User talk:TaivoLinguist

Archives

Linguist List link

Hello there buddy. Why do you want that Linguist list link in there? The links are dead, they don't work. I'm reasonable, I'll listen.Dave (talk) 00:25, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

The link does work. It takes you to a page where you can choose a variety of different family tree graphics (depending on the author of the classification). It's a very useful link. I've tested that link a dozen times and it always works. Do you have Java enabled on your computer? That may be why the link doesn't work for you. (Taivo (talk) 00:29, 15 December 2009 (UTC))

Hello, TaivoLinguist. You have new messages at Eustress's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello Taivo, you seem to be interested in the Linguist List Link site itself rather than the subpage actually addressed. That seems to work OK and seems to belong there. What I am doing is moving these link formats to the recommended Wikipedia "cite" templates, which provide a uniform look and allow the user enough information so he can see what it is without having to click on every link. One relies on the information in the template rather than on the editor's description, which is apt to be opinionated and often is wrong. Here it is wrong. The subpage actually linked gives no description. Don't you think it would be a better idea to link your preferred site rather than this subpage? Then the user can look up any IE language. Right now I'm called away. In a few moments I will set up a "cite web" to the LL search site and you can take a look. If you don't want to use it then please set the link up in "cite template format" without the incorrect summary. Oh, I could not help noticing the "edit war" comments on your discussion site. I find that most "edit wars" can be avoided by discussion, but it's you call there.Dave (talk) 00:54, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not a programming type, so my references and links look more like a written paper than the techno stuff you were describing. I'll look to see what you're talking about. And concerning discussions, it takes two to discuss. Edit wars often happen when only one party is talking and the other party is not. (Taivo (talk) 05:47, 15 December 2009 (UTC))

The link wasn't pointing to the right place. I fixed it so that it points to the portal for the family trees. (Taivo (talk) 05:52, 15 December 2009 (UTC))

Thanks

I appreciate your recent edits Taivo and I'm glad we can always work together towards conciliation. Thankyou. ^Izzedine 14:29, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Why do you keep changing your mind Taivo? Izzedine 15:06, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

I haven't changed my mind. I have always opposed the addition of "Ancient Iraq" in the article on Mesopotamia. But when it was just you and me discussing, then in the absence of consensus against it, I let it ride. Now there is a clear consensus against it. (Taivo (talk) 15:11, 25 December 2009 (UTC))

Do you think we can find some conciliation? Izzedine 15:21, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

The generally accepted boundaries of Mesopotamia are not the same as the boundaries of modern Iraq, so the use of the term "Ancient Iraq" does not equal "Mesopotamia" and they are not synonyms. Write a separate article on Ancient Iraq if you see fit, but it's not the same as Mesopotamia (which includes several sites in Syria and Turkey). No one doubts that "Ancient Iraq" is a valid title for a book or Wikipedia article. But Mesopotamia is larger than Iraq. The two are not equal, so they are not synonyms. (Taivo (talk) 15:26, 25 December 2009 (UTC))

While I agree with you, there are only a couple of noted Mesopotamian sites outside Iraq's actual borders, and not very far outside too. It's worth remembering that there were Ancient Greek sites all over the southern Balkans and Anatolia, there were Ancient Egyptian sites in Sudan, Libya and up the levant coast. Another fact to be considered is that *there are* etymologies tracing the name "Iraq" to the Akkadian name for Uruk - this is verifiable, and may mean the name "Iraq" is far older than "Mesopotamia" - more than twice as old in fact. I'm absolutely not at all trying to supplant the established name "Mesopotamia" though, I just want the alternative to be included. Izzedine 16:48, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

The etymologies linking "Iraq" to "Uruk" are 100% political crap invented by the cronies of Iraq's former dictator. As such, they are not verifiable by reliable linguists. "Ancient Iraq" is not an alternative for "Mesopotamia". I have posted a request for comment on the history and geography page. Now we just wait and see what the community thinks. (Taivo (talk) 16:53, 25 December 2009 (UTC))

This is demonstrating a strong negative POV Taivo, which is a breach of one of Wikipedia's three core policies. What about the rest of what I said too? Wikipedia is not a democracy you can't just count hands in the audience Taivo, if things were that way there would be systemic bias everywhere. Izzedine 17:24, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

First, WP:NPOV only applies to the text of the articles. You also have a strong POV. On Talk Pages and during discussions, POV doesn't matter unless it is focused personally, which I have not done (unless you are one of the former dictator's linguistic cronies). The goal is to take all those POVs and determine what is the most NPOV wording in the article. That doesn't always mean "a little for everyone". Second, Wikipedia doesn't "count hands", it works on WP:CONSENSUS. That means that the community works not on counting hands in a vote, but on determining what the great (very clear) majority of editors think is best. "Democracy" says that 5 beats 4. "Consensus" says that 8 beats 1, but 5 doesn't beat 4. "Consensus" does not mean that 1 beats 3. If you actually have reliable sources (and you have not yet proven that you do), then you can sway consensus in your favor. It happens all the time here. But you have no real proof yet. You throw out "evidence" that you have not evaluated at all. That's what the other editors do on a regular basis, but you have not apparently learned how to do at this point. (Taivo (talk) 17:36, 25 December 2009 (UTC))

Mentorship Committee

I'm contacting you because your name is listed at Wikipedia:Meetup/Utah.

Please consider reviewing my edit at Wikipedia:Mentorship#Unintended consequences. In the search for a mentor deemed acceptable by ArbCom, I view this as a useful context for discussing what I have in mind.

There is no obvious congruence between your editing interests and mine, but perhaps the disjunction presents a novel opportunity.

Will you consider looking into whether you might agree to join others in a Mentorship Committee which advises me?

In any case -- even if you are disinclined to pursue the primary thrust of this diff, I wonder if I might be able to tweak your curiosity with an article about 95-year-old Patrick Lennox Tierney? He is a Japanologist academic in the field of art history, an emeritus professor of the University of Utah, a former Curator of Japanese Art at the Utah Museum of Fine Arts, and a former Commissioner of Art and Monuments during the Allied Occupation of Japan (1945-1952). I think this elderly man still lives near the University. Tierney came to my attention because the Japanese government conferred the Order of the Rising Sun, Gold Rays with Neck Ribbon in 2007.

Perhaps the most intriguing aspect of Tierney's life concerns his work for the Supreme Commander of the Allied Powers (SCAP), Gen. Douglas MacArthur. Tierney's office was near MacArthur's suite in SCAP headquarters. Tierney was an eyewitness on the day Emperor Hirohito came to offer a formal apology; but when the emperor arrived, MacArthur refused to admit him or acknowledge him. Issues which might have been addressed were allowed to remain open, with consequences which unfolded across the decades which followed. In 2006, Tierney made an effort to explain his understanding of what he had personally observed: "Apology is a very important thing in Japan. With us, we don't apologize unless we get caught with our hand in the cookie jar, but for the Japanese, there is a very strong sense of what an apology means." According to popular historian Herbert Bix in Hirohito and the Making of Modern Japan, "MacArthur's truly extraordinary measures to save Hirohito from trial as a war criminal had a lasting and profoundly distorting impact on Japanese understanding of the lost war."

Among a prospective mentor's many burdens, the most difficult would involve (a) helping me discern why or when I should apologize or (b) helping me to explain why or when I will not apologize in a wiki-context. --Tenmei (talk) 02:27, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I would be willing to participate in a mentorship committee if ArbCom deems me acceptable. I would not be willing to be a solo mentor, but as part of a committee I would be willing. While I am sometimes passionate about the subject matter I follow, I do feel that I know the difference between personal attack and polite disagreement. I read the notice about getting a committee and, if I read correctly, John Carter has volunteered to be a part. He is a very good editor and will be a good member of the mentorship committee. (Taivo (talk) 04:07, 26 December 2009 (UTC))

Thank you for your time and consideration. As a gesture of appreciation, please allow me to share a rhetorical question from the Analects of Confucius: "Is it not pleasant to learn with a constant perseverance and application?" --Tenmei (talk) 17:55, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Two rakan evoke a teachable moment, searching together for a focal point?

May I offer a proposal? Please replace your username with your signature (four tildes ~~~~) in the list of "active mentors" at User talk:Tenmei/Sub-page Alerts. This is necessary step in a constructive direction.

