User talk:Akerbeltz

Request for input

Hello, Akerbeltz. There is currently a question at our language desks where you might be able to help out: Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Language#Basque_Dialectical_Differences. Thanks in advance, sorry for disturbing you, and a Happy New Year! ---Sluzzelin talk 15:44, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

No worries, answered at the helpdesk, Happy New Year to you too! Akerbeltz (talk) 16:21, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Scottish Gaelic personal naming system, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Morphology, Dorothy and Ivar (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:20, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Changes in Biscayan

Kaixo Akerbeltz, zer moduz? Aspaldiko, hope everything is fine with you and the weather not very cold up in Scotland! I made some changes to Biscayan regarding phonetics especially, and you may want to tweak it, use better terminology (I have quite forgotten actually...), etc. Very good point about the map in Euskalkiak, I was baffled but didn't look through it deeper. Agur bero bat Iñaki LL (talk) 19:29, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Opera (web browser), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Frisian language (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:51, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

IPA broad transciption vs. narrow

Re: your counter-edit of my correction of your too-precise IPA allphonic transcription for Gàidhlig. Although there is a lot of gray area regarding choice of IPA on Wikipedia, I feel the guidelines are clear enough on the issue of not confusing newcomers to the pronuciation guide with overly detailed IPA. The spirit of a broad transcription should be taken as intended to be readily read by many. For example, I would choose to write /ˈsɪmfəni/) over [ˈsɪɱ.fəˌniː]. Analogously, I think your insistence on [ˈkaːlikʲ] over a more-accessible /ɡalɪk/ I do not believe is helpful to visitors to the Scottish Gaelic page.

Reference Narrow versus Broad Transcription — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leksikografí (talk • contribs) 02:32, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

For one thing, precise IPA would be [ˈɡ̊aːlikʲ]; and while your /ɡalɪk/ may be more accessible, it has the disadvantage of sounding distinctly different. And for a third, whatever guidelines you talk about, I don't see e.g. the pronunciation of français written as /fro:sə/ rather than [fʁɑ̃sɛ]. --Thrissel (talk) 09:30, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

There's the IPA help page for Gaelic for starters and implying voiced stops for Gaelic is purely wrong, that's like using /s/ instead of /θ/ cause it's easier for foreigners. The IPA for non-English words across the English wiki is fairly precise (see Þingvellir or Beijing, no reason to dumb down Gaelic. Akerbeltz (talk) 10:32, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

You've been mentioned in Spanish Wikipedia

Hi Akerbeltz. You've been mentioned here. Perhaps another instance of an old sockpuppet? --Xabier Armendaritz^(talk) 17:19, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I hadn't spotted the one on the Spanish Wiki. It's possible. Let's just keep an eye for now, if it explodes, we can report it. I'm getting this sense of deja vu >.< Akerbeltz (talk) 18:18, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	For all your hard work on Scottish Gaelic related articles - you surely deserve it! Every edit you make has been valuable to this topic area and I can tell you (and I'm sure no-one would disagree) that all your hard work is appreciated. Caledones talk softly, please 17:38, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Gosh, thanks you very much :) appreciated! Akerbeltz (talk) 19:56, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Basque genetic patterns

Kaixo, Akerbeltz. Have you seen this? My genetics knowledge is far from making me able to judge if there is valuable information there, but it seems to me that that's a serious study. Perhaps some data could be added to the Wikipedia... Ondo izan. --Xabier Armendaritz^(talk) 11:47, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Kaixo! No, hadn't seen that, thanks. I've given it a cursory glance and it looks bona fide. Bit thin on the scientific detail but I'll check the project site itself when I get some time and see what can be extracted to include in the article. Akerbeltz (talk) 11:56, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

See Ulaid

Hi I have replied re: Ulaid on the talk page there — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.151.117.142 (talk) 11:22, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

A peedie challenge

Happy New Year to you. I am currently tarting up Eday and it occurs to me the local pronunciations of placenames might be a challenge to both unearth and interpret. I was wondering if this might tickle your fancy. Ben MacDui 12:56, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

Thank you very much! :) Akerbeltz (talk) 09:46, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Txakolin in Basque

Hello Akerbeltz. I think there has been a misunderstanding here. I didn't say that the txakoli word doesn't exist. I just said that txakolin is the only word accepted in Basque by Euskaltzaindia. In a similar case chacolí is the only word accepted in Spanish by the Real Academia Española.

