Welcome to Wikipedia, Arctic Circle System! Thank you for your contributions. I am HiLo48 and I have been editing Wikipedia for some time, so if you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. If you wish to contact me on this page, please use {{Ping|HiLo48}} such that I get notified of your request. You can also check out Wikipedia:Questions or type {{help me}} at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
Hey, Arctic Circle System. Just one little thing for your information: the meaning of "minor edit" is a little more narrow than you might think. Any edit that that adds or removes content, or otherwise significantly changes the meaning of an article, is not really considered "minor". Types of edit for which it is considered appropriate to check the "minor edit" box are listed here. Please try to keep this in mind in the future - in particular, when you add an entry to a list or table, please do not mark the edit as minor. If you have any questions for me, feel free to ask them. Kind regards from PJvanMill)talk(14:43, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Re My apologies: it's not a problem :). It's really only a little thing, and you can't know everything in advance. Wikipedia's policy, guideline and information pages are a lot, so everyone learns over time as they go.
One other thing you might not be aware of is notifying people. In this case I saw your reply because I put your talk page on my watchlist, but otherwise I would not have seen it. You can notify someone by linking to their user page in your comment, known as "pinging" them - specifics here. You can also use a template like {{ping}} for this, as demonstrated by HiLo48 above. I should note that some editors have receiving pings turned off in their settings; the most reliable way to get someone's attention is to make a post on their user talk page. Kind regards from PJvanMill)talk(13:02, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@PJvanMill: Thank you! I will use that in the future. For now we're gonna go ask about the fate of the Europe section of List of indigenous peoples on the talk page, because that got removed fairly recently because it was a mess and while we know for sure there are certain groups that need to be readded (like the Sámi and Pavee), there are others that we need to do further research into to see if there are reliable sources that consider them to be Indigenous peoples (which gets hard in situations where many sources on any given ethnic group are not in English) and we really don't want to make changes to the article without checking in. ~Nai of Arctic Circle System (talk) 13:21, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, Arctic Circle System. That sounds like a good plan, and I hope you'll get some discussion going. Do note though that sometimes, a talk page post can go without reply for ages... It is not often a necessity to discuss an edit before making it, and for a change that seems like a clear improvement, it is usually good to "be bold". At the same time, in areas where one has little experience, it is wise to be a bit cautious. Kind regards from PJvanMill)talk(00:04, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, while it was a user essay and not policy or guideline, it was certainly enlightening. So, as long as you agree with Tamzin that the account is responsible for the on-Wiki behavior of all the members of the plurality, I don't have a problem with it. Since you appear to open about your state as a plural system, I wonder if it makes sense to disclose it on your userpage so this conversation doesn't have to be repeated with other editors in the future. Cheers, --SVTCobra14:13, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@SVTCobra:@Blaze Wolf: We figured out how to word a note for our userpage, even if it's not fully polished yet. Having that essay really helped because we don't have to figure out how to explain why being a plural system doesn't violate the "no sharing accounts" policy. ~Red of Arctic Circle System (talk) 14:17, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Red Good to hear! I noticed you had done that shortly after I replied. As I said on Discord, if you need anything feel free to ask me! I'm always willing to help. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#654514:32, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Deleting external links
Hello, I noticed you deleted a series of external links with edit summaries of "Removed unreliable fringe source"[1][2][3] (and there seem to be more in your edit history). Please note that EL's are not sources, they are further reading, and as such they would normally contain a link to a text in question (the Varo Edition) and even an unreliable website falls under WP:ELMAYBE. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 12:42, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies, we probably should've clarified a bit better in our edit summaries. We were removing those links because the site in question is known to spread pseudoscience and conspiracy theories and we wanted to clear those off of the site. ~Opal of Arctic Circle System (talk) 02:49, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Its not normal practice to simply delete website links or fringe content just because they are fringe (see WP:FRINGE). Its a judgment call as to what should be included and what is being cited. If we are talking about re-posted valid source documents that a Wikipedia editor linked to show a full version of the document, instead of a link to opinions or content created by the website author, that should not normally be removed. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 16:40, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@I dream of horses: It was originally an AfC draft, but we were having trouble keeping up the motivation to work on it (mental health is hard), so we moved it to Userspace so that it wouldn't get deleted because we didn't want our work on it to be erased after 60 days. ~Cherri of Arctic Circle System (talk) 07:26, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if this is a choice particularly made for that article, or if you intend to apply it to other language family articles as well? Personally, I am a big fan of "what you see is what you get", and I am afraid that many technically not so versed editors will have a hard time handling these parameters of the infobox. In the case of Vasconic languages though, I wouldn't be unhappy if your move helps to deter drive-by edits that want to include Iberian :) Austronesier (talk) 21:02, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Austronesier: I've been replacing other language family links with Wikidata templates as well as apparently it's more convenient for data queries and easier to update across languages, so I've heard. I'm not too technically versed in all honesty, so I'm not sure how true that is, but that's what we've been told. ~Red of Arctic Circle System (talk) 23:21, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I still believe that it's not helpful for the average editor when you introduce opaque code in the infobox, as you have done again here[4]. Is it ok for you if I bring it up in WT:LANG? –Austronesier (talk) 18:11, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, you have been inserting references to an alleged subcategory called East Swedic. This is not a commonly accepted category in academia. In fact, I cannot find it anywhere outside Glottolog which, while useful, is not peer-reviewed. At Wikipedia, we typically go with the mainstream academic view. Jeppiz (talk) 21:58, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Glottolog is generally reliable. No source is always right on everything. Language classification is a well-studied topic, especially for European languages. If Glottolog (or any other source) is alone in suggesting a category, there is reason to be cautious. Jeppiz (talk) 22:06, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Jeppiz: Are there any other sources we can use? It's difficult to find reliable sources on classification via Google Scholar that aren't either paywalled and can't be found elsewhere, or written in a way that's confusing to a layperson. I'm also not entirely sure how to check for predatory publishing and such. I don't know if I'm just not using the right search terms to get Google Scholar to spit out the results I need or what. It's very confusing... ~Red of Arctic Circle System (talk) Arctic Circle System (talk) 22:28, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Red: There is no source that contains a comprehensive classification similar to the one found in Glottolog. This is the very reason why Harald Hammarström constructs the Glottolog classification based on multiple sources. The three branches of North Germanic are based on Bandle (1973), and also for the internal classification of North Scandinavian, Glottolog largely follows Bandle (who posits Nordskandinavisch (im engern Sinn) 'North Scandinavian (in a narrow sense)', Ostschwedisch 'East Swedish', and Götisch 'Gutinsh'). The interal classification of Glottolog's "East Swedic" is supposed to follow Rendahl (2001), although frankly I have a hard time to see how the information in Rendahl (2001) matches Hammarström's classification. Btw, it is a pity to see the undersourced state of the "Classification" sections in Germanic language articles (e.g. North_Germanic_languages#Family_tree). @Jeppiz: Are you aware of a introductory, yet comprehensive source about this topic? –Austronesier (talk) 22:40, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Austronesier: and @Arctic Circle System: I took a look at Glottolog's classification for North Germanic and... It's ridiculously bad. That 'alleged' classification would lead a student handing it in to receive an F. There are so many obvious errors that it's hard to know where to start (and I don't intend to provide a full list of glaring errors), but classifying 'Old East Norse' under 'West Scandinavian' (and hence in a different group to Swedish and Danish) is perhaps the worst. I also struggle to understand what 'Archaic Finnish Swedish' means. Again, there are many more errors. Just for fun, I took a look at some other language groups at Glottolog, and it's even worse. Suggesting that the two divisions of Scottish Gaelic are Church Gaelic and East Sutherlandshire Gaelic is straight out "flat earth"'level. Equally ridiculous nonsense for the Romance languages, where Glottolog pretends that Romanian and Tuscan Italian (two entirely separate languages) are more similar than Tuscan and Corsican (a Tuscan dialect). Arctic Circle System's talk page is not the right place, but I would be inclined to move that Glottolog should be classified as an unreliable source and not be allowed to use on Wikipedia for any language. I struggle to find a language group for which it is correct. Jeppiz (talk) 19:24, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Jeppiz: I think what they mean with "Archaic Finnish Swedish" is that some archaic dialects of Finnish Swedish have less mutual intelligibility with other varieties of Swedish than other Finnish Swedish dialects? I don't know how true that is, but I think that's what they're saying. ~Red of Arctic Circle System (talk) 09:09, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please STOP!
