User talk:TaivoLinguist

#FreeSavchenko

Archives

Torlakian dialects

Hi Taivo. You can find my most recent proposal to solve the problem here. Feel free to comment on it. Best regards.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 19:35, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Now I see your point, but it's simply impossible to compare languages and dialects. If there is no existing article about the dialects of Serbo-Croatian, then feel free to create one instead of making a non-sense comparison. Best.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:40, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

There is not an article on dialects of Serbo-Croatian. There are articles on dialects of Macedonian and Bulgarian. If you want to create an article on dialects of Serbo-Croatian, then create one yourself. I am simply working with the articles that exist at this time. But because there are three different articles, then you need to build consensuses on three different articles. --Taivo (talk) 21:52, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

To compare languages and dialects is like to compare apples and oranges. If you're knowledgeable enough, you should surely know how to distinguish the one from the other. And please refrain from being indolent and ignorant about this issue. Leaving comments that you're "simply working with the articles that exist at this time" does not assume good faith and will not solve the problem. I need someone who will collaborate on my most recent proposal. If you don't like to do it, then I'll have to change it myself. Best regards.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:04, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Let's hear it, how do you distinguish the two? — Lfdder (talk) 00:47, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

The best linguists in the world can't reliably or consistently distinguish languages from dialects. And, Kiril, you are confusing Wikipedia article titles with reality. Perhaps you should walk away from your computer once in a while. Where we place the information about Torlakian doesn't make it a language or a dialect, it is simply placing it in the right Wikipedia article. It's got nothing to do with whether Torlakian is actually a dialect or a language in the real world. --Taivo (talk) 03:09, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

And, Kiril, you clearly don't understand the Wikipedia process of WP:BRD. Read it before you edit again. It means that if you propose a change and someone (anyone) reverts you, you do not keep trying to push the edit in the article and demand that people justify their revert. It means that if you are reverted, you have to justify the change on the Talk Page and build a consensus for the change before you edit the article again. You have the process backwards. "I need someone who will collaborate on my most recent proposal" is simply more evidence that you don't understand WP:CONSENSUS and WP:BRD. Just because you have an idea, doesn't mean that you get to implement it without building a consensus first. You don't seem to understand WP:AGF either. It also doesn't mean that if you have an idea you can implement it over the objections of other editors. If you persist in your stubbornness, there are editors who might very well report you for disruptive editing. --Taivo (talk) 03:14, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Uhm, Taivo, you are aware you just broke 3RR too? You might want to be careful, as it's now listed at WP:AN3. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:56, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Your sneaky game against me and the block only gave me inspiration to meet your ignorant behaviour that you're "simply working with the articles that exist at this time" and thus create the article on Dialects of Serbo-Croatian. You're welcome to come back and discuss it on the talk page on Serbo-Croatian once again. Best regards.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 01:35, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Read WP:NPA. And perhaps you didn't notice that it wasn't me who reported you. Indeed, I warned you that someone else might. But you ignored me and all my warnings about WP:BRD. Apparently you have learned nothing new. --Taivo (talk) 03:28, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

This is not a personal attack and sorry if you understood it as such. I know that you didn't report me and that's another business with that user, but you sent him regards on his talk page which is far from being a fair and tollerant behaviour if you're thankful for blocking other users. My intent once again for a dozenth time is not to illustrate any point, but to answer the requests that I received from readers who were complaining that some articles on Wikipedia contain disputed facts. When I came here to do it, I was blocked. That's all. So, please come back on the talk page to discuss the validity of adding link to the newly generated article Dialects of Serbo-Croatian instead all of these dialects as it's the case with the articles on Macedonian and Bulgarian. You mentioned yourself that you're working on the existing article and now there is such an article. Best regards.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:58, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

You were blocked because you refused to learn or to follow long-established rules of how to get things done. You were blocked because you ignored the warnings of others and proceeded to do what you wanted to do without working to build any WP:CONSENSUS. If you follow that path again, you will be blocked again for a longer period of time. And "sneaky game", "ignorant behavior" are indeed personal attacks. If you don't think they are personal attacks, then perhaps you need to reconsider your participation in the English Wikipedia. --Taivo (talk) 10:48, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorry if you got it wrong, but personal attack for me as well is to see that someone is content with my block and is even thankful in public about it. But our business here is not to compare our egos and to collaborate on improving content's quality. You still didn't answer on my call to consider the inclusion of the article I've recently created. Best. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:23, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Groundless revert of an edit to tweak the content in the article's infobox". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 16 November 2013.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 20:31, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Population inflation

... this time at Polish language, in case you're interested. — kwami (talk) 13:38, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Comanche

Hi, I've just reverted your recent edit to Comanche as changing (White Eagle) to (Coyote's Vagina) seemed rather odd. But then I took a look at your user page ... so, perhaps you could enlighten me about the name and maybe redo the edit with an explanation and/or supporting reference. Thanks, Vsmith (talk) 13:41, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Ach ... never mind, I just took a look at Isa-tai and restored your edit. Too quick on the trigger there - sorry 'bout that. Vsmith (talk) 13:51, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Useful study

Hi Taivo, I posted the following at Ivan Štambuk's page, but I think that you, kwami and JorisvS could find this useful too when countering Balkan nationalists defecating on the talk pages and articles involving BCS.

