User talk:Yolgnu

Welcome to Wikipedia

Hi Yolgnu. Thanks for your message about Almanac. Here are a couple of sources that support an Arab origin for the word that are more recent:

• Semitic Languages: Outline of a Comparative Grammar (2001)
• Early American Almanacs ; the Colonial Weekday Bible (1977)

Though I should also mention that this source from 2000 claims the ultimate origin is unknown, even as it goes on to bescribe the first alamanac as a product of Arab Spain.

Anyway, I think we should retain all notable points of view regarding its origins, (the Arab, the Greek, and the unknown thesis), that way the information will work to provide a fuller picture to the reader. What do you think? Tiamut^talk 09:32, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for incorporating those changes and for raising my attention about the differing POVs. It looks good to me now. Well done. Tiamut^talk 13:52, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jasmine

Hi again Yolgnu. I noticed that you added Persian in this edit to Jasmine. I was wondering if you have a source for that, since the book I provided only discusses its Arabic provenance (though it could very well be Persian originally and introduced into English by way of arabic, as you suggest in your edit). Would you mind very much finding a source for that information? It would be good if we can source all etymological information (as we did for Almanac). If there is no such source, I would like to remove it, since I'm strongly against introducting WP:OR into articles. Thanks for your consideration of this request. Tiamut^talk 00:05, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your prompt reply to that request. I agree that it is important to note that the word is originally Persian and that it made its way into English via its use in Arabic. Fascinating history! Tiamut^talk 10:40, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Improve your behaviour

Your comment on my discussion page violates both WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Accusing others of vandalism because of disagreeing is not in line with Wikipedia's policies. The fact that you are wrong and seems to lack any knowledge about Romance language is irrelevant, your behaviour would be unacceptable even if you were right. JdeJ (talk) 07:23, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Asking for sources is perfectly fine. More than just fine, it's something that improves Wikipedia and forces editors to source claims. However, using rude language and claims of vandalism when doing so is not fine, and unfounded accusation of vandalism does violated WP:NPA. Some of the many available sources have now been inserted, including both the major published reference book on Romance linguistics and some reliable Internet sources. Ethnologue is great in many way, but unfortunately pretty bad at checking its facts from time to time. This is such a case. JdeJ (talk) 07:54, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Catullus

Hey, I appreciate all your efforts on the Catullus poems; I've been pretty lonely on them for some time now and it's nice to have someone knowledgeable onboard. Can I make two suggestions, b'vakashah? First, it's probably not gentlemanly to dismiss people's work as WP:NONSENSE, even if your edits improved the page, right? I'm sure that the people who made the previous "literal" translations (not me) probably did so in good faith, and weren't trying to be lame. Generally, I agreed with your changes, but still, in my opinion, we shouldn't dampen the enthusiasm of people who sincerely want to contribute. Someday a professional Catullus scholar might see our work, and hopefully she won't be scornful of our efforts, either. Perhaps the safest thing to do might be to take over a public-domain, line-by-line translation and reference it — what do you think?

Secondly, you recently deleted ~4kb of my work on Catullus 2. I understand and appreciate your reasoning, but I think you have been hasty and not considered the context in which that material was added. We should at least Talk about it. If you'd like to help with Catullus 2, please consider joining me in summarizing the available scholarship on Catullus 2, much of which is listed under the "Bibliography". If you have other sources to add, that'd be great, too! :) I have high hopes of bringing Carmen II to Good Article and perhaps even Featured Article status, for which we need to have summarized everything in the scholarly literature. I'm probably busy these next two weeks with other articles (action potential, problem of Apollonius, list of scientific publications of Albert Einstein,...) but I'll try to get back to Catullus before May begins. Willow (talk) 07:54, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Help on Mazandarani language

I see you've met our resident barely literate in English "expert" on the Mazandarani language, Parthava. This guy is reverting anything contrary to his own shallow understanding of the religion. I have been trying to talk sense into him, provide him sources, etc. but he will not listen. I think it is best for us to work together in editing his out his outlandish edits such as the ridiculous "cognates" table and his assertion that the dialect of Persian spoken in Mazandaran Province (15 minutes from Tehran itself) is "unintelligible" with Persian itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.5.250.146 (talk) 14:15, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indo-European link

To prove to me you are not just vandalizing, put the *Image of Indo-European migrations from the Armenian Highlands link in Armenian hypothesis page, since this page is related to the image of the IE migrations. Then I would believe that you are not just removing it from random pages, that the links were there for the longest time. Than I can agree with you of your removal from Greco-Aryan and Greco-Armenian pages. 75.51.175.253 (talk) 16:15, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't need to do anything to "prove I'm not vandalising". That image, even if correct, does not have a place on Wikipedia. If you'll take a look at Anatolian hypothesis, Kurgan hypothesis etc. you will see that they do not have one external link (let alone image links), only (text) references.--Yolgnu (talk) 00:31, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you removed the truth from Armenian related pages, now God will surely punish Israel, and soon. 76.250.11.35 (talk) 20:08, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you removed the truth from Arman related pages, now Ararich (God) will surely punish Jahoods, and soon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.51.165.8 (talk) 03:10, 14 April, 2008 (UTC)

Prelate

Shalom shalom,

I came across your page following your contribution to Beta Israel. I believe your extensive linguistic expertise may be of help in resolving my recent puzzlement. Other articles from the Beta Israel Project could also use your occasional assistance, especially those situated at the 15th-17th Centuries. I hope you could find the time to look into this possibility. Shavua tov, Lior (talk) 13:06, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, if I'm not mistaking you with another Israeli-born linguist who works in Australia and the UK, I'm still thinking about your fascinating talk at the Drori auditorium a few months ago :) Lior (talk) 02:56, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rov todot! I inferred you're probably too busy at present. We are tigistly expecting you :) Tene yestelin, Lior (talk) 03:20, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the relation of Jews to other ethnic groups is very complex, way too complex to be put into an infobox

Source that opinion and stop censoring established facts.

