User talk:Xil

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

This user is no longer very active on Wikipedia.

I really don't care[edit]

Hi! I wanted just to notice that you have two "User religion" templates on your userpage. --Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 11:13, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

FRK, don't you believe in redundancy to help to rub in the message? :) (thanks, fixed) ~~Xil (talk) 12:33, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Zigrids Meierovics.jpg[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Zigrids Meierovics.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Dianna (talk) 01:36, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Danish Expert discussion at ANI[edit]

I've started a discussion at WP:ANI about this user. You can leave a comment at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Copyright_violations_by_User:Danish_Expert. TDL (talk) 21:33, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 11[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Baltic Way, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Stone bridge and Drabeši (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:11, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Revolutions of 1989 online Wikipedia challenge[edit]

Baltijos kelyje ties Šeškine.jpg

Hello, Xil! We are looking for editors to join the Europeana 1989 challenge, a multilingual Wikipedia Challenge where all of the participants are invited to improve Wikipedia articles related to the European Revolutions of 1989 in their own language. We have selected a short list of topics that may be improved or translated. As you have already edited some of the listed articles, we thought you might be interested, and accept the challenge. Hope that you will join us. Thanks!!!

--Kippelboy (talk) 15:41, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Dievs, svēti Latviju[edit]

Hello there. Your latest version (daughters of Latvians etc.) is fine. I am puzzled, though, whenever a non-native speaker of EN seeks to overrule a native. The comment you added to your latest amendment does not mean anything in English that I can discern. Still, we can both live with the latest version. Good luck, I respect anyone who makes a contribution to Wiki.Tdls (talk) 17:54, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Clearly "X ethnonym son/daughter" must mean something as the same construction is used elsewhere - see, for example, American Son and I wound plenty other examples online. Frankly I am puzzled why somebody to whom the text seems meaningless would find themselves qualified to translate it, no mater what their native language is. But as I said - I am not interested in arguing about this ~~Xil (talk) 18:43, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Nonsense. It is obvious that you are extremely interested in arguing about it. For that reason, despite your indefensible rudeness, I will try to explain it better.
If you really, honestly, truly can’t understand that a native speaker might have something to teach you about a language you speak imperfectly, there may not be any point, but I’m willing to try.
Adjectives of nationality do not translate simply between LV and EN: latviešu/latvju can take many forms in EN. For example: latvju/latviešu karavīri can be Latvian soldiers, soldiers of Latvia, the Latvian soldiers, the soldiers of Latvia, Latvians’ soldiers, the Latvians’ soldiers and more. Latvju/latviešu valoda is normally just Latvian, sometimes the Latvian language, very occasionally the language of the Latvians, etc. Most foreigners agree that they have great difficulty sensing which usage is right in each case. Their only option is to trust a native speaker.
The other way around is the same: when is Latvian cuisine Latvijas virtuve and when is it latviešu virtuve? I don’t know. I rely on a native speaker to tell me.
This is called usage. Any person who has made a serious attempt to master any foreign language encounters usage problems, and needs a native speaker for help. Es taču neiedomājos, ka es labāk runāju latviski nekā paši latvieši? It sevišķi nianšu jautājumos? Valodas apgūšanai vajag pazemību. Bez tās neviens neko nevar mācīties.
The Latvian daughters is grammatically correct but wrong usage. Your latest suggestion, the daughters of Latvians is perfectly good English, but suggests that you are referring only to children (you will be a son/daughter of Latvia until you die, but once you are an adult most people would not think of you as a son/daughter of Latvians, even though you probably are) – this is true whether you believe me or not. In addition, the daughters of Latvians is prosaic and therefore inappropriate for a national anthem.
That you refer to American Son rather shows your limitations: firstly, American Son does not mean the same as The American Son (a difference that most Latvians are blind to); secondly, it is singular and not plural; thirdly it is not part of a sentence; fourthly, any native speaker will tell you that it is a striking and strange combination of words; fifthly, of course, it refers to the American son of non-American parents and is therefore irrelevant to the Latvian national anthem.
Again, you can choose to take my word for it, or to imagine that you know better. I will now amend the national anthem on Wiki. If you subsequently choose to override my corrections with a cack-handed translation, I cannot stop you. But by doing so, you will make Latvia look silly. And you will send a message to the world that Latvians are arrogant know-alls. Un tas, kā mēs abi zinām, nav īstenība.Tdls (talk) 15:37, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
If I am being rude, it is because you are being rude and the fact that you reverted my latest change, even after agreeing that it is fine, goes long way to show that you are simply interested in waging a flame war. The text has been there for pretty long time, I am pretty sure you are not the first native English speaker to see it, surely there have been other people, some of whom might even be bilingual and speak Latvian natively. Poetry is not exactly the form of speech where you find common constructions and the point of translating the thing is to give people who don't speak Latvian idea what it actually says, not to make it say what you think it should say. Latvia and Latvians, and also happiness and joy are different things. If you had taken some time to read "history" section of the article you might have noticed that the lyrics were written half a century before the country was ever established and speaks of Latvian people wanting to establish their own country and live there happily ever after, rather than people of that (back then hypothetical) country frolicking around joyfully at the present time. Thinking this through I decided that this is more important than some arrogant know-it-all thinking it makes Latvian people look like children, pretty sure people who care will understand that it is not what it means. ~~Xil (talk) 21:31, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
As I suspected, there was no point trying to explain it to you. Much of your remarkably peevish reply is irrational or irrelevant. However, I am not going to contradict you. I simply can’t be bothered. Your fury when gently questioned about a trifle is a sign of immaturity. And your resort to ad hominem insolence puts you beneath my contempt. Your point of view therefore has no value for me. No need to answer this, I won’t read it. I’m just not interested. I’ll leave you alone with your unsubstantiated certainties and your bad temper.