--- "Hi Ivan, I was directed to a paper describing an experiment done a few years ago by an American linguist, John Bailyn, concerning Croatian and Serbian. He basically had Croats translate several Serbian texts and found that the results support the single-language hypothesis on analysis of grammar alone because of the lack of modification done to the texts. No doubt this is another blow to the nationalist braintrust on Croatian Wikipedia that continually resorts to ad hominems and non-linguistic argumentation to preserve the image of Croatian and Serbian being different languages like Dutch and German or Danish and Swedish. The study is at https://linguistics.stonybrook.edu/sites/default/files/uploads/u5/publications/JSLBCS2.pdf" ---

LAuburger (talk)

Check your

email. Dougweller (talk) 14:41, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning Groundless revert of an edit to tweak the content in the article's infobox, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, Sunray (talk) 02:52, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

ANI discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:09, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Arbitration request

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Serbo-Croatian infobox dispute and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks,--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 01:50, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Arbitration request

The arbitration request naming you as a party has been [1] declined by the Committee. The comments at the request may be useful in moving forward. For the Arbitration Committee, Rschen7754 22:21, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

IE

Hi Taivo,

You made a comment in an old discussion that "Indo-European" ... preserves a very archaic bifurcation into "Indian world" and "European world". Sort of leaves out Iranian, Armenian, Anatolian, etc. Actually, I don't think it reflects any such bifurcation. "Indo-Germanic" was coined in 1810 for the languages "from the Ganges to Iceland", simply reflecting its geographic extent. Celtic was not yet known to be IE, but Iceland was still the western extreme, so that might not have mattered. Bopp preferred "Indo-European", and "Indo-Germanic" seems to have fallen out of favor outside of Germany some time around the world wars, though I can't tell if anti-German sentiment played a role. (It's still "Indo-Germanic" in Germany.) So AFAICT it doesn't reflect an archaic bifurcation any more than Uto-Aztecan or Oto-Manguean do. — kwami (talk) 02:38, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I think you hit the nail on the head with "old discussion". I can't remember what the issue was or why I made the comment. Context is everything :) --Taivo (talk) 21:23, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

It was in the discussion to move the Tai–Kadai article to its current name, where you said that it wasn't the only family name to reflect an obsolete classification. It's not important any more, I just came across it again and thought the point might be relevant in the future. — kwami (talk) 23:03, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Middle Persian

Would you happen to know or have an opinion about this statement, "Middle Persian was highly inluenced by the Aramaic language. It is estimated that about half of its vocabulary was Semitic in origin."? It was recently added to the Middle Persian article.[2] --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:59, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

I doubt the "half" part, but the rest is certainly true. Aramaic was the lingua franca of the Persian empire and Mesopotamia until the rise of Arabic. --Taivo (talk) 22:03, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Cool. So besides the "half part", do you know of a reference that supports, "Middle Persian was highly influenced by the Aramaic language."? --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:10, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Lithuanian language

Please read this section: Talk:Lithuanian language#Suggestion: Adding an IE words comparison table to this article, and write your opinion. Zyma (talk) 17:49, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Taivo, still waiting for your answer. Please answer on my talkpage or Talk:Lithuanian language. Thanks. --Zyma (talk) 11:21, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Bosnian language

The term is of convenience [3]. Please find another forum to dispute the encyclopedia Britannica. Further attempts to disrupt a proper, reliably cited, elucidated understanding of the term will only take this matter to the noticeboard. POV-hijacking of the article will not be tolerated. Praxis Icosahedron ϡ (TALK) 22:13, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

@Taivo: Actually, I don't mind "term of convenience", since that's what it seems to me to be: A hybrid name due to the lack of an acceptable unitary name, sometimes replaced w BCMS etc. But I see no point to the note: if s.o. dn know what SC is, that's what the link is for. This just seems to be Praxis getting upset that "Bosnian" isn't part of the name. Shall we just delete the note altogether? I don't see how it adds anything to the article. — kwami (talk) 07:15, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Inappropriate backstage deliberations. There's a relevant talk page for this. Let me remind you of Wikipedia:Ownership of articles. Kwami's claims have been refuted. Bias in the style of "it doesn't seem necessary so let's get rid of it" won't do either. Praxis Icosahedron ϡ (TALK) 16:25, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Praxis, Encyclopedia is not a reliable LINGUISTIC source. It is a general source, but when actual linguistic sources exist, then it is of secondary quality. And I don't appreciate your attempts at stupid wikilawyering. If Kwami and I want to have a discussion on my talk page, then we will. --Taivo (talk) 14:57, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Fine. It's all over with now anyways. Let's just move on. Praxis Icosahedron ϡ (TALK) 21:04, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Silesian language

(Lechitic languages / West Slavic languages) Could you please help on this?--Sobiepan (talk) 01:01, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Administrator explicitly said that you should calmly discuss, the revert in this edit-war leads to blockage account. Franek K. (talk) 01:20, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I suspect that Sobiepan's contributions need to be investigated. This is not a one-off incident over whether Silesian is a language or a dialect but, rather, part of a distinctly POV-push for the Polonization of content in a multitude of articles. I'd be happy to introduce a number of dubious & misleading changes flying under the radar (such as slipping WP:OR links contrary to the sourced content). --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:12, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

1. Dear Iryna , please check it on Slavic languages, 2. Pomerania was inhabited by Pomeranians a Lechitic tribe (a subgroup of the Poles), so the language they spoke was West slavic 3. Your last edits could be considered Wikihounding...--Sobiepan (talk) 07:44, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Please take care as to which policies and guidelines you invoke. Checking a user's special contributions after detecting POV blanking and misleading linking on several of your own watchlist pages is not Wikihounding, but a common sense check, or: "done carefully, and with good cause... Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles." Considering the fact that I'd never had an encounter with you before yesterday, I'm wondering how I could be understood to be hounding you.

