User talk:Kwamikagami/Archive 15

Barnstars I, Ling.Nut award this very overdue Linguist's barnstar to Kwamikagami. Thanks for making the Internet not suck. Thanks for taking an interest in the language families of South America - they really need a hand! ·Maunus·ƛ· 08:32, 3 August 2008 (UTC) I, Ikiroid, award this Barnstar to Kwami for helping me with effectively editing language pages. 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 Serendipodous 10:47, 27 June 2008 (UTC) The Graphic Designer's Barnstar For your wonderful moon mass charts, I offer the Graphic designer's barnstar. Serendipodous 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. Serendipodous 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 Wikipedia 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/2¢/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 Wikipedia. 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(talk) 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 Wikipedia. Forever indebted to you -and wikipedia of course- for telling it like it is.. Amazing how you never gave up and went thru all the troubles dealing with zealots. Bravo! You're one of the inspirations that led to the genesis of http://www.HamariBoli.com edge.walker (talk) 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 Wikipedia:Manual of Style and especially for your contributions to Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia! Keep up the good work! With regards, AnupamTalk 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 Wikipedia, 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 (talk) 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)
The colubrid Telescopus semiannulatus in an acacia, central Tanzania.		This user is one of the 40 most active English Wikipedians of all time. This user is a former administrator on the English Wikipedia (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

Greek d in classical words

Hi! Concerning this I would have thought that the ancient Greek "d" would be the correct one for a philosophical term like this. The Ancient Greek pronunciation also matches all of the international versions of the word, including all forms of English, apart from in modern Greek (and maybe Castilian)?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:05, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not following what you're asking. The 'd'? or one of the vowels? — kwami (talk) 17:10, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

The d. Perhaps you were not the one that changed it I just realized. I saw you edit the IPA, and then noticed the d is given as a fricative.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:29, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd only edited the English. That's how the Greek was added back in Nov. I fixed it up just now, per our conventions on the IPA link. — kwami (talk) 19:31, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

West Lafayette

I don’t want to get into an edit war, which is why I largely stopped editing WP a few years ago, so I will ask you if you have a good reason for reverting my edit on West Lafayette, Indiana. I know the IPA and I am a native of the town. I know the pronunciation. It really is a minor thing, but I would request that you not revert again, without at least providing a justification.
— Ford (talk) 00:13, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
In attempting to revert the change, I find myself unable to get the page to render the IPA correctly, so I have restored it to your version. Perhaps that problem emerged from my original edit, which is what you were trying to undo, though generally I check the page preview to avoid that problem. In any case, if you were fixing a problem with the IPA rendering and I caused it, I am sorry for the trouble. But perhaps then you would be so kind as to remove the length marker (and the length markers in Lafayette, Indiana as well, which are also spurious). I believe I have successfully edited the new IPA system in WP before, but I appear no longer to know how to do it. Thanks.
— Ford (talk) 01:00, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

If you want to use a local pronunciation that's distinct from generic English, you'll need to use something other than the normal English IPA template. {{IPA-endia}} has been set up for English dialects. Though it isn't fully supported, it won't generate any errors.

The problem with the generic templates is that they connect the reader to a specific IPA-for-English key, which doesn't support the symbols you were using. Since the key is incompatible with your transcription, it's not really appropriate to use it, and therefore not appropriate to use the normal English IPA template.

/ɑː/ is defined in the key as the vowel of father. If you pronounce the fa of Lafayette the same as you do the fa of father, it makes no practical difference to use the supported (and defined) symbol. Usually we don't bother with local pronunciations unless they aren't predictable, though it really doesn't matter. In this case, you only have to know that most US dialects don't have a length distinction to understand the conventional transcription. Most of our readers probably wouldn't know the difference: they click on the ɑː and see that it's pronounced as in 'father', so they pronounced Lafayette as in 'father', which is correct for their dialect, whatever it is. — kwami (talk) 01:40, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I am not talking about a local dialect with sounds unusual for North American English. I had originally changed the transcription in 2009 (successfully at the time) when the second vowel was mistranscribed like the French pronunciation. The problem now seems to be a disagreement over the generic transcription of English, that the phoneme itself is inherently long, and that it should thus be transcribed as long in all environments, including those (like ‘Lafayette’) where it does not receive significant stress. Since WP does not usually use close transcription, marking the phoneme itself as long seems inconsistent, but I am not going to attempt to persuade the IPA team of that; as I implied, I am done arguing with people here, even those well-intentioned. I will point out, though, that the encyclopedia is moving away from the wiki (or crowdsourcing) model if parts of it are essentially impossible to edit by ordinary users. If, for instance, the French-like pronunciation had been in place when the IPA team instituted the new template, it would now be locked in. Most of the people in Indiana know how to pronounce the town’s name, but would not have been able to fix the problem, even if they knew IPA, and mistakes like this would go uncorrected.
— Ford (talk) 21:18, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Template:IPAc-en editable

As an admin, you should know better than to cite policy while disobeying it — that template was never tagged, AFAIK, and certainly not for seven days. I suggest you undo what you've done as soon as possible. ¦ Reisio (talk) 15:11, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Uh, I deleted a redundant template with no apparent use, no documentation, and no discussion of what it was even supposed to be for, which simply pulled articles out of maintenance. Perhaps I should have marked it as "routine cleanup". Why don't you start with the purpose/use you should have provided in its documentation? — kwami (talk) 17:31, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

That's how most templates start. If you wanted to see the difference, you should've diff'd them (or simply asked). You should have marked it with a template as explained in Wikipedia:CSD#T3 if that's truly what logic you were following. Why don't you start with reverting your clear violation of policy. It is not I who has violated Wikipedia policy (as an admin, no less), but you. The burden at this point is not on me but you. I really don't want this to escalate, it won't go well for anyone. ¦ Reisio (talk) 18:33, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Mostly I just object to your attitude, which out if politeness I won't characterize further. Also, it wasn't the start of a template. If it were a test template I would've left it alone, but you were using it in articles that were therefore not maintainable from the original template, without any indication on that template that there was a fork out there. I only stumbled on it by accident.

The only diff is in the speaker icon. That's not reason to fork the template. If you want different options for the behaviour for the icon, you can discuss it on the talk page, or add it to the template after testing, just like anyone else.

If you want the template back for testing that's fine (and nothing is preventing you from restoring it), but please don't use it in mainspace. — kwami (talk) 19:33, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

My attitude? You're an admin who can't even follow policies you link to. I will restore it, and you will look even more incompetent if you violate policy again. ¦ Reisio (talk) 20:35, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I've cleaned up your mess again, and tagged the template for deletion, since it served no purpose apart from disrupting WP, and you apparently aren't using it for anything else. However, I will delete it and salt it to prevent you from using it if you continue to put it in mainspace; I figure that's a better option that having you blocked for disruption. — kwami (talk) 06:30, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

It's interesting how you perceive your complete defiance of Wikipedia policy as me being a disruption. It'll be more interesting still to see what others think of it once your actions attract attention. ¦ Reisio (talk) 09:10, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Ah, the censoring of one's own talk page. I'm sure that will keep everyone from noticing your abusive behavior. :p ¦ Reisio (talk) 09:34, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I'm sure it will. And I'm sure that self-righteousness will keep everyone from noticing that you're using WP mainspace like a sandbox. — kwami (talk) 09:45, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not the one deleting templates that are still included in pages. No one else minded my edits, bit odd for being so "disruptive", no? ¦ Reisio (talk) 09:52, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

It's not being used on any page, only linked from talk pages. And there's no problem with red links on talk pages. — kwami (talk) 10:20, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

"09:30, 2011 September 3 Kwamikagami (talk | contribs) deleted "Template:IPAc-en editable" — Template:IPAc-en editable

"09:32, 2011 September 3 Kwamikagami (talk | contribs) m (107,367 bytes) (Reverted edits by Reisio" — http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Benzodiazepine&action=history

¦ Reisio (talk) 10:26, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Wow, that went unsupported for a whole two minutes, in the face of your edit war to circumnavigate page protection, whereas when you reverted to the unsupported template you left it for 16 hours—and counting.[9][10] I must really be bad. — kwami (talk) 01:41, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Eh? That's also your fault. I reverted and two minutes later you removed a template that was being used. ¦ Reisio (talk) 03:27, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I cleaned up all articles using the template fork, but this is the kind of mess that happens with edit wars. I take it then that you don't mind me reverting you? — kwami (talk) 03:36, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

It is indeed the kind of mess that happens with an edit war (that you participated in as much as I), and if you knew that already I have to wonder why you let it happen. I don't mind you fixing part of the mess you created, no. ¦ Reisio (talk) 13:17, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Deletion review for Template:IPAc-en editable

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Template:IPAc-en editable. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Reisio (talk) 09:52, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Dinner for Three

Hi Kwami, Would you be able to look at the recent actions of Dinner for three (talk · contribs)? The user who only signed up a few days ago has gone on a disruptive mass editing spree in the past 2 days. I believe that the user is also using this 213.226.17.10 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) in order to push a similar agenda but make it look like he is not the only doing so. Efforts made to at least have some discussion went unanswered and the editing continued. The similarity between the usernames is also unusual, to say the least. Thanks. Lunch for Two (talk) 11:54, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I asked him to discuss it. Since the edits involved not only adding redundant names but deleting the Greek from articles on Greece, I just mass reverted. There may be some value to some of the contributions, which you may want to review. — kwami (talk) 01:57, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I think Fut Perf. was advocating Macedonian Slavic as the best solution to deal with the issue at this stage. Given that it redirects to Macedonian Language#Macedonian language in Greece, I also agree that it is probably the best option in order to solve the issue. Unless a special connection can be shown to Bulgaria (ie. the place is inhabited by Bulgarians today), then simply "Macedonian Slavic" should stay (it is much neater than Macedonian/Bulgarian). Likewise, where a special connection can be shown to ethnic Macedonians/Republic of Macedonia simply Macedonian is probably preferable. I agree that there may have been some value to the contributions, however for the better part they were simply mass reversions. Lunch for Two (talk) 05:23, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Certainly the kind of thing that can and probably should be discussed. AFAIK, the language is more Bulgarian than Macedonian (at least, that's how the isoglosses appear to lie), but the people might think of it as more Macedonian than Bulgarian, assuming they see a distinction. — kwami (talk) 16:28, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't know what was this nonsense which happened, but according to paragraph Alternate names in WP:NCGN the foreign names of geographic locations are ordering alphabetically and that Macedonian Slavic is spoken not Bulgarian is POV and you can't prove it, but sources until the early 20th century in the respective Greek towns already prove that Bulgarian was the main language in them. I however do not exist on removing the Macedonian names where they have been already add. Lunch for Two your manipulative reverts(which were actually not reverts) have been reverted, which were not reverting to the previous version but adding new propaganda which never existed in the edit history, kwami can check [here] for example.Dinner for three (talk) 22:21, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

As I've said before, WP:Dispute resolution. I don't care whether you call it Bulgarian or Macedonian, it's all the same thing. — kwami (talk) 03:58, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I reverted prior to Lunch for Two and me because his disruption remaied almostly everywhere. He should use the dispute resulution, becsuse he is pushing some minority views as replacing everywhere the Bulgarian names with Macedonian when even reliable sources rejecting his view are add after them as he did in Proti, Florina for example. I however never delted Macedonian name, where it has already been add but I have been revrted to see the dispute resolution. Just have a look [here] where adding Latin transliteration of Bulgarian name was reverted, transforming it to new Macedonian name, which never existed in the edit history. Dinner for three (talk) 11:00, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

That's fine. — kwami (talk) 11:03, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Of course.Dinner for three (talk) 11:06, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I personally believe that Macedonian Slavic is the best pipe for these name sections. It actually links to a section where the main purpose is to actually the discuss the issues surrounding ethnic identification and the language. In most circumstances the Bulgarian names do not have any more relevance then the "Bulgarian names" of places within the Republic of Macedonia do, given that in both places the Macedonian and not Bulgarian language is spoken. If we are going to add names based on the minority population in the area then it makes sense to link to the appropriate section discussing this language, namely Macedonian Slavic. Maybe Fut Perf. needs to get involved, after all he made reference to the creation of the pipe at some other WP page recently. Lunch for Two (talk) 15:01, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi Kwami, I feel that prolonged discussion re: the above issue is fruitless and is endlessly circular in nature. Where can I take the issue from here? Would WP:ANI be appropriate? Where do you feel that it is appropriate to be lodged? Lunch for Two (talk) 14:22, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, yeah, the two of you are not going to agree. That's why we have WP:Dispute resolution. Read over that guideline and see if you think ANI is called for yet. — kwami (talk) 17:11, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Semi-protection

Hi, Kwamikagami! Would you please, semi-protect the page Todor Aleksandrov. There appears again that unregistred User with the same geolocation Aracinovo-Skopje as many others IP-s (sock of blocked User:MicoApostolov) that has regularly vandalized other articles of Macedono-Bulgarian history. Thank you. Jingby (talk) 13:21, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

One edit is not an edit war. I'm not going to protect a page over that. — kwami (talk) 02:01, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Kwami! What about Saints Cyril and Methodius? Regards. Jingby (talk) 15:51, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Albanian phonology

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albanian_language#Phonology There is no q (/c/) and gj (/ɟ/) in English. Please check out the vowels before reverting edits. Thank you.--TheAmericanizator (talk) 15:13, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

There are reasonable approximations. There's no [ ɲ] in English either, nor [p t k ts tʃ] (not in those words, at least), but I see you've left those in. It all seems rather arbitrary. Anyway, it would seem there are others who disagree with you. — kwami (talk) 02:00, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Shabo

Thanks for your good job on Shabo today! That really improved the article a lot! Best wishes, Landroving Linguist (talk) 17:43, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad my half-assed improvements are appreciated! — kwami (talk) 17:44, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

re: Bengali script

You have recently changed the title of the article Bengali script to Bengali alphabet, citing a stylistic reason that since some other major writing systems have the term "alphabet" in their article title, so should this article on the Bengali writing system. But you are missing an important point. The Bengali writing system is not an alphabet, rather an abugida or an alphasyllabary. Therefore the term Bengali script is technically much more appropriate than the term Bengali alphabet. It is for this specific reason the article was titled as it was. It was a conscious choice to better reflect the nature of the Bengali writing system. Just as there can be no article titled Japanese alphabet, because there is no alphabetical writing system for the Japanese language. Thanks for understanding. --Zaheen (talk) 03:24, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

They're all "alphabets" in the broad sense. What we had before was that good rational scripts were called "alphabets", but funny Asiatic squiggles did not get that designation. Per the naming conventions for writing systems, a ordered segmental writing system is an "alphabet", whereas the glyphs that compose it are the "script": cf. Latin alphabet and Latin script, Arabic alphabet and Arabic script, etc. Cyrillic, for example, is not an "alphabet", as it does not have a defined inventory or sorting order.