It appears you're on a campaign to reclassify all Northern Germanic languages and dialects, based exclusively on Glottolog. This is not helpful!. Once again, Wikipedia follows mainstream academia. If linguistic categories are found only on Glottolog, they should not be introduced here. Please take this as a mild warning that your reclassification spree, while no doubt well-intended, starts to look a bit disruptive. Can I suggest you use article talk pages to gain consensus before introducing new linguistic classifications to languages. Jeppiz (talk) 22:04, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As said above: Glottolog is good but not perfect. Whenever Glottolog is alone in suggesting something, it might be to early to introduce it on WP. We prefer academic consensus. Again, I have no doubt your edits are made with the best of intentions. Jeppiz (talk) 22:08, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
Unfortunately it is getting to assume good faith in light of your latest blatant edit warring. You were told very clearly in November not to go around changing language classifications based on Glottolog. Today, not only do you do exactly that, you also engage in edit warring across multiple articles. Please self-revert. Any further disruptions to language classifications will be taken to ANI with a request that you be topic banned from editing articles related to linguistics. Several users with knowledge of linguistics have pointed out to you the problems with your edits. Please WP:LISTEN. Jeppiz (talk) 23:13, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Jeppiz: As I have mentioned in my recent edit summaries, the main thing I got from Glottolog in this case is a language family name. The concept of a language family consisting of English and its descendants is not unheard of. See World Englishes. ~Red of Arctic Circle System (talk) 23:29, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Arctic Circle System, you've been edit warring with numerous users across more then articles, warned by @Austronesier:, @BilCat: and myself, yet you still persist. World Englishes is not a language family, that is just your own misinterpretation that you then insert all across Wikipedia in violation WP policies, most notably WP:OR. Jeppiz (talk) 01:17, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't been reverting anything since I saw your first talk page message. You can check our edit history for evidence of that. As for what you're saying about World Englishes not being a language family, the article states that World Englishes are "emerging localised or indigenised varieties of English", and it goes on to elaborate that pidgins, creoles, and mixed languages are included (though it seems to contradict itself as to whether they have partial membership, or full membership in multiple language families, ehich is rather confusing). Considering that English, as well as English-based creoles, pidgins, and mixed languages are in fact languages, I don't understand how one could possibly say that a term encompassing them all isn't referring to a group of languages. ~Red of Arctic Circle System (talk) 01:53, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Hiberno-English. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Points to note:
Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
@BilCat: I reverted on Hiberno-English and a few other related pages one time, and explained my reasoning in the edit summary. I do not plan on reverting again until this is settled. I am open to discussion about and criticism of our edits, but I would appreciate not being repeatedly accused of things we didn't do even after I explained we didn't do those things. It is very frustrating. ~Red of Arctic Circle System (talk) 01:33, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
Regarding your edits on the subdivision section of Sinitic languages, why did you separate Min and Ba-Shu (if it even can be that well classified) from the rest of Sinitic? As far as I’m aware, this subdivision section is in regards to Sino-Bai rather than micro-Sinitic; Macro-Bai is not a descendant of Old Chinese, but Min is and Shu should as well. Pullyblank, Norman, and Sagart as far as I’m aware classify Min as not a parallel branch to Bai, and definitely a group of Chinese languages. If we want to go for a CDC-rest of Sinitic split, we should use some label other than “Chinese” ND381 (talk) 10:15, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Common Dialectal Chinese. A reconstruction of what all the Middle Chinese-descended Sinitic languages' origin would have been like, created by Jerry Norman, so it's less what the Tang Dynasty drunk people said and more actual linguistics ND381 (talk) 13:06, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@ND381: Oh, that makes sense. I do agree with you