Just who do you think you are imposing your arbitrary opinion on this encyclopedia.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.193.39.79 (talk) 07:25, 15 April, 2008 (UTC)

Florus Edits

I notice that you have not replied to various points I have made in the discussion page of Latin literature, and thus have reverted your recent edit removing Florus. Your opinions are POV, and do not serve the readership of Wikipedia.Peterlewis (talk) 15:10, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Juris Yarins

Thanks Yolnu for your interest. Regarding Juris Yarins, he is regarded as one of the best paeleo-linguist archaologists at the moment, along with the likes of Chris Ehret, who has also written about Afroasiatic. Afroasiatic is commonly recognised nowadays as a fairly high level linguistic phylum, much older than Proto-Indo-European, and is thought to have separated in pre-neolithic contexts as they lack a common neolithic vocabulary. Surprisingly it does have a common vocabulary for pottery, which is thought to have been a secondary neolithic development. In Saharan Africa, however, pottery preceeded agriculture. Hope this helps. John D. Croft (talk) 14:39, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Juris Zarins is of the view that Afroasiatic languages evolved in the Sahara-Sudanic region. There are two routes by which Proto-Semitic could have left this zone to enter the Middle East, one is via the Bab El Mandib into Yemen, and the other is via the Sinai. Given that the southern route would require that Afroasiatic languages (Cushitic) seem to have come in three waves of neolithic farmers from the Sudan, into Ethiopia with the early neolithic (beginning about 4,500 BCE) displacing earlier Khoisanid like hunter-gatherers), the southern route thesis could only have Proto-Semitic speakers crossing into the Middle East after 4,500 BCE which is too late. I have been in correspondence with Ehret and Zarins on the matter and both are of the view that a later PPN entry with the 8.2 kiloyear event, of Proto-Semitic into Southern Palestine fits the evidence best. This is the theory that is articulated here. Regards John D. Croft (talk) 01:56, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Canaan

You removed the linguistic origins of the term Canaan deriving the term from Latin, through Greek to Hebrew and Aramaic. There is nothing controversial in this derivation. Can you please give the reason why you find this origin in Hebrew problematic? John D. Croft (talk) 15:00, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The etymology of Canaan is highly controversial; that's why there's an Eymology section of the article. If you want to put how Canaan reached English from from Hebrew, put it there, explaining that it's origin before Hebrew is controversial.--Yolgnu (talk) 00:26, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that is a good idea, I'll put it there. John D. Croft (talk) 01:49, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries

Hi. I just wanted to remind you to please use edit summaries whenever you can. It helps all the editors that come afterwards. (I had to spend a few moments puzzling out this edit, before it was clear that you were doing "merging to sublists" and "cleanup", and not just deleting various contents.) Thanks muchly :) -- Quiddity (talk) 19:59, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vandals

Read the Vandals article so you can familiarise yourself with the topic further and not make inappropriate edits. Hxseek (talk) 06:56, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Conference of Ramla, A.D. 524

Shavua tov, how are you?

I'm about to compose an article about ועידת רמלה based on Irfan Shahid's 1964 article. Could you please have a look at the Latin names and short Latin citations he provides? I'm not sure how to properly transliterate and translate them to Hebrew. Many thanks, ליאור (talk) 08:27, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shalom, great to see you again. What Latin in particular do you need to be translated? In addition to the quotes, Shahid uses a lot of Latin phrases in his general writing (eg. terminus a quo), do you need them translated as well?--Yolgnu (talk) 11:13, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

חן חן! מדובר בקטעים הבאים בלטינית וביוונית:

• עמ' 117 - טור שמאלי, הערה 6
• עמ' 117 - טור ימני למעלה - על חג'אג'
• עמ' 118 - טור שמאלי, התיאור בו מופיע בנו של איוב
• עמ' 126 - טור שמאלי, הערה 43 - איך היית מתרגם את היוונית הזו לעברית?
• כיצד לתעתק את השמות Eugenius, Euphrasius, Euporos וכו'? לקרוא לו פרת, פרטס, או שמא נעים?

למען האמת, זה המאמר הראשון של שהיד שיצא לי לי לקרוא ואין לי מושג מה השתנה בספרות ההיסטורית מאז 1964. רק עתה אני קורא מעט חומר רקע על האימפריה הסאסאנית ועל ארץ ישראל בימי הביזנטים, לרבות המרד השומרוני הגדול של 529. אני בטוח שיהיו שגיאות טפשיות בערך שאכתוב, אך הוא עדיף בשלב זה על לא כלום. אליש מטפל כרגע בתולדות ממלכות אקסום וחמיר, ואני משתדל לסייע לו במעטפת הקשרים בין אקסום לממלכות אסיה. אתה מוזמן כמובן להצטרף (: תודה ויום נעים, ליאור (talk) 12:50, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Latin quote on page 117 translates as: "But also Abraham himself, having formed a treaty with Mundhir, and having greeted Isaac returning to Persia, returned...". Shahid prefers Euphrasius (אופרסיום) as the name of Abraham's father. I can't help you with the Greek, unfortunately. The Sassanids and Samaritans aren't my area of expertise, but I'll tell you if I find any relevant sources in Hebrew or English.--Yolgnu (talk) 13:54, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Egyptians

Pay attention to what you are doing before making inappropriate reverts. Afbibwei (talk) 05:40, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't call reverting vandalism an inappropriate revert.--Yolgnu (talk) 21:24, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. Afbibwei (talk) 07:46, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sicilian