Judging by the context of your 'adjustment' to 'po more', I have to say that your explanation strikes me as being less than honest.
1. You did not leave an edit summary;
2. You changed the link to 'West Slavic', but left the text as 'Slavic';
3. I know several Slavic languages and know that the term is not exclusively West Slavic. Nevertheless, I checked the cited source which explicitly used the term 'Slavic'.

I have no interest in 'hounding' you but, after your exchange with me on my talk page yesterday, should I see any changes made by you on any articles on my watchlist, I will be checking them thoroughly to ensure that you don't accidentally slip unreferenced information into cited text. It's common sense. Thank you for your patience and understanding. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:27, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Rûm and Southwest Paleohispanic script

Would you happen to have some information regarding these two articles? I have not been able to find much in the way of reliable sources. --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:31, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Revert on Uto-Aztecan languages

Hi, would you please explain your revert on Uto-Aztecan languages? Thanks Rjwilmsi 08:23, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Date of information is relevant for websites, where the information may change over time (such as Wikipedia). It is unnecessary and irrelevant for published scientific journals where the articles exist on paper and never change. --Taivo (talk) 10:20, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

"date": I assume you mean the |accessdate= parameter? I agree that |accessdate= is not relevant for a scientific journal as it's a stable source (whether printed or online). However, my edit added |doi=, not dates, so I'm unclear? Thanks Rjwilmsi 10:27, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

No, not "access date". "Date of information" is completely immaterial and irrelevant to a printed scientific journal where the information never changes. It is irrelevant. (Ever notice that is is never a part of scientific referencing in printed works?) --Taivo (talk) 22:41, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

You mean digital object identifier? You seem to be confused as to the purpose of the field. Thanks Rjwilmsi 22:47, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I stand corrected. (Or, rather, sit.) --Taivo (talk) 03:34, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

OK, good that we cleared that up. So I'll reinstate my edit on the article then? Rjwilmsi 18:40, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

I think Manaus already has. For most of my life "DOI" has meant "date of information". Wikipedia's choice of acronym is rather unfortunate. --Taivo (talk) 16:21, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Retroflexes in Ukrainian

Hi, Taivo.

I try to find what is the correct IPA responses for Ukrainian š, ž, č and dž. All the sources I've seen use /ʃ/, /ʒ/, /t͡ʃ/, /d͡ʒ/ as you edited (however most of Ukrainian sources don't use IPA). But as a native Ukrainian speaker I hear that these sounds are incorrect. For instance, /ʃ/ and /ʒ/ correspond for Polish ś and ź which are much softer than Ukrainian š and ž. In return /ʂ/ and /ʐ/ sound very close to Ukrainian sounds and correspond to Polish sz and ż, and that makes sense.

But /ʈ͡ʂ/ and /ɖ͡ʐ/ seem to be harder than Ukrainian sounds as they correspond to Belarusian/Polish č/cz and dž/dż. However /t͡ʃ/ and /d͡ʒ/ seem to be softer in return.

I understand that my ear is not an argument for an encyclopedic discussion but this disparity sounds very rough (like /ʃɑ/ = шя instead of ша, /ʒɑ/ = жя instead of жа, /t͡ʃɑ/ = чя instead of ча, /d͡ʒɑ/ = джя instead of джа).

So, do you know some reliable sources for IPA for Ukrainian and what arguments do the use in these cases? --Dƶoxar (talk) 22:50, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Ignore your personal ideas and what you think the sounds in Polish represent. In Wikipedia, we use reliable sources and the Pugh and Press grammar of Ukrainian uses the IPA symbols that I put in. The Zilyns'kyj phonetic description of Ukrainian also uses the equivalents of the IPA symbols ʃ, ʒ, t͡ʃ, and d͡ʒ (which are š, ž, č, and dž). (I'm a linguist, I know what I'm talking about.) The sources are entirely uniform. Your perception of the sound of ʂ and ʐ is wrong as these sounds do not occur in Ukrainian at all (nor do they occur in the other East Slavic dialects--Russian, Belarusan, and Rusyn). --Taivo (talk) 23:26, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you.--Dƶoxar (talk) 06:06, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi, it's me again. Sorry for bother you, but there is a small conflict around the IPA for Ukrainian. If you have couple of minutes, just check last edits by User:Wlad Sokolowskiy of the Ukrainian phonology. We discuss this on his talk page. Thanks.--Dƶoxar (talk) 14:54, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of Rendille–Boni languages for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Rendille–Boni languages is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rendille–Boni languages until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!. This is not to imply any issue with your behavior. You tried to reason with another editor. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:53, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Thought there was something fishy...

Thanks for catching this. I thought it looked ridiculously verbose and couldn't remember anything outside of the original, simple caption. Talk about taking your eye off the ball for a second... --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:41, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

It's very easy to miss those little edits at the front end of a string of "problematic" edits. Done it myself a million or two times. --Taivo (talk) 11:25, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Need your assistance

Would the Turkmen language have been in use or used by the Seljuq Empire? I have reverted Azerbaijani language term for the Seljuq Empire article since according to the Azerbaijani language article, "By the beginning of the 16th century, it had become the dominant language of the region, and was a spoken language in the court of the Safavid Empire.". Any suggestions? --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:27, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Book of Mormon Accolades

The accolades that were added are significant and I believe it should be restroed. The Library of Congress is a very selective library run by the United States government. Its collection of 100 books that shaped america is a significant accolade. Likewise, Book Magazine, considered the Rolling Stone Magazine of the book world, selected The Book of Mormon as one of only twenty books that changed America. From a historical sense, this seems accurate since The Book of Mormon prompted the conversion and movement of LDS pioneers who walked across America and into the unsettled West, creating the settlements and outposts that would lead to the settling of much of the West including Las Vegas, most of Utah, most of Idaho, etc.--24.234.114.67 (talk) 15:33, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Those are not "accolades". Accolades are praise. These are simply lists that recognize historical significance. That can be stated in a single sentence in the text (if it's not already). --Taivo (talk) 05:34, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Taivo

Hey mate, it's Russavia here, you should know that someone has started Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Taivo but has failed to notify you about it. As you know CU should not be used for fishing under any circumstances, but you should possibly pipe in at the SPI, and after it is rejected (as should be done) you should request for it to be deleted as an attack page :) 69.80.53.69 (talk) 16:18, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

great stuff Stevepeterson (talk) 05:18, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Granting permission TAG for deleted images

Granting permission for deleted images to be restored

Dear Taivo,

I hope you can help me with a serious ongoing issue.

