of Malta intro paragraph in a way that was scientifically accurate. The wording that was there was not accurate. Calamities don't influence culture. Politics and religion influence culture. The important thing about European culture relevant to Malta is that it has been the political boss on Malta for 800 years. With political controal came religious control. That's the end of the story except for the interesting note about the Knights of Malta taking control of Gozo. Nothing more need be listed as a reason for Maltese culture being heavily Latin/European. (Taivo (talk) 09:18, 30 June 2008 (UTC))

One other thing. The stuff about "calamities" is historically interesting, but irrelevant for the opening paragraph. Also, the words are not sacred as long as they do not convey the notion that Latin/European culture was (or is) somehow superior or destined for dominance. The stuff about legends, folk tales, etc. is interesting, but not appropriate for the introductory section which should paint the broad strokes. Put it later. Write a good section on the folk tales of Malta that reflect its history of invasion, raids, etc. Don't delete it, just give it the appropriate level of importance by moving it out of the introductory paragraph and into a paragraph of its own. (Taivo (talk) 09:27, 30 June 2008 (UTC))

Apologies. The is the second time we (Yolgnu and I) have allowed things to degenerate on another user's talkpage. I'll take your suggestions into account. As an (interesting?) aside, Malta's 'conversion' by the Apostle Paul is a Biblical account of the island's religious persuasion (at the time). So the island has gone back and forth a few times, religiously, culturally, politically and linguistically. I've given the calamities info a new section and added a bit of background re:local literature/folksong. Good luck with your future wikiwork. golden bells, pomegranates, prunes & prisms (talk) 13:08, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Kalindoscopy's now simply copied the whole "The rising ascendancy of Latin European influence and the subsequent decline in the importance of the Semitic origins of Maltese culture and folklore in latter centuries may also be an innate response to frequent national calamities" section to a new "National Calamities" section. While the influence of the "national calamities" on Maltese culture deserves its own section, "rising ascendancy" is still POV and "innate response" is still OR, and do not belong on Wikipedia.--Yolgnu (talk) 14:14, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Yolgnu, work it out with Kalindoscopy. "Ascendancy" isn't a bad word. It means "rise", nothing more. And the comment about "innate response" is not OR, it is pretty axiomatic in ethnographic studies. It needs a reference about as much as "American Independence was an innate response to throwing the British out of the Colonies". There's nothing non-intuitive about it in relation to the influence of these "calamities" on Maltese culture. My problem with the original introduction was that it was not an "introduction", but a laundry list of calamities. I have a personal problem with the word "calamity", but that's my issue and not a problem necessarily. Having 5000 people die in a pirate attack would be pretty calamitous for a small island. (Taivo (talk) 16:01, 30 June 2008 (UTC))

Having reread the sentence containing ascendancy and innate response again, I've got to reword it. I had the reference what was the innate response was wrong. (Taivo (talk) 16:04, 30 June 2008 (UTC))

I would have thought that ascendancy was simply the state of bieng ascendant too, but all the dictionaries I've consulted give its meaning as "domination".--Yolgnu (talk) 23:29, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, Latin/European culture certainly became dominant in Malta. (Taivo (talk) 14:07, 1 July 2008 (UTC))

By what criteria? In my opinion, language is the most important aspect of culture.--Yolgnu (talk) 00:10, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

The main thing I'm uncomfortable about is this idea that Malta "called out to Christian Europe for aid and relief". Since Malta was occupied continuously by European countries from the end of the Arab conquest until the late 20th century, it was hardly necessary for them to "call out".--Yolgnu (talk) 00:18, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, language is not the most important aspect of culture. Just look at the "Pueblo" culture of the American Southwest. This is one fairly uniform "macro-culture" (with local differences of course) but there is absolutely no linguistic unity. There are four separate and unrelated language families represented among the Pueblos (Zuni, Uto-Aztecan, Tanoan, and Keresan) and about 10 different languages. Look at the cultures where Arabic is the "language"--North Africa, Arabia, the Sahel, Malta, Central Asia, Southwest Asia. There is a unified language group (all descended from a common language about 1200 years ago), but a great deal of disunity linguistically. People can switch from culture to culture much easier than they can switch linguistically. Language is a minor feature of defining culture. "Call out" may not be the best word here. So choose a better word--"relied on" maybe. The key is that anywhere in Europe where Moslem incursions were taking place, the local population turned to Christian countries and the Christian churches to support them. Malta is not culturally Semitic. It is culturally European. It is Semitic only linguistically. (Taivo (talk) 08:45, 2 July 2008 (UTC))

What, is it not culturally Semitic because it's not Muslim? Is Israel not culturally Semitic?--Yolgnu (talk) 09:52, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

The only real connection between Maltese and Israeli culture is that they are both anomalous. Malta as a Catholic European culture has been a fact for over 800 years, preserving an atavistic (but surprisingly resilient and creative) Semitic language that, following Malta's declaration of independence, was elevated to the status of 'official language' (for largely political reasons). That's my 2 cents. golden bells, pomegranates, prunes & prisms (talk) 16:29, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

While I wait for your answer, Taivo, I'd like to report that our little friend with his misguided patriotism is up to his old tricks again. Have a look at Talk: Semitic languages.--Yolgnu (talk) 06:26, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

You apologise to me on the one hand and insult me on the other? Yolgnu, I think this is the first time I've run into your sort on wikipedia! Simply disgusting. golden bells, pomegranates, prunes & prisms (talk) 08:32, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Malta is NOT culturally Semitic. It is culturally European. The Maltese speak a Semitic language. So what? As I said before, culture is not tied to language and language is not tied to culture. Malta has been Christian and European for 800 years. It is culturally European, not Semitic. It is linguistically Semitic. Now I'm tired of you guys having your little pissing match on my talk page. (Taivo (talk) 18:43, 3 July 2008 (UTC))

But Taivo, Yolgnu NEEDS your support.. you're disagreeing with him?! xoxo your 'little friend' golden bells, pomegranates, prunes & prisms (talk) 19:01, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Taivo, you still haven't answered my question of whether Israel is culturally Semitic (instead, you just reiterated what you said before, which wasn't what I was asking). Needed more importantly, however, is your input at Talk: Semitic languages.--Yolgnu (talk) 23:07, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

"Israel" is not a culture. There are two separate primary cultures in Israel--the basically European/Hebrew-speaking/Jewish one and the basically Middle Eastern/Arabic-speaking/Muslim one. Your use of the word "Semitic" to describe a culture is wrong. There is no such thing as a "Semitic" culture. There are Middle Eastern, North African, European, Caucasian, Khoisan, Australian Aboriginal, etc. cultures. There are NOT "Semitic", "Indo-European", "Tibeto-Burman", etc. cultures except as they are coterminous with geographic groupings. "Semitic" cultures range from the Central Asian Uzbeki Arabic speakers to the "Saharan" Bedouin Arabic speakers to the African Gurage speakers to the European Maltese speakers. CULTURE is NOT the same as LANGUAGE. (Taivo (talk) 06:53, 4 July 2008 (UTC))

Caucasian, Khoisan and Australian Aboriginal are all language families. You just proved my point.--Yolgnu (talk) 08:10, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

If "CULTURE is NOT the same as LANGUAGE", as you so eloquently put it, then CULTURE, contrary to your view, is certainly NOT the same as RELIGION or RACE. And I find your description of Hebraeophones as "European" offensive in the extreme.--Yolgnu (talk) 08:23, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Now now, no need to get your nationalistic feathers ruffled.. golden bells, pomegranates, prunes & prisms (talk) 11:03, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

May I remind Kalindoscopy of WP:No personal attacks. Cheers.--Yolgnu (talk) 12:18, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Stop misapplying wiki policies Yolgnu. You're doing yourself no favours. golden bells, pomegranates, prunes & prisms (talk) 12:25, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

May I remind Kalindoscopy of WP:Civility. Cheers.--Yolgnu (talk) 12:36, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Do unto others. golden bells, pomegranates, prunes & prisms (talk) 12:45, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Caucasian, Khoisan, and Australian Aboriginal are NOT language families. They are areal groupings only. There are four UNRELATED language families that comprise "Caucasian". There are at least three unrelated language families that comprise "Khoisan". There are around 20 unrelated language families that comprise "Australian Aboriginal". In the distant past, these groups may have been related, but they cannot be demonstrably related to each other at the present time. So, please do your linguistic homework before commenting on linguistics. I did not just pick these groups out of the air without thinking about what I was writing. These are monocultural groups that are linguistically COMPLEX, just like the Pueblo culture area in the American Southwest. I could also include the cultural complex along the Gulf Coast of the U.S.--fairly uniform culturally, but extremely complex linguistically, as well as the California Coast culture area--culturally uniform, but extremely complex linguistically. We contrast this with the Arabic-speaking area--linguistically fairly uniform, but culturally complex. CULTURE and LANGUAGE are NOT identical. Language is only a minor component of cultural definition. Uh, Yolgnu, the culture of Hebrew-speaking Israel IS primarily European in origin. You need to do a bit more study on the history of Israel. While there are religious aspects of the culture that are Eastern European or Middle Eastern, the primary components of Israeli culture are European. Guess where the majority of Hebrew-speaking Israelis came from? Uh, Europe. If you take offense to the facts, then I suggest you grow a thicker skin. (Taivo (talk) 16:04, 4 July 2008 (UTC))

Uh, you need to study more anthropology, Yolgnu, as well. There is NO SUCH THING AS RACE. You will be very hard-pressed to find a single reputable anthropologist who talks about "race" anymore. Religion, however, IS an important component of culture. There is a religious divide between Bosnians, Serbians, and Croatians even though they all speak the same language. The defining differences in their cultures are Religious-based. You can also look at the differences between Central Asians and Mongolians. Even though other aspects of their culture are similar, the principal differences between them are religious--Central Asians are Muslim and Mongolians are Buddhist. (Taivo (talk) 16:09, 4 July 2008 (UTC))

Cut the capital letters, okay? A slight majority of Hebraeophones are in fact of Sephardi or Mizrahi origin, not Ashkenazi. And even if that wasn't the case, it would be unfair to classify Hebraeophones as European just because some of them spent part of their history in Europe (in fact, they originated in the Middle East, not Europe - you really need to do a bit more study on the history of Israel). And I know there is no such thing as "race"[5]; I just thought you were referring to traditional "racial" groupings when you said Caucasian, Khoisan and Australian Aboriginal. So, I see your definition of culture is one largely based on religion - then answer me this: our Arab Christians culturally closer to Arab Muslims or Greek Orthodox people?--Yolgnu (talk) 00:04, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

No, my definition of culture is not primarily based on religion, but religion is an important component of culture, more important than language. And, yes, I know the history of Israel and the Jewish religion from its origins in the Kingdom of Saul about 1000 BCE until the present. While the religion has its origins in the Middle East of course, the break from the Middle East for the majority of Jews from about 90 CE until 1948 was a significant culture rift from their Middle Eastern origins. As the groups in Europe lived longer and longer in Europe, they adapted traditional culture in more and more ways to change into a principally European one. 2000 years is too long for a culture to remain Middle Eastern when it is surrounded and submerged in Europe. While some Israelis may be unhappy with that fact, it is a fact, nonetheless. You asked my opinion on these things as an educated expert in linguistics and linguistic anthropology. If you do not like my expert and educated opinion... (Taivo (talk) 07:39, 5 July 2008 (UTC))

Since I can express my thoughts best in list format:

• As I said, a slight majority of Hebraeophones are of Sephardi or Mizrahi descent, meaning they're descended from the Jewish communities of the Middle East, who lived under Muslim rule
• Until around 1700, most Jews were Sephardi or Mizrahi, meaning they lived in the Middle East under Muslim rule (or were descended from people who did)
• The majority of Jews do not live in the Middle East
• When I say "Jews", I'm referring to members of the ethnic group, not practitioners of the religion
• How has Israeli culture adapted traditional European culture? Its language and religion aren't European, are they?
• What's a "Middle Eastern culture"? What are its hallmarks?
• I do appreciate your opinion, even if I don't agree with it--Yolgnu (talk) 09:33, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Please justify your deletions at Book of Mormon

I undid the second of your deletions of relevant material at the article Book of Mormon. Please provide substantive reasons for deleting this material based on its content. Your justification "Your edits seem too POV on the surface" as well as the demand that editors discuss edits at the talk page first appears to be in violation of the Wikipedia policies violate WP:PRESERVE, WP:NPA, WP:DE, and WP:AGF. I do not wish to engage in an edit war, and will respond to substantive criticisms of content at the talk page, as I have in the past. But please adhere to stated Wikipedia editing policies. Écrasez l'infâme (talk) 03:14, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Please see my response to your comment at my talk page:

Taivo, please justify your deletions based upon their content. Furthermore, please provide substantive reasons for deleting this material based on its content. Your justification "Your edits seem too POV on the surface" and the demand that editors discuss edits at the talk page first appears to be in violation of the Wikipedia policies violate WP:PRESERVE, WP:NPA, WP:DE, and WP:AGF. Finally, your accusations of edit warring are provably false, and you have now been notified that they are false. Please retract your false accusation, or back it up with proof. Making false accusations is a violation of WP:CIV. It is not appropriate to violate Wikipedia editing and civility policies for the apparent purpose of blocking factual, cited, and highly relevant material from appearing in an article. Écrasez l'infâme (talk) 10:43, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Please see my response to your comment at my talk page:

stop your edit war. (Taivo (talk) 10:22, 23 June 2008 (UTC))
No one is being uncivil to you. … (Taivo (talk) 11:21, 23 June 2008 (UTC))
Taivo, please read my comments very carefully. You have accused me falsely of edit warring. I have informed you that this accusation is false and unsubstantiated, and requested that you withdraw it. You have not yet done so. According to Wikipedia policy on incivility, your behavior adheres to the very definition of incivility:

Ill-considered accusations of impropriety

For now I will continue to assume good faith and that you simply made a mistake in making these false accusations. But now that you have been informed that they are false, you are obligated to acknowledge your mistake. I recommend that the most civil and wisest course of action is for you to retract your false accusation promptly. Écrasez l'infâme (talk) 15:03, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

This is very simple: We cannot assume good faith on your part when you do not practice good faith or common courtesy when requested by a community of editors to respect the consensus-building process that has grown through working together and trust over the last year. Show us respect for what we have carefully crafted here and we will show you the respect you deserve for the contributions you might have to make. But that contribution ONLY comes after a consensus has been built. (Taivo (talk) 15:15, 23 June 2008 (UTC))

Please see my response to your comment at my talk page:

There can be no constructive outcome in discussion with someone who engages openly in incivil behavior and seeks to have my account blocked based upon patently false accusations. Please acknowledge your mistaken and false accusation and retract it, and we may then discuss other matters. Écrasez l'infâme (talk) 15:16, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I never said anything about having your account blocked. I am not engaging in uncivil behavior. I am asking you to respect the editors who have gone before you working on the Book of Mormon article. (Taivo (talk) 15:22, 23 June 2008 (UTC))

Questioning Detail of wording

Hi Taivo:

I think one of your sentences in the Book of Mormon talk page became mangled. I'm mentioning it here rather than there because if I raise it there it has the potential to confuse the discussion hopelessly.

Please consider if this needs changing.

In this sentence, "In 1858, upon the expiration of the copyright for the Book of Mormon, James O. Wright printed a non-LDS version of the Book of Mormon based on the U.S. 1940 edition with a long anti-Mormon introduction", either there is a typo or Mr. Wright was remarkably prescient. Also, I think "with a long anti-Mormon introduction" refers to the 1858 edition.

How about? "In 1858, upon the expiration of the copyright for the Book of Mormon, James O. Wright printed a non-LDS version with a long anti-Mormon introduction. He based this on the U.S. 1840 edition."