In traditional texts written in Spanish we find vino chacolín, chacolín, chocolín, vino achacolinado, vino-chacolí, chacolí (chacolines or chacolís in plural ) and derived words as chacolinero. In the last few years we find as well txacolí, txacoli, txakolí and txakoli in Spanish.

In traditional texts written in Basque we find txakolin and derived words as txakolin-ardo, txakolin-dantza, txakolin-saltze, txakolin gorri, txakolin-etxe. It is just very recently that some people has started using txakoli in Basque misled by the Spanish chacolí-txakolí. Euskaltzaindia has explicitly indicated that the txakoli word usage is wrong in Basque and txakolin is the only accepted word. Writing txakoli in Basque instead of txakolin is equivalent to writing futball in English instead of football (Basque: futbol), like here. Txakolina means literally "the txakolin". Writing txakolin(a) is just not Basque.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia based on factually sound, correct and reliable sources. If you are interested in citing a list of other/less common/inofficial/misspelled names I would consider a dictionary, like wiktionary, as a more appropriate media than an encyclopedia, like wikipedia.

And finally, if you look carefully to these pictures, you may observe yourself in which language is written "txakoli" and in which one "txakolin".

http://www.gipuzkoatour.com/images/fotos/txakoli.jpg

http://www.thespanishacquisition.com/cmsAdmin/uploads/TE_label.jpg

After all this comments and if you agree with my version, could you redo my changes, please? Best wishes.--Txakolingorri (talk) 08:24, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I know all that. But remember that on the English Wikipedia, different naming rules apply (see Wikipedia:Article_titles#English-language_titles) - in essence that means that whatever the official name of a thing or place, Wikipedia will most likely use a different one if it is more common in English sources. Take the names of the provinces for example, where Navarre and Biscay have their own English forms (which are therefore the main page titles), Labourd, Soule appear in their French forms (as those are most commonly found in English texts), Álava in its Spanish form and Gipuzkoa in its Basque form as neither Guipúzcoa nor Guipuscoa are more common in English, so consensus was to use the native and co-official form.

Whether we like it or not, English texts most commonly call it txakoli/chacoli and almost never txakolin(a). That's just the way it "happened" I'm afraid.

What we can do, however, is to add a paragraph in the etymology section and mention that txakolin is the official Basque form and that its txakolin which commonly appears in compounds and give the examples. Bale? Akerbeltz (talk) 09:45, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Again, I didn't make any changes to the title or to the English forms at all. I just changed one wrong sentence exclusively in the paragraph of the etymology section:

This wine is called txakoli or txakolin(a) (pronounced [tʃakoˈliɲa]) in Basque

by the right one:

This wine is called txakolin (pronounced [tʃakoˈlin]) in Basque

As you give some examples, let me use one of them (Biscay) to ilustrate my position. I maintain that the following sentence is wrong:

This province is called Bizkai or Bizkai(a) in Basque

and should be replaced by the following one:

This province is called Bizkaia in Basque

If you agree with this, please redo my changes. If you don't, I'm afraid you should provide reliable sources to maintain your position.--Txakolingorri (talk) 08:12, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

P.S.: I don't consider necessary to add a paragraph in the etymology section to mention that txakolin is the official Basque form and give examples. In my opinion the changes I did three days ago are enough. If necessary, and thinking in the people without the basic knowledge on Basque language, we can add an explanation of txakolina. But I cannot admit that txakoli is a Basque word, because it is just wrong (read above). The final version of the sentence could be:

This wine is called txakolin (pronounced [tʃakoˈlin]) in Basque (txakolina meaning "the txakolin")

Ok I get your point now but still, both forms are kicking around, even in Basque texts. I did a Google search for

"txakoli" "zen" "dira"

and

"txakolin" "zen" "dira"

The first gets me 22,400 results, the second 38,300. I'm happy to switch them round but by no stretch of the imagination can we argue that txakoli (bad or not bad) is not a form used in Basque. Akerbeltz (talk) 10:28, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I moved part of the content on this matter to the Talk page of the article about this famous Basque wine. I think that is a more appropriate place.--Txakolingorri (talk) 10:43, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Innisibsolian

Kaixo. I have managed to track down a copy of The Scottish Chronicle by Benjamin Hudson, that I had seen referenced to a 10th century record about Innisibsolian he links to the island of Seil. This seemed conjectural to me, but here is what he says: "An example comes from the reign of Donald II, when a battle fought between the Vikings and the Scots at innisib Solian ended in a Scottish victory. Innisib is the dative plural of late Old Irish/early Middle Irish inis, 'island', while Solian is the oblique form of Soil, either the river Shiel or Seil Island, in Argyll." "Soil" is (according to Watson's The Celtic Place-Names of Scotland) referred to in the Book of Leinster in relation to Seil - which we apparently get via the modern Gaelic Saoil. My main references for this sort of thing are not helpful. Watson does not mention Innisibsolian and Iain Mac an Tàilleir just says that "Saoil.. is probably a pre-Gaelic name". I am way out of my depth here and any thoughts on Hudson's idea are very welcome. Ben MacDui 20:54, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Eeep... not sure how much help I can offer. Ok, let's sort out the bizarre grammatical terminology. inis is indeed island as you know, if you stuck a preposition like in/on/under etc in front of that word in the plural, you had to stick -(a)ib (pron. /iv/) on the word, giving you (for example) i n-inisib "in the islands". So far so good, if that means he's quoting an Old Irish source. Solian is more of a headache. Oblique case means anything that's not a subject, so it could be a genitive or accusative or something. Basically a cheap copout when trying to be vague most of the time. There is a group of nouns which takes -n genitive endings (cf Éire "Ireland" and Poblacht na hÉireann "Republic of Ireland") so analysing Solian as Soli + an is reasonable. Soli would have regulary ended up as Soil (pron. /sol/ not like English soil) and that in itself could easily yield /sɤl/. Now modern Saoil is /sɯːl/ and that's where it gets a bit tricky. /ɤ/ and /ɯ/ are known to interchange for a variety of reasons but the length is puzzling. As a rule of thumb, length (of a sound) always has a reason. It's kind of possible to go something like /solʲ/ > /sɤil/ which could explain modern Saoil.

Ok, enough jargon. I would say it looks a reasonable proposal and derivation, assuming the general context of the text doesn't place us in Aberdeenshire or somewhere to being with. Balvicar does have a sheltered bay which could conceivably be the reason for slugging it out. My gut says maybe an 80% chance of being right? Does that help? Akerbeltz (talk) 00:39, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Mind you, reading this it seems the manuscript in that place has also been read as Uilibcottan Innisbolsia Visibsolian and Visibcolian. Needless to say, the above is based on Inisibsolian be the correct reading of the manuscript. Akerbeltz (talk) 00:42, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Very helpful of course. Unfortunately the text seems to be complete vague about context. Balvicar is a decent anchorage although the tide races to the south would be an obstacle. Cheers, Ben MacDui 08:10, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Merci pour votre aide sur WPfr

Je vais surveiller notre client. Cordialement. Le sourcier de la colline (talk) 21:02, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

De rien! Akerbeltz (talk) 23:04, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Buteiful day

Cher monsieur - a question has arisen at Talk:Isle of Bute about a possible transformation of the Gaelic name - any assistance gratefully received. Ben MacDui 14:01, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Michel Morvan