I am waiting to submit a family history of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Farooq_Family however it has come to my attention that you have removed the uploaded images after sending an image permission to wikicommon allowing the rights of the images to by used.

I wish to provide the licence tags below as the heir of a long dead photographer. I wish to submit

and also {{PD-heirs}} – for works released into the public domain by the heirs of the creator.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Farooq_Family Previous account name: Eminenceinvest New account name: s.raza Open ticker: Ticket#2014090410015943

I hope you will accept the provided tags and kindly restore all of my photos.

Please note the Family seal File:Arms-Logo-(for-approval-v1).jpg is a seal,logo and File:Abdulkarim Farooq.jpg is a painting.

Kind regards, S.raza

I have no idea what you are talking about. --Taivo (talk) 08:40, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

PEACE

Taivo, lets make peace. Although I feel extremely offended by your personal attacks and insults, I forgive you and I hope that you will do the same to me too. I will be fine if you don't, too. Life is too short to be wasted on WP edit wars. Warm regards, Steve Stevepeterson (talk) 08:48, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Edit Warning

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.

Unami vowels

Can you have a look at Unami language#Vowels? Currently, the text is contradicting itself as to the transcription of the short high-back vowel. Does Goddard use /o/ or /u/? --Florian Blaschke (talk) 14:15, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

The reason I'm asking you is this edit. My suspicion is that Goddard 1997 uses /u/ and Goddard 1979 /o/, explaining the discrepance in the text. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 14:20, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

I'll check it out when I get home tonight. All my books are at the house. --Taivo (talk) 14:58, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Alert

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding the Balkans, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.

Template:Z33 Robert McClenon (talk) 14:46, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Taivo reported by User:DMacks (Result: ). Thank you. DMacks (talk) 17:19, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Alexander the Great

Stevepeterson is pushing the ancient greek kingdom in Alexander the Great article, again. Macedonia (talk) 07:33, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Apologies Accepted

No worries, apologies accepted. :) Luxure (talk) 23:07, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Lviv

To: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lviv&oldid=628327638

Bruno Abakanowicz - he had his habilitation and assistanship in Lwow

Adam Didur - studied in Lwow

Benedykt Dybowski - professor of University in Lwow, he died in Lwow and was buried in Lwow. He received the title of honorably citizen of Lwow in 1929.

Artur Grottger - he lived and worked in Lwow between 1848 - 1852. He was buried in Lwow.

Jan Kasprowicz - he lived for 36 years in Lwow

Wojciech Kilar - he was born in Lwow and lived there for 13 years

Ignacy Lukasiewicz - lived in Lwow between 1846-48 and 1852-54. He has monument with his name in Lwow

Kornel Makuszynski - lived in Lwow between 1898 -1908 (studied and worked there)

Ignacy Moscicki - professor of Technical University in Lwow (1912-1922), rector of the same university 1925-26

Jan Parandowski - born in Lwow, lived there for 34 years

Jakub Parnas - lived in Lwow since his 15 until 57 years old

Wojciech Pszoniak - born in Lwow

Kazimierz Sosnkowski - lived in Lwow betwen 1907 - 1914 Marcus19771107 (talk) 13:41, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

If they were born or lived the majority of their life in Lviv and are buried in Lviv, then that is OK, but just because they passed through Lviv or went to college in Lviv or worked for a few years in Lviv is not enough. I'm not from Los Angeles even though I worked there for a time. --Taivo (talk) 16:25, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

You're right, but you should also applied the same rule to the other people cited in this article (and their presence were approved) - many of them also 'only' studied or work in Lwow for a while.16:34, 5 October 2014 (UTC)Marcus19771107 (talk)

It's all about consensus. Check them yourself and delete them if they don't meet these criteria. If anyone else objects then you can start a discussion on the Talk Page. You came along at a time when hyper-Polish-nationalists have been pushing an agenda. If your goal is to make the article on Lviv into a Polish whine session, then you'll face stiff opposition. But if you honestly want to be fair to both Polish and Ukrainian interests on the page, then go ahead and see what other editors think. The first problem that you will need to overcome is to stop calling it "Lwów" and start calling it by its current name--Lviv. --Taivo (talk) 17:33, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I only wanted to add some famous (hmm, how should I say this in English - Lvivian ??) which I knew about. I am not familiar with Ukrainian history so I am not eligible to remove or add any person of this nationality. It was only a matter of criteria which should be applied, and of which I was unaware. Anyway, this is so trivial topic there is no sense to fight over (with 5 people there will be probably 6 different opinion). If nobody has an objection, I will leave it with the current status. Thanks Taivo for the help ! Marcus19771107 (talk) 18:00, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Can you assist, please?