You put a "clarify" message in the Sicilian language article. Someone else had originally written this without qualification. I added the reference to the author who had put this theory forward, but I also mentioned that he had no support from any linguist (I could add dozens of references, but I don't think it's necessary) I'm not sure what there is to clarify without going into verse and chapter: someone says its the oldest language to derive directly from vulgar Latin, and most say that's crap (primarily because of the Saracen occupation of the island for some 150 years, and that only Arab and Greek survived before the Normans introduced a new form of vulgar Latin, from which Sicilian is substantially derived). Personally, I would have been happy that this theory not be shown at all, but it's not unusual to show unusual theories but also add that they are largely discredited. πιππίνυ δ - (dica) 22:45, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added the clarify tag because I have no idea what it means by "the oldest language to derive directly from vulgar Latin". By the way, the Normans didn't introduce a new form of Vulgar Latin, they introduced a fully fledged, Para-Italian Romance language. That's why Sicilian is called a "Neolatin" language, because it did not evolve in situ from Vulgar Latin.--Yolgnu (talk) 06:36, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably best that you reply to my talk page rather than add the note to your own talk page. This theory (which I think is bunkum by the way) makes a case that Sicilian evolved from the Latin spoken on the island during its time as a province of Rome, and that it survived subsequent occupations right up to the time of the Norman invasion, i.e. he argues that it is not a neo-Latin language at all. Personally, I'd prefer it came out, but as I said, someone else wanted it in, and I've tried to make the best of it. If you feel you can express that better, that's fine. While I don't disagree with anything you have said above, I would say it's a matter of conjecture as to how "fully fledged" this so-alled Para-Italian language was. πιππίνυ δ - (dica) 07:37, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

June 2008

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Maltese people. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Jaysweet (talk) 15:27, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked you for 24 hours for continuing to revert despite being warned not to. If you wish to contest this block please use the {{unblock}} template. Scarian^Call me Pat! 16:17, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I respect this block. But it's hard not to revert when User:Kalindoscopy is viciously reverting all my edits[1][2][3][4][5]--Yolgnu (talk) 22:15, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Catullus images

Hi, Yolgnu. I do not believe the removal of images by myself and others is particularly controversial. Several editors in the past, notably at Talk:Catullus 5, have suggested that the images are inappropriate. The only arguments I have seen to support their inclusion have been based purely on personal preference. The concept that an image is attractive or illustrates one reader's interpretation of a poem is incontrovertibly POV. I would, however, support the inclusion of notable works of art that are inspired by the poems themselves, provided a citation is given. Better still would be the inclusion of manuscript illustrations. I know that User:Kafka Liz is actively working toward the acquisition of such images; quality images take time. Aramgar (talk) 16:26, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the time has not yet come to discuss the images in Catullus poems. For my part, I'm willing to let the matter rest until Kafka Liz has had a reasonable chance to find the best possible images for those articles. I also think we should re-activate the Catullus Wikiproject and hold our discussions there.

In the meantime, I think we should focus on improving the articles by identifying and citing the scholarly literature on Catullus' various poems, as I have started to do. Admittedly, that's slower and a more gradual improvement than deleting stubs and images, but I feel that such meticulous work is necessary for making the articles encyclopedic and complete. I hope you all agree and I look forward to your contributions. Willow (talk) 08:14, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the articles can stand alone without "decoration"; any images included should serve to illustrate by being directly related to or inspired by the author in question. The theme of "girls with sparrows" fails with the image of the girl and her dove because the image is instantly recognizable to even the most casual student of the Classics as a gravestone, and thus more evocative of grief than love. Moreover, the theme of women and girls with birds on Classical grave stelai is so widespread that scholars debate whether some symbolic meaning should be attached to their presence. I am more amenable to the addition of Classical images, but then again I believe caution is in order. The casual addition of images because they seem to present a relevant theme to the modern eye ignores the resonances these images had in their original context. The inclusion of an image of Mary Magdalene -- who of course is non-Classical -- at Catullus 13, for example, carries too much iconographical baggage to be useful in any but a Christian context. I stand by my -- and other editors' -- insistence that included images be strictly relevant.

Kafka Liz assures me that free-use images can and will be found. Of the major manuscripts, the Codex Oxoniensis, is visually appealing as well as directly related to the subject at hand. Aramgar (talk) 00:27, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The image from Catullus 4 does not bother me so much, but the entire article for Catullus 16 is fraught with problems of emphasis. I think we can address those problems later. I would beg a few more days so that I can finish moving the cooperative translations that have accumulated on en.wikipedia to en.wikisource. I have been working for several months on Catullus at la.wikisource and hope to be finished by the end of the summer. There is some proofreading work to be done at la.wikisource, if you are interested. Regards, Aramgar (talk) 13:37, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Updated Catullus WikiProject

Hi Yolgnu,

I updated the Catullus WikiProject this morning, which should give us a central location for discussing things and reach consensus. I made sub-pages for the three main issues:

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Catullus/Images
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Catullus/Translations
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Catullus/Coverage

so that newcomers will be able to find out what our consensus is easily. We can add other special topics as needed.

I hope you like what you see, and please accept the invitation to join there! :) Willow (talk) 17:28, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Catullus translations

Yolgnu, sorry for taking so long to get back to you. My schedule has been irregular since school ended, and I have had less time than I would have hoped to devote here. Finally, I have finished transferring the cooperative translations to Wikisource: check out this and this. I would support your removing the translations from all the Catullus articles but would suggest that you post a rational at Wikipedia:WikiProject Catullus/Translations. I have no problem, but Willow would probably appreciate an explanation. As for your question at Talk:Catullus 16 about the inclusion of the Latin text of Catullus’ poems, I can recommend WP:NOTREPOSITORY. I feel we have quite enough on our hands in providing intelligent coverage at Catullus and Poetry of Catullus.

