Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 07:03, 31 July 2011

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

This user is an administrator on the English Misplaced Pages. (verify) This user is one of the 40 most active English Wikipedians of all time.

incorrect ordering of InterWiki links

In this edit, you moved the Gagauz link (gag:) to follow the Galego (gl:) link. I have corrected it. —Coroboy (talk) 23:30, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

That was automated by AWB. Maybe we should let them know. — kwami (talk) 23:32, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Seems to have been fixed now. — kwami (talk) 19:22, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. —Coroboy (talk) 09:41, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Altaic is debated, and so should not be stated as a matter of fact

I notice you have been deleting Altaic from some articles.

If it is debated, we should not come down on either side of the controversy, according to WP:NPOV. Judgement of correctness is not the criterion for inclusion - notability and verifiability are. --JWB (talk) 22:59, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. — kwami (talk) 23:01, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Altaic is notable. --JWB (talk) 19:13, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it is. But our sources disagree as to whether it is verifiable. Therefore we should not state it as a fact as you seem to want to. When we have a debated family proposal, we list it for its constituent branches, noting that it's questioned, but not for every language in those branches. That way it's easy to fix if things change, and we don't have the same disputes repeated on all the articles. Same for disputed branches: we may list them at adjacent levels, but not normally for every language within them. In this case, all of the language boxes are colored Altaic green, all the articles have the Altaic navigation box, and if you follow the family tree, you'll find that Altaic is suggested above Turkic. — kwami (talk) 19:15, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

WP:Verifiability is about referencing to publications and notability - it says "verifiability, not truth". I am not saying Altaic should be stated as either confirmed or disproved - in its own article we should cover both viewpoints, while elsewhere it is notable without having to take a position on whether it is a cladistic group. --JWB (talk) 04:50, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Okay, then I'm confused as to why we're having this conversation. — kwami (talk) 05:07, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Altaic is not debated to me because it's shows similarities. 5 branches of Altaic had an common ancestor. It's not a sprachbund. It's genetic.71.201.63.99 (talk) 17:10, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

crossed-out ɪ

Could you please explain why your addition of ɨ here in both IPAc-en and IPA-en is rendered differently, as an incorrect crossed-out ɪ (not on http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:IPA_for_English#Key) in the former and a correct ɨ in the latter. Even stranger is that copy-pasting the letter from the IPAc-en rendering produces ɪ, not the crossed-out version visible in the final UI. Thanks, --Espoo (talk) 00:55, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

That's probably how IPAc-en is set up. Soft formatting is not a good thing because of copy-paste problems, so I'll take a look. — kwami (talk) 01:16, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Okay, both display ɨ now. — kwami (talk) 01:19, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

What did you change? --Espoo (talk) 01:48, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

The coding in the template that IPAc-en calls for its display. Just follow my edit history. — kwami (talk) 02:33, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Tambora language

Hello! Your submission of Tambora language at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:58, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Kwami, I was wondering how many DYKs you have. If you have more than 5 already you are supossed to review an article at T:TDYK. Thanks! Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:40, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

This is my first submission. — kwami (talk) 16:58, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Alright. It's already been moved to Prep 1. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:16, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! — kwami (talk) 23:19, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Request for help with IPA Pronunciation

Hi Kwami, I was wondering if you could include the IPA pronunciation for Koentjaraningrat. In Indonesian it is pronounced (roughly) koon-cha-“ra-ning-rat (with the r a trill). Sorry to bother you, but I'm not sure which symbols are used in English for some of the sounds, especially the trill R. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:13, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

We don't have a trill in English, so you can't transcribe it that way. I can give the Malay pronunciation (I'll go ahead and do that now), but for English I'd need an established anglicization. — kwami (talk) 23:15, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

All the English refs I found used Koentjaraningrat. Thanks for adding the Malay pronunciation... perhaps it would be safe to say that the English is similar, but with a regular r (alveolar approximant) instead of a trill. Actually, when I said "symbols ... used in English" I meant the IPA... I was taught that /R/ represents the American English r Sorry if I don't make much sense. Thanks a lot! Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:25, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

is a trill, but when you put things in slashes rather than brackets, you're making an abstract representation for a sound, not the actual sound itself. (There's a famous grammar of Marshalese that transcribes the vowels with symbols like /♠/, /⊗/.) So we tend to use /r/ for English ar rather than the more precise /ɹ/, if for no reason than it's more familiar and easier to type. (Doesn't matter cuz we don't contrast them.) But we would never say it's pronounced (in brackets) unless you have a strong brogue. — kwami (talk) 23:42, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

So in English it would be /'kuːntʃaraniːŋrat/ or something similar? Thanks for the help; I've used the link provided by the template at Koentjaraningrat to add the IPA for Chrisye. Thanks for all your help! Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:13, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

For English, you'd want to check our conventions though {{IPA-en}}. The a's would need to be /æ/ (as in 'cat'), /ɑː/ (as in 'father'), or /ə/ (as in 'sofa'). But if you're just making something up, it would be OR and probably best avoided. Also, do you really mean to stress the name on the first syllable? I thought Malay had (ante)penultimate stress. — kwami (talk) 00:21, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I seem to remember my linguistics professor saying that the stress on the syllables wasn't as strong as in English. However, you are correct insofar as /'kuːntʃaraniːŋrat/ would be OR and would not be used in the article; I was just trying (and failing, judging by those a sounds) to understand the rules for writing things phonetically. Thanks for all the help! Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:13, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, few languages have stress as strong as in English, but it can still be important to get it right.

Well, you're working between two languages, which makes it more difficult. The IPA key linked from the template gives example words, so you can use those to sound things out. Our system is set up in such a way that it shouldn't matter which dialect of English you speak, as long as it isn't Scots. — kwami (talk) 02:21, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. By the way, thanks for fixing the IPA in Chrisye. I am using ˈ now, in accordance with the rules at WP:IPA for Malay (footnote 8). As for the English IPA... I think I'll leave it alone for now; converting (translating? Is there a proper term?) Indonesian IPA to English seems to be more than I can handle for now, even as a native speaker of English. Using a language and writing it phonetically are two completely different creatures. Cheers, and looking forward to another language DYK! Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:34, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Zarma edits

Thanks for the recent edits to the Zarma language article. I do have a few questions about some of your recent edits.

1. My background in linguistics is minimal. What exactly do the "<>" symbols stand for in your edit, which reads "a following ‹n› or ‹ŋ›"? Do they indicate orthography?

Yes. Actually, the correct symbols are ⟨n⟩, ⟨ŋ⟩, but they are not widely supported by phonetic fonts.

Thanks for the information.

2. I'm not sure the consonant table edits are correct. The article says the consonant table is a "table using Zarma orthography". It used to use standard Zarma spelling with just a few explanatory IPA symbols in brackets where needed. But now it is a mix of spelling conventions and phonetic representations with inconsistent punctuation differentiating the two. I would prefer returning it to the orthographic representations because the text and the bracketed IPA symbols fully explain how the letters are pronounced. But if you disagree, we could rewrite the table entirely in phonetic symbols. In any case, it really should be all IPA symbols or all standard spelling indicators rather than the current mixture, right? Or am I missing something?

I'll revert myself and take a better look.

Nearly everything looks perfect now. I like the way you reorganized the spelling information. I made a couple of minor additions and answered your question.

3. Why was the labiodental nasal removed? This leaves the sentence in the text above the table somewhat orphaned and the table incomplete. --seberle (talk) 01:51, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

It's not a phoneme, so the article is simply wrong. That allophone is practically universal, so we seldom bother to even mention it. — kwami (talk) 02:03, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

That makes sense. I need to double check what Hamani and Tersis say about this. If I use /n/ before /f/, Zarma people correct my pronunciation in a way no one would do if I pronounced English "infant" with /n/, but I don't think there are any minimal pairs, so it is undoubtedly an allophone. --seberle (talk) 20:53, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, you're right about /n/, and I left a note about that. But /m/ is automatic for English speakers and just about everyone else. There's only one language in the world that's reported to have a contrastive /ɱ/, and they file their teeth in such a way that it sounds different than it would otherwise. — kwami (talk) 20:59, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

In Zarma, the distinction between m and n before f is one of spelling only. For example, some people write damfane, most people write danfane, but everyone pronounces it /dáɱfáné/. --seberle (talk) 14:07, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Allophones of , , , and in Indonesian

Sorry to bother you again Kwami, but as I was taking a look at Misplaced Pages:IPA for Malay I remembered that (in Indonesian, at least) the vowels , , , and have the allophones /ɛ/, /ɪ/, /ɔ/, and /ʊ/ respectively when in closed syllables at the end of a word (for example, Template:IPA-id 'catfish', but Template:IPA-id 'melt'; Template:IPA-id 'cheek' and Template:IPA-id 'to pee (informal)'; Template:IPA-id 'soto' and Template:IPA-id 'cuttlefish'; and Template:IPA-id 'know' or 'tofu' and Template:IPA-id 'year'). Would that be worth including at Misplaced Pages:IPA for Malay? Thanks. Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:21, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

An online reference can be found here, although it's not the exact same as what I was taught. Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:24, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Check out the talk page. This was brought up before but never resolved.