Vēlējuma izteiksme[edit]

Hi, I missed your message (also haven't edited in quite a while.)

If you ask me, Latvian "vēlējuma izteiksme" (e.g., darītu) should be only called "conditional." I have actually debated removing "conjunctive/subjunctive" from the list of moods in Latvian grammar#Verbs. The names "subjunctive" and "conjunctive," imo, stem from Romance languages where a subordinate clause or a subordinate clause introduced by a specific conjunction require a specific mood (congiuntivo in Italian, subjuntivo in Spanish.) For example, Italian: speriamo, che compri or Spanish esperamos que compre ("[mēs] ceram, ka viņš nopirktu") instead of [lui] compra / [él] compra ("viņš pērk.") There is no such a thing in Latvian (and no other languages that I know of, besides Romance.) Romance languages do, however, have a conditional which actually matches Latvian vēl. izt., in Spanish, for example, ending in -ía - [él] vendría si podría - "[viņš] atnāktu, ja varētu." These can actually be translated directly without sounding awkward and more importantly just like vēlējuma izteiksme they imply a condition.

But English language literature should be consulted probably. As far as ailab/ and Latvian "filologi" go, I have very little trust that they can get anything right. I actually try to avoid quoting liis as much as possible because it's year 2013 and they still haven't done as little as correcting the encoding on their essays on grammar (Icelandic and Portuguese letters, like â and ð show instead of ā or š.) This could be corrected with one line of HTML - specifying UTF-8 as encoding, but I guess that's too advanced for them (and plain embarrassing for me!)

