Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:02, 5 March 2009

Barnstars The Barnstar of Diligence I, Agnistus award this Barnstar to Kwami for his invaluable contributions to the Origin of hangul article. The Anti-Flame Barnstar I think you deserve a golden fire extinguisher for helping me deal with that misguided revolutionary Serendious 10:47, 27 June 2008 (UTC) The Graphic Designer's Barnstar For your wonderful moon mass charts, I offer the Graphic designer's barnstar. Serendious 12:24, 5 September 2008 (UTC) The Original Barnstar For transforming Rongorongo from a sketchy, unhelpful mess into a tightly organized family of articles covering the entire Rongorongo corpus in a manner both scholarly and accessible, I award you this Barnstar. May it bring you much mana! Fishal (talk) 02:10, 11 September 2008 (UTC) The Working Man's Barnstar For getting all the EL61 links changed to Haumea (dwarf planet), I think you deserve the working man's barnstar. Must have been tedious as heck. Serendious 09:40, 19 September 2008 (UTC) The Original Barnstar Presented for your creation of the Malagasy IPA pages and your tireless transcription efforts. Thank you! Lemurbaby (talk) 11:44, 19 November 2010 (UTC) The Graphic Designer's Barnstar For your contributions to File:IPA chart 2005.png (better seen in the English Misplaced Pages logs since the move to Commons). In taking linguistics courses as an undergraduate, having a printout-size and easy-to-find IPA reference was indispensable. I will probably be finding printouts of this file mixed in with my college papers for decades to come; that's just how often I used it. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 22:31, 7 December 2010 (UTC) The Tireless Contributor Barnstar I, Stevey7788, hereby present you the Tireless Contributor Barnstar for your tremendously prolific work on languages and linguistics. Excellent articles, wonderful images, and impressive contributions overall! — Stevey7788 (talk) 23:17, 12 December 2010 (UTC) The Editor's Barnstar For your continued good work in articles on languages. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 00:55, 27 July 2011 (UTC) The Teamwork Barnstar I hope the script story will have a happy end :-) Bogdan Nagachop (talk) 21:47, 3 August 2011 (UTC) The Original Barnstar Hi there, I noticed that you edited an article that I created (Chay Shegog) and edited the pronunciation. I am a Shegog myself. I'm not bothered about your change at all. The emphasis is how you wrote it so shi-GOG. I noticed that you have done some stuff related to American Indians on Misplaced Pages. Are you of Native American descent? I've done some research and there is some evidence to suggest that the name Shegog is taken from zhigaag (so like Chicago with two g's and no 'o') which means skunk in the Ojibwe language. But all Shegog's I know pronounce it with a short -og similar to dog. Thanks, Shegan AGirl1191 (talk) 04:16, 6 March 2012 (UTC) The Tireless Contributor Barnstar Thanks for your recent run of newly-created language articles, and for your efforts to improve the encyclopedia. Northamerica1000 17:28, 17 March 2012 (UTC) The Original Barnstar thank for contributing us... Liansanga (talk) 00:23, 8 June 2012 (UTC) The Admin's Barnstar For your past excellent service as Administrator, and a sad reminder that sometimes ARBCOM can blow it - big time. HammerFilmFan (talk) 01:33, 6 October 2012 (UTC) Guardian of Hamari Boli Most sincere gratitude for your invaluable contributions to Hindi-Urdu related articles on English Misplaced Pages. Forever indebted to you -and wikipedia of course- for telling it like it is.. Amazing how you never gave up and went thru all the troubles dealing with zealots. Bravo! You're one of the inspirations that led to the genesis of http://www.HamariBoli.com edge.walker (talk) 22:01, 11 August 2012 (UTC) The Instructor's Barnstar This Barnstar is awarded to Wikipedians who have performed stellar work in the area of instruction & help for other editors. For your contributions to the Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style and especially for your contributions to Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Text formatting. Moreover, in providing examples of how to implemented the Manual in text editing and your great cooperation with me! Magioladitis (talk) 22:54, 9 November 2012 (UTC) The Resilient Barnstar For your WP rules following Saraikistan (talk) 18:41, 4 January 2013 (UTC) The Barnstar of Diligence For your linguistic contributions. We will carry on this professional discussion later because I will be off now. Regards Maria0333 (talk) 07:59, 7 February 2013 (UTC) The Original Barnstar For all-round good work, but especially this edit. Keep it up! Green Giant (talk) 09:12, 8 January 2014 (UTC) All Around Amazing Barnstar Dear Kwamikagami, thank you for all of your amazing contributions to language related articles. Your contributions are making a difference here on Misplaced Pages! Keep up the good work! With regards, Anupam 21:25, 9 April 2014 (UTC) The LGBT Barnstar For your work over at Public opinion of same-sex marriage in the United States, the article looks vastly improved and I am happy to see there was an agreement made on the results. =) Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:46, 25 April 2014 (UTC) The Brilliant Idea Barnstar Good job Sit1101 (talk) 01:53, 30 December 2014 (UTC) The Multiple Barnstar These are just some barnstars for some of the many amazing things you do here on Misplaced Pages, I don't know what this site would do without you. Abrahamic Faiths (talk) 21:06, 27 April 2015 (UTC) The Original Barnstar For working to help close RfCs and reduce the backlog. Wugapodes (talk) 00:54, 5 August 2015 (UTC) The Tireless Contributor Barnstar For great, expeditious and lynx-eyed reviewing and correction of all Aboriginal articles,Nishidani (talk) 16:37, 14 February 2019 (UTC) The Papua New Guinean Barnstar of National Merit Thank you for your many years of tireless work on articles of Papuan languages! Here's something to add to your long list of barnstars. (Although admittedly, this is just for "East New Guinea Highlands languages" and other Papuan languages on the eastern half of the island.) — Sagotreespirit () 09:56, 20 April 2020 (UTC) The Original Barnstar Because you do an incredible amount of good work, and I am more or less in awe at how much you know. Also, I think you do not have enough barnstars. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 05:06, 22 August 2020 (UTC) The Special Barnstar For creating the Tyap language article. Thanks! Kambai Akau (talk) 20:22, 14 September 2020 (UTC) The Mathematics Barnstar For getting Kaktovik numerals to good article status. Thank you Akrasia25 (talk) 18:22, 6 March 2021 (UTC) The Reviewers Award By the authority vested in me by myself it gives me great pleasure to present you with this award in recognition of the thorough, detailed and actionable reviews you have carried out at FAC. This work is very much appreciated. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:33, 18 September 2021 (UTC) The Editor's Barnstar Thanks for your tireless editing and ability to recognize the nuance most miss, do not understand, or fail to research regarding parliamentary law vis-à-vis a supreme court’s jurisdiction specially regarding Nepal Quaerens-veritatem (talk) 06:10, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
On 6 June 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Tambora language, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Tambora, a Papuan language, was once spoken among unrelated languages in the middle of Indonesia near Bali, far to the west of Papua, until the trading state that used it was wiped out by the eruption of Mount Tambora in 1815? (check page views, quick check)
The colubrid Telescopus semiannulatus in an acacia, central Tanzania.	Archives 2004 Aug – 2005 Nov 2005 Dec – 2006 Jan 2006 Feb–May 2006 Jun – 2007 Dec 2008 Jan–Sep 2008 Oct–Dec 2009 Jan–Mar 2009 Apr–Aug 2009 Sep – 2010 Mar 2010 Apr 2010 May–Sep 2010 Oct–Dec 2011 Jan–May 2011 Jun–Aug 2011 Sep–Dec 2012 Jan–Apr 2012 May–Jul 2012 Jul–Sep 2012 Oct–Dec 2013 Jan–Mar 2013 Mar–Jun 2013 Jul–Sep 2013 Oct–Dec 2014 Jan–Mar 2014 Apr–Dec 2015 Jan–Jun 2015 Jul–Dec 2016 Jan – 2018 Jun 2018 Jul – 2019 Jun 2019 Jun – 2020 2021 2022 2023 most recent (automated)	This user is one of the 40 most active English Wikipedians of all time. This user is a former administrator on the English Misplaced Pages (verify). Quotes: Only an evil person would eat baby soup. To shew that there is no tautology, no vain repetition of one and the same thing therein. In this country we treat our broads with respect. Words of the day: anti-zombie-fungus fungus