What distinguishes from and from in Indonesian? Are they allophonic, predictable from adjacent consonants? — kwami (talk) 03:25, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with zɪzɨvə's table. As for what distinguishes from and from as phonemes (in Indonesian), we were taught the the occurrences of minimal pairs like Template:IPA-id 'beak' and Template:IPA-id 'match' demonstrated that and are separate phonemes since the meaning changes with the sound. I can't remember any for and right now. Sounds like /o/ and /ɔ/ were said to be allophones because they could be switched without changing the meaning (we could say Template:IPA-id instead of the formal Template:IPA-id and it would still mean 'cuttlefish'). Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:44, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

and : Template:IPA-id 'map' vs. Template:IPA-id 'tape' or 'ribbon'. Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:49, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Kamus Lengkap (Wojowasito) gives cucuk as a variant of (men)cocok. They don't list a similar word for 'beak'. And in the case of peta vs. pita, it's really pəta vs. pita, not *péta. That's what I've generally found: when s.o. claims a phonemic difference, a little digging will show it isn't that straightforward, at least not in native words. On the other hand, Poedjosoedarmo says that these distinctions (and also a o–ɔ distinction) were introduced from Javanese.) I don't have a problem with the extra allophones, but you should probably restart the talk-page discussion. — kwami (talk) 03:58, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Kamus Besar Bahasa Indonesia (National Education Department, Fourth Edition ) gives cucuk as 'thorn', with some Javanese loan meanings as well. I will try and find more examples, but I agree that this should be moved to the talk page. Doing so now. Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:06, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

And (men)cocok is 'to prick'. They're presumably the same root.

Because it's written with five vowel letters, it's been standardized as having five (or six) vowels. But that's always struck me as rather artificial. What we really seem to have is a four-vowel system, /i u ə a/, with /i/ being and /u/ being , and an introduction of a high–mid distinction from English, Dutch, and Javanese loans—and according to Poedjosoedarmo, also /ɔ/ as a distinct vowel in Javanese loans, including a lot used for administration. So we have /i u ə a/ in native words, and /i u e ə o ɔ a/ in loan words. But the and distinctions in native words, even if set out as absolute in dictionaries, are not stable, and seem to reflect a top–down decision rather than the language as it's spoken.

When Malaysia and Indonesia coordinated their national standards, one of the things they had to agree on was which words should have i u, and which should have e o. They couldn't go by the actual words, because the difference was meaningless in native vocabulary. So they set out rules where they decided based on the adjacent consonants. — kwami (talk) 04:22, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Possible. However, for the different versions aren't we using the standard to establish IPA? By the way, I've added more pairs for and at the talk page. Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:29, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, but the standard is primarily one of orthography. The distinction is largely meaningless for actual pronunciation, which is what the IPA is supposed to transcribe. — kwami (talk) 04:30, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps, although the pronunciation depends completely on the dialect and ethnic group. I think the discussion ought to be continued on the project talk page. Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:03, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Declination article

The symbol proposed for the sun in the Declination article do not render as anything meaningful in the Opera browser. Did you not read the edit history reverting the previous change? - Ac44ck (talk) 06:04, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

That's why I formatted it with the unicode template. Since AFAIK the unicode template supports the browsers which are not versatile enough to display straight text, I think the problem is probably that you're missing the proper fonts. Declination is not relative to a labial click, but to the Sun. I'm sure there are readers who can't read the labial click either. If we introduced errors for every reader who hasn't installed more than minimal fonts, we'd be pretty close to ASCII. — kwami (talk) 06:08, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I apologize for the tone of my post. You obviously have much knowledge about this topic. Your solution is probably best. - Ac44ck (talk) 18:52, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I hope so. If the {{unicode}} template I added the 2nd time doesn't take care of it, I'm not sure what to do. The other symbol was factually wrong, and I suspect that other readers would have the same problem with it that you do with the Sun symbol. The reason I found it was that I was searching for bare IPA symbols like it, as some readers need them to be embedded in the {{IPA}} template for proper display. When I find an IPA symbol that isn't being used as a phonetic symbol, I replace it with the proper Unicode symbol, assuming one exists. Otherwise I suspect that there might be objections from readers who have astronomical-symbol fonts installed, but can't read this because we substitute a phonetic symbol and they have no interest in phonetics. — kwami (talk) 18:59, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Voiceless palato-alveolar sibilant

I goofed when I attempted to revert a recent move. Feel free to move Voiceless palatal-alveolar sibilant to Voiceless palato-alveolar sibilant. — Ƶ§œš¹ 19:23, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Done. — kwami (talk) 19:27, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

East Cree

Kwami, in all your manipulation of Northern East Cree and Southern East Cree, you managed to lose Southern East Cree. Northern East and Southern East are distinct languages/dialects and require separate pages. --Taivo (talk) 08:50, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

No, it's still there. Just because Ethnologue splits them doesn't mean we have to. It's not like we have so much material we need separate pages. — kwami (talk) 08:53, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a reference that combines these two dialects or is it your own collapse? (I'm out of the country, so I'm not at my library and can't check.) If you don't have a reliable source that combines them into a single node, then you you can't do it here just for convenience. Every source that I recall separates them and doesn't have an "East Cree" node (despite the similarity of their name). But I'm working from memory. --Taivo (talk) 13:32, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

The terms "James Bay Cree" and "East Main Cree" are commonly used for both together. They share most of their mergers compared to neighboring lects, and the two isoglosses that distinguish them (ā~ē and s~š) do not coincide, so by that criterion there are three East Cree lects (northern coastal, southern coastal, and southern inland).

As for refs, quite a few contrast Naskapi, Monagnais, and East Cree, or Moose Cree, Woods Cree, and East Cree. A few East Cree refs that came up immediately were:

• Junker, "Semantic primes and their grammar in a polysynthetic language: East Cree", in Goddard 2008 Cross-linguistic semantics (John Benjamins)
• Older Junker papers on "East Cree" cited in the Papers of the 27th Algonquian Conference, Carleton U, 2006.
• Jancewicz, "Related-Language Translation: Naskapi and East Cree", in Swann 2011 Born in the Blood: On Native American Translation (U Nebraska)
• East Cree "dialect" kept together when comparing to Eastern Naskapi (kept distinct from Western Naskapi) in Brittain 2001 The morphosyntax of the Algonquian Conjunct verb (though that's minimalism, for what it's worth): "The status of kâ in East Cree" etc.; NE Cree and SE Cree only seem to be distinguished in this ref when discussing a feature where they differ.

— kwami (talk) 19:31, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

OK. Sounds fine. --Taivo (talk) 20:56, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Tambora language

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 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? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 16:04, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Request (June)

Would you mind giving a look to this edit request? Thanks! 68.35.40.154 (talk) 04:45, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Sure. Done. — kwami (talk) 04:53, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Quick service! Thanks very much. 68.35.40.154 (talk) 05:00, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

{{IPA2}}

You broke my user page :( 131.211.84.85 (talk) 14:09, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry. I didn't want to go around redoing people's user pages, and didn't know how many of these old links were still active. Maybe I should? Anyway, your page is now updated with a Dutch IPA key. If you prefer, there's also a more generic IPA-all. — kwami (talk) 19:47, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing. It indeed links to a more useful page now. The old template is still linked to from quite a few other user pages though, so I think it might be better if either all those instances are replaced by a the new template or the old redirect kept in place. Cheers, 131.211.84.85 (talk) 12:34, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I suppose people won't mind me editing their user pages for that. — kwami (talk) 20:50, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Jubilee 150 Walkway

Thanks! I've been meaning to do that for ages. (Honest!) Pdfpdf (talk) 11:39, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Wow, I fixed the formatting and someone didn't complain about it! That's nice. I did break one of the links, though. Now fixed. — kwami (talk) 16:14, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Breaking things with AWB

Hello Kwamikagami! It looks like you're breaking things with AWB. Cbrown1023 talk 20:21, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. That's since been fixed; sorry I didn't notice it happen with Ukraine. — kwami (talk) 20:49, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Okay, good to hear. Thanks! Cbrown1023 talk 20:58, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Talkback (June)

-- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 07:38, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Khanty-Mansi Autonomous Okrug

May I ask why you used an en-dash between Khanty and Mansi in your most recent move? I just want to make sure I understand the rationale. Thanks.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 10, 2011; 20:04 (UTC)

I was trying to figure out what to do with the em dash. That was just lifted from the Russian, but we don't use em dashes that way in English. (We don't space them when we do use them, and we don't normally use them inside of names regardless.) Russian em dash is usually equivalent to English en dash (or hyphen, but a spaced hyphen is even worse, or a slash; a slash might work too). But if we're going to use an en dash for the "– Yugra" part, then to be consistent we should probably use one for the "Khanty–Mansi" part too: They are two separate entities, as AFAIK Russia does not consider them to be a single Khanty-Mansi people, which is what a hyphen would imply. If we're using en dashes, independent entities normally take them. Cf. our war articles, which are "X–Y War", where X and Y are the combatants. Or spaced "X – Y War" when X or Y have a space in them, which is what we have here with (KM Auton. Okrug)–(Yugra).

This is a weird one, though, so if you have a better idea, pls let me know. — kwami (talk) 20:14, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

The World Bank has "Khanty-Mansi Autonomous Okrug-Yugra", with all hyphens. The okrug govt. site has essentially the same thing, "Khanty-Mansiysk Autonomous Okrug-Ugra", but that's wrong because it's not an 'okrug-yugra'. Also, in they go on to call it just "Ugra": Over two tens of Ugra citizens ... (I'm not going to take punctuation advice from anyone who says "over two tens".)

The Central Siberian Botanical Gardens has "Khanty-Mansi Autonomous Okrug (Yugra)": Ecological Traits of the Lichen Flora of Khanty-Mansi Autonomous Okrug (Yugra). If you don't like the en dash, we could maybe try that. — kwami (talk) 20:16, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

No, I don't have a better idea, unfortunately. I've asked you in hopes to get one :) Since I link to that article quite a bit, I would like to understand why the dashes are laid out the way they are (correcting all those backlinks is no fun when the article keeps moving from one place to another).

The article was previously moved by someone who believed that "Yugra" should be included in the title (before, it was at just "Khanty-Mansi Autonomous Okrug"). I don't care much either way, but would love to see the title stabilize for a reason that can be explained to others and not just on a hunch.