Hi Akerbeltz,

Why do you delete everything about this paleo-linguist, Michel Morvan, a member of UMR 5478 CNRS/IKER. His work is an exploration or a linguistic approach through time. His work could be on the wrong tracks or not BUT he's been carefully referenced and also backed by serious linguists like Jean-Baptiste Orpustan, Jean Haritschelhar, Henrike Knörr, Jacques Allières and Michel Grosclaude. His research is a hypothesis like any other. It has to be presented like a hypothesis, but can't be deleted on the pretext that his extrapolation is too large. Many linguists already claimed to have demonstrated a relationship between Basque and another language but was unsuccessful, doesn't mean that it has to be swept off. -- Zorion ^blabla —Preceding undated comment added 23:40, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

No it's not, it's pseudo-science of the worst kind. All these "references" are either self published books or articles in magazines which don't seem to take what they publish too seriously, not of it passes [WP:Reliable sources]. It's nothing but a re-hashed mishmash of the worst naivities of Basque studies, with some stunning new nonsense. He liberally ties Basque to North Caucasian, South Caucasian, Proto-Semitic, Indeo-European, Mongol and whatnot... it borders on being nauseating. I enjoy a good hypothesis but there is science and there's pseudo-science and he's, sadly, in the latter.

I queried the need for retaining the bio page on the Basque wiki, actually, but as someone there pointed out, if he's faking it, then at least that needs to be pointed out. Fair enough, but that does not mean we should allow him to plaster himself across a dozen wiki's to up his Google ranking. Akerbeltz (talk) 00:23, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I hear you. My concern about Michel Morvan is the references. Jacques Allières wrote down this article (I don't know your level of French), he's a member of UMR 5478 CNRS/IKER, had Jean-Baptiste Orpustan as Thesis director ...etc and I can name other linguists. You may have your opinion about this 'pseudo-science' work and so do I, nonetheless the number of notorious and talented linguists who support him, gives him a certain credibility. And because of that, his work has to be mentioned for what it is. I have already written on French Wiki that many linguists are sometimes skeptical, think that he extrapolates because it's nowadays very difficult to prove, but his methodology and the seriousness of this work is confirmed. -- Zorion ^blabla 01:25, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I strongly disagree, Zorion. The methodology and the seriousness of Morvan's work is far for been confirmed. On the contrary, his studies have been disapproved time and again as pseudo-science by the core of the most prestigious Basque linguists; see, for example, Lakarra Andrinua, Joseba, "Euskaltzaindian sartzea", Euskera, 2009, 54, 1:

[...] Morvan eta uraloaltaikoaz ikus 37. oharra. Zalantzarik gabe, hobe genuke –hizkuntzazko ondorioak dituzten hipotesiez ari bagara bederen–, familia linguistiko horietako berezilariei kasu egitea eta ez noizean behin gure artean agertzen diren eta inork ofiziokoen artean ezagutzen ez dituen sasijakintsuei nahiz genetika, arkeologia edo bestelakoetan aditu omen direnei (edo ezertan aditu ez diren «diziplinartekotasunaren» zaleei) [...].

[...] egia esan, zilegi balitz Morvanek bezala edozein euskal hitz munduko beste edozeinekin erkatu (ze asmorekin?) eta gainerakoetan «obscur» bat ezarriaz azterketa filologiko eta linguistikoaren bideak urratu ere ez egitea, orduan edozeinek egin ahalko luke asteburu batean euskal hiztegi etimologiko bat, baita munduan den (edo inoiz izan ez den) beste zeinahi hizkuntza eta aitzin hizkuntzarena ere.

Bidenabar, Morvanek (1992a-b, 1997, etab.) zernahi ere dioen, berezilariek aspalditik ez dute sinisten familia uraloaltaikoan (ikus Campbell 1998), ezta makro-altaikoan (koreera eta japoniera barne) nahiz mikro-altaikoan ere (mongoliera, turkiera, mantxuriera eta horietariko bakoitzaren kideak «soilik») [...].