Once again I would like to invite you to Vicifons. The project needs new blood. I have been working on Catullus over there and would appreciate an extra pair of eyes. Regards, Aramgar (talk) 03:06, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think Willow agrees to removing the user-created translations; regardless, consensus has been reached at Talk: Poetry of Catullus.--Yolgnu (talk) 04:42, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Internet forums as sources

Hi, I noticed the edit summary of a recent edit you made to the Assassins Creed article. It read: "rv, the game itself is not a source. what is a source is eg. an internet forum thread". Per WP:V internet forums are definitely not considered reliable sources. I would recommend avoiding using them as such in your future edits and seeking reliable alternatives for any you have already used. Happy editting. Nev1 (talk) 01:40, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't express myself very well in that edit summary. I know internet forum threads are not reliable sources and have never used any as sources. I've explained what I meant on the Assassin's Creed talk page.--Yolgnu (talk) 05:38, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yolgnu, Yolgnu, Yolgnu

You're at it again!!! I've tried ignoring you, but obviously this latent hostility is still going strong your end. While it is flattering (and a little scary) to have a wiki stalker, it's getting old (scratch that, got old) fast. Move on to somebody who'll cherish you for the unique individual you so obviously are. I am not worthy of my own private Yolgnu. Adieu, adieu, adieu ;p Kalindoscopy: un enfant espiègle (talk) 12:21, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Thank you for your sympathies. I only wanted to tell him not to put up useless discussion on talk pages. I'll see you editting around the the Jew article (in which I enjoy keeping trolls there away at bay!).

Respectfully,

Tourskin (talk) 15:35, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed move of Julian the Apostate (again)

I am contacting you because you participated in a recent discussion at Talk:Julian the Apostate about changing the title of the page. That discussion closed, and immediately afterwards a new proposal was created to move the page to Julian. Please give your opinion of this new proposal at Talk:Julian the Apostate#Requested_move_2. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:36, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I approve of your edit at Julian the Apostate - it is clearer than the change I made. CopaceticThought (talk) 10:00, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vulgar Latin

Hello, I've noticed you've posted on the Vulgar Latin page. I have elaborated a research project into the morphophonological / syntactic structure Vulgar Latin from Classical Latin. The project is entitled Grammaire Hypothotique du Latin Vulgaire(Proto-Italo-Roman Occidental Vers Proto-Roman Occidental) - A Hypothetical Grammar of Vulgar Latin (Proto-Italo-Western Romance towards Proto-western Romance) - written in French. In this project I have taken the phonological changes that occurred in Classical Latin towards Vulgar Latin, and I have applied them to the 5 basic noun declinations and 3 basic adjective formations to portray a hypothetical morphophonological / syntactic structure for Vulgar Latin including prepositions, along with a list of nouns, adjectives and particles from which I believe existed during the 5th CE to the 8th CE (Obtained through present day Romance and Classical Latin comparisons). Part II of this project is an elaboration of hypothetical verbs in Vulgar Latin. This is not meant to be a written account of Vulgar Latin but an oral or phonetic representation of what many have existed during this time period. If you are at all interested in taking a look, I am looking for people interested in Romance Linguistics to discuss the project before publication. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Finitoultero (talk • contribs) 04:26, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vulgar Latin

Thank you for your quick response. Here is a link to my project.

http://sites.google.com/site/latinvulaire/Home

Merci bien —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.33.65.21 (talk) 15:32, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for catching that, it`s actually not a direct translation, it was found in the French translation of the Vulgar Latin page. I have fixed, that paragraph and it was not my attention to plagiarize or offend. Please let me know what you think of the basic concept of the project, it still has many drafts before any publication, and it is my full attention to site every source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.33.65.21 (talk) 10:04, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your honest and insightful criticism. I am going to reanalyse many areas of the project and make the appropriate adjustments. Please remember, I am in the first stages of this project and I am looking for people with an expertise (as you seem to have) in the field for critiques. Quick question - did you happen to see anything positive? Oh and in Québec (where I am from) we still say ‘baiser’ to kiss. By the way, what’s your primary field of expertise, if you don’t mind me asking? I will let you know when I’ve completed my next draft if you wish to see the changes. Thank you again for your insights. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Finitoultero (talk • contribs) 03:40, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed you deleted your verb critique. Can I ask why? 116.33.65.21 (talk) 04:02, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• From what I’ve found Vulgar Latin (as known as Proto-Italo-Western Romance) is defined as the protolanguage of Proto-Italo-Romance and Proto-Western Romance. The project presents two transformation stages of the declinations towards Proto-Western Romance. In the second stage many of the plural endings change from “i/is” (2nd Declination Datif - ịs) to “os/es” ((2nd Declination - os), this being a piece of evidence, among others, which separates the two daughter protolanguages of Proto-Italo-Western Romance from each other. “Latin parlé Tardif 1” et “Latin parlé Tardif II” c’est-à-dire durant le IIIe – VIIIe siècles de notre ère. Donc on peut dire que le projet ne traite pas exactement de latin vulgaire, parce qu’il n’était jamais une langue en tant que telle. Le latin vulgaire se traite des méthodes du comparatisme rétrospectif. C’est pour cela que j’ai mis au-dessous du titre, « Proto-Italo-Roman Occidental Vers Proto-Roman Occidental. » Je pourrais l’appeler, Latin parlé tardif, Latin parlé populaire, Latin parlé transitoire, Latin familier, Latin Évolutif, Latin Dialectalisé ou Latin Non Normé + vers Proto-Roman Occidental – j’avais choisi Latin Vulgaire.

• I will add the * thank you for that observation

• The point of the adjective list is a simple one – this is a morphosyntactic reconstruction, therefore I felt the need to portray adjectives for the use in sentence structure and translation purposes. It also shows adjectives which may have existed during this transitory stage and how the phonetic/phonological rules applied to them. However, you are right; I should implement the use of an etymology dictionary for a more professional feel. The reason I translated them to English, is because English is not a romance language, therefore, (at the time) I felt it would give a more neutral translation i.e., one that does not favour French or Spanish. However at the end of the day they turn out to be almost the same once translated. Sp. Caro, Cara – CL. karus, kara; Fr. cher, chère – CL karus, kara; En. Expensive – CL Karus, Kara.

• The two sources (along with wiki) you have attested as being unreliable - thank you I will search for their references, or delete them from the project. • As for, Filia domini tui omne nocte temptat facere librum plenum statuarum cum decem capitibus, Jacọmọs ´lẹvrọ a ´patre ´dọnat being plagiarism, how is this possible if I have stated the Websites above them from which they were copied from? Should I add La site web -----, de ------ soutient que «… » (The web page---- from----- asserts, “…”?