In Russian, there is a dash between Khanty and Mansi, and, with Yugra being basically an alternative name, there is an em-dash between "okrug" and "Yugra". That, of course, means nothing from the point of view of English grammar, and dashes are one area of the English grammar I'm not very comfortable with. Thanks for trying to explain, though. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 10, 2011; 20:24 (UTC)

In English, we use en dash and spaced en dash rather than en dash and em dash as in Russian. They are parallel, since spaced en dash is a typographic alternate for em dash in English anyway.

We also use slashes when two languages have equal standing, as in Catalan / Spanish city names, so that might work too. If we don' have a dash for Yugra, there's no real need to have a dash between Khanty and Mansi. (We might decide on that later, but currently we don't do that for other Russian states.)

I don't think we need both in the name. The common name in English is still KMAO, so IMO that's where it belongs, and I'd be happy to move it back if you like. Then we'd just say "also known as Yugra" in the lede. — kwami (talk) 20:16, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I have no problem with you moving it back to "Khanty-Mansi Autonomous Okrug", but you might want to have a talk with the editor who moved it to the "Yugra" variant beforehand. Perhaps he had other reasons we are not seeing.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 10, 2011; 20:54 (UTC)

AWB

Please be careful when making such edits with AWB, as the link to the image broke because the file name uses a hyphen, not a dash. Adabow (talk · contribs) 07:35, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Ah, sorry. Thanks for letting me know. I have it set to ignore file links, but I didn't anticipate that wording. It's now set to ignore the 'cover' parameter. — kwami (talk) 07:37, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

In this edit, you inserted a birth-year that has no citation. It's okay to add details if you know them, but it's not okay to summarize as just "fmt" when you are changing content facts. This particular fact-edit is completely unacceptable because it violates WP:BLP--uncited, and the cites we do have are contradictory, which is even stated in the infobox and on the talkpage. DMacks (talk) 13:01, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I didn't add that, AWB did. It was an automatic fix. If it's wrong, we need to bring it up on the AWB bug page. — kwami (talk) 13:56, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

As an AWB or other tool user, you are 100% responsible for every change you make using it. But I agree, definitely file a bug if the tool is causing a problem. DMacks (talk) 14:16, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Junrey Balawing

Hi, can you check the IPA for Junrey Balawing? It's certainly not standard English but is labelled as IPA for English. μηδείς (talk) 20:02, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

It's not Tagalog either. I suppose it could be Subanon, but more likely just wrong. Deleted. — kwami (talk) 00:17, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello, obviously this biographical article is intended for English speakers and not to the subject's country of origin. Though we Filipinos speak English but we do have different sets of languages, alphabet & even Misplaced Pages page. Thus, I am hoping for the restoration of IPA description you deleted. Rammaum (talk) 10:44, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Sure. Which language was it in? We need to identify the language when it isn't English. Or if it's intended to be English, you'd need to tell me what the actual English pronunciation is. — kwami (talk) 10:53, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. It's a Filipino English intended for English reader. It is pronounced as "June Re" - thanks. Rammaum (talk) 15:44, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I assume re means ray? Stress on the June or on the Ray ? — kwami (talk) 15:46, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Please don't assume. June as to the 6th Month Gregorian, and Re as to regarding, not ray as sunlight rays. Thanks. Rammaum (talk) 16:49, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

That's why I was asking you, and it would be nice if you answered the question so I didn't have to keep repeating it. So it's ree rather than ray. Fine. Now which is stressed, the june or the ree ? — kwami (talk) 17:39, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

It's stressed in ree and please could you kindly resolved the DOB format as I am implying its consistency both in the infobox and DOB in line 1 as explained here despite my request it has been edited many times unxplained. Thank you so much. Rammaum (talk) 18:08, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

IPA done. Don't understand about the DOB: it looks consistent to me. — kwami (talk) 18:15, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Lock down Spratly Islands

Within the past 4 days, there have been 6 edits (example) replacing 'South China' with 'West Philippine' in the context of the sea. All purely disruptive and by changing users/IPs, so either a range-block or a semi-protect of this article, please. Thanks

PS: I have promised not to make any requests at WP:Requests for __ for the time being, and will not renege on that promise. —HXL's Roundtable and Record 06:19, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not following you on your second comment, but I went ahead and semi-protected the article. — kwami (talk) 06:28, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

AN3

I believe Ibibiogrl attempted to report you for a WP:3RR violation on the Efik language article. Best, Meph 23:52, 13 June 2011 (UTC).

Thanks. — kwami (talk) 02:42, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Source software that's free and open

Your advice on this would be good. Tony (talk) 09:10, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I moved it back to what the RfM had decided on, and I cleaned up some of the punctuation. As for the shorter title, that should perhaps be decided by discussion. — kwami (talk) 11:31, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks; good to know I wasn't getting it wrong. Tony (talk) 12:49, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

You should know better than to move pages without checking that everything moved properly. I'll leave you to clean that up, seeing as you've obviously got a keen interest in the subject. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 08:31, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry. I don't know why that happens sometimes. — kwami (talk) 09:02, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

The page move tool should notify you if one of the pages failed to move. In this case it's due to the redirect having more than one revision. Should the page be moved again I'll probably just delete the redirects and recreate them to prevent this happening again. Do you want to fix them for the time being, or should I? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 09:23, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I've never noticed such a notice. Maybe I've just not been paying attention, though I do notice the message when subpages need moving.

'Fix them': you mean deleting their page history? If just redirecting them, a bot should take care of that within a few hours. — kwami (talk) 09:28, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

The talk page is still unhyphenated: a bot won't fix that. You need to move it to match the (currently hyphenated) article title. At that point, a bot should catch the Talk:History of Free Software. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 09:30, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I thought I just moved it. Even checked to delete the redirect. Well, it's done now. — kwami (talk) 09:34, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Talkback II (June)

See my talk page for a response. Cheers, m.o.p 22:51, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

File:2011 Libyan Civil War.png

About the map, I find that it is just a way to give you an idea, like holding just one province. The outskirts of Sabha are not held by rebels, but just to show there is a resistance. Message me back so I know you understand at my talk page. Spesh531, My talk, and External links 13:26, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Alphabets of Asia Minor

In light of your remark on Talk:Alphabets of Asia Minor, shouldn't Genealogy of scripts derived from Proto-Sinaitic be changed to reflect the ultimate origin of these scripts in regional Greek alphabets? Also, Carian is first attested in the 7th century BC, and none of the others is attested before the 5th century BC, so the "c. 800 BC" in the genealogy seems to be there to push the dubious POV that they are really independent developments from Phoenician. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 15:07, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but I wouldn't lump them together either. IMO they should be listed separately just as other scripts are. — kwami (talk) 16:10, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for making the change. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 15:50, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Anchors in section titles

Hi,

Thank you for the clean-up work you have been doing in the various automobile articles. However, shifting anchors into section titles (eg in Toyota Sprinter) causes the history summaries to look like /* First generation {{anchor|E10}} */ some action I did. Having '{{anchor|E10}}' in every edit summary sure wastes a lot of space, looks ugly and is harder to read. Is it possible for you to leave the anchors in their original positions? Thanks.  Stepho  talk  05:58, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Sure, it's possible, but then they won't direct the reader to the beginning of the section as they're supposed to. IMO producing a functional encyclopedia outweighs the inconvenience to WP editors. A solution might be to recode WP so that it ignores anchor templates in section headings when recording edits. Another might be to recode it so that the anchors can be placed after the section heading without messing them up, the way html comments don't mess them up. — kwami (talk) 06:04, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I came here to make the same request: please don't move the anchor tags into the section headers. In addition to the problem Stepho-wrs mentioned, it also breaks the section links in the history lists (e.g., see my 12:49 section edit today here), at least until a solution is implemented. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:53, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

How does it break them? — kwami (talk) 12:58, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Click the link to see the history. My 12:49 edit says "12:49, 21 June 2011 (diff | hist) Sara Jean Underwood ‎ (→Modeling : test edit)". Click on the "→". It should take you to the section, but does not. If you use <span> tags instead of the {{anchor}}, they work correctly though. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:00, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Got it. Any idea on when that might happen? This has been a problem for years. Are span tags even recommended? — kwami (talk) 13:11, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

That's what I switched to based on the earlier discussion at Template talk:Anchor#Usage is confusing (wrong?) and Template talk:Anchor#Header and anchor text. No idea on a fix's due date, though. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:24, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Your point about making sure that a link to an anchor goes to the top of the section is quite valid. Which is why I always put the anchor just above the section title. that way, a link to the anchor will always be just above the section title - which shows up in browsers as starting with the section title at the top of the screen. Unfortunately some of your edits (eg Toyota Sprinter) have converted the following:

==History==
{{anchor|E10}}
===First generation—E10 series===

to:

==History {{anchor|E10}} ==
===First generation—E10 series===

In my original form, the E10 anchor belongs to 'First generation—E10 series' section and browsers correctly show 'First generation—E10 series' at the top of the page but your edit puts 'History' at the top of the page. This isn't a great disaster but it is at least logically wrong (editors will wrongly think that the E10 anchor belongs to 'History' instead of the 'First generation—E10 series', which might cause confusion in any future rearranging of sections). It also screws up the edit summary history (as we both said above). And it doesn't give better results than my old method - indeed, it is very mildly worse. I do think that your other changes are worthwhile and I do thank you for them - it is only the changes to anchors that are causing me grief.  Stepho  talk  13:41, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that was an oversight on my part. Sorry. I thought I caught those as they went by, but I must have missed more than I thought.