The Bengali script is used to write Assamese and various other languages. This article, however, is almost entirely about the Bengali alphabet, which is used specifically for Bengali.

Kana is not a segmental writing system, but a syllabary. — kwami (talk) 03:30, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I will indulge. You seem to have defined "script" as the set of glyphs that are "common" or "ancestral" among the writing systems of several languages, whereas the individual writing systems themselves need to be called "alphabet"s. While this (arbitrary? Original Research?) system of definitions somewhat neatly applies to the relationship between Latin script and Latin alphabet, things are not so clear when we are discussing the Bengali writing system. Yes, there is a Bengali script (according to your definition of a script) which underlies many writing systems of the eastern South Asia. But it is also true that the writing system for Bengali is not an alphabetical system, but an alphasyllabary or abugida. Your recent changes don't capture this fact. And no, "They are all "alphabets" in the broad sense" is not a good argument, unless you consider yourself an authority on writing systems and we all have to abide by your seemingly arbitrary definitions. The modern reference works by writing system experts and typologists do not talk about a Bengali alphabet. --Zaheen (talk) 04:27, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

The general meaning of "alphabet" includes abjads and abugidas. Hebrew and Arabic have long been called "alphabets" on WP, despite not being "true" alphabets. We also make it blindingly obvious in the article that Bengali is an abugida. If that means we shouldn't call Bengali an alphabet, then we shouldn't call Hebrew or Arabic alphabets either. You can take that up with the naming conventions if you like. — kwami (talk) 17:09, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Talk:History of the alphabet

Question there for you. I'd like to know why we even have an unreferenced section there. Is there a source for the blank row or the acrophony? Dougweller (talk) 17:17, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Lots of sources for both. I think World Book Encyclopedia even has them. The problem is finding a source that reflects the extent of the evidence, as opposed to guesswork filling in the blanks. Not many sources reflect the current state of knowledge, perhaps because there is still a lot of disagreement. — kwami (talk) 18:54, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Ok, thanks although sourcing would stop speculation it's OR (even fringe OR). I can sympathise with anyone wondering why there's a blank row though, maybe it should be commented out? Dougweller (talk) 20:22, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I guess it's just something I forgot to carry through on. IMO it's useful to have; maybe we should tag it as incomplete / under construction? — kwami (talk) 20:26, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

DIN 31635

Hi Kwami. If you want to choose to use another Arabic transliteration scheme, please, do not keep the them tagged with {{transl|ar|DIN|...}}. Please, remove the DIN, because DIN 31635 uses ǧ not j. That means if you did the same in other articles, you'll have to remove the DIN from all of them. Why is it a problem to use DIN 31635? All the other documented transliterations don't use 1 phoneme to 1 grapheme; except Spanish Arabists School which uses confusing graphemes: ŷ for /ɡ/~/ʒ/~/d͡ʒ/~/ɟ/;   j for /x/~/χ/;   g for /ɣ/~/ʁ/. Thanks. --Mahmudmasri (talk) 09:31, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for any inappropriate edits. Please go ahead and revert them. From what I understand, ǧ is discouraged: I had added it to the Arabic edit window but was requested to remove it so as not to encourage its use. I'm not familiar with our conventions here.

IMO isolated Arabic words in various articles should use the same transliteration as the Arabic article, and currently nearly all of them use "j". If DIN and "ǧ" is preferred, maybe we could come to some consensus on that and mass convert the articles? I'd be happy to add it back in and expand its use if that's what the community wants. — kwami (talk) 16:53, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

No need to apologize, dear. When there's a need to strictly transliterate Arabic words, there must be a documented standard used, so that, transliterations won't look very messed-up and even more confusing. It is preferable to use a 1 phoneme to 1 grapheme scheme to minimize ambiguity, because in Arabic phonology, you can have /h/ right after /d/, /k/, /s/, /t/, making the digraphs dh, kh, sh, th for /ð/, /x/, /ʃ/, /θ/, impractical. In regular circumstances, when a word has already entered English language, the common English spelling for it is preferred and a strict transliteration is used where the etymology is explained. That's what I do. The Arabic language article has transliterated Arabic words which are absent in English and have to be strictly transliterated to be able to properly reconstruct and understand them. Sometimes I see some users disagree on the use of ǧ because of what they think it conveys a /ɡ/ pronunciation. Well, all the Arabic cognates with other Semitic languages (ex. Hebrew) have them with /ɡ/, this Arabic phoneme was originally [ɡ], it diverged in different regions to [ɡ], [ʒ], [d͡ʒ] or [ɟ] (also [d͡z], [d] or [j] but for exclusively vernacular pronunciations). Each region uses its own pronunciation when pronouncing Literary Arabic, making all the pronunciations linguistically correct; the following three ([ɡ], [ʒ] or [d͡ʒ]) are the most prevalent. --Mahmudmasri (talk) 16:04, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I understand the inappropriateness of using digraphs for Arabic. Personally I'm fine with ǧ; if you bring it up on the Arabic wikiproject and get some agreement, I'll be happy to add it back in (and also restore it to the edit window so that people have easy access to it). — kwami (talk) 01:19, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

marking stress on one syllable words

Hi Kwami. My understanding of phonetic transcriptions with IPA is that is customary not to mark the stress in one syllable words. I see you have been adding it to the names of the letters of the English alphabet. —Coroboy (talk) 11:14, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

We mark stress where there is stress. This is important for names, where sometimes monosyllables are not stressed. It's already marked for most letters, but s.o. removed it from some. Now they're consistent. — kwami (talk) 16:50, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

OK. Thanks for the explanation. —Coroboy (talk) 02:42, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Lese-majesty

I've started a thread about your page move. Talk:Lese-majesty#Page move: Lèse majesté -> Lese-majesty.   Will Beback  talk  07:03, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Dwarf planet

Kwami I agree with you that those four objects are DPs. But this isn't about facts. It's about definitions, and the IAU are the body that defined the term "dwarf planet" and, right or wrong, the IAU specifically included absolute magnitude as one of their criteria. Until they lift that restriction, those four objects will remain unclassified. And Brown, while obviously a reliable source, has a personal stake in this issue, so it is best not to rely on him alone. Serendi^podous 09:13, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

No, they did not. They use magnitude only as a criterion for naming. It's not part of the definition of DP. DP is defined only by equilibrium and orbital dominance. We have a RS that these bodies fit that def, and no RS that they don't. Therefore per RS policy we classify them as DP's. — kwami (talk) 12:36, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

The IAU is usually the trump card source for definitions. We define the Kuiper belt by the IAU's criteria; we define planets by the IAU's criteria. Why now are we going by the arguments of a single astronomer, no matter how knowledgeable in the field? Serendi^podous 04:38, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

We are going by IAU defs! According to IAU definitions, these are dwarf planets. Please show me somewhere they say they're not.

If you're going to make the argument that these are not DPs because the IAU has not individually recognized them as such, then to be consistent we would need to add notes to several thousand articles on minor planets, comets, and stars that the IAU does not recognize them as such. Are we really going to question whether some hydrogen-fusing ball of gas is really a star if we can't find an IAU publication that specifically classifies it as a star? — kwami (talk) 04:55, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

The IAU did more than just not recognise them. It specifically excluded them with a resolution intended to keep them out. Yes, it was done for petty and stupid reasons, but it was done, and we can't ignore it. Serendi^podous 05:06, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't see anywhere in that blurb where it's excluding them. You may be reading that into their words, but it's not said explicitly. As for magnitude, they specifically use that "for naming purposes" and "for the purpose of naming". That's purely bureaucratic, to decide which governing body gets to decide on a name. It is independent of the astronomical definition of a DP/Plutoid, which in that same blurb is said to be "celestial bodies in orbit around the Sun at a semimajor axis greater than that of Neptune that have sufficient mass for their self-gravity to overcome rigid body forces so that they assume a hydrostatic equilibrium (near-spherical) shape, and that have not cleared the neighbourhood around their orbit." No mention of magnitude. That definition has not changed. Sedna, Quaoar, Orcus, and OR10 are Plutoids/DPs per this definition, but they fall under CSBN purview for naming because of their magnitude. We can certainly note that the names for these objects were approved by the CSBN rather than by a joint CSBN–WGPSN committee, if anyone cares, but that has nothing to do with their physical nature. — kwami (talk) 05:17, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Then why is Wikipedia currently the only authority describing them as dwarf planets? Mike Brown is a great guy and he knows his stuff, but he has made his activist position fairly clear by this point. We're essentially taking his side in an unresolved issue. Personally, I would take his side anyway, but this isn't about what I think. Wikipedia can't take sides. Serendi^podous 05:37, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

"Authority"?

We use the IAU definition. These bodies are DPs per the IAU definition. Therefore we call them DPs. If you have evidence to the contrary, please provide it. — kwami (talk) 05:51, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

You have provided only one person's evidence. Where are the other astronomers? Without the IAU's authority, you'd need to cite the entire astronomical community individually before you could make such a blanket statement. Serendi^podous 05:54, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I have a RS that these are DPs. You have not provided a RS that they are not. Why would you ask me for more refs, when you have not provided any refs yourself? — kwami (talk) 06:15, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I've provided the IAU as an authority. The IAU recognises 5 dwarf planets. You think there should be nine. If you feel the IAU is breaking its own rules, that's fine. But until the IAU says otherwise, you can't make that claim. Serendi^podous 10:01, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

You've demonstrated that 3 bodies were named under the IAU rules for who gets to name DPs. You haven't demonstrated anything about which bodies are DPs. Until you do, this discussion is useless. If you can't support your argument, then you have no argument. — kwami (talk) 10:15, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Serendipodous has clearly outlined that the IAU has not officially identified anything other than Ceres, Pluto, Haumea, Makemake and Eris as dwarf planets. Based on that, we cannot name other objects as being dwarf planets. Strong candidates, sure, but not officially part of that category. --Ckatz^chat_spy 09:14, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Kwami, don't do this

If you want more authoritative refs for the definition of the classical belt, just read refs 43-49 of the Kuiper belt article. Serendi^podous 06:36, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Those sources speak of resonant, classical, and scattered KBOs, but what I'm talking about is what you call the non-scattered population if you don't count the scattered bodies as KBOs. They don't address that point. From the only ref I've found that speaks clearly to this, it's the "classical KB". That may be in error, or poorly worded, but so far it's the only thing I have to go by. — kwami (talk) 06:50, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I've emailed Hal Levison and referred him to his paper. Please let's keep away from this until I hear back from him, OK? Serendi^podous 06:54, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Okay. We need a disambiguating term for what Pluto is the largest of, if "Kuiper belt" is ambiguous as to whether it includes Eris or not. — kwami (talk) 06:57, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Stùc a' Chroin

Are you aware of some formatting tricks that would make the Pronunciation field less cluttered? It seems to add brackets by default, which then run into the {{lang-gd| formatting which adds the somewhat surperfluous Scottish Gaelic pronunciation bit and yet another bracket. All in all a bit messy, plus the IPA is quite small though that my well be my font settings. Akerbeltz (talk) 12:48, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

The infobox needs to be recoded. I've noticed it before, but I don't spend time on the mountain arts, so it hasn't bothered me enough to fix it. — kwami (talk) 12:57, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Deleted the brackets from the template. We really should say which language the pronunciation is in, but for SG it is pretty awkward. — kwami (talk) 13:03, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. We could just call it "Gaelic" and link to to the Scottish Gaelic article. But I don't know if that's doable. Akerbeltz (talk) 13:09, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Ok, it's doable but actually, do we really need to state it? After all, the tooltip for the IPA clearly states it's IPA for Scottish Gaelic. It might not be good for languages which don't have an IPA-xx page but in this case... what do you think? Akerbeltz (talk) 13:12, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

How many people are going to know about the mouse-over? — kwami (talk) 13:40, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Fair point - though you might similarly as who knows about the IPA ;) - I guess but then perhaps the way forward would be to change the tooltip of the ogg file cause at the moment if just brings up the name of the file which is a bit pointless. Akerbeltz (talk) 13:44, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Experience

You appear to have some expertise in the discussion going on at the talk page of Lofoi which is also being edit-warred. There are some challenging personalities involved. I'd appreciate your independent advice/involvement if you can spare the time.  Nipsonanomhmata  ^(Talk) 17:02, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I reverted prior to the edit war and protected the article. I am fed up with insecure nationalists and their petty squabbles. There are various remedies at WP:dispute resolution you can try. Sorry for not being more helpful, but I simply don't care anymore: there's no end to this bullshit, and I'd rather spend some time on things that might actually be interesting. — kwami (talk) 23:38, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I think that what you have done is positive. At least it lets everybody cool their heels off for a bit (even though IMO the POV tag still applies). Many thanks. btw I tried dispute resolution on the Kostas Novakis article which got me nowhere. Since an involved admin who has a distinct POV actually closed the dispute resolution in their own favor. But such is life. Those who wield the power usually win.  Nipsonanomhmata  ^(Talk) 00:14, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

If you think the closing admin was biased, you can continue the DR process. Admins are generally hesitant to revert other admins, because that invites just escalating these disputes to a higher and potentially more damaging level, but if you can demonstrate admin bias there will be admins who will revert the decision. Of course, they may not agree with you that the decision was biased: Often in these cases the losing side screams bias no matter which decision is made, and many if not most of the objections are specious. — kwami (talk) 00:37, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