• The Oaths of Strasbourg, is not a French Text. It is written in a variety of Gallo-Romance showing the last stages of Vulgar Latin or the transition from Late Spoken Latin to a Romance language (Gallo-Romance). In addition, since the texts were written in 842, this coinsides perfectly with my transitory time frame; the III – VIII centuries CE.

• You stated “There's no such thing as "Written Vulgar Latin", since the language is, by definition, unattested - the Vulgate, despite its name, is definitely NOT "Written Vulgar Latin"; it's Medieval Latin, a language that was purely artificial and had no native speakers. Vulgar Latin was never written.” I agree with you and I will reevaluate this statement, however the Vulgate was written and adapted from Classical Latin scripture for the common populous, thus indicating a major change in the language. Not to mention, it was the advent of Christianity that provoked an important revolution in sentence structure and the use of articles from the influents of Greek translations of the Bible, therefore it's reference warnants recognition.

• You stated “Probably the biggest problem is the failure to include contemporary (ie. Latin) sources on Vulgar Latin. The Romans were acutely aware that their language was changing, and wrote much about it, much of which survives.” I will look to include specific sources from Peregrinatio Aetheriae, Ancient Graffiti on the walls of Pompeii and Petronii Arbitri Satyricon, along with other examples I am currently analyzing.

• You Said "[Penso que sermo vulgares est lingue̜ molta difficile" - nice poem there, but you've put a comma in by mistake]" -Thanks for the complement but it's not a comma, it's an ogonek under then "e".

Thank you, and I will get back to you as soon as I have reevaluated my project. 116.33.65.21 (talk) 16:22, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for responding.

• I realised that it wasn't a comma; that's why I removed it from your talk page.
• Sorry, but I have never seen Vulgar Latin defined as Proto-Italo-Western Romance. All definitions of Vulgar Latin I've seen define it as Proto-Romance, ie. also the ancestor of Eastern Romance. Excluding Eastern Romance seems very West-centric to me.
• You don't understand; what I was asking was what is the difference between Vulgar Latin Tardif 1 and Tardif 2.
• No, the Oaths of Strasbourg are not Vulgar Latin. They are considered the earliest attestation of a Romance language. And 842 is 9th century, not 8th century, by the way.
• Sorry, but you're completely wrong about the Vulgate. The Vulgate was not designed to be understood by the common people, in fact quite the opposite - to quote from a book I read, "The Vulgate is not indicative of spoken Latin. Spoken Latin was already dialectical (and much simplified in comparison to classical Latin) and was already well on the way to becoming the various Romance Languages (all 47 of them). As the empire was crumbling and the education system was falling apart, the Vulgate might as well have been in Greek as far as the average Roman citizen went". The Vulgate was deliberately designed not to be understood by the common people, much like Catholicism insisted on services in Latin so that people wouldn't be able to question what they were reading.
• "It was the advent of Christianity that provoked an important revolution in sentence structure and the use of articles from the influents of Greek translations of the Bible, therefore it's reference warnants recognition." This is quite a stretch, do you have any sources to back up this argument?--Yolgnu (talk) 01:45, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

___________________________

• Please take a look at the tree chart found here found in R.A. Hall Jr.’s Introductory to Linguistics. Under Proto-Italo-Western Romance in shows in parenthesis “Vulgar Latin” and at the bottom of the page it has two separate sections, Eastern Romance (aka East Latin) and Western Romance (Vulgar Latin) thus making it a variety of Proto-Romance. These two links show the distinct qualities of the sub-languages. http://www.orbilat.com/Languages/Romance/Proto-Romance.html

My project is the transition period between Proto-Italo-Western Romance (found on the chart) to Proto-Western Romance.

• Dans la référence ci-dessous se trouve la table suivante:

Banniard, Michel. Du Latin aux Langues Romans. France. Armand Colin : 1997

-Stade 1 : Latin parlé classique/Latin Parlé tardif 1 ( IIe s. av. J.-C. –IIIe S.ap.J.-C.)

-Stade 2 : Latin parlé tardif 1/ Latin Parlé tardif 2 (Ive s.-VII s.)

-Stade 3 : Latin parlé tardif 2/ Proto Roman (VIIe s.-IX s.)

• I realise that the Oaths of Strasbourg are considered the earliest attestation of a Romance Language, however this in itself means it contains a wealth of information in which Latin parlé tardif II can be attested. i.e., ‘abante’; Modern Fr. Avant/ Modern Italian: Davante; CL: ab + ante = ab ante with the CL B and V shift to ß or V one can deduce the word ‘abante’ probably sounded like */aßánte/. One can also see Latin endings such as –um,-em-am still in use. `Hoc`, common to Latin texts, is still present and verb endings have yet to be morphologically changed – suum, sapientem, potestatem –*suo, *saßiente, *postate, and of course there is no evidence of diphthongs appearing yet –suum- sui; postate – Peut (just an example of diphthongs). There are still no use articles – “Pro Dei amore et pro Christiano poplo” - Pour l'amour de Dieu et pour le chrétien peuple.

In Brief, there are many more examples which make the Oaths of Strasbourg more like Latin parlé Tardif II than Proto-Gallo-Romance.

If you look at the Banniard, Michel table above you’ll see that Latin Parlé Tardif II extends in to the VII -IX centuries – during the time frame when the Oaths of Strasbourg were written. I choose to stop my project at the VIII century due to the fact that from the VIII century onward, Proto-Western-Romance becomes a completely new project all together.

• As far as the Vulgate not being Vulgar Latin, I never stated it was. I even have it titled as Latin Tardif Écrit Late Written Latin aka Medieval Latin. I wanted to show a translation of a few of the passages into a hypothetical spoken Latin of VIII century, this is one reason I used IPA characters in the translation. In my conclusion I even wrote: “Le latin vulgaire que j’ai créé n’est pas la langue qui se trouve dans le Vulgate ni dans les textes anciens du latin médiéval. • From what I met by the common populous, I have underlined in the following quote by József Herman, found on the Wiki article for Vulgar Latin: “It seems certain that in the sixth century, and quite likely into the early parts of the seventh century, people in the main Romanized areas could still largely understand the biblical and liturgical texts and the commentaries (of greater or lesser simplicity) that formed part of the rites and of religious practice, and that even later, throughout the seventh century, saints' lives written in Latin could be read aloud to the congregations with an expectation that they would be understood.”