Regards, Wanderer57 (talk) 16:59, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Perfect. (Taivo (talk) 17:38, 27 June 2008 (UTC))

Re:

Privet, my wife is from Rivne. The thing is that Успенье and Assumption strictly speaking are not the same, the direct translation of Успенье is Dormition. I do agree that often the two are muddled up, and common (and incorrect) versions of the name are used in English langauge publications, like this Cathedral of Intrecession on the mound.--Kuban Cossack 18:46, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Translation is not always a perfect science, and if an "incorrect" translation has become the "standard" translation, then it should be retained. "Assumption" is the "standard" English name of this church in every English-language publication I've seen coming out of Rivne and western Ukraine. (Taivo (talk) 21:22, 28 June 2008 (UTC))

Semitic vs. Arabic

Hi, can you join the discussion section Semitic vs. Arabic in the article Cantilena. Thanks. Hakeem.gadi (talk) 15:51, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any need to at this point. "Siculo-Arabic" seems quite appropriate as a description. "Semitic" is too general, but "Arabic" would also be acceptable. (Taivo (talk) 09:06, 12 July 2008 (UTC))

Speedy deletion of Image:Old Church-Uzhhorod.JPG

A tag has been placed on Image:Old Church-Uzhhorod.JPG requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image is a redundant copy (all pixels the same or scaled down) of an image in the same file format, which is on Wikipedia (not on Commons), and all inward links have been updated.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on [[ Talk:Image:Old Church-Uzhhorod.JPG|the talk page]] explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Sdrtirs (talk) 19:37, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

The fact ancient Egyptian language

The fact ancient Egyptian language

The most talked about books Chambleon Madjae extensively in the book glossary ancient Egyptian civilization, written by six famous archaeologists in the world. These scientists are :-( 1) George Posner (2) Serge Sonron (3) Jean-Toyota (4) a. A. O. Edwards (5) P. L. Lyonnaise (6) Jean Doris, "Chambleon" retained the carved elephants were found on the island in Aswan contains a cartridge ownership of the names of "Ptolemy and Cleopatra" involved in the characters (P, O, L) and benefited from the ancient texts of the author (unknown) to explain a mysterious!! ! He concluded that the value of sound ancient Egyptian symbols taken from the first letter of the name of the form that this represents a symbol. !!!! If they know "Chambleon" the code name search him Coptic language, is the symbol of that (figure) the first letter operative captain. Thus possible for "Chambleon" know the value of sound hieroglyphic symbols of the first letter of the word Coptic, says authors of the book: - The "Chambleon" Mullah vacant spaces in the hieroglyphic language "estimate" on the Greek word for Coptic central characters know it "Chambleon." You can also solve the symbols (79 names) royalist different. Here clear that the (79 name), which translated "Chambleon" It was also said to the authors of the book on the San "Chambleon" speculation and that she was adopted scientific research to guess how this important scientific research due to the fact that "Chambleon" learn twelve different language in Twenty years were confused about the matter because it could become too crowded and how vocabulary and structures that had been made on his mind, and complements the authors of the book, "The Chambleon" launched to draw the lips) (characters because the views of the Copts were opening the mouth (Ro). And launched live on bread-making) (V characters because the Egyptian Copts were opening on bread (Toot). Reliance on the first letter as an "Chambleon" of the spoken word captain does not take evidence on the interpretation of the alphabet is often no animals, birds have more than one name starts Göktürk Fabricated Dependence on the first letter of the form of animal or bird as he did "Chambleon" sign a researcher at the reader mistakes can not be redressed. To Chambleon affected by the Coptic language learned in childhood and its dependence on alternative characters in hieroglyph translation of the line through the cartridge of the king Potolemaic "Ptolemy" and another for the queen "Cleopatra" when the view painted "Assad" This form () in the cartridge that a verbatim translation (L) because: -- "Lion" in the Coptic language begins with a letter L Laboi. In English and French read Lion. Well as in Arabic called Leith and his wife called a lioness. In the Italian Leone. In German Lowe. Fayallatynet and Leo. In classical Greek èwv? . Because the "Lion" begins with a letter of the (L) in each of these languages modern interpretation "Chambleon" as the characters (L). Mentality and logic how establishes researcher assets ancient Egypt as a language characterized by its old civilization (7000 years) almost assets languages Modern age does not exceed the (1000 year), it is almost impossible to talk to the old building because ever since ancient times estimated (7000 years), how far to rephrase again on talk that does not exceed the (1000 year) European language. The fact that the scientific origin of European languages descended from Latin mother that she was no more than three thousand years ago and if our search for "lion" who was adopting "Chambleon" statute in the translation of the language of ancient Egypt earn him the names of several Tbdab (alphabet full) approximately. Mbdebhrv S and not the letter "L" (L) If we follow the curriculum "Chambleon" We took the first letter of "lion" from the Koran to become (s) mentioned in the Bible "lion" in the sanitation IX (8) and had a hair poetry women and her teeth were like the teeth of the Black * We find that the "lion" mentioned in the Bible who has gone down by the Koran b (611 year) almost Zkrb "Lion" initiated any character (A) and not (L). It is reasonable to believe closest to a contemporary ancient Egyptians. Mentioned in the Torah, the Bible (29 ) Is a good Loping three and four walking recommended monsters * Jabbar al-Assad and here too we find that the "lion" mentioned in the Torah, which fell before the Gospel b (1221 years) and almost before the Koran b (1832 year) almost no loss by "Pharaoh" by (two years) any In the era of "Pharaoh" itself which is called the era of scientists "Pharaohs" started a letter (A) and not (L) is the first door that read "Lion" (A) because I got the Torah before the Koran and the Bible an estimated period of time (3221 year) almost In the presence of "Pharaoh" himself and clear to me and to all those familiar with the research "Chambleon" that the "lion" was the key to the mystery when "Chambleon"

The evidence is that he built upon the basis of his theory. But the fact of the matter otherwise have been able to demolition theory "Chambleon" It is Hatta followed this moment because I raised during the research in Egypt at the Egyptian republic in museums and temples and found that the fee "lion" relied upon "Chambleon" and built entirely dependent upon the rules of the ancient Egyptian language did not appear characters of characters Line hieroglyph in the language of ancient Egypt are all began Family of the first family until the thirty only in the late afternoon of family (25) of the year (751 BC. M) to one year (656 BC. M) and wants to make sure the person in Egypt, however, ancient Egyptians carved on the walls of temples, however, not carved " Chambleon "confirm what I am saying, however well written Albrdiat ancient Egyptians solid evidence and proof of its sincerity and research. It is here realize that the symbol, which refers to" lion "might be translated into several names do not refer to the fact the correct symbols but is the subject of Khomeini" Chambleon "as Stated on his tongue, but we have not reached the truth I'm not brought anything new, however: - Egypt stones speak and bear witness to truth and error Chambleon uncertain if he went any scholar or an ordinary person to the Cairo Museum and stop in front of the list of Saqqara will find they contain (57 name) from the royal The names of kings who ruled Egypt before the age of "Pharaoh," which is called "Chambleon" "Ramses" the second year (1223 BC. M). Will find the (57) cartridges no cartridges, one of them inside a "lion". If reason and logic, a "lion" had no alternative new characters appeared in another family twenty-fifth that there has been any change in another language-old Egyptian who was the first change after the flood of Jesus "Noah" in the sixth dynasty (2280 BC. M) and the reason for the change The second is murder "Pharaoh" of priests responsible for writing until after their belief that our master "Moses." Characters that emerged after the death of an alternative "Pharaoh" direct, and confirmation of the sincerity of my results, we find the son "Pharaoh" who served several government and which is called "Chambleon" "Mrneptah "He is represented by this figure that first appeared in ancient Egyptian inscriptions thus making ram) (This is part of the evidence which confirms the change language after the death of" Pharaoh ". If not, why not show this letter in the ancient Egyptian inscriptions by the whole family first appeared in This time in particular for the first time after the death of "Pharaoh" directly in another family nineteenth (1223 BC. M). The strongest evidence I was raised all of Egypt at home and abroad. This confirms that the interpretation "Chambleon" They had lived where the language of ancient Egyptians lovers all over the world since the two hundred year at the hands of "Chambleon" From here we find that "Chambleon" began its attempts to translate the discovery of a reality Soon to hieroglyphic language, relying on language that this one does not know anything about at that time to strengthen his forehead amid hired scientists ended up with his colleagues including the French "Sylvester de Sasi" British "Thomas O Geneva" who had confirmed the fact that the names of the kings of ancient Egypt to write Cartridges inside the royal distinction venerated kings of ancient Egypt. The effects found in Egypt show that ancient Egyptians were not barbaric people ... but managed to reach the highest levels of civilization. It removed the roots of this civilization constitutes a summit in complexity. Intervention in the construction of many problems there are many Of the secrets that have not yet detected such as (against gravity), which ancient Egyptians built the pyramids and walk mummification, which puzzled scientists the world so far. Revolved many research at home and abroad on these subjects to no avail. History of ancient Egypt is not fake as a real understanding of many mistakes yes real battle of Kadesh events peace treaty between the Pharaoh and real Khatossell everything said about the history of ancient Egypt through the priest Ito real mistake was Chambleon It was only after further research was done by the European Chambleon in translation Characters (line of) the language of ancient Egypt mention in the book Athaf age sons of kings Msralamtbua in 1893 and located in Dar Mansour any public documents after the death Chambleon b (61) years after the interpretation that "Tito" Egypt's history from ancient Egyptian to Greek and Greek translated into French Then the professor ( "Abdullah" your famous "El Papi" director general of civil offices previously) translated from French into Arabic

http://www.hamdey.php0h.com/ARTS.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hamdey2 (talk • contribs) 10:55, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

The fact ancient Egyptian language

The fact ancient Egyptian language

The most talked about books Chambleon Madjae extensively in the book glossary ancient Egyptian civilization, written by six famous archaeologists in the world. These scientists are :-( 1) George Posner (2) Serge Sonron (3) Jean-Toyota (4) a. A. O. Edwards (5) P. L. Lyonnaise (6) Jean Doris, "Chambleon" retained the carved elephants were found on the island in Aswan contains a cartridge ownership of the names of "Ptolemy and Cleopatra" involved in the characters (P, O, L) and benefited from the ancient texts of the author (unknown) to explain a mysterious!! ! He concluded that the value of sound ancient Egyptian symbols taken from the first letter of the name of the form that this represents a symbol. !!!! If they know "Chambleon" the code name search him Coptic language, is the symbol of that (figure) the first letter operative captain. Thus possible for "Chambleon" know the value of sound hieroglyphic symbols of the first letter of the word Coptic, says authors of the book: - The "Chambleon" Mullah vacant spaces in the hieroglyphic language "estimate" on the Greek word for Coptic central characters know it "Chambleon." You can also solve the symbols (79 names) royalist different. Here clear that the (79 name), which translated "Chambleon" It was also said to the authors of the book on the San "Chambleon" speculation and that she was adopted scientific research to guess how this important scientific research due to the fact that "Chambleon" learn twelve different language in Twenty years were confused about the matter because it could become too crowded and how vocabulary and structures that had been made on his mind, and complements the authors of the book, "The Chambleon" launched to draw the lips) (characters because the views of the Copts were opening the mouth (Ro). And launched live on bread-making) (V characters because the Egyptian Copts were opening on bread (Toot). Reliance on the first letter as an "Chambleon" of the spoken word captain does not take evidence on the interpretation of the alphabet is often no animals, birds have more than one name starts Göktürk Fabricated Dependence on the first letter of the form of animal or bird as he did "Chambleon" sign a researcher at the reader mistakes can not be redressed. To Chambleon affected by the Coptic language learned in childhood and its dependence on alternative characters in hieroglyph translation of the line through the cartridge of the king Potolemaic "Ptolemy" and another for the queen "Cleopatra" when the view painted "Assad" This form () in the cartridge that a verbatim translation (L) because: -- "Lion" in the Coptic language begins with a letter L Laboi. In English and French read Lion. Well as in Arabic called Leith and his wife called a lioness. In the Italian Leone. In German Lowe. Fayallatynet and Leo. In classical Greek èwv? . Because the "Lion" begins with a letter of the (L) in each of these languages modern interpretation "Chambleon" as the characters (L). Mentality and logic how establishes researcher assets ancient Egypt as a language characterized by its old civilization (7000 years) almost assets languages Modern age does not exceed the (1000 year), it is almost impossible to talk to the old building because ever since ancient times estimated (7000 years), how far to rephrase again on talk that does not exceed the (1000 year) European language. The fact that the scientific origin of European languages descended from Latin mother that she was no more than three thousand years ago and if our search for "lion" who was adopting "Chambleon" statute in the translation of the language of ancient Egypt earn him the names of several Tbdab (alphabet full) approximately. Mbdebhrv S and not the letter "L" (L) If we follow the curriculum "Chambleon" We took the first letter of "lion" from the Koran to become (s) mentioned in the Bible "lion" in the sanitation IX (8) and had a hair poetry women and her teeth were like the teeth of the Black * We find that the "lion" mentioned in the Bible who has gone down by the Koran b (611 year) almost Zkrb "Lion" initiated any character (A) and not (L). It is reasonable to believe closest to a contemporary ancient Egyptians. Mentioned in the Torah, the Bible (29 ) Is a good Loping three and four walking recommended monsters * Jabbar al-Assad and here too we find that the "lion" mentioned in the Torah, which fell before the Gospel b (1221 years) and almost before the Koran b (1832 year) almost no loss by "Pharaoh" by (two years) any In the era of "Pharaoh" itself which is called the era of scientists "Pharaohs" started a letter (A) and not (L) is the first door that read "Lion" (A) because I got the Torah before the Koran and the Bible an estimated period of time (3221 year) almost In the presence of "Pharaoh" himself and clear to me and to all those familiar with the research "Chambleon" that the "lion" was the key to the mystery when "Chambleon"

The evidence is that he built upon the basis of his theory. But the fact of the matter otherwise have been able to demolition theory "Chambleon" It is Hatta followed this moment because I raised during the research in Egypt at the Egyptian republic in museums and temples and found that the fee "lion" relied upon "Chambleon" and built entirely dependent upon the rules of the ancient Egyptian language did not appear characters of characters Line hieroglyph in the language of ancient Egypt are all began Family of the first family until the thirty only in the late afternoon of family (25) of the year (751 BC. M) to one year (656 BC. M) and wants to make sure the person in Egypt, however, ancient Egyptians carved on the walls of temples, however, not carved " Chambleon "confirm what I am saying, however well written Albrdiat ancient Egyptians solid evidence and proof of its sincerity and research. It is here realize that the symbol, which refers to" lion "might be translated into several names do not refer to the fact the correct symbols but is the subject of Khomeini" Chambleon "as Stated on his tongue, but we have not reached the truth I'm not brought anything new, however: - Egypt stones speak and bear witness to truth and error Chambleon uncertain if he went any scholar or an ordinary person to the Cairo Museum and stop in front of the list of Saqqara will find they contain (57 name) from the royal The names of kings who ruled Egypt before the age of "Pharaoh," which is called "Chambleon" "Ramses" the second year (1223 BC. M). Will find the (57) cartridges no cartridges, one of them inside a "lion". If reason and logic, a "lion" had no alternative new characters appeared in another family twenty-fifth that there has been any change in another language-old Egyptian who was the first change after the flood of Jesus "Noah" in the sixth dynasty (2280 BC. M) and the reason for the change The second is murder "Pharaoh" of priests responsible for writing until after their belief that our master "Moses." Characters that emerged after the death of an alternative "Pharaoh" direct, and confirmation of the sincerity of my results, we find the son "Pharaoh" who served several government and which is called "Chambleon" "Mrneptah "He is represented by this figure that first appeared in ancient Egyptian inscriptions thus making ram) (This is part of the evidence which confirms the change language after the death of" Pharaoh ". If not, why not show this letter in the ancient Egyptian inscriptions by the whole family first appeared in This time in particular for the first time after the death of "Pharaoh" directly in another family nineteenth (1223 BC. M). The strongest evidence I was raised all of Egypt at home and abroad. This confirms that the interpretation "Chambleon" They had lived where the language of ancient Egyptians lovers all over the world since the two hundred year at the hands of "Chambleon" From here we find that "Chambleon" began its attempts to translate the discovery of a reality Soon to hieroglyphic language, relying on language that this one does not know anything about at that time to strengthen his forehead amid hired scientists ended up with his colleagues including the French "Sylvester de Sasi" British "Thomas O Geneva" who had confirmed the fact that the names of the kings of ancient Egypt to write Cartridges inside the royal distinction venerated kings of ancient Egypt. The effects found in Egypt show that ancient Egyptians were not barbaric people ... but managed to reach the highest levels of civilization. It removed the roots of this civilization constitutes a summit in complexity. Intervention in the construction of many problems there are many Of the secrets that have not yet detected such as (against gravity), which ancient Egyptians built the pyramids and walk mummification, which puzzled scientists the world so far. Revolved many research at home and abroad on these subjects to no avail. History of ancient Egypt is not fake as a real understanding of many mistakes yes real battle of Kadesh events peace treaty between the Pharaoh and real Khatossell everything said about the history of ancient Egypt through the priest Ito real mistake was Chambleon It was only after further research was done by the European Chambleon in translation Characters (line of) the language of ancient Egypt mention in the book Athaf age sons of kings Msralamtbua in 1893 and located in Dar Mansour any public documents after the death Chambleon b (61) years after the interpretation that "Tito" Egypt's history from ancient Egyptian to Greek and Greek translated into French Then the professor ( "Abdullah" your famous "El Papi" director general of civil offices previously) translated from French into Arabic

http://www.hamdey.php0h.com/ARTS.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hamdey2 (talk • contribs) 10:57, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

COI concerns in the Book of Mormon article

Taivo, I'm writing this message to you to let you know (in case you're not aware of it) that there has been a question raised in Talk:Book of Mormon about conflict of interest concerns in relation to editors that are "Mormons". I have made an effort to make a response, duplicating my comments both in the relevant section of that talk page, and on the talk page of the user who started the discussion. I wanted to make you aware of this so that if there was an error of judgment on my part in what I said, that could be fixed before the editor who raised the issue gets his/her nose out of joint. I don't know for sure if this issue bears more discussion and further input from other editors, which is why I'm letting you know about this. If you have any questions/concerns about this issue or the way I handled it, feel free to either post them in the relevant subject of the page named, or shoot me a message on my talk page. Thanks. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 02:21, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

(Removed unsigned edit) (Taivo (talk) 17:24, 13 August 2008 (UTC))

Your choice of the words "rant" a lack of good faith, and "ridiculous" show a considerable lack of restraint.

Also, had you applied a basic level of comprehension to a reading of either of the posts upon which you are commenting with a basic level of comprehension, you would have already noted that in each case, I said I was not seeking to ban Mormons from editing articles on Mormonism.