That's fair. It would have been better if someone who was not involved in the dispute had closed it rather than an involved party with a conflict of interest. But to be honest, sometimes it's easier to say "what's the point, let a.n. other editor deal with it because it is too much effort to put it right". Escalating an issue requires a great deal of effort and the tolerance of a thick-skinned rhinoceros and in the end the article will be nobbled again anyway and all the effort will have been a waste of time.  Nipsonanomhmata  ^(Talk) 02:26, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Which is why I generally don't bother with ethnic or religious articles any more. Ten Commandments, for example, used to have a dab in the lede for the article covering what the Bible calls the "Ten Commandments", but that's been removed because several editors are adamant that it gives it undue weight. I can't think of many articles where a dab is not allowed in the lede or a hatnote, but religion and therefore people's sense of identity is involved, and that's more important to them than ease of navigation. So it goes. — kwami (talk) 02:42, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Hope you don't mind me asking. What's a dab?  Nipsonanomhmata  ^(Talk) 09:54, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry: 'disambiguat(ion)'. Too long to spell out. Cf. {{dab}}. — kwami (talk) 10:00, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

btw the person that you have asked for advice from re: "Greek Slavic" (btw that's two different languages) also has a strong POV regarding subjects Greek (notably "Northern Cyprus") although I have not seen their POV concerning "Macedonian" subjects. The problem on Wikipedia is that many articles concerning the Greek region called Macedonia reflect the POV of the "Republic of Macedonia". Hence why there are regular edit wars. I took a look at some articles about the Greek Civil War and you would think the articles were about a "Macedonian Civil War" and the POV is heavily-skewed to the Communist version of events (even though the Communists lost in the Greek Civil War). Good luck to anybody who wants to attempt to put that right since today the majority politics in Greece is left-wing and there are actually three separate Communist political parties in Greece (and ofcourse the "Republic of Macedonia" also has a strong history of Communism too). But of course, after the Greek Civil War itself the politics were adamantly right-wing as they were during the reign of the Greek Junta. So on Wikipedia, it appears that the version of history sways from one extreme to the other depending on the political majority of a country or the majority POV carried by contributors. The overriding issue concerning the Slavic language that is spoken in northern Greece is that it is both a Slavic dialect of Bulgarian and the language of the "Republic of Macedonia". The majority of contributors on Wikipedia claim that it is "Macedonian" or "Macedonian Slavic" and they have references that support that view. However, it is fairer to just call it Slavic to avoid Bulgarian-oriented editors swapping "Macedonian" to Bulgarian and "Republic of Macedonia"-oriented editors swapping back to "Macedonian". Moreover, the ethnicity of the speakers is also complicated by the fact that they have been referred to initially as Christians (to distinguish from the Turks during the Ottoman Empire), they have also been referred to as Slavic-speaking Greeks, as Serbians, and as Bulgarians (depending on which country was sponsoring their schools or churches at the time) i.e. their ethnicity, and religion, was changeable depending on what suited their best interests). Moreover, the issue is further complicated by a major influx of Greek refugees from Asia Minor and Northern Epirus (parts of Albania). Hence why there are such a huge range of POVs concerning the region. Hence why they are always edit-warring. It would be easier to direct the language, instead of to "Macedonian" which is a strongly supported POV, to what is currently called Slavic speakers of Greek Macedonia. However, even the title of this article is POV-biased since the region of Macedonia in Greece has never been called "Greek Macedonia" historically or generically in the English-language. The title of that article should be Slavic speakers of Macedonia (Greece) or Slavic speakers of Greece or Slavic speakers of northern Greece. Using the generic Slavic reference would reduce the number of edit wars (certainly from the Bulgarian and Greek POV). Right now the POV of the "Republic of Macedonia" is dominant. btw the ancient Greek "Macedonian" language is also called Macedonian ("Makedoniki" in the Greek language) and that adds another string of complexity to the subject. Moreover, the history of the Slavs has no connection whatsoever with the ancient Greek history of Macedonia other than that Slavs live in part of the territory that once was ancient Macedonia. Further complicated by the fact that there are a large number of ethnic Greeks who speak Slavic who are part of the population of the "Republic of Macedonia" and mostly due to the Greek Civil War where Communists were forced out of the country and the Paedomazoma where tens of thousands of children were abducted from northern Greece by the Communists. Further complicated by the Communist-spin on what actually happened since the Communists claim that the children were evacuated as refugees to help them survive the Greek Civil War. A noble claim if it weren't for the fact that many thousands of children were taken from their parents against the wills of both the children and their parents. Further complicated when the Greek government decided to forgive and forget and allow the return of a large number of Slavic-speaking Greek Communists to Greece (they were also given enhanced Greek Civil War hero pensions by the Socialist government which unsurprisingly encouraged the influx). Further complicated by the spin from the "Republic of Macedonia" which lays claim to all Slavic speakers in nothern Greece as their brethren who speak their language. Even though the dialect of Slavic from northern Greece is only spoken in two locales in the "Republic of Macedonia" and that is mainly due to the influx of Communists during the Greek Civil War. So yes, it is no surprise that you despair of the subject. Everyone despairs of this subject. It would be easier to nuke the region and forget about it but ofcourse that's not an option.  Nipsonanomhmata  ^(Talk) 10:54, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Sinhala language

Kwamikagami, Danielklein -- Under "Writing system" we see "Sinhala also knows hal kirama and uses two differing virama symbols depending on the basic grapheme to explicitly indicate the lack of a vowel." Could one of the knowledgable editors please clarify this? I get the impression that virama symbols are sound-killers, but I could find nothing on "hal kirama". (I assume "knows" in this sentence should be "recognizes" or "uses".) Thanks -- Jo3sampl (talk) 19:31, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, that was pretty bad. Copy edited the section. — kwami (talk) 00:55, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

"Wrong version" at Lofoi

Hi, thanks for the protection, but I think your revert to the old version undid quite a few recent improvements that were in fact uncontroversial [11]. The only thing that's currently subject to the edit-warring was this one silly detail of how to refer to the Slavic language in the intro sentence. About that bit, take your pick and choose any "wrong version" you like, but I'd ask to have the other changes reinstated. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:39, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Done. — kwami (talk) 06:03, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:59, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Template:IPA vowel chart

Hi Kwami. The vowels within the Template:IPA vowel chart look smaller now. Would you please make the vowels with a font-size of 125%? Diacritics don't appear easily on the tiny font-size. --Mahmudmasri (talk) 12:13, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Moving rank articles to appropriate case

Kwami

Thank heavens you've moved First Lieutenant to First lieutenant. Can you also do Sub-Lieutenant and Lieutenant Commander? There are plenty more for the army and air force - a quick glance at template:Military ranks will show several candidates. Yours, Shem (talk) 18:14, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Done. Moving some others. Any idea if the caps in Sergeant Major of the Army are appropriate? Not so sure about that one. — kwami (talk) 20:45, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Not my area, but it sounds like a position or institution rather than a mere rank -probably best left alone. Which of your moves have been reverted? I couldn't find any by searching your contributions. Shem (talk) 08:25, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Any thoughts

Do you have any idea what I can do to try and calm down this editor - Wisco2000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)? He has been running from one edit-war to the other and is constantly removing warning templates from his talkpage. I saw you had previously warned him as well. Currently, he is removing huge chunks of information from National Liberation War of Macedonia and refuses to enter any actual discussion on it. I tried to get to a consensus by trimming down some of the text he removes, but it failed. Seems like page protection is the only way to stop it. I am not even sure how many reverts he has made today but they seem like a lot. --Laveol ^T 18:40, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the old edit-warrior Wisko2000 is here again. He has deleted several times the whole chapter about Bulgarian liberation of Vardar Macedonia with the added sources without any reasonable explanation. The same game, he is going to delete everything, even properly sourced materials, which he disagrees with. Jingby (talk) 18:49, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

What he does with his talk page is his business. But I'll look into the other stuff. — kwami (talk) 19:51, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

First,I started a discussion on the talk page over 5 hours before Laveol put his post here and there was a discussion underway already. Laveol's first post on the talk page is only 2 minutes before he posted here. So saying "and refuses to enter any actual discussion on it" is just not true.

Second, I did lay out the issues, they are: 1) Coatracking (I put that in at 13:11, 14 September 2011 on the article talk page):

The whole section was not essential for the article, and it is off-topic. Second, the section did not follow the chronological layout of the article. What was added were facts backed up by German sources to events that pertain to Macedonia, since that is what this article is about. Pieces of the older section were placed in other sections (not deleted) and condensed (without removing a single reference) in the chronologically appropriate section.

There is still a section on what Bulgaria did in Serbia, liberation of Belgrade, going to Hungary, etc, things that don't pertain to the subject (National Liberation War in Macedonia). That's what I have an issue with.

The second objection is that jingiby adds statements (in the article, as well as on the talkpage with me and other users) that "There were only Bulgarian soldiers in Macedonia at that time, no partisans" yet, the whole article somehow doesn't speak to him otherwise. I would guide to some Wikipedia policies, such as WP:YESPOV 'Avoid stating opinions as facts' and 'Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts' and WP:UNDUE (If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article.). Saying things like "there were no partisans" in an article about them falls in that category.

I added the statement "Despite Bulgaria's significant involvement on the side of the Allies at the end of the war ..." acknowledging that Bulgaria had an important role, and kept his references. If people want to keep on reading on that, they can freely do so.

Jingiby's comments, like labels/threats like "politically motivated" "disruptive" "nationalistic" "vandalism" "if you are continuing you disruptive edits I am going to ..." etc. don't help the case.

And it's always the same two editors that pop up every time I add something, and they have to make everything about Macedonia somehow Bulgaria, about Bulgaria, etc, the two single-purpose accounts Jingiby and Laveol.

Wisco2000 (talk) 03:41, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Slavic terminology

About your question at Talk:Macedonian language: I'm afraid no consensus has ever emerged, and it's unlikely to happen. It's an issue that has come up repeatedly for as long as I can remember, at least since 2009. It usually starts up at some random village article and then proceeds across all of Florina prefecture. The Greeks hate to hear it called "Macedonian"; the Bulgarians hate to hear it called anything but "Bulgarian". Between Greek and Macedonian editors, "Macedonian Slavic" has a chance of being accepted as a reasonable compromise (the current design where that phrase redirects to a dedicated section in Macedonian language was chosen explicitly with these cases in mind), but the Bulgarian tag-team has been absolutely intransigent about it over the years. They are basically always the same three editors: the two single-purpose accounts Jingiby and Laveol, occasionally reinforced by Todor Bozhinov, who unlike the two others is otherwise a very respectable editor, but goes into complete stonewalling mode once this topic comes up. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:04, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Has it ever been established that 'Macedonian' is more appropriate than 'Bulgarian'? Dialectologically, it's Bulgarian, and sociolinguistically it appears to be mixed. Wouldn't 'Greek Slavic' or maybe even just 'Slavic' solve the issue? And why not redirect to Greek Slavs? (Which IMO would seem more straightforward than the verbose Slavic speakers of Greek Macedonia. — kwami (talk) 21:09, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Most of the international literature that mentions the issue seems to subsume the dialects of Greek Macedonia (at least those in its western part) under Macedonian. We so far have that sourced to Friedman (multiple publications, and he's expressing the view quite strongly), Trudgill (who doesn't go into much of a dialectological argument but just seems to be assuming it as a matter of common sense), and a guy called Schmieger (in International Journal of the Sociology of Language 1998; he gives a structural dialectological reason for it), and of course multiple general survey works that mention the general spread of Macedonian, including Ethnologue and others. There are of course also those authors who follow the Bulgarian view that all of Macedonian (not just the dialects in Greece) are ipso facto Bulgarian. What I haven't found is a modern author who on the one hand accepts the separateness of Macedonian and Bulgarian as two distinct languages, but at the same time claims that the dialects in Greece are affiliated more with the latter than with the former. Sociolinguistically speaking, there are sufficent references for saying that those remaining Slavophones in Greece who adopt any non-Greek ethnic identity at all today do so quite predominantly along the "Macedonian" rather than the "Bulgarian" lines (speaking of geographical Macedonia, of course; not about the areas further east). – About the best link target, we had Slavic dialects of Greece, but that was a wider scope article (including also Pomak etc.) and it's currently merged into Slavic speakers of Greek Macedonia, which is a predominantly historical and political hodgepodge and contains very little actual linguistic information; that's why my personal preference is still with the section in Macedonian language#Macedonian Slavic in Greece. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:29, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Okay, fair enough. I just want something for consistency, and so I don't have to review the same arguments on each article. (I really don't care. It's all so petty.) If the other side can produce counter-evidence, we might go with them or something more neutral like "Greek Slavic", but this sounds good for now.

The other obvious question is what when we start calling Slavs "Macedonian". They did not exist separately from Bulgarian until recently. Any decision on that? Bulgarian up to WWII maybe? — kwami (talk) 21:40, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

In the context of discussing the ethnic politics of the late-19th to early-20th-century conflicts, "Macedonian Slavs" or "Slavophones" etc. seems to be often used as a neutral descriptive term in the literature (where "Macedonian" is of course merely a geographic descriptor, not an ethnonym). "Bulgarian" is of course used in contexts such as reporting findings from historical ethnographic works or censuses, where those were the categories used, or reporting on identity choices like those expressed through religious affiliation, schooling etc. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:54, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Guys, I read your post, so I thought I'd offer you few datapoints to consider. The first one is: [12] regarding the case of the ABECEDAR, a 1925 textbook for the Macedonians in Florina, based on the language from the region. Read the exchange between the Bulgarian representative to the League of Nations (calling the language incomprehensable) and the Greek representative (calling the language neither Bulgarian nor Serbian) in the bottom half of the page.

Some current interviews with the people from the area can be found from teh Helsinki Human Rights Watch: Until 1923 noone spoke Greek here ... Macedonian was the dominant language. In one example, a teacher in Xyno Nero village ordered children in her class to spit at a child who had spoken Macedonian. During Breaks in high school, kids speak Macedonian to each other. In 1959 in the villages around Lerin, Kostur and Kajlari the inhabitants were asked to conform publicly in front of officials that they did not speak Macedonian. Not to bore you with more quotes, just look at the recommendations by the Human Rights Watch:

Similarly, from the US Dept of State Human Rights Reports on Greece for 2010, 2009, 2008 "The government did not recognize the existence of a Slavic dialect, called "Macedonian" by its speakers, spoken in the northwestern area of the country"

Wisco2000 (talk) 02:49, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

---

---

Of those eight links, five are the same, and three others are the same thing published year after year. So you really only have two sources. We cannot, of course, call them "Macedonians". It does support the idea that they identify as Macedonians. I thought that some further east might ID as Bulgarians, but that might just be my imagination. — kwami (talk) 03:03, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it's the same book, but quotes from different people. The other three are annual reports for three different years. I didn't want to drown you with piles of sources (I will probably lose your attention at one point), so I thought I'd pick two reputable ones (HRW and DoS) and I gave you some quotes on the issue from the past and from the current times (to point out that these people didn't decide to tall their language or themselves Macedonian past few years).

