User talk:CodeCat

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

An Administrative Discussion Involving You[edit]

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Please see

— Preceding unsigned comment added by AltaicNPOV (talkcontribs) 01:12, 6 April 2013‎ (UTC)

Revert talk (Glagolithic)[edit]

Hello, please bear in mind that this: is the original text that was changed by ip user here: and here: for no reason, despite it being sourced. (agenda editing)

Thank you for understanding.


Fair enough - I hadn't thought of it like that. Cheers :) Lin4671 (talk) 22:25, 28 June 2017 (UTC)


Dear CodeCat,

Thank you for checking my work! I agree that I confused ablaut and Szemerényi's law (I am new at this) but is it true that "all categories that were distinguished by ablaut were also distinguished by different endings"? What about:


nominative singular: *nókʷ-t-s

genitive singular: *nékʷ-t-s


nominative singular: *mén-ti-s

genitive singular: *mn̥-téi-s or *mn̥-téy-s

It seems to me like ablaut is the only thing distinguishing them.

Thanks for you help,

Jackpaulryan (talk) 22:32, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

In the case of *nókʷts you're right, ablaut is the only difference. CodeCat (talk) 23:34, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
Thank you! Jackpaulryan (talk) 01:16, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Balto-Slavic languages[edit]

Hi. You ejected my changes. You didn't want to read my explanation on talk page: "Unexplained removal of sourced information. Talk page message is OR." Ok, my explanation is "Incompetent or deceptive information". Why? I can't replace my comment about it. --Ed1974LT (talk) 20:43, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Your talk page post is original research, which has no place in an article. The information given is sourced, so you should use sourced information also. CodeCat (talk) 20:46, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
My sources are the books:

Do you need I refer to the pages? This isn't WP:OR--Ed1974LT (talk) 21:01, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Do these books specifically discredit Hill's theory? CodeCat (talk) 21:03, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
Yes, they really do. So do you need quotations (in Lithuanian) and pages numbers? I have wrote why Hill's theory is a nonsense.--Ed1974LT (talk) 21:10, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
"You haven't provided any specific passages that concern the matter." Do you want I provide Lithuanian text? If you can't refer to more authoritative source that Hill's article, don't prevent me make the changes in the article.--Ed1974LT (talk) 22:01, 7 August 2017 (UTC)