User talk:JorisvS - Knowledge

964:

citation, since that is one of few sources that describes Ngwe vowels at all. I'm sure Ladefoged (1971) relies on his earlier work and doesn't represent new findings, but the source presents the very sparsely documented language in a different way, which adds an extra level of nuance to interpretation of his work. Ladefoged's (1968) description has a reasonable level of detail, but he seems to suggest that several of the vowels are not contrastive with each other (i.e., some are allophones of other vowels), in which case use of //s in the article is inappropriate. Would you object to restoring the original citation, and adding a note about the vowels which Ladefoged (1968) notes are not contrastive, and using s for representing the full range of vowels? In the end, the page would benefit quite a bit from reference to Dunstan's work, I suppose. —

995:

citation and were trying to 'clarify' (the text itself was, in fact, not ambiguous at all, just wrong) what was written (this happens a lot, and I can't know whether you consulted the source or not. Also, no link was included, which means that it was harder to get to the source and hence an editor is less likely to have looked at it). Given the change in content, I decided to act conservatively and revert asking whether you read the source. If then it turned out you did, we could easily still revert me again. After that, I decided to see whether I could dig up the source myself, found it, and saw that your change was indeed according to the source and I also found a reference to another source. I managed to dig that one up, too, and found much more detail (and less suggestive stuff), so I decided to put that information into the article.

3187:

number in the right columns. Proper or native Hindi speakers are clearly mentioned having 257 million speakers at 18 number starting from top in right columns. (After the two left columns in Hindi section ends at Churaha language, please go to the top in right two columns at 18 number row. Please see it properly.) You need to look carefully at the table before labelling my edit as irrational. The Census figures are official undeniable figures. As of 2001, Hindi speakers including dialect speakers are 422 million but native Hindi or Modern standard Hindi (the lingua franca of Hindi belt speakers are 257 million as clearly mentioned in the source. Here is my source:

577:

language, not the people). Your edit also expands the already overly long literature section, which is only tangentially related to the language and could be split off. The "In the 150 CE Prakrit book ..." is just a meaningless piece of trivia the way you added it: What does this tell the reader? The writing style is also rather essay-like, which means it is very unencyclopedic: using things like "1." alongside the section headers, the common usage of "we", "interesting" (that's for the reader to decide). The rest follows the same general pattern that I've outlined. Also, a lot of the things you added are without a source. --

979:

examined the source (I had), but my guess is that you hadn't examined the source yourself yet when you reverted it. This is a good way to start an edit war (at least with people who can't be adults and stop to talk about what's going on), and I believe does not assume good faith, so some caution may be warranted in the future. Alternatively, would you suggest I add "YES I READ THE SOURCE" to edit comments where I interpret what was written more carefully than the last guy? Anyway, kudos for checking another source and fixing the article further. —

859:, the user 'Magentic Manifestations' has quietly withdrew the request at DRN too! I being a challenger, shouldn't have debated so much. User kept on reverting my edits. User being an editor, thinks he owns all articles from his home state of Tamil Nadu. I'm tired and sick of debating this issue with the user. Please have a look at the earliest and save the authenticity of Knowledge from vandalism by such established Wikipedians which is extremely dangerous than vandalism by unregistered users and IP addresses! 3669: 3333:"Linguistic evidence supports this scenario, in that the Gilaki and Mazandarani languages (but not other Iranian languages) share certain typological features with Caucasian languages (...) Presumably the ancestors of the Gilaki and Mazandarani spoke a Caucasian language; therefore, their original Caucasian language must have been replaced by the local Iranian language under the above scenario. Indeed, typological analysis of the Gilaki and Mazandarani languages does indicate some sharing of features with 3118: 2929:", i.e. moderately palatalized. The English dental fricatives (/θ/ and /ð/) are not sibilants like the English alveolars (/s/ and /z/), but in Avar they are, which makes them sound more like English's alveolars). Avar's alveolars are domed, which makes them sound more like English's postalveolars. This means that Avar's dental–alveolar sets sound much like English's (or many other languages, for that matter) alveolar–postalveolar sets, and the symbols corresponding to the latter are used. -- 105: 599:

by reason of their closer relationship to that language than to any other of the Dravidian tongues, as indicated in the following statements : "Tulu does not differ widely from Kanarese"; "Kodava may be regarded as standing about midway between Old Kanarese and Tulu"; "Kota may be considered as a very rude dialect of Kanarese"; "Badaga is an ancient dialect of Kanarese"; "the language (Toda) seems to have been originally Old Kanarese, and not a distinct dialect."