You may find that what I'm asking for is probably less than you imagine in the short term, or perhaps more than you anticipate in the long term. --Tenmei (talk) 07:01, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Taivo

Happy new year, dear namesake! I know, Taivo is not your real name, but it is mine. It has no meaning and I am glad to have a name without meaning. I have never contacted you before, but I'd like to ask: the username "Taivo" in Finnish wikipedia is occupied by a person who is not me but who speaks Finnish. Is it you? Do you actually speak Finnish? Taivo (talk) 15:05, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

My username, "Taivo", means 'white man' in the Timbisha language. It is the short version of my Timbisha name Nuwitaivottsi, which means "Travelling White Man". I know Hungarian, but not Finnish. (Taivo (talk) 15:08, 2 January 2010 (UTC))

Okay. Then there is three Taivos. I have registered username Taivo in Estonian, German, Russian and Simple English, in Commons and Estonian Wiktionary. Someone has registered it in Hungarian but hasn't made anything. And – if you ever need a favour, just ask. Taivo (talk) 17:28, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Cypriot Turkish vs Gibrizlija

Hi, Taivo. Could you have a look at this page please: Gibrizlija . It claims to be about a Turkic language. It seems to be a complete hoax and the current sources in the article do not meet wiki standards as they are mostly self-published websites. The page has been tagged to be merged into the article on Cypriot Turkish since November 2007. Many Thanks in advance. WillMall (talk) 01:08, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

It's not a language, it's just a dialect of Turkish and identical with Cypriot Turkish. I frown on Wikipedia articles about dialects personally, but there are nationalists that insist upon them even though they are pretty useless compared to the articles on the language they are a part of. Gibrizlija and Cypriot Turkish are the same thing. Since the majority of English language sources will call it Cypriot Turkish, voilà, that's the name that should be used with Gibrizlija as an alternate name. The "reliable sources" are crap. Turkish is generally separated into two dialects--Western Anatolian (from which Standard derives) and Eastern Anatolian (from which Cypriot apparently derives). Bernt Brendemoen, 1998, "Turkish Dialects," The Turkic Languages, Routledge, pp. 236-241. Also, "The Turks of Cyprus were settled there by the Ottoman government in the sixteenth century"--Hendrik Boeschoten, 1998, "The Speakers of Turkic Languages," The Turkic Languages, pg. 4. So either delete both articles or merge them as Cypriot Turkish. (Taivo (talk) 03:37, 3 January 2010 (UTC))

ok, thanks. WillMall (talk) 03:56, 3 January 2010 (UTC) Actually, I don't think I can do anything as an admin will probably stop a merge or deletion. WillMall (talk) 04:43, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I took the bold route and made the G article a redirect to Cypriot Turkish. Except for the history section, the two articles were nearly identical. (Taivo (talk) 04:57, 3 January 2010 (UTC))

Answering Randy in Boise

Hi, Taivo. I'm a scientist too, but I generally edit in topic areas where I'm not an expert. However, since you mention Randy in Boise on your userpage, I thought I would mention how we handle that sort of thing at the Che Guevara article, in case you might find it a helpful example. In previous discussions we've established 3 or 4 particular biographies as being the most reliable sources for the article, based on such things as the book having an extensive bibliography in the back, a review of the book appearing in JSTOR, and other criteria (as objective as possible) to establish a high level of scholarship. When someone proposes adding a theory or anecdote to the page, we either check one or more of these biographies to see whether it's mentioned, or ask the editor wanting to add it to do so. We explain that if it's not mentioned in these definitive biographies or has only a very short mention, then putting it in the article would violate WP:UNDUE, explaining that the article is a short summary of a large amount of literature about Che Guevara and that there therefore isn't room for everything. This can all be done fairly briefly by giving links to earlier discussions. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 20:54, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Awiya

Hi Taivo! I noticed that you removed the qualifying "misleadingly" from Awiya, because you deem it unnecessary. Hetzron (in the reference I attached to my edit) made it quite clear that Awiya is a very unfortunate misnomer for the language, as it means "Awi-person" in the language, just like calling the English language "Englishman". Conti Rossini only came up with that name because of lack of exposure to the language, and it is quite good to be rid of it in the literature. I agree it should be mentioned in the article, because the name was also used by Palmer in his otherwise excellent article, and readers should be able to identify it with Awngi, but still I think it is necessary to make readers aware of the inappropriateness of the name. Maybe you could consider to put the "misleadingly" in again? Landroving Linguist (talk) 14:31, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I reworded the qualifier. "Awiya" isn't misleading, but it's definitely inappropriate. Cheers. (Taivo (talk) 15:28, 4 January 2010 (UTC))

I figured it might be s.t. like that. I added it because that's what it goes by in USPID. kwami (talk) 21:31, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Northern Cyprus

Hi

I noticed you re-edited my edit back to "officially"

Can you tell me what officially means in your context please ?

I took that wording out as most countries do not officially recognise that name apart from the republic itself and Turkey

thanks Chaosdruid (talk) 22:15, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

It means that is what the official name of the country is (translated into English, of course). "Official" means the formal name that the country has adopted for itself. It has nothing to do with international relations or international organizations. That wording was the result of discussions in the past. English speakers really don't use "Turkish Republic..." in any contexts other than stating the official name. (Taivo (talk) 23:08, 6 January 2010 (UTC))

Can we at least agree to use different wording, perhaps "Its declared name" or something like that which will not confuse readers into thinking it is officially accepted as a country in its own right ? Chaosdruid (talk) 01:00, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Whether the international community accepts the validity of its independence or not, the official name of a country is the name it chooses for itself. Northern Cyprus is an independent country whether anyone else thinks so or not because it acts like a sovereign nation. It is de facto independent. As such, it has an official name. Take Macedonia, for example. It's official name is "Republic of Macedonia" even though Greece has forced the UN (and many other international organizations) to only call it "The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia". It's official name, no matter what the UN or Greece says, is "Republic of Macedonia" because the Macedonian government says that's its official name. The other is an international reference. The official name of Northern Cyprus is "Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus". It doesn't matter if anyone else wants to consider it to be independent or not--the official name is "Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus". There's no other accurate term for it. (Taivo (talk) 05:21, 7 January 2010 (UTC))

I surrender to your greater wikiperience  :¬) .... (until proven otherwise ?!? lol)

Chaosdruid (talk) 07:26, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Reverts and edits on "Northern Cyprus"

Hi

SOrry to bother you but I am having a little problem with two ip users, one you have dealt with I believe on that page.

You reverted his edits, as I would have done, and once they reappeared I reverted them again + warning for vandalism

The history shows the two ips and I have also warned the second IP user for inappropriate edit comments

I havent got enough experience of dealing with this sort of conflict so thought I would try and use your Wikiperience again ! I am worried that I would not know exactly what to do if they revert again...

thanks in anticipation...Chaosdruid (talk) 12:40, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I have reported the matter on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring to cover myself against any 3RR or warring accusations. Anyting else I should do ?

Chaosdruid (talk) 13:49, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Not for now. I contacted another interested editor to have him take a look. You already know my position on "officially" in the first sentence, but the other two IP edits just feel too POV for my taste (and, they are unsourced) so I don't like them. Whenever you get caught with an IP (or another registered editor) in a similar situation, you did the right thing--contacting another editor. Make sure you've made comments on the article's Talk Page so that your position is well documented as well as the other editor's failure to discuss the issue. Over time, you'll get to know some administrators as well. You can also ask them to protect the page. (Taivo (talk) 13:52, 8 January 2010 (UTC))

OK - cheers for the advice. I did comment on all the IP chat pages as well as putting the "you may be edit warring" notice on the last ip chat page. Also made comments on the article chat page and left it half hour until that last revert was made then reported it.

As for the "officially" matter, you showed great wisdom as well as non bitey behaviour (I have scars from other editors bites lol) and thank you for that...