I think if they call themselves Macedonian, and the HRW and the DoS calls them that, who are we to call them something else. I knew a lot of these people personally, I have been in Florina, and what they speak is Macedonian (similar dialect like Bitola/Prilep, which are an hour away), but they are terrified to say it; they don't outright deny it or tell you they are something else, they are simply terrified. But since you won't take my word for it, I hope that reputable sources like HRW and DoS (which really don't have a reason to be anti-Greek, anti-Bulgarian and pro-Macedonian) should speak for themselves. You'll always find extreme views (some people don't believe in the evolution, think the earth is flat ...) and conspiracy theories, but when reputable sources say the same thing year-after-year (like the DoS), that should count for a lot.

To summarize the issue: Bulgarians call them Bulgarian because they used to go to Bulgarian church schools 100 yrs ago, when there were only Bugarian or Greek church schools when that region was under the Ottoman rule. Bulgarian was more similar, so they went with that. Now that there are no Bulgarian schools (no Macedonian ones either) they can call themselves Macedonian. Greece thinks that can cause other countries to interfere in its internal affairs, so it doesn't like anyone calling them Macedonian. If they can call them something else (Slav, Marsian, whatever), they are happy with it.

So if you ask me, given that that's what they call themselves, and sources like the HRW and DoS do the same, that's what I call them.

04:11, 15 September 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wisco2000 (talk • contribs)

Yes, if they self-identify as Macedonian, we should call them Macedonian, though of course since we're in Greece we need to take account of the Arbcom decision, since "Macedonian" on its own is ambiguous.

But no, an org. publishing a statement 3 yrs in a row does not count as 3 sources. It's merely one source that they didn't feel a need to revise. — kwami (talk) 04:18, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Can you give me a link to the Arbcom decision? I agree, the Department of State is one source, I just wanted to point out that they do it consistently (it's not just once or here and there) and recently. Wisco2000 (talk) 05:01, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Sure. WP:ARBMAC is from 2007, and WP:ARBMAC2 from 2009. — kwami (talk) 05:05, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Rank capitalisation

Given the ongoing, numerous and lengthy discussions on this matter over the last 3 or 4 years, I was wondering if your recent actions are in response to a new discussion somewhere? (If so, could you provide a link to the discussion please?) Pdfpdf (talk) 22:10, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I was going to ask the same question. Talk:Brigadier General#Move discussion in progress has a link to Talk:Able Seaman (rank)#Requested move where the consensus was not to move (and included references to various previous discussions). - David Biddulph (talk) 22:36, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, hadn't seen that discussion. I was going off Wikipedia:Manual of Style (capital letters)#Military terms, where brigadier general is given as a specific example of something that should not be capitalized (unless of course it's being used as a title). We do not in general capitalize job descriptions (not "Garbage Collector", for example). There's also the fact that caps are variable in these articles, not just between but within the articles, including within brigadier general itself. These should really be discussed together, which is the point of centralizing things in the MOS. It would be silly to, say, capitalize Brigadier General but not major general, just because different groups of editors participated in the two discussions. — kwami (talk) 22:49, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

This mass edit/move created a huge mess and should be reverted. Military ranks are titles. For example:

• Public Law 94-479 defines "General of the Armies of the United States"
• Public Law 78-482 defines "Fleet Admiral for the United States Navy" and "General of the Army"

Very much like the title of a book or movie these are the names for those ranks and so would be capitalized per WP:CAPS. I suspect WP:CAPS should address military ranks or grades. Part of the challenge is that it has not been easy to track down the public laws that defined a rank meaning for many ranks we are still in limbo on what the exact wording or

A second issue is that some of the ranks can only be differentiated based on the capitalization A "General of the army" is very different than "General of the Army" as "General" also happens to be a rank. Thus an attempt to apply standard WP article title-case sews confusion and also lowers the credibility of Wikipedia as it would not be formatting the titles the same as they are used by armed services, books, and media coverage.

Many of the military rank article titles have been arrived at via years of discussion and research with people tracking down the public laws and military promotion orders involved to make sure we got them right and had a solid foundation on reliable sources. It was then easy to create a widespread and long standing community consensus on the specifics of wording and capitalization for each of those titles. --Marc Kupper|talk 23:35, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

This should be addressed at MOS so that we're all in sync.

Military ranks are not titles. They may be used as titles. When they are, they're capitalized. There may be exceptions, of course, where a rank truly is a title (maybe "General of the Armies"? I'm happy to revert such cases), but that wouldn't be many of them.

Your alleged "long standing community consensus on the specifics of wording and capitalization for each of those titles" does not seem to exist. The military-rank articles were completely inconsistent. One rank would be capitalized, and the next not. Sometimes the title would be capitalized and the text l.c., sometimes the title l.c. and the text capitalized. Often the text would switch back and forth, sometimes within a single sentence. And in the articles where the ranks were capitalized, often common nouns like "Deck" were capitalized too, to the point where nearly any uniquely identifiable noun was capitalized. That hasn't been normal English orthography for a few centuries. Given the years of discussion, you'd think there would be a little more order than that. Since the articles are unreliable, I don't see why we shouldn't follow the MOS. The MOS can of course be changed, and is a good place for a centralized discussion so that we don't end up with the chaos I started fixing today. — kwami (talk) 23:57, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Could I ask that you please self-revert these moves, per Talk:Able Seaman (rank)#Requested move. As an administrator I am sure you are aware the guidelines and policies (such as the MOS) are meant to reflect what's happening "on the ground". In this case it would appear that this section was added to the MOS in 2007 and consensus has changed since then. I can't fault you for making the move if you were not aware of the previous move discussions but now that you are aware please could you self revert, or at least agree to someone else reverting. Dpmuk (talk) 23:48, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

That decision was never implemented, as evidence by the utter mess of military-rank articles, and a change to the MOS should really be at the MOS. Can you bring it up there? I don't see any point in having mixed capitalization, where, say, "Sergeant" is capitalized but "captain" is not. — kwami (talk) 23:57, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Although I agree that the MOS talk page may well have been where the issue was reached it was not raised there and it would appear that a consensus was found over several move discussions. It would seem silly to start a discussion at the MOS page just for process sake. And it's even debatable whether that is the proper process given that guidelines reflect what's happening. Dpmuk (talk) 00:06, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I would obviously have no problem with you starting a general discussion afterwards to try and bottom this issue out fully. I do have sympathy with your position but as pointed out above this is not a straight forward situation given the problems with titles like General of the Army and the previous discussion and so this whole issue needs discussing rather than unilateral moves. Dpmuk (talk) 23:53, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

If there are exceptions, fine. I may have been overly zealous, and those can be addressed on a one-by-one basis. But "sergeant" is not capitalized in normal English. — kwami (talk) 23:57, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

As another example you moved first moved "Petty Officer 2nd Class" to "Petty officer 2nd class" which is the issue discussed above. You then, however, also moved it to ""Petty officer 2nd-class" citing "grammar". I do not think you should have made that move without looking into it and probably also discussion given that the Canadian Forces website lists it without a dash. I'm sure I've seen you make mass moves before that have caused problems and I think I've raised the issue with you before (and I'm sure I've seen it raised at ANI as well). Can I suggest you try to investigate the situation first before jumping into these mass moves, which often turn out to be somewhat disruptive. Dpmuk (talk) 00:04, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

If I were going against consensus, you'd have a point. But this is consensus, apart for the hyphen (I've moved those to reflect the punctuation at www.forces.ca). A RfM on some obscure page that was never enforced doesn't trump the much more public and widely viewed MOS. If you want to change the consensus, that's the place to go. — kwami (talk) 00:10, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I think we disagree on what the consensus is. I'd be more inclined to take your view if it didn't appear the MOS consensus was so old. As it is I think we should be using the much more recent discussion, especially given that guidelines are meant to be driven by what's actually happening not the other way round. If we can't even agree on what the consensus is it's clear that these moves are controversial and need to be discussed. I still think you should self revert and start a discussion as it's clear there's disagreement. Per the generally accepted WP:BRD if any editor disagreed with your moves they could revert but this seems likely only to make the whole situation worse. If you're not willing to revert then at the very least I think you should start a discussion to try to get consensus for your moves. Dpmuk (talk) 00:28, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

If the consensus is old, that means it's well established. A consensus from last week would be more problematic, because fewer people would have had a chance to see it.

"given that guidelines are meant to be driven by what's actually happening": but what's "actually happening" is chaos. There is clearly no consensus in the articles themselves, either between articles or even within articles! They do not reflect that RfM. If the MOS were out of step with the articles, again, you'd have an excellent point, but it's not: the articles are out of step with each other. They clearly reflect no consensus on the ground, but only a lack of consensus. The only non-local consensus I see is the MOS, and that appears to have been stable for some time. I had nothing to do with setting it up. If you want to change it, go to the source. — kwami (talk)

(edit conflict × 2)Oh, and thank you for reverting the moves of the CF articles. I have a lot of sympathy with what you are often trying to do with standardisation, it's more how you go about it that I have a problem with. I agree that inconsistency is a bad thing, but I also think that moving a page (such as Able seaman (rank) where there's a clear consensus on the talk page for the current title is also wrong. I agree it's a difficult balancing act but I, and it seems many others, think you're not quite got it right at the moment. Dpmuk (talk) 00:46, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

And in reply - I partly cover this in my edit conflict above. I agree that the current article titles are chaos but I'd disagree that there's no consensus on the ground. Rather I'd suggest that articles have just not been moved to the new consensus which is quite different to there being no consensus. I take your point about stability could mean its "well established" but I believe in this instance it's more a case of many people with an interest in this area not realising it's even mentioned in the MOS, so I think that rather than being "well established" it's just not well known about. They both end up in the same stability but for completely different reasons.

I think your statement "I had nothing to do with setting it up. If you want to change it, go to the source." sums up my concern with your edits. It would appear that you often edit based on the MOS without knowing the area and so not knowing what other discussions there may have been etc. For example in this instance if you'd known the area you'd have known about the previous discussions and probably discussed your proposed moves rather than just doing them. I think one of the biggest problems wikipedia faces is how to find out what the general consensus of the readers, rather than editors involved in a subject, is, but I also think you go too far the other way in trying to act on a general consensus and in doing so ignore the often, very legitimate, concerns of those knowledgeable in an area. There's a balance to be struck and my concern is you're not getting the balance quite right.

That may well be true, and perhaps we should capitalize "Sergeant" wherever it occurs. But IMO the best way to handle this is for those knowledgeable editors to chime in at the MOS and make military ranks, or maybe some subset of military ranks, or perhaps certain uses of military ranks, an exception to the general rule that we don't capitalize job titles. They can demonstrate there how l.c. causes problems with parsing or whatever their reasoning is. Otherwise we're left with individual editors who claim WP:ownership of articles because of a consensus no-one else can see, while the visible consensus continues to contradict them. That's a recipe for continuing chaos. If there is consensus to capitalize, it will be quite easy to set up a bot to capitalize across all of WP. We could even put it into the spelling corrections of AWB. That can happen if the MOS is changed through a community-wide discussion, but isn't going to happen because of an unenforced RfM in some obscure article familiar only to a small clique of editors. — kwami (talk) 00:57, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Kwami, I'm completely in favour of the moves where it's clearly a rank, since both WP:TITLE and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (capital letters)#Military terms are quite clear on the subject. Much of the argument against these moves seems to be "the military often capitalise ranks, so WP should also do so". In my experience, the military capitalise every other word, and this is quite against the MOS. Where the article is about a title, some more discussion is required, I suggest. It's great to see lieutenant commander finally at lower case! Shem (talk) 08:31, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Sure, if it's a title, and some of the pages I moved may be, then it should be cap'd. — kwami (talk) 10:36, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Try again

Given the ongoing, numerous and lengthy discussions on this matter over the last 3 or 4 years, I was wondering if your recent actions are in response to a new discussion somewhere? (If so, could you provide a link to the discussion please?) Pdfpdf (talk) 22:10, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

From the above, am I accurate in deducing that your recent actions are not in response to a new discussion somewhere? Pdfpdf (talk) 10:16, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Just the MOS, and scattered comments about people capitalizing job descriptions. — kwami (talk) 10:29, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

So I am correct in deducing that your recent actions are not in response to a new discussion somewhere.

Right.

Please educate yourself about the various discussions held and consensuses reached, please revert ALL your edits contrary to those consensuses as soon as possible, and please comply with those consensuses. Pdfpdf (talk) 10:46, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

The consensus of the encyclopedia is contained in the guidance and is clearly explained at WP:TITLE, Wikipedia:Manual of Style (capital letters)#Military terms, and elsewhere. I see no consensus for not following the MOS, although there are plenty of those who would like to capitalise everything to do with the military. Kwami's edits are entirely in accordance with the spirit of the encyclopedia. Shem (talk) 11:54, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I utterly disagree - what has been created here is a mess due to the unilateral multiple changes contrary to and cutting across previous discussion. I am suprised that an individual would take it upon themseleves to make so many changes in such a short time without discussion - it all seems rather WP:POINTY, not the sort of behaviour that I would hope for from an admin. I would that these are changed back preferably by the person who made the changes asap. Tragino (talk) 14:43, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

It's routine housecleaning. If you want to change the MOS, then change the MOS. Meanwhile it's the guideline for how we write and format our articles. — kwami (talk) 22:59, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Don't fool yourself. Your're not fooling anyone else. It's nothing to do with MOS and guidelines. It's a simple case that that a number of consensus have been agreed after lengthy discussion, and you are refusing to inform yourself of them, and refusing to comply with them. Your behaviour is unacceptable for a "normal" editor. For an admin, they are simply unbelievable, and your continuation of such behaviour, with such volume of changes, is inflamatory and totally unacceptable. And this is not "my opinion" - this is fact, as is shown by the vast number of other editors here complaining about your behaviour. You have been asked politely numerous times. You are now being warned. Pdfpdf (talk) 10:35, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry this particular issue is such a mess; would you please revert these edits and put your change up for discussion? As others have mentioned, this came up for discussion about 8 months ago, and the consensus was not to use mixed case for military titles. The reasoning hasn't really changed over the years, but I see your point about the various MOS entries don't clearly state this exception to the general rules. Yes, this needs to be in the relevant MOS entries WP:TITLE, Wikipedia:Manual of Style (capital letters)#Military terms, etc. as part of the revert/discussion. Thanks!Kirk (talk) 01:17, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

It's not just that the MOS doesn't mention this as an exception, it actually includes one of those ranks as an example of standard English punctuation, something BTW that's easy to confirm just by checking out GBooks. According to our standards, these should not be capitalized. That's been the consensus for years. One obscure and unenforced RfM doesn't change that.