Swahili Country List

I don't mean to be overly argumentative on the Swahili language page about the countries in the infobox, but I'm doing a very restrictive read on the sources. User:Middayexpress is on a rampage on the Arabic language page and keeps citing Oman and UAE on the Swahili language page as "evidence" for why there should be a long list of countries on the Arabic language page. He's not arguing the Arabic language issues at all, but focusing on the Swahili language page. I don't want him to have one drop of fuel for his tirade on the Arabic language page based on an overly broad list of countries on the Swahili language page. I'm sticking very tightly to the references in this case. It's nothing personal with you, I assure you. (Taivo (talk) 08:27, 2 January 2009 (UTC))

The language map covers Congo and Comoro Swahili, so the country list should as well. We should also exclude South Africa if we exclude other immigrant communities. kwami (talk) 08:30, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, I'll remove South Africa even though Ethnologue specifically includes it. But the Comoros distribution of non-Comorian Swahili is covered by Mayotte. (Taivo (talk) 08:34, 2 January 2009 (UTC))

You say that like it's unreasonable. What, we have one stupid editor, so we should all sink to his level? Ethnologue specifically mentions the US, Oman, and the UAE as well, and ELL2 specifically mentions the UK and "many Western countries". kwami (talk) 08:39, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

It's not unreasonable. Sorry if it sounded that way. Ethnologue has two levels of reference to countries where languages are spoken--primary and secondary I'll call them. The primary level is where a language has a detailed entry in a country's chapter. That is the case for Tanzania, Kenya, Uganda, Burundi, South Africa, Mayotte, Mozambique, and Somalia for Swahili. The secondary level is where within a detailed entry for a language in one country's chapter (in this case, Tanzania), it tangentially mentions a list of "other countries" where the language is spoken. This list contains no details of the speech community in those countries and does not always match the country chapters in which the language actually has a detailed entry. Thus, in the chapters for Oman, UAE, and USA there is no entry for Swahili. The only mention of these countries in reference to Swahili is in the detailed Tanzania entry for Swahili. These secondary lists are fundamentally less reliable than the primary references to languages. I did not include ELL2 in the list of cited references since I don't have a copy of it and did not refer to it. I have looked at the entries for the other references I included since I own all of them. Personally, I am a little uncomfortable with listing every country in the "diaspora". The question always arises as to how many speakers need to live in a country before we list it in a country list? My wife speaks Russian, but do we really want to start listing the USA as one of the countries where Russian is spoken? Perhaps we need to initiate a discussion on the Language Infobox page about exactly how to determine what countries go in this box. This was all precipitated by an edit war I was observing on the Arabic language page between someone including Malta and someone removing it. Rather than let the edit war continue, I used the "Region" option in the Language infobox to remove the two dozen country names and replace them with "Middle East and North Africa". That's when Middayexpress started reverting and talking about the Swahili page. (Taivo (talk) 08:50, 2 January 2009 (UTC))

I agree that it would be silly to list every country where a speaker happens to have immigrated. However, I don't think it's appropriate to blindly follow Ethnologue, even to prove a point to some POV pusher. Swahili has an entry under Mayotte and South Africa, but it's spoken by immigrant communities in those countries, just as it is in the US and UK. At least, Ethnologue states that explicitly for South Africa, and ELL2 makes no mention of Swahili in Mayotte, despite two paragraphs discussing how immigrants from the Comoros have influenced the speech of various villages around Mayotte. Ethnologue does not have consistent coverage between countries. kwami (talk) 09:03, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Mayotte can go, too. I have reported Middayexpress under 3RR for Arabic language. Should I continue to revert him or just leave it? (Taivo (talk) 09:18, 2 January 2009 (UTC))

Don't give him legitimate reason to complain. I'll do it. kwami (talk) 09:20, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Once again, sorry for when I sound like a grumpy old geezer. I'm really a swell guy :) (Well, sometimes I really am a grumpy old geezer.) (Taivo (talk) 09:31, 2 January 2009 (UTC))

Hey, I'm amazed what an a-hole I become on Misplaced Pages sometimes. I can't fault you for mere grumpiness. kwami (talk) 09:36, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Gents, thank you for taking part in the Arabic discussion, and your contribution to a rationale resolution.(collounsbury (talk) 11:57, 2 January 2009 (UTC))

Other languages

For the following, are they diacritics or letters, because i see blank boxes, and how do enable them?

In addition, diacritics were used to create new letters for Min-nan and Hakka.

*These are the "muddy" initials found in Minnan and Wu dialects.

See Taiwanese for the two additional tone marks required to write these languages.

and can you identify the sound values for the extended one for Min-nan and hakka, they are really confusing

• Unicode reference glyphs for Template:PDFlink & Template:PDFlink

Reading in columns, top to bottom then left to right, these are in the order of the Unicode chart, 31a0 top left, 31b7 bottom left. You may only need an extended zhuyin font.

The sound values already are identified. Which specifically are you having trouble with? kwami (talk) 19:46, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

i was acually asking for IPA, sorry for being late.

and the IPA for this too.

Relexification

There's an anonymous IP user trying to delete cross-references at Relexification. He's not talking on the Talk page and has no justification for removing the cross references. (Taivo (talk) 14:21, 4 January 2009 (UTC))

Incorrect. I discussed on the talk page, and lastly a sufficiently detailed analysis in my edit summary. 78.144.204.247 (talk) 14:28, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

It's interesting that this anonymous IP got to your Talk page so quickly after I reported this to you. Read his comments and edit summaries and you will see that this is something more than just an Anonymous IP trying to "play around" in Misplaced Pages. I'm not sure what his agenda is, but it is clearly not directed at improving Misplaced Pages. He seems to be a Misplaced Pages lawyer. I suspect that there is some kind of underlying agenda to reinsert the Mixed Language argument back into the Maltese language page. The relexification page is where some of the Maltese sockpuppets were playing around at one point. (Taivo (talk) 15:12, 4 January 2009 (UTC))

Misplaced Pages lawyer? Ha, that's a new one, although yes, I would agree it seems as though I have far more grasp of the rules than yourself. I got here by following your contributions - what amazement. 78.144.204.247 (talk) 15:21, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, there was an earlier sock puppet running riot on the Relexification page with the anon IP of 78.149.... I wonder if this 78.144.... might be related? One of the anon IPs trying to make Maltese not of Arabic descent on the varieties of Arabic page was 78.147.... I think I'm seeing the pattern. (Taivo (talk) 15:23, 4 January 2009 (UTC))

It's a London IP. The Maltese socks are in London and Malta. kwami (talk) 20:22, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

re: bansiot

Hi, I'm afraid I don't know much about obsolete Hangul jamo and I don't know anybody knowledgeable in the subject either. Sorry! --Kjoonlee 12:46, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: Traditional English Pronunciation of Latin

Currently in North America there is epidemic shortening of "A" long in open penult such as first syllable of DATA and in anatomical and taxonomic terms. Is there any evidence when this began, or did the prescribed traditional pronunciation always differ from usage in this respect? Should this be mentioned in the History section?

Thank you.

Steamer405 (talk) 21:13, 6 January 2009 (UTC) 2009 January 06

I didn't write that article (just moved it from a sandbox), and have no idea when this might have occurred. It should be mentioned somewhere, I think, since it's rather noticeable. Is glacier a counterexample, or is the a counted as an antepenult in RP?