Given your lack of civility and an outburst rather than reasoned comment, I can't respond further to you on this topic. Calamitybrook (talk)

Resolution of COI issue, request for comment on Talk:Book of Abraham

Taivo, I'm just dropping a line to let you know that the issue raised by Calamitybrook has been resolved. He/she has admitted that the issue was raised just to ruffle some feathers, and has apologized to me for being a troll. He/she indicated to me that he/she will no longer be contributing to Mormon articles because he/she DOES have anti-Mormon bias to a certain degree. Also, on another matter: I am currently involved in a minor dispute with two other editors about what I feel is a poor choice of words in describing Kolob in the Book of Abraham article. I felt the need to get other editors' inputs on this issue before I continue to assert my opinion or back down, so I wonder if you'd be good enough to comment on it on the relevant talk page. I welcome your opinion, whatever it may be. I look forward to hearing what you have to say about this issue. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 21:36, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Spoken languages

Hi Taivo,

You have a point, but the problem is that Maltese was written during this period. Also, languages aren't 100% spoken. Much of the English lexicon would disappear overnight if writing ceased, so English is not an entirely spoken language. Coptic, Classical Chinese, and Latin are transmitted primarily through writing, not speech. (If writing ceased, they'd likely go extinct.) Anyway, we don't need this exact wording for Maltese, but I don't want to claim it wasn't written at all. kwami (talk) 02:18, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I said "LIVING" languages are 100% spoken. Just as Classical Chinese, Latin, and Coptic were living at one time. The statement "primarily a spoken language" is not linguistically accurate and implies that the written language is something different than the spoken language, especially for languages with a nascent writing tradition. The statement in Maltese language can be clarified, but the words "primarily a spoken language" are not accurate. (Taivo (talk) 03:23, 25 August 2008 (UTC))

Guys, we have more pressing problems on the Maltese page than the spoken/written discussion, where I btw agree with Taivo. An Anon user is reinserting MagdelenaDiArcos nonsense about Punic and other fringe stuff, and s/he has started up the same discussions about Semitic/mixed language and whether the punic theory is discredited or not that we discussed to death a month ago. Maybe you could swing by and state your opinions.·Maunus·ƛ· 11:37, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I have not done any such thing. I have not insterted anything about miks languige. If you check the actual contribution that Maunus is reverting [6], you will see this is incorrect. I have not claimed Maltese is Punic anywhere, and I do not see where "User:MagdelenaDiArco" did either. 78.149.202.191 (talk) 11:40, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Taivo,

I couldn't find a way to contact you, sorry for writing on this page. My point is that the family that Turkish should belongs to Ural-Altaic in Turkish Language article. Would you check this issue? Thanks for your contributions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cagridincyurek (talk • contribs) 21:00, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually "Ural-Altaic" was discredited long ago and is no longer accepted by any historical linguist. (Taivo (talk) 21:03, 9 February 2009 (UTC))

Relexification

Please familiarize yourself with what this is. Both Maltese and English have undergone it. 78.149.202.191 (talk) 12:55, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

"Relexification" is where an entire portion of the vocabulary of a language has been replaced, as in a true mixed language. English and Maltese do not fit the definition since in any average text the majority of actual words used are still Germanic or Semitic, respectively. (Taivo (talk) 12:59, 25 August 2008 (UTC))

Odd how the very article on relexification itself disagrees with you about English ey? 78.149.202.191 (talk) 13:00, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Read this

[7]

There is no need to be so arrogant not to admit you were wrong. I am obviously clearly not the only user who thinks this, considering that it was written in the relexification article before. 78.149.202.191 (talk) 13:36, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Maltese language

I have left my comments on the talk page.

I have taken the Punic part and placed it lower on the page, so it does not unduely occupy such a primary position for an unaccepted theory. 78.149.202.191 (talk) 13:47, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

[8]

I do not understand the reason for the revert. The language does not have to be a creole to have been relexified. 78.149.202.191 (talk) 14:08, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Relexification is not just adding words to the dictionary from another language. It is a massive replacement of words in one language with words from another. If you look at English and just count words in the dictionary, you'll find about 50% of the vocabulary is non-Germanic. But that hides the fact that no one EVER uses the word "antidisestablishmentarianism" except as an answer to a trivia question. The vast majority of words in any English dictionary are RARELY used. 90% of the most common words in actual use are Germanic. That is not relexification. The same is true of Maltese I suspect, but the only numbers posted there are raw dictionary counts. Just as raw dictionary word counts are an unrealistic appraisal of English vocabulary, so it is also true of Maltese. Find a reliable source that says, "70-80% of the most common words in use in Maltese are of Italian origin" and I'll believe that Maltese has been relexified. But I suspect that Maltese is like English--the largest percentage of the most common words in use are Arabic in origin. That's one of the reasons it's an Arabic language. (Taivo (talk) 14:17, 25 August 2008 (UTC))

"The same is true of Maltese I suspect" - original research is not acceptable. Relexification is a mass replacement of words from one language by another - and that is exactly what happened in Maltese, unless you are stating otherwise?? 78.149.202.191 (talk) 14:23, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

The reliable sources that we have reviewed on the talk page say the opposite. Those that have the highest estimates of vocabulary change talk of a rate directly comparable to English - those that have the least amount talk of considerably less than English. Since no reliable sources have been presented that claim English to have been "relexified" the question is moot.·Maunus·ƛ· 14:48, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Just thought you should know, this source gives proof of both English and Maltese having undergone relexification, so I have put it into the articles. Cheers 78.149.202.191 (talk) 17:29, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Did you actually READ that article? There's not concrete evidence in there whatsoever of relexification. If there is, then you better quote it here because I didn't see one single number in dealing with the issue of relexification. I don't even recall seeing the word "relexification". I saw "borrowing", but nothing about relexification. (Taivo (talk) 21:36, 25 August 2008 (UTC))

Well apparently the question is now did you read the article?

"Malta’s secular inclusion in the Western European world was aided by the fact that Maltese is always written in the Latin alphabet4 and not in Arabic script, and by the transformation of Maltese into a mixed language. The latter, caused in the main by massive Romance relexification, is comparable to the changes undergone by medieval English when it was invaded by Norman French words."

Seems you are always too quick to assume you are right, and that everyone else is wrong, just as you did with regards to what the content was of the relexification article, which you claimed did not mention English, despite the fact that it did.

89.243.42.136 (talk) 22:09, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I was very clear to you. This article is a low-level opinion piece that suffers from the problem of oversimplification and inaccuracy. Linguists are fairly unanimous that Maltese is NOT a "mixed language". That immediately throws the scholarship of the author into question. Second, I said show me the numbers. Just the use of the word "relexification" is not enough to PROVE relexification. This article neither proves relexification for Maltese nor for English. It is just a popular opinion piece without the data to back up his inappropriate use of the terms "mixed language" and "relexification". Find a real source with real evidence. (Taivo (talk) 22:28, 25 August 2008 (UTC))

Hang on a moment... perhaps I misunderstood you... are you actually trying to claim you have authority over this source?? This is simply laughable. Linguist my arse, you are. 89.243.42.136 (talk) 22:34, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, yes, I forgot. It's on the Internet so it MUST be true. I asked you for EVIDENCE, not opinion. Where is this guy's evidence? He just makes a statement without facts, data, or reference to other sources. "Show me the data!" He has none. He is just basing his conclusion on thin air. (Taivo (talk) 23:39, 25 August 2008 (UTC))

I see you've switched sock puppets. Did the other one get dirty and need washing? Be careful, if you don't wash sock puppets in pairs, you'll lose one of them. (Taivo (talk) 23:42, 25 August 2008 (UTC))

From Alan S. Kaye & Judith Rosenhouse. 1997. "Arabic Dialects and Maltese," The Semitic Languages. Ed. Robert Hetzron. Routledge. Pages 263-311. Hmmm, the word "relexification" appears nowhere in the chapter. Ans van Kemenade. 1994. "Old and Middle English," The Germanic Languages. Ed. Ekkehard Konig & Johan van der Auwera. Routledge. Pages 110-141. "These changes [from OE to ME] have often been ascribed to French influence due to the Norman Conquest of England. It is doubtful whether this is correct, though." "...this caused a tremendous influx of Romance loanwords. There is little evidence, however, that French influence penetrated the language much deeper than that." Still don't find any reference to "relexification". Ekkehard Konig. 1994. "English," The Germanic Languages. Pages 532-565. "The fact that the English vocabulary derives from two major stocks is most clearly visible in the coexistence of a wide variety of near-synonyms, one deriving from Germanic and the other from Romance..." "Relexification" is lexical REPLACEMENT. Wayne Harbert. 2007. The Germanic Languages. Cambridge. Still no reference anywhere to "relexification". (Taivo (talk) 00:21, 26 August 2008 (UTC))

Are you just not listening? Well I suppose since you're so arrogant, and feel the need to cover up the fact that you were wrong.

"Malta’s secular inclusion in the Western European world was aided by the fact that Maltese is always written in the Latin alphabet4 and not in Arabic script, and by the transformation of Maltese into a mixed language. The latter, caused in the main by massive Romance relexification, is comparable to the changes undergone by medieval English when it was invaded by Norman French words."

Try looking at Page 3.

You do realize you look like a twat. Everyone on IRC is laughing at you. 78.146.49.92 (talk) 08:31, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Uh, I've looked on "page 3" and seen that quote. But you are obviously not reading anything else. So WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE? WHERE ARE THE QUOTES FROM OTHER LINGUISTS? If Maltese relexification is so obvious then there should be other sources that claim it. There aren't. There is no evidence here, just a guy's claim on a website. And there are 4-5 editors here who agree with me that your evidence for Maltese relexification is garbage. (Taivo (talk) 09:49, 26 August 2008 (UTC))

And it's very interesting that after I asked for evidence you quoted exactly the same paragraph in the same source without providing any further evidence. The source gives no evidence, just makes an unsubstantiated claim. Find a source, a real source, a source with linguistic evidence, and I'll listen to you. But for now, I'm just going to ignore you since you have been determined by the WP authorities to be a sock puppet. (Taivo (talk) 10:36, 26 August 2008 (UTC))

Ignasi Badia i Capdevila is a reliable linguist in himself, unless you're telling me that a linguist whose work was used on Maltese language (excluding yesterday too), Maltenglish, and countless other wikipedia articles, is disgardable? Hahaha. 78.146.49.92 (talk) 10:43, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Maltese language

• I have only semi-protected the article to prevent the IP problems. Autoconfirmed editors can still edit it. Black Kite 21:43, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you (Taivo (talk) 21:46, 25 August 2008 (UTC))

Your expertise needed

Would you please take a look at Talk:Anishinaabe_language, and using your professional judgement, adjust the IPA as appropriately and inclusively as possible in the article. miigwech. CJLippert (talk) 14:45, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Losing Edits

If I try to save an edit and it cannot be saved, I am able to use the browser "back" button to get to the previous screen. Then I can copy my edit text, cancel my edit, start the edit again, and simply paste in the copied text instead of having to redo it.

As far as I know, this should work for you.

Best wishes, Wanderer57 (talk) 15:23, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

PS After the last round of nonsense in editing the article, I took it off my watchlist for a while. I'm thinking of doing so again. These editors on crusades are painful to deal with. I'm going to try one more approach. Wanderer57 (talk) 15:23, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I can understand that. It's painful sometimes because they often have a good point or two that is lost in the noise. (Taivo (talk) 16:14, 1 September 2008 (UTC))

Edit save problems

Possibly this NOTE has some relevance to your problems in saving edits.

Wanderer57 (talk) 15:02, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I think that I also need to get in the habit of copying whatever I edit to clipboard before I push the save button (just in case). (Taivo (talk) 16:44, 2 September 2008 (UTC))

my advice for what it is worth

Don't reply. Wanderer57 (talk) 22:48, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I wish I listened to you more often :) (Taivo (talk) 22:50, 2 September 2008 (UTC))

So do I. ;o) Strictly for your sake of course. (My ego is bigger than the State of Nebraska. Or is it Alaska? I forget which.)

Changing the subject, please look at Wikipedia:Help desk#what is god and tell me what language the person who started the section is using. It seems to have an inordinate number of 'h's.

Also while I'm asking oddball questions, can you read Czech?

Thanks, Wanderer57 (talk) 00:43, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

That thing on "What is God?" is gibberish. Somebody is pulling the collective leg. Sorry, I can't read Czech. (Taivo (talk) 02:37, 3 September 2008 (UTC))

Na-Dene: pronunciation

Hello! You've added the pronunciation of the term "Na-Dene" to the introductory section of the Na-Dene article. Well, I'm not a native speaker of English, and I'm rather new to the Na-Dene linguistics, but I have only seen [nɑˈdeɪni] or [ˌnɑdeɪˈneɪ]) so far. Are you sure [nadɪ'ne] and [nadə'ne] are correct? Sorry if I'm bothering you. Non-linguistic source may well be misleading, of course. Thanks for your answer in advance! --Pet'usek ^{[petrdothrubisatgmaildotcom]} 12:19, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I am both a Native speaker of English and a specialist in the languages of Native America. The pronunciations I gave are the pronunciations used by linguists working on those languages. The pronunciation nɑˈdeɪni is completely incorrect as it incorrectly represents the final vowel, which is e. The other pronunciation, ˌnɑdeɪˈneɪ, is hypercorrection (and therefore incorrect) based on the spelling, since only the final vowel is e. Native English pronunciation always reduces unstressed e to ɪ or ə (Taivo (talk) 14:42, 9 September 2008 (UTC))

Thanks a lot for the explanation. This makes sense, now I realize that: the Proto-Athabaskan word is reconstructed as *dənæ, isn't it?. I wonder why so many Encyclopaedias and dictionaries (the last two I consulted were the Encarta Encyclopaedia and Merriam-Webster dictionary) repeat the same mistake. Why don't they ask the nadeneists? In Czech, we pronounce the term simply nadɛnɛː, but that's how my mother tongue often copes with loanwords, especially those that are used rather rarely (orthographical "a", "e" and "é" are always pronounced a, ɛ and ɛː, resp.). Once more, thank you very much! --Pet'usek ^{[petrdothrubisatgmaildotcom]} 21:26, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Utah Wikipedia Meetup

Interested in attending a Utah Wikipedia Meetup?
If you are interested in a Utah meetup, please visit Wikipedia talk:Meetup/Utah and voice your interest. Not in the Utah area? Check out other meetups around the world!

--Admrb♉ltz (talk) 22:17, 15 September 2008 (UTC) via AWB

More on Soqotri Classification

I've added the Militarev's classification based of his glottochronology research. The scheem is in Russian (soqotri = сокотри or сокотрийский). АAccording to A. Militarev Soqotri+Continental MSAL are the only South Semitic when Aethiopian are North-Western Semitic. (Mutargim (talk)

Azerbaijani language

Sear Taivo. As I see you are seemingly a great linguist. I was amazed that you deleted also from the sentence I added. Do you really mean that the so called North Azerbaijani is not influenced by Persian in addition to Russian? Please answer that honsetly.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 14:33, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

You didn't read the sentence: "IN ADDITION TO influence from Russian" means that it's Persian plus Russian. (Taivo (talk) 17:36, 10 October 2008 (UTC))

Yes you are right I see it now.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 18:58, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Fiador (tack)

Hi. Fiador (tack) has a section on word origin; your help finding sources would be much appreciated! Needed are sources for Latin America outside of Argentina. --Una Smith (talk) 16:44, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Aramaic language

You insist in removing "Syriac people" from the page? Why? I saw that you wrote in user:Garzos talkpage that you thought Assyrian might be inclusive. I can assure you it is not. I can assure you most people in both sides of the debate agrees that Syriac is inclusive. For example read what user:Chaldean wrote, [9]. I can accept if you have it say "...by Syriac christians.", but I can't accept the fact that you're removing Syriac (and/or Aramean-Syriac) and only having it say "...by Assyrians.". The TriZ (talk) 23:51, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

With most "politically-charged" ethnic positions and designations, I trust the opinions of third-parties more than I trust the opinions of those directly involved. (Taivo (talk) 06:07, 19 October 2008 (UTC))

And whom may I ask are the "third-parties" in this case? The TriZ (talk) 12:10, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

You have already mentioned one--Garzo. But I have spent years reading linguistic materials on the Afro-Asiatic and Semitic languages. I have never, ever seen the people who speak Christian Neo-Aramaic called "Syriac" or "Aramean". The most common terms I have seen are "Assyrian" and/or "Chaldean". "Syriac" is the language of the Peshitta--no longer spoken as anyone's native language, but the ancestor of modern Christian Neo-Aramaic. And "Aramean" has never been a term used to describe any Aramaic or Neo-Aramaic language or population in any of the books or articles I have read. Neutral Wikipedia editors seem to have settled on using "Assyrian" as the ethnonym to describe speakers of Christian Neo-Aramaic varieties as a whole. You can see this on the Talk pages in various articles from several months ago. (Taivo (talk) 13:33, 19 October 2008 (UTC))

So ask Garzo again, he can confirm what I'm saying. I myself speak a Neo-Aramaic diaclect called Turoyo, but I read and write in Classical Syriac. I call myself Syriac and identify with an Aramean-identity and so does the majority of the people in Europe and the diaspora and most likely in the Middle East aswell. The Syriac Orthodox Church advocates an Aramean-Syriac identity. In the English language our people is to often refered to as Assyrians by some reason, maybe it is because many in the States refer to themselves as Assyrians/Chaldeans, this is however not correct and for example the U.S. census names the people Syriac/Assyrian/Chaldean. I mean, it's like calling Americans for Canadian, would you just accept that (I'm assuming your American, if not, I apologize)? But if you've been studied Neo-Aramaic you must've read about Ephrem the Syrian? The TriZ (talk) 14:12, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello Taivo

I am not as familiar with wikipedia as you are; I want to bring to your attention that the so called user: Aramaen Syriac has been purposefully vandalizing the Aramaic Languge page. Can you do something to stop his incompetent and unsourced edits. I have left him the following message in his talk page. I would appreciate your opinion on the matter.