• "It was the advent of Christianity that provoked an important revolution in sentence structure and the use of articles from the influents of Greek translations of the Bible, therefore it's reference warrants recognition." This is quite a stretch, do you have any sources to back up this argument?

Sources :

Harrington et al. (1997). (Also found in the Wiki article: Vulgar Latin) “This demonstrative is used in a number of contexts in some early texts in ways that suggest that the Latin demonstrative was losing its force. The Vetus Latina Bible contains a passage Est tamen ille dæmon sodalis peccati ("The devil is a companion of sin"), in a context that suggests that the word meant little more than an article. The need to translate sacred texts that were originally in Greek, which had a definite article, may have given Christian Latin an incentive to choose a substitute. Aetheria uses ipse similarly: per mediam vallem ipsam ("through the middle of the valley"), suggesting that it too was weakening in force.”

Source : Banniard, Michel. Du Latin aux Langues Romans. France. Armand Colin : 1997 page 25₱ 2/3

En brève : « Au cours de toute l’histoire de la latinité, la littérature s’est bâtie sur le latin parlé classique, revu et corrigé par les créatures littéraires…. [Ils] impliquent de manière permanente une distanciation plus ou moins considérable de la langue spontanée et de ses variations, autrement dit, elle repose sur la réélaboration grammaticale et stylistique du parlé quotidien :`à la fois identité et distance…. Cette situation change avec l’arrivée du Christianisme. Il n’est plus question de limiter de manière arbitraire l’extension du message chrétien. Un double mouvement provoque une révolution langagière dont les effets se font nettement sentir en Occident latin à partir du IIIe Siècle : D’un part, la langue écrite des premiers monuments chrétiens, forment marquée parce qu’ils sont le résultat de traductions, la plupart du temps du grec de la Koiné, diverge considérablement de la tradition littéraire romaine; d’autre part, les locuteurs/auditeurs auxquels est destiné l’enseignement chrétien n’appartiennent pas à l’élite normée et disciplinée des latinophones. »

-Thanks again for your help and advise Finitoultero (talk) 15:14, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

_______________________________________________

I think I got ahead of myself. Before you completely discredit me, I wasn’t quoting the Classical Latin translation; I was quoting the Vulgar Latin translation of the Oaths of Strasbourg. Found here: http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Strasbourg-Oaths And when you look at my section on the Oaths of Strasbourg you’ll see an oral (hence the APA characters) representation of the Oaths of Strasbourg in Latin parlé Tardif:

• Pro Dei amore e pro Christiano poblo e nostro communi salvamento, de esta die in aßante, in quanto Deos saßere e podire me donat, si salvaro ego ecčisto meo fradro Karlo, e in adjuto ero in cata una cosa si quomodo homo per derecto suo fradre salvare deßet, in hoc que ille me altero si fačeret; e a Lothario nullo plačido nunquan prendero quo meo volle ecčisti meo fradri Karlo in damno sit.

MF OF CL VL LPT
avant avant abante *ab ante *aßante
Charles Karlo Karlum *Carolum *Karlo
frère fradre fratrem *fratrem *fradre
nul numquam numquam *nunquam *nunquan
ce Hoc hoc *hoc *hoc
sont son suum *suum *son

Please compare the orginal below, with mine from above.

Pro Deo amur et pro Christian poblo et nostro commun salvament, d'ist di in avant, in quant Deus savir et podir me dunat, si salvarai eo cist meon fradre Karlo et in ajudha et in cadhuna cosa, si cum om per dreit son fradra salvar dift, in o quid il me altresi fazet, et ab Ludher nul plaid numquam prindrai, qui, meon vol, cist meon fradre Karle in damno sit.

When looked at in Latin Parlé Tarif, it has an astounding resemblance to the Old French version.

So allow me to clarify: When I said, there are many more examples which make the Oaths of Strasbourg more like Latin parlé Tardif II than Romance, it is this comparison in which I am basing my information. Finitoultero (talk) 06:18, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deus

Regarding your change and comment in Latin declension, how can "deus" not have had a vocative singular in Latin? What word did Romans use when addressing God (well, other than when using a different word, like "Domine")? Whatever form they used is by definition the vocative singular, no? —Largo Plazo (talk) 13:12, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

in answer to the above question: I do know that in medieval/ecclesiastical Latin, "Jesu" was often used as the Vocative form of "Jesus", but of course, this would not exist in the Classical Latin "Deus". Either way, Yolgnu: I have added a discussion section on the talk page for Latin declension: Talk:Latin declension#Vocative of Deus did not exist in Classical Latin? can you please explain what you mean there? --Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici (talk) 17:52, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sock accusations

Please state your reasons for assuming this. I consider it a personal attack at least. 78.149.145.54 (talk) 09:38, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article about Tunisia

Hi, I noticed your changes made to the article about Tunisia. I don´t quite understand those changes. According to you they we´re advertisement and unsourced.

The first part of the article, mentioning Tunisia as beeing a "well known tourist destination" and Tunisia as beeing ranked 32nd in a report by The WEF, was unsourced. Wich I admit.

However the section about projects going on in the country was sourced. There was a section about two projects going on in Tunisia (Med. Gate. and Tunis Sports City). You removed these, and I don´t see why. Do you mean they were advertisement? In that case, is the article about the eiffel tower advertisement for Paris? They were also sourced. So why did you remove these sections? ThanksAdnanK (talk) 12:12, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Catullus

Sorry you did not understand my edit summary. You have unilaterally removed from view content not included in the redirect target. The subject(s) is/are notable enough to have it's/their own article(s). The content does not violate WP:NOT. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. Some of us worked very hard to dredge up what little information exists after more than 1,000 years on the subject(s), and as an encyclopedia with have an obligation to preserve and perpetuate knowledge that will otherwise be lost.