Is it just a that this happens with? I seem to remember it with other vowels, though nothing comes to mind. (Pedant for example seems to have shortened both sides of the lake. Pomade, maybe?, though that could be due to lack of stress.) kwami (talk) 21:39, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Webster's third edition contains more a shortening than the second edition, so this may qualify as a recent phenomenon; I added a note on the page in the History section. Glacier would appear to be antepenult. As to other vowels, I ran a word list through www.morewords.com which allows search by syllable. I don't notice the same prevalence of shortening with other vowels in that position: albedo, aroma, saliva, etc. Steamer405 (talk) 23:17, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Kosciusko

An informal survey on the Internet tells me that Australians pronounce Mt Kosciuszko as /kozzy-OSS-koh/, and where I grew up in Massachusetts there was a street by that name and it was pronounced /koss-key-OOS-koh/. A google search reveals yet more possible pronunciations, such as /kozzy-ESS-koh/ for Mississippi (sorry, typing Misplaced Pages standard IPA is a hassle). I would say that this name probably does belong on the list, in fact if anything it deserves to be listed at least twice (for Australia and Mississippi; I think the pronunciation I grew up with is confined to that one little neighborhood). If it's okay with you I'll go ahead and add it back into the article, this time with proper formatting. (Or if you'd rather do it yourself that'd be good too.) Soap /_{Contributions} 02:24, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry, go ahead. Without the pronunciation, I thought maybe this was a tennis player with a foreign but perfectly predictable name. kwami (talk) 02:27, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Uh... no

Hanja, Kanji, and Hanzi should be capitalized because they are proper nouns. moocowsrule 00:45, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

They are not proper nouns in English. Check a dictionary. (Not many will have hanzi or hanja, though they are not capitalized in what I've found, but kanji is ubiquitous, and never capitalized.) kwami (talk) 07:32, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Your edits to a commonly used template

Please do not move templates which are used, and not transcluded, on many pages, as this will actually cause a great deal of disruption. Please only move templates after you have gained consensus to do so.— Dædαlus_{Respond on my talk please} 09:30, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Such as? kwami (talk) 07:34, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Do you mean {{EnPR}}? That's only used on a few pages. There was no apparent disruption that I could see when I moved it to a more accurate name. kwami (talk) 07:43, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Linear B

Kwami, we really need to have some people overseeing what an enthusiastic editor is doing over at Linear B. He's not working within the usual constraints of our Writing Systems projects. -- Evertype·✆ 11:01, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Remind me if I don't get to it in a couple days. Bit preoccupied right now. kwami (talk) 07:35, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Nudge. -- Evertype·✆ 09:05, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Looks like things are okay now. Let me know if I'm missing something. kwami (talk) 19:40, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

typeable Stokoe notation

I found Stokoe notation among references to my ASCII-Stokoe notation. Looking at that page, I was startled by the uncredited proposal described there for a typeable ASCII version. Is it yours? Please see Talk:Stokoe_notation#ASCII_typeable_equivalent. --Thnidu (talk) 19:45, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

As above, will try getting to it in a couple days. kwami (talk) 07:43, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Probably shouldn't have an ASCII version at all. kwami (talk) 17:37, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:ANI notice

FYI, there is a discussion about your editing at Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Kwamikagami. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:00, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Commons

Bonjour,

Can you load your file to Commons, I don't know how to do. Thanks.

Budelberger (talk) 20:48, 17 January 2009 (UTC) ().

I don't understand. You did load it at Commons. kwami (talk) 06:17, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Using ɹ

When I skimmed through some dinosaur pages, I noticed that you keep on using r, which represents the "rolled" r, but you should, from now on, use ɹ. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bugboy52.40 (talk • contribs) 03:19, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

No, we should use Template:IPAlink-en. Follow the link. kwami (talk) 06:01, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

But take a look at the chart, it clearly makes the distinction between the alveolar approximant, ɹ, and the alveolar trill, r, which is represented by the spanish rr dipthong. Bugboy52.40 (talk) 19:29, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

in brackets is a trill. /r/ in slashes is not necessarily anything. It could be a vowel if we wanted. We've defined to be the r of run, which is pretty standard for IPA transcriptions of English (Ladefoged, the OED, etc etc). It's the same thing for other symbols. Take your second-last edit, Acrocanthosaurus. We have it Template:Pron-en, but you could take issue with almost every letter. For instance, you could argue the first vowel is /a/, not /æ/, that the oes are /ɵ/, not /ə/, that the cees are /kʰ/, not /k/, and that the au is /ɔ/, not /ɔː/. The symbols we chose are semi-arbitrary conventions. The ar is no different apart from being more salient to some ears. kwami (talk) 20:34, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Stop Amending

Was;
The influence of the seven-days of creation in Genesis was the birth of the continuous seven-day week. But it is claimed by many that Genesis originated from Mesopotamian mythology. ion according to Genesis therefore it's likely it was an evolution of the Sumerian seven-day week.

Your edit (twice)
The seven days of creation in Genesis are popularly credited with the birth of the seven-day week. However, this Genesis creation myth may have originated in Mesopotamian mythology Creation according to Genesis and the week is a continuation of the Sumerian seven-day week.
It's not a continuation of the Sumerian seven-day week is it?! Their week is 4 x 7 plus a day or 2. That's why I stated 'CONTINUOUS' which you have deleted. It's unknown what was used before 586BCE it could have been either. There's a big gap between the two systems. So please stop amending it or add some cites to back up your amendment.--Pnb73 (talk) 08:07, 19 January 2009 (UTC) --Pnb73 (talk) 08:07, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Then you need to explain what you mean. It wasn't at all clear what you were saying. And if you're going to claim that we developed a continuous week because of the Genesis account—that this is known and not just assumed,—then you need some references yourself. kwami (talk) 09:35, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I did, if you had taken the time to read the words after "....evolution of the Sumerian seven-day week. " there's a section titled Sumerians . Quite a clue really, you would have understood if you'd read it.
Because that section was titled Jews. It made sense to explain the Sumerian Week within the Sumerian section. Directly below it...
There are references!!!!
The earliest evidence of continuous seven-day week can be attributed to the Jews in 586BCE during the Babylonian Captivity
Apologies if the is too small. Should I put this in bold or a large font for your benefit?
All of this time wasting could have been avoided if you read the feckin' thing. Shall I undo or will you... --Pnb73 (talk) 10:25, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

It's conventional to explain things as we go along, and not expect the reader to keep potential contradictions in mind in case they're resolved later in the article. Silly, I know. kwami (talk) 10:46, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, would you be happy if I added after ...evolution of the Sumerian seven-day week?

to enlighten those who cannot be bothered to read the next section? --Pnb73 (talk) 11:29, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Do you need instruction from me on how to edit a coherent article? It's not a matter of being bothered, it's a matter of things making sense as they're presented. This isn't a mystery novel. Personally I'd either quickly summarize the point, or rearrange the sections into a more logical order. Or you could go with your facetious suggestion. Your choice. kwami (talk) 11:34, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Now Commons

File:DP masses.png, an image uploaded to Misplaced Pages from this account in October 2008, is now File:Dwarf planet masses.png (Commons:File:Dwarf planet masses.png). — Athaenara ✉ 20:41, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

That works. Thanks for letting me know. kwami (talk) 20:50, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Japanese Parent systems

Hello,

It would be nice if you would care about the "Parent systems" tree consistency in Kana Hiragana Katakana Japanese_writing_system Kanji and maybe add the whole template to Hentaigana Furigana Okurigana Man'yōgana.

I wrote you because I saw that you wrote "Kanji is not a script" which I never thought about and than later said "Hm,right!". I still thing since todays Kanji have a diff. stroke order and new jap. only Kanji it can today be considert a script of its own. However these trees display a Historical development and durring that time Kanji was just Chinese.

Anyway , my english is not that good ,I lack knowledge about the whole thing and I allready made some errors (i studied no linguistics ^^) so I hope you can find the time to take over the disscussion Talk:Japanese_writing_system#Parent_systems and keep the trees save :P

The biggest problem IMO is that people constantly try to put "Chinese character" in the tree... And that Kanji was in many of em ...

One big problem is that all Chinese related articles have "Chinese character" at the top (see Chữ_Nôm and Simplified_Chinese_character,Traditional_Chinese_character) most likely because one fail edit ... The tree is a display of development and should not contain this as root. Arabic_alphabet (a.o.) does contain a specific script as well at the top and not some article that talks about the whole development displayed in the tree. All the tree elements are using oracle bone script as root (not changed by me) and are very consistent ... someone did fail edit the "chinese" into the root a long time ago ...

PS: You will see I added "Regular script (Kanji)" ; Which was done only to prevent edits that will put Kanji back in ... do as you like ^^! PPS: I also want you to take over because I have a bad temper when people do something dump :(

Regards !79.192.230.96 (talk) 14:00, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Wow, if you have a worse temper than me, it must really be bad! ;)

I wouldn't put an development table in for furigana or okurigana, because they're uses of a script, not scripts themselves. But adding them for hentaigana and man'yougana is a good idea.