"The Aramaeans are an extinct peoples. They simply do not exist so stop your incompetent edits and meaningless bickering. Your arguments are futile we might as well start arguing that kurds are really medes and the arabs are really moabites or the maronites are really phoenicians. Do you not see the point. I am a student of the Syriac institute and all the linguistic specialists I speak with on this matter dismiss your invalid claims. If you want to discuss this matter provide some data repudiated by professional scholars on the topic. I have been in the linguistics for over a decade and I have never heard of the term Aramaean other than the fact that they died out long ago and that the reality of them being alive to this day is absurd if not historically bias. I am of German Nationality and for me to argue that I am really a Nordic, or Hun, or a Visogoth is absurd likewise with your impotent claims." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.17.218.44 (talk) 23:35, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi Elias, it is me, your lingustic specialist friend! The TriZ (talk) 00:40, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree that Aramaean is not an appropriate term for Christian Neo-Aramaic speakers. The general Wikipedia term is "Assyrian" for this group even though it is problematic. Using a single more-inclusive term is far superior to using a laundry list where the favored term for every village is listed separately. (Taivo (talk) 01:41, 21 October 2008 (UTC))

And the single inclusive term here is Syriac. Why? East Syriacs (Chaldeans, Assyrians, Nestorians) call themselves "Suraya", which translates to Syriac. As do Western Syriacs "Suryoye", which translates to Syriac. The TriZ (talk) 10:53, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Right now, the term used in Wikipedia as the inclusive term for speakers of Christian Neo-Aramaic is "Assyrian". If you get a consensus of opinion for "Syriac", including Garzo, then I don't have a problem. But unilaterally adding "Syriac" to every mention of Assyrian is not a solution. You haven't built a consensus for it. (Taivo (talk) 11:31, 21 October 2008 (UTC))

Hi Taivo I just undid an edit that provided as you said a laundry list of villages on the Aramaic Languge. This is getting out of hand I tried to bring it back to the way it after you fixed but Im not sure how to Please take a look at it and bring back to the way it was origninally was. Thank you for your time.

It is not [10], see Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac people. Either get yourself an update on the topic or stay out of it, but don't tell me Assyrian is the standard term when it clearly is not. The TriZ (talk) 23:28, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Taivo ignore this bigot, if it was up to him he would erase anything regarding to assyrian and replace it with that imaginary aramaean syriac name that has no google hits or scholar hits whatsoever. He is upset because they deleted his page so dont pay attention to him and I agree completely with what you say that it is irrelevent and unencyclopediatic to provide a laundry list of villages. best regards Ninevite (talk) 06:46, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Edit war warning

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Book of Mormon. 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 a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. --^StormRider 01:10, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

archives

Hey Taivo,

When a useful link goes dead, as it did at ǂHõã language, you can often find it preserved with the Wayback Machine. If you use Firefox, there are a couple extensions that will do the search. kwami (talk) 23:06, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, that's beyond my technical level. I did delete the "old sound files" reference because it was duplicated in the "new" site. (Taivo (talk) 23:12, 24 November 2008 (UTC))

Maltese

Hey again. I've attempted my own simpliciation: I think the result is succinct and suitable. Do you agree? the roof of this court is too high to be yours (talk) 02:18, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

No. You spend too much time trying to separate Maltese from its Arabic ancestory. (Taivo (talk) 05:32, 25 November 2008 (UTC))

I thought it would be simpler to take a softly softly approach to this, but obviously not. I don't want to distance Maltese from its ancestor, I've always supported that claim on Wikipedia and disapproved of people pushing the mixed language classification (take a look at some of my posts related to that). I do think that the way the section has been written is disparaging and littered with weasel words/pov. Hence my legitimate suggestion and edit. If you still disagree, hopefully there's common ground somewhere. the roof of this court is too high to be yours (talk) 03:23, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

It's me again! Re Maghreb editor, any ideas on what should be done? I've suggested that if comparisons must (and only if) be made, they should be included in Siculo-Arabic and not Maltese language. the roof of this court is too high to be yours (talk) 13:50, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I don't see any problem with adding a comparison line with Libyan Arabic. I find it interesting. (Taivo (talk) 13:57, 16 January 2009 (UTC))

I disagree, since Libyan Arabic has nothing to do with Maltese. But since things you happen to 'find interesting' hardly qualify as article-worthy, I'll take that as an expression of pure opinion rather than a constructive suggestion ^^ the roof of this court is too high to be yours (talk) 14:08, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the whole issue is relevant since the position of Maltese vis a vis Maghrebi Arabic is at question. Since that is the question, then having actual Maghrebi evidence to look at is perfectly reasonable. (Taivo (talk) 14:10, 16 January 2009 (UTC))

It's hardly your (or our) place to sift through evidence and come to any sort of decision. If this line is going to be pursued, somebody published should be found and their work, taken on merit, included. the roof of this court is too high to be yours (talk) 14:12, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, we are adding columns to tables all the time without searching the world for a scholar who has constructed a table just like that. I really don't see a problem with adding Libyan Arabic to the table. Actually, I'd like to see another column with, say, Iraqi, Egyptian, or Syrian Arabic on it just for comparison with non-Maghrebi Arabic. A column on a table isn't an assertion, it's just presentation of evidence. If Maltese isn't "Maghrebi" then it will be abundantly clear from the evidence. It's a column on a table, not a declaration of undying submission of Malta to Libya :p (Taivo (talk) 14:18, 16 January 2009 (UTC))

LOL. What a funny person from Utah you are :) And if this 'column on a table isn't an assertion' stuff holds, then Maltese will be reinstated on the Semitic languages common vocab table. However, I dislike the idea of a cluttered comparison to satisfy your interests. Once again, I lament the lack of specialists whose assistance would be invaluable in these matters, to all of our benefit. the roof of this court is too high to be yours (talk) 14:24, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I've reverted your deletion for now so that more than just you and I can discuss this. It should be discussed on the Maltese Language Talk page. Let a few more editors put in their opinions first. (Taivo (talk) 14:26, 16 January 2009 (UTC))

Certainly; best way to move forward. Out of general interest, have you ever met a Maltese person? In reading your contributions, I sometimes feel a hostility there. Then again, that might just be because the wiki environment or my own disposition. the roof of this court is too high to be yours (talk) 14:35, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I've never met a Maltese person, but there's no hostility. The Wikipedia environment is not conducive to "sounding nice" very often because I write bluntly and no one can see my smiling face. My "hostility" is mostly directed toward "anti-science" types who wish to push an agenda in spite of the scientific evidence. I'm certainly not hostile towards you. (Taivo (talk) 14:40, 16 January 2009 (UTC))

I assumed it was because you were so driven, but it's good to know! the roof of this court is too high to be yours (talk) 14:44, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Michael Curtis

The Article Michael Curtis needs help, It is a stub and it needs a quality and importance assesment. Can you please help, --RayqayzaDialgaWeird2210    14:23, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

barred i

Taivo, I really think we should get some consensus before conflating phonemes. I at least will take some convincing. kwami (talk) 21:20, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Barred i is not phonemic. It is also not phonetic. It is a cover term that has been abandoned in the most recent edition of the OED. As far as consensus is concerned, there have been others who have also commented that they supported the elimination of this artificial "cover segment". Since the only authority ever cited for barred i was OED, then the fact that the OED has abandoned it should be determinative. (Taivo (talk) 22:35, 12 December 2008 (UTC))

I disagree. The OED is fine for an illustration of use, but hardly required. We don't follow their conventions for the rest of English. We can simply go with OED3 if we like, or with MW3, which uses dotted schwa. What you're doing is choosing one dialect to be the standard for wikipedia, which is not appropriate. In any case, it will affect thousands of articles, so you really should get consensus before you start removing information. Removing can be automated, but putting it in cannot. kwami (talk) 23:08, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

caution

Don't let our friend catch you in a WP:3RR offence. He'll be quick to use it against you. I am now completely without doubts that it is our old nemesis back to haunt the maltese pages.·Maunus·ƛ· 20:08, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Chaghatay

dear taivo. You say that Qarluq is not a recognized name. I think you do agree that Chaghatay/ Modern uzbek and Uyghur are related, what do you call this branch of Turkic?--Babakexorramdin (talk) 21:45, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I've seen the terms Uyghur, Uyghur-Uzbek, and Southeastern Turkic for this group. I have seen Qarluq in no references and it seems to be more of an ethnonym than a linguistic term. (Taivo (talk) 22:49, 14 December 2008 (UTC))

How Do You Do?

Hello, Mr. John!

Nice to see you in online-time. I do really love to learn English, and I've found you. It's an amazing! Anyway, my native language is Indonesian.

Sorry, my English is still in beginner level! Do you know anything about Indonesian language?

Thanks!

Relly Komaruzaman Talk 14:41, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

How do you do? I don't know much about Indonesian. (Taivo (talk) 14:50, 17 December 2008 (UTC))

AdminWatch issue

Thanks for your posts. Please see these responses. Tony (talk) 08:27, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Assyrian People Name

Seeing your expertise in linguistics I would like to get your opionion on the Assyrian article. There is a continuous debate between what is the most common name in reagrds to the Assyrian People. The page as you can see is currently called Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac which many have argued to bring it back to its original state the Assyrian People. We could use someone of your professional expertise, I would be honored if you would join this conversation here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac_people#Move_to_Assyrian_people . We could use additional suggestions regarding this on going debate. I as well as User Sarukinnu have provided some evidence in bringing it back to the original title of Assyrian People. I have read one your past remarks in opposition to "providing a laundry list of villages who claim differnt ethnicities." Again I would sincerely appreciate your input. Ninevite (talk) 04:57, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus

Hi, Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus is recognized by Turkey. See http://www.kktcbe.org/EN/ or the flag on the right http://tsk.mil.tr/imagesYENI/ORG_BASBUG.jpg (as an example) --Kirov Airship (talk) 23:40, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Northern Cyprus is not recognized by any international body or by any country other than Turkey. In essence, it is a region of Cyprus illegally occupied by the Turkish army. (Taivo (talk) 05:45, 25 December 2008 (UTC))

That's your viewpoint, in Wikipedia, we prefer to use a more neutral language and information. Kaygtr (talk) 17:06, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Not my viewpoint, but the international viewpoint. The only people who support Northern Cyprus in Wikipedia are Turks. (Taivo (talk) 18:17, 26 December 2008 (UTC))

International viewpoint reflects only relations between states, not every people on the earth; as not every Turk support Northern Cyprus. I think it will be better for you to study about neutrality and point of view. Kaygtr (talk) 20:08, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it is you who need the lesson on neutrality and point of view. You have the single Turkish point of view that Northern Cyprus is an independent nation. 99% of the world disagrees with that point of view including every neutral nation on the planet. (Taivo (talk) 22:27, 26 December 2008 (UTC))

Thanks

Just a quick thanks to all the watching you have done at the Chaps article. Your patrolling has been well done and yes, correct. Much appreciated! Montanabw^(talk) 04:24, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Hello

Nice to see you joining the fray in the Assyrian People page ... its really become bad there. I just have a question for you, is it possible for you to translate each of the different translations in these 2 images? [11] and [12] (i know the second one is harder to read, sorry). If you want to read the entire article then its right here [13]. Thank-you in advance. Malik Danno (talk) 17:02, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

You can read the answer to those pictures here, [14], as I've already explained them to Gabr-el in his talkpage. The pictures were discussed and the problem surrounding them was cleared out by the administrators at Swedish Wikipedia. With other words, no reason to doubt the result. The TriZ (talk) 17:33, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm just asking the person to translate some pictures for me, why do you have to be so aggressive? Malik Danno (talk) 18:41, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

New York Times link

Taivo, you have deleted the edit twice on Book of Mormon. The link is to the New York Times and it provides videos of personal testimonies. The first time you deleted it you stated that it was not a reputable reference; however, the New York Times is emmenintly reputable. The second time you deleted it your stated reason was, "But the link is not information, but personal testimonies--unverifiable POV." This makes no sense. The text is a religious book and the link is about individual beliefs in that book, which happens to be the case for all religious books and their related articles. Your reasons are really about your personal POV and nothing else.

If your reasons were a need to minimize links, an imbalance of information, etc. then you might have some kink of acceptable argument, but you don't. I am not sold on the link per se, but I am certainly against your heavy-handed control of this article. You are a single editor and you do not own the article. I have yet to see an accepable reason to delete the link. Maybe other editors can provide a reason why the link should be deleted.--^StormRider 18:43, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and, as such, must present information and verifiable facts. While the New York Times is a reputable source, a list of links of personal viewpoint and opinion is not. When Wikipedia seeks reliable sources those sources are forms of information that are themselves based on research, data, and information. The Tanners' work, for example, is research (no matter that it is POV research, it is still based on their own study and has footnotes, bibliography, etc.). Personal testimony, however, is not the same as a reputable source. It is personal opinion and belief. Yes, this is an article on a piece of scripture, and, as such, we assume that there are people who accept its story as brought from a Higher Power. That is the very definition of "scripture". We do not have links at the Bible article of personal testimony of its "truthfulness", nor at the Koran, nor at any other piece of scripture as far as I can tell. Personal testimonies add nothing to the informational content of the article and are certainly not verifiable sources. From my history of editing on the Book of Mormon article you know that I have a personal POV, but you also know that I work hard on both sides of the "aisle" in order to keep religious excess and zeal out of the article. This particular link is not verifiable information and adds nothing to the content of the article. If there are currently "anti" links that are in the same noninformational vein, then we should certainly delete them as well. Otherwise, we open the door for an equal number of testimonial links from people who are saying that the BOM is not scripture. (Taivo (talk) 19:28, 27 December 2008 (UTC))

Heavenly meanings

Taivo. Happy New Year. Why if you actually have so much training (esp. in linguistics) are you saying stuff like: Sorry, Viewfinder, but you are wrong. Scotland, Northern Ireland, and Wales are no more countries than are Hawaii, Texas, or California. ? Obviously the issue is that some people have one meaning of this word in their head, others have another. Thus all such "arguments" do is illustrate the circular structure of the definition you are either prescribing or offering, they have no chance of convincing anyone who simply means the word to refer to something slightly different. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 11:09, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

In the context of the discussion where I made this comment, you will see that my comment is correct in reference to including these four regions of the UK in a list of "countries of the world". You obviously have some nationalistic agenda and an axe to grind. (Taivo (talk) 14:25, 1 January 2009 (UTC))

I'm afraid baseless libelous accusations like that are more likely to discredit you than convince me or anyone else of the worthiness of any arguments you make. Thanks, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:40, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you should actually not make your own abusive remarks first. (Taivo (talk) 16:44, 1 January 2009 (UTC))

Countries

I realise that you are acting in good faith in your use of regions. However the body of evidence in other WIkipedia articles and also the OED and elsewhere establish that the concept of country is not bound up with sovereignty. This issue has been debated elsewhere on many occasions. I have given you the references on the talk page so please don't say its "one editor"; in this case I am representing consensus based discussions elsewhere. --Snowded TALK 12:05, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

This isn't about whether or not Scotland et al. are "countries" or not. It is about what is the best title for a table. Using "countries" instead of administrative divisions sets Scotland et al. apart from the other members of the list and excludes members that are administrative divisions and not dependent territories (like Andalusia). Scotland et al. are administrative divisions as well as "countries". That's not the issue. The issue is the best title for a table. (Taivo (talk) 12:13, 4 January 2009 (UTC))

I've replied on the main talk page to this. This issue has been a minefield over the years and a careful set of agreements have been worked out on other pages (referenced). There are all manners of trolls, sock puppets and god knows what else on this issue and we really don't want those wars breaking out on the lists. --Snowded TALK 12:15, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Eliminating opportunities for trolls, etc. is a worthy cause. I'm still not happy with using the word "country" to speak of the primary administrative divisions of the U.K. because it implies that somehow they possess a higher order of sovereignty than other administrative divisions (which may have a greater claim to sovereignty) in other countries. No offense to you or any other British citizen, but it is mildly offensive to my ear. But the current compromise wording is acceptable. LOL at using the "British" OED to prove that Scotland et al. are "countries". That's like using an American dictionary to define "state". Cheers. (Taivo (talk) 12:29, 4 January 2009 (UTC))

Well Wales and Scotland have their own Assemblies, with legislative power and historically were independent countries until conquered (Wales) or united by treaty (Scotland). They also have distinct languages and cultures etc. I think the OED probably has some authority in respect of the use of country within the UK by the way and it was a counter to the American Dictionary. The main citations are in Countries of the United Kingdom. All of that aside we have a compromise wording and I'll do my best to defend it against those who will want to remove the distinction between sovereign and non-sovereign --Snowded TALK 13:21, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac Section ... Yet Again!