It's too much to change them back like that, and would be against consensus if I did. If you want to change ranks (not titles, which are already capitalized) to mixed case (I just moved them to not use mixed case), then you're the one requesting a change in consensus, and it's up to you and like-minded editors to produce a new consensus. If that happens, we can use a bot to bring the articles into sync. — kwami (talk) 01:30, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Part of the problem is that we are dealing with several classes of articles.

1. Articles about a specific rank or grade for a specific country. For example Brigadier General (United States). These have been named and defined in law. There have been discussions in the past about these. I have not looked to see if there's a consistent consensus. Any changes of the capitalization without prior discussion and reaching consensus will likely be regarded as controversial.
2. Articles about a rank or grade in general. For example, brigadier general. I suspect there's widespread agreement that the standard WP:MOS capitalization applies for these.
3. Other articles or redirects, specifically, the "n star rank" articles. I would have thought there was widespread agreement that the standard WP:MOS capitalization applies for these but the moves triggered #n star rank to Aaa-star rank. --Marc Kupper|talk 04:46, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't see how focusing on a specific country changes anything. "Ship" isn't capitalized in an article on ships of the US. As for them being named in law, we'd need some evidence that the law specifically addresses capitalization, not just that the style guide for the publisher of that law advocates capitalization. If there is such a situation, that would be something to bring up at MOS. Some Canadian place names are legislated with em dashes in them, for example, which is typographically odd, and it's possible we have things like that going on here. Now, if it's a title, sure, that would be capitalized. If you can show me that I inappropriately moved a title as if it were a rank, I'll be happy to revert. Someone already did that with General of the Armies.

As for the starred ranks, yeah, I'm puzzled too. 90% of sources back me up. I don't know what gives. But since user:Pdfpdf has provided zero evidence for his claims, I plan on ignoring him. If he has anything constructive to say in the future, we can address it then. — kwami (talk) 05:00, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

"90% of sources back me up." - No, they don't. Perhaps 90% of the sources you have looked at might, but there are thousands of sources, and very sincerely doubt that you have looked at thousands of sources. So, let's be specific: Please state exactly what it is that you require me to supply sources about, and how many sources is the minimum number required by you to have you admit that "the sources do not back me up". Pdfpdf (talk) 10:45, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

As for the extremely rude: "I plan on ignoring him", and the equally rude "If he has anything constructive to say in the future", this is not the sort of behaviour one expects from an admin. Pdfpdf (talk) 10:45, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Goodness gracious! I now see that you have decided to start edit-warring!! Pdfpdf (talk) 10:48, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, of course the sources I looked up. That's why I asked you for sources, despite your temper tantrum. But evidently your unsupported opinion is worth more than the sources I can find, as well as the conventions of this encyclopedia. Such juvenile behaviour is not the sort of behaviour I would expect from any editor who's been here for four years. — kwami (talk) 10:51, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Wahat District

Hi Kwami. On 11 September 2011 you moved Al Wahat District to Wahat District, but didn't give any explanation for the move. I can see no discussion on the talk page, and the only citation on the page gives the name as Al Wahat. Why? I presume you had a reason, as you usually do. Skinsmoke (talk) 01:46, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't recall specifically for that case. Generally, as Arabic names become more familiar in English, we drop the article and the ta marbuta. That's happened all over Libya, and you can see it in reporting on the war. What we're left with is the rather unsatisfactory pattern of towns that have been in the news using anglicized forms, and towns not in the news using literal Arabic transliteration. But I won't object if you want to move it back. — kwami (talk) 01:54, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the very prompt reply. In this case, as the name mean The Oases, I think it probably makes more sense to bring Al back. A bit like Le Havre in French. Must admit, the news reports are a bit of a nightmare, as they very rarely seem to use the same spelling that anyone else does! Skinsmoke (talk) 02:01, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Caps in dab pages

Please note that entries in disambiguation pages all start with capitals - not sure it's explicitly stated in WP:MOSDAB but it certainly shows up in all the examples there. Your edits to Three star etc all left the dab pages looking messy because you used lower-case initial letter for the entries you changed. PamD 07:18, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry. Went to clean up and found that you'd already done it. — kwami (talk) 07:23, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

n star rank to Aaa-star rank

Excuse me, but where did this series of moves come from? They bear no relationship to reality, and you have no consensus for making them.
With the absolute greatest respect, quite clearly you are making edits in areas where you have no knowledge, and you are making edits which are contrary to consensuses reached over long periods of time in many hundreds (thousands?) of lines of discussion to reach those consensuses.
Please revert your edits as soon as possible, undo the other damage you have done, educate yourself, and seek consensus before embarking on any further series of unilateral uninformed editing sprees.
Really, you are an admin; you should know better than to indulge in this sort of unilateral uninformed behaviour which is contrary to painfully established consensus. Pdfpdf (talk) 10:41, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

That's standard hyphenation, already present in half the articles, just not consistently. Is there consensus somewhere to not follow standard English punctuation? I just checked GBooks to see if there were some funny convention with these: 1st page of hits, all hyphenated. 2nd page, all hyphenated but for one spaced, and one other in caps instead. 3nd page, all hyphenated. 4th page, all hyphenated but one. Etc. — kwami (talk) 10:45, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Again, with the greatest respect, I repeat: Excuse me, but where did this series of moves come from? They bear no relationship to reality, and you have no consensus for making them.

Please re-read what I wrote, think about it, and reply to what I wrote. Please do not reply with irrelevant facts.

Your so-called "standard hyphenation" is not relevant in this domain. This domain has its own very well defined standards - standards much more throughly and rigorously defined than your vague "standard hyphenation".

"already present in half the articles" - Which half of which articles?

"Is there consensus somewhere to not follow standard English punctuation?" - Yes. Along with accompanying thick manuals.

May I humbly suggest, again, that you educate yourself, and seek consensus before embarking on any further series of unilateral uninformed editing sprees? Pdfpdf (talk) 11:02, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Look. You seem to feel it's more important for you to be right and the rest of the world to be wrong, than it is for you to actually inform yourself of reality.

Your unilateral uncanvassed undiscussed changes are really screwing up heaps of stuff, and you are doing nothing to limit or fix the damage you are doing and havoc you are creating.

If you take the time to read your own talk page, you will see that there are at least half a dozen other people making similar requests as a result of other actions by you on other pages.

Don't you think it might be time to reconsider your modus operandi? Pdfpdf (talk) 11:02, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

You repeating your opinion doesn't tell me anything except that you have that opinion. Okay, I get that. I tried checking to see if your opinion corresponds to anything more, and I don't see it. That's why I asked you where the consensus is that backs you up. The MOS supports my edits, every English style manual I can think of supports my edits, a survey of the literature supports my edits; I don't see anything to contradict what I did.

(edit conflict)

LOL! 1) You may recall that it was Admiral Lord Nelson who held the telescope up to his blind eye and declared: "I see no signal to retreat". 2) You may recall the story of the drunk crossing the street and looking for his lost car keys under the streetlamp "because the light was better over there".

No, you are not going to "see anything to contradict what I did" if you are going to continue to refuse to pay any attention to anything other than your own self-sustaining self opinion.

If you continue to refuse to read what I have written, and continue to refuse to think about it, and continue to refuse to answer my questions, then yes, you are indeed not going to "see anything to contradict what I did".

I'm afraid I must now excuse myself. I will return later. Pdfpdf (talk) 11:27, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Let's see, some of the sources for my edits:

Office of the Under Secretary of Defense, Acquisition

United States Naval Institute

US National Research Council

Armed Forces journal international

US House Committee on Appropriations (Defense)

US House Committee on Armed Services

US Senate Committee on Government Operations

Dwight Eisenhower

Army and navy journal

US National Defense Research Institute

How, then, is this not justified? — kwami (talk) 11:09, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

a) They're all American. Believe it or not, there are other counties, and armed forces, in the world.

b) Where's your consensus for all this?

c) I've never come across such behaviour by an admin before. I am unfamiliar with the process of censuring admins. Please point me to the page(s) where one complains about unreasonable behaviour by admins.

d) I suppose it's pointless to once again ask you to revert your unilateral illinformed behaviour and seek consensus before making further edits?

Pdfpdf (talk) 10:26, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I asked you for evidence for your claims, and gave you two days to respond before resuming my edits, but you've failed to provide anything. WP is based on sources, not personal preferences. The sources support my edits, as does the MOS.

Is Edinburgh University Press British enough for you?[13] How about "Britain's leading naval historians"?[14] Or an Indian vice admiral?[15] — kwami (talk) 10:28, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Vowel chart

The changes you made to the {{IPA chart vowels}} are quite disturbing. First, the name now is out of sync with comparable names, as the /doc shows. Then, styles like background colors and font-sizes and template reuse (!) is out of the window. At least you could keep the name I started (with the old history), which is what I ask you to do by now. I may note that you did this without starting a talk nor sandboxing on a complicated template (as the /doc says). -DePiep (talk) 14:24, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Did you really throw away the earlier {{IPA chart/table vowels}} code? What did you try to "solve"? Please reinstall or refund the version you threw away. Now it is beyond repair. -DePiep (talk) 14:31, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh, please, Kwami, stop your edits in this. The solution is in an other direction. -DePiep (talk) 20:27, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Which other direction?

In the old, stable version, the vowel lined up with the table. In your version they didn't. Therefore I restored the version that displayed properly. If you can get the new version to work, fine; I don't care about the coding, just the result. — kwami (talk) 22:57, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

What exactly did you see? was it a minor displacement of the bullet, or a big disalignment (then what was it)? Of course I checked before (both on FF ans Safari).

On top of this, first you did copy old code into the template [16], then you stated "code fork" [17]. Disrupting behaviour, and without using talk. -DePiep (talk) 19:10, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

No, DePiep, merging is the opposite of forking. Forking is when you create redundant copies of something, as you created with this template. Merging is when you combine those copies, and is part of normal maintenance and cleanup. You can revert to whichever version you like, or combine elements from both as you see fit, so I hardly see how this is disruptive.

Is wasn't a huge displacement, it just looked like a bad print job: the right-hand vowel sat over the bullet, whereas now they're equally spaced. Of course, as I noted, they are now displaced in the collapsible template, where the vowels are left-aligned and the table center-aligned, but they are aligned in the raw table and in the individual vowel articles. Since the raw table is the input for everything else, that's where they need to be aligned first. In both the now and then versions, the vowels sit a little low (they are slightly misaligned with the bullets vertically, both in FF and IE), but that's minor. This horizontal misalignment seems to have only been a problem in FF; in IE the two versions differ only in font size, as far as I can see. I haven't checked other browsers.

If you can combine the horizontal alignment of the one version with all your improvements from the other version, I would think that would solve most of the problem. Some of the templates that embed the raw table might still need to be tweaked, but that should be straightforward. — kwami (talk) 01:24, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Nonsense #1: I did not create a copy. Yes, the content (CSS-talking) was the same: the IPA chart. But the CSS-style was not. Which is what you still do not get (Admin's Arrogance?). #2: I did not talk about "merge". What is your problem? #3 All in all , you spoiled it, without talking while saying Is wasn't a huge displacement. You have not helped the Project at all. The only thing you did was disturb a good development process. If you can't stand criticism, then drop you admin's status. -DePiep (talk) 23:56, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

As for development processes, develop away! But use the sandbox. Don't play around with hundreds of articles. If your experiments don't work, I'm going to revert you. Sorry, but the results are more important than your ego. — kwami (talk) 00:18, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Balkans

You seem quite active in the articles concerning that region. I'm just curious where that particular interest stems from. Reanimated X (talk) 16:18, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

No real interest, apart from general linguistics. But a bunch of articles are constantly getting screwed up in the edit wars. — kwami (talk) 22:58, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Hyphen

Kwami, please would you have a look at the following sentence in the introduction to the article on: Prussian Homage (painting)

"Matejko created his painting to remind others about the history of the no-longer independent country he loved, and about the changing fates of history."

If you feel that it should be hyphenated differently, I have no objection to your changing it.--Toddy1 (talk) 09:37, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

"no longer independent" is a single phrase, and so should be hyphenated as here. — kwami (talk) 09:52, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your help.--Toddy1 (talk) 12:52, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Proposed Deletion of Koreatown (Oakland, California)

Hello kwami (talk), I and a majority but not unanimity of editors believe this article should be deleted and merged back into its section in the parent Koreatown article because it simply does not add enough real substance as its own spin-out, and based on its content thus far, appears to have low imminent potential for that. An editor expressed a desire to keep the article solely for the purpose of including this as a neighborhood of Oakland; I've never heard of that before as justification for maintaining an entirely new article. I recommended in discussion that the section be developed in the parent article and if and when there is ever adequate substance to justify a new article, then could do so at that time. I don't have any significant prior experience involving article deletion - does this become an administrative issue at this point?

Thanks.