I removed the lineage from Japanese writing system, since it isn't a single script, and referred the reader to kanji and kana. kwami (talk) 19:44, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Because of your answer I said to myself - try to find your account and lose your bad temper instead ;)

I thank you much for your will to help me out and still hope you can keep an eye on the trees as I am just learning the language right now and as I said I have a bad temper and will not activly be here ... I would just get into word wars :)

As you saw I edited the Chinese ones for you as far as I found them.

As a last thing I wanted to ask you if you have an opinion of Kanji today being a script or not. Since you seem to know the "rules" ^^ Is my idea right that todays Kanji can be seen as a script (see above).

I wish you the best Moooitic (talk) 22:40, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, kanji is considered a script, even though it cannot be used on its own. Japanese is commonly said to have "three scripts". Same for hanja. However, I don't know if these are (or should be) considered distinct scripts from (traditional) hanzi, or if all three are better seen as different orthographies using a single script. I mean, is the French alphabet a different script from the English? (In handwriting, many of the letters have different forms.) I suppose the minor national variation between Japan, Korea, and Taiwan might be enough for people to think they're graphically distinct, even though there is probably greater variety in handwriting between individuals in any one country than there is difference between the countries. (Related question: is Cantonese honjih a different script from Mandarin hanzi?) I'd need to see the context to know how to answer that question, assuming that I can. kwami (talk) 23:52, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking the exact same thing (English = French) as I read your "Kanji is no script". I suppose you are right that stroke order and some jap. made Kanji (and some changes in meaning) are probably not enough to say its another script as other Han character scripts :)

Thanks for your time and words. As I don't know if we write us again I wish you the best. "log out" ;) Moooitic (talk) 03:16, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Old Hungarian

You'll note that I did request that discussion take place on the Talk page. -- Evertype·✆ 10:17, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I was just echoing you. kwami (talk) 10:17, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Yue Chinese/Standard Cantonese

Hi, some of the mass changes you made over these two days are incorrect. All Hong Kong/Macau should not be changed from Cantonese (linguistics) --> Yue Cantonese but rather to Standard Cantonese. Hopefully you can fix it up, thankyou. Dengero (talk) 13:19, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not making any changes of substance, only redirects. If they're incorrect now, they were incorrect to begin with, so I'll leave it to people like you who are working on the articles to fix em up. (It should now at least be more obvious that they're incorrect!) kwami (talk) 13:24, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Please note: there is no article for Yue Chinese - it's just a re-direct to the Cantonese article. It seems that the Cantonese (linguistics) article has also been turned into a re-direct to the same article.

As such, your changes to this effect make no positive difference - you've just exchanged one re-direct for another. Would it be possible for you to use the bot to change all instances of the piped link ] to simply ]?

Thanks. Gram123 (talk) 10:08, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it does make a positive difference in planning for Misplaced Pages. Cantonese has been a dab page several times in the past, and likely will be so again, as there is a suspended but open debate on this issue on several talk pages. Therefore, if we redirect links to Yue Chinese to Cantonese, they will all have to be updated if/when it becomes a dab again, and worse, someone will have to sort through a couple thousand articles to determine which should be redirected to Yue Chinese, Standard Cantonese, Cantonese people, etc. Better to keep things straight through unambiguous redirects. kwami (talk) 10:15, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Another advantage is that I saw hundreds of articles where the author probably thought they were linking to Standard Cantonese. The new redirect name makes the error more apparent, so hopefully these will be eventually corrected. kwami (talk) 01:28, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Swedish u and y

I will try to describe Swedish long u and y, but it is tricky - check if it works on somebody else :-). What I say only applies to the dialect I speak (mainstream Stockholm, which is essentially the one generally spoken in national broadcast media).

Start with Swedish long i , compare Swedish pip with English peep ; then in Swedish, the vowel position in the mouth is the same, but the tongue puts more pressure onto the roof of the mouth (the passage is narrower), though the airflow should still be smooth (no semblance of frication or trilling), that is, it has higher vowel height.

Now move to y: first say Swedish fira (haul, celebrate) and move it to fyra (four). Then I am convinced that the vowel point (backness) should be moved forward in the mouth, towards the tongue position of "s". Then I also think that the vowel point is the same for u, as in fura (pine). This is in fact opposite to what is shown in the diagram at

 http://en.wikipedia.org/Swedish_phonology#Vowels

Now to the lip positions: compare fira , fyra , fura and foga (join). Then the opening formed by the lips successively narrow, listing the opening width and height as follows (these can be measured using a transparent ruler in front of a mirror):

 word            width     height
 fira     3.5 cm    5 mm
 fyra     2.5 cm    5 mm
 fura     1.5 cm    2 mm
 foga     0.5 cm    2 mm

In all of these, except the last, there is no rounding of the opening - rather it should be as a horizontal bar. In the last one, the lips form a circular opening, but it may be due to the narrowing.

As for the pouting of the lips, that is natural for the last three, but I think it is not essential, but only needed as to form to the mouth opening formed by the lips.

If I compare German für and Swedish fyr (lighthouse), then I use the same lip-formed mouth opening, but the vowel point of the Swedish is moved forward in the mouth, as described above; I get the French vowel point to be even further back than in German. If I compare French vous or foux with Swedish (as in foga), then the French mouth opening width is about 1 cm - that is, the Swedish is considerable more narrow. I get the mouth opening in German Buch is further a bit wider than in French, thus similar to the Swedish u above, though the vowel point is very different.

I should caution that I am not an expert on German and French pronunciation, though I did study those languages to pick up a good approximation of what is spoken.

It strikes me that the general theme is that the Swedish vowels are pronounced to extremes relative French, German and English, without adding fricative effects, which may make speakers of those languages think Swedish is slow and tedious - it might take longer time to pronounce the vowels this way, especially in the absence of diphthongs in Swedish. But, by the same token, those languages may sound sloppy to Swedish speakers that do not know them well. Haberg (talk) 13:39, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

In reply to your question, I think that the German ü as in für is lip-wise a cross between the Swedish fyra and fura, like this

 für     1.5 cm    5 mm

that is, mouth opening height as in Swedish , width like in Swedish . The vocal point (backness) is as in international , tongue and roof not as close as in Swedish, but more like English peep . Haberg (talk) 22:01, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

If I look at http://en.wikipedia.org/File:Exoendo.png, then they look like this (top down in picture)

 i:  sil  no rounding
 u:  bot  endolabial rounding
 øː  nöt  exolabial rounding

To get Swedish , close the lips one half on , but keep the width. To get Swedish , widen the , but make sure to keep the height very narrow, maybe even closing down a bit relative .

Also, some linguists (according to Swedish national radio SR) noted that vowel length (time) in Swedish is more important than getting it exactly right in texture - it will then be understood, though sounding foreign. Haberg (talk) 22:42, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Reply from "Protected" issue

Good day. Thanks for taking your time in informing me.

I was expecting that there will be further vandalisms, that is why I have made an action of semi-protecting some of the articles on English Misplaced Pages.