Hello Tavio, I am hoping you will put your input across the newest of issues on this complicated page. Most recent issue pertains to the "Also See" section. There is a certain member who with no consent from any other member decided to change everything in the section, adding and moving as he pleases. I preceded in undoing his action and started a discussion section asking anyone who wants to change anything about the section to discuss it first. He refuses to discuss and just continuing changing the section at his own will with no consent. When this occurs, what can be done? Your input will be appreciated. Malik Danno (talk) 01:44, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Utah WikiMeetup

Hello. You have expressed interest in the past in Utah-based Wikipedia Meetups. There is a meetup in Salt Lake City at noon on Saturday the 17th of this month. Please see Wikipedia:Meetup/Utah for more information. Useight (talk) 04:56, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Maltese language 3RR case

Hello Taivo. I've proposed a closure of this case. You may add your comment there if you wish. EdJohnston (talk) 17:45, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

3RR on Maltese language

Hello Taivo. I have reviewed your 3RR report. I appreciate that this is a difficult situation, but I do not think you have improved this situation with your reversions. Given that everyone has stopped, I haven't issued blocks for 3RR violation, but instead have protected Maltese language for 5 days to encourage discussion. Please review WP:3RR one more time. I would like to warn you that if you participate in a reversion cycle after the article is unprotected, you will be blocked from editing. Thanks for your understanding, and I hope that you are successful in achieving consensus on the talk page -- Samir 18:20, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Response

My main interest here has to do with History, specifically the inclusion of raw scholarly material and the creation of new articles. You can see this in my work on the relevant sections on the Maltese language page. While I have been preoccupied with Maltese articles (of all sorts) this has more to do with the outstandingly poor work that has gone into many of them. I feel myself free from any pointedly nationalistic perspective, at least in terms of this project as a whole; I'm sure you've discovered that Wikipedia is fertile ground for all sorts of national/religious/racial and cultural "warfare". This is, without doubt, unfortunate and I think I've managed to avoid it as best I can when confronted by it. The Maltese language article hasn't been free of this sort of attack, but by and large, seems to be moving in the right direction. I won't hide the fact that I am annoyed by the lack of any real, qualified editors making their contributions; professors of Maltese don't seem to consider Wikipedia worth the work. Yet. I respect that you are a linguist and have an opinion worth hearing, for these reasons I rarely get into debates beyond my specific interests. Above all else, I want the articles to be accurate reflections of Malta, the Maltese language and the Maltese people. Of course, I bring this same criticism to bear on articles I've worked on not patronised by Wikiproject Malta. This is where I'm "coming from". the roof of this court is too high to be yours (talk) 21:41, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Ossetic language

I guess your final edit is the best we can do in the infobox. Concerning your remark on North Ossetia, Russia... Of course I meant North Ossetia (Russia), not NO and Russia. Thanks. Taamu (talk) 14:45, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Congrats

		The Morning Star Award
		For your tireless efforts to improve some very important articles—I rarely give two awards to the same editor, but you deserve it! Eustress (talk) 06:51, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for all your hard work on LDS-related articles! --Eustress (talk) 06:51, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you (Taivo (talk) 07:15, 22 January 2009 (UTC))

Uku

Since Uku can not (or will not) choose a topic to focus on, I have done so. Theresa has advised me that we can not have it both ways... we can not demand that Uku to start over and continue to reply to his comments in the mish-mash of bullet points. She was going to archive the old discussions (as an attemt to force Uku to join us in starting over, I suppose)... but as long as we are replying to Uku in those old discussions, the threads are active and she can not do so. So... let him rant in the older discussions all he wants for now (we can get to them later)... we should only reply to comments he makes in the new, more focused, thread. Also... we need to stay focused... he has a habbit of changing the subject mid-way through a discussion. We need to keep the discussion focussed on improving the language of the article... and not let him sidetrack us into trying to debunk the theories, or counter his "proof". Blueboar (talk) 15:34, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I completely agree. BTW, I take it from one of your early comments that you are a brother. (Taivo (talk) 17:20, 4 February 2009 (UTC))

Yes, Under GLNY. You? Blueboar (talk) 18:56, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Me, too. GLUtah (Taivo (talk) 19:42, 5 February 2009 (UTC))

GLME, for the record, though my status is a bit iffy at the moment: I haven't paid dues to my lodge lately -- rent has been hard enough. Also, I requested (by email) a demit from my dual-membership lodge in Washington when I moved away, and never heard back.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:01, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Just in case you guys hadn't noticed: [15]

Just in case you haven't seen this, Uku appealed his block partially on the basis of: "favoritism likely due to off-wiki alliances or fears of off-wiki retribution". In other words, the Masons are conspiring with and/or threatening the admins. (Taivo (talk) 14:11, 9 February 2009 (UTC))

I especially like this caution from the Wikipedia page on how to appeal a block: "# Assume good faith. It is theoretically possible that the other users who may have reported you, and the administrator who blocked you, are part of a conspiracy against someone half a world away they've never met in person. But they probably aren't, and an unblock request that presumes they are will probably not be accepted by anyone." Just a little chuckle on a snowy and cold Monday morning. (Taivo (talk) 14:24, 9 February 2009 (UTC))

My oh my... He does have a habit of just digging himself in deeper and deeper, doesn't he?... oh well... if he wants to alienate admins, he is a big boy and can fend for himself. Blueboar (talk) 14:55, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I guess it's only proper that at least one dedicated conspiracy theorist be involved in the discussion of conspiracy theories. (Taivo (talk) 14:59, 9 February 2009 (UTC))

Yikes... It just get's worse and worse, doesn't it... I would not be surprised if he talks himself into a permanent block. He is royally pissing off the wrong people. Still, I agree that we should wait for him (unless he does end up with his block extended). Blueboar (talk) 20:11, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

While I disagree with him on many issues, it's just painful to watch a guy shoot himself in the foot......over.........and over...........and over........and over......... (Taivo (talk) 20:34, 9 February 2009 (UTC))

{outdent) Looks like his block has expired, if I'm doing my math correctly.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:42, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually I think it's another day--it was 31 hours I think. (Taivo (talk) 20:52, 9 February 2009 (UTC))

I confused UTC and EST. Sorry about that. Should be around 6:30, then.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:22, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Uku is still complaining and whining on his Talk page about his "unjustified" block. Maybe he has a trophy wall at his house with the names of all the admins he has made enemies of. (Taivo (talk) 00:05, 12 February 2009 (UTC))

Ottawa language Article

Hi, can I get you to take a look at the Ottawa language page? Ottawa is a dialect of the Ojibwa language. I have spent some time on this page and I am thinking of nominating it for Good Article or ultimately Featured Article status. Insight from a linguist would really help.

I have focused on content that distinguishes Ottawa from general Ojibwe, general Ojibwe characteristics are left to the main Ojibwa pages (these IMO need a lot of work but that’s another story). The Ottawa article has probably too much detail for GA according to the GA criteria, and I am thinking of splitting off the “Vowel Syncope” section as a separate article.

Any feedback or suggestions you might have for improving this article would appreciated. If you leave comments on Talk:Ottawa language I check there regularly.

Thanks. John. Jomeara421 (talk) 01:48, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Which reference?

Sana'anis are the only Yemenis who say gaa instead of qaf. Look at the Wikipedia entry on Sana'ani Arabic "The San'ani dialect is distinguished among Yemeni dialects by its use of the hard [g] sound in the place of the classical Arabic [qāf], as well as its preservation of the classical Arabic palatal pronunciation of [j](also transliterated [ǧ], IPA transcription [ʤ]) for the Arabic letter ج [jīm]. In these respects, San'ani Arabic is very similar to most Bedouin dialects across the Arabian peninsula." Sana'anis make up less than 11 percent of the Yemeni population meaning the 89 percent say qaf.--Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 07:16, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia relies on references to reliable sources for its information. You may very well be correct, but the referenced source for the information on the table uses Sana'ani Arabic apparently. The text above the table specifically says that this table is from a particular book. Changing the information in the table is not reliably following the source. If you wish to add the information above in a footnote with a reference then that would be acceptable, but remember that Wikipedia cannot refer to other Wikipedia articles as sources. (Taivo (talk) 11:00, 6 February 2009 (UTC))

I don't have a source, but I agree with the recent change you made as that was my alternative as well. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 18:48, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Dene-Yeneseian hypothesis

It seems that there's a concerted effort to prominently push this on every WP page that's possibly related to it. Why the big deal? I'm not a linguist so I don't have a stake, my edit in the Na-Dene article was just to fix something that was quite out of place in the introduction. KarlM (talk) 14:15, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The "big deal" is that this is the first solid, generally accepted, and linguistically sound evidence of a linguistic link between the Old World and the New World. In terms of the Na-Dene article it's perfectly in place because language articles nearly always list the next higher genetic unit in the introduction. Since this is a newly demonstrated genetic unit, it's going to look "sensationalistic", but it is perfectly in place. (Taivo (talk) 14:42, 11 February 2009 (UTC))

Maltese people

Please help there, like I asked on the Maltese language talk page. Also, what is your problem with IPs?? 78.149.163.150 (talk) 16:39, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

The only part of the Maltese people article that I have any interest in is the language section. It is accurate right now. I don't have anything against anonymous IPs per se, but they tend to be the most disruptive of the editors. If a person is going to be a reliable, ongoing editor of Wikipedia, they should sign in and make themselves accountable. (Taivo (talk) 19:59, 13 February 2009 (UTC))

A little reading material

Check your inbox! Knepflerle (talk) 11:48, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Replied here

[16]. Cheers, ~ Troy (talk) 16:58, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I've reverted you

Purely because not mentioning it at all counts as an NPOV compromise, and secondly, because your argument of there not being reliable references is false - if it is true you know who Albert Borg is, then you will know his authority is certainly one of the only ones that counts. 78.146.186.109 (talk) 22:15, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Give me a quote from a published quote by Albert Borg and a reliable reference from him. He doesn't say that in his Routledge grammar of Maltese and no one has ever bothered using a reference from him to make the mixed language argument. The only source ever cited for mixed language status are the unreliable Badia and Rosen references. (Taivo (talk) 22:18, 22 February 2009 (UTC))

Ok, I will. Oh, not only that, but Peter Bakker and Maarten Mous list it in their review of mixed languages. 78.146.186.109 (talk) 22:27, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Quotes and proper references at Talk:Maltese language. (Taivo (talk) 22:35, 22 February 2009 (UTC))

Oh, mentioning Peter Bakker gave me an excellent idea for a source! Peter Bakker more than just lists Maltese in his work, you know. He even says this on p.121 of his "The Mixed Language Debate" (de Gruyter 2003):

"Other languages with heavy borrowing that have erroneously called mixed, are Kormakiti Arabic of Cyprus, Chamorro, Maltese and some others in which also some of the basic vocabulary has been borrowed"

That quotation will slot into the article perfectly. Knepflerle (talk) 23:29, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Perfect :) If our sock puppet actually finds a legitimate quote that calls Maltese "mixed" in a technical sense, then we've got the perfect counter. But the quotes so far are questionable on the additional front that the context of the sentence almost sounds like they are not using the word "mixed" in a technical sense, but just in the sense that Maltese is not "pure". The sock keeps mentioning Albert Borg, but he didn't say anything about Maltese being a mixed language in his grammar of it! If that's what he really thinks, he missed a perfect opportunity to espouse that position. I really don't think this guy's going to come up with anything more than those Badia and Rosen on-line blogs though. (Taivo (talk) 01:14, 23 February 2009 (UTC))

Feeble attempt at new policy for Wikipedia

I'd love your input for a new policy for Wikipedia regarding religious articles. Take a look at what I've started and lend me any input you wish. It's at Wikipedia:Religion. Thanks, Twunchy (talk) 22:47, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Invite

Template:WPLDS invite —Eustress ^talk 19:24, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Librier and Kelb tal-Fenek

Is the word Librier simillar to Il-Kelb tal-Fenek as the Maltese Picture Dictionary by Dicts.info suggest. Or is it even broader in the meaning of the word dog itself? Please answer in your own time, thanks! -- Imbris (talk) 23:45, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Culture and language

Hi. I recently overhauled the article on Culture. I left room for a section on "culture and language" but did not write anything because I am not competent. I was thinking of some discussion of ethnolinguistics and sociolinguistics, but you may feel there are other relationships worth summarizing. Would you have time to look at that article and craft a few paragraphs for that section? We need more people with expertise like yours, and have precious few. (I do not think the article needs to go far beyond what would be offered in introductory lectures, plus citations, but this is a major article, one I think that covers a basic concept, and it needs to be better than it is) Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 15:47, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Capitalization

Hello Taivo! A question for you... I realize capitalization of English names for animal species is a somewhat unresolved issue on Wikipedia. However, it is problematic nevertheless, especially in animal names consisting of more than one word. Here are a few examples: Red Deer, European red deer, Roe Deer, Mule deer, Fallow Deer, Tufted deer, Giant Muntjac, Leaf muntjac…

What is to be done? Belsavis (talk) 21:31, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

The "correct" solution is that no names should be capitalized unless they consist of a proper name. Thus, in your examples, red deer, European red deer, roe deer, mule deer, fallow deer, tufted deer, giant muntjac, leaf muntjac, Chinese tufted deer, Sumatran serow, red goral, Reeve's muntjac, etc. The other option is to always capitalize each part of the name unless it is used generically, thus, "I see Red-Fronted Gazelles", but "I see gazelles". (Taivo (talk) 23:54, 12 March 2009 (UTC))

For your information

You may be interested in this new category Category:Mixed languages and code-switches (since when is a language itself described as a "code switch"?) - this edit and the rest of this new user's contributions. Knepflerle (talk) 14:10, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Moving Literary Arabic

Hello. You may like to join the discussion here. I have added a request to move the article at WP:Requested moves today, and discussions on requested moves are normally closed after five days. Thanks. MassimoAr (talk) 17:55, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

ethnologue

Hey,

Since you get irritated at people dissing Ethnologue all the time, I thought I'd point out something I just came across: Kaili-Pamona. I've seen several families where they've moved languages around from the 14th edition, leaving stranded names and branches, but this is one of the worst. Three of the branches are duplicated. Another beauty is Formosan. No-one takes Formosan to be synonymous with Paiwanic, and Paiwanic at the very least always includes Paiwan. Unlike the mess of fictitious languages in Khoisan, these appear to be simple copy-editing errors, and I find it hard to understand how they got published this way. (And yes, I have pointed out their errors to them, though mostly on their maps.) kwami (talk) 00:24, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I know very well that there are copy errors in Ethnologue and that some of them have survived multiple editions (I haven't taken the time to point them out, unfortunately). I never have said that Ethnologue is perfect. What I get upset with is, "Ethnologue is not a reliable source", "Ethnologue is full of errors", etc. It's the blanket indictments that I get upset with. There is far more good in Ethnologue than there is bad. Compare Ethnologue with Linguasphere, for example. Linguasphere, unless it is very carefully used and the preface very carefully read, can be a minefield of inaccuracy because the authors purposely avoided much comparative evidence and purposely built their classification halfway on sociolinguistic factors and not completely on linguistic factors. One must be exceptionally careful in using it. Ethnologue is much more solidly based on comparative evidence and research. The thing that Ethnologue doesn't get proper credit for is that it is the best whole-world classification and index that exists. There are no others that are as thorough and reliable. Linguist List, for example, is primarily based on Ethnologue. Sure, there are errors and I could point out just as many as you can, but overall, Ethnologue is the best we have. Ethnologue is about 90% accurate in the classification and list of languages that it presents. That's just a completely impressionistic assessment based on using the 13th, 14th, and 15th editions rather intimately. Each edition gets better than the last. As Ethnologue gets more thoroughly integrated with ISO 639-3 more of the errors will get ironed out, I am sure. Here's the kind of statement I would rather see concerning Ethnologue: "The Ethnologue lists X as one of the Y languages, but others separate it." That's accurate. "The Ethnologue is unreliable" is not accurate. (Taivo (talk) 03:35, 18 March 2009 (UTC))

The Paiwanic is just a copy editing error from the 14th edition, where all the Austronesian languages of Taiwan were grouped under "Formosan". As they separated the other Formosan languages out separately, they forgot to remove the overall "Formosan" label and Paiwanic was left behind. There's a similar error down in the Central Maluku group where Amalumute (spelling?) and Northwest Seram need to be collapsed together. (That particular error is a left over from the 14th edition as well.) (Taivo (talk) 03:39, 18 March 2009 (UTC))

Most of the copy errors are because of the way that Ethnologue is "written". It's just a printout from a computerized database (it's pretty easy to tell). Unless someone examines the printout in great detail, such errors go undetected. (Taivo (talk) 03:53, 18 March 2009 (UTC))

I agree E is the best there is. Most of my criticism is addressed to people who say something must be true because E says so, not an attack on E for its own sake. As for the lack of review, it couldn't be too hard to find someone at my level of competence to copy edit the thing, so I'm rather disappointed they didn't put in that level of effort. kwami (talk) 07:03, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

For years it was "edited" by an assistant director of the whole organization (which pretty much runs on a typical missionary organization shoestring budget) and Ethnologue was a "sideline". (No one works at SIL for the money.) I'm not sure what rank in the organization the current editor holds. That's not an excuse, of course, but for a long time the database was just a subordinate tool for the organization's other purposes and publishing it was just kind of interesting to others. Its usefulness outside the organization, however, has grown far beyond its original purpose and SIL is really just now realizing how important a resource it really is (being attached to ISO 639-3 helped). Like you, I'm very anxious to see the 16th edition, which is the first post-ISO one, to see what effect that responsibility has had on raising SIL's "consciousness-level" about Ethnologue. And, yes, the "Ethnologue is a perfect source" comments are just the flip side of the "Ethnologue is an unreliable source" comments--neither are accurate. (Taivo (talk) 10:12, 18 March 2009 (UTC))

That puts things in perspective. kwami (talk) 12:24, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Code-switching

I am one of two editors who have been trading edits on the page Code-switching. If you have interest in the topic, I would most happy to have your opinion on Talk:Code-switching. Cnilep (talk) 03:22, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Question for you

Hi Taivo. There is a question for you on the talk page of God as the Devil: "You referred me to Book of Mormon re linking to online text. That's a long article. Can you give me a more specific reference to the point in the article where the example(s) you are referring to will be found?" I'd appreciate if you give me an answer there on the talk page and let me know when you have so I can check it out. Thank you. -- WagePeace (talk) 04:27, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Whorf was a linguist according to published linguists, you don't want to admit it for some reason, okay

No, it's not necessary that I reference the one word you want referenced. You seem to have some professional issue with Whorf. That's your problem. This is an encyclopedia. If his words are about the language, it is important that readers know it was said by a person whom other linguists, if not you, consider to be a linguist, and that he studied American Indian languages (if primarily one, that detail can go in his article).

It's a detail. It's scholarship. It's secondary sources.

You have some problem with Whorf. That's not encyclopedic. That's personal. He was a linguist discussing linguistics. That's encyclopedic. So is referencing it.

