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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Egyptians

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

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)