If you have still more further concerns, feel free to send me a message. Thanks. - Lee Heon Jin (Talk/Usapan/Pamisabi-sabi) 11:29, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Victoria's IPA

Hi; I'm just curious what the distinction (to a layman) is between IPA: /vɪkˈtɔriə/ and IPA: /vɪkˈtɔɹiə/ might be; I understand that one is a "soft" /r/ and another is a "hard" /r/...but I'm also wondering what your source for this as "authentic" is...myself I say it with barely an /r/ in it, it just flits by; somebody emphasizing the /r/ to me would have the same ring as someone saying "Frazhier" for the Fraser, i.e. an outside affectation; on the other hand an upper-crust expat Brit in Victoria would say it different than someone from another class, or another ethnic background. Whose is correct? Is there a "correct" pronunciation? i.e. in terms of English as it it spoken in Victoria? I'm not so sure. Also with /vænˈkuːvɚ/) that /æ/ kind of bothers me - isn't that a diphthongized "a", a "twang" on the "a" - certainly how Americans say it....I wish I knew IPA better so I could offer how I say it myself, which is sort of a very "flat" non-diphthongized /a/....but then I come from the Fraser Valley, where the influnce of Dutch and German on such names can be very pronounced.....and again, because of hte diversity of the city as it has come to be, I'm uncertain that there is any one "correct" pronunciation anymore...there were articles in the era of the Toronto influx in the '80s commenting on how native Vancouverites (native-born, not FN) Vancouverites allegedly said something like Van-kew-ver; again a straight /u/ (?) sound is more normal to me, but again I was raised around Dutchmen....just some thoughts, and curious what citations are available for these pronunciations/IPAs, and what makes one more authentic than any other?Skookum1 (talk) 13:57, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Follow the link to Help:IPA for English. When sounds appear between /slashes/, they're abstractions (phonemes). The symbols are somewhat arbitrary, and we decided to go with /r/ for English on Misplaced Pages because it's a more recognizable letter than ɹ. That's common practice when there's no need to be more precise, as in a dictionary. If you want to indicate a specific physical pronunciation, you use . is a trill, as in Spanish perro or Welsh English r. is a flap, as in Spanish pero or Irish English r (or Canadian dd in ladder—yes, I realize these aren't exactly the same). is the non-trilled or -flapped sound you as a Canandian use for r. So basically, yes, it would be if we were transcribing a Canadian accent rather than just the word, but with /r/ we're not specifying any particular pronunciation, and the transcription can be used equally well by Welsh, Irish, or Canadians.

Hm, well the thing is there's different kinds of Canadian accents; at the moment I'm living in the Maritimes, famous for a very "hard" r-sound, though maybe that's an issue of the preceding vowel/diphthong I'm not certain; it's as distinct at the Bostonian "parked my car in Harvard yard" thing, though different; my friends from back west point it out to me all teh time that Iv'e picked it up. In the way I remember, and still pronounce I think, the 'r' in Victoria is barely there, it's almost swallowed as in "o(r)ia", more of a series of vowels, a "long diphthong" than with any discernible consonant; older, established Victorians, or their offspring, especially upper class, would be much more ilke a British pronuncation with a distinct "r" and probably a very pronounced "o". too...well, depending on which kind of Brit, that is (upper class, older-descent Victorians are almost invariably British, or influenced by their one-time dominance there). The remaining issue is if there is a standard Canadian, or even WEstern Canadian/BC English pronunciation; I can tell you one thing - transposing Ontarian pronunc iations into BC is not authentic, and it's Ontario English that has been used to define "standard Canadian". A Torontonian sticks out like a sore thumb, or used to (now they've overrun the place, the Lower Mainland anyway) and the older BC accents are now submerged or treated as "hick" - and rarely have ben documented by linguists, who seem to want to look at things on national lines and follow the Canadian political dictum that "all English Canadians are the same", which we're not. I'm not bitching at you, just telling it like it is (though I am bitching). Accents on Vancouver Island are distinct from those in the Canyon or the Cariboo or West Kootenay or Okanagan; that they've never been studied is partly due to a political non-agenda about the supposed lack of worthwhile local realities and the importance of forging a single national identity/culture. To this day, though, I can pick out someone from Vernon, and I can guarantee you that Victorians just don't sound like Lower Mainlanders....Skookum1 (talk) 15:37, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

The other sounds are similar. They're defined according to base words. If the Van of Vancouver is pronounced like the noun van, then the transcription is correct, regardless of the exact pronunciation by any one person. However, if it's pronounced vaughan, then we've made an error. Same for the cou: if that's pronounced as in cue, then we have it wrong. However, if it's like bill and coo, then it's fine the way it is. kwami (talk) 21:50, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

But an American saying "van" is different than a Canadian, or one of various kinds of Canadians, saying "van". So how's that work? An Ameriacn saying "Vancouver" tends to have something like "Vayincouver"...I studied "Standard American English", which is a formal system developed by speech/diction teachers to "break" our Canadian accents, and examples liek "character" were brought up with that same "chayiarcter, with the IPA "ae" symbol used for that; is it an un-dipthongized sound? Because it should have no "twang" in it......(Ontarians on the other hand drawl it a diffrent way, kind of hanging on the 'n').Skookum1 (talk) 15:37, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Skookum1, you were obviously listening to a Southerner who diphthonizes to . A "Standard American" pronounces IPA as in 'bat', 'cat', and 'bad' generally just like a Canadian--this is not one of the distinctions between our dialects. It's a monophthong and is found in the first syllable of 'Vancouver'.

(Besides, isn't "Victoria's IPA" something silky and lacey?) (Sorry, couldn't resist that one.) (Taivo (talk) 18:18, 29 January 2009 (UTC))

Skookum, our IPA transcription is intended to be insensitive to differences like the one you mentioned. The question to ask of anyone is, Do they pronounce the Van of Vancouver the same as the noun van ? If so, the transcription is correct. If generally yes but some people are exceptions, then our transcription does not cover their dialect, and we should note this on the key itself. (An example of the latter is the difference between the a of bad and the a of lad, which we don't distinguish but which in Oz they do.) kwami (talk) 18:38, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Gumuz

Today you have changed the Gumuz language article to the effect that it is a language isolate. All the cited sources on the page (as far as I know) agree that it is a Nilo-Saharan language, although admittedly some doubt the classification together with the Koman languages as Komuz. Anyway, the claim that Gumuz is an isolate needs to be supported by some kind of reference. Do you have anything along these lines? Otherwise I would have to assume that you are submitting original research. Please advise! Best wishes, Landroving Linguist (talk) 15:51, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Dimmendaal and Blench reject Gumuz as Nilo-Saharan. Reworded to "possibly NS". kwami (talk) 23:06, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the references on Dimmendaal and Blench. With these, I think the article is fine as it stands right now. Landroving Linguist (talk) 16:20, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

On the same topic, I noticed that you amended the number of Gumuz speakers in Ethiopia from 120,424 to 120,000. Was there a reason other than a preference for round numbers? I only ask because the 2007 Ethiopian census states that there are 159,418 members of the Gumuz ethnicity which sounds like it could be the right number -- but you might have a better source. Especially because it's likely that not all Gumuz are competent in their mother language. (And no, I'm not being sarcastic here; I just noticed that possible reading of what I wrote.) -- llywrch (talk) 06:06, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

No, no source. I was just rounding off a ridiculously over-precise number. kwami (talk) 06:33, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. I just hoped you might have access to a source I didn't. - llywrch (talk) 06:39, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

reminder

remainder of List of Tibeto-Burman languages. Complete Bodish/Tibetic. kwami (talk)

Tibeto-Burman

At the Burmese language infobox, why do you keep putting "Tibeto-Burman" in parentheses? AFAIK it's not a controversial group, and even if it were, parenthesizing it without an explanation as to what parentheses mean is just confusing. —Angr 11:33, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, I didn't notice you had reverted me. I just made the same edit twice as I referred to the article.

Per Van Driem, Shafer, &c., there's nothing defining TB that distinguishes it from ST. (Other than paraphyletically, with TB simply defined as ST minus Chinese.) So in their conception, giving a genealogy of ST → TB → X would be like saying Germanic is in the Indo-Germanic branch of Indo-European. But of course Matisoff et al. are the dominant model, so we need to list both ST and TB.