The problem with putting the anchor above the header, of course, is that it could get separated if the sections are rearranged. It looks like there is no good solution for this. — kwami (talk) 13:45, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

@Stepho: Putting the anchor on the line before the related heading is guaranteed to break links in some articles in the future. Editors will move sections around and it is highly likely that a "before the heading" anchor will not be moved with the heading in a significant number of cases. Worse, fixing such a problem could be very difficult when the broken anchor is noticed a few months after the section was moved. Using <span> (and not using the template) appears to be the only method that works. See Template talk:Anchor#moving anchors inside headings for my comment. Johnuniq (talk) 01:57, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

@John: Yep, I did some experimenting a while ago and found that many automated tools separated the anchor from the section title by a blank line - making it a bit more likely that a major rearrangement would separate them permanently. Considering that all the other methods I tried had even worse disadvantages (including anchors within section titles), I was happy to accept this minimal risk. I created a test page at User:Stepho-wrs/test to test out how well your span method works (feel free to experiment with it). It has minimal effect on the edit summary history, with only an extra space that I can live with. but one disadvantage is that the section title looks complicated to novices. A second disadvantage is that multiple anchors need to be replaced with multiple spans (multiple id's on a single span only uses the last one). For myself, I think the risk of my method losing the anchor during a rearrangement is less than the hassle of complicate span statements. But of course, everyone values each of these aspects differently.  Stepho  talk  05:27, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Any further comments should probably be at Template talk:Anchor, but while I agree there are no good solutions (and a MediaWiki enhancement seems best), it's not so much a risk of the anchor being separated from the section as a question of when will it occur (it's highly likely to occur eventually, and hard to detect, and harder to fix—I once needed to do that). Johnuniq (talk) 06:48, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, IMO before the header should be discouraged. — kwami (talk) 08:18, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Vates

Hey Kwami: Shouldn't we give the Latin/Gaulish pronunciation (prolly wɑːteːs) before the modern English one? And for the Greek pronunciation that you changed: the ou stands for the old digamma and represents a sound like the English ww, not an o-sound. Where did you find the pronunciation you entered? I'm only asking because I restecpt you and thought I'd check back before meddling. ;-) Trigaranus (talk) 13:37, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Normally we give the English pronunciation first. More of our readers will be looking for that.

Please go ahead and fix up my Greek wherever I messed up. I was merely trying to keep the articles in line with the IPA key: some had , others , others were simply wrong, etc.

I wasn't aware that *w was ever retained in Greek. I thought it had dropped out entirely by Classical times.

An Ali G fan! I don't think I ever got through Indahouse, but I loved the Show. — kwami (talk) 13:59, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I was worried I'd lowered the intellectual level too much with the Ali G reference...! ;-) As for the ou you're right: the traditional w sound had been lost quite a bit before Classical Greek (Mykenian wa-na-ka → Classical Greek anax). But it seemed common practice for Greek authors to render names and terms from foreign languages with a semi-vocalic ou where we must assume a v or w sound from their Latin or modern counterparts. There are numerous examples in ethnological / geographical texts, e.g. Ptolemy's Geography. BTW having outed myself as someone who laughs at penis jokes I suppose it won't ruin my reputation when I say that the retention of the digamma in historical/regional varieties of Greek and their respective writing systems is an extremely fascinating matter indeed. :-) I'll tweak the Greek IPA and add the Latin behind the English pronunciation if that's okay with you. Trigaranus (talk) 14:39, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good.

Actually, given the context, this might be one of those occasions where it's better to have the non-English pronunciation first. I'll leave that decision to you; just be sure it's clear to the reader which language is which.

I used to watch the Ali G Show when it was still only broadcast in the UK and we had to nick it. Some of it was just too cringe-inducing to watch though. — kwami (talk) 14:47, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Gbe languages

This edit has introduced an incoherent sentence. Roger Blench classifies WHAT? I'd have fixed it but I have no idea what you were trying to say. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 15:53, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Hard for me to remember either. Can't tell if s.t. got left out or s.t. extra got left in. Rewrote it. — kwami (talk) 16:13, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

IPA - always the weird ones :P

Hi, I am stuck at Jarrod Bleijie. The guy's surname rhymes with "playi(ng)" (see ), I ended up with /ˈbleɪjiː/. Any ideas? Orderinchaos 09:08, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Looks good. Maybe /ˈbleɪji/ with a reduced final /i/, if that's the CITY vowel (what in the UK they would transcribe as /ˈbleɪjɪ/). — kwami (talk) 10:06, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Template:Plutoids

Thanks for the fixes - looks better already. Cheers. --Ckatz_spy 18:06, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Changed names in phonetics

Hi, some names in phonetics have changed in {{IPAsym}}. Could you take a look at this question? -DePiep (talk) 20:57, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Mediation around Abortion articles location

After the latest move request has landed up with about equal numbers for both sides I've started a mediation request. Please indicate there if you wish to participate. Thanks. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:45, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I thought the articles had been merged into abortion debate, so I was no longer paying attention. But I'll pass on the mediation. — kwami (talk) 18:58, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Minor and minor-

FYI, I've reverted your changes with respect to this. There doesn't appear to be any discussion leading to the changes, and a similar attempt last year was not accepted either. If consensus for the change does develop, then so be it, but that needs to happen first given the number of articles it would affect. Please let me know if there are any articles with unrelated grammatical changes that may have been inadvertently reversed in the process, as I can assist in restoring them. Cheers. --Ckatz_spy 16:38, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't remember making this request last year. This is just generic English punctuation, followed in some sources but not in others, as is typical for punctuation. — kwami (talk) 18:45, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

AFD for Genealogy of scripts derived from Proto-Sinaitic

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Genealogy of scripts derived from Proto-Sinaitic - Were you aware of this, and are you going to comment? I thought all the major contributors were supposed to be notified of an afd, but this doesn't seem to have happened, so I'm notifying you as a contributor. The deletionists' main recurring argument seems to be that it inaccurately portrays language family relationships (including some who really ought to know the difference between language families, and scripts) Thanks, Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:17, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Yupik

I noticed your renaming of the Siberian Yupik article. Please provide a rationale on the discussion page. My understanding is that Yupik is effectively an adjective and Yuit, like Inuit, is intrinsically plural. Perhaps the article should be Siberian Yupik People?Dankarl (talk) 11:47, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

That's the form used in the lede. "Siberian Yupik people" would be fine; I don't see any effective difference. — kwami (talk) 11:50, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Changes in tribe/clan article titles?

Greetings, is there a particular SOP/policy, or consensus somewhere upon which you're basing your many changes? For example Ghosi (tribe) --> Ghosi tribe. It's just an extensive amount of changes, and I hadn't seen anything at WP:WikiProject India bringing the issue up. MatthewVanitas (talk) 13:52, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

That's how almost all of our tribal articles are named. "Tribe" isn't being used as a dab, but as part of the name, like 'Hindi language'. — kwami (talk) 13:56, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Co-articulated consonants with audio

Hi, in my sandbox I created this for a template. Could you take a look, to prevent mistakes in phonetics, or any improvements? Thank you. Later on I'll put it in a template, and add a transclusion into IPA pulmonic consonants chart with audio. -DePiep (talk) 22:21, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Have started with the affriccates, we have 9/13 sound files. Any suggestions for column- or rowtitles? -DePiep (talk) 22:39, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I'd say 'Co-articulated consonants with IPA and audio'. Files play, but the time bar stays up after they're done (on FF), which makes the table difficult to read.

There are no good column titles, because col. 3 (your 4/5) have nothing in common. — kwami (talk) 22:48, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

All right, no col titles then then. Indeed, the FF soundplayer isspoiling, but I cannot control that. Working on the last, ejectives-table too. Thank you. -DePiep (talk) 01:52, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

language

wow im sorry man. they were good faith tags. I did not know. sorry. I didnt even know u were an admin to begin with man or else I wouldn't have reverted, I just thought it was a user removing the tags. I apologize.KING OF WIKIPEDIA - GRIM LITTLEZ (talk) 06:43, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi

Hi, 神鏡. If I don't misunderstand, you are interested in issues related with Turkey and Turkic world. Could you control sources in the current vandalized edition and this edition of the article Zaza people ? Have a nice weekend. See you. Takabeg (talk) 09:40, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I'll take a look. First of all, though, neither of you are 'vandalizing' the article. Calling each other vandals just causes us to take neither of you seriously. — kwami (talk) 12:28, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

hello may I ask why you changed the article and removed all Sources which clearly point out Zaza considering themselves as Kurds?

Here is the discussion showing us that he couldn´t give any source providing his claims and he also did call me a Vandal first. http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Zaza_people#Neutrality

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikisupporting (talk • contribs) 12:43, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I explained that. I'm not taking sides, merely reverted to prior to the content dispute. You need to find WP:Consensus (please read); if you fight over this just to get your way, I'll block you. (And vice versa, if the other side refuses to cooperate, I'll block them.) If your opinion is supported in the literature, you'll be able to convince other editors. I've given the two of you a week to try to work this out. Meanwhile I'm checking a few refs I have, and will summarize them on the talk page.

(edit conflict) The 'vandalism' thing is just ridiculous. Crying 'he did it first!' makes you sound like children. (Which perhaps you are, but we expect you to not act like it.) — kwami (talk) 12:53, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

excuse me but it is not a good feeling if someone starts to call you vandal but your right this was childish. I already explained all of this Issue on the talk page of Dougweller (another admin). Here please read it. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Dougweller&action=edit&section=1

It is under the section "Why did you change the sentence from most to large."

Also please take in account that the User Taakabeg started a edit war even before this all was cleared between us. I friendly asked him for sources showing us that the Majority to all Zaza consider themselves as Kurds and are seen as such by ethnologist he couldn´t and simply called me a Vandal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikisupporting (talk • contribs) 13:00, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, that's why I reverted both of you. If Doug wishes to unprotect the article or restore your edits or both, I won't have any objection. But this is a content dispute, and we have ways of dealing with content disputes. Doug pointed you to some on his page. — kwami (talk) 13:12, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Please kwamikagama don´t let yourself be manipulated by some users who couldn´t find sources for their claims and now are arguing with "vandalism" look what the User Takabeg is saying to me on my board.

http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Wikisupporting#Your_belief

He is simply "insulting" me by saying I am a Zaza who is worshipping "the Kurds". he simply doesen´t wants to discuss with me in a calm manner. instead of showing a sources which says that the majority of Zaza consider themselves as a distinct ethnic group, he only accuses me for Vandalism.