It would be better to seek consensus before unilaterally redirecting en masse the work of others. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 14:09, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is not notable enough to have its own article. Yes, it violates WP:NOT because it is nothing more than the text with a synopsis.--Yolgnu (talk) 07:20, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to help with Catullus, work on the Catullus and Poetry of Catullus articles (the latter soon to be merged with the former). Catullus needs to be at least a good article before we even consider working on individual poem articles (by the way, I did not redirect all the articles; a substantial amount met Wikipedia standards, and have been preserved.--Yolgnu (talk) 09:49, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Provençal

You said you removed Provençal from a list in Vulgar Latin of major languages that descended from Latin because it isn't an important language. At the time, it was an important language, widely spoken across southern France, and of special significance because it was the language of the troubadours in medieval times. —Largo Plazo (talk) 13:17, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retired?

Hi Yolgnu,

You might not be reading this anymore, but I was sorry to see that you had retired suddenly. I'll hold out hope that you might come back someday and we can work on improving the list of poems by Catullus together once again... :) Peace be with you wherever you wander, Willow (talk) 13:10, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[6]

See debate. 89.243.57.7 (talk) 19:30, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Idol Stuff.

I just want to make sure we don't clash in an edit war, but rather work in harmony. So I wanted to ask you why you feel it's necessary to shorten the "judges' save/no save" comments? I mean, the statements you left are pretty redundant and might as well be removed completely as it's quite apparent they did not get saved if they're listed as eliminated.

Furthermore, never mention National Enquirer stuff on any Wikipedia article. It's pointless, as that's a tabloid, and tabloids are not always factual. Unless Adam or Kris speak about said "feud" next week or so publicly, it's unsubstantiated, and therefore, irrelevant. Due to this being AI and all, there are hundreds of stories about semifinalists, finalists, conspiracies, corruption, judges, producers, etc.--One prime example is Adam Lambert's gay kissing pictures. On its own, there was no purpose served by including it in the article. But when it was featured on The O'Reilly Factor, and Adam addressed the issue to a reporter, THAT made it significant =).

And I'm thinking for the individual Idols who are still left, it is pointless to mention every performance. Ergo, straining to include a panned performance is silly. Not only was Kris Allen's Top 8 performance meh, but it wasn't even a trainwreck. It was just there. It adds nothing to the article. Everyone has criticized performances, but in order to keep the Idol sections less cluttered, it's best only to focus on the notable ones. The notable ones being the ones with either the biggest raves or the most controversy (aka the trainwrecks--see: Megan Joy or Scott MacIntyre).

However, that reminds me that Lambert's page mentions, to my knowledge, each and every performance. That is ridiculous. Since you love cleanup, I beg of you to scan THAT page over =P.

Good day. Hope to hear back from you.--Cinemaniac86^Oy_gevalt. 01:44, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, that makes sense. I apologize for laying blame on you then ^_^.

And I'm glad to hear that. I actually was bored and tidied it up myself just now. I think it's at a pretty satisfactory level, don't you? I mean, it mentions EVERY PERFORMANCE, but at the same time, he has received judges' praise for every performance. I'd say if we were to clean it up further, deleting the Top 9 and first Top 7 performances are the only ones we wouldn't get much flack for, as they're the least notable (being that they're the only ones he didn't rearrange in a notable way). There's also his semis performance, but I guess that can stay?

I'm working on adding some material to Matt Giraud's page right now. I'd work on Danny Gokey's, too, but it makes me nauseous :].--Cinemaniac86^Oy_gevalt. 03:18, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So now you empathize with my dilemma on trying to be fair to the others, haha =P. Danny was my favorite at his audition, but I can't stand the overpimped and douchey. Matt annoyed me at first, but he's sorta grown on me. Like that mole on his fivehead.

On this subject, who are your favorites? ^_^ Both of the remaining 5 and all season. (So many robbed--Ricky, Felicia, Jesse, Ju'Not, Mishavonna, etc.....And the underappreciated Megan and Alexis went too soon. Caw-Caw!) I still dig Matt, my fourth, and really like Allison, my third, as well. But it is safe to say that I love Allen and Lambert the most. They're my two favorites, respectively.--Cinemaniac86^Oy_gevalt. 03:36, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Idol never announced that Allison and Danny were "Top 2" and are under no obligation to do so. The only thing we know for certain is that Giraud was sent home. Putting "Top 2" is not in keeping with prior precedent. Please stop changing it to that. Please see David Cook (singer) for evidence of precedent. Unitanode 02:28, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kris, Adam and Matt were announced as the Bottom 3 and Ryan further announced that Adam and Matt were the bottom 2. Allison and Danny are therefore top 2.--Yolgnu (talk) 03:28, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is original research and isn't allowed. YOU need consensus to support changing precedent. See my above example, and please don't edit war to enforce your own view here. Precedent says we simply put "Safe" when contestants aren't in the bottom 3. It's your edit that is problematic, not mine. Unitanode 04:08, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Don't leave "warnings" on my page for "inappropriate behavior" when I've done nothing wrong at all. Have you taken a look at the previous Idol pages that provide precedent against your attempts to put "Top 2" next to Danny and Allison? If not, please do so before "warning" others about restoring the status quo "Safe" terminology. Unitanode 18:04, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The old section is too cluttered, so....

Sorry I took ages to respond to you. I am incredibly lazy--especially when bombarded with conversation ^_^.