Regarding the comparative linguistics of the Basque language, Orpustan is not one of the members of that core of Basque linguists, either. --Xabier Armendaritz^(talk) 07:24, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for that post, Xabier, very nicely put. :) Sadly, as we know, being an academic (even a professor) does not protect against flights of fancy which are far, far from hard science, remember Antonio Arnaiz-Villena? Akerbeltz (talk) 10:44, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Kaixo Akerbeltz! I guess from the previous talks that it is you that wanted to remove "Michel Morvan: Noms de lieux du Pays basque et de Gascogne (Bonneton, 2004)" from the esperanto article "Eŭska toponimio". Well, I could see that in the french source "Toponymie basque" it still remained unchanged. For that reason, I could not decide whether it was right or wrong to approve this removal and I left the esperanto article unchanged, i.e. I disapproved the change until further notice. --89.224.174.28 (talk) 14:07, 4 June 2012 (UTC) (Dominik)

Kaixo Dominik. Kiel vi fartas? That's not a good reason to leave it there. In essence, it's junk but he's managed to plaster himself across so many pages that I simply haven't manage to purge them all. I'll get down to the French page eventually. In the meantime, I'd suggest you approve the deletion or alternatively, if it makes you happier, I can delete them both at the same time. Akerbeltz (talk) 16:43, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, please delete both at the same time. As I have nothing against that man, it would seem odd I remove his book. --89.224.174.28 (talk) 01:00, 5 June 2012 (UTC) (Dominik)

Will do. I don't have anything against the man either, he's probably decent human being, it's just his "linguistic" stuff is junk. Akerbeltz (talk) 01:01, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

@ Xabier Armendaritz,

Firstly, you did not read my article. Secondly, discarding Euskaltzaina Jean-Baptiste Orpustan because he is not in the core of Euskaltzaindia, bothers me deeply. Trying to discard John to discredit Paul's argument is infinitely collegial. Who's next? Thirdly, I want to remind you if you have a Ph.D. like Michel Morvan, that methodology and the seriousness of a research can be excellent and having the result of studies criticized are two different things that you have amalgamated.

And about J. Lakarra, if you want me to play this little game, I can also kill the messenger. What kind of credibility I have to give to J. Lakarra when I read this. None! But who am I to judge someone? Am I a vindicator on Wiki? Not at all, I'm probably the devil's advocate.

I will not defend his work here and I'll never do. But when, in his approach, is backed and has the support of many linguists like Jean Haritxelhar Duhalde (who was just a Euskaltzainburua), I am wondering why are you so vindicator to do so. Will you guys delete all paleolinguists from Wiki? And who are you to say that his work is junk when many linguists support him? (@ Akerbeltz) Did you spend hundreds hours on Michel Morvan's research? ...... Well, this conversation is not constructive at all.

OK now, let's be more constructive. I'm in touch with Jean-Baptiste Orpustan on this matter and also with some people from UMR 5478 CNRS/IKER. Here is an answer.

XXX (my name),

Je crois que je vais vous expliquer le fin mot de la "censure" sur M. Morvan qui est de la pire espèce en domaine scientifique (même si la linguistique historique, basque ou autre, n'est pas une science "dure"), celle des "se croyant savants" voulant interdire aux autres le domaine scientifique. Les travaux de recherche de comparatisme linguistique de M. Morvan sont à peu près uniques dans leur genre par l'étendue des comparaisons et le nombre incroyable de résultats convaincants obtenus: voir sur son site son Etymologie du basque. Il faut donc, si vous le pouvez, écarter ceux qui sont les "censeurs", et laisser toute leur place aux découvertes - il faut les appeler ainsi - de M. Morvan. J'ai du reste, en plus de sa thèse qui a marqué un point de départ dans ce domaine depuis largement dépassé par lui-même, longtemps correspondu à ce sujet avec lui. Vous trouverez le résultat sur mon site (www.tipirena.net), et aussi un texte sur l'affaire des recherches archéologiques de Veleia-Iruña en Alava, qui ont été interrompues dans des conditions incroyables par une intervention de "savants locaux" (je suppose que la censure vient des mêmes eaux), qui ont été par ailleurs diversement ridiculisés. Je souhaite que vous parveniez au bon résultat, et que vous m'en informiez, vous remerciant d'avance. Vous pouvez si vous le voulez faire état de cette réponse, telle quelle. Avec mes salutations.