Please see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Laz_people#Language_contradiction_-_need_a_Subject_Matter_Expert_here_.... HammerFilmFan (talk) 07:56, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Lugansk

Please could you use Talk:Lugansk to explain your repeated deletions of POV material. If you do not, then you lay yourself open to accusations of edit warring over the article on Lugansk. The same applies to your deletions of the same POV material in the article on Donetsk if you find that you need to delete it repeatedly.

It is important to remember the kind of people you are dealing with.-- Toddy1 (talk) 07:56, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion involving the page on Lugansk. at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Ukrainecriziz reported by User:Toddy1 (Result: ) regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. -- Toddy1 (talk) 21:23, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Eastern Europe sanctions alert

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding Eastern Europe, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.

Template:Z33--Bbb23 (talk) 21:33, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Editor has restored link to an attack page

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Editor has restored link to an attack page regarding a recently restored link to an attack page that attacks you.-- Toddy1 (talk) 23:02, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Where is this (direct link)? I cannot find it. HammerFilmFan (talk) 19:55, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Here's where the original complaint is archived. The link in the complaint goes here. Following the link to the Ukrainian Wikipedia, we end up here. The offending editor has since been permanently blocked as a sock of another disruptive editor (who was also permanently blocked). Since we have no control over the Ukrainian Wikipedia, the attack list is still there. --Taivo (talk) 20:09, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I was going to aid you in the case but sounds like it has been taken care of, and just about every non-English Wiki is subject to some pretty crazy stuff going on, unfortunately.HammerFilmFan (talk) 05:27, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Sumerian language article

I've removed crap, and added 3 RS's for Sumerian being an Isolate, but my RS's are historical rather than linguistic [ since I don't have linguistic textbooks, :-) ] - could you add one source to the main body under Classification from a linguist? Just to nail the point home. Thanks HammerFilmFan (talk) 19:46, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Done. Added a good linguistic source to both the infobox and the main body. --Taivo (talk) 20:01, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much - may the women from Robert Palmer's "Addicted to Love" video visit you with the heads of Balkan nationalist anon-IP whackies on pikes as a pre-amble to showing you physical affection.  :-) HammerFilmFan (talk) 05:24, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't think my good Ukrainian wife would allow that last part ;) --Taivo (talk) 06:08, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

J, T, & K - please have a fresh look at Etruscan language article - isolate?

Hitting all three of you with the same msg - just recently had a look at this article, and it is mixing 'language isolate' (which everything I've ever known about it via historical sources says it is) with very recent published theories that it no longer is, or is confusingly seemingly stating it no longer is. Please look at the Classification section and correct or re-word it to make it more clear. Also, a couple of new studies has never in my field = "majority consensus opinion." Thanks. HammerFilmFan (talk) 22:48, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Happy New Year Taivo!

Happy New Year!

Taivo,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:17, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2015}} to user talk pages.

Дякую. З новим роком !! --Taivo (talk) 03:53, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Borscht and Ukraine

Please step back from your current style of editing and discussion relating to borscht and compare them with articles like pizza, hamburger, potato chip, apple pie, french fries and even Bratwurst.

You are clearly making an effort to make borscht into a more nationalist issue than necessary. All of the above examples have very obvious origins, but they do not focus on origins, nor give special treatment to the country of origin. That's because they are about dishes, not cuisine history.

There is obviously contentious editing from both pro-Ukrainian and pro-Russian editors. Neither are being neutral, though, and I'm sensing that you are also taking sides here.

Peter ^Isotalo 17:48, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Randy is on the Loose

At Talk:Indo-Aryan migration hypothesis and Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Proposed_Hypothesis.2FTheory_as_fact.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:20, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Added my two cents. Pretty much duplicates what you and others who actually know what they are talking about have said. I really hate the religious/nationalist fanatics :p --Taivo (talk) 21:34, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks

File:Indo-European migrations v02.03.png		The Wikipedia Indo-European Award
		Thanks. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:24, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

RfC on "Indigenous Aryans"

I've opened an RfC at Talk:Indigenous Aryans#RfC: the "Indigenous Aryans" theory is fringe-theory. Let's keep it civilised. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:35, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

David Gordon White

See comment of Joshua Jonathan about David Gordon White being a top scholar. How familiar are you with indology?VictoriaGrayson^Talk 12:32, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Indology != History of Yoga.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:06, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree wtih Maunus. The guy is apparently neither an archeologist nor a linguist. Religion does not equal history--it is the study of myth and legend. You might as well pick up Beowulf and consider it a history of the Danes. --Taivo (talk) 14:55, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

IA

Taivo, you had seen the edit history?[4] I have not inserted even 3 sentences, so it is not me who extended the page. I hope you will rephrase your ANI report. Bladesmulti (talk) 03:54, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Korean language article - classification section

Lots of Altaic bru-ha-ha, but little about it being a language isolate. HammerFilmFan (talk) 22:19, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

User:HammerFilmFan I tried to fix it a bit. --Taivo (talk) 03:16, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Altaic

Hi Taivo.

Longstanding consensus to give Altaic as the highest node for its constituent clades, with some sort of caveat, but not to list it for individual languages. (Actually, consensus was to keep it for the major languages -- Turkish, Mongol, Korean, and Japanese, -- but we can probably move away from that now without much problem.) — kwami (talk) 03:30, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Hey, Kwami.