96.242.217.91 (talk) 13:22, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, it's not really a deletion but a merge. You can tag it with {{mergeto}} and let the discussion run its course. I don't think that will attract as much input as a move or deletion request, so if you don't get enough for a decision, you can post at Wikipedia:Proposed mergers#Requests for assistance and feedback. I don't work much with community articles, so I have no idea what's normally done in cases like this one, but the people there should have an idea. — kwami (talk) 14:38, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. 96.242.217.91 (talk) 16:35, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Reducing parser calls

I suggest linking to Template_talk:IPAc-en#Too many_expensive parser function calls in the edit summary, because these seem like quite trivial edits at first glance. Also since there's ~7500 transclusions of that template, I strongly recommend doing this with a BRFA / bot (so it doesn't pop up in watchlists of those who don't want to see bot/bot-like edits). Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 06:44, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually, there were only 321 (now about 240), because I only have to change the ones with sound templates. There are some manual corrections I'm making as well, so a bot probably isn't worth the effort. But I've linked to the discussion. — kwami (talk) 06:48, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

What's the deal here? I see nothing wrong with linking to sound templates. Is this a real problem or an invented problem that's reducing links just for the sake of it? PumpkinSky talk 12:57, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

See Template_talk:IPAc-en#Too many_expensive parser function calls. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:40, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

The IPA articles

I was told at the help desk that you removed the infoboxes from all the consonant articles. Why did you do this? I have always liked them very much - I thought that they really added some colour to the pages, and it's important that we include a sound file so readers know what foreign sounds are like. Interchangeable|talk to me 18:53, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're talking about. Can you link to a diff to show me? — kwami (talk) 05:09, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Ah, this is what happened. I don't know who that was. I've reverted and protected the template. — kwami (talk) 07:15, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to request that an administrator block or warn 203.142.100.17 (talk · contribs). I don't know why on Earth he did that, as his only summary was "copy and paste". There's nothing there! Interchangeable|talk to me 14:41, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Don't bother. It's an anonymous IP, and doesn't have a history of vandalism, so blocking the address probably will not block the editor. — kwami (talk) 14:47, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Continuant allophones

Hi Kwami, why do you think the descriptions I provided on WP:IPA for Spanish are not helpful? A bilabial approximant doesn't sound like a bilabial fricative (between /b/ and /v/), a velar approximant doesn't sound between /h/ and /g/, etc.

Now we are describing fricatives, but we are labelling these sounds as "approximants", as according to recent studies by Hualde, Martínez-Celdrán, Fernández-Planas and Carreras-Sabaté. Why mislead readers? What shall we do about this issue?

Similarly in Catalan, Recasens describes them as approximants; while other authors, as Wheeler, assert they are fricatives, but unlike in Castilian, we label them as "fricatives or approximants", while we describe them as fricatives (IMO this poses no problem, as in Castilian). Jɑυмe (xarrades) 15:01, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

As a native English speaker, those descriptions sound nothing like Spanish. You also present the intervocalic allophones as if they occurred initially, which they don't.

Also don't need "approximately", since they're all approximations.

Spanish β ð ɣ are intermediate between fricatives and approximants. Either label is as good as the other. — kwami (talk) 15:08, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Then we could label them as in Catalan (as either "approximants" or "fricatives"), in order to avoid incongruencies.Jɑυмe (xarrades) 15:31, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

How's that? I don't know Catalan, so I'll let you handle that side. — kwami (talk) 15:36, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

You changed it already, thanks. Well, in Catalan should be pretty much the same than in Castilian. Carbonell & Llisterri (1992) and Recasens (1996) describe them symply as approximants, while Wheeler (2005) (The Phonology of Catalan) as fricatives. Jɑυмe (xarrades) 15:55, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, sounds like the same thing. Ladefoged says they're a bit too turbulent to be normal approximants, but not enough to be regular fricatives. — kwami (talk) 15:58, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

You are right, Wheeler says:

"In recent work on Catalan phonology the bilabial, dental and velar continuants are referred as approximants rather than as fricatives, due to acoustic evidence (these sounds lack of turbulance). However, they also behave as obstruents. They alternate morphologically with the voiced and voiceless plosives of corresponding place, and form syllable onsets with liquids."

Wheeler thinks it is more appropriate to regard them as "non-strident fricatives" (or "spirants", in older terminology), which is also typologically consistent with their being the product of lenition processes.

Dwarf planet candidates

Kwamikagami, I am again imploring you to please stop your troublesome behaviour with regard to the dwarf planet article and several related articles. As you are well aware, the changes in question are under active discussion on the dwarf planet talk page, where your actions have been described as "engaging in speculation and synthesis". Per WP:BRD, your changes were removed for discussion - but you have since engaged in an unyielding effort to repeatedly restore them without any regard for waiting for the discussion to resolve itself. --Ckatz^chat_spy 16:28, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

But you see, Ckatz, I see your edits as troublesome. It is your edits which are synthesis, and disappointingly unscientific for a scientific article. You are the one who has repeatedly deleted referenced material with nothing to back you up but your personal opinions. We go with sources, as I've told you a dozen times at least. If you still don't understand that, perhaps you should review WP help (at the left of your screen). The fact that you would place bureaucracy over scholarship in a scientific article is astounding. Arguing with you is like arguing with astrologers on the astrology article. I'm not going to stop just because you have no idea what science is or how it works. — kwami (talk) 16:37, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Please review WP:BRD; as a fellow sysop, you should be well aware of that document. You should also be aware that repeated restoring your text while a discussion is under way is bad form. You have also repeatedly ignored concerns expressed by others; I note that you've avoided addressing the issue of your "engaging in speculation and synthesis" as another editor pointed out on the DP talk page. If the discussion resolved with a consensus to support your changes, then they would go in - but to repeatedly change the existing and long-standing consensus version in favour of your disputed text while a discussion is under way is not acceptable. --Ckatz^chat_spy 16:43, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

God you're a hypocrite. You're the one violating 3RR, pushing an unsupported personal opinion, and of course also ignoring those who disagree with you. How is it that edit warring for your POV, especially one which violates WP policy, acceptable? — kwami (talk) 16:50, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Excuse me? How many times, exactly, have you reverted? Neither of us is clean with respect to that. Plus, keep in mind that it is your changes that have been described as synthesis by third-party editors, not mine. I have been restoring articles based on the long-standing consensus for how we label DPs, while you have been repeatedly changing them to reflect your perspective. Look, if the discussion results in support for your approach, then so be it. However, at present, your text has been disputed - by several other editors, not just by me - and as such you should not be repeatedly adding your material back in. Why is it so difficult to expect that you would allow the discussion to resolve this? --Ckatz^chat_spy

Your statements, as usual, are factually incorrect, but then that's what I've come to expect.

Since there is an ongoing dispute, why are you repeatedly adding your material?

We follow sources on WP. Your opinions are irrelevant unless you can back them up. And that, of course, along with the description of your views being unscientific, also comes from a third-party editor.

We follow sources on WP.

We follow sources on WP.

We follow sources on WP.

If I repeat that for six pages, do you think it'll sink in? — kwami (talk) 17:15, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

As you are well aware, I am most certainly not "adding my own material". Quite the opposite, in fact; I have been restoring the articles to the standards used before your arbitrary changes. Note that I'm also not the first to do so; Serendipodous was also opposed to your methodology. Plus, going by the IAU is hardly an "opinion". Note that I have repeatedly asked for you to simply wait for the discussion to conclude, a request that you have completely ignored. I have also taken steps to try to get a wider range of input, and I have not been engaging in insults, unlike your posts. --Ckatz^chat_spy 17:20, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

God, I feel like I'm beating my head against a wall. If your statements were truthful, it would be a different matter entirely. I, and others, have asked you multiple times you show us where the IAU says this, but the refs you've provided don't actually say it. We go by the words in the refs, not with the ideas that pop into your head when you read them.

We follow sources on WP.

We follow sources on WP.

We follow sources on WP.

We follow sources on WP.

We follow sources on WP. — kwami (talk) 17:25, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

The feeling is mutual. Explain, if you would, why your changes were described (not by me) as "synthesis and speculation", and why another editor reverted you and challenged your position quite some time before I became aware of the problem. You have not as of yet answered those questions. --Ckatz^chat_spy 17:36, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

You want me to explain someone else's thoughts to you? Yet again you illustrate your irrationality.

Can you explain to me why other editors feel your approach is unscientific? — kwami (talk) 17:40, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Point me to such a statement, so that I can read it in context, and then I can reply. In the interim, would you care to respond to the questions I've posed? --Ckatz^chat_spy 17:46, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

God, you just don't get it, do you? The standards you apply to other people simply don't apply to you, do they? Since you obviously aren't going to say anything worthwhile, stop posting on my page. You're wasting my time. — kwami (talk) 17:49, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

If you're not interested in discussing this, fine, whatever. However, please note that your last post does not make sense. You had previously claimed that "other editors feel [my] approach is unscientific", and I simply asked you to show me where that was so that I could review it and comment properly. How is that not a constructive request? --Ckatz^chat_spy 17:54, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

You really don't see the parallel to what you wrote? That was the reason I asked that question.

And of course I did answer your question. You do seem to be able to read what I write without absorbing a word of it. — kwami (talk) 17:57, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Ckatz, Kwami didn't ask you that question to get an answer, but rather illustrate to you how ridiculous your original question was. He was trying to show you that it would be impossible for him to explain someone else's thoughts to you since he isn't that person and cannot possibly know what that person could be thinking. Reanimated X (talk) 18:31, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

If the wording was confusing, my apologies. Perhaps it would have been better posed as "Explain, if you would, why you persist in making your changes when they have been described (not by me) as "synthesis and speculation", and also despite another editor having reverted you and challenged your position quite some time before I became aware of the problem." I asked my follow-up because Kwami was suggesting that a third party had made a claim against me, and I wanted to review it for myself. --Ckatz^chat_spy 19:04, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Warriors of the Rainbow: Seediq Bale

• I made a redirect from Warriors of the Rainbow: Seediq Bale to the Seediq Bale article, but on second thought the redir should be deleted and the page moved to Warriors of the Rainbow: Seediq Bale (and thus Seediq Bale would be a redirect). The actual title, as shown in the reviews I added to the text (please scan them for the title), is "Warriors of the Rainbow: Seediq Bale". The reason that only the words "Seediq Bale" appear in English in the title is not because they comprise the English title (and the preceding Chinese characters are irrelevant), but rather because an English spelling comes closer to the sound/feel of that term than would the corresponding Chinese characters. The full title thus uses two orthographic systems. OneLeafKnowsAutumn (talk) 22:24, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I assume this is a request to move it? No problem. — kwami (talk) 22:27, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Itsekiri language

In the Itsekiri article there is "Unlike nearly all key Nigerian Languages, the Itsekiri language does not have dialects and is uniformly spoken with little or no variance in pronunciation apart from the use of 'ch' for the regular 'ts' (sh) in the pronunciation of some individual Itsekiris, e.g. Chekiri instead of the standard Shekiri but these are individual pronunciation traits rather than dialectal differences." I found this hard to understand and perhaps forms in the IPA would help here. Another article I have edited is Chorlton-cum-Hardy where I added 2 pronunciations, again an IPA version would help (the one with no 't' would roughly rhyme with "pollen").--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 15:06, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

The Itsekiri comment is too incoherent for me to translate. I'll give a stab at Chorlton; maybe you can check the result to verify. — kwami (talk) 23:29, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, the IPA in Chorlton looks fine. Itsekiri can wait for someone with first-hand knowledge.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 06:23, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Serer-Sine language

It is evident that you have added Fula-Serer in both the Serer-Sine language article and Fula language article. That was after I've removed them both. Not only is Serer the progentitor of Fula, the Fula just like the Wolof tend to borrow wherever they settle. Fula may be similar to Serer just like Wolof may be similar to Serer with Serer as the "root" (see Serer people this issue has been addressed there) but Serer is not Fula and has nothing to do with Fula and vice-versa. Please remove "Fula" from the Serer-Sine infobox and remove "Serer" from the Fula language infobox. Further, to put Fula before Serer (i.e. Fula-Serer) in both infoboxes appears rather patronising and implies that the Serer language derives from Fula when in fact it is the other way round. I know perhaps that was not your original intention but that's what it implies. Please remove them both. Thank you. Tamsier (talk) 02:26, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Serer and Fula are related languages. One is not the progenitor of the other. The progenitor would be called "Proto-Fula–Serer". Please check the references I provided. As for "Fula–Serer" vs "Serer–Fula", that is just petty, like saying Indo-European should be called "Euro-Indic". The current order is the one found in sources. See eg. here. — kwami (talk) 02:36, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

WQA complaint

Just FYI, I happened to notice that there is a WQA complaint pending against you. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:18, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Dene-Yeneseian

(I don't know whether or not I spelled "Yeneseian" correctly.) This color coding needs to be removed from the Language Template color quilt. It is still too controversial in Ameridianist circles and even the author--Vajda--admits that it's not proven yet. --Taivo (talk) 11:03, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Sure. — kwami (talk) 11:12, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Your behaviour is unacceptable and a violation of Wiki's policy. This is a warning.

Just incase you have forgotten, as an Administrator, you are "expected to lead by example and to behave in a respectful and civil manner" in your interaction with editors. You have failed to do that when you referred to me as a "racist" and "a bigot" in the Serer language article's talk page and in the Fula language edit summary. Here [18] and here [19].

If you have no problem in inserting Fula-Serer in both the Serer language and Fula language infoboxes, you should not have any problem with me inserting Serer-Fula since they "are part of the same family". Yet again, you deleted my edits and placed Fula before Serer then accused me of being petty. You also deleted my edits which have been sourced with notable references as in here [20] and in the Serer people article as well. If you have a different source to the one I have, please do enter it underneath or next to my edit, and say for instances "but X says this etc". You do not delete my edits which have been thoroughly sourced. You did not even do it once or twice but you kept doing it in the Serer people, Serer language and Fula language articles. Further, as I have stated to you before, why do you want to refer to the relatedness of Fula and Serer in the Serer language article and when I referred to the relatedness (with sources) of the Serer language to Fula in the Fula langugage article, you deleted the Serer language in that article? You cannot have your cake an eat it. In other words, you cannot insert the Fula language into the Serer language article in explaining their relatedness yet failed to mention Serer in the Fula language article. You have also deleted the citation templates I placed on the Fula language article. I placed them there for two reasons: the relevant population figures cited where not sourced neither were the claims made adequately sourced. Just in case you've forgotten, figures cannot come from thin air. They need to be sourced in keeping with wiki's policy. I am sure I do not have to explain to you the importance of sourcing claims.