J.-B. Orpustan

Sorry, I wish you understand some subtleties of the French language. And if you have any questions addressed to him, I can write to him and translate into French for you. ---- Zorion ^blabla 17:58, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry but Orpustan is hardly a neutral authority to ask, he was Morvan's directeur de thèse - he's hardly going to rubbish him now, is he? Have you actually read any of Morvan's proposed "theories"? Trying to tie ukondo to Hadza, a Khoisan language, while in the same breath tying bizar to Dravidian and gotor to Albanian? This flies so straight in the face of everything mainstream about the relationships of languages and language familier it's ludicrous. If you believe him, the Basques must habe been some ancient branch of Borg racing round the planet to assimilate words. Akerbeltz (talk) 20:30, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Please Akerbeltz, don't waste my time with Michel Morvan's research. I'm not a paleolinguist and you are not, I'm also not interested in the subject. I don't know Michel Morvan and I repeat for the last time that I will not defend his research here and I'll never do. The only reason I came here is because, not like Merritt Ruhlen, Michel Morvan has many notorious linguists who support him, especially in Iparralde. That's my point.

Will you try to discard Jacques Allières for what he wrote, Hector Iglesias for blasting J. Lakarra, Jean Haritxelhar for his support...etc. And no comment for what Opurstan says? I brought you some inside informations, and the only comment is Orpustan is hardly a neutral authority to ask. You play the same game as Xabier Armendaritz now, which is trying to discard John to discredit Paul's argument. Thank you ! -- Zorion ^blabla 22:50, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

It's generally dangerous to assume what people do and don't know who edit Wikipedia. But the fact that you openly admit to not having any interest in the subject would suggest you're not the best person to judge the academic merits of a piece of linguistic research. I think you didn't mean to use "notorious" but it actually fits quite well ;)

I'm currently not interested in Allières, or whatever spat may be going on between Lakarra and Iglesias. What I am interested in is preventing an author who pushes material which so blatantly fails the benchmarks of historical linguistics and Wikipedia on reliable source from using Wikipedia to push his junk.

And I'm not playing a game. Questioning the relationship between two parties who appear to be supporting each other is perfectly legitimate. If two board members of Bankia start backing each other up about some ludicrous claim they're making, will you question whether their relationship makes them objective about each other or not? I would sincerely hope that you would... so my question is in order. Akerbeltz (talk) 23:01, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

This is not generally dangerous to assume that there is one chance on 100 million that you're not paleolinguist, and I have never questioning your knowledge by the way. I don't have to be interested on that subject to tell you that your pseudo-judgment (pseudo science, junk), right or wrong, has no value, unless you're undercover and you wrote a paper in a scientific review on that subject. Only linguists have authority here, and their edited criticisms (positive or negative) on this matter should be taken into account. That's it. About the second point, you might be right, collusion is possible. -- Zorion ^blabla 13:54, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Zorion. I don't understand what do you mean when you say "discarding Euskaltzaina Jean-Baptiste Orpustan because he is not in the core of Euskaltzaindia, bothers me deeply". Who has done such an action? I only wrote that, regarding comparative linguistics of the Basque language, Orpustan is not an authority — so his opinion is not of any help in this matter. And I'll add that Lakarra is the maximum authority in that field nowadays. And that's not because he is member of Euskaltzaindia, but the other way round: he is member of Euskaltzaindia because of his valuable works reconstructing the pre-historic Basque language. So if Lakarra says that Morvan's works are not to be considered as well-founded, that should be taken into account. --Xabier Armendaritz^(talk) 23:44, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

This is a constructive answer. There was a kind of "misunderstanding", an imbroglio with Euskaltzaindia. I agree with you. What Lakarra says has to be taken into account. But even if I discard Orpustan who is lexicographer, linguist in historical linguistics, literature and onomastic specialist, other linguists are in favour of Morvan's research. In science, and I assume that you know that, there is not normally discussion in terms of scientific competence: the literature and credentials have always been enough.