Before the User takabeg started to edit, there was no edit war between me or any other User. He simply changed the whole article and removed some source. Because he found them not reliable for Misplaced Pages (his own opinion) and also he had double morals in his edits. he only mentioned parts of the sources which suit his believes and had nothing to do with the ethnic identification of Zaza and let the parts out were it is clearly pointed out Zaza considering themselves as Kurds. This is now going on for over a day and i am tired in explaining him he should find sources pointing out that the majority of zaza consider themselves as a separate group.Wikisupporting (talk) 13:19, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

That's why we have the RS rule: if the sources are on your side, you win. If they're ambiguous, however, as the ones I have access to are, then we need to reflect that in the article.

But I must say, the more you talk, the less serious an editor you seem. Your attitude seems to be that his opinion is illegitimate because it disagrees with yours. Let the sources decide, and other editors beside the two of you can evaluate which opinion they support. — kwami (talk) 14:11, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Glad that you understand me. my whole point is about the ethnicity not about the language Zazaki. while I asked the User takabeg more than enough times to show sources which say that the ethnic self-designation of Zaza is not kurdish. So I will change it. But he couldn´t instead that, he showed me sources pointing out Zazaki being not kurdish in linguistic manner. And that there are some small circles in Diaspora which consider themselves as separate Group like Van Bruinessen mentioned. There is no evidence to believe that the Zaza do not consider themselves (at least the large majority) as Kurds but there are many sources exactly pointing out that they do consider themselves as Kurds.

Wikisupporting (talk) 14:30, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Zaza people

Glad to see someone else involved. I've suggested an RfC, what do you think? Dougweller (talk) 13:49, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

That may be a good idea.

Feel free to revert my rollback or protection if you like.

I've added a couple sources, though mostly linguistic with very little on the essential question of ethnicity. And a couple paragraphs of my opinion, though generic stuff since I don't know anything about this situation. That's probably all I'll have for RfC input, though I can unprotect if things settle down. (Or you.) When the block ends, however, I'll be out of the country for another week, and won't be participating during that time. — kwami (talk) 14:08, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

hello Kwami I have given a answer to your sources.

http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Zaza_people#Removed_part

You see exactly my point. language doesen´t mean ethnicity. I have found many articles pointing out that Zaza consider themselves as Kurds but the user takabeg couldn´t find any sources claiming the opposite.

and still while I was asking him, he didn´t gave me sources but only mentioned linguistic issues.

here are some Sources pointing out that Zaza consider themselves as Kurds.

http://www.let.uu.nl/~martin.vanbruinessen/personal/publications/Bruinessen_Ethnic_identity_Kurds.pdf

I quote some parts.

"This makes it necessary for me to state at the outset precisely whom I mean when in this article I use the ethnic label "Kurds". For pragmatic reasons I use a rather loose and wide definition, including all native speakers of dialects belonging to the Iranic languages Kurmanji or Zaza,"

This is the linguist part. I think we both agree that Zazaki is not a dialect of Kurmanji but a language.

"as well as those Turkish speaking persons who claim descent from Kurmanji or Zaza speakers and who still (or again) consider themselves as Kurds"

These are the Zaza and Kurmanj from which I told you who are partly assimilated (linguistically ) but still consider themselves Kurdish.

"if any, Kurmanji speakers understand Zaza, but most Zaza speakers know at least some Kurmanji. Virtually all Zaza speakers consider themselves, and are considered by the Kurmanji speakers, as Kurds."

This is exactly the Point I am referring to. Beside among some Diaspora Groups there is no Zaza which does not consider himself Kurdish but only Zaza and I have never seen a sources claiming the opposite. Thats why we should change the Article about Zaza into "Zaza are a Group which ethnically considered themselves as Kurds.

Here is another Source. The author of the book is Ludwig Paul a linguist and ethnologist who claims Zazaki as a independent language but considers them ethnically as Kurds. He also mentions that the Zaza consider themselves as Kurds.

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=LuVSkpVuAkAC&pg=PA385&dq=zaza+paul+ludwig&hl=de&ei=sFUCTpvML8-OswbH4smODQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCYQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=zaza%20paul%20ludwig&f=false

page 386.

" Die Mehrzahl der Sprecher des Zazaki bezeichnet sich heute als Kurden und hält ihre Sprache für einen kurdischen Dialekt."

translated

"The majority of the Zazaki Speakers today call themselves Kurds and consider their language as a kurdish Dialect.

http://www.zazaki.net/haber/among-social-kurdish-groups-general-glance-at-zazas-503.htm

http://www.scribd.com/doc/35883517/Kurds ,see page 3 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikisupporting (talk • contribs) 14:13, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not going to decide this. Present your evidence on the talk page of the Zaza article, and let everyone there evaluate it. — kwami (talk) 14:16, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your objective point of view. Yes I will add the Sources on the Zaza article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikisupporting (talk • contribs) 14:20, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello Kwami now after almost 24 hours of waiting the article blocked the user takabeg still didn´t contributed any sources to the Zaza talk page which could indicate that the majority of zaza consider themselves as a distinct ethnic Group and are due that a different ethnicity. When is this RFO going to end? Cause thats the first time for me. Wikisupporting (talk) 13:01, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Kwami the User takabeg doesen´t stop accusing me for Vandalism and makes a bad name among the Admins about me. Even while you did warn us both two hours before, on the Zaza talk page, to stop calling each other as such.

http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Kansas_Bear#Hi

Wikisupporting (talk) 21:00, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

For action to be taken against you as a vandal, he has to demonstrate that you're a vandal. He can't do that, so relax. No admin is going to think badly of you because he's running around screaming "vandal!", they're only going to think badly of him. What you can get in trouble for is edit warring. I don't know if you're at fault, if he is, or if both of you are, but since the article's been protected, it's not likely to be a problem unless it migrates elsewhere.

Meanwhile, present RS evidence for any changes you want to make on the talk page. Present RS evidence against the changes he wants to make. He should do the same with you. I think Doug is putting in a 'request for comment'; the editors who drop by should be able to evaluate who's opinion is better supported, if either. But please don't come here asking me to babysit the two of you because he's calling you names. If it gets bad enough, report it at WP:Wikiquette alerts. — kwami (talk) 21:20, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

?

Hi, 神鏡. I don't understand this message. Who accused you ? Who screamed ? I can say easily that this case is not WP:Content dispute, but propaganda. Because it is well-known fact that there are several theses about the ehnicity, language of Zazas. I only tried to neutralize the article. Misplaced Pages:Identifying reliable sources show this fact. Our duty is not to prove which thesis is "true" but to show what kind of theses are. I (not only I, but also every normal person) accept presence of various theses. One user who are supporting only one thesis, removed imformation that doesn't support his/her own thesis. I hope you will understand it. Takabeg (talk) 21:37, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Oh God I'm tired of you two.

You're running around calling your opponent a vandal. He is obviously not a vandal, any more than you are, so that casts doubt on your credibility. If you want to be taken seriously, don't make frivolous accusations.

And it obviously is a content dispute. The fact that you would deny it, again, casts doubt on your character.

Present your evidence on the talk page. Other editors will judge whether your sources support your POV, his POV, or neither.

As for the Zazas being Kurds, AFACT some of them consider themselves to be Kurds, some of them don't. I have no idea about the relative numbers or how it's changed over time. But ethnicity isn't an empirical fact, it's an opinion, so I wouldn't be surprised if there is no one right answer. — kwami (talk) 22:17, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

kwami thats why I changed the article the last time before it was closed. to Zaza consider themselves as Kurds

You can see it here http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Zaza_people&oldid=437367876

And I did this because the only two sources I know which give any numbers are Paul Ludwig (who is also one of the main sources of the whole article!) and Van bruinessen ( a ethnologist). The first Paul Ludwig talks about Most Zaza considering themselves as Kurds and their languages as a kurdish dialect. And Van bruinessen talks about all Zazas. The only Reason why I edited this article the first time was, that it says, "many Zaza consider themselves as Kurds" While the only two Sources giving numbers talk about "Most" or "All". I would be fine with it when the article is changed into "the large majority of Zaza consider themselves ethnically as Kurds" (large majority because one source talks about all and another about most) Wikisupporting (talk) 22:21, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

takabeg don´t tell me that there are various "theses" about the ethnicity of Zaza. Just show me sources which provide that their is a larger community of Zaza only considering themselves as a Zaza nation Wikisupporting (talk) 22:05, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Proposed Tibetan naming convention

Hello! I thought you might have helpful insight on the current nomination for a Tibetan naming contention. I don't think the topic requires any particular expertise on Tibetan since the proposal must fit within established guidelines. I think the discussion would benefit from your evaluation and advice. If you have a moment, please have a look. Thanks! JFHJr (㊟) 04:59, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Wrong paper cited on Madang languages

Hi Kwamikagami, I've left a question for you on Talk:Madang languages If all you had was Ross (2005), how did you know about this classification, which doesn't appear in it? Alternately, if you have the unpublished (1996) manuscript from which this material is drawn, why didn't you cite it?128.208.76.85 (talk) 22:58, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

That would be called an 'error'. — kwami (talk) 23:01, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Completely new abortion proposal and mediation

In light of the seemingly endless disputes over their respective titles, a neutral mediator has crafted a proposal to rename the two major abortion articles (pro-life/anti-abortion movement, and pro-choice/abortion rights movement) to completely new names. The idea, which is located here, is currently open for opinions. As you have been a contributor in the past to at least one of the articles, your thoughts on the matter would be appreciated.