I do think that we need to move away from Altaic, especially for the two "marginal" groups. Since we last discussed it several years ago, Altaic has simply fallen out of favor even more than it was. It's gained no new support to replace the limited support that it had. Only the Starostin group still has any love for Altaic other than as an areal grouping. The RfC at Japonic languages was starting to look pretty solid against using Altaic. --Taivo (talk) 04:55, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I have no problem with that, if that's what the current the state of the lit is. But I think we should revisit the issue on a single talk page, and advertize at the WP:lang project. We could discuss deleting the fairly useless navbox at the same time. — kwami (talk) 05:26, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I have initiated a new RfC at Japonic languages, since that's where most of the discussion was and was actually the focus of all the comments for the "color" question there. --Taivo (talk) 08:19, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Saw this after commenting there. If we're going to discuss the issue at a peripheral location, we should at least advertize where people are likely to see it. This isn't my area, so it's hard for me to evaluate, but there are some seemingly quite knowledgeable editors who might miss the discussion. — kwami (talk) 17:51, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I assume it will show up on the Languages/Linguistics boards. I'll post a like at Altaic languages. --Taivo (talk) 19:27, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

BUT. If you read the instructions at the infobox template, the highest level that should be listed is the highest level generally recognized. It says nothing about controversial listings. --Taivo (talk) 19:30, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

The instructions are neither very detailed nor entirely consistent. If we explicitly allowed for controversial groups, we'd probably have arguments over Nostratic and Amerind. But in practice we do include questionable mainstream proposals, such as those in Campbell's classification of South American languages. Admittedly, Altaic is a bit different, because it's dubious despite being well researched while many of the South American proposals are dubious because the languages are poorly documented and few people have worked on their classification. So I could certainly see treating the two cases differently. I wouldn't argue for including Ural-Altaic, as that's clearly obsolete. I just don't know where the academic community currently stands with Altaic. Also, if Macro-Altaic is the version currently favored by those who adhere to Altaic, as we decided last time, then we should treat Turkic, Mongolic, and Tungusic the same as Koreanic and Japonic, regardless of which way we go. — kwami (talk) 20:14, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

ALL linguistic classifications of Slavic that include East Slavic show this. It is not subject to debate

1. I'm not discussing any classifications.
2. I have quoted other Wikipedia articles, I'm not a linguist to look for the sources but there are multiple problems which you refuse to discuss. Xx234 (talk) 08:32, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

But linguistic classification is a statement of linguistic descent. They are one and the same. --Taivo (talk) 09:15, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Altaic (cont.)

You might want to edit the intro and info box of Dravido-Korean languages re. the status of Altaic. — kwami (talk) 23:15, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Yahad-In Unum

Hi Taivo!

Thanks for your message on my talk page. I disagree with you regarding reliability of this source and am unsure regarding COI. Y-I U is not a "personal website" but a recognized NGO in that field. Dialogue has started with the user at ANI, and I have started a thread on the reliable sources noticeboard (WP:RSN#Use of Yahad-In Unum regarding that source. Feel free to comment there, and await second opinions. I take responsibility for reinstalling some of the info you deleted from the articles. Please don't revert them or make more reverts on the matter until we have consensus on the matter and I'll do the same. Thanks! Susuman77 (talk) 15:39, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

please see when you have time .......

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Language_isolate&oldid=prev&diff=651901153

I reverted back to what my edit said. If it needs further adjustment by you as an SME, please do? Thanks. HammerFilmFan (talk) 01:26, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Your account will be renamed

Hello,

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called Taivo. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Taivo~enwiki that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name. If you think you might own all of the accounts with this name and this message is in error, please visit Special:MergeAccount to check and attach all of your accounts to prevent them from being renamed.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours,
Keegan Peterzell
Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation

02:57, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

3RR warning

You are at 3 reverts on the article on the Crimea. If you need to do more reverts on that page in the next 24 hours, do not do them; instead post on the article talk page recommending a revert.-- Toddy1 (talk) 21:15, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Ancient Macedonian Language

Hi Taivo

I noticed that you have undone my corrections. I understand your comments about 'ancient Macedonian's' Greek origins being clarified further down, but your quote is misleading and leaves out the fact that Borza is clearly speculating. In the Shadow of Olympus, 1992, p.94: 'It should not surprise us if a variety of dialects were used - with writing in standard dialects of Greek and some patois in a language or dialect the knowledge of which is beyond recovery. One can only speculate that the dialect (Macedonian) declined with the rise in use of standard koine Greek' Borza is speculating, he makes that very clear. Moreover, you delete the very unambiguous citation from Horrocks (p.79) only to quote one from Horrocks which is much more ambiguous. Both your citations are misleading and insufficient. Neither historian is implying what you are implying. If you are going to propound this thesis, then it seems only right that you provide at least two quotes that unambiguously defend the position of a paleo Balkan language which became extinct in the fourth century BC.

This belongs on the article Talk Page. Not here. --Taivo (talk) 05:57, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

deleting links to LL-Map

Hi Taivo,

Since LL-Map has been offline for some time, I'm deleting all the links you added when you created the Chadic language articles. If LL-Map ever comes back, we could code the info box to support it, which will allow us to centrally update the url when it changes. We could have every box with an ISO code generate a link to LL-Map if we like. — kwami (talk) 18:17, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. --Taivo (talk) 18:32, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Merger proposal

Hello Taivo, I've proposed a merger on Cibak language to Kibaku language, since that is the terminology used in the first written dictionary of the language. What do you think-- which is more important, to use the local term, or the Ethnologue term? --Djembayz (talk) 13:55, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

What is more important is common English usage. When both Ethnologue and Glottolog use Cibak, then that's the term that should be used. --Taivo (talk) 14:31, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Would you like to merge it to Cibak then? Please feel free to do this if you know how.--Djembayz (talk) 02:14, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Macedonia