And when I see this, I don't think this is pseudo-science, there are many toponyms with Aquitanian substrat (Rohlf's linguistic map (1970)) along the Garonne, so this hypothese doesn't seem farfetched. Moreover, at the end of the world, it can be questioned and Lakarra mentioned.

OK, I'm done with this, I hope you two would not be so impartial and shall exercise judgment to some assertion of Michel Morvan. -- Zorion ^blabla 13:54, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

English Grammar

Hello Akerbeltz. Could you please explain to me why do you maintain that Getaria txakoli is not English grammar? What about Rioja wine, Bordeaux wine, Burgundy wine, Champagne wine, Loire wine, Mosel wine, Ribera del Duero wine...?. Respect to the source of the year 1989 for the first DO (Getaria), you just have to read the article in the Wikipedia to find the source (10) and the provided link (Getaria Txakoli Board) that confirm this year. 1994 is the year of the DO in Biscay. Unless you provide better sources, could you redo my changes, please? Best wishes.--Txakolingorri (talk) 10:34, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't realise that Getaria was in 1989, my source only had the 1994 date, I'll change that. Regarding the syntax, I suspect that it's some attempt at dabbing the pages, perhaps in preference to Burgundy (wine) but if you look around you'll see that in native English, that's not a natural, or at least not a common way of describing a wine. You normally either drink "Burgundy" or "Wine from Burgundy" but in all my experience I have never heard a native say "drinking Burgundy wine". As my experience is not necessarily authoritative, I did some checks on Google which seem to back up my personal impression. Akerbeltz (talk) 12:48, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

NB if you follow Rioja wine, you land on Rioja (wine), Champagne wine goes to Champagne, Loire wine to Loire Valley (wine), Mosel wine to Mosel (wine region) and you're cheating with Ribera del Duero :) Overall I'd say that the approach is slightly inconsistent but points towards (wine) being a dab on the English wiki, whether in brackets or not. Akerbeltz (talk) 12:59, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

If you follow Rioja wine, you land on Rioja (wine), where you find the following sentences:

The King of Navarra and Aragon gave the first legal recognition of Rioja wine in 1102.

The three principal regions of La Rioja are Rioja Alavesa, Rioja Alta and Rioja Baja with each area producing its own unique expression of Rioja wine.

Champagne wine goes to Champagne, where you find these sentences:

Champagne wine was served as part of coronation festivities.

Contrary to legend and popular belief, Dom Pérignon did not invent sparkling wine, but he did make important contributions to the production and quality of Champagne wine.

If you follow Ribera del Duero, you find:

Ribera del Duero wine making goes back over 2,000 years as evidenced by the 66-meter mosaic of Bacchus, the god of wine that was unearthed relatively recently at Baños de Valdearados.

In Mosel (wine region) you find:

The Mosel wine of the Roman period was described as light bodied and "austere".