The hope is that, if a consensus can be reached on the article titles, the energy that has been spent debating the titles of the articles here and here can be better spent giving both articles some much needed improvement to their content. Please take some time to read the proposal and weigh in on the matter. Even if your opinion is simple indifference, that opinion would be valuable to have posted.

To avoid accusations that this posting violates WP:CANVASS, this posting is being made to every non-anon editor who has edited either page since 1 July 2010, irrespective of possible previous participation at the mediation page. HuskyHuskie (talk) 19:46, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

For this. Drmies (talk) 18:08, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Assyriology

Would I be right in assuming that what 19th century historians and linguists refer to as "Assyrian", would be in fact the Akkadian language, rather than the Aramaic spoken by modern assyrian people?ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 22:17, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Yup. Assyriologists learn cuneiform. — kwami (talk) 23:31, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Xuancheng dialect listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Xuancheng dialect. Since you had some involvement with the Xuancheng dialect redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 13:49, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Divination on the Astrology Page

Hi Kwami, since you contributed to the debate on whether divination is the most appropriate term to define astrology in the first sentence, I wanted to let you know that I have asked for a straw poll on the astrology discussion page to find out whether we should seek alternatives (without specifying the wording at this stage) or we should keep divination. Robert Currey talk 17:32, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Sulcalization

Hello. I saw the new article you created on "sulcalization". Is "sulcalized" just a fancy way of saying "grooved" for fricatives, etc. then? That's what it seems to be. Thank you. 208.104.45.20 (talk) 16:41, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, pretty much. Though I don't know if anyone calls vowels "grooved". — kwami (talk) 19:28, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I see. Thank you very much. 208.104.45.20 (talk) 21:33, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I created the article so that when we link "grooved", the link has someplace to go. But "sulcalization" also applies to the diachronic process of, say, → . I've never seen the word "grooved" used for that. — kwami (talk) 22:03, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

List of ethnolinguistic groups with populations

I can't understand why you did this. You may are right for all but two things: the changes on the European groups and the erasure of the Finno-Ugric subgroup of the Uralic peoples. Ok I see the meaning of ethnolinguistics has nothing to do with skin colour, and I agree, allthough I think the case was other here, ancestry. What about the people of European ancestry residing in the New World for exaple? What about the English-speaking American citizens of German ancestry, Italian ancestry etc? Where should they be included? In the meantime, by that edit of yours, a gap has been created as you didn't change the numbers and the current numbers correspond not to the population of European ethnolinguistic groups in the world but in Europe. I suggest you undo this edit or at least find another solution on how to include the English-speaking European majority of the USA, Canada and Australia or the Spanish-speaking European majority of Latin America etc in this article. A proposal I can make is adding the population of German Americans, German Canadians, German Australians, German New Zealanders, German Latin Americans and German Africans to Ethnic Germans; that of Italian Americans, Italian Canadians, Italian Australians, Italian New Zealanders, Italian Latin Americans and Italian Africans to Italian People and so on and so forth... It may be that the majority of them does not speak German or Italian or their respective ancestral language but don't forget it is ethnolinguistic, it's about ancestry, too. What do you think? If you have a better idea just let me know. If a good solution to the problem can't be fined then I think we should simply revert it to the previous one, because as I said before, it was not that wrong, having in mind ancestry has to do with ethnolinguistics. Warm regards. --109.242.75.41 (talk) 18:04, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

It actually was quite wrong. I merely removed the most egregious problems, but that doesn't mean that what is left is correct. There is no such thing as "Finno-Ugric peoples" apart from the languages they speak, and ethnicity is mixed: you can't put people into boxes unless their language or culture fits. It also seems to be OR. If you have no source to correct it, then the solution would seem to be to delete it, not to revert to an even more wrong version. — kwami (talk) 19:25, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Is it? And what is this? You can't edit an article and then leave a mess behind you! To an even more wrong? The article is about language and ethnicity. At least correct the numbers and find a way to include the European diaspora or I shall undo your edit. --109.242.68.184 (talk) 09:14, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Lenmichí/Lenmichian languages

Hi Kwamikagami,

I have created this article Lenmichí languages, if you have time and you want, please check my awful English and fix potential errors. Davius (talk) 00:19, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I've tried to verify the claims, esp. the claim that the connection had been "proven", but it is so obscure that, a decade after it was proposed, there is not a single citation of it at Google Scholar, and nothing mentions it in Google Books. Since it's a fairly mainstream version of Macro-Chibchan, I've merged it to that article, which needed expanding anyway. — kwami (talk) 19:10, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Language article request

Hi Kwami, I was wondering if you would have access to enough sources to finish a 5x expansion of Anal language. I am nominating Anal people for the April Fools DYK, and I think it would be nice if their language were expanded enough as well. I've tried my best, but I'm still short 800 chars. Thanks. Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:33, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I copy edited, which just shortened the article a bit, but couldn't find anything to add except that the number of speakers is "dwindling". But even if it doesn't qualify for DYK yourself (and it isn't as good for April Fools as the people), it's still good to have it expanded for the link. — kwami (talk) 16:21, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks a lot Kwami. Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:38, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Request for Revision Deletion

Hi Kwami, sorry to bother you again so soon. Could you possibly delete 6 revisions of Misplaced Pages talk:Local Embassy, starting from this version and ending at this one? A user posted his/her name and email address. Thanks. Crisco 1492 (talk) 17:06, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

How's that? I deleted four of the six. — kwami (talk) 17:12, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Hmm... the address is still visible in the remaining edits. I'm not sure what the policy is on this... thanks. Crisco 1492 (talk) 17:17, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Ah, you're right. That didn't show up in the comparison view. Deleted those now too. — kwami (talk) 17:19, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. Crisco 1492 (talk) 17:50, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Bergen County, New Jersey

Can you please review (and repair as necessary) the mess that the current reviewer of this article, ChrisRuvolo (t), has been making. Not only is he dictatorial, but I honestly have to wonder about his competence and how he was chosen for this status.

This is the second time now that, in the process of reverting multiple editors' edits, he has left behind the same duplication of information, namely in this case, the "State Parks" and "State-owned historical sites" subsections. Not only that, he's deleted the primary body of the "See also" content TWICE now, obviously without realizing it. It's either his way or the highway, and the article has clearly suffered as a result.

Thanks. 96.242.217.91 (talk) 19:22, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Am I missing something? I don't see any discussion of this on the talk page. That's normally where you go first to iron out differences with other editors. — kwami (talk) 01:04, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Certainly, that is the usual course - but in this case, the problem is that the apparent brashness of this editor and his style, as well as my own questions about his competence, make that difficult to even approach. I'm open to that suggestion, but do you have any other suggestions, based on the edits themselves? 96.242.217.91 (talk) 01:54, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

This isn't a content dispute (unless you disagree about the photos), it's a mistake. All you have to do IMO is revert that one edit and explain in the edit summary that it's duplicating those sections. Or say as much on the talk page. Or both. I have no reason to think he wouldn't be capable of understanding that. He's probably just too busy or preoccupied to review the article carefully enough to see it without you pointing it out. It's also fairly common to not give much accommodation to anonymous IPs like yourself. Many of them are drive-by editors or even vandals that don't have anything invested in the article. He might pay more attention if you were signed in. But spelling it out for him should be enough. — kwami (talk) 02:20, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

It's worth a try.96.242.217.91 (talk) 02:31, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Talkback (July)

LittleMountain5 22:46, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Request (July)

Hello Kwami,

It is now over weeks since the Zaza People article was protected. And since then in my opinion the wrong version was saved because the User with whom I had a contend issue has not shown any Sources in the discussion block of the article.

I on the other hand posted (I think) enough Sources which support my claims. See here http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Zaza_people#a_couple_sources

Also the part which was dealing with the ethnogenesis, which I had added was removed.

I could post now any single Sources which considers Zaza as Kurds but I think in the link to the discussion block there are enough sources.

Just one I have to add. You need a account to read on were stands other sub dialects are....

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/325225/Kurdish-language

The thing is no single ethnologist or linguist ever claimed that Zaza are ethnically not Kurds.

Like I mentioned Ludwig Paul, one of the main sources of the Article, points out that the linguistic issue shouldn´t be taken in account by searching for the ethnic identity of Kurds and that Zaza and Kurmanji speaking Kurds build a ethnic unity. The whole problem with Zazaki being classified as "not Kurdish" is, That the linguist refer to a special dialect of Kurdish which is known as Kurmanji as "Kurdish". And when they say Zazaki is not "Kurdish" they mean Kurmanji. You can read it in Paul Ludwigs book. It is written in German but it is obvious that he refers to Kurmanji as "Kurdish" and he also mentions this. No Kurd is claiming that Zazaki is a dialect of Kurmanji.

How ever I don´t even want to argue about this. The only thing I want to change is the part with "Many " into most or large majority because this is support by Sources but there are no sources which support the contrary. And I also want to add the part with ethnogenesis and will quote everything what Paul Ludwig writes in his book about this. Wikisupporting (talk) 01:16, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

The article is no longer protected.

Zaza is certainly not a dialect of Kurdish. And by "Kurdish", I don't mean Kurmanji. But that has little to do with whether the Zaza people and Kurds.

There appears to be ongoing debate as to whether the Zazas are Kurds or not. Some apparently feel the are, others that they aren't. Therefore AFAICT any claim that they are or are not Kurds will be wrong, and correctly reverted. — kwami (talk) 01:25, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Ok thats why I will not mentioned that they are Kurds as if it is a "evidence" but maybe I will quote parts of sources which consider Zaza ethnically as Kurds and also mention according to who. Like I did with Paul Ludwig I quoted him.