4455: 4276: 3763: 760:

to Ganges', etc., and declares it as enough proof for rule over Nilgiris which is nowhere cited in his references (which user thinks no one is going to take the pains for verifying and is relying on it) and is engaging in repeated Revert Edits and in turn threatening me (challenger) ironically with 3RR. I'm not pro-Kannada or anti-non-Kannada. I'm pro-facts. But user is clearly pro-Tamil and anti-Kannada. Please mediate and resolve this issue. Regards,--

4390: 4211: 4065: 3708: 2954: 4132: 4027: 3974: 3864: 3526: 3374: 1954:

also become easier to actually improve them. Frustation will occasionally happen, because that's a normal part of life and you're working with other people, and, especially if you're new like you, getting to know the stuff also requires some effort and time and it may turn out that something you didn't wasn't as good an idea as you thought, but that's okay. We were all new at some point. The most important part is that you're willing to learn. --

21: 1855:"language" were erroneous and I did not have the administrative capacities to rectify it at the time. Powari in particular is a seperate language in it's own right, this is corroborated by both Ethnologue and Glottolog. Would appreciate it if you could help me with this, or give me some advice on where to go to expedite these changes. I know you're basically telling me "I've jumped the gun" a bit. I do get that. Thanks. 4125: 607:

yaanayudu? (How many children do you have?) Nange ain magadir, eddu magardir aaidu (I have 5 sons and 2 daughters). Nange maneg hogadu usiraat (it is time for me to go home). Here, magadir, magaLdir, usiraat (avasara) are all old Kannada words. Similarly Hatkar Kaanadi people use kundal (hair), ba (mother) and many other words showing that North Maharashtra's Nashik area had Kannada population 1000 years ago.

1385:

conservative hyphenation: better to have no hyphen where one might be there than have a hyphen where one may be inappropriate (this because term that are properly hyphenated are regularly not hyphenated by a good number of people). I do get your point about the asymmetry, and we could decide to hyphenate asymptotic(-)giant branch. Knowing something about the history of the term might help us decide. --

801:) so that the user doesn't revert it again. If user or anyone else has valid citations and references, I am open to include that content at any point of time. If user still has problems, please take this issue to the Admin's notice board as I am unaware of the process and steps. User says issue already raised at the Admin's notice board, I'm not sure how to check/verify that. Please verify. Regards, -- 2489: 2388: 2230: 3624: 2559: 2460: 2301: 1610:/ 'mangiasse', ecc., come, rispettivamente, bilabiale, apicodentale, palatale; per quanto riguarda gli allòfoni e la loro distribuzione, è da notare dorsovelare, cfr. 'anche', e, regolarmente in posizione finale: 'padrone', 'temperino': come questa, è caratteristica v e n e t a la realizzazione velare anche davanti a cons. d'altro tipo, cfr. , it. ; , it. ; 'ungere', , it. , ecc. 1469:

meaning onto the term that wasn't there when it was first used and shouldn't be there today. It is unfortunate and confusing that "red giant branch" sounds a lot like it is the branch of red giants (it isn't, it is simply more red than the asymptotic giant branch), but we just have to live with that. We shouldn't make it even more confusing by grammatically changing the meaning.

1237: 595:

particulars given in the Kavirajamarga of the Rashtrakuta Emperor Nripatunga or Amoghavarsha I (815-877 CE) : The region in which Kannada was spoken extended from the Kaveri as far as the Godavari. The Kannada spoken in the district lying within Kisuvolal(Pattadakal), Kopana(Koppal), Puligere(Lakshmesvar) and Onkunda(Okkunda) was the pure well of Kannada undefiled.

622:

it does not inform most readers. The part with ref #4 may only be meaningful if the following question is answered alongside it: "So what?". The part with ref #5 is just complete gibberish. Overall, any added information should be integrated into the text and add to the understanding of the reader, not confuse them with all kinds of things they cannot place. --

1238:

https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=originally+from%2C%28originary+from+*+100%29%2C%28originary+of+*+100%29&year_start=1800&year_end=2000&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2Coriginally%20from%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2C%28originary%20from%20*%20100%29%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2C%28originary%20of%20*%20100%29%3B%2Cc0

1254: 1021:

put together some other sources on the language in the early 1960s. I'll try to be more careful in the future to convince people that I'm not an idiot and assuming wrong things, but it gets frustrating. People seem to mostly assume that I'm trolling and spamming, and waste their time (and mine) removing my edits. Recently I translated a

3946:. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are 3909:. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are 3608:. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are 2736:. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are 185:. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are 1258: 1262: 1219: 3328:

are "paternally" (I'm just putting it simplistically here) closest to the groups of the (South) Caucasus, while "maternally" they are so to the neighboring Iranian groups. Regarding linguistics, which back the Caucasian-origin hypothesis up, the ancestors of the Gilaks/Mazandaranis originally spoke a

2820:

does the same thing. And if a body's "magnetosphere" really is a subset of its "magnetic field", why are there articles on specifically the magnetospheres of Jupiter and Saturn but not on their magnetic fields (though, from the looks of it they then really are about their magnetic fields in general).