You also brought in Halaqah a fellow Muslim to back up what you were doing. I originally assumed good faith until your behaviour in the relevant articles and other articles became apparent. You both started at the Serer language article. Desecrating it and then went on to the Serer people article which neither of you have never shown any interest in until this incident, and which I have been editing and sourcing for years to try to bring to standard. In your desire to engage in an "edit war" with me, due your personal dislike of me, which I am sure you know means nothing to me and have no effect on me whatsover, (other than the disruptive edits you are making in order to prove a point), both of you started destroying the Serer people article. Several Administrators and editors have seen the article but have not performed such actions as you and Halaqah have done. You and Halaqah on the other hand went to another level. You in particular have engaged in edit warring with me, reverting Halaqah's templates I rightfully removed including the deletion of sources I have cited in the article.

May I remind you, in both the Serer language and Serer people's articles you were highly involved, just as you were involed in the Fula language article. What you have done was an abuse of your priviledges as an Administrator. May I also remind you that, it is Wiki's policy to revoke Administrator status from those who seriously disrupt Wiki and "consistently or egregiously" exercise poor judgment. In future, if you are unable to adhere to Wiki's policy, please refer the issue to another administrator rather than engaging in "poor conduct." If you are unable to do that, I am sure you are familiar with the policy of stepping down as an Administrator. Tamsier (talk) 11:04, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

All right, so you're a paranoid bigot. What a lovely combination. You make racist comments about the Fula and bigoted comments about Muslims, but if I call you out on it, you ascribe it to my personal dislike of *you*, rather than of the ridiculous opinions you push in the articles. I don't even know you, how can I dislike you? All I know are your words, which are repugnant.

Since I'm not acting as an admin, what does being involved have to do with anything? — kwami (talk) 11:11, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

WQA

Hello, Kwamikagami. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Gerardw (talk) 12:21, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Posting this as courtesy, not because I think a response on your part is required. Gerardw (talk) 12:24, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. — kwami (talk) 12:26, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Protection request

Kwami, can you protect Botswana Ground Force and Botswana Defence Force Air Wing to an appropriate level for a couple of weeks? An Anon-IP keeps re-inserting copyvio and unverified material. I don't mind reverting him from time to time, but I won't always be able to keep up with him. I'd rather discourage him for a week or two, and see if it makes a difference. Thanks in advance, Shem (talk) 13:22, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

It's only happened twice as far as I can tell, and you have at least two editors to take care of it. I'd rather not protect an article unless there's more of a problem than that. But if it continues, please let me know and I'll reconsider. — kwami (talk) 05:20, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I count 30 reverts by various editors on Botswana Ground Force, nearly all of them related to reverting an Israel-based anon IP who inserts fantastical information; although the IP changes from time to time, the modus operandi does not. It happened again this morning, after your comment above. The warnings seem to have no effect, although perhaps you could consider a short block on User:109.64.213.91 to prove the point? In short, please reconsider, although I'm happy to continue as we are for as long as it takes! All the best, and thanks for the advice. Shem (talk) 11:51, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

comment needed

Since you and I have virtually always disagreed, I know I can count on your for an objective view in this dispute at the Bible article talk page: [21] (and the next section) Slrubenstein | Talk 17:42, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, now I take that as a compliment! One is easy for me to answer, the other not so much. But I'll give my rather uninformed opinion. — kwami (talk) 04:46, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I also know you have expertise and interest in language and perhaps a clearer grasp of English grammar than I (with regards to this argument over God and god). I read your comment, which I think may reflect the mainstream view of Christians concerning the Bible but not the majority view of Jews. But I appreciate your commenting. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:55, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

move req

Kwami, could you move Orbital Inclination to Orbital inclination. Notice that the second word in the title is currently capitalized. --JorisvS (talk) 20:10, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Cyrillic alphabet world distribution.svg

Hi Kwami. Please see User talk:Scooter20#File:Cyrillic alphabet world distribution.svg. —Coroboy (talk) 08:04, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

HI, I added a reply at my talk page: User talk:Scooter20#File:Cyrillic alphabet world distribution.svg

Cheers! Scooter20 (talk) 18:35, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi, you have another reply at my talk page. Cheers! Scooter20 (talk) 14:54, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

edit warring?

"You've been here long enough to know not to edit war, especially considering that you haven't said mot on the talk page." ;-) cygnis insignis 15:48, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Huh? — kwami (talk) 15:51, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Forms of government.svg

Hello Kwamikagami. This map[22] needs some changes: Niger and Burma are not currently ruled by military juntas, Niger is a semi-presidential republic and Burma a presidential republic. Egypt and Fiji are ruled by a military junta. Addition, Somalia, Eritrea and Libya have transition governments. I hope the response and the change in the map. Thanks and regards. MauriManya (talk) 22:40, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Burma is not a republic, though it might pretend to be. — kwami (talk) 23:17, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

But, and other changes? MauriManya (talk) 23:23, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Dwarf planets and repeated addition of material during an active RfC

Kwami, please, again, please stop reverting in your material to the dwarf planet articles. There is an active RfC under way discussing this exact issue, and your repeated changes (undone not just by me, but by several other editors) are becoming disruptive. We are making progress in the discussion and getting input from a number of different editors. Why continue to interfere with it by pressing forward with your preferred material? --Ckatz^chat_spy 01:25, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

And why do you also? — kwami (talk) 01:35, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

There is a big difference between restoring pre-existing text (which is what I'm doing) and repeatedly adding your personal perspective during an active RfC (which is what you're doing). I'm not prepared to violate 3RR while repairing your tendentious edits, but you should not expect to be able to ram through your preferred material because of that. --Ckatz^chat_spy 01:45, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

So, adding your personal perspective, which wasn't there before you added it, is "restoring pre-existing text"? So words define reality, rather like an object which meets the definition of a DP not being a DP if it hasn't been officially declared to be? — kwami (talk) 01:49, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Which part are you referring to? I'd be happy to examine it if you could isolate specifically what you're thinking of. The central point here is your insistence on listing more than five DPs, instead of the five ones formally designated as such. You are pushing to change how Wikipedia presents the material; what I'm asking is that you stop changing the articles and wait for the RfC discussions to conclude. --Ckatz^chat_spy 01:52, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Angola

Okay - if you can find a citation saying that and saying that the figure doesn't include Angola, that would be good :) WhisperToMe (talk) 22:38, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

He's back

Kwami, Nagarjuna got off his 72-hour block and went right back to Telugu language and started his unscientific editing again. Foodie then followed him like a little puppy. They haven't reverted since I placed a long comment on the Talk Page, but you might want to check in now and then. --Taivo (talk) 04:18, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

@Taivo: You say "Foodie then followed him like a little puppy"? You are Hounding Telugu Language with your nonsense and we wont let that happen. Your Edits are never fair. @Kwamikagami: I request you dont fall prey for Taivo's trap.Nagarjuna198 (talk)

Trap? You sound paranoid. If you have a problem, take it to the talk page. That's what it's for.

When Taivo cuts out the crap, he tends to cut to the bone. He may leave the article sparer than I would, but if you present a case for a passage, and it isn't unencyclopedic, we can probably work out a wording that's acceptable. — kwami (talk) 12:14, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Proposed edit for Astrology

I am making all recent contributors to the Astrology article and its discussion page aware of a proposed amendment to the text which discusses the 1976 'Objections to astrology' and the relevance of Carl Sagan's reaction. This is in response to the comments, criticisms and suggestions that have been made on the published text, with the hope of finding a solution acceptable to all. Your opinion would be very welcome.

The proposal is here.

Thanks, -- Zac Δ ^talk! 15:52, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Section looks good to me. — kwami (talk) 22:06, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Blocked IP - at it again

Kwami, I note you blocked 109.64.213.91 on 25 September. I don't know how long you blocked him for, but didn't have much effect, since he did it again on 28 September. Yours, Shem (talk) 15:10, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry - I think User:EdJohnston got there already and re-blocked him. Shem (talk) 16:06, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

No prob. We tend to start w short blocks and then increase them. — kwami (talk) 00:17, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Reg: Replacing "Odisha" with "Orissa" across many pages

Hi Kwami, I saw that you have made a blanket replacement for a state of India from "Odisha" with "Orissa" over vast number of pages. I agree that at this point of time, it does make sense to use either for the trickling effect of name change is bound to take some time. The state name change and name of the language (from Oriya to Odia) has been officially approved by the Indian Parliament during the early part of this year.

I also went thru the article at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(geographic_names)#Use_modern_names, specifically to Mumbai section and can state that, "Odisha" is how it is now being officially represented. This will certainly take time considering people have been taught to write it as "Orissa" in English language since childhood.

The usage of the name of "Orissa" in English language came up during the period Britishers ruled over India. The same representation got carried over many years till recently. However, in vernacular language of Oriya or Odia (recent change), the word has always been spelled as "Odisha". I will also not hesitate to state that this state was also known as "Kalinga" in the past.

I did see that most of the Wiki articles had "Orissa" previously and other editors had effected the change after the approved name change amendment by the Indian Parliament.

Wouldn't it make it much better to have the correct official name also, considering the fact that representation in the vernacular language has always been "Odisha". Also, putting the apt name in all the articles concerning "Odisha" would ease in faster assimilation. If you do agree to this, would request you to please revert the edits.

--Karan1974 (talk) 18:29, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

As I explained on that page, there were all sorts of problems. For one, it was changed in proper names (such as names of institutions) where it should not have been. Many of the changes broke links, invalidated references, removed templates and images, created orphans, and did all manner of other formatting damage to the articles. So I'm changing it to "Orissa" and "Oriya" across the board. If we are going to change these, it should be done properly, not blindly.

But before we start a change, we should have a proper discussion. What the Orissa or Indian parliaments decide are not terribly pertinent. There are few countries that we call by their official names or spellings. (And this is a spelling change. It's the same name.) When we have community-wide consensus that we should use "Odisha" and "Odia" (what an ugly name! sounds like 'odious') in English, then we can change. But consensus first. It'll probably happen, but it hasn't happened yet. — kwami (talk) 00:15, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Kwami for providing the details. I hear your thoughts on what has happened and that's terrible. I also went thru the discussion page of "Orissa" and could get more details. Let me pull out a white flag here before you shoot me down, for I did not initiate the changes. While going thru some of the articles I could see them referred to as "Odisha" and when I had checked the past version it was referred to as "Orissa". To me that sounded OK considering the name change that did happen but was not aware of the terrible mess that had been left behind. I am not an expert on wiki, a fairly new entrant when it comes to contributing, have very few contributions and am learning about the working of it as time goes on.

The original reason I posted this query to you was because I saw a series of blanket replacements carried on and was curious to know the rationale behind this change. To zoom on this further, it's regarding this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Odissi wherein we have had editors along with their sock puppet profiles manipulate the page. Seeing the changes on this page and also looking at your contributions across a host of pages where similar changes had been done made me post the query. I hope you can understand my intention. However, I don't have any concerns as such as long as the articles provide the relevant information; and till a consensus is arrived at, name change in the articles does not make much sense. I get the sense that this might be a ground for edit-warring. Hence, would request you to please keep a close watch.

A suggestion for you regarding the "ugly name... odious": You are blatantly honest ( a quality that I like :) ) but would request you to hold it in your thoughts rather than pen it down for it may not go down well with others. Thank you.

--Karan1974 (talk) 05:04, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I left Odissi alone, as I'm not familiar with the topic. As for the aesthetics, yeah, I always thought "Orissa" was a beautiful name, but that's just my POV irrelevant for actual usage. But such things do matter: the Japanese usually call Kinki "Kansai" in English, because otherwise it sounds like "kinky". (Our Kansai article links to the WP-ja Kinki article, not to their Kansai article.) Turkey's govt. has flirted with umlauts so that their country wouldn't be spelled the same as one of the stupider fowls. (Actually, wild turkeys are relatively intelligent, but the domestic ones people are familiar with are not.) And then we have Indians demanding that we move Ganges to Ganga, and at the same time insisting that we not pronounce it like the word for marijuana, despite the fact that that's exactly how people do pronounce it. Which is why we follow established usage when it comes to names. Also, while it's generally easier to change the names of languages than of states, they don't need to go together: Odisha and Odia may end up being separate discussions. I think if and when we move Orissa to Odisha, then we should change the other articles to match, and similarly for Oriya/Odia. But if the names are not accepted enough for the main articles, then IMO they're too unfamiliar for use in smaller articles which may not provide proper context. — kwami (talk) 05:24, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Kwami for these insights. I certainly get it and agree with you in this regard. Man... you sure have a way with words and I am impressed :) Thanks again. --Karan1974 (talk) 05:47, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Hey, just came across this: L'amore si odia ('Love is hateful', I think). — kwami (talk) 10:10, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

ISO 639-1/2/3 Codes

G'day,

I think that the ISO 1/2 codes you are removing are not spurious. They have been superseded by ISO 639-3, but if someone wants to know what the old code used to be, then I think that information should be supplied. In particular, for Taiwanese Mandarin, you have removed all codes: ISO 639-1 zh ISO 639-2 chi (B) zho (T) ISO 639-3 cmn

The fact that a code is more general does not make it incorrect. Francis Bond (talk) 01:20, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

But they are not the codes for Taiwanese Mandarin. The first three are for Chinese, and the last for Mandarin in general. While we might want to add general codes to our language articles, such as marking all Bantu languages with the ISO code for Bantu, we have never adopted that convention. I think we'd want to discuss it first, considering the amount of work that would be involved. Meanwhile, we have inconsistent use scattered across our articles, and I think it's best to be consistent, whichever convention we decide on. — kwami (talk) 01:31, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I think that they are the codes for Taiwanese Mandarin, in that Taiwanese is Chinese and Mandarin. For example, language data in Taiwanese Mandarin tagged with ISO 639-01 will be tagged with zh, the locale for Taiwan is zh_TW, and so on. I completely agree that the tag is not specifically for Taiwanese Mandarin, but that is just due to the limited granularity of the earlier standards. Maybe we can come up with a way of showing in the template that a code is over-general for the language in this article? As far as the convention is concerned, I thought we had adopted the convention that languages are marked with all their ISO codes, that is what you are deleting :-). The fact that not all languages had all information marked is just part of the fact the wikipedia isn't finished yet. In this case I would rather aim toward more information for all languages, even if it leads to temporary inconsistency, although again I agree with you the our final goal should be consistency. I'd be happy to discuss it further, but I am not sure where is the best venue. Francis Bond (talk) 01:57, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Maybe WP:Wikiproject languages? I've seen other editors going around removing ISO3 codes from dialects that they were not specific to. Yes, it would be best to sort this out one way or the other. I mean, would every sub-dialect of Taihu Wu be marked with ISO1 = zh? Should every language in America be marked with ISO2 as North or South American? To me, that would seem to be a lot of useless clutter, and potentially confusing to the reader, if they conclude that nai is the code for Shoshone. Unless there's a utility I'm not aware of.