You have some problem with IPs editing your encyclopedia.

Do not worry, be happy. I leave you your precious article that does not include the facts, so you can protect your ego against the big bad Whorf, who, according to you, was only a fire chemist, but according to many published linguists was a linguist. 69.226.102.187 (talk) 05:33, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't have any problem with Whorf or his accomplishments, he was a brilliant man. My problem is that you have placed irrelevant information on the Blackfoot language page. Whorf's life was irrelevant to the issue of Blackfoot grammar or the fact that Whorf claimed that it was oligosynthetic. Work on the Benjamin Lee Whorf page to your heart's content, but keep the Blackfoot language page focused on the Blackfoot language. And to claim that Whorf was an expert on American Indian languages is disingenuous because he was not a specialist on Blackfoot. Donald Frantz, who is a specialist on Blackfoot has rejected the oligosynthetic notion of Whorf's. So Whorf's credentials as a specialist in Native America are really not relevant because he wasn't a specialist on Blackfoot. If we were talking about Hopi, then there is a place where he really was a specialist. (Taivo (talk) 05:39, 28 March 2009 (UTC))

I hope and believe I did not call him an expert, as I do not consider him one, not in anything remotely related to Blackfoot; but rather he is a specialist in American Indian languages, although primarily only one. There is a huge difference between calling someone an expert and calling them a specialist. Please don't change my words.

You, however, bring up the important point. Frantz should be the one discussed in that sentence. And Frantz is the later linguist rejecting that theory, certainly other linguists agreed more with Frantz and consider him an expert. However, the sentence hinges upon Whorf for some reason.

As a new editor I followed the existing guidelines in the existing article. 69.226.102.187 (talk) 05:46, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

That sentence really doesn't hinge on Whorf other than the fact that he said Blackfoot was oligosynthetic. Read other language articles that have similar statements and you will see things such as "Y calls X language a Z while A calls Y language a B". Unless the personal qualifications hinge on something like "A, B, and C call D language an E, while F, widely considered to be the foremost specialist on D, calls it a G". Here the weight of F as the foremost specialist is important in balancing the apparent weight of A, B, and C. With the Whorf statement, since he was not a specialist on Blackfoot, there is no weight to be placed on his side of the issue by a personal comment about him. (Taivo (talk) 06:00, 28 March 2009 (UTC))

just a note

Not exactly a WQA or AN/I or anything - but I did see you mentioned here — Ched ~ ^(yes?)/_© 08:02, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, if someone is that easily offended, hopefully they'll avoid any of the pages like: RfA, WQA, AN, AN/I, MOS:talk - well really any of the policy and guideline talk pages - for a while. I'd have pointed to wp:bite, but I was afraid s/he would think I was accusing them of doing it. I'm still not sure what s/he was offended by. Unless you sent an email or IM, I thought you explained policy very politely and accurately.  ??Got me?? — Ched ~ ^(yes?)/_© 20:41, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Republic of Macedonia

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.--Yannismarou (talk) 14:52, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Macedonia

Congratulations on sticking up for common sense on the Macedonia issue. I get sick of all the jingoistic gang warfare on Wikipedia. The "patriots" are under the impression they are defending the honour of their country when they are simply making a laughingstock out of it. All too many Greek (and Macedonian and Albanian) editors have confirmed the reputation of the Balkans as a hotbed of national mysticist crackpottery and conspiracist paranoia. Cheers. --Folantin (talk) 16:16, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. As you can see in the post right above this one, the Greek "patriots" will use every trick in their bag to get their way. Nationalistic silliness (from anyone) is one of my pet peeves. (Taivo (talk) 16:22, 3 April 2009 (UTC))

Not that the issues are related, but the piffle from the patriots on that page makes me wish I'd never learned Greek. Agreed re nationalistic silliness, and Zeus knows we have enough of that in the US. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 18:22, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Americans are infants when it comes to nationalistic fervor directed at America, but immigrants here seem to outshine the countrymen they left behind when it comes to standing up for their homeland. It makes me wonder why they left the "old country" in the first place ;) Of course, we only hear the very vocal minority. LOL, "What is disrespectful in the English Wikipedia about writing an editor's Latin name entirely in Greek letters and writing it as if it were Greek instead of Latin?" (Taivo (talk) 18:40, 6 April 2009 (UTC))

I found it endearing. It's not my fault if you find the Greek alphabet offensive. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 20:07, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't find the Greek alphabet offensive--I spent a couple of years studying Greek in college and I am quite well-versed in the history of the Greek alphabet. And Horologium did not find it endearing to have his name misspelled in Greek. This is the English Wikipedia. Write in Greek all you like in the Greek Wikipedia. (Taivo (talk) 20:23, 6 April 2009 (UTC))

My username has been misspelled in Latin on countless occasions by you and others. However, if we must be precise, I ask that you spell it correctly in future.  ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 07:29, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

"Kekrops" is correct and that is the way I spell it consistently. (kappa-epsilon-kappa-rho-omega-psi. As I mentioned earlier, you're not going to get the macron over the omega in Latin because it makes it hard to type and Latinized versions usually use "o" for both omega and omicron.) (Taivo (talk) 08:31, 7 April 2009 (UTC))

The correct spelling is ΚΕΚΡΩΨ, not "Kekrops". It used to be "Kékrōps", until the relevant policy was amended to allow non-Latin usernames. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 14:53, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

This is the English Wikipedia, so you're just going to have to live with Kekrops. If I were on the Greek Wikipedia, then I would be Ταιβω or Ταιυω. Courtesy involves using the language of your hosts whenever possible. So on the English Wikipedia, you're Kekrops. (Taivo (talk) 14:57, 7 April 2009 (UTC))

No, I'm not. Actually, my "hosts" are fine with my username, just as the Greek Wikipedia would have no problem if you kept yours in Latin. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 15:04, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, what I meant (and didn't state clearly) was that you may be able to use Greek for your username in the English Wikipedia, but you cannot demand that English-speaking users use Greek in their comments. That is the courtesy which you must extend to the English Wikipedia. Among English-speaking users, your name is Kekrops and it is not rude for us to use it. I have seen user names here in Chinese characters and Japanese katakana, but they do not consider it discourteous for English users to write their name in the Roman alphabet. You must expect similar treatment. But that also means that if a users' name is in Latin, you should not be turning it into some Greek formulation. That is rude. We are not Greeks and are not Greek speakers here. My user name is Native American so if you were to turn it into Greek, it would be offensive to me. That was my point with Horologium. You not only wrote his Latin name in Greek letters, you changed it in the process. This is all I'm going to say on the matter. You can keep your Greek username, but you must realize that English speakers are going to write it in Roman letters and that is not rude behavior. (Taivo (talk) 15:16, 7 April 2009 (UTC))

I'd rather you didn't mention my username at all, then. I self-identify as ΚΕΚΡΩΨ, not "Kekrops". ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 15:26, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

There are going to be times when it is necessary to distinguish you from other editors in a comment. If you take offense at the use of Kekrops as the English form of your self-identification, then perhaps you shouldn't be editing in the English Wikipedia. Just as Ελλας is "Greece" and Україна is "Ukraine" in the English Wikipedia, so you will be "Kekrops" for other users. (Taivo (talk) 15:36, 7 April 2009 (UTC))

You can always copy and paste the link to my username, as I have done below. Apart from not being my username, "Kekrops" makes it difficult for people to locate me, as a search for "User:Kekrops" will produce 0 results. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 16:09, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

One more point. You occasionally call someone with a Greek word that is not their username. The use of languages other than English in the English Wikipedia, especially when they are directed at non-speakers of that language, is completely inappropriate. (Taivo (talk) 15:18, 7 April 2009 (UTC))

The only time I did that was in response to User:Jim62sch's tongue-in-cheek rendering of my username as "Kekroops". I don't think he minded, as he is not your average non-speaker. Although he may wish he hadn't studied Greek, I doubt he would encounter any serious difficulty translating it. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 15:26, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

You used the same term here on my Talk page and I deleted it. (Taivo (talk) 15:36, 7 April 2009 (UTC))

Why? I would understand your decision if he had found it objectionable, but he expressed no such sentiment as far as I'm aware. Ironically, his "Kekroops" was clearly meant as a gibe, but you have yet to remove it. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 16:09, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Good points -- while in the aftermath of 9/11 most Americans were overcome by nationalistic fervor, most still relate more with the home of their ancestors, even if the family has been here 100, 200 or 300 years. My ancestry is Norwegian and German, but I'll be damned if I'm going to go apeshit defending the motherland or fatherland.

Kekroops has a few issues, I think (and likely won't like my variant transliteration of his name). His attacks on Horologium were utterly uncalled for and asinine. Of course, I suppose we could write his name in Cyrillic. Or Mkhedruli. Maybe Devanagari or Navaho. Nah, that would be bad and he'd not like that. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 18:56, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

КЕКРОПС could actually fool some people ;) (Taivo (talk) 19:39, 6 April 2009 (UTC))

Kekrops, I'll delete any rude or offensive comments you leave here. And if it is written in Greek, I will delete them without bothering to translate. (Taivo (talk) 20:25, 6 April 2009 (UTC))

In all fairness to Kekrops, I didn't mind the transliteration at all, although I suppose it would be best rendered as Ίάκωβος. On the other hand, it's just much easier for those of us without any keyboard options to render Kekrops name as such. (BTW "Kekroops" wasn't a true jibe -- gemination of vowels is an alterntivefor using a makron.) Another BTW: what happened to the accent on the epsilon?

BTW, I have nothing against the Greek alphabet: in fact, I use that, demotic, gothic and runes for things I don't want others to read -- like my diary. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 18:34, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Hellenic languages

Hi Taivo, sorry I tend to disagree with you about that "Hellenic languages" thing – please see my initial comments there (although I have to admit this was a bit of a shot in the dark, before reviewing your previous discussion very thoroughly.) Strangely, I'm actually siding with my good old friend Kekro(o)ps. ;-) Seriously though, I hope you weren't influenced by your recent negative encounter with him on the other issue this time, because I do think on this issue he is making some sense. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:15, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Basically, I don't think that Kekrops really knows what he is talking about here. He doesn't have access to any of the literature other than what he is reading in Google Books. He has gone to the same sources that I've cited first and then commented on them without bringing new sources to the table. He misread one of the sources and made a comment on it, then deleted his comment after I pointed out his error. I don't think he's a linguist. But I'm not offended that you are initially agreeing with Kekrops. The whole issue is about a very little-studied and very obscure language that is spoken by a couple hundred people and is dying out. It's much like the Arabic and Chinese situations--nationalist linguists see dialects, non-nationalist linguists see languages. If you read my recent set of quotes, Brian Joseph of Ohio State initially called it a dialect in his papers from the 1980s, but in his dissertation from 2001 he virtually calls it a separate language and notes its mutual unintelligibility with Modern Greek. (Taivo (talk) 05:55, 8 April 2009 (UTC))

Well, no, Kekroops is not a linguist. And it is true he doesn't normally go out and research sources. He's more of the scavenger type. But when he does follow up a source and criticises its reading, his judgment is often quite solid. I've known this guy and debated alternately with or against him in various contexts for longer than I care to remember, you know... And, I don't agree only "nationalist" sources treat Ts. as a dialect. That's clearly not the case here. I know the specialist literature a bit better than that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:45, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Although I have studied linguistics at undergraduate level at an institution ranked much higher than Utah State, I don't self-identify as a linguist. That doesn't mean I'm entirely clueless, though. Your remark about not bringing new sources to the table is not quite true. Among others, I brought in Trudgill, Ruhlen, and a new Baldi reference which directly contradicted what you thought about him to begin with. Posting links to Google Books doesn't mean I lack access to the literature, either; it is simply a convenient point of reference for the purposes of an online discussion. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 08:13, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, Kekrops, I may teach at USU, but my PhD in linguistics is from University of Kansas, which has one of the best Linguistics departments in the US. Since you haven't mentioned which university you did a bit of undergraduate work at, it's impossible to determine how good their Linguistics department is. But Ruhlen had already been mentioned and searching for the Baldi work I mentioned would naturally lead to the other Baldi work since you found both at Google Books. I'll give you credit for Trudgill.

Future, I'm also not surprised at the failure of linguists in general to consider Tsakonian as a separate language with its own contribution to make to Indo-European studies simply because there is virtually no knowledge of it outside Greece and inside Greece it is normally called a "dialect". You know that "dialect" and "language" are such slippery terms in any circumstance. In the end, I don't think it really matters whether we follow Greek usage and call Tsakonian a dialect or follow more general usage and call Tsakonian a language. It is still mutually unintelligible with Greek and the decision is made on non-linguistic factors. My reading of the literature makes me feel like this is somewhat a Low German/High German situation. The two are mutually unintelligible and all Low German speakers must learn High German, but despite the fact that most modern linguists identify them as separate languages, there are many, many sources that use various terms for Low German such as dialect, vernacular, etc. rather than "language". The identification of Low German as a dialect has non-linguistic factors behind it--many of which are the same factors that seem to be working in the Tsakonian-Greek case--such as national unity, linguistic chauvinism, local adaptation to a national standard, etc. But because of the issue of mutual unintelligibility and focusing on Wikipedia NPOV, we need to present both points of view concerning Tsakonian. Concerning Hellenic languages, it has its own place in the puzzle by providing a place for presenting issues related to the entire spread of languages that lead to Modern Greek, Cappadocian, Tsakonian, Cypriot, Mycenean, Macedonian (?), etc. There's nothing wrong with having a separate place for that discussion and not just drowning it within the larger article that focuses on the development of Modern Greek from Ancient Greek, especially since some very reliable sources treat the group as a family and not as a single divergent language. (Taivo (talk) 12:50, 8 April 2009 (UTC))

Much higher than Kansas too. But at least Kansas is on the list, so I'll give you credit for that. You're right about Baldi; I looked him up to make sure you were citing him correctly. I hadn't seen your reference to Ruhlen at all, as it was a rather long-winded discussion and your posts tend to be rather large. But yes, looking back at the edit history, you did get in before me. As for Hellenic, where are the sources that explicitly treat it as a family rather than a branch synonymous with Greek? ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 13:08, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

(I really hate edit conflicts)

I am chuckling at your "list", Kekrops. It is naive to think that ranking on that list makes the Linguistics program at those universities better. Harvard's and Yale's linguistics departments are nothing compared to the departments at UCBerkeley, UCSanta Barbara, Arizona, and MIT (I can only think of one linguist of any note who came from Harvard and that was 40 years ago and only one of Yale's faculty is a person of note). California Institute of Technology doesn't even have a linguistics department to speak of. Since those are three of the top five universities on your list, you can see how invalid using that list is for any purpose whatsoever other than hanging a fancy diploma on your wall and trying to impress potential mates. I'm not a potential mate for you, Kekrops :p (And the PhD diplomas from Kansas are 18" by 24" so it would be hard to find a larger diploma.)

As far as Hellenic is concerned, Voegelin & Voegelin, Linguasphere, and Ethnologue all list a Hellenic/Greek as a small family consisting of (at a minimum) Greek and Tsakonian. Other sources ignore Tsakonian because of the lack of documentation just as they ignore most of the smaller Iranian and Indo-Aryan languages without much documentation. Sardinian is also often ignored in works on Romance, but that doesn't make it any less worthy of inclusion as a separate language or as a separate branch of the family. (Taivo (talk) 13:41, 8 April 2009 (UTC))

We can of course always go Klossian and call it a scheindialektalisierte Abstandsprache (or we could, if it wasn't for the fact that Kekrops will use that as an opportunity for some sarcastic smart-ass remark about the ugliness of German terminology ;-) – but seriously, presenting the two perspectives on the separate-language status of Ts. should be the simplest little exercise in NPOV writing imaginable. Not in need of much debating. There may be a situation where specialist Greek scholarship (not just scholarship written by Greeks, but scholarship dealing with Greek) prefers the dialect perspective, whereas global classification literature, which is more interested in measuring everything against a single set of criteria, prefers the separate language perspective. That would explain the difference between your and my reading.

However, to my mind, the question still remains if that makes the existance of that separate article necessary (and, whether we should link to that article in all the relevant infoboxes and all that, as a consequence.) My concerns are the following:

1. There is nothing in the current Hellenic languages article that isn't already treated in the main Greek language and/or Modern Greek article, or could easily be treated there, just like mainstream academic literature treats it.
2. The article basically treats two different issues. It's one thing to posit a language family to account for a separate Ancient Macedonian versus Ancient Greek proper, and it's a different thing to posit a language family to account for a separate Tsakonian vs. mainstream Modern Greek. Those are two different notions, like "Italic" versus "Romance". And you can logically do the one without doing the other, both ways. I've seen people doing the first and using "Hellenic" for it; I have seen people doing the second; but I have yet to see an author explicitly doing the second under this term.

Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:28, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

We're already approaching NPOV inclusive wording in the places where Tsakonian is mentioned, so I don't see that as a problem. Tsakonian has a separate article already, so no problem there. My principal concern about folding everything into one "Greek" place is that the details of the Macedonian-Greek "relationship" and the "Tsakonian-Modern" relationship will be lost in the massive drive from Ancient to Modern Greek. Right now, there is not a lot published on either of these issues, but that should not be a consideration on whether an article should be separate in Wikipedia or not. Space is not an issue here. And there are many stubs throughout the project that are basically placeholders for future expansion. There's nothing wrong with that. Brian Joseph's next book may very well take the Hellenic languages stub to featured article status. But there's nothing wrong with short articles with a very specific scope within Wikipedia if they have a clear raison d'etre. Hellenic languages describes the interrelationships between those forms that have been identified by whomever (whether Greek specialists or universalists) as separate languages. It's not Wikipedia's place to judge whether the Voegelins were right to place Tsakonian as a separate language and create a small family called Greek/Hellenic--they did and they did it in a reliable source. (Taivo (talk) 13:53, 8 April 2009 (UTC))

Agreed. One other point, FP: Kekrops shouldn't object to German -- it's agglutinative like Greek, and is far closer to Greek than it is to Latin, possibly the reason Germans have been very good Greek linguists. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 18:50, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that reason and the fact that many Germans prefer to spend a few weeks every year basking on the shores of the Aegean rather than on the shores of the Baltic. (Taivo (talk) 19:03, 8 April 2009 (UTC))

I thought Greek was the fusional language par excellence, i.e. anything but agglutinative. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 12:38, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Greek is generally considered to be more fusional than agglutinative, although "par excellence" is a bit strong. "Fusional" and "agglutinating" are the end labels on a continuum and I would place a language like Navajo much closer to pure fusional than Greek. (But the whole issue of "fusional" and "agglutinative" as typological beacons is not so strongly advocated as it was 20 years ago. They are now simply more portmanteau descriptive terms than the typological ur-categories that they once were thought to be.) But Jim was joking around so I didn't feel a great desire to correct him. (Sometimes we all keep our mouths shut when a correction is not relevant to participating in a friendly conversation.) If this were in relation to an actual discussion about content, then I would have corrected him, of course. (Taivo (talk) 12:47, 9 April 2009 (UTC))

I used agglutinative in a tongue-in-cheek, off-handed manner, although I was being a bit loose with the term. Anyway, German is fusional, too, so it should be acceptable.  :) &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 14:44, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of Baltic languages, that article needs some work. Shall we? &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 20:59, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Albanian

Hey,

I tried creating an article for Albanian languages too, but it's been merged back into the main article. Per Ethnologue, there are nine Albanian languages (4 with ISO codes), but evidently that's incorrect. I don't have strong feeling either way, but that would be a nice place to set the record straight. (Fut.Perf. gave some refs.) Any thoughts? kwami (talk) 12:33, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Not to butt in, but I'd treat them as dialects as they appear to be mutually intelligible. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 14:52, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Mutual intellgibility is a key factor, but another mitigating circumstance is that ISO 639-3 assigns most or all of the daughters under a single macrolanguage--Albanian. That's usually a sign that the clearcut factors that separate languages are not present in the Albanian cluster. It's one of those places where people quibble over the language splitting in Ethnologue. On the other hand, Ethnologue also splits out all the Arabic varieties, they have their own ISO codes and they have their own pages here. But they are unified under one macrolanguage code and two articles--Arabic language (singular) and Varieties of Arabic. That might be a useful approach--Albanian language and Albanian varieties--and then have separate pages for Tosk, Gheg, etc. that link back to the varieties page. (Taivo (talk) 16:06, 9 April 2009 (UTC))

Yes, good points. Tosk and Gheg already have articles, although they are a bit short. Gheg and Tosk share many spelling, but I don't know how they sound. Reminds me of Danish and Swedish -- if you read one you can read the other, but the pronunciations are different. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 16:21, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Linguasphere lists an Albanic branch that includes Albanian and "Kosovan". ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 17:10, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Kosovan is, at best, a dialect as far as I can tell. The separation is probably made due to political concerns. (Like Serbian and Croatian). &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 17:47, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't put a lot of faith in that on-line summary of Linguasphere beyond the ten zones and the 100 subzones--the list of languages beneath the subzone entry is very abbreviated. The hard copy lists only one language under "Albanic"--"Shqip" (Albanian). Linguasphere has a system of "outer languages" and "inner languages". "Inner languages" are basically major dialects, but are not always 100% mutually intelligible. The varieties of Albanian listed in Ethnologue are all "inner languages" within the "outer language" Shqip. There isn't a "Kosovan" language listed in Linguasphere (at least not as an "outer language")--that appears to be an invention of the person who summarized the Linguasphere system and posted it. (Taivo (talk) 17:53, 9 April 2009 (UTC))

Kind of what I thought. You know, I had forgotten I bought a copy of the Ethnologue a few years ago until you mentioned it. I always try to puzzle the stuff out for myself. I'll have to remember to use the Ethnologue -- I paid enough for it.  ;) &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 18:20, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

And the hard-copy Ethnologue is a bargain compared to what they charged for the hard copy Linguasphere during the short time it was available. (Taivo (talk) 19:14, 9 April 2009 (UTC))

True. But I probably would have paid it -- I coughed up a good bit for the Shorter OED and Liddell & Scott. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 19:39, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

By 'Kosovan' they probably meant Gheg, as opposed to the Tosk that's official in Albania. According to Ethnologue, Gheg is the standard for Kosovo, but Balkanian's word denies this is the case. I have no idea myself. kwami (talk) 01:24, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I can't access the full article,[17] but it appears that Standard Albanian (Tosk) has been accepted as the standard educated language in Kosovo, though in practice with a strong Gheg accent. kwami (talk) 01:27, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, they meant Gheg at [18], but the word "Kosovan" is not used in Linguasphere at all, so that on-line "summary" is false. LOL. Imagine that happening--a website that gives false information! (Taivo (talk) 01:56, 10 April 2009 (UTC))

Just a minor correction: Standard Albanian is not Tosk, it is primarely based on Tosk (northern Tosk sub-dialect to be more precise), with some influences from Gheg (mainly in grammar). As for Kosovo there could not be Gheg, for one simple reason Gheg does not have a standard form, neither Tosk, the only standard form is Standard ALbanian, which is per above. Have a nice day, Balkanian`s word (talk) 09:30, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Very interesting. Thanks for the clarification, Balkanian :) (Taivo (talk) 09:41, 10 April 2009 (UTC))

Thanks, Balkanian. Reminds me bit of the Bokmal-Nynorsk, or probably more accurately the Serbian-Croatian issues. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 17:58, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Mass comparison

Hi Taivo, I invite you to come over to talk:Mass comparison where we are currently engaged in an amicable discussion of how to make that article comply to wikipedias NPOV policies.·Maunus·ƛ· 22:48, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Must be an amicable discussion among ghosts since there is no article there ;) (Taivo (talk) 02:14, 11 April 2009 (UTC))

They must have deleted it meanwhile ;). ·Maunus·ƛ· 02:53, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

The article is back. Wow, what a Greenberg love-fest! After the first sentence the lead section is wild pro-Greenberg exaggeration. I'm going to be wading into it a section at a time over the next little bit. I'll have to have my references in a row as I do it. But if the rest of the article is in the same vein as the first section, it's going to be a bloodbath. (Taivo (talk) 03:00, 11 April 2009 (UTC))

As I said we are discussing it on the talk page - if you could jiust weigh in there to begin with it would be a help.·Maunus·ƛ· 03:21, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, of course. I won't just burn it to the ground before talking about it.  :) I notice that you've already made a lot of great comments about it. I haven't had time to digest it all yet. (Taivo (talk) 03:23, 11 April 2009 (UTC))

Utah meetup

Please see the discussion for a new possibility. Hope to see you there! ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 23:21, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Notification

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Move of the article Republic of Macedonia to Macedonia by User:ChrisO and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks,--Yannismarou (talk) 03:45, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia 2

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia 2/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia 2/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, —— nixeagle^{email me} 03:36, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I'm not sure the newcomer necessarily did consciously try to draw a lot of people to the ArbCom. He acknwoledges posting to a newsgroup indexed by Google, but the rest was done by others. He left his explanation of how events developed here. John Carter (talk) 00:44, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe that he intentionally wanted all the extremists. But to post a blog that asks people to go to Wikipedia specifically to comment on Macedonia shows a great lack of judgement on his part. (Taivo (talk) 00:51, 24 April 2009 (UTC))

Semitic languages and Sureth

Hi, I've seen you undid my contribution in the article Semitic languages which was the mention of Sureth. Was it because I forgot to add a reference? If such was the case, I've made up for that mistake. Otherwise, will you let me know what's wrong with it? Thanks Cimsam (talk) 12:13, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

First, Sureth is not an established linguistic name and it is not in common use in English. If you mean "Syriac", it is already on the list. Second, you placed it next to Akkadian in the list. It is clearly no an East Semitic language and was incorrectly placed. (Taivo (talk) 12:22, 22 April 2009 (UTC))

Thank you for replying so quickly and for explaining your undoing.

First, what I call Sureth is the language of the Christian native communities of Iraq, South-East Turkey, North-West Iran... all the more reason to call it an Eastern Semitic language. Wasn't it lawful to place it next to Akkadian? Syriac is called "the ancient language" in Sureth, which means that it was the language spoken in the High Middle Ages. To venture a (bold) comparison Syriac could be to Sureth what Bede's English is to Modern English. However, according to Bruno Poizat (a French researcher) Sureth is not even a descendant of Syriac, but has a history of its own (though the languages are akin to each other. In conclusion, Sureth is not Syriac

You say that Sureth is not an "established" language name. As far as I know, the closest "established" name for Sureth could be Eastern Neo Aramaic. However this term "Neo Aramaic" which was coined by Western scholars to name a living language is not the way (English-speaking) native speakers of Sureth (for instance American ones) call it. One can refer to Zindamagazine [19], the Assyrian Church of the East (whose Patriarch lives in Chicago), the Chaldean Catholic Church... to check that they call "Sureth" their language. I am hardly surprized that you mention that "it is not in common use in English". But does that mean that the English-speaking visitors of Wikipedia should not be cognizant of the term "Sureth" ? Wouldn't that curtail the informative clout of Wikipedia?

One can find more detailed references, at the page Sureth.

Being a knowledgeable scholar, you will probably agree that furthering this discussion could bring about more veracity and usefulness in our articles. Cimsam (talk) 13:29, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any unique content to "Sureth" that is not contained in an article on Eastern Neo-Aramaic. It is certainly not the same as either Assyrian or Chaldean. Read Gareth's comments at Sureth. I completely concur with his opinion in this matter. (Taivo (talk) 13:32, 22 April 2009 (UTC))

You and Gareth are right, Sureth (or Suroyo) is the name the East Syriacs use for the Syriac language (or the various dialects of Eastern Syriac they speak) and it correspond with Suryoyo in Western Syriac. It's not one language, it's an umbrella term for the the various Syriac dialects in respective Syriac dialect. The TriZ (talk) 22:10, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

geminates in the IPA

Hey Taivo,

Do you know if there's a convention for stressed geminates in the IPA? That is, if you have CVC'CV, but want to write CC as C:? Or are you forced to decompose the consonant? Take Buscemi, where the sc is long, and the e stressed: Is it intelligible to write [buʃˈːɛmi]? kwami (talk) 00:51, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

As with everything else in life, "it depends". In Shoshoni, the next syllable after an instrumental prefix is stressed and preceded by a voiceless geminate. Unfortunately, none of us Numicists use IPA. I don't know of any convention for writing this. In Numic, we write the geminate as two segments so we could write [tak'kɨβa] 'break with the foot'. But I'm not sure about [ta'k:ɨβa]. It doesn't "feel" right. I think it really depends on the language. I just looked in the Handbook of the International Phonetic Association and I see Hebrew (pg 98) [vehaʃ'ʃemeʃ], so that probably answers your question? Perhaps [ʃ:] would only be used before an unstressed syllable. (Taivo (talk) 03:11, 2 May 2009 (UTC))

Okay, that's about what I could find. I imagine it could make a difference phonetically, if you weren't writing C releases, so that [k:] ≠ [kk], and potentially phonemically as well. Both [k:'a] and ['k:a] do seem wrong, and [k':] might confuse people. That's probably why the Italian phon. page transcribes <gl> as [ʎʎ] rather than [ʎː]. Just seems odd that something so basic would be ambiguous, though I suppose [k':] would be technically correct.

Hey, I know! We could mark the preceding V as "unreleased": [a̚ˈka], since that's otherwise meaningless with vowels, and explain in a footnote that this means the following k is geminate. That would also work for a phoneme that surfaces as gemination of the following consonant, as in Japanese. Do you know if there is such a convention? (With any symbol I mean, not necessarily [ ̚]. All I've seen for Japanese is "/Q/".)

Do you know where I'd go to modify the IPA input menu in the WP edit window? We've got a bunch of symbols we don't need, like [m] and [ʎ̯], but no orphaned diacritics or tone letters, which we could use. kwami (talk) 04:44, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

In Central Numic studies there is an undistinguished final segment that only surfaces (normally) as gemination of a following stop or affricate. We write that as ". So the instrumental prefix for "by foot" is /ta"-/. Put that on /kɨpa/ 'break' and we get /takkɨpa/ 'kick in'. It's not standard IPA, but it has a 50 year tradition in Numic studies. But we don't use it in phonetic transcriptions, only in (morpho)phonemic transcriptions (depending on who you're talking to about it). Stress is predictable in these languages, so we don't mark stress usually either (except when dealing with the phonetics of voiceless vowels). I'm too old to know much about the workings of wiki markup coding ;) (Taivo (talk) 06:51, 2 May 2009 (UTC))

Oh, I didn't mean the coding itself. I don't even know where to go to discuss it or put in a request. kwami (talk) 08:32, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Damn, you guys are quick!

Evidence against Reaper7

Sorry Taivo, but your latest evidence against Reaper7 is in error. The Arbcom injunction affects only the name of Macedonia-related articles - it doesn't prohibit all Macedonia-related editing (see [20]). I'd suggest that you delete that evidence, since it's based on a faulty premise. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:18, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Just a sec...

Taivo, no offense, but I think your new point about Reaper is not really that well founded. There is no injunction against all editing on Macedonia naming issues. The injunction is just about moving pages. – BTW, you might also want to consider trying not to let yourself be dragged into debates in the arb pages too much. Just a thought. :-) Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:18, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, I removed my comments at the workshop and evidence pages. But damn, what a stupid thing to do on his part. Doesn't he realize that's like throwing gas on a fire? Thanks for the advise, Future. Since the warning the other day, I've tried to limit myself. But I'm just a debater at heart :p And I don't take offense when someone reminds me when I'm talking too much ;) (Taivo (talk) 22:24, 2 May 2009 (UTC))

B.L. Whorf an amateur?

Your input would be valued.·Maunus·ƛ· 19:16, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

affix vs root

Hi again,

Can you think of a language offhand where derivational affixes may be used as independent root words? kwami (talk) 01:34, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't that sort of go against the idea of them being derivational affixes?·Maunus·ƛ· 02:04, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

If what you mean is, "Do you know a language where the root words that became derivational affixes are still root words?", then, yes. In the Numic languages of Uto-Aztecan, there is a derivational affix -kin which usually means "perform the action while moving towards the speaker", but has undergone a further semantic shift in Timbisha where it means "do it a little bit" (hupiatɨki 'sing', hupiatɨkikkin 'sing a little bit'; hipi 'drink', hipikkin 'sip'; tɨkka 'eat', tɨkkakkin 'nibble'). It is derived from the verb kimma 'come', which is still a full root. (Taivo (talk) 03:45, 9 May 2009 (UTC))

That situation is also common in Nahuatl.·Maunus·ƛ· 04:03, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Richley Crapo wrote an article on this in International Journal of American Linguistics back in the mid-70s. I think the title was something like "The Origin of Directional Adverbs in Uto-Aztecan". (Taivo (talk) 04:05, 9 May 2009 (UTC))

Interesting that a venitive would become a verbal diminutive. Actually, I was wondering about synchronic use of affixes in general, say a language where what looks like affixation is effectively compounding. There's an argument whether Esperanto is a thoroughly European language, or whether it has non-(Indo)European elements. (Part of a propagandistic campaign of E. being an international language.) One of the possibilities for the latter is that all non-inflectional (and even some inflectional) affixes can also be used as independent roots. (The difference from compounding is that they are set as either prefixes or suffixes, and don't follow the morpheme order of compound words.) So for example the -an suffix found in words like Christian or Russian is used as a word ano "member", like the way ism can be used as a noun in English. But in E., all suffixes can do this, and they can inflect for part of speech ("ismically" etc). I'm wondering if that's a "non-European" aspect, or just a non-natural aspect of artificial languages derived from expectations that morphology should be logical. I would think that there are languages in the world that do not have a clear distinction between compounding and affixation, but nothing comes to mind. (In Mandarin, for example, there isn't much affixation, and in what there is, suffixes are phonologically reduced from their verbal or nominal ancestors, like Numic -kin from kimma.) kwami (talk) 04:26, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, personally, any linguistic discussion that starts with Esperanto as the data set usually ends with me in about two seconds (just enough time to get a laugh out). But then I read the rest of your question about whether this is an artifact of its creation or a feature of (some) natural language. OK, I won't laugh anymore. The whole question of word/compound/affix is a thorny one in some languages. Even in Numic, there are differences of interpretation in the nominal postpositions--kahnika "in the house" or kahni ka. Some native speakers write them as one word and some as two words, so it's not even a question of non-native linguist perception. Of course, there is the linguistic test for word/compound of where affixes and other syntactic elements are located (even when the compound is written as two words)--"The white colonial house" versus "The colonial White House", etc. (As well as the obvious stress placement questions.) But compound versus affix is a bit trickier. What's the difference between a compound and an affix? The old saw about "A compound can be two words" breaks down when confronted with bound morphemes such as "-ceive" and "huckle-" which are roots, but cannot be independent words, so that "huckleberry" is a two-root compound that cannot be broken into separate words. Once a stable compound is formed, the real question, I think, is twofold--semantic decay (or shift) and expansion of usage. That is the key to how we get affixation in the first place really--decaying roots (either word > clitic > affix or word > compound > affix). It's a linguistic universal that we find forms that are ambiguous between compounded forms and affixed forms, and not "non-Indo-European" even. Look at English "don't", "he's", etc. where contraction has reduced the phonetic content of "not" and "is" to the point that they are affixes. But we don't really want to call them affixes because they have full-word content--"do not", "he is" (or "he has"). But they are affixes that are also still full words. (It's early in the morning here so I hope I'm making sense.) (Taivo (talk) 11:18, 9 May 2009 (UTC))