1891:

might be able to help you more with respect to Powari etc. He has created the redirects in question and the article you've moved around and can often give a lot of good information. Try asking him for more information about them. I should point out that a listing by Ethnologue and/or Glottolog is not

1839:

It's okay being new. Exactly because you're new and so are unfamiliar with a lot of things that help make Knowledge a good encyclopedia, it's good advice to be careful and don't start messing around with entire page moves and the like. It's better to discuss significant changes like page moves first,

1769:

No, I didn't mess them up. The corresponding articles with "language" instead of "tongue" redirect to those places, so I brought them in line. They're not inappropriate. Nevertheless if you can show the community with convincing evidence (that means with neutral reliable sources) that those redirects

1712:

That's right, WP cannot and should not report some supposed objective reality. The underlying reality/truth is not something we can fully know, only approximate. But saying, for example, that "Silesian is a Lechitic language" does not mean that we're implying to know the underlying truth. Instead, it

1682:

or its relationship to other languages. To the best of our knowledge it is part of the branch we call "Lechitic", i.e. we have classified it as such. The point in the article there, however, is what it is, not the state of our knowledge of it, nor determining our knowledge of it. It's a matter of the

759:

on Administrator's Notice Board? Not only is the user MagenticManifestations erasing the Kannada history of Nilgiris with valid references, but is also imposing Tamil kingdoms rule on it based on his false assumptions and assertions like 'discover jewel', tri-junction of Tamil kingdoms', 'South India

598:

The following information(with reference) is about the closeness of Tulu, Kodava, Toda and Kota to Kannada and hence can be regarded as Kannada's dialects : Commenting on the Dravidian languages of the South, namely, Tulu, Kodava, Toda, Kota and Badaga, which may be looked upon as dialects of Kannada

3085:

cannot be used to say that "there are ~500 learners". What it can say is that (as of 13 July 2016) there are 501 people subscribed to the Reddit page dedicated to Ithkuil, or something similar. That is factual and precise. It cannot be used in the infobox, but that is unimportant. What's keeping you

1040:

I don't have any physical books. I found them (parts of them, but the relevant parts are accessible) using Google Books. I have linked Ladefoged (1968) in the article. In cases such as your Ngwe edit, mentioning the source would have helped a lot in managing impressions (though, for the record, I'll

621:

Those pieces are either too vague or overly specific, and therefore do not inform the average reader much. The part about the Nashik district is mostly not about the language, but the people, and the part that is is so extremely specific and assumes so much knowledge from the part of the reader that

602:

Kannada's influence on other languages : The vocabulary of Marathi language contains a lot of Kannada origin words. Olage or Oule (inside), Kolu (stick), Tupa (ghee), Mudila (before, first), Oli (letter), Konth (weapon), Balanti (mom or newborn), Adakitta (nutcracker), Akka (sister), Anna (brother),

1968:

Thanks again. I was just going to say, I lot of the edits I make are things that can be rectified automatically. Sometimes doing them yourself can be repetitive and time-consuming. I hear that a lot of editors have utilised bots and scripting functions to same time (Javascript) so they can focus on

1953:

It's typically around an hour per day or so. I think it's because finding things to improve and then improving them is sort of addictive. When I was new I fixed only small things I was sure about. Over time I got more experienced and now I usually easily find things that can be improved, and it has

963:

page. I was going to rant about how it as pretty clearly worded in Ladefoged (1971) that Ngwe had more than the 8 vowels whose contrast was presented on p. 67, but then I saw your later edit where you brought in Ladefoged (1968) and clarified further. It's too bad that you got rid of the original

571:

Hi JorisvS, I had added some valuable information to the Kannada wiki article which it clearly lacked earlier. What's 'un-encyclopaedic' about it? If its cluttering, we can discuss and filter out unnecessary information and add only the important ones. But why remove the important information also?

2815:

says that it "is the region of space surrounding an astronomical object in which charged particles are controlled by that object's magnetic field". Then down, it talks about Earth's magnetosphere and links to the entire article as the "main", where it then discusses the subject as if they are/were

2330:

Hi Joris, I'd just wanted to come by and thank you for all the useful edits you made in the page. As you may have noted, English is not my first language (although I think I know it a little), and being a native speaker of Sardinian I'd like to let you know I greatly appreciate your c.e. activity.

1886:

down to content or procedures. You weren't "forced" to do anything. Redirects can be converted into articles by simply going to the redirect and editing it. And if you would really need others to do something, you should request and/or discuss it, not do something else and hope it gets cleaned up.

1217:

I thought I'd see what the relative frequencies of used are for "originally from" and "originary from" as found in Google's corpus of English language books. I had it multiply the incidence of the latter term by 100 just to be able to see something other than a horizontal line at a frequency of 0.

1020:

Are you not using physical copies of the sources? If not, out of curiosity, where were you able to find an electronic copy of Ladefoged (1968)? Dunstan is the author that Ladefoged