on that, I was just going with the labels Wikipedia had at the time. My line of thought was that since Min split off from Old Chinese and Greater Bai is sometimes included on the basis of it possibly being an early split from Old Chinese, then Min would also be a top-level branch of Sinitic, though I wasn't sure what to put for branches that split off from Eastern Han or Middle Chinese (not sure if any split off from Eastern Han specifically rather than Old or Middle Chinese, I'm just covering my bases here). I'm also not certain of the nature of the theorized relationship between Greater Bai and the Chinese languages, whether Greater Bai is considered a top-level branch alongside Ba-Shu, Min, and CDC (and possibly Waxiang if Hammarström et al are to be believed) or if the proposed split is a two-way split between Greater Bai and the Chinese languages, with Ba-Shu, Min, and CDC being top-level branches of the latter. I suppose I'll have to read more on what Jerry Norman said on the subject. Arctic Circle System (talk) 13:58, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps something along the lines of
Chinese
Min
Extinct Sinitic (no need to specify Bashu, there are many other extinct Sinitic languages that existed around the time Bashu was a thing)
Waxiang (?)
Middle Chinese
Other Sinitic
Greater Bai (?)
could be better. Or we could just only list Chinese and Bai, and leave the subdivisions under Chinese in the Varieties of Chinese page ND381 (talk) 17:37, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@ND381: Perhaps, though I do have to ask if you have any sources for a two-way phylogenetic split between Chinese and Greater Bai, rather than a phylogenetic split between Greater Bai, Common Dialectical Chinese, and non-CDC Chinese (non-CDC Chinese is not a phylogenetic group, I just don't feel like typing out the other branches)? Arctic Circle System (talk) 19:29, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@ND381: I see. Would you be able to add that information to the infobox for Sinitic languages? I don't have access to many Chinese-language papers so I can't find information needed for citations that easily. I can add it to other pages from there. I'd also like to know if there's a common name for the branch of the Chinese languages that split from CDC/Late Middle Chinese rather than Old Chinese that I should use for the name of that branch in infoboxes (preferably one that's commonly used in English-language sources). Arctic Circle System (talk) Arctic Circle System (talk) 23:01, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Invitation on Lango people's talk page
@Arctic Circle System you have been invited to help out on some articles. All the details are in Lango people's talk If you can help that will be highly appreciated. Thanks Ngunalik (talk) 22:24, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
For their ignoring of the unsourced statement, and mass insertion again of unsourced, I'm using Rollback to mass undo the mass spamming of unsourced material. Canterbury Tailtalk11:39, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
For additional information, please see the guidance on these sanctions. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
Hi, I noticed you made a change to Template:Gallo-Romance languages and dialects, but didn't use an edit summary.
Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This helps your fellow editors understand what an edit changes and why. Even something short is better than nothing at all. (Say, for example, "fix link; better label".)
You can use this external tool to see how often you edit without using a summary.
To help yourself remember, you can check the "prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" box in your preferences.
Thanks for your contributions to Schiermonnikoog Frisian. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it has no sources.
I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.
Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Before adding a category to an article, as you did to Category:Persecution of Yazidis by ISIL, please make sure that the subject of the article really belongs in the category that you specified according to Wikipedia's categorization guidelines. The category being added must already exist, and must be supported by the article's verifiable content. Categories may be removed if they are deemed incorrect for the subject matter. Please don't overcategorize categories like you did here.SMasonGarrison05:01, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind, I see what it is. I don't understand why adding these categories being added to the relevant category would be an issue, but those same categories being added to the article itself wouldn't. Arctic Circle System (talk) 03:08, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