There's also a lot of redundancy between the ST and TB articles, and you need to read both to understand one. They could be completely reworked, but I wonder if it might not be better to merge them, since they cover 90% of the same material. kwami (talk) 11:40, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, but still I don't think the average reader of Burmese language is going to understand all that just from parentheses in the infobox. People are just going to wonder why the parens are there. And ST → TB → ... → Burmese is still the standard view, whatever its difficulties. —Angr 12:26, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Why are all these parens around Tibeto-Burman in the language templates? It makes no sense. Tibeto-Burman is widely accepted as a valid node--I know of no one who really questions this. Parens around it are confusing, but I'm finding them everywhere. The last time I made a Tibeto-Burman article I know they weren't there. When did you insert them? Or someone else? They should be removed because they imply that Tibeto-Burman is somehow debatable (which it isn't). (Taivo (talk) 12:40, 31 January 2009 (UTC))

Angr just asked that question above. I won't argue if you want to revert them. kwami (talk) 12:43, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I wrote this comment before I saw Angr's question above. Sorry (Taivo (talk) 14:21, 31 January 2009 (UTC))

Hello

FYI, uploaded File:Languenglexpandedtest.jpg, since it appears the current image omisses (is that a word? correction: omits) some rather relevant language family divisions (or so it seems to me) and languages. While it can never be wholly accurate (to a pixel), this could help possible future editors. Hope the enlarged caption is big enough ( with 78 possible colors) , looking at the language families template you have constructed :-). As you can see from the image, I'm no linguist, though I have some strange notions (I guess) of it. I wouldn't dream up to finish and push up this one. Dreg743 (talk) 12:59, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Chinese Language Classification Issue

You seem to have reclassified several languages as "Sinitic", rather than "Sino-Tibetan", and created a new "Sinitic Languages" article. When you make changes of this magnitude, you need to supply ample references and discuss on article talk pages. It appears that you have not done so, and many of your changes have been reverted. I'm not saying that any of your changes are wrong, as I have no idea, but you need to follow Misplaced Pages guidelines before changing these articles.--Danaman5 (talk) 22:25, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for warning me. This is standard terminology, not a reclassification, so I'll be restoring the articles. kwami (talk) 22:30, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Do you have reliable sources that you can cite stating that this is standard terminology? If you do, you should cite them. Otherwise, people will continue to revert you.--Danaman5 (talk) 23:18, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and when I say "cite", I mean put an inline citation right after the information you add, so that people can directly check your references. If you use a non-inline citation, it makes it more difficult.--Danaman5 (talk) 23:23, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

3RR

Well I adjusted the format of the diagram to its present form, and then you reverted. But yes, neither of us should violate the 3RR, and I don't want you to get blocked. Considering I have compromised the Merriam-Webster dictionary with you, you should probably compromise the diagram. The diagram is in the exact same format except that Bai is on the bottom branch instead of the top, but convey the same meaning (branch of Sinitic but it isn't classified under Chinese).--TheLeopard (talk) 08:11, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh knock it off. I provided a better dictionary entry, which you falsely attributed. Going with a superior source is hardly a sacrifice. The position of Bai in the cladogram is fine, but you've messed up the list: Chinese dialects should go under Chinese, not under Bai. (And of course it is also not appropriate to have Bai under unclassified Chinese dialects, as you had earlier.) I added a clean-up tag; if you don't take care of it, I'll restore the last straightforward version. kwami (talk) 08:30, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but your tone of voice is quite inappropriate when speaking to someone. "Better dictionary entry...superior source" well that is a matter of opinion isn't it. I wasn't aware there is an enforcing rule that says we prefer Oxford English Dictionary over Merriam-Webster in Misplaced Pages. Plus, your reference of Oxford dictionary simply has (OED) behind the citation, without given full reference to the dictionary or an electronic source.

But, to get back to the clean up tag you added behind Unclassified Chinese. So, you want me to put Unclassified Chinese behind Chinese this time, is it? I can place it behind Chinese, but put Bai on the bottom . There is no legitimate reason why we can't have Bai at the bottom, under Unclassified Chinese; it isn't "classified" under "Unclassified Chinese". Readers can clearly tell Unclassified Chinese and Bai are different primary branches. Thank you.--TheLeopard (talk) 15:43, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

My tone reflects your behavior. You're being obstinate. Yes, the OED is a superior dictionary to Webster's online whatever. And more importantly, it gave a fuller etymology, which was the whole point of the citation.

Of course Chinese dialects should be listed under Chinese, not just "this time" but every time. And of course classified languages should not go under unclassified languages. Is that somehow a difficult concept for you? kwami (talk) 19:27, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Stokoe

Can you give an example of a tab or sig that you think is not iconic? They are all transparently iconic to me. kwami (talk) 02:20, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

What you consider "tranparently iconic" is original research. For example, '×' has no iconic relation to "contact". What matters here is how Stokoe saw it, and he did not consider them to necessarily be iconic. And there is no source that identifies them as all iconic. Ward3001 (talk) 02:24, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Of course x is iconic for touch/contact, at least in the US. In instruction guides, for example, 'x' marks where two parts come together. Are you really saying that the symbols are arbitrary, and it's just coincidence that every single one of them makes intuitive sense? kwami (talk) 03:02, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

And once again, that's your opinion. Misplaced Pages requires that editors provide reliable sources for any claims they make in articles, not just their opinions. As I said, what matters on this issue is Stokoe's opinion, and his opinion was that all of them are not necessarily iconic. Whether I consider them arbitrary is irrelevant, just as your opinion is irrelevant. If you want to use the word "iconic", please provide an appropriate source. Ward3001 (talk) 03:12, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Certain Esperantidos

Sen:espera was, I'm almost positive, put on Misplaced Pages by the same person who invented it—I haven't found it elsewhere. And it might be the same with Esperant'. The other Esperantidos I believe are genuinely notable, but Misplaced Pages isn't a place for self-published nonnotable material. Would you please take them back off the article? Jchthys (talk) 02:57, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay, Sen:esepera seems completely unnotable, and I removed it. Esperant', however, even if defunct, did not claim to be a serious language reform, but was just a jest. We have quite a few serious proposals, but a lot of Esp-ists like playing with language, so it's nice to have a couple language games like Esperant' (it's also not clear to me that that's what Universal really is) and literary derivatives like Arcaicam as well. kwami (talk) 07:06, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Tatar language

Hey, Kwami. There's a situation going on at Tatar language that I'm a bit frustrated with. There's an editor with a serious Islamic POV trying to insist that arose in Tatar because of the word "Allah" and that was lost in Tatar because the Soviets were atheists. I've violated 3RR two days in a row now trying to fix this. But he doesn't discuss the issue on the Talk page, just gives Edit Summaries that say "my way is better", "this is fact", etc. He doesn't use the Talk page (or even read it as far as I can tell). Thanks. (Taivo (talk) 15:16, 9 February 2009 (UTC))

Since the POVer is not signing in, I protected the page. kwami (talk) 19:20, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Kwami. I don't mind discussing the issue with him, but it takes two to discuss. (Taivo (talk) 19:21, 9 February 2009 (UTC))

Maltese people

Please help. User:Pietru il-Boqli is extensively edit warring, and keeps trying to add an anti-Arabic and anti-Libyan POV into the article, as well as a nasty habit of personal attacks. I've tried to talk with him on his talk page - he deleted it. I've tried to talk to him by edit summary - he carried on reverting to his version. I've finally managed to get him to talk on the article talk page, but even now, he's still reverting, and not listening to what I'm saying or responding to my points. Your help would be greatly appreciated. 78.149.184.232 (talk) 16:09, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Entirely scurrilous accusations. An over-zealousness in removing poor edits, possibly, not pushing anti-Arab propaganda, certainly not. The article's integrity was simply being maintained. את אמא כל כך שמנה, היא יושבת ליד כולם (talk) 16:13, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

When I made an edit to fix a link to the Libyan-Malta relations article, which involved switching round the words "Libya" and "Malta" so that the link would work (rendering Libya as the first word), you reverted telling me you were noting my "agenda". You also have been persistent to add in WP:UNDUE comments about how Malta turned its back on Libya, in a section which was supposed to be about historical acconts of the Maltese ethnicity. You also continued to revert my edits to the language section, without specifying a single thing that was wrong with it, despite the fact I asked you literally a dozen times - why? - because I talked about the connection of Maltese to Arabic in it? 78.149.184.232 (talk) 16:19, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

My views on Maltese' Arabic heritage are clearly documented on the Maltese language talkpage. I do not support the mixed language classification nor any of the more bizarre alternatives. You are grasping at straws, anon. את אמא כל כך שמנה, היא יושבת ליד כולם (talk) 16:21, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Then why revert my version, if you accept it comes from Arabic? 78.149.184.232 (talk) 16:23, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Your revision contributed nothing of quality that the endorsed version did not, in fact, it is less suited (on a purely factual/stylistic level) to the article. את אמא כל כך שמנה, היא יושבת ליד כולם (talk) 16:25, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The article is about the Maltese people (and thus their use of the language and languages - including the history of it related to them) - it is not about technicalities of the Maltese language that belong there. I am not discussing this with you anymore anyway, since you seem to be a troll, and maybe even a sock, based on your attacks, your lack of understanding of the rules, your block log, and your POV-pushing. Kwamikagami and Angr have both been notified of you - we shall watch what happens now - unless of course you decide to attempt to discuss (I doubt you will). 78.149.184.232 (talk) 16:30, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