Chaosdruid (talk) 14:04, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. There's an admin who's chimed in at Northern Cyprus now (User:Nev1), so the cavalry has arrived. (Taivo (talk) 14:08, 8 January 2010 (UTC))

Northern Cyprus on List of sovereign states

Good edit to follow mine up. Sounds like a middle ground to me. Outback the koala (talk) 07:58, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Indo European Languages article

I reverted to my addition of Rig-Vedic (which is not strictly sanskrit i.e classical sanskrit but the ancestor of it called vedic sanskrit). Rigvedic is the oldest attested form of vedic sanskrit and belongs much to the bronze age of a time comparable to Mycenean Greek. Also see Rigveda#Dating and historical context

Feel free to undo if you're still not convinced. :)

86.96.227.87 (talk) 22:41, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

"Attestation" means written records from that time, not just an assumption based on written records from 2000 years later. (Taivo (talk) 04:12, 27 January 2010 (UTC))

Talk:Selkirk

Hi Taivo. Could you weigh in at Talk:Selkirk where we are discussiing whether the article should mention the towns gaelic name.·Maunus·ƛ· 15:59, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Uzhhorod

(section moved to article talk page where more appropriate.) (Taivo (talk) 17:59, 31 January 2010 (UTC))

Meseems that, effectively, diacritics are appropriate for every language written in the Cyrillic alphabet (even though they are rarely used). Or so I figured after seeing the following examples [1], [2], [3], [4]. In any case I think that Cyrillic diacritics are necessary in cases where the place of the pitch accent is not predictable. --Omnipaedista (talk) 08:03, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, diacritics are found in Russian and Ukrainian dictionaries to mark stress placement, but English readers who don't know Cyrillic and Cyrillic dictionary habits wouldn't know that and would think that the diacritic marks is supposed to be there normally. Stress in the English Wikipedia should be marked in the phonetic transcription--that's where English readers will expect to find that. (Taivo (talk) 13:07, 5 February 2010 (UTC))

You removed my text.

You removed my text where I maintained that on the pages of Wikipedia treating the Ancient History operates a gang of 3-5 persons (or a single one with couple accounts) who, by acting in concert on the related subjects, try to promote removal of the name of the Ancient Macedonia replacing it by Greece, Hellas or derivates of these names.

To remove my text was a very good idea. Thanks very much indeed.Draganparis (talk) 22:07, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Nobody is saying anything

Thank you for that treatise. I trained in historical linguistics as an undergrad.

But this is just a section "Genetics of Chadic speakers" that is causing no harm, and you sound like an antagonistic collegiate, a misguided trooper. Chadic languages is not yours to defend. DinDraithou (talk) 19:47, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Chadic languages

Hi Taivo. I have previously hinted at what I am now going to say bluntly: don't use your academic credentials as an argument in content disputes. It doesn't work. Being a linguistics professor is not an argument in it self - there are many crackpot linguistics professors in the world whose titles are not worth the paper they're written on. I know you are not one of those but the only way you can make other editors know that here at wikipedia is by using rational coherent arguments and not appeals to authority. Furthermore when you bring in your credentials you invite ad hominem arguments since what you are basically doing is turning your person into an argument. This derails discussions into namecalling. It also comes off as arrogant which ticks off a lot of people. Really, you should stick to arguing by means of those sound and rational arguments based in your extensive knowledge about the topic of linguistics, that I know you base you opinions on. ·Maunus·ƛ· 07:40, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Northern Cyprus

Hi again

I have commented on the Northern Cyprus page.

You took out my commentary as NPOV

Chaosdruid (talk) 16:28, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Albanians

Hi Taivo. Do you think you could give a third opinion here as to whether a dictionary written by Stephanus of Byzantium (6th century) is a primary source or a tertiary source.--Ptolion (talk) 17:23, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion. Could you please also give an answer on the talk:albanians page about the use of the maps? Unfortunately an unregistered user removed it. sulmues (talk)--Sulmues 18:25, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Really appreciated your measured approach! Thanks. sulmues (talk)--Sulmues 21:59, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Moroni or Nephi

Hi Taivo. I cited my sources where the angle is called Nephi, by Joseph Smith himself. Should you want to look for your self, Times and Seasons Vol. III pp. 749, 753, Millennial Star, vol. 3, p.53, Millennial Star. August 1842. Vol 3 p 71, Biographical Sketches, p. 79, Pearl of Great Price, 1851 edition. Now don't be a dick and delete it again.

Hmm. An unsigned personal attack. Should I care? No. (Taivo (talk) 19:49, 10 February 2010 (UTC))

It's not an "attack" Taivo. It's a fact. I've cited the sources, you need to stop being a little dick and leave it alone.

I do believe that "dick" is a personal attack. Take the issue to the Talk Page and if you get a consensus (if your sources are good it won't be a problem), then we we add it to the article. (Taivo (talk) 20:45, 10 February 2010 (UTC))

You're welcome regarding the revert :). Also, in future consider not responding to personal attacks, most times it's best to revert and ignore. Best, - Kingpin¹³ (talk)

You're right, of course, but sometimes the trolls are just so cute and cuddly when they're little :p (Taivo (talk) 21:34, 10 February 2010 (UTC))

Don't have too many or you'll be sick :P - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 21:40, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Dealing with Fascist Vandals

Please could you consider placing warning templates {{uw-v1|Dnepropetrovsk}}, {{uw-v2|Dnepropetrovsk}}, {{uw-v3|Dnepropetrovsk}}, etc. on user talk pages when you revert vandalism to Ukrainian articles. As you have noticed some people, mainly from the United States, have been vandalising Ukrainian articles, deleting the common English name, or making hate comments about the native language of central and eastern Ukraine. I have done this for the talk pages of various vandals whose harmful edits you recently reverted.--Toddy1 (talk) 12:06, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I have put warnings on both IP talk pages. User talk:173.54.99.72 has been warned many times, with increasing severity of warning. If he/she does it again, the correct course of action would be to put a notice on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Such a report should probably also mention User talk:96.234.13.213 as a suspected sock puppet; the user appears to be the same person as 173.54.99.72 - probably one is his/her home and one his/her office.

I am not an admin.--Toddy1 (talk) 07:58, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom process

Is this something you need to know? Your name is included in a new posting at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Clerks Noticeboard#Discussion/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Tang Dynasty? As for what happens next, we'll see? --Tenmei (talk) 08:53, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

As you know, ArbCom remedies in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tang Dynasty implied a multi-step process; however, no protocols for confirming mentors were suggested. In the absence of specifics, User:Mattisse/Plan was taken as an arguably relevant procedural model. Accordingly, a draft plan and list of mentors was e-mailed to each ArbCom member and redundantly posted at WP:AC/CN. This seems not to have worked.

I have now sought "approval" at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification#Tang Dynasty. This message is necessary because the standard template requires me to confirm notifying you. --Tenmei (talk) 21:04, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom member Coren has suggested, "It would be helpful if the editors put forward as proposed mentors would chime in here before any decision is made ...."

I will follow-up with an e-mail; and I'll explain that John Carter has been inexplicably off-wiki since late December. --Tenmei (talk) 02:49, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

How mentoring will work?

As you know, Roger Davies seeks more information from the mentors about how mentoring will work.

I hope these words will help "prime" the pump. I believe that what can be done in pre-planning has been accomplished. We will be figuring it out together as the future unfolds. A restatement is straightforward:

• An initial editing strategy based on a theory of wiki-pacifism was suggested by the userpage of Leujohn in Hong Kong.
• Fasten in Germany suggested that I tentatively adopt pacifist tactics as an experiment derived from salutary premises which I posted at Wikipedia:Mentorship#Unanticipated Consequences, especially the words of a famous German:

We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them. — Albert Einstein

In the absence of any better alternative, I agreed; however, a willingness to experiment with a novel tactic represents only a superficial change. This is useful as an exploratory gambit, but not transformative. I am not persuaded that pacifist action is workable even in this experimental approach, but we'll see.

The Latin axiom qui tacet consentire videtur is mirrored in WP:Silence + WP:Consensus. In our wiki-context, I would like to find a way to construe pacifist non-confrontation ≠ WP:Silence. In resolving these seeming contradictions, the mentors' points-of-view are essential. Together we will discover otherwise unrecognized alternatives.

In the context of this specific issue, Xavexgoem has agreed to be a non-public mentor. "Finding of facts" in the decision at Tang Dynasty encompassed User talk:Xavexgoem/archive5#Seeking help in presenting thoughts clearly. Xavexgoem's experience in mediation will help remedy an arguable deficit in the composition of our small group. Core policies are the tools at hand; and Xavexgoem agreed to help connect the dots in hopes that it could benefit more than me.