Whatever we decide on, we could add it to the doc for the info box, so that we have a point of reference for future edits.

I was left with only 13 articles when I went to bed last night, so I'll finish those up, as they're not enough to make a difference if we decide to go back. — kwami (talk) 02:16, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Boy seaman

Kwami, could you move Boy Seaman to Boy seaman over the redirect? Thanks Shem (talk) 10:23, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Shem (talk) 10:52, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Odisha/Orissa

I've noticed your changing the former to the latter. I had previously seen the former in a number of articles, and that when I went to categorize them (CAT:U was how I came across them), Odisha cats automatically got changed to Orissa versions as I used HotCat. So, what exactly is the situation? Is Odisha the local name of the province, but Orissa is the English name for it? Can you explain the difference in usage? (Yes, I'm well aware that lots of English names of places differ from their local names; I'd just like to understand what/why this situation is the way it is.) LadyofShalott 15:31, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Odisha in the Oriya name, Orissa the English name. However, the govt. of India has just made Odisha official in English. Or perhaps s.o. still has to sign off on it, but the leg. has approved the name. That's presumably for govt purposes; much of the Indian English media already uses Odisha. This will probably eventually trickle out to the wider world, so we'll probably switch over too, but currently international English is still Orissa. — kwami (talk) 15:37, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

OK, Thanks. LadyofShalott 15:43, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I have a followup question: if Indian English is already using Odisha, then by ENGVAY, shouldn't we leave that alone? LadyofShalott 15:45, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

ENGVAR conflicts with WP:COMMONALITY, which suggests we look to the most international forms. Here we have a situation where most people will not recognize the local form. I think once Orissa is moved properly we can follow up with other mentions. — kwami (talk) 15:51, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

OK LadyofShalott 16:41, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually, looking at the move discussion, it seems that Odisha is not used much even within India. I think I've just seen some of the sites where they're pushing the Oriya name. — kwami (talk) 16:49, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Knowing some of the sorts of conversations people can get into around here, that doesn't surprise me at all. LadyofShalott 21:05, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Chaling language

Hi. You moved Chalikha to Chaling language. There's absolutely no indication at ethnologue nor from any of the cites that "Chaling language" is its name or even exists. I tried to move it back, but couldn't. Please move it back unless you can establish they are the same language.

On a related note, you've moved languages ending in -kha (except Dzongkha?) to corresponding -language pages. Might this have been a snafu part of that? Thanks for your attention. JFHJr (㊟) 17:29, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Kwami! Much appreciated. JFHJr (㊟) 17:33, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I was moving them around to pick up red links / set up redirects, and I guess I didn't finish that one.

Didn't move them all: Lakha either. There'd been opposition to moving Dzongkha, as that's fairly well-known under its Bhutanese form. — kwami (talk) 17:51, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Report at WP:ANEW

I'm not having much luck finding an admin today. Any chance you could take a look at the report I entered at WP:ANEW about 90 minutes ago? Editor continues to edit war. Another editor reported additional reverts about 20 minutes ago. Thanks. Mojoworker (talk) 18:06, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Meneage

Hello, Perhaps you could add the IPA pronunciation details here. "The Meneage (Template:Lang-kw) (pronounced with the stress on the last syllable and to rhyme with "vague")". Like many place-names in Cornwall "ea" has this pronunciation (e.g. Brea Hill pronounced like Bray Hill).--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 06:47, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Sure. What's the first vowel? Is it a a full vowel, or is it reduced as in menagerie? — kwami (talk) 06:53, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I am not certain but as unstressed it is more likely to be similar to menagerie. Cornish names tend to be difficult because in local dialect the prounciations are often markedly different from the Standard English version.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 07:54, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. No-one has objected to my indication of the pronunciation and many place-names in Cornwall have variant pronunciations, Launceston is a good example.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 19:50, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Egyptian Arabic

Hi, could you take a look here. I thought about tagging the article as OR but I needed to hear a professional's opinion first.--Rafy talk 12:09, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

It looks convincing to me. There is a lot of stuff that should be sourced and isn't (I've been guilty of that myself), but that doesn't mean it's wrong. Fortunately, there should be a fair number of people here who can ref it. Maybe you could make a request for help or comment at WP:Wikiproject languages? — kwami (talk) 07:45, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I see. Thanks for your answer. I will add a refimprove template to the article.--Rafy talk 11:13, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

The pkm code is finalized?

Hello Kwami! The pkm code for Prekmurian language is finalized code? According to the page of SIL, even discussed about the prekmurščina, the pkm code still a proposal. The prekmurian is the 139th request in list. Doncsecz^talk 14:05, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Ah, you're right. Sorry, I didn't read carefully enough. — kwami (talk) 07:20, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

New disciple

Hope you are having a pleasant Sunday. Looks like Nagarjuna has a new disciple in Telugu-pushing in User:Revharder. At Dravidian languages he keeps pushing a comment about Telugu backed by another Wikipedia article. He doesn't seem to understand what "reliable source" means. I've reverted him twice already and explained that he needs reliable sources on his Talk Page, but don't hold out any hope since he gave Nagarjuna a Barnstar for defending Telugu articles against vandalism from pro-Tamil forces. --Taivo (talk) 18:01, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Mr taivo i just congratulated nagarjuna for posting facts on wiki. i would like to bring to your notice that i am new to wiki and iam just learning the nuances. as for the telugu language edit, that was my mistake , iam trying my best. i will make sure that it does not happen again — Preceding unsigned comment added by Revharder (talk • contribs) 18:14, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about that. Sometimes it's difficult to tell genuine newcomers from fakes. (See WP:SOCK.) We all have a learning curve; I still make plenty of mistakes. As long as you try to work with other editors, you shouldn't have a problem. — kwami (talk) 07:24, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Another move request

Kwami, can I ask you to move Petty Officer First Class to Petty officer first class? Thanks in advance. Shem (talk) 20:25, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Sure. Also added the comma, as we have in the Canadian articles. Cleaned up the article a bit ('Sailor' and 'Retired' were capitalized!), but I don't know how thorough I was. — kwami (talk) 23:13, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I had a go at some of the other classes of petty officer, plus airman first class, seaman, seaman recruit, seaman apprentice and some others. Once again, thank you. Shem (talk) 07:11, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Dead Sea Scrolls dating dispute (BCE/CE or BC/AD)

Sir

You blocked me for 24 hours for edit warring with another Wiki user (Mojoworker) and in the spirit of the 3 reversion rule I guess I had it coming. However what concerns me is that you stated "As for the AD/CE question, we generally leave an article as it was written, unless there's consensus to change it". The article appears to have been written in 2002 using BC/AD but on 8 February 2009 this format was changed to BCE/CE. There was no consensus to change it to BCE/CE but a few editors (Mojoworker) and (ElComandanteChe) seem hell bent on imposing this consensus on those, like myself, who want to keep the article true to the academic references on which it was based, i.e. BC/AD. Even my suggestion to re-word sections that omit references to either of these systems meets with silence which implies there is no compromise from these editors. Just so you know there are always two sides to a coin.--Cfimei (talk) 21:26, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'm going off of what I've seen on other articles. As you can imagine, this is the kind of thing that leads to disputes all the time (like "proper" spelling, units of measurement, and year-month-day order). By your count, the article has been stable w CE format for 2½ years, so I suspect that if you took that argument to WP:ANI they would tell you that implies that editors at the article have been in consensus with CE for the past couple years (a 'silent majority'), and that you'd need to get a new consensus to change it. At least, that what I would predict.

As for omitting all mention, what would mean omitting all specific dates, which I suspect would be considered inappropriate for any historical topic. Kinda WP:pointy.

As for going off our particular sources, AFAIK that has never been considered a convincing argument. The reason is that sources tend to be all over the place, and we could come up with different sources that used the contrary convention. For example, we could find sources on British history that use American spelling, but that wouldn't be considered reason to change the spelling of the article, which generally follows the conventions of the country concerned. At least, that's what I'd predict from other disputes, but you're welcome to try. See WP:dispute resolution if you wish to pursue this and the talk page isn't getting you anywhere. — kwami (talk) 22:55, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Darkhat, and linguistic stubs

Hi Kwami! Two things:

1. You deleted "Darkhad (also "Darkhat" [Ethnologue]; ISO 639-3 code: drh)" commenting that the code was retired. Given that I recreated the article with its current content, you might expect that I am all for retiring that code, but if I search the Ethnologue online (which seems to be of 2009 and unchanged), I still find it. So could you show me where you got that information from?

2. You are still very active with creating stubs of African languages. A few days ago I looked at unrated languages at WP Languages and was caught by surprise that the number of unrated languages was closing in on 700. I have them down to 550 by now, but getting them down to 20-50 again might still take a while. Given that most of the stubs you are create are not likely to be expanded by other editors in the near future, and given that stub is the only conceivable rating for an article consisting of no more than 4 clauses, you might consider rating them as stubs just when you create them.

Best, G Purevdorj (talk) 12:20, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

If you go to the Ethnologue page, you'll see the 16th edition. You won't see any changes until the 17th comes out. If you want to see what's happened to the coding in the meantime, you need to check the ISO code itself. Just click on it; drh is here. Retired effective last year.

I've been creating the stubs for cross-referencing, and also so that they and their relatives will reflect our classification rather than just copying Ethnologue's (which often isn't even really E's classification, as their display is frequently messed up). I'd be happy to create rating boxes if you can answer one question: is there any way to generate a list of the articles I've created? That won't catch when I've changed a redirect into an article, but it will get most of them. I could then automate them with AWB. Or maybe I could just scan that list of 550? Where is it? — kwami (talk) 12:30, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the first info! It ought to be possible to create a list from here, but it does not seem to work. It would of course be good if you could do it for the existing articles, but even taking this as a future recommendation might be worthwhile. G Purevdorj (talk) 14:17, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Template:Infobox language2

I see this page was recreated following its TfD. If this is test code which isn't going to be deployed, do you mind userfying it? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 13:40, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I recreate it when I need it, and then don't think to delete it. If I forget again and it's a bother, just go ahead and delete it. — kwami (talk) 13:45, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

About the use of /ɲ/ in Portuguese

Hello,

I trust you have carefully read my arguments now in the talk page. The usage of /ɲ/ is *wrong* as long as there is a specific phonetic transcription for Brazilian Portuguese. If there were only one, it would be fine -- but this would be like, say, using the glottal stop for 'tt' in pronunciation articles for American English when it is in fact a characteristic of the cockney accent. There is consensus about this -- the only lack of consensus is between those two particular editors (both of whom are *not* familiar with this distinction), who should not take charge of all phonetic transcriptions in Wikipedia. There is also consensus about using IPA to accurately reflect pronunciation within an agreed upon level of precision. The agreed-upon level of precision is "Brazilian Portuguese" which means that allophones that occur within Brazil may be used with impunity, but sounds which do not occur at all may not. This is simple and should not be cause for controversy. Since talk pages are usually ignored I would like suggestions on how to establish the fact that /ȷ̃/ is the correct transcription, especially considering that cited sources mention that very clearly. I was accused of "original research" and one of my edits was reverted simply due to the fact that I was not logged on (incidentally, WP:HUMAN). I trust you can see how the concept of "consensus" can be misleading if the people reading the talk page are not experts on the subject.

Thank you.Aesir.le (talk) 19:15, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter if it's "wrong". We have hundreds of articles that depend on that key. If you wish to change the conventions, fine: get some agreement that that's what we want to do, and then change all those hundreds of articles to match. — kwami (talk) 19:20, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Of course it matters that it's wrong, this is an encyclopedia. And it is a problem that the people among whom "consensus" should be reached are not actually experts on the subject! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aesir.le (talk • contribs) 19:27, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. "Wrong" only means you disagree, and an encyclopedia doesn't have to follow your opinions. There are other people who edit here. Give them credit for being able to understand your point, which is not a difficult one. — kwami (talk) 19:31, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

That's the thing, they do *not*. This is wrong in a very precise, scientific, sourced and verifiable way. It is *not* my opinion. You will not believe how many people mispronounce BP because of this unnecessary key. The TWO editors who disagree with me are unable to understand my point even if it's not difficult: Luizdl does not know what /ɲ/ sounds like (as can be deduced from another section in the talk page), so he cannot appreciate the distinction. Jaume87 does not speak Brazilian Portuguese, so he cannot appreciate the distinction. It is difficult to build "consensus" when the only two people who read my argument have no idea what I am talking about! You being a linguist should know an expert on the subject, if it is not too much to ask I would like their help.Aesir.le (talk) 19:37, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

The question is how precise we should be to be most useful to our readers. We use /r/ for English, for example, even though it's not a trill. You may be right, that people mispronounce names because of us (I wouldn't know), and that would certainly be an argument in your favour. Currently we use ‹j̃› for something else, though, so IMO that should be changed first. — kwami (talk) 19:43, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Also, "this is wrong, retard" is not a productive comment. I've reverted your edits. It doesn't help our readers if we contradict ourselves from one article to the next. — kwami (talk) 19:46, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I know, I regretted it right after making it. The reverted edits made me really pissed off, and I apologise. But anyway: I did not know about the usage of /r/ in English, which does weaken my point -- but I read the talk page and (predictably) it also had an argument about the accuracy of the transcription. Apparently it was done because /r/ is easier to type in a keyboard and to recognize. The latter does hold true for /ɲ/, but not the former, so I'm not really sure if the lack of precision is worth the tradeoff. I am not sure what you mean by /j̃/ being used for something else, though, can you clarify? Aesir.le (talk) 20:00, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Also, in English the /r/ key was made to accommodate several dialects with many realizations of /r/, making excessive precision misplaced... which is also not the case. To my knowledge, there is only one realization of the digraph 'nh' in BP, modulo some very isolated and specific dialects which may or may not exist.