I am pretty sure the situation in Esperanto is a result of it being artificial, it seems that as with english ism they are all given word status through back formation - that would be a pretty unique grammatical process if it took place in a natural language I think. I certanly have never heard of it - not even in the raritätenkabinett.·Maunus·ƛ· 11:59, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, back formation is a natural language process, so changing an affix to a word can happen in a natural language--"ism" is just such a case. It's much, much rarer than the other direction, but it can happen. It requires a suffix with a very clearly defined (and restricted) meaning, such as "ism" or "ology", or else back formation won't kick in. I'm not sure how one could identify a word based on back formation from an affix without an extensive tradition of writing. It might also require a highly analytical language like English that easily converts roots from one part of speech to another. (Taivo (talk) 14:17, 9 May 2009 (UTC))

Of course, backformation with one or a few afixes is credible and naturally occuring but with all of them?·Maunus·ƛ· 10:08, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the fact that backformation has occurred with nearly all affixes is a result of the language being artificial. But that's diachronic. Now that it's happened, the result is that there is little difference between productive affixes and roots. I doubt that's so unusual even if the path getting there is. kwami (talk) 17:46, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Macedonia (ancient kingdom) vs Macedon

Come on Taivo, you don't really believe that argument about the Wikipedia article. Macedon was used all around Wikipedia as a convention. Just because nobody has activated himself into fixing all dubious occurrences of Macedon in places where the most common: Macedonia could be used, that doesn't mean that it is correct. My suggestion check any history book (examples:[21],[22],[23]), any English-language movie, any English language documentary, any Encyclopedia about what actual English usage is common. Inner wiki usage has not been changed yet. But how could that be now, when soon after I moved the kingdom article, all hell broke lose with ChrisO's move of the country article. I don't want to start messing with occurrences of Macedon especially since others have been accused of disruption for changing occurrences of name before the ARBCOM decision. That doesn't mean that Macedon occurrences are correct. Macedon should be used only for persons i.e: Philip II of Macedon and probably in a few cases where the beginnings of the kingdom should be separated from Macedonia (that grew to become an empire). You do understand that the whole point of using Macedon in wikipedia was to avoid the really existent disambiguation need. Besides we should use the original name of the region Macedonia and not the obscure Latin transliteration of the adjective "Makedhon"(Macedonian) to refer to the region. Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 06:02, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Check my reply in ARBMAC2 for more Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 06:23, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

It is just an illustration of how "Macedonia" is not so universal as you might think. The editor who wrote the article on Macedon clearly didn't think it was an unusual usage at all. Macedon is exactly the usage that I learned in high school and college. Whether that is contemporary usage or not is another issue. My point is that there is a segment of the population that uses/used Macedon normally. (Taivo (talk) 06:27, 14 May 2009 (UTC))

The OED 2nd ed. defines Macedon as the "Anglicized name of ancient Macedonia. arch[aic]." However, they go on to give citations from throughout the 20th century, including classics like Toynbee. kwami (talk) 07:40, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

To paraphrase Twain: "Rumors of its death are premature." This is probably one of those points where the OED is a bit more prescriptive than we sometimes like to admit. I'm not necessarily an advocate of using Macedon, it's a thorn in the side of those who claim that Macedonia is universally used for the ancient kingdom. (Taivo (talk) 12:44, 14 May 2009 (UTC))

There are 1800 hits on Google Books that have been published since 2000, a century after the OED characterized it as "archaic". At first glance it would appear that few of them are reprints. kwami (talk) 18:18, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree. It is far from "archaic". (Taivo (talk) 20:49, 15 May 2009 (UTC))

E-mail

Hi Taivo, shall we keep this off-wiki maybe? I think there's a rule somewhere that we normally don't encourage posting of e-mails onwiki. I'll let you have my thoughts by mail. Perhaps it would be a good idea if you removed your posting on Chris' page, for the moment. Just my recommendation. Sorry to see this happening. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:11, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes. email is fine. I deleted the posting on Chris' page with a note. I don't mind a positive, constructive exchange by email, but "shut up" messages are not so welcome. thanks (Taivo (talk) 16:13, 14 May 2009 (UTC))

I understand you'd be upset but posting them on wiki without permission is not the answer. Don't do it again. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:01, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Ignorance of rules of conduct

Ignorance of rules of conduct, particularly when exhibited over a long period of time, is not considered grounds for engaging in unacceptable behavior. Please seek to learn some of the standards of behavior, as well as policies and guidelines, so that you do not continue to engage in activity contrary to them. Thank you. And I find it particularly appalling that you had the temerity to seek confirmation from another party regarding a message sent to you without even responding directly to it. I can send out a copy of the previous e-mail you sent me in which you made a big deal of your academic achievements, if anyone is interested in seeing the confirmation of my earlier statement in that regard. John Carter (talk) 16:14, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Also, I noted on the ChrisO's page that you have completely misrepresented the statements I made, which provided you with some evidence of how your own comments are at best off topic. Somehow, I regret to say, that doesn't particularly surprise me. And I am very curious how you would consider your own actions in this matter even remotely productive conversation, considering that they are fairly clear violations of even the most basic standards of reasonable conduct. John Carter (talk) 16:24, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

By the way, I raise the issue to Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia 2/Workshop#Taivo's canvassing of a private mail). Regards.--Caspian blue 16:27, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

John, you complained in your email that I didn't do research. So now you complain when I do research by getting a second opinion on your thoughts before I respond? My academic achievements are public record. If you doubt them, then that's your business. As far as posting your email, I should have asked Future Perfect and Chris off-wiki instead of posting on their talk pages. That was my mistake and has been remedied by deleting it. As far as my characterization of your email, that's my view of it. If you wanted to say something different, then you should consider a rewording. (Taivo (talk) 16:29, 14 May 2009 (UTC))

And I'm reminded of something my grandmother once told me, "Don't write anything in private that you would be ashamed to have shouted from the rooftops". (Taivo (talk) 17:07, 14 May 2009 (UTC))

Sir, the only reason I sent it as e-mail was to spare you of having a comment on your talk page which indicated just how clearly you paid little if any attention to several relevant factors, possibly to the point of even explicitly ignoring them, in a conversation in which you had made yourself so much a part. I am not in any way ashamed of what I said, including the statement that your actions here did not seem in any way in accord with your claims. I stand by all those statements. If you wish to so clearly embarrass yourself by having statements making it clear just how little attention you pay to several matters, that is your concern. However, I do wish you would cease the misrepresentation of the comments of others, which seems to my eyes to be at least bordering on outright dishonesty. That also does not in any way add to your credibility. John Carter (talk) 17:52, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Both you, knock it off and move on elsewhere please. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:03, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Already done. (Taivo (talk) 22:18, 14 May 2009 (UTC))

stop making disruptive edits

wiki rules exist against your behaviour and I will report you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WillMall (talk • contribs) 18:05, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

My edits were not disruptive and were explained on the Talk Page. (Taivo (talk) 18:08, 15 May 2009 (UTC))

May 2009

Removed a ridiculous and irrelevant comment. (This is my talk page after all.) (Taivo (talk) 22:07, 15 May 2009 (UTC))

Removed another ridiculous and irrelevant comment from an anonymous IP. Anyone who uses an anonymous IP just for personal attacks and innuendo is nothing more than a coward. (Taivo (talk) 04:57, 25 June 2009 (UTC))

Ban of Balkan Fever

I don't think BalkanFever was banned because he was uncivil, he was banned because "the edit was disruptive, pointy, and only served to inflame the situation". Anyway what happened, happened and I don't think there is a way to un-happen. We do have to keep AGF for each other like you said despite our disagreements because we have to find a way - the new guys, people from three involved nationalities and everyone else - to work with each other. Deep down everyone cares for the reputation of the project, and the internet in general. Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 06:06, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, what is done is done. But I want KnightLago to make sure that s/he is being very careful and consistent. Heck, based on banning Balkan Fever, I (and probably GK####) should have been banned, but wasn't. GK#### and I were just warned. I don't recall that Balkan Fever got a warning. I want KnightLago to be careful and be consistent. (Taivo (talk) 07:44, 23 May 2009 (UTC))

A Message from maher27777

Dear Sir, you've deleted my "Writing Names of Libyan Places", in Libyan Arabic page twice, Why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maher27777 (talk • contribs) 16:08, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't belong at Libyan Arabic since that is an article about the language. It is better suited at a place like Libya where placenames are a much more appropriate topic. (Taivo (talk) 23:16, 24 May 2009 (UTC))

Hi. Re: Odesa

Hi. I guess internet can show the worst of me/us.

Please look in Odesa and Odessa Talk pages.

At the bottom.

Everything points to Odesa.

I do not intend warring or anything. But in case of Odesa everything points to the correctness of my action. No info on the contrary. Once you read - please help me revert it to my version - Thanks.

As for Kyiv - it is unfortunate that you take a point of view where people are enforced to perpetuate their own misconceptions. Touche ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.156.14.200 (talk) 15:10, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I lived in Rivne, Ukraine for a year and my wife is Ukrainian. I 100% understand the spelling issue. But the issue in Wikipedia is not about nationalism, but about common English usage. Common English usage is not proven by Google searches, but by use in published atlases and maps, encyclopedias, current news media, contemporary writing, etc. The overwhelming evidence of English usage at the present time is "Kiev" and "Odessa". That might change in time, but for now English usage is what it is. (Taivo (talk) 15:14, 5 June 2009 (UTC))

But how do you know that?? On Odessa the guy didn't prove anything - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Odesa&action=history - look. He just did it. At least I provided Google searches. I don not see anything - anything at all that points to Odessa being the correct name. Can someone give me anything at all? Same goes for Kyiv - there is no evidence that Kiev is more prevalent.

You seem to just state "Kiev and Odessa" are common English uses - and that's enough for you to revert my work. But for me the requirements are titanian. That is not in a good spirit :( —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.156.14.200 (talk) 15:22, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

You want me to change Kiev to Kyiv to make you feel good? How do I know that Kiev and Odessa are the common English spellings? I'm a native speaker and that's how they've been spelled for my entire life (and I was a geography major as an undergraduate in college). There is no need to prove that Kiev and Odessa are the accepted English spellings since they will be found easily in thousands of sources. For example, both the Hammond Centennial World Atlas (1999) and the Rand McNally Portrait World Atlas (1998) (the two I happened to grab off my shelf) both list "Kiev". Those are two reliable sources. But if you want to change the spelling of these two Wikipedia articles, then start a discussion on the Talk Pages of those two articles and get community consensus about the spelling. Bring your proof and make your case. (Taivo (talk) 15:28, 5 June 2009 (UTC))

You seem to say that you know because you're native English speaker. Seems very unfair that you get to name cities in foreign countries. Doesn't it? The problem is - for Kyiv - we have much more "scholastic" and "official" organizations using Kyiv - like UN, British and US governments and a bunch more - anyways - they have all been listed - but a small number of ppl say that google hits are higher for Kiev - so they have it their way. For Odesa we have higher Google hits and also used in official organizations.

But you know what really sucks - I know that no matter what info and how many ppl provide - we will be always ordered to run around for yet more information.

And I'm sorry - but I cannot accept such treatment as true zealotry, I can only accept it as a deep disrespect. That truly is my deep conviction about wikipedia for the past 3 years. You may disagree - but that's what it is from my side of the fence.

What worries me most - is wikipedia is HELPING the spread of those misconceptions, simply by being popular. Do you see that there's something wrong here, or do you truly believe that this manner of treatment of various international names of cities, regions etc. is proper and fair?

We shall try this exercise in a year - but it would be nice to know who holds the keys to particular articles.

Before proceeding further, I suggest you read this. (Taivo (talk) 15:44, 5 June 2009 (UTC))

"give me a moment"

at Macedonia naming dispute. I would have edited myself the letter mentioning if you gave me some time as I had requested. The previous wording was very POV, true. The mention is relevant to historical concerns (as well as US policy) and notable since reliable sources have cited the event. I found a couple of sources to add. Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 11:30, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

But the letter doesn't address the issue. It is relevant to US foreign policy. As a source for the naming dispute, it's not a secondary source, but a tertiary source. If it has any importance to the historical concerns, it is for the content (a summary of the history) and not for the fact that it is a letter sent by academics to Obama (that's the US foreign policy relevance). All the historical comments are better made with other sources. (Taivo (talk) 11:37, 9 June 2009 (UTC))

I have added two secondary sources and changed wording so as to indicate that it is a Greek lobby effort. It is irrelevant to official US policy about the name. It is relevant as an expression of the historical concerns of Greeks and I attributed it accordingly.Shadowmorph ^{^"^} 11:42, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

This discussion should be at the Talk page. (Taivo (talk) 11:46, 9 June 2009 (UTC))

Edit gone wrong?

Hi Taivo, I think something went wrong with this edit [24] of yours. Can you check what you were trying to do there? Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:14, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Wow. I have no idea what I did wrong there. I just wanted to delete my last post. Thanks for letting me know. (Taivo (talk) 08:18, 11 June 2009 (UTC))

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia 2

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above.

• All editors on Macedonia-related articles are directed to get the advice of neutral parties via means such as outside opinions and Geopolitical ethnic and religious conflicts noticeboard (WP:ECCN), especially since there are significant problems in reaching consensus.
• All articles related to Macedonia (defined as any article that could be reasonably construed as being related to Macedonia, Macedonia nationalism, Greece related articles that mention Macedonia, and other articles in which how Macedonia will be referred to is an issue) fall under 1RR whenever the dispute over naming is concerned. Editors enforcing a case where a binding Stalemate resolution has been found are exempt from 1RR.
• The following users have been banned from Wikipedia : Avg (talk · contribs)^{one year}, ΚΕΚΡΩΨ (talk · contribs)^{one year}, and Reaper7 (talk · contribs)^{six months} .
• The following users have been topic-banned from Macedonia-related articles and their talk pages, as defined in All related articles under 1RR: Avg (talk · contribs)^indefinitely, ΚΕΚΡΩΨ (talk · contribs)^indefinitely, Reaper7 (talk · contribs)^{one year} and, SQRT5P1D2 (talk · contribs)^{one year}.
• The Committee takes note that ChrisO (talk · contribs) has resigned his administrator status while this case was pending, but also notes that he is desysopped as a result of the above case. ChrisO may obtain the tools back via the usual means or by request to the Arbitration Committee.
• Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) is strongly admonished for displaying a long pattern of incivil, rude, offensive, and insulting behavior towards other editors and failure to address the community's concerns in this regard. Because of this Future Perfect at Sunrise is subject to an editing restriction for one year, and is desysopped for three months as a consequence of poor user conduct and misuse of administrative tools. After three months, his administrator access will be automatically restored.
• Single-purpose accounts are strongly advised to edit in accordance with WP:SPA and other Wikipedia policies. Diversifying one's topics of interest is also encouraged.
• Abuse filter 119, as currently configured, logs all changes involving the word "Macedonia" but does not block any edits. The community is strongly advised to consider adding a new abuse filter criterion; any instances of changing the word "Macedonia" to "FYROM" (the five-letter acronym, not the full phrase) shall be prevented.
• Within seven days of the closure of this case, a discussion is to be opened to consider the preferred current and historical names for the four entities known as Macedonia. The discussion will end one month after it is opened.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Tiptoety ^talk 21:34, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Discuss this

Vardarska revert

Hi Taivo. Tell me please my mistake when i added these infos on the article. Arent they from a reliable source? Do you need me to find other source? Please reply to me also about this...What if the dictator one day of Mexico, decides to change his countrys' north borders name, and rename it to "Arizona". What would you think about this then? Every country can call his territories in whatever name he wants, but what you think the civilians in Arizona would act? Wouldn be a confussion to someone not living there, and for many years had connected "Arizona" with USA, to find suddenly that he didnt travelled to the real Greek Macedonia, but to a poor county near to the real one, that has nothing to do, only similar name the last 40 years? What about history of 2000+years? Or, you dont think these infos should be included on this article? I think its an encyclopedia and should have every info to be neutral isnt? Both know where macedonia is in greece, the dispute there is between Greece and Fyrom. Anyway, i see you have a Phd on these and ill be more than happy to hear your opinion on this, from someone who knows...

"Vardarska" is a derogatory term used only by Greeks for Macedonia. While it may be a historical name, it is not in current use and is not an appropriate piece of information for the lead paragraph. Enough said. (Taivo (talk) 00:59, 19 June 2009 (UTC))

Another Apparent Copyright Violation in Robert Sarmast Article

Dear Tavio,

I am just giving you the headsup on another apparent copyright violation involving Profsherman. I posted noticed of it in "Another Possible Copyright Violation with Robert Sarmast article" on the [Commons: Administrators' noticeboard/Attention] Paul H. (talk) 19:19, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

By the way, thanks for your efforts as a editor. Paul H. (talk) 19:24, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Request for clarification notice

I've requested clarification on SQRT5P1D2's topic ban here. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 03:24, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Question

What do you know about me, calling me a troll? Spis Ikke Gul Snø (talk) 14:55, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Future Perfect called you a sock/troll. His judgment and knowledge are good enough for me. (Taivo (talk) 15:13, 23 June 2009 (UTC))

Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia 2

Since you are involved in the discussion concerning the removal of Proposal G, I am informing you of the request for clarification I have put forth [25]. --Radjenef (talk) 17:40, 26 June 2009 (UTC)