And so on. I checked on Google too and it seems to confirm this point. Could you cite your verifiable sources to maintain that "Txakoli from Getaria" is more correct English than "Getaria txakoli", please?.--Txakolingorri (talk) 09:37, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Mosel wine is an unusual case for starters because there's very likely interference from the German name, Moselwein. And you parsed the Ribera sentence wrong, it's (Ribera del Duero) (wine making). It's clearly not impossible to form a compound like "Burgundy wine". Mind you, I've had another shufty around and forms like "Valencia/Catalonia wines" do seem to outnumber "Valencian/Catalan wines" in spite of the odd quality to the grammar. Perhaps we're dealing with an established practice which just feels mildly ungrammatical. I still feel that given the relative unfamiliarity of the Basque provinces, we'd be better sticking with "from" but if you insist, I shan't argue any longer :) Akerbeltz (talk) 10:38, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Zipota

Hi - you contested my PROD for Zipota convincingly enough that I let it lie but it seemed it was just PROD'd again. I submitted it to AfD to build consensus and if passed to maybe get a measure of protection.Peter Rehse (talk) 09:35, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit Summary

Hi, I like a laugh, but things like this are uncalled for, even if the editor is a vandal. Please familiarise yourself with WP:CIV. Thank you.--Chip123456 (talk) 19:14, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Gee... I think that sums up Wikipedia's big problem neatly. You patrol pages against vandal strikes which come time and again and you have to go begging for vandal blocks and page protections, waiting until you're blue in the face but the moment you vent a bit, you get pulled up by someone on grounds of civility. Block me if you want but I suggest you look at my edit history and the other chap's history and ask yourself whom you'd rather lose off the project. I'm honestly getting to the stage where I don't care either way, as I'm editing less and less on the English Wikipedia for exactly those reasons. Akerbeltz (talk) 19:58, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

I can totally understand your frustration (the tennis match is a bit hit and miss as well ;)), it is annoying when vandals persist. May I suggest, if you do vandalism reverts on a regular, daily basis that you apply for RB rights. It's quick and it doesn't require for you to use an edit summary. Further info is at WP:RBK. Or you can join WP:CVUA.--Chip123456 (talk) 20:07, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks but in a way, that doesn't change the rules of the game. Even with RB, the English Wikipedia is still a free-for-all for vandals, or in other terms, vandals are still making us waste time because the Wiki admins are too dozy to implement any meaningful measures against vandalism. As such, I regard my mini-rants are justifiable ... feedback to people who lose any right to respect by adding stuff like that. Until such time as we get better protection against drive by vandalism, I shall continue doing what I'm doing. Akerbeltz (talk) 21:12, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

What you need to realise how many non-admin editors there are compare to users with the extra tools. Admins can't be here, there and everywhere. I understand your frustration. Please do, as you said carry on reverting vandalism, but in the edit summary just place 'rm vandalism'. Some advice to you would be to install Twinkle to revert, warn and report. It's easy to use, and saves time rather than doing manual reverts. --Chip123456 (talk) 09:44, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not buying the excuse "we can't be everywhere". I mean, sure, I know folk can't but it's still an excuse because the system could be changed. The German Wiki has implemented a feature whereby edits have to be ok'd by another editor before they're visible which seems to work quite well. So it clearly can be done. Thanks for all your suggestions, but I shall continue as I was. If that gets me booted off Wikipedia, then it was probably time the English Wikipedia and I parted ways because I don't think that a project which penalizes "good guys" for getting a little even with the "bad guys" without giving meaningful support/structures against vandalism has sufficient philosophical common ground with me. Because in the end, whether it's rollback, Twinkle or ice cream scoops, the underlying problem remains - the system is making a minority chase after a majority of people hellbent on adding comments about genitals. Akerbeltz (talk) 10:09, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Ok, well you can try out other things on wiki, not just vandalism reverts. Try WP:AFD, WP:NPP, WP:GAN, WP:DYK. By 'continue as I was', please do continue to revert vandalism, but with an appropriate edit summary. He won anyway! :) --Chip123456 (talk) 10:54, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Issues in article Reconquista

Kaixo Akerbeltz, zer moduz doa uda? I wish I wasn´t drawing your attention because of this, I am having a dispute with one breaching edition rules and pushing his point of view (basically a not a contributor but a vandal). You may want to take a look, and intervene, which will be much appreciated. Agur bero bat Iñaki LL (talk) 14:37, 15 August 2012 (UTC)