(Would it be fruitful to check whether the anon is a sock? It seems probable) את אמא כל כך שמנה, היא יושבת ליד כולם (talk) 16:25, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Pietru, IMHO you're likely to be a sock of User:Iamandrewrice, gathering from your anti-arabic bias. In fact, a checkuser may be necessary. 78.149.184.232 (talk) 16:30, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

No such bias exists within me; I welcome anything that will put your mind at rest over my being a sock. However your anonymity and attitude lead me to believe you are an individual bent on poisoning this project. Reconsider your actions on Misplaced Pages. את אמא כל כך שמנה, היא יושבת ליד כולם (talk) 16:33, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm really tired of all the idiocy over Malta. Anon., it would help if you bothered to sign it. kwami (talk) 19:41, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I made an account before but I forgot the password. I'll make another one though, but please help with the situation. The page has now been protected after I asked Angr to intervene, and I'm waiting for him to pass comment on the page, and hope you will too. 78.149.184.232 (talk) 20:37, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

But both of you are being ridiculous with your edit warring, so I doubt either of us will pay much attention to what you have to say as long as all you're doing is reverting each other. Bring up the changes you want to make on the talk page. There are other people than Pietru watching the article. kwami (talk) 22:42, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Monobook.js

The code goes in your .js file, not .css. All you need to add is “importScript('User:Nohat/IPA.js'); // ]” (the commented link after the slashes lets Nohat use what links here to see who is using his code). —Michael Z. 2009-02-12 02:59 z

Ah, there we go. Thanks. kwami (talk) 03:16, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Maltese language

Thanks for the page protection at Maltese language. (Taivo (talk) 06:45, 12 February 2009 (UTC))

"Wenzhou Dialect"

Although I very much appreciate the work you have done on the article Wenzhou dialect it is a fact that it is much more widely known as "Wenzhou Dialect" (google hits over 800, whereas for "Oujiang Chinese" there are only 3 hits). We can clarify that it, in fact, is a language by most linguistic definitions. But it is not necessary to call the language a name that most people do not identify it with. This is in accordance with Misplaced Pages's policy on "most commonly used name". Colipon+(T) 05:24, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm working on very limited sources, but isn't the label "Wenzhou" also used for the Oujiang dialect of Wenzhou? I was under the impression that was the purpose of "Oujiang", to clarify that the entire lect is being discussed. Wouldn't calling the whole lect "Wenzhou" be a bit like calling all of Wu "Shanghainese"? That was once common usage too. Common usage is a good guideline to follow, but so is clarity, and sometimes they conflict. There's been similar debate over what to do with Cantonese, and it can be a thorny problem. kwami (talk) 08:08, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah but for something that's so prominently known as "Wenzhou Dialect" or even "Wenzhonese", it is simply unreasonable to subscribe a more "proper" classification to it. Wenzhou and Oujiang are pretty much the same thing. The Oujiang linguistic region is only really Wenzhou anyway. If you want a proper classification scheme, then have "Oujiang Chinese" as the parent article of Wenzhou dialect. But "Wenzhou dialect" is a very commonly known idea. There aren't going to be any other articles on the subject. So we should use the name by which it's commonly known. Not everything can be labeled with their "proper" names. That's like calling a tiger by its latin binomial name because you might confuse it with cats. Same with "Shanghainese dialect". It's known as simply "Shanghainese" to almost everyone, at least in the English language. We are going to have to come up with a standard. Although I appreciate the work you have done, please consult in the talk page next time you attempt a move. Thanks, and all the best. Colipon+(T) 16:52, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Another fact. I was in Wenzhou this summer. If you're ever in Wenzhou and you ask if they understand "Oujiang Chinese" (Oujianghua), they wouldn't know what you're talking about. In fact, no one in China would know what you're taking about. You ask if they speak "Wenzhouhua", for which the proper translation is "Wenzhou Dialect". Colipon+(T) 16:55, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay, will move. Thanks. kwami (talk) 18:25, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: Haumea

Does living in the state of Hawaii and using the pronunciation at Help:Pronunciation respelling key help a tad? It's pronounced like "how-MAY-uh". Hau is a syllable (pronounced like the word "how"), and is proceeded by "mea", pronounced "MAY-uh". Cheers. obentomusubi 06:14, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Yup, that helps. Since Brown's students pronounce it with four syllables, I'll add both. kwami (talk) 06:30, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Featured article

Dear Kwamikagami, I want to ask whether article Spirit rover & rings of Saturn can be candidated as featured article?
Thanks.
Ayrenz (talk) 11:13, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Not as long as there are citation and improvement tags on them. Also, you shouldn't have external links in the text; these should all be moved to footnotes or references. But I'm not really the one to ask. The FA requirements seem rather arbitrary, incomplete, and inconstant to me. Took me months to get my first FA through, cuz the reviewers couldn't decide among themselves what was proper formatting. Supposedly it's not always so difficult, but I was soured on the whole thing. kwami (talk) 20:03, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Dictionary transcription

You're right, I can't see OED's schwi. I think it has something to do with fonts. What's worse is that I noticed in 21:04, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I guess the strikethrough code is our best bet for now. I think at some point in the past I argued against it but that was regarding WP transcription convention at WP:IPA for English. Why does English have to be so complicated? — Ƶ§œš¹ 01:41, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay. Easy enough to change again with AWB if we think of s.t. better. kwami (talk) 01:47, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Linguistics

Hi, do you have Linguistics on your watchlist? A user is trying to redefine linguistics according to what she wishes it meant, and Garik and I are having difficulty persuading her she's acting against consensus as there are only two of us at the moment. More contributors to the discussion are needed! —Angr 09:53, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

No, I haven't been watching it. I reverted Supriya on principal, and just added my 2¢ on Talk. kwami (talk) 10:24, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

It should be principle rather than principal. 122.162.170.198 (talk) 07:44, 4 March 2009 (UTC) (Supriya)

"I reverted you on principal without reading this discussion or much of what you wrote, as you need to resolve your issues here rather than just edit warring" Ah, you're a role model for us all. I'm writing that response down somewhere... Ling.Nut 10:26, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Burmish

I think it makes sense to not include Burmese dialects where they were. But they should be listed somewhere, and the citations need to be appropriate. For example, it might make sense to move the Burmese dialects to a new article 'Burmese Dialects' or something, but if this was done we would need to have the relevant citations also moved. Tibetologist (talk) 11:09, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

How do you think this is for a solution. Tibetologist (talk) 14:06, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Perfect. kwami (talk) 20:54, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

/r/

Fair enough! I did wonder. It does seem strange for the compromise to be different to the existing literature, but I appreciate Misplaced Pages needs to find a middle ground. Hope no-one was offended! Scyrene (talk) 01:34, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

A little reading material

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

Yup. So it would seem. Thanks for that. Now that Shrub is gone, I forget that there are other people like him. kwami (talk) 21:41, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Did you ever travelled to Pakistan

Ever you ever been to Pakistan. User:Yousaf465 (talk)

Nope, never been to South Asia at all. Some day I'll get there ... Why do you ask? kwami (talk) 08:12, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

You have did on your user page . Seems to be frequent flyer. As far our national airline goes "Great people to fly with". So If you ever come to Pakistan remember to visit the Lahore and Karachi. Lahore for it's historical building,and Karachi for it's beach.User:Yousaf465 (talk)

No, I've never had the Pakistani flag on my residence section. (But there are several places I want to see.) kwami (talk) 04:02, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

You should have it now.User:Yousaf465 (talk)

You mean I should be able to see it on my page, or that I should put it on my page? It is not currently on my page, and I've never lived in Pakistan, so it would be a lie to put it there. kwami (talk) 10:03, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Iberian-Canarian Inscription Censorship?

Dear Kwa, please look at the reasson that Trigaramus give to close this page. The page has uncontested information .The reference that Trigaranus propose to close does not apply .