I agree with some things, such as Ricky and Jesse not having a fair game; Lil being a pain in the ass; Megan being AWESOME; Allison being incredible; Alexis was overrated, but I felt bad for her, and even worse when her article was retardedly deleted; and hooray for us getting our dream finale of Kris & Adam <3.--Cinemaniac86^Oy_gevalt. 23:57, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I laughed when you wrote this, actually. I had just downloaded it. (I download every studio and give it a fair, objective chance. Listening to some, I'm often surprised.) That little, and completely irrelevant, sermon in the middle of "September" was hilariously stupid. It's dance, not gospel, turd.--Cinemaniac86^Oy_gevalt. 23:57, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I like trivia. But these are also concrete facts about the show that one coming for information would certainly be glad to know =). I can agree though that the pimp spot and African-American mentions aren't all that significant. But Allison being eliminated, thereby creating the first all-male Top 3 IS an achievement for the show, and thus is worthy of a mention. Or at least on the primary page, if not Allison's personal page. What sayeth you?--Cinemaniac86^Oy_gevalt. 23:57, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know it seems weird to list Anoop/Lil like that, but it's a little more proper. We can't verify it, and there for, encyclopedically, can not make calls on our own. Same goes for Jorge/Jasmine--no matter how obvious it is in both cases, haha.--Cinemaniac86^Oy_gevalt. 23:57, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

M'kay, what does this have to do with anything? Have you been stalking me? How did you find this out, what's the point, and most importantly, what "misinformation" are you referring to? I'd like specifics, please.

Me having an account over there to read and occasionally bitch about a certain contestant, or just get a laugh out of the overreacting tards, has no bearing on my credibility, especially because I also have accounts at other fan forums, where I am more active, as in general, I kind of like stuff. Especially Kradam stuff, this season.--Cinemaniac86^Oy_gevalt. 23:57, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, okay. Where is this list? I'm amused. I enjoy VFTW, but I add credible information here. The only infraction of mine here was causing a maelstrom of angst when Alexis's article was wrongfully nominated and granted deletion.

Also, please do not delete the Kris Allen hometown performances. I am reading through articles, to determine which is the best and credible source. I'm getting distracted, too, but I will find something worthwhile, don't worry.--Cinemaniac86^Oy_gevalt. 01:29, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No Boundaries (song)

Hi Yolgnu. Thanks for the work you're putting into the AI-related articles. One concern: In my view sourcing to a blog as you did here is not adequate for introducing negative material like this. Do you have a more reliable source you could cite? Paul Erik ^(talk)(contribs) 04:12, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The following note...

"Kris Allen, Adam Lambert and Matt Giraud were announced as the Bottom 3, while Iraheta and Danny Gokey were declared safe." does NOT belong in Allison Iraheta's performance section. The note appears redundant and it doesn't further clarify anything and thus does not improve the article. All the note basically does is tell us who was and wasn't in the bottom 3 that week which is not necessary or relevent exlusively to Allison. Its silly and pointless to put a note like this for one random week. Please stop adding it. Do not change it to "Top 2" either, as user Unitanode pointed out, precedent is to just put "safe" when a contestant isnt in the bottom 3 or 2. Thank you. MarkMc1990 (talk) 18:22, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you being so defensive? I am trying to have a constructive editting conversation with you and you are just as guilty of edit warring as I am. And the reason I am getting worked up over it is because it is distracting and disrupts the flow of the chart. I have not "vandalized" anything on Elliott Yamin's page, and if your using his page as precedent to list "Top 2", then I think you need to check out Kelly Clarkson, Kimberley Locke, Diana DeGarmo, Jasmine Trias, Carrie Underwood, Bo Bice, Katharine McPhee, Chris Daughtry, Danny Gokey, etc, all which list "Safe" at the Top 4/5 weeks, to get a further idea of predecent. So until you gain consensus to list "Top 2" or a note, I urge you to please leave it as simply "safe". Now can we please have a constructive conversation concerning the matter? Perhapse you would like to start by telling me why you wish to list "top 2" for that week? MarkMc1990 (talk) 22:50, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will grant you that that is indeed significant, however I still feel you should get consesus first before going against status quo. If anything, I feel like the table itself should say "Safe" and the note should mention that she was in the top 2, not the other way around. MarkMc1990 (talk) 07:18, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Allison Iraheta

I saw you again reversed the comment about Iraheta being of Salvadorian decent. I added it back in. The comment is marked with a {{fact}} tag associated with the comment. Generally unsourced comments with {{fact}} tags are given a bit of time to "sour" before they are removed by other editors. The reason is someone else may be able to provide a source. By marking it with the {{fact}} it also lets readers know the statement is somewhat in question.

Thanks for you diligence in editing and improving Wikipedia articles. ttonyb1 (talk) 15:05, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Mezzo-soprano

I don't get it: First I spell out the phrase "witches, bitches, and britches" used in opera circles to describe typical roles of the Mezzo-soprano and "ClueBot" reverts it and warns me for putting mild profanity in the article. Then, after reporting the false-positive, redoing the edit complete with a citation for the phrase, and blanking the "B-word" to avoid offending readers and triggering automatic filters, you come in here and accuse me of maliciously censoring things. I can't win -- good grief—Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.176.7.3 (talk • contribs) 20:31, 3 June, 2009 (UTC)

Please stay civil

Do not violate WP:BLP

And please take your personal grudges somewhere else.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Bulldog123 (talk • contribs) 03:14, 5 June, 2009 (UTC)

Edit summaries

Making accusations against other editors, especially in an edit summary (see Help:Edit summary#Use of edit summaries in disputes), is unacceptable. [7] Please stop. Paul Erik ^(talk)(contribs) 12:20, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Related ethnic groups

Hi, there's a problem with saying that either Jews or Arabs are related to each other and "other Semitic peoples". The thing is, study after study shows that the term Semitic has no relevance to genetics.[8][9][10], and there can't be said to be a any uniform Semitic culture, so all we're left with is language. So either it should say that these people are related to other Middle Eastern peoples, which seems more ambiguous but really isn't, or simply be left out. FunkMonk (talk) 12:34, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Hahah, yeah, I don't even remember what my own view was back then, or what yours was... FunkMonk (talk) 15:57, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

hi

I have moved our discussion to the article talk page. Let's work constructively together to debunk this. Thanks Green Squares (talk) 15:50, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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 wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:46, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]