Does this help you make better guesses about how mentorship will work? --Tenmei (talk) 01:31, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Utah Meetup

We're currently discussing a possible meetup in the near future, should you care to join in. Useight (talk) 15:42, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Macedonian language

I saw that you are member of the Wikiproject:Languages. I see some issues tags on Macedonian language article. Can you check them please? Greetings 1111tomica (talk) 18:53, 28 February 2010 (UTC)1111tomica1111tomica (talk) 18:53, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Other than the generic tag at the top of the article, which tags are you worried about? I looked at the article and didn't notice any right away. The fundamental problem you're going to deal with in terms of Macedonian is that it and Bulgarian are just politically motivated dialects of a single language, even closer than Ukrainian and Russian, for example. You get into the Slavic-speaking region of Greece and it's virtually impossible to tell whether a person is speaking "Macedonian" or "Bulgarian". (Taivo (talk) 23:52, 28 February 2010 (UTC))

Why did you remove my comment? I am sorry if you thought that I wanted to insult you. This was not my intention. There was nothing insulting in my comment. I simply think and said this, that your language knowledge is apparently insufficient to judge about differences of these Slave languages. I am a native speaker of another Slave language which is very close to these languages and I understand them 100% and speak and write in these languages too, so that I can explain to you the fine differences between them. As well as their relations to the Old Church Slavonic. This is very interesting subject though. Sorry again.Draganparis (talk) 07:30, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

As I said in my edit summary, I don't appreciate people who don't write English on my Talk Page. I'm a linguist so I don't need a lecture or your input on how similar or different these languages are--my knowledge is quite sufficient to judge the similarities and differences. And your very comment, "I understand them 100%" shows that these aren't really different languages in a linguistic sense, but more or less moderately divergent dialects of a single language that are divided into different "languages" only for political purposes, not linguistic purposes. (Taivo (talk) 07:44, 4 March 2010 (UTC))

OK, fine. Excuse me anyway. What is disturbing on Wikipedia pages is an immediate hostility that is felt when a discussion starts on these pages. Kind of immediate preemptive hidden hate. I am in fact French, and because of my past, I have strong affinity for the Slave world and I chose a Slave name for Wikipedia. This may of course be a reason for that atmosphere on these particular pages. The written material that I collected after all these disputes is huge and offers a lot of basis for an analysis of human communication and influences of the political and ethnic hypotheses that the people who take part in these discussions have. The last discussion that I started takes an ominous turn and there are ethical grounds that would justify that I abandon it. As you can see these are always the same names that respond in concert against an “intruder” to protect a fictive “consensus”. Thanks anyway for a substantial understanding and reasonable stance that you were able to maintain all this time. Sincerely, Draganparis (talk) 13:42, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the consensus on the page where I encountered your comments is not "fictive". I have been involved with these Macedonian-Greek issues for about a year now and can assure you that the discussions are substantive, but that when consensus is reached, it is supported by both sides of the discussion. Yes, we always look at newcomers with a jaded eye because they don't have history with us and their "contributions" are more often than not an attempt to disrupt that consensus or to swing the issue in one direction or another. Your initial comments were directed very pointedly at a Greek cabal that you thought was controlling the article. It is not true and that article is already very neutral about the "Greekness" of the ancient Macedonians. Wikipedia is open to new editors, but you cannot step into a controversial topic and claim (without a history in the discussion) that one side or the other is conspiring against the good of the article. (Taivo (talk) 14:11, 4 March 2010 (UTC))

I do not want to start this discussion here again. If you want more on this, your e-mail will be welcome. Thanks for the normal tone and normal discussion anyway.Draganparis (talk) 16:36, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I think your mother-in-law was lied too...

Hello, TaivoLinguist. You have new messages at Toddy1's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Mentoring task force

Taivo -- This text could be added to my statement at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification?

Doing nothing is an option; but what is best? My deference and patience during the six months in which ArbCom dawdled was unrewarded; and silence appears to have defined me as a dupe. Now I have endured an further three months in limbo. ArbCom radicalizes when its mission should have been to encourage quite opposite goals. --Tenmei (talk) 03:10, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Supplementary statement

In Afghanistan, an American mentor watches a graduation ceremony for women who learned to raise bees and chickens as part of a women's empowerment program

A task force is established to work on a single defined task or activity. Drawing lessons from the photo at the right: If wiki-"mentoring" is at all like teaching Afghan women to raise bees and chickens, delay produces neither honey nor eggs.

A "mentoring task Force" (MTF) for me is a more topical or timely name than "mentorship committee." The word "task" emphasises our short- and long-term objectives; and the identified volunteers have been waiting too long to begin addressing specific tasks-at-hand.

The most widely publicized examples of on-going mentoring are linked with the phrase "task force." For example, NATO's Operational Mentor and Liaison Teams (OMLTs) are an important part of its contribution towards stabilizing Afghanistan. Australia's military programme in Afghanistan has been re-named Mentoring Task Force (MTF) concurrent with deployments in 2010. The Canadian mentoring programme in Afghanistan appears controversial precisely because of allegations that the Harper governent is waiting too long to get started — see Matthew Fisher, "Canada may have painted itself into corner in Afghanistan," The Gazette (Montreal). March 12, 2010.

A Google search for the phrase "mentoring task force" produces a range non-military hits, including an American Anthropological Association report in 2009 which ends with the words "Don't Drop the ball."

I do recognize that this is a pivotal time for ArbCom as Wikipedia's future development unfolds; nevertheless, my role requires me to reiterate: "Don't drop the ball."

Editing advice

Taivo -- You may not know that PMDrive1061 agreed to be a non-public mentor.

With regret, I have to report that today's attempt to reach out for help was unclear:

A. I intended to ask for comments here about the use of formatting as a device (a) to focus my comments and (b) to limit the number of words.

B. Also, I wanted to invite PMDrive1061 to consider posting a comment at the active ArbCom thread.

Instead, my words were construed as puzzling. I tried to restate my purpose and questions here.

Do you have the time to take a look at this? Can you offer suggestions about what I might have done differently? Can you propose plausible modifications in the formatting or in the wording?

BTW, I have sent you an e-mail. --Tenmei (talk) 19:10, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Please notice my revised "2nd try" message at User talk:PMDrive1061#Mentorship — only 8 sentences + 2 quotes? It is shorter and thus better? It seems to me that I've not explained enough.

The re-thinking rationale is a variant of less is more; but in this context of initiating a working relationship, I would have thought that less is simply less. In other words, less would seem to be too little?

Like my "1st try" message, this is also puzzling but in a different way.--Tenmei (talk) 16:28, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Republic of Macedonia

You're right about this. I'll look elsewhere for the inclusion of that information. Regards, --JSimin (talk) 14:44, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism

I have reported 173.54.99.72 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism#User-reported--Toddy1 (talk) 05:25, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

It is worth noting that the block on 173.54.99.72 comes to an end on 28 April, so be prepared for some more vandalism. However if he does it again, a report to the administrators' notice board should get him an even longer block next time.--Toddy1 (talk) 11:19, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Number One Gripe about Wikipedia

In my experience them "Editors who are half-blood nationals who think it is their God-ordained responsibility to defend the honor of their ancestral homeland without regard to reason, responsibility, or even right, to the very last bit of their available bandwidth" you mention at your userpage are not living in Western Europe but in North America.