Furthermore, I have doubts that they are able to get even the most basic grammar stuff right, as the "zina" fiasco showed, for example. It belongs to the same exact conjugation as dziedāt, i.e., "viņš dzied, viņš zin." They, I guess, decided that it should be delegated to the subcategory of iterative/frequentative verbs with the suffix -in- (-ināt, -ināties,) except, zin- is one of the most common PIE roots in existence, as in Lith. žin-, Slavic zna-, Germanic kna-, kno-, ken-, Greek gno-, etc. Basically what I'm trying to say with this example is that, in my opinion, it's best to avoid any Latvian language sources (even if they're written in English) because (imo) they seem clueless about the most basic of morphology, grammar, etc. Neitrāls vārds (talk) 04:22, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Uh, have you ever read Wikipedia:No original research? As far as I am concerned those sites are grammar reference which represent mainstream views. Minor coding problems (they don't use foreign letters, rather they have set the site to Baltic encoding which mostly displays incorrectly unless you switch to it manually) and you disliking Latvian linguists are not valid reasons to ignore or remove these sources. You should rather represent main stream views and then mention opposing views from other sources. But anyways my concern was that it would be best to pick terms that aren't applied to different mood in other sources, it would be confusing for readers, it's just a minor issue I noted, I am not going to protest, do as you wish ~~Xil (talk) 08:56, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

OK, that message I left borders on a full-blown rant. Even Encyclopaedia Britannica has many errors, those liis type sites, however, I trust very "selectively" and in the event there has been an error identified in, say, Britannica it does not mean that it should still be added (granted any reference is better than no reference, but in that situation simply finding another source would be better.) In reality you actually suggested another name for atstāst. izt. not vēl. izt. (which I'm rambling about above.) The thing is, it already has three names: quotative, relative and inferential and those names actually make sense (quote = citēt, relate = atstāstīt, infer = spekulēt.) Ailab calling it "conjunctive" (a common name that would be most closely translated as "vēlējuma izteiksme") does not help it adds confusion, which I'm trying to avoid. And then I went on a rant that there might not even be "conjunctive/subjunctive" (in the "vēlējuma izteiksme" sense) but only conditional in Latvian. I wouldn't include that in the article unless I find discussion about this in (preferably English-language) books. And I most definitely know what WP:OR is, I like as many references as possible and for these references to actually make sense.

So, there could be discussion whether to call atstāst. izt. quot., rel. or infer. (I kind of prefer quotative, Idk why) but otherwise I don't see the need for extra names (esp., if they are suggested by a source that, imo, cannot be fully trusted and better sources are available.) Neitrāls vārds (talk) 00:42, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Chaging figures without providing a source[edit]

While it's of course important that we provide up-to-date information, I mostly undid this edit, because you did not provide a source. The source can very well be in Latvian, but a source is needed. Currently hoping this article could be posted to the In The News section of the Main page, but it's required that good sourcing at least for the core facts is used before that can be done. --hydrox (talk) 07:22, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

It is useless to try to get firm victim count, when there still are people in the ruins and other facts are as uncertain. This is likely to change fast and really it would be more important to get out the latest count, than try to find written and accessible source for it. This can be done later, there are plenty articles with sketchy sources ~~Xil (talk) 07:33, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
It took me less than 30 seconds to find a source with the alleged figure and Google Translate it. I have previously worked on several disaster-related Wikipedia articles, and found that requiring sourcing is the only way to keep rumours and hysteric people from messing up the article as the big picture of the event develops. If we don't require sourcing, Wikipedia becomes as "useful" news source for this kind of event as Twitter and other medias where anyone can claim anything. Even at the expense of temporarily having slightly outdated info in a situation like this it's still a strength to require sourcing, not a shortcoming. --hydrox (talk) 07:48, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Hysteric people don't need English Wikipedia for news in this case. Also fire&rescue services twitter is currently the best source along with television. It is your issue if you don't even want to trust one of the main Latvian news agencies. I would appreciate if you didn't revert my figures just because they are not up on your google translation yet ~~Xil (talk) 07:55, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
You seem to have misunderstood. I welcome Latvian news agencies' reports. All I am saying is that "who said what" (citing the source) is required even in disaster articles. --hydrox (talk) 08:05, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Please notice ip ,[edit]

Hi , Please notice, ip user and ip ,, Vandalism a lot of articles , please stop these ip user , thank youMBINISIDLERS (talk) 08:53, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

You should go to WP:ANI with this, I am not admin on this wiki, so I don't see how I can help you with this ~~Xil (talk) 08:57, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

ANI Notification[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. :bloodofox: (talk) 08:34, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 5 July[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:24, 6 July 2014 (UTC)