Hi, Taivo. Thank you for your consideration with my case in Talk:Macedonia. I was responding to the user Dr.K., when you posted your edit, but I assure you that I read it, and think you're right to a point. But, I'll still hold my position that the case with Macedonia just objects the WP:COMMONNAME convention, and it's a result of just persistent and blatant arguments by what seems Greek editors on the site. Anyway, thank you for your time, and just wanted to say that it felt nice someone non-Greek to swiftly respond to the thread. - Phill24th (talk). 22:42, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Anyway, thank you for your time, and just wanted to say that it felt nice someone non-Greek to swiftly respond to the thread. Yes, nothing feels better than some cheap Greek-bashing. But in an issue that was decided by a wide community discussion and was ARBCOM-assisted, it is just so much gratuitous AGF-defying ethnic-based profiling editing abuse. By the way sorry Taivo for the intrusion and my warmest greetings to you. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 22:58, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

'Greek-bashing'? - Phill24th (talk). 23:09, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

You want me to give you a link to a dictionary? Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 23:11, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

And my warmest greetings back, Dr.K.. I hope my comment about Greek editors didn't sound like Greek-bashing, but a simple statement of fact. ARBMAC was hard work for all of us and sometimes new editors on the scene just want to wake sleeping dragons with no real idea of what that entails. --Taivo (talk) 01:40, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi Taivo. Thank you for your kind words, which are reciprocated, of course, to the fullest. :) Sorry for the delay in replying but I am travelling right now. Take care. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 10:18, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Linguistics main page?

Hi Taivo, I see you were helpfully trying to keep the main Linguistics entry in a good state last year, with your edit [5]. I wonder if we couldn't work together to essentially restore the page to that version. Unfortunately, the page has degraded quite a bit in the meantime, and it looks like it'd be a lot of effort to get it back to that. Mundart (talk) 15:19, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Isolated Languages

This term can be contreversial. Mostly signes a temporary situtation caused by insufficient research. In fact, any human languages could not be isolated. Other way of thinking gives way to idea of isolated languages, races and, racism. It is obvious, because you cannot give any references for your (subjective) ideas. However, I supply the article with reliable references. You may do the same, or you should not any more editions. We dont argue about the political side-effects of Ural-Altaic theories but, still we may learn about linguistic studies. There are tangible proofs about the roots of Sumerian language. And you cannot hide these from the wiki members.The article is lack of references and a caution message is above it. Why dont you try to fix it, if you really concern wiki and knowledge of humanity? Otherwise, I dont even want to think about your intentions. Please abide the principles of wiki. Or just take a look at them in policy pages, if you havent done yet. Okurogluselo (talk) 23:44, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

No, it is not "controversial" at all. You don't understand what it actually means. An "language isolate" is a language that has had enough research conducted on it to prove that it isn't related to anything else. You are thinking of an "unclassified language". You need to get your terms straight. Your claims about Sumerian have been utterly rejected by virtually every reputable scholar and there are plenty of references on the pages in question if you only bothered to read them. --Taivo (talk) 23:50, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

I understand it well, you can be sure, "unclassified" is another issue. Consequently, there are a serious lack of references in the article about "isolated language". Researches can never be considered as "enough" if a problem exists. This is science, or we should live in stone ages harmony still. I propose it should be the term for a temporary reconciliation about unsolved issue, i.e. roots of language, just means, further research are needed,or there are no sufficient proofs until now. There are many theories about the relatives of Sumerian, and Ural-Altaic approach is only one of these. Once, it was dominant theory, now it is not. But it doesnt mean it is completely useless, anymore. Still the theory survives, because it is relased from the political campaigns in 19th and 20th centuries. So it is worth to be expressed in the pages.

Anyway, I like your some contributions to the article, you have done really well. I will not use the term "controversial". Thank you. Okurogluselo (talk) 01:26, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

There is no controversy. The Ural-Altaic material violates both WP:FRINGE and WP:WEIGHT. It is universally rejected by historical linguists and therefore is not "controversial". The article is quite adequately referenced. You are the only editor who thinks otherwise and the only reason you think that is because you want to create room for your rejected Ural-Altaic nonsense. --Taivo (talk) 02:33, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Language isolate

I saw this recent edit to Language isolate and all the back-and-forth edits.[6] I thought I'd let you know I'd support a revert of this edit based only on the way it is written. I only know a bit about linguistics, but I know a lot about good writing. I cannot make a determination about the content, but perhaps you'll agree that the writing in this added material is poor. I could edit the writing to improve the clarity, perhaps working with an editor with more knowledge of linguistics such as yourself, but I will wait and see whether the edit stays in the article. Let me know if you'd like me to undo the edit. CorinneSD (talk) 01:45, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

That edit has no place in the article since it violates both WP:FRINGE and WP:WEIGHT. It represents a completely rejected point of view. --Taivo (talk) 02:31, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Legitimacy of Altaic

Hi. I noticed you reverted my edit indicating the tentative classification of Turkic as a branch of the controversial Altaic family. I do agree that the classification is not universally accepted, but I dispute that Altaic is "almost universally rejected." As far as I know, the support towards Altaic in the linguistic world is about fifty-fifty. Due to the high level of support, I believe it to be reasonable to include the Altaic classification on all its generally accepted sub-branches, including Turkic and Mongolic, with its uncertainty indicated by a question mark. What are your thoughts? Aardwolf A380 (talk) 22:42, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Aardwolf A380, you are mistaken about the 50-50. That may have been true 50 years ago, but it is certainly not true today. Virtually every historical linguist who specializes in these languages (and they are the ones who count the most) has rejected Altaic as a genetic classification and only a shrinking number of fringe adherents remain. A consensus was reached several months ago that all use of "Altaic" in the infobox would be removed. --Taivo (talk) 23:43, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

TavioLinguist, doesn't that then set a precedent for the removal of all controversial classifications from family infoboxes (for instance, the citing of Dene-Yeniseian in the infoboxes of the Na-Dene and Yeniseian language families)?