However I still don´t think that there is even a reason to discuss about the ethnic identity of Zaza because from Sources it gets obvious that the large majority are Kurds(consider themselves as such) and where considered as such since millennia. This is all a discussion which started recently due the fact that some linguist consider Kurmanji which is spoken by the majority of Kurds as "kurdish" and so they mean Kurmanji when they speak about Zazaki being not Kurdish.

Well I have already edited the article but no where mentioned that Zaza are Kurds or not. However I have changed parts where there is a talk about "Zaza and Kurds" as if it is proven that both are separated groups. Regards Wikisupporting (talk) 03:05, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Question concerning external links

Kwami, do you think this edit was appropriate or not? Linguistic Science (talk) 22:30, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Wow, I didn't know those were all available online!

The link certainly belongs. Prob'ly just didn't recognize it, and thought it was a commercial site. — kwami (talk) 00:22, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Not to be Kanye West here, but the US State Department language training materials put out in the public domain free of copywrite like http://fsi-language-courses.org are an amazing resource for these languages. I cant fathom why someone would want to edit them out of external article links unless they were somehow related to a website like this http://www.foreignserviceinstitute.com/ that sells copywrite free material to the public that is freely available in the public domain. Mr. Linguistic Science is a newly created account who has been reported for sockpuppetry by me today for a banned user who did legal threats and had a commercial user account. Now he appears to be canvassingBevinbell 17:33, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand your comment. User Linguistic Science was arguing that we should link to the free site, not to the commercial site, and you would appear to agree with him. — kwami (talk) 18:19, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't actually arguing anything. I was genuinely unsure about the issue and asked Kwami for his opinion, since he's more experienced than I am and I respect his judgement. Linguistic Science (talk) 00:39, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

File:President Obama Monkeys.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:President Obama Monkeys.jpg, has been listed at Misplaced Pages:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. William S. Saturn (talk) 15:26, 20 July 2011 (UTC) --William S. Saturn (talk) 15:26, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Fali

Hi - not quite sure what you're asking. The Fali people live in Cameroon and Nigeria, as the references indicate. Neutrality 18:40, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but you listed them as speakers of one of three languages called "Fali", and one which is spoken only in Cameroon. — kwami (talk) 18:42, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

The Encyclopedia of the Peoples of Africa and the Middle East, Volume 1 says the Fali is an Adamawa language, so I believe it's the Fali languages (Cameroon). Neutrality 18:51, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and the geographical groups match. Sorry, never mind! — kwami (talk) 19:54, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

BTW, there's now an 'ethnicity' parameter in the info box, so you can add a link to the people from there. — kwami (talk) 19:55, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

S/2011 P 1

Please do not re-add unsourced material here. If such calculations can be attributed to reliable sources the those soucres should be cited and the material added without problem. Other than that, we are not interested in any figures you have calculated yourself: that is original research and therefore impermissible. Among other things, this article is currently under discussion for a main page feature in the in the news section: articles with serious quality issues such as the presence of OR are automatically barred from consideration. Crispmuncher (talk) 00:43, 21 July 2011 (UTC).

I have not calculated any figures, so your lack of interest is irrelevant. However, many, perhaps most, of our moon articles contain such figures. If you object to them, I suggest to take your concerns to the astronomy wikiproject. — kwami (talk) 00:50, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Then do you want to explain where the figures you re-added came from, or why the cited source you re-added does not mention them? I've just noticed you're an admin - you should know better than that. "I do it differently" is not an excuse. Crispmuncher (talk) 01:06, 21 July 2011 (UTC).

You're right, it's not an excuse. Have you stopped beating your wife? — kwami (talk) 01:42, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Criticism of Esperanto

The paragraph that you're so adamant about readding for some reason is completely unsourced (except for the rebuttal). --134.10.113.198 (talk) 16:12, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Then tag it. It's a common-enough criticism. — kwami (talk) 16:14, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Users and edit warring

Hello Kwami.

I think this might interest you. Here is the block of the User Takabeg. it seems he did not only start a edit war with me. He does it with everything what might be against his turkish views. Be it Armenian or be it Kurdish. As a Adming please take a better look at this User. Something is very weird about him. It seems He edits things even before they are resolved simply to get a ban on the article. He works with System. He removes every Sources WITHOUT a Reason given just like he did with mine even while I asked him.

http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Takabeg#Disruptive_editing

http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Takabeg#Adding_unreferenced_banner

http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Takabeg#Armenian_placenames_in_Turkey

http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Takabeg#Refs_removed

http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Takabeg#Tughra_edit_war

http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Takabeg#Vankli

http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Takabeg#Anti-Kurdish_vandalism

I am still asking my self how a user, provoking closing of articles and obviously most of them at Kurdish and Armenian articles, can still work like if nothing happened. (You might know the relation between Kurds,Armenians and Turkey.)

If you don´t know about Turkeys anti Kurdish work on the Internet you might read this if you want. The part with "many Zaza" is copied by the former Misplaced Pages version of the "Zaza People" article.

http://www.jamestown.org/programs/gta/single/?tx_ttnews%5Btt_news%5D=34423&tx_ttnews%5BbackPid%5D=26&cHash=c82a6a69c6

And recently a man which was arrested in the "Ergenekon trial" (Ergenekon is a group of People working in high positions of the Turkish state) came out as one of the provocateurs working on the Net claiming themselves as Zazas and making Propaganda on Internet Sites and also Encyclopedias like Misplaced Pages.

http://www.haberdiyarbakir.com/news_detail.php?id=41870

greets Wikisupporting (talk) 14:15, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, that illustrates beautifully why we don't take people at their word. We only allow WP:reliable sources for contested claims. If you were to say "I am Zaza and this is false", we would ignore you for the same reason.

I do know something about Turk–Kurd relations. When I was in Istanbul, people (including Kurds) told me not to go to Kurdistan because I would probably be killed by terrorists. And children did throw stones at me in Diyarbakir. (I throw them back, and hit some of the little buggers.) But the Kurds were only anxious for their story to be known to the world; we would talk politics, and even though this was nothing revolutionary (just basic conditions of life), everyone would shut up as soon as a Turk came by. And of course there was the Turkish propaganda on the hillsides, saying how wonderful it was to be able to say you're a Turk. If I spoke a little Kurdish, people just beamed.

I love Turkey, and the Turks, and the Turkish language, but this is truly disgraceful, second only to the bizarre claims in the museum in Tatvan that it was the Armenians who committed genocide against the Turks. (They had photos of the victims of the genocide, they just swapped their identity.) The Turks have a lot to be proud of; I don't understand why they have such an inferiority complex. (But then the US is the same: self-styled "patriots" claim to be proud of their country, but at the same time are bizarrely defensive and denialistic about it.)

I'll take a look when I get a chance, but this might be something you need to take to WP:ANI for more eyes. — kwami (talk) 14:23, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

He's asked me but I'm busy IRL for a couple of days. He thinks you are an Administrator. Dougweller (talk) 16:23, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Well than you really seem to have been in the East. The Kids throwing Stones at foreigners. Well I know what you mean. Some Children in such rural Regions are ill-mannered and they usually don´t trust foreigners. Who should blame them for that while they have only seen oppressions and killings. You should visit Iraqi Kurdistan it is a beautiful place.

About the warnings for you to stay away from East because terrorist might kill you. Well I ask my self were those who told you this in the near of Turks or somehow worked for them or with them? It also depends on what they meant with terrorist. Kurds usually mean some people else.

The Turkish education system unfortunately is very nationalistic. The People learn it in this way. Kurdish children are forced day by day before school begin to sing the Turkish national anthem and say how proud Turkish they are, how proud they are to serve Turkey and such things. Turkey solves its problems by wiping them out or ignoring them this is the main problem. Greets Wikisupporting

Orphaned non-free image File:President Obama Monkeys.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:President Obama Monkeys.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 05:09, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

File:ExtIPA.png

FYI, I just uploaded this image on Commons, see commons:File:ExtIPA.png. --GaAs (d) 13:17, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Huaorani language > Sabela language_Sabela_language-2011-07-26T19:18:00.000Z">

I see you have recently made this move. The naming issue was discussed on the talk page, and Sabela is neither a term from the Huaorani themselves, nor in frequent recent usage. If you have reason to suspect otherwise, please bring it to the talk page rather than moving first.--Carwil (talk) 19:18, 26 July 2011 (UTC)_Sabela_language"> _Sabela_language">

Sorry, I didn't know about that discussion. Everything I've come across recently calls the language "Sabela". I'll move it back. — kwami (talk) 19:29, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I take that back. There was no real discussion on the talk page, just some musings about where the name came from. AFAICT, 'Sabela' continues to be the common term in English, even if Peeke uses the endonym. — kwami (talk) 20:12, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Google scholar and Google book searches for "Sabela language" vs "Huaorani language" seem to confirm a preference for H over S. Huao/Wao Terero (sometimes Wao Tededo) is also common, but clearly not English. I think there may be more popularity in English sources talking about languages only for S, but H shows up in nearly all other contexts.--Carwil (talk) 21:14, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I did look at G, but the results seemed ambiguous. Most sources don't call it the "Sabela language", but just "Sabela". But many sources which speak of the "Huaorani people" then dab the "Huaorani language". So adding 'language' may skew the results, and it would be extremely time consuming to do a search without 'language'. That's why I looked in books on languages, and there it seems to be "Sabela" which is more common. I don't know what the general situation really is; maybe we can get some input from people who know the lit. — kwami (talk) 21:20, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	For your continued good work in articles on languages. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 00:55, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! I was waiting for someone to complain, but this is nicer. — kwami (talk) 00:56, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I see your edits on those articles all the time, and I've grown to have great faith in you. You're an asset to Misplaced Pages. Now, if you would take over Advanced English Grammar from me this fall, I'd be even happier. Drmies (talk) 01:08, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Sure. Sounds like fun, as long as it isn't formalist. I'm imagining sipping a margarita next to a lake in the mountains while attending your course by video. Hell, I'll do that for the lake and the margaritas. — kwami (talk) 01:15, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Please explain edits at Kannada

Hi, could you kindly explain this edit at article: Kannada? You can respond here, I'll have this page on watch. Thanks. - Niri M / ನಿರಿ 08:58, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

That's the family tree of Kannada. You could add Halegannada under 'fam4', or maybe under 'protolanguage'.

