Astrology has no effect on reality, so why should reality have any effect on astrology? – J.S. Stenzel, commenting on astrological planets that astrologers acknowledge don't really exist
(Previous quotes)
The official state rainbow flag of Russia (official in JAO since 1996)
Do you think the liberals are using these school shootings to further their anti-tragedy agenda?
— Col. Erran Morad, Who Is America?, s01e01
yod-dropper
— (when you need something that sounds like an insult)[1]
It is a mortifying circumstance, which greatly perplexes many a painstaking philosopher, that nature often refuses to second his most profound and elaborate efforts; so that often after having invented one of the most ingenious and natural theories imaginable, she will have the perverseness to act directly in the teeth of his system, and flatly contradict his most favorite positions. This is a manifest and unmerited grievance, since it throws the censure of the vulgar and unlearned entirely upon the philosopher; whereas the fault is not to be ascribed to his theory, which is unquestionably correct, but to the waywardness of Dame Nature, who, with the proverbial fickleness of her sex, is continually indulging in coquetries and caprices, and seems really to take pleasure in violating all philosophic rules, and jilting the most learned and indefatigable of her adorers. [...] The philosophers took this in very ill part, and it is thought they would never have pardoned the slight and affront which they conceived put upon them by the world had not a good-natured professor kindly officiated as a mediator between the parties, and effected a reconciliation. Finding the world would not accommodate itself to the theory, he wisely determined to accommodate the theory to the world.
Pela primeira vez na sua vida a morte soube o que era ter um cão no regaço. For the first time in her life, death knew what it felt like to have a dog in her lap.
The Church says that the Earth is Flat, but I know that it is Round, for I have seen its Shadow on the Moon, and I have more Faith in a Shadow than in the Church.
— (commonly misattributed to Magellan)
In the early years of the study there were more than 200 speakers of the dialect, including one parrot.
You and I seem to be the two active people on this front, and I've noticed a lot of your accurate moves for island names were undone by people who don't seem to understand how Hawaiian works or what the actual place names are locally. I think our conversation last year in the Maui fires was actually met with a pretty broad consensus to remedy this, but I suspect there's going to be some slight issues with the (never followed) MOS:HAWAII, which is frankly just wrong in treating a consonant as a diacritic, and people who assume their understanding as a tourist reflects the reality on the ground. We've already got a tension in articles that accurately render the place names being titled inaccurately, as well as general Wikipedians thinking the ʻokina isn't a consonant.
I've posted in the Hawaii Wikiproject, but I was wondering if you'd be interested in helping me rework the Hawaii MOS to stop it from validating this English vs Hawaiian tension that simply doesn't exist in reality? Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ14:02, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. But we do need to consider whether the English or Hawaiian form of the name is more appropriate for an article. I'd argue that the state should be 'Hawaii', just as we have 'Mexico' rather than 'México' for that country. — kwami (talk) 18:15, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! I’ve noticed your recent edits on uvular consonant and back-released click and I’m curious about your use of [ʞ] — in what font does the diacritic character display for you? This character, U+1AE2 is seemingly currently unassigned by the Unicode consortium, and thus displays as a fallback glyph in most users’ devices, including mine. Maybe there’s a suitable substitution for it, or maybe we should use an embedded image for [ʞ] in the meantime, as it’s practice with unencoded characters
U+1AE2 is scheduled for publication this year. In the meantime it could be substituted with a macron, but I was afraid if I did that, I'd forget to fix it once the proper character became available. The SIL fonts should be updated to support it relatively quickly after publication — kwami (talk) 05:38, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Edits on Praenestinian and Lanuvian language
Hi, while making a merger for the Praenestinian and Lanuvian language, I saw that you added the era for both articles to be from around 500 BC on the 7th of September, 2013 at around 1:00. I was just wondering if you would have had and still have a source for these dates and to add them onto both pages. Thank You. Spino-Soar-Us (talk) 04:16, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think so. I checked the archived versions for both languages and it does not mention 500 BC at any moment and I don't believe they would have changed it. If you do find the source or a source, please put it onto both pages. Thank You. Spino-Soar-Us (talk) 10:12, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My comment on ANI
Hey Kwami,
Apologies, I misread your comment (reading "I did block" rather than "I'd block"), leading to some confusion on my part. Hope you don't mind. I did self-revert.[2]Renerpho (talk) 22:37, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