Regards Aardwolf A380 (talk) 01:15, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Each case must be resolved by the editors who are interested in that page or language grouping. Dene-Yeneseian is a newer proposal so there may be different considerations involved. There must be a separate consensus reached for each grouping. I am only speaking for Altaic, which has been discarded over the decades. --Taivo (talk) 01:19, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Mongols

Hi Taivo. I unfortunately have this article on my watchlist, and currently there is a talk page discussion (and occasional edit warring) occuring. I might be wrong, but I did not get an impression that the two sides (i) understand eash other (ii) understand what they are talking about. I guess we need an expert and you seem to be an excellent candidate. I would appreciate very much if you could have a look at the lowest couple of topics at the talk page. (Note that this is my personal iniciative, I was not asked by other users, and they do not know about it unless they watch your talk page). It would be great if you could find some time. Thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:55, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Borscht / Borsch / Borshch disambiguation

Hi Taivo, do you realize that neither BORSCHT nor Viktor Borshch are mentioned in Borsch (disambiguation)? And they shouldn't be because Borsch (disambiguation) is only concerned with words that are spelled borsch, not borscht or borshch. After your last edit, searching for either BORSCHT nor Viktor Borshch is seriously hindered. Per WP:SIMILAR, it is not necessary to create a disambiguation page if there are only two topics that potentially share the same title. It doesn't matter that BORSCHT or Viktor Borshch are little known to you; the role of hat notes is precisely to direct readers to more obscure topics they might be looking for. I don't want to edit war with you, so I'm asking you to revert your last edit yourself. — Kpalion^(talk) 06:47, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Actually, you can expand the scope of the disambiguation page. It is simply bad style to have multiple hat notes on a page when there is already a disambiguation page that can serve the function. Simply add some alternate spellings to the already existing disambiguation page. A hat note leading to an utterly obscure and unknown person is especially unnecessary. Indeed, I would argue that there is no reason why Viktor Borshch should even have a Wikipedia page. He is utterly unnotable. But, as I started this comment with, the two articles that you want hat notes for can very easily be accommodated on the existing disambiguation page since they are minor spelling variations only. --Taivo (talk) 08:04, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

OK, I've made the changes according to your suggestion. Let's see how this works. — Kpalion^(talk) 11:14, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Tunisian Arabic

Dear User,

As you are one of the contributors to Tunisian Arabic. You are kindly asked to review the part about Domains of Use and adjust it directly or through comments in the talk page of Tunisian Arabic.

Yours Sincerely,

--Csisc (talk) 13:07, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Your revert on articles of Ukrainian city

TaivoLinguist, I urge you to get familiar with the WP:P-NUK (Naming conventions). Please, explain your recent reverts on articles for Ukrainian cities. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 23:34, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

I urge you to become familiar with WP:CONSENSUS. It has been a long-standing consensus on these articles to list both the Ukrainian and Russian names. --Taivo (talk) 03:30, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Since WP:P-NUK was your very recent creation with just one other editor, it cannot be considered to have any force whatsoever to override the pre-existing consensus that has prevailed for years. Nice try, but no cigar. --Taivo (talk) 03:41, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

WP:P-NUK only applies to article titles, not to article content or infoboxes according to the primary author of the guideline: [7] --Taivo (talk) 05:57, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Recent Reversion on the Macedonian page

Hello Taivo. You recently reverted an edit on the Macedonian page. Generally, when people, revert edits, they give a reason for it. Since you failed to do so, I decided to message you directly and ask for what purpose you did this before reverting it.Rogue Commander (talk) 20:30, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Your repeated references to "Vardar Macedonia" are heavily POV and against the spirit of WP:MOSMAC. --Taivo (talk) 21:51, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't really see how the additions I made actually violate that policy. Since these are the only references to these regions or their names on that page, and Pirin Macedonia is referenced not far away from those references and is already on the same page. These aren't particularly controversial terms, and are links to pages that are actually relevant to the subject. These are simply alternate terms for these Macedonia's. Nothing really worth reverting or directly violating any policy, even the one you link too, which is really a naming policy in regards to pages and the naming of the countries, not the regions.Rogue Commander (talk) 22:15, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

"Vardar Macedonia" is controversial and is not neutral. Just ask Macedonians how "neutral" they consider it to be. Start a discussion on the article Talk Page, I won't discuss it further here. If you can build a consensus for its inclusion in the article, then so be it. --Taivo (talk) 23:24, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Khmelnytsky article

If you have a moment (and energy) to spare, I'd be grateful if you could weigh in on content being re-added under discussion here. Thanks! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:51, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Altaic languages

You did realize that by reverting me, you reverted your own version, right?--Ymblanter (talk) 13:19, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Oops. I woke up too early. Thanks for pointing that out. --Taivo (talk) 14:34, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Sure, no problem.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:53, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Tagalog

Talk:Tagalog move request to restore the old location, if you're interested. — kwami (talk) 04:16, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Ukraine

Hi! Act Zluky (Act of Unification), the UPR and WUPR - extremely important events should be reflected in the preamble. --Бучач-Львів (talk) 11:03, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Take this to Talk:Ukraine, not here. --Taivo (talk) 12:34, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Behavioural issues at Talk Tagalog Requested move 25 July 2015

At Talk:Tagalog#Requested move 25 July 2015 you have raised behavioural issues.

Please discuss these at User talk:Andrewa#Behavioural issues at Talk Tagalog Requested move 25 July 2015. TIA. Andrewa (talk) 22:20, 7 August 2015 (UTC)