Iberian-Guanche inscriptions page was heavily edited anyway and Canarian-Iberian scripts IS NOT THE SAME PAGE. Please undelete the new "Iberian-Canarian page"

Trigaranus may just pursuing censorship,because a conflict of interests(This is not usual to say,but what else is the reason?).Unless ,he is persecuting Antonio Arnaiz-Villena because a Palestinian paper he wrote and which created a hunt against A A-V years ago .This is not the Misplaced Pages policy.

In addition,AA-V has nothing to do with this page and Trigaranus in his discussions is obsesed with him.AA-V is only marginally quoted.But his name should be removed from this page ,if this is a problem for Misplaced Pages.

The discussion for Keep or Delete was balanced.

I would ask you to offer a solution for this conflict.

Iberomesornix has put an altogether different page (Iberian-Canarian) to Iberian Guanche one. This is your argument for your actions.

I would stronly ask you to look a bit more in detail in the Iberomesornix Iberian-Canarian discussion .Iberom. clearly shows with direct links that Trigaranus reaseons to close the page are not true--Virginal6 (talk) 10:41, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

This has already been discussed, and no merit was found in your accusations of censorship. I will not second-guess those findings. If you wish to contest the deletion, please take it to WP:RFA or WP:RFAR, where the entire admin community can evaluate your arguments. kwami (talk) 20:15, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Basque

Can you slow down a touch pls? Making Basque Vasconic rather than isolate is fairly fringe. Mainstream basque studies accepts aquitanian as the direct ancestor of all modern dialects of basque - which means basque is still an isolate. Akerbeltz (talk) 02:49, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Zuberoan is not mutually intelligible, which means we're dealing with a small family. Japanese was once considered an isolate too, but is now considered a family for the same reason. Also, Aquitanian was spoken contemporaneously with Basque in the Middle Ages, so not all of Aquitanian can be considered ancestral. Of course, the question would then be whether contemporary Aquitanian was a dialect of Basque, which I'm not sure anyone can answer. kwami (talk) 03:00, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I dunno... the whole page is... off centre somehow. Most items are dealt with on the Basque language page or the Aquitanian page. The Vasconic family thing is very fringe and the way it's worded at the moment makes it look mainstream. Given how other fringe stuff is relegated to subsections, I'd be tempted to remove the page but even if not, it needs re-writing. Akerbeltz (talk) 02:54, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Sure, rewrite away. It isn't fringe to cover lack of mutual intelligibility between all Basque lects. It also states quite clearly in the intro that when Basque is considered a single language, it's an isolate. kwami (talk) 03:00, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok will do. They are all mutually intelligible, at least as much as Glasgow English and Cockney are. Don't trust Ethnologue on this one. Even as a learner speaker I can make sense of Zuberoan enough to get by. I'll try and find a source that overrides Ethnologue. Aquitanian and Basque are virtually identical bar a few predictable sound changes that were calculated to have happened even before the Aquitanian inscriptions were found (linke -m- < -nb- eg seme < senbe). If we ever find a love poem in Aquitanian, it'll just sound like quirky old fashioned Basque, so close are the two. The thing that I'd really like to see is the source that claims Aquitanian survived into the middle ages. I've *never* read that one. :) Akerbeltz (talk) 12:29, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I can't find anything to back up that claim, so it was very likely false. And given the scant number of transcriptions, we probably can't tell if Aquitanian was a single language or not. So, given the limits of our data, yes, it would appear that Aquitanian is more or less the same as Old Basque. (Trask says it was "more or less" directly ancestral, but what exactly he means by that he doesn't say.) The difference between a Basque isolate and a small Basque/Vasconic family would then depend on whether you consider Souletin to be a separate language. If you as a partial speaker of Batua can understand conversation (not just make yourself understood), then that would certainly mean that it is a dialect, and this article is redundant and misnamed. Would you say the difference is less than that of "languages" such as Castillian, Portuguese, and Catalan? I mean, I can get by in Italian from my learner's knowledge of Spanish; if Souletin is a dialect of Basque, does that mean that Italian, Spanish, and Catalan are dialects of a single Western Romance language?

This started out as an attempt to find a better use of the name Vasconic (which I occasionally see in the literature) than Vennemann's stuff, and also as a place to summarize our articles on Aquitanian and the dialects. kwami (talk) 12:50, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Which sounds like something worth doing, since Vasconic does kick around. Let me mull this one over?

The problem with establishing ancestry beyond doubt is that for now we have data in the same area that is virtually identical. The only problem is, one dataset is tiny. It's a bit like trying to convict on the basis of partial DNA fingerprinting. There's nothing in Aquitanian that would make you sit up and say, hey, this can't be the ancestor of Basque. But we just have very little of it. Which is why I think Traks was hedging his bets a bit not to fall into the random speculation camp. And given the size of Roman Aquitania, who knows what may have been going on on the fringes. Akerbeltz (talk) 12:57, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Forgot to answer the Zuberoan thing. It's closer than that. What throws people initially is the /y/ and the French /ʁ/ that Zuberoan has borrowed. It's one of those that you can "listen yourself into" with a bit of time. It's much closer than Catalan and Italian and Spanish are. Akerbeltz (talk) 13:00, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

It looks like I stand corrected, then. Still, it would be nice if we had a ref demonstrating the degree of intelligibility. (The Basque dialects article is nice, but doesn't really address that issue.) kwami (talk) 13:14, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

It happens ;) - I know the dialects article is hugely incomplete, there's just never enough time to do it all! A more detailed description of the dialects is on my to-do list though. Akerbeltz (talk) 15:43, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Let me know what you mull over. If Aquitanian is not attested as continuing as a side branch to Basque, and there is no evidence of dialectical diversity within Aquitanian, and all Basque dialects are mutually intelligible (well, maybe not Biscayan-Souletin, but as a dialect chain—but certainly if even Biscayan and Souletin are mutually intelligible!), then it becomes very difficult to justify an article on "Vasconic lanugages". kwami (talk) 22:36, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

block warning

actually i didn't violate 3rr, nor its intent. and that you are an administrator enforcing a viewpoint on an article that you contribute too is very very worrisome, seems a bit coi. wonder if that's cause for administrative review, guess i should research that.--Buridan (talk) 01:59, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

You're right. You violated 9RR, not 3.

I don't take threats kindly, even less than your bullshit. I don't contribute to that article. You've lost any goodwill you may have had with me. Present something rational for discussion. If you're not capable of that, go away. If you continue to edit war, I will block you. kwami (talk) 02:03, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

suprya

Thought you'd want to know that she's back at her reverting game again on linguistics —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.136.120.40 (talk) 07:28, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Iberian-Guanche crackpot theories

Dear Kwamikagami, are you aware of what is happening in the user and user talk page of user Iberomesornix. I think it is not right what he is doing (specially at he is using my own editions). Specially unproper is the accusation that implies his last paragraph in this edition with the same tall story that they are being prosecuted.

Also seems unproper his victimism claim that "Arnaiz-Villena is probably being prosecuted again" (same edition, some lines above) or his slandering in the launching legal accusations, saying that a person is being prosecuted by the police (a person that can be easily identified, as against his claim the link is not anonymous as can be seen before Iberomesornix friend (Virginal6) retouched it in this edition) and Iberomesornix makes such a libel without the slightest reference nor proof. And as he claims that a person is an anonymous, when in the link was his name, and when Iberomesornix himself tells alleged personal data of his biography , it is very obvious his lack of sincerity.

I consider that Iberomesornix has broken many WP policies, and I am tired of his disruptive dicussions in that any reliable source is dubious and only part of a dark conspiracy (as the many that critizise the pseudo-scientific linguistic publications of Arnaiz Villena), that any person that wants to delete his articles has a conflict of interests, etc. etc. etc.

Kind Regards. --Dumu Eduba (talk) 11:39, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

update: At least it looks like Iberomesornix has thought it again and has deleted his unproper comments on his tal page , but if you see the contribs page of the IP with which he did the first time before Spitfire reverted it , we find that this IP claims to be Arnaiz-Villena, and so we may conclude that Iberomesornix is making self-promotion of his own theories, and that Iberomesornix is the one who has a conflict of interest. Irritating. --Dumu Eduba (talk) 12:10, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

IBERIAN-CANARIAN SCRIPTS

I have put up a request for arbitration because of your deletion. --Iberomesornix (talk) 19:02, 5 March 2009 (UTC)