User talk:Kielbasa1

This user's request to have autoblock on their IP address lifted has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Kielbasa1 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

217.20.20.85 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Block message:

{{blocked proxy}}

Blocking administrator: ProcseeBot (talk • blocks)

Accept reason: Granting IPBE Daniel Case (talk) 15:25, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

IP block exempt

I have granted your account an exemption from IP blocking. This will allow you to edit through full blocks affecting your IP address when you are logged in.

Please read the page Wikipedia:IP block exemption carefully, especially the section on IP block exemption conditions.

Note in particular that you are not permitted to use this newly-granted right to edit Wikipedia via anonymous proxies, or disruptively. If you do, or there is a serious concern of abuse, then the right may be removed by any administrator.

Appropriate usage and compliance with the policy may be checked periodically, due to the nature of block exemption, and block exemption will be removed when no longer needed (for example, when the block it is related to expires).

I hope this will enhance your editing, and allow you to edit successfully and without disruption. Daniel Case (talk) 15:25, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hildebrand

Hi Kielbasa1. In reposnse to your query about the -brand in Hildebrand on my Talk page, I've posted some info at Talk:Hildebrand. --Pfold (talk) 13:19, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sumerian and Language Isolate

If I didnt misunderstood, you offer a consensus. If so, yes I agree. Because the edition I prefer for these pages is something like that. Just I demand a revision in the manner and fashion of language/discourse of the article. Now, it is too decisive. An expression like this; -currently, Sumeran is (can be) considered a language isolate, but there are probable (likely) relatives (connected languages). Evidences are weak and and further research needed-.. Something like that.

Thank you for your considerations.Okurogluselo : Blah 20:51, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But if the evidence is weak, then the 'relatives' aren't probable. And if we included every suggested family like that, then there would be one for every language on the article, including Basque. The improbable families (like Khoisan or Hokan) that are in the article are included because the 'families' are still believed in by a significant number of non-linguists. Ural-Altaic is both nearly universally rejected (especially as containing Sumerian) and quite obscure. The Sumerian language page already has a section for proposed relatives. Kielbasa1 (talk) 21:32, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See. So say, not weak, disputable or something like that. Minority view. In fact, I dont approve that Ural-Altaic exist, researches is not enough. In fact, even the situation of Altaic is arguable, because of the place of Mongol language. So, even Taivo introduced me in other way, I dont defend any relatives of Sumerian with Ural-Altaic. Anyway, US universities and Russians dont like to study this area, and others dont have enough sources for research.

You may remember, just I dont feel comfortable with the the article of Language Isolate. I want the usage of modal "can be" instead of "is". Also, minority view references could be given. Yes, there is a view about that Sumerian is langauge isolate but there are other views. By the way, majority view also needs references in the article. Not only for the short section of Sumerian, but also for all article.

And as you said, in the Article of Sumerian Language there is a list of researches about cognates. So a sentence about "other views", "minority" or "objections" could be added to the Language Isolate section. Anyway, it is an extict language and it is hard to be so decisive about its situation.

I initiated a discussion in the talk page of Language Isolate. May I invite you to consider the issue? I declared some problems about cuneiforms and restrictions on the Sumerian studies, also some questionnarie points oabout the studies and majority views. That is why I think minortiy views could replace the majority in the future. It is not a bad thing to encourage young readers to study Sumerian. And, even some other claim it differently, there is nothing to be in conflict with any wiki principles. It is not against WP:UNDUE or WP:FRINGE because, still I say minority should be introduced as minority.

Please take look to the talk page. I dont expect support,it is up to you as a free soul. Just I think you are reasonable. Thank you.Okurogluselo : Blah 01:19, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:07, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Kielbasa1. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Kielbasa1. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Help

Hello. Help expanded article by Maureen Wroblewitz from [1]. Thanks you.Kim Mai 13 (talk) 03:04, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]