Thought you should know . — Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 12:55, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I've encountered them from both areas :) One of the most rabid Ukrainian nationals I've encountered in Wikipedia is in London. Fortunately, the majority of editors are decent, reasonable, well-mannered and polite individuals who register a user name and act like citizens of the world. It's only a very, very small minority of editors whose nationalistic fervor burns too brightly. Cheers. (Taivo (talk) 13:45, 16 March 2010 (UTC))

I also realized that I needed a bit of "softening" of my gripe so that most people realize it doesn't apply to them :) (Taivo (talk) 13:55, 16 March 2010 (UTC))

Glad to have been of help ! — Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 15:04, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Assyrian Neo-Aramaic

Why did you reverse my version when I implied that it is not a independent language, but a dialect and why did you remove "Turoyo" from "See Also" even though it is one language? You are aware of that Assyrian Neo-Aramaic, Chaldean Neo-Aramaic and Turoyo are all three one Neo-Aramaic language with two major dialects, a western(Turoyo) and eastern(Assyrian, Chaldean) one?--Yohanun (talk) 12:21, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Linguists consider them to be three identifiable languages with a certain level of mutual intelligibility, but clearly identifiable individual features. They are not considered to be "one Neo-Aramaic language" in a linguistic sense. They each have their own ISO 639-3 identifier. They are not treated as "one language" in the linguistic literature. (Taivo (talk) 15:25, 20 March 2010 (UTC))

Dear Mr. Taivo,

I agree with you that these are three identifiable languages, but they are different accents to the same language, namely Neo-Aramaic. When we (speakers of this language) refer to it, We refer to the written form, Syriac. This name is considered mutual, and it keeps name warring out of our articles. When you back one denomination over the other (i.e. by saying Assyrian Neo-Aramaic, Chaldean Neo-Aramaic, or Turoyo), you basically ignite a useless war that could be easily avoided by just introducing the correct name of the writing system, Syriac. --Tisqupnaia2010 (talk) 03:06, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

In the comment above, I said "the written form", when I referred to Syriac. Neo-Aramaic is written with Syriac Alphabet, So we usually say something like (Syriac: xxxxx) (e.g. Syriac: ܠܫܢܐ ܐܪܡܝܐ) to tell anyone reading it that this is Syriac Alphabet, and all three denominations in this case can read it in their own accent without killing each other over it ☺. By the way Syriac is not a dead language yet. I know many people who can still speak it!!. --Tisqupnaia2010 (talk) 03:47, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

"Dead" in the sense that Latin is: No one learns it as their first language. Of course, people learn to read and write Syriac and to "pronounce" it. When speaking of the languages of a country, one doesn't count written-only languages--only the native tongues. (Taivo (talk) 05:35, 27 March 2010 (UTC))

Assyrian and Chaldean warring

Dear Prof. Taivo, (I have just read that you're a professor)
I am sorry to have you involved in our ridiculous warring; however, you seem to have a magical touch when it comes to finding a resolution. It is for this reason that I beg you to see this article: Tel Skuf. This is the village I was born in. It is a Chaldean village in the sense that its inhabitants are Chaldean Christians (if we remove any notion of ethnicity). of course, Mr. Shmayo had to jump in and make it Assyrian. A week ago, I revised the article to make it far from ethnicity by removing any ethnic notations introduced by Chaldean and Assyrian nationalists, and then I asked for the help of an Admin: User:Beeblebrox. He blocked the page in the hopes that we could reach a mutual understanding. I do believe the answer for our problem is by removing all ethnic notions from our articles; however, I have been faced by the attacks of Nationalists. The current blocked article doesn't have any references to the ethnicity, but Mr. Shmayo (and others) still argue it.
The Admin User:Beeblebrox has asked us to get some one else to resolve this problem, and I think you're the one we need. Needless to say that because I was born in this village, my ethnic affiliation is quite important (and quite obvious in the talk page). However, I was ready to give this up so that others (who have nothing to do with this village) would stop warring.
Please help us.
Best Regards, --Tisqupnaia2010 (talk) 00:08, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I have forgot to mention that Mr. Shmayo agrees with me that this is a Chaldean Christian village (mentioned in the talk page). --Tisqupnaia2010 (talk) 00:11, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I apologize for my comments on here. I admit that I am unable to control my emotions at this moment, so I'll refrain from any inputs regarding this subject until I can write constructive entries. I have stated my proposed resolution and I am ready to back the one you proposed. I'll stay out of Wikipedia for a couple of days. Again, I apologize. --Tisqupnaia2010 (talk) 21:35, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Lower casing of "River" in river names

This is just one of the many, many instances where I do edits beyond of what people with my level of English should attempt to do. :-) Sorry for the trouble. — In fact, I have been using lower case ("river") almost systematically in Wikipedia. I guess I should stop doing that. - Best, Ev (talk) 20:42, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

We generally always capitalize "River" when it is part of the name of a river, e.g., "Nile River", "Dnieper and Dniester Rivers", etc. (Taivo (talk) 21:46, 30 March 2010 (UTC))

I will remember that. Thank you. :-) Ev (talk) 22:04, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. It applies to most other geographical features as well: "Mount Everest", "Ural Mountains", "Grand Canyon", "Po Valley", "Pacific Ocean", "Black Sea", etc. (Taivo (talk) 22:11, 30 March 2010 (UTC))

Award

		The Barnstar of Diplomacy
		In recognition of his considerable mediation efforts and oversight, I am delighted to present Taivo this award, with Thanks. ܥܝܪܐܩ (talk) 22:52, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

FAQ

If you ever fancy creating an FAQ on Ukrainian article naming that we can transclude to article and user talk pages, let me know and I'll chip in! Knepflerle (talk) 13:16, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Kharkiv

I've protected this article for one week due to edit-warring. Please note that it takes two to edit-war, and that both of you are likely to be blocked if the edit-warring continues when the protection expires. As hard as it is sometimes, report the vandalism at the appropriate noticeboard and then step back until it has been dealt with. Karanacs (talk) 14:17, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

"south west Levant"

The article we have for the geographical region including both Israel and the Palestinian territories is Palestine. nableezy - 15:33, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Happy Easter!

Happy Easter!
This year on the same day's in the East and West! — Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 15:52, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Tel Isqof

Hello, TaivoLinguist. You have new messages at Talk:Tel_Isqof#Clarification.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

...not only in Avoiding a war but Clarification also, haha. Shmayo (talk) 12:50, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Tenmei mentorship

Your input is desired at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification#Request for clarification: Tang Dynasty. Arbitrator Risker has posed a number of questions relevant to the mentors, and members of the committee would like to see them answered. Thank you, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 19:31, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Please do not remove

Please do not remove the technical note of mine on Macedonia (ancient kingdom). Otherwise, I will be obliged to report you. Sincerely, Draganparis (talk) 09:49, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

If your rant was an actual "technical note" that's one thing, but you'll note that I'm not the only editor removing it as a waste of space. (Taivo (talk) 11:33, 9 April 2010 (UTC))

I displayed only the results of sockpuppetry investigation. If the objective is to protect the "group of four" (or even more) of collaborating editors and hide the result of sockpuppetry investigation, then of course it is "a waist of space". (I am still waiting that you remove my e-mail address from your talk page above...)Draganparis (talk) 12:08, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm all for displaying the results of sock-puppetry investigations (not really, cause it's spam). Let's see Draganparis banned twice, his several sock-puppets banned too. Me not banned nor anyone else accused by Dragan and actually cleared by check-user. Ban this troll pls already Simanos (talk) 23:14, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

If you want to remove your email address from your prior post, then do so. I don't recall ever seeing it. (Taivo (talk) 12:36, 12 April 2010 (UTC))

Rusyn language

Hi, do you have quotes from the International Encyclopedia of Linguistics confirming info added into Rusyn language? Can you please integrate those into article. Thanks. --windyhead (talk) 08:48, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

The statements are nearly exact quotes and cited. (Taivo (talk) 09:05, 11 April 2010 (UTC))

lead

it does matter because to someone who doesnt know how to read those languages, the way you have the lead currently is confusing. Copying a flawed lead from another Ukrainian city article doesn't make things clearer or better. No need to try to make the lead convoluted just because you want to have kharkov as close in centimeters to karkiv as possible.--Львівське (talk) 00:01, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Seems it's time for a cool down period cause people are getting a bit unreasonable. Please don’t get caught up to much in this it's only wikipedia . And please also keep in mind that "Kharkov" is currently not the most common English form as any English newspaper website would show you... — Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 07:59, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, if you look at the figures here, you'll see that "Kharkov" is still quite alive and well--it outstrips "Kharkiv" in both the NY Times and Google Books :) It's not going to stage a comeback, but it's not dying as fast as some would like. (Taivo (talk) 08:59, 12 April 2010 (UTC))

Not sure what these searches proof : books about WWII don't name the city "Kharkiv" since the city was not known as it then. BBC uses "Kharkiv" and seems a bigger organisation then the US-newspapers. But ok, I'm not agians a double bold name of Kharkiv in the lead. — Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 09:37, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

The reason that books about WWII are relevant is that may be the only thing that an English speaker knows about the city--the battles. If s/he wants to know more, they will be looking for "Kharkov" in Wikipedia, because that's the only name they know. Bolding the Russian name in the first sentence (as close to "Kharkiv" as possible) tells them they've arrived in the right place even though the name at the top of the page says "Kharkiv". Cheers. (Taivo (talk) 09:43, 12 April 2010 (UTC))

vKontakte.ru

I'm also on vKontakte.ru. Feel free to (and I would like it if you) ad me as a friend there! You can find my vKontakte.ru-page on my Ukrainian wikipedia userpage (I go by the same name on all wikipedia's). — Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 10:33, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Done :) (Taivo (talk) 11:02, 12 April 2010 (UTC))

Just a record-keeping section for my own notes

"Kiev" at Reuters: [5] (Taivo (talk) 19:19, 12 April 2010 (UTC))

Western Asia in airline destination lists

Why is Western Asia still being listed Southwest Asia in airline destination lists? it redirects to the WA article, but why not use the new article name when it exists, rather than have it redirect, apparently editors associated with airline project on wiki are insisting that it continue being listed as SWA for some odd reason beyond comprehension, see Lufthansa destinations same is the case in all others, editing for correction is always reverted. 119.155.79.128 (talk) 11:41, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Probably because I see no discussion or consensus-building being done on the Talk Page. (Taivo (talk) 12:36, 15 April 2010 (UTC))

Concensus was reached amongst three people who dominate airline related wiki stuff that Western Asia should continue as Southwest Asia as far as airline articles are concerned, at the same time they are adamant on using Burma country name in there as per article title instead of Myanmar which is use dby most of the world even a sit redirects to Burma article, what double standards.119.155.68.21 (talk) 15:07, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

We live by consensus here on Wikipedia. If you don't like something, then you need to change the consensus. (Taivo (talk) 16:45, 15 April 2010 (UTC))

I dont like the fact that articles having their own title have to use redirects in some cases, while actual titles are used 99% of the time here, kindly tell your co-editors to stop this stupid double-standard, because the ones handling airline articles think they are superior to everyone elses opinion even if they are wrong, so if WA is being listed as SWA then Burma should be Myanmar, thank you.116.71.86.158 (talk)

Tel Keppe

What makes you think Chaldeans are ethnicaly Assyrian? what nonsense is this? No one on earth can force this, neither you nor anyone. Chaldeans were and will always be ethnically seperate. Don't just make statements like that without a proof. You seem to be educated, this kind of games is for ignorants only. And what consensus are you talking about? no Chaldean will ever say he's an Assyrian!! Chaldeans would rather die than be named Assyrians.--King Of Babylonia (talk) 19:59, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia consensus can be found at Talk:Assyrian people with supplementary discussion at Talk:Chaldean Christians. If you try to edit outside Wikipedia's consensus, then you may be subject to blocks or bans. (Taivo (talk) 20:26, 15 April 2010 (UTC))

with all do respect, what I have found so far is the fact that "ONE" Assyrian, Shamyo, is running around all the articles and replacing "Chaldeans" with "Assyrians". The "consensus" you have been talking about is within an article whose neutrality is disputed. How could an educated man buy into such nonsense? How could you simply want to refer to an unneutral article? Reading that Article, you could easily recognize the biased tone of the writer. Beside a picture of Alqosh and a Chaldean Flag, the only time Chaldeans is mentioned is to make them Assyrians. As for my new account, I don't think that this gives you the right to ignore/question my intentions. Soon, more Chaldeans will be informed of this issue, and there will be more new accounts. Should they be simply ignored? I have seen that you're neutral. I have read the previous nonsense that Shmayo have caused. I just don't see why you keep on ignoring the fact that there were 2 Chaldeans trying to tell you to rename the "Assyrian people" article. you simply ignored them, and you believed what "ONE" Assyrian was telling you!!!--King Of Babylonia (talk) 23:29, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

"Consensus", King of Babylonia, does not consist of "convince Taivo". It consists of agreeing with other editors, both Assyrians and Chaldeans, that one statement is better supported than another or else finding an accurate compromise wording. It is not about confrontation, but about cooperation. It doesn't matter how many Chaldeans come to this place, the process is identical. As long as you fail to discuss the issue with Shmayo and the other Assyrian editors, the article will stay locked and you will be prevented from editing it. (Taivo (talk) 23:35, 15 April 2010 (UTC))

OK. I apologize for my previous comments. But let me ask you something. Do you think consensus was need by the French to prove they were not German after Germany annihilated France? Do you think the Polish needed consensus with the Germans to prove they were not Germans after Germany Annihilated Poland? Do you think that Kuwaitis needed Iraqis consensus to prove they were not Iraqis after they were annihilated by Iraq? Do you think that consensus would've ever freed these countries? I appreciate your help for being the mediator between Chaldeans and Assyrians, but you need to have an idea of what you're asking Chaldeans to do, giving up their identity.--King Of Babylonia (talk) 03:03, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

If you are unable to act in a civil manner and work toward consensus on Wikipedia with Assyrian editors, then you need to find something else to do in your spare time. (Taivo (talk) 03:07, 17 April 2010 (UTC))

Let's be frank here for a second. Your threats are not appreciated. Neither you nor anyone else can tell me what to do in my spare time. I don't think at any point I was uncivil to anyone. It is uncivil on your part to attack me in such a way. It is also uncivil on your part to jump into a civil chatting between me and Shmayo on his page. I don't think he needs a "mama" to take care of him, he has fingers to type. You don't need to throw your threats under any comment I make. It would be "civil" to just post them on my talk page once, as you did 2 minutes before you posted them all over Wikipedia!!! --King Of Babylonia (talk) 04:00, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Get real, King of Babylonia. I did not post my comments "all over Wikipedia". I posted them on your Talk Page and beneath your comment to Shmayo. You are actually on the border of incivility. Wikipedia is not the place to be making nationalistic harangues. If you want to make changes on Wikipedia to the way that Chaldeans are perceived and discussed, then you are going about it in a completely unproductive manner. You need to listen to the two other Chaldeans who have cautioned you about getting your passions under control. Wikipedia is about negotiating and coming to consensus. If that isn't something that you're interested in doing, then you do need to move on or else you will be subject to blocks and bans. That's not a "threat", it's a fact of life on Wikipedia. Your comments to Shmayo were inflammatory. That is unacceptable. And, if you read the interactions at the various places where these discussions have been happening, you will see that in working between Chaldeans and Assyrians over the last couple of months, you are not the first person that I have had to strongly caution about civility. I've cautioned editors on both sides of this issue. So sit back, get a beer, watch some TV, and cool down your passion before your intemperate words get you in trouble. (Taivo (talk) 04:12, 17 April 2010 (UTC))

Korean Language

I do not appreciate the removal of a "relevant" link on Korean Language article. I am a professional Korean translator in real life and even contributed vocabulary for the article. However, since you and someone else both feel that it is advertising, I will back off. Good luck! Galbilover (talk) 11:23, 16 April 2010 (EST)

Assyrianization

Taivo, you're active in the Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac/etc. discussions. It would be good to have another users opinion in Talk:Assyrianization concerning "the assyrianization of Syriac Christians". Unfortunately we're not reaching any good. If you have time please join the discussion. Shmayo (talk) 21:02, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Edo script

Hi Taivo,

I wonder if you can dig up anything on the Edo script. The article is based on the Cornell site in the links, which was based on an email s.o. sent them and which they've apparently never followed up on. If it's a CV syllabary, there wouldn't seem to be enough glyphs to accommodate the language. The email to the Cornell site gave a ref, but I don't know if it's accessible. If the script is real, it would be pretty neat, but I wonder if it's not just a personal project, and that if there is a traditional Edo script, if it might not be s.t. else. I've deleted several refs to it in other articles which were clearly nonsense, such as it being an ancient script unchanged for 2000 years. (Esp. given the European color scheme!) I plan on calling some Edo cultural associations Monday, in case they've heard of it.

Hey, Kwami. I think it's someone's personal project, like a conlang. It doesn't look like anything that anyone would actually use, let alone publish works in. The Edo aren't rich enough to supply every village school with a color printer (and unlimited quantities of color ink or toner) so that their children could become literate and they could enter the modern world. It's just a pet project, nothing that would ever be adopted by a native people anywhere on the planet. (Taivo (talk) 01:21, 19 April 2010 (UTC))

My impression was that it was supposed to have just been used in the royal palace, which would avoid the last criticism. I just want to make sure there isn't anyone out there who knows about it before I delete. kwami (talk) 04:35, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

English Common Usage

What exactly is English Common Usage and how do you determine it? I mean is it a poll of normal people? Scholars? What is it? Simanos (talk) 09:11, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

If you get a definitive answer to that one, we've all wasted years of argument on Wikipedia! Skinsmoke (talk) 10:01, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Look at the kinds of data I assembled for this discussion. It illustrates what kinds of data can show English common usage. It's not just guesswork. There are definitely some kinds of very good data which can show what English common usage is. You can also read the discussion at WP:COMMONNAME. (Taivo (talk) 10:41, 21 April 2010 (UTC))

I'm sorry but somehow Kiev over Kyiv is mostly a phonetic problem (Japan and Nippon?), not at all like say Hellas with Greece or similar and perhaps worse disputes (like Macedonia) Simanos (talk) 13:35, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Even if you're talking about Greece/Hellas, for example, then exactly the same processes are necessary. (And, actually, Kiev/Kyiv isn't a phonetic problem but a choice between the Ukrainian and Russian variants of the name.) Go to the NY Times website and search for "Greece", then search for "Hellas". (Without any surprise you'll find that "Hellas" is virtually non-existent.) You can also do a survey of the most common atlases and encyclopedias in English. What are the headwords? What is on the maps? In the case of Greece/Hellas, you'll still find "Hellas" virtually non-extistent. In cases like Greece/Hellas and Japan/Nippon, it's not even difficult at all to tell you what common English usage is. The CIA Factbook is a good source for common English names of countries. English speakers never use "Hellas" or "Nippon". Encyclopedias and geographical dictionaries can be used to confirm that. Similar studies were done for the recent Macedonian arbitration and showed "Macedonia" to be the overwhelming choice of English-language sources in referring to Macedonia and that "FYROM" was uncommon except in footnotes about Greece's objections. If you have a specific example that you want to check out, I would be happy to advise you on places to look and help with some of the academic search engines. (Taivo (talk) 19:07, 21 April 2010 (UTC))

I'm not saying we should rename the article Greece into Hellas. I'm just asking questions, mostly out of curiosity. That CIA factbook was used for Macedonia-FYROM too? Or some other study? Can you link to some of them? Simanos (talk) 20:13, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

The study for Macedonia was much, much more extensive than just looking at the CIA Factbook. It was even more extensive than the study I did for Kiev/Kyiv. It was part of a long discussion as part of the WP:ARBMAC2 process. The evidence is here (Taivo (talk) 20:16, 21 April 2010 (UTC))

Wikibreak

I'm going to be taking a break for a few days--taking my beloved wife to the Grand Canyon for the first time. She's dreamed of it since she was a child in Ukraine. I'll be back next week. (Taivo (talk) 15:04, 22 April 2010 (UTC))

Then I will endorse in a full reform of that page whilst you are gone. Routerone (talk) 16:35, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Yet another...

Special:Contributions/Pashko_2 - could you explain and edit as necessary? Knepflerle (talk) 23:55, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

...and suspiciously similar edits today from an IP, Special:Contributions/188.230.29.53. This admin regrettably reject an edit-warring report, thinking that this is a genuine content dispute. Knepflerle (talk) 20:52, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Mentorship

Thank you for your sensible contributions at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification. Your patience helps me to be patient too.

This is not developing in ways which seem reasonable; but there it is -- an odd mystery. I hope that frustration will not cause you to withdraw. --Tenmei (talk) 01:00, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I contacted each ArbCom member who commented on the Tang Dynasty "clarification" thread -- Smith, Coren, Davies, Risker, Carcharoth, SirFozzie, Hersfold; and in addition, I reached out to two others who commented on another thread on the same page -- Newyorkbrad, Shell. This modest effort engendered three vague, unhelpful responses:

1. Thanks for the note. We are close to deciding what to do here, so a little bit more patience and thanks for being so patient so far as this has indeed taken some time. Carcharoth (talk) 04:55, 27 April 2010
2. This is being discussed. I think I'm going to stand where I am on this, but we will see how others think. SirFozzie (talk) 03:53, 27 April 2010
3. Just in case you hadn't noticed, I haven't actually commented on your request at all. Your comments were very confusing themselves and you seem to have set up a confusing mentorship system with a large number private and public mentors. In my opinion, this is not going to go well, but as I was not around for the original case, I am deferring to the judgement of Arbiters who were there for the case and can hopefully understand a bit better what you are proposing. Shell ^babelfish 00:17, 27 April 2010

I construe Shell's comment as a suggestion that I contact each ArbCom member who participated directly in Tang Dynasty. I will give this some thought.

In each "ping", I explicitly invite ArbCom to explain to you and the other identified "mentors." For redundant clarity, my words were these: "please explain it to those who have volunteered to explain such things to me." Was it necessary to underline these words?

ArbCom's core error is two-fold: (a) failure to answer direct questions from me; and (b) failure to communicate with you. WP:Mentorship#Involuntary mentorship projects your role as some kind of ArbCom agents; but any evidence of constructive engagement is missing. This is an ArbCom-created stumbling block we need to acknowledge. --Tenmei (talk) 15:35, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your advice. I will stop posting altogether. --Tenmei (talk) 19:11, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Your comment

You wrote, "This deletion is vandalism since I've noted your other edits are clearly a POV attempt at discrediting Linguist List. Don't remove content written before citation requirements"
I have introduced no POV content whatsoever. I am now left wondering who you are, and what your connection is with LinguistList, for the answer can't be none.
Wikipedia policy is clear: all assertions must be cited to reliable sources, period.24.22.142.28 (talk) 10:31, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I have no connection with Linguist List, but that's not the issue. It's clear from the series of anti-Linguist List edits to language family articles that you have a problem with that organization. The LINGUIST List article was written before citation requirements were so strict on Wikipedia and it is good procedure to note such things as "citation needed" rather than simply deleting them. Linguist List is a respected and useful linguistics source, so your deletion of content from the article betrays your bias. Mark the passages as "citation needed" rather than deleting them. (Taivo (talk) 10:34, 27 April 2010 (UTC))

"I have no connection with Linguist List…"

“There's an anon IP that is on an anti-Linguist List crusade. He's deleting most of the article on the flimsy excuse that it's not referenced."[6]

You have got to be kidding. This is core policy; there is no "grandfather clause."24.22.142.28 (talk) 10:42, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Taivo - it seems you have some grudge against the linguist list for some reason, but wikipedias policies do not require all statements to be sourced - only statements that are controversial or likely to be challenged. Tag those for citation needed if you find them - don't simply delete them.·Maunus·ƛ· 10:43, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, I don't like their linkspam. These pages offer nothing of value, and the main point of linking them from WP is to boost their traffic. What is this, for example, but addled nonsense:

http://multitree.linguistlist.org/codes/uawd

Though the site is supposedly devoted to presenting taxonomies, this one is spectacularly and laughably incoherent: "Trans-New Guinea, Morehead and Upper Maro Rivers, Eleman, Border (Border Trans-New Guinea), Marind, Teberan-Pawaian" Besides that, there is nothing of substance, and that is the case for nearly all these spamlinks.