If the former, you should probably sub it for the 'fam4' parameter at Badaga language as well. — kwami (talk) 09:02, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response. Appreciate if you could cite a reference for the same. The Tamil–Kannada languages article doesn't help much either. There's also something called "Kandamil" in the Tamil–Kannada languages page. Please suggest if this name can be put in place of "Tamil–Kannada" in the infobox as fam3. - Niri M / ನಿರಿ 09:43, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Refs are in the KT and Drav. articles, as well as Ethnologue.

You could write an article on Kandamil if you like, but AFAIK it is not a branch of Dravidian, but a historical language which has been claimed to be the ancestor of certain modern languages. Identity with any particular node of the tree would be unstable, as it would vary not only with the classification used, but with research on Kandamil. — kwami (talk) 09:52, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi again. Saw that you reverted my edit. I really don't like to make a fuss out of this, but it would help if you just provided a citation there instead of mentioning some articles here. 'nice day, thanks! - Niri M / ನಿರಿ 03:36, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

As far as I can see, your refs do not support your edit. The branch of Dravidian that contains Tamil and Kannada is usually just called "Tamil–Kannada", as the refs for that article show. Now, proto-Tamil–Kannada may be the same as Kandamil, but even if it is (and I believe the claim may be contested), AFAIK people don't call the branch of the family "Kandamil", they only call the Kandamil language itself "Kandamil". I haven't seen anything to the contrary. — kwami (talk) 03:44, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not bothered about the Kandamil part. Just asking you to provide an inline reference to your claim in the article. Hope it clears. - Niri M / ನಿರಿ 04:10, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand. Which claim? — kwami (talk) 04:47, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Hyphens in class name titles

Kwami

There's a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(ships)#Punctuation_and_ship_classes that I think you should know about. Yours, Shem (talk) 20:12, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. — kwami (talk) 21:59, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

History of the alphabet

Just because people disagree with you doesn't mean they didn't read the article, so stop the ad hominems and let's work toward resolving this. I've opened up a conversation on the talk page, instead of reverting your latest edit, and invite you to join. VI_WS 21:57, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

That wasn't an ad hominem. Your edits suggested you were not aware of the context. — kwami (talk) 22:07, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Hindustani

These are not my 'opinions', they are logical facts which the page itself refers to & I also tagged a reference with the edit. Actually instead of asking me to the talk page to "first discuss" after reverting, was a bad idea since you not agreeing with my edit already means that we should go to talk: WP:Don't revert due to "no consensus".

Anyway, already added a discussion on the bottom of the talk page of the article under a relevant topic which you appear not to have noticed. Hope to resolve it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hassanhn5 (talk • contribs) 01:30, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

It's up to the proposer, not to the reverter, to demonstrate the accuracy of the proposal. Please read WP:BOLD.

"Logic" has nothing to do with it: we base our articles on sources. Please read WP:RS.

Correct, I did not recognize you, since you signed in under a different name. Please choose one name and stick to it, or people generally will fail to recognize you.

BTW, I did reply to those comments, not realizing it was you. If you think Gandhi invented the term "Hindustani", may I suggest you read up on the history of India. — kwami (talk) 01:32, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

That being said, "first discuss" is still a 'not helpful' option as mentioned in WP:Don't revert due to "no consensus" which I happened to see after reading WP:BOLD. Logic here means consistency, which is an essential part of the informative writing. --lTopGunl (talk) 01:42, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I was having some difficulty setting up the username with certain symbols due to which there was such inconvenience. As for the term being "used" and not "invented" by Gandhi, the edit I made itself included the reference tag. --lTopGunl (talk) 01:45, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

AFAICT, your edit was factually wrong. It was also unreferenced. Any unreferenced material may be removed. I removed it. Again, if you make a claim, it's up to your to demonstrate it. That's what would be logical. — kwami (talk) 01:49, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Since you keep on repeating, it was actually referenced. The edit had a tag to main Hindi-Urdu controversy. --lTopGunl (talk) 01:51, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

That's not a reference, that's a link. And a link to WP! We can't use WP to reference WP.

You addition was, Although the name "Hindustani" is not as neutral as "Hindi-Urdu" since it gives reference to the Hindu religion/culture creating a bias against Muslim Urdu speakers, especially in Pakistan. You are giving an opinion, yet stating it as fact, and even claiming here that it is fact! I think you need to explore the difference between 'fact' and 'opinion'. Second, the bizarre claim that use of this Muslim-Urdu word 'creates bias against Muslim Urdu speakers, esp. in Pakistan' certainly needs to be ref'd. If it's so offensive to Muslims, why would Muslims have coined it?

Distinguish fact from opinion, and reference your claims. It doesn't matter the subject, them's the rules. — kwami (talk) 01:49, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

My reference was to the modern day subcontinent while talking of the bias. The controversy article was already well linked, hence the addition was supported.

Since the discussion is bending more towards the article, it would be easier to continue it along on the article discussion page. --lTopGunl (talk) 02:06, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Proto-Semitic language and the alphabet

Hi, I see your name around a lot but don't think we've interacted much. I keep a number of "odd" pages on my Watchlist, and as I was drinking my first cup of coffee this morning, I noticed you had changed the article "T" with the edit summary: "the "proto-Semitic alphabet" is not historical or academic, but theological, and so does not belong here. After reviewing Proto-Semitic language it seemed that your edit (and summary) were well intentioned, but not technically correct, so I reverted with an explanatory edit summary. It wasn't until afterwards that I realized you had made the same change to the rest of the alphabet articles. Given your standing and experience as an editor, I'm not about to engage in wholesale reversion of your work. Instead, I'm coming here to ask if I'm missing something? Linguistics is only a minor interest of mine, not an area of specialty, so I'm open to the idea that maybe I'm just wrong  :) Doc Tropics 13:15, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

AFAIK, there is no such thing as a "proto-Semitic alphabet". I have been informed by another editor who I've found reliable (though I have no refs) that the font used to illustrate the alleged alphabet "is distributed by a small and somewhat strange religious grouping which advocates as a matter of religious belief for a number of views which have not found scholarly acceptance". In any case, it's at best a reconstruction of what might have been. For such things we need refs, and we have no refs for this supposed alphabet. There was a discussion on this when I purged proto-Canaanite alphabet a couple years ago. AFAIK all that is actually attested are archaic forms of the Canaanite (Phoenician) alphabet and a few inscriptions that go under the name Proto-Sinaitic.

As for reviewing Proto-Semitic language, I don't see how that's relevant. It's a reconstructed proto-language that has nothing to do with the alphabet, except to provide a framework for speculations on which sounds Proto-Sinaitic may have been transcribing. It never even mentions the script/font in question.

Anyway, thanks for self-reverting. Best IMO to keep the articles consistent, as you say; if there is consensus to keep, we should keep everything I deleted. — kwami (talk) 18:24, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply and detailed explanation; I appreciate both the information and the courtesy of your time! Now that I understand more about the background I'm more than happy to trust your judgment and leave all of the articles "as-is". Thanks again and happy editing, Doc Tropics 20:31, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

mass moving of script pages

Did you discuss the mass moving of script pages with anyone? This seems to have come out of nowhere, and this kind of major naming change should only happen as a result of a consensus. I know this wasn't discussed at WikiProject Writing systems, so if you did discuss it somewhere, nobody pointed you where it should have happened. Please put a link to whatever discussions took place at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Writing systems#Article mass move. VI_WS 23:50, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

No discussion. The major (from an English POV) abjads and abugidas are labeled "alphabets": Hebrew alphabet, Arabic alphabet, Devanagari alphabet. Therefore all should be: minor scripts should be treated equally to major scripts. I'm fine with having them at "script", but then we will need to move Hebrew, Arabic, Devanagari, etc. as well. — kwami (talk) 23:59, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I changed the name to Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Writing systems#Naming consistency, because we might as well develop those principles while we're thinking about them. VI_WS 00:21, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

PS, sorry I missed you (if you aren't listed under category: WikiProject Writing systems members, WP:AWB can't find you), but

Your feedback is requested

WikiProject Writing Systems is conducting a poll regarding its future goals, and we have identified you as a person with a vested interest in the future of that project. Whether you are a member of the WikiProject, a frequent contributor, or a passerby with an interest in the subject, we want your input as to the future emphasis that the Writing Systems project will take. Please take a moment to peruse the entries and add your comments where you have an opinion. You can visit the poll by clicking here, or on the project image, 書, on the right.

10C question

Hi Kwami, I hope this finds you well. I have a question about something on the Talk:Ten_Commandments page, in the present bottom section called "Can we lift the page protection? Will some sysop help us out?" Your message is presently 3rd up from the bottom, and the reply immediately below yours addressed to you says in part, "I am glad you approve the proposal." I can't figure out what that refers to. Perhaps something in another section? Looking for your clarification there. Thanks. —Telpardec (talk) 00:24, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm assuming Rubenstein was being sarcastic. If not, I don't know what he's referring to either. — kwami (talk) 00:33, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

help desk

Thanks for your help.

Hello! 71.146.19.240 has given you some cookies. Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully these have made your day better. Happy munching! Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:plate}} to someone's talk page, or eat these cookies on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munchplate}}.