User talk:Kwamikagami

Your comments may be archived here after 48hrs

Word/quotation of the moment:

In the early years of the study there were more than 200 speakers of the dialect, including one parrot. (from the WP article Nancy Dorian)

Mikebrown is unusually eccentric and not very bright. [...] Astronomers have not noticed any outbursts by Mikebrown. (from the WP article 11714 Mikebrown)

Keep Redskins White!

"homosapiens are people, too!!"

Spaghetti Weevil (and also) a sprig of spaghetti

"I've always had a horror of husbands-in-law."

awkwardnessful

anti–zombie-fungus fungus

"Only an evil person would eat baby soup."

Please Read

Arabic language page

Arabic language your complining that im being false at what the number I put on Arabic There are 420 million Arabic speakers so stop lying ok dude the article itself says there are 420million Arabic speakers Arabic is one language not many languages im an Arabic speaker and I know the numbers so don't ever correct me ArabAmazigh12 (talk) 19:34, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:TRUTH and provide sources for your claims. Falsifying a source is fraud. — kwami (talk) 19:37, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PUA

What should we do with the last 2 pages in Wikipedia:CHECKWIKI/016 dump? -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:38, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Magioladitis: Does that take care of it? — kwami (talk) 06:36, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes! Thanks! -- Magioladitis (talk) 06:43, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Extra-open central unrounded vowel"

Thanks for the reference to Geoff Lindsey's analysis of cardinal vowels in the Open front unrounded vowel article. On the talk page of the article, I've started a discussion on how appropriate it is to characterize the "extra-open unrounded vowel" as central. – Simo Kaupinmäki (talk) 12:45, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Altaic

No worries. I have not cared to follow that ranty dispute very closely, but was not intending to step on any toes or re-open old wounds. I really have no opinion on the matter, I just don't like it when infoboxes do not agree with article text. If the Altaic hypothesis is considered fringe, it needs to be identified as such more clearly, in all the affected articles, per WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE. If it is not actually fringe, but not yet a majority-held theory, then it needs to be properly addressed in the infobox, pretty much exactly the way I did it, because declaration of the proposed Altaic subfamilies as root families of the world's languages if this is not the actual scientific consensus among linguists is a serious WP:POV problem and misleading to readers. I don't care at all which the correct answer is, I only know that the present half-assed situation is not viable. It has to be clarified and normalized in one direction or the other, or we do not have proper agreement between infoboxes and their articles. Actually, I'll just raise this at WT:LING. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 05:01, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@SMcCandlish: No, it's not fringe, it just hasn't been demonstrated despite a century of trying.

I've gotten into edit wars over trying to present balanced accounts in info boxes, e.g. for the Celtic languages with Continental/Insular vs. P Celtic/Q Celtic. The info box almost never reflects the text when there's a serious difference of opinion in the classification of more the better-frequented articles, though I've gotten away with it in articles hardly anyone reviews. Consensus seems to be that it would be too much info for the box. I disagree, but there's only so much I can do. As for this particular case, the presentation of Altaic has been reduced over the years. It used to be that the articles for the constituent families would mention Altaic in their info boxes but the individual languages would not, but several months ago there was consensus to remove even that. — kwami (talk) 06:23, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you on presenting both Cont/Ins and P/Q with regard to Celtic (then again, I grew up with P/Q, and have not been fully convinced of the C/I theory). I have raised the issue at WP:LING, so I guess we'll see if it gets any traction. I'm presenting it, as above, as a reader confusion and WP:UNDUE or WP:NPOV issue, not a prefer this answer vs that one issue. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 06:28, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It seems pretty clear to me that Insular is not a legitimate node (no-one claims that Continental is), whereas there's a reasonable case to be made for P-Celtic (again, I don't think anyone claims Q-Celtic is a clade). But mostly I just think when there's a difference in classification that takes up a lot of the lit that we should reflect that in the box. — kwami (talk) 06:40, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List_of_languages_by_number_of_native_speakers

Sir, This is with regard to your article List_of_languages_by_number_of_native_speakers. In the said article hindi is given 4th place with 290 million people speakinh hindi. This is not correct and data seems to be old as taken from 1991 census. The data from 2001 census coducted by Govt. of India says that hindi is spoken by 422 million people in India alone. I quote the verifiable source "http://www.censusindia.gov.in/Census_Data_2001/Census_Data_Online/Language/Statement4.aspx". This data is also old as the language data of 2011 census is not disclosed as yet. Further erstwhile India i.e. Pakistan and Bangladesh also have hindi native speakers in huge numbers. Nepal, Bhutan are the similar other countries. Moreover the immigrants from India to U.S., U.K., Saudi Arabia and so many other countries also use hindi as their mother tongue. All these facts need be given recognition to make this article more factual and informative. Request you to do the same.Rajatbindalbly (talk) 13:20, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Kwami. See this and this for multiple previous attempts to make the user understand that Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, and not a place to get publicity for self-published home-made "reports" by hobby-linguists... Thomas.W ^talk 13:47, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Rajatbindalbly: That's the wrong "Hindi". The article is about Modern Standard Hindi, as it explains in the lead. The census data is for anyone who calls their language "Hindi", which is not the same thing. — kwami (talk) 18:26, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kwami Sir, Hindi is only hindi and there is no language called hindustani. Nowhere it is taught. The data is about the no. of people who reported their mother tongue as hindi.Here in this article "List of language by number of native speakers" do not differentiate hindi and hindustani as seperate languages. The confusion may arise due to the fact that hindi may be spoken directly as you hear in news, but it is spoken with different accent also. Change of accent and style will not change its basic feature of hindi. I request that census 2001 data may be given credentials. I also submit that the truthfullness of the fact can be verified by anyone by visiting India.Rajatbindalbly (talk) 13:06, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please also refer https://hi.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E0%A4%B9%E0%A4%BF%E0%A4%A8%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%A6%E0%A5%80 as verifiable source on wikipedia itself. How can there be two versions on the wikipedia?Rajatbindalbly (talk) 13:13, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kerberos (moon)

The images have not yet been downlinked from the spacecraft, but New Horizons‍ best spatial resolution of Kerberos

Why did you re-add this in the article? The image has already been downlinked, and it is in the article infobox. Also, your other changes seem kind of disruptive Huritisho 05:39, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was reverting recent bullshit. If some good edits got caught up in that, go ahead and restore them. — kwami (talk) 05:42, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What you reverted was not "bullshit". For example, "Kerberos appears to have a double-lobed shape, approximately 7.4 mi (11.9 km) across in its long dimension and 2.8 mi (4.5 km) in its shortest dimension.[15]" this is a good addition and it is well cited. Why did you revert that? Huritisho 05:45, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted to before the falsified references. Again, if good edits got caught up in the revert, feel free to restore them. Though there's no need for a quotation: a summary or paraphrase is fine. — kwami (talk) 05:50, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hm sure, no problem. Yes, indeed you removed a few valid references of updated content, but I'll re-do them and keep the other information (Rudy's references apparently are false). Cheers, Huritisho 15:13, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]