I came across that myself this evening on an unrelated search. It ranks high in google because of these spamlinks, which are being cultivated over here. I know of exactly no one who uses this site for scholarly research.24.22.142.28 (talk) 10:52, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

This site is not for "scholarly research", but neither is Wikipedia. If you're relying on Wikipedia for scholarly research, then you need to take your research methods class again. Wikipedia is for common, non-scholarly readers to get general information. As such, Linguist List is eminently useful and the links to the family trees on Multitree are also quite useful for non-specialists. (Taivo (talk) 10:56, 27 April 2010 (UTC))

Taivo - although I disagree with some of the IPs actions (as discussed on their talk page) I also don't think it is vandalism. An attempt (albeit misguided) to apply our policies is obviously not vandalism as per the second paragraph of WP:VANDALISM "any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism." Dpmuk (talk) 11:04, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate your attention to the article. I considered the anon IP a vandal because s/he was on an anti-Linguist List crusade (as evidenced by a number of edits over the last couple of days) so "good-faith effort" was a term I would not use. But, whether or not a vandal isn't as important as getting a handle on the situation. Thanks for your contribution to that. (Taivo (talk) 11:08, 27 April 2010 (UTC))

Taivo: Dpmuk was right to tell you that you should be much more careful about using the word "vandalism" about content edits. No edit done during dispute about content is ever vandalism. You are now involved in another dispute at Korean where you are using the term vandalism to apply to the edits of the other editor - when clearly the dispute is about how to represent the genetic classification of Korean. If you think that by calling the other editor a vandal you are protecting yourself from being blocked for breaking the 3 revert rule you are wrong - you could in fact be blocked also for using "vandal" as a personal attack on the other editor. When faced with annoying obviously baseless disruptive edits from IP's or other editors you should try to be more patient and get help from other editors (like you did in this case). I really would hate to see you being blocked for breaking 3RR. ·Maunus·ƛ· 11:18, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

RE: Myrhorod article

It is spelled the same in both Ukrainian and Russian. It is a Ukrainian city, why then should Russian spelling be added. Also, why did you remove Georgian and Latvian spelling. Though as I can see you are professor of linguistics, perhaps you don't know that Davyd Gyramishvili(one of the most well-known Gergian writers, Georgian counterpart of Taras Shevchenko) was buried in Myrhorod and many Gergians know about Myrhorod because of that. --Rkononenko (talk) 10:37, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

The city was never part of either Latvian or Georgian territory, so the names in Latvian and Georgian are equivalent to adding the Chechen name for Kiev. (Taivo (talk) 10:39, 27 April 2010 (UTC))

Are you deft? I am talking about one of the most important writers in Gergia(a country, not state in the USA) David Guramishvili lived/worked and was buried in Myrhorod. What Chechen are you talking about? --Rkononenko (talk) 10:41, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

So add the Georgian name if you think that's important, but the city is also known in English by its Russian transliteration. That's what is important. Stop vandalizing Ukrainian city articles by removing the Russian spellings. And I remind you of WP:CIVIL. (Taivo (talk) 10:42, 27 April 2010 (UTC))

Done Rkononenko (talk) 10:43, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I will say this only once more--stop removing the alternate Russian names that these Ukrainian cities are known by. (Taivo (talk) 10:47, 27 April 2010 (UTC))

What's the reference?

The majority of linguists do not even accept "Altaic" as a valid linguistic family. The readers aren't interested in any personal view. What's the reference supporting your remark?

I have posted it many times--from Campbell and Mixco's Glossary of Historical Linguistics (University of Utah Press). (Taivo (talk) 07:10, 29 April 2010 (UTC))

I read the reference but I couldn't find a phrase that telling "Most linguists reject Altaic"

Read the entry on "Altaic". I've added two more references on the Korean language page along with a couple of relevant quotes. (Taivo (talk) 07:31, 29 April 2010 (UTC))

Campbell and Mixco

What they deny is the relation between Uralic and Altaic. They don't say most linguist reject Altaic in the book. They prefer Korean as a language isolate. They belong to minor group. More linguists take Korean as Altaic.

Which page of the book "A glossary of Historical Linguistics"?

That supports your personal opnion that "MOST LINGUISTS REJECT ALTAIC HYPOTHESIS" Which page of the book? I can't find it.

It says....

A hypothesis of distant genetic relationship taking its name from the Altai mountains of central Asia; it holds that Turkic, Mongolian and Tungusic (Manchu-Tungusic), together comprising some forty languages, are genetically related. More extended versions of the Altaic hypothesis would include Korean and Japanese, sometimes also Ainu. Various scholars in the early and mid 1800s proposed classifications that would group some or all of the ‘Altaic’ languages together, but typically these were included in larger, more poorly defined proposed affiliations, such as the now abandoned Ural-Altaic hypothesis.(p.7)

Now abandoned is Ural-Altaic relation which was replaced with , not Altaic.

Eurasiatic Greenberg’s (2000, 2002) hypothesis of a distant genetic relationship that would group Indo- European, Uralic–Yukaghir, Altaic, Korean–Japanese– Ainu, Nivkh, Chukotian and Eskimo–Aleut as members of a very large ‘linguistic stock’. While there is considerable overlap in the putative members of Eurasiatic and Nostratic there are also significant differences. Eurasiatic has been sharply criticized and is largely rejected by specialists (Georg and Vovin 2003, 2005). (p. 58)

SO WHERE'S THE PHRASE THAT SUPPORTS YOUR PERSONAL OPNION THAT MOST LINGUSTS REJECT ALTAIC?

This is no "personal opinion". Read this: "Most specialists in these languages no longer believe that the three traditional supposed Altaic groups, Turkic, Mongolian and Tungusic, are related. In spite of this, Altaic does have a few dedicated followers." (page 7). That is NOT about "Ural-Altaic", but about ALTAIC. Also note on page 90-91: "Korean is often said to belong with the Altaic hypothesis, often also with Japanese, though this is not widely supported." How much more clear can it be? You're not reading the book, I don't think. (Taivo (talk) 07:53, 29 April 2010 (UTC))

Its page 7. And its unequivocal. The Altaic hypothesis is not very commonly accepted. Sorry.·Maunus·ƛ· 09:42, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

April 2010

1. I noticed the message you recently left to a newcomer. Please remember: do not bite the newcomers. If you see someone make a common mistake, try to politely point out what they did wrong and how to correct it. Thank you.
2. Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we must insist that you assume good faith while interacting with other editors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.

   You could have simply pointed to the references instead of taking a snarky tone with a new guy.--LDSFaithFighter2009 13:45, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

You're no "new guy". New guys don't know how to use these templates. (Taivo (talk) 13:47, 30 April 2010 (UTC))

I won't argue over this as to if I'm new or not, any admin can tell that I've not posted often. It isn't hard to look up warning template and copy and paste.--LDSFaithFighter2009 13:52, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Whatever. As a "new guy", the first thing you need to learn is that your POV is not everyone else's POV. Wikipedia's goal is to be balanced in its presentation of religious topics. The Book of Mormon article has been carefully constructed by BOTH Mormons and non-Mormons to be as balanced in its presentation as possible. It's not a missionary tract, nor should it be. It presents criticisms of the BOM (whether you believe the criticisms or not) that are in the literature. That's what Wikipedia does--"This is X. Believers think A. Critics think B." (Taivo (talk) 13:57, 30 April 2010 (UTC))

As you are only interested in your continued incivility, I will simply refrain from speaking to you. Please cease contacting me. --LDSFaithFighter2009 14:01, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Interesting. Nothing in my last post was uncivil and it was you who contacted me. (Taivo (talk) 14:03, 30 April 2010 (UTC))

The capital of Ukraine is the City of Kyiv - Article 20 of Ukrainian Constitution

Article 20 - The capital of Ukraine is the City of Kyiv - http://www.rada.gov.ua/const/conengl.htm#r1

Saying that google finds more for Kiev than Kyiv and it's the main reason to igore change to Wikipedia articles conserning Kyiv - makes no sense. In your logic we should next change ukrainian constitution due to google search result. Of course in USSR Kyiv in every foreign press was spelled as Kiev. As a result it caused a habit to spell name of the capital of Ukraine in wrong way even up to day, but we are not living in USSR anymore. We are living in independent Ukraine and the capital of this country is Kyiv.

But this is the English wikipedia - neither Russian or Ukranian spelling rules are followed, only Wikipedia naming policy.·Maunus·ƛ· 18:21, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I am familiar with wiki rules and this rules dont take into attention that some names that are now commonly are used in English due to some historical circustamces are wrong --SWC (talk) 19:26, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

But "wrong" here is a matter of opinion, not of fact. Factually wrong would be to say the capital of the Ukraine is Cracow. — kwami (talk) 19:31, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

The normal English word for Киев is Kiev, not Kyiv; to the native inhabitants, the place is called Київ or Киев. This situation is far from unique. The native inhabitants of Antwerp, call it Antwerpen, whilst people from the capital of Belgium call it Anvers.--Toddy1 (talk) 20:35, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

It seems that no one reads my first arguments of favour of Kyiv. I am native inhabitant and for me normal is Київ - Kyiv, not Kiev or Киев.--SWC (talk) 20:48, 2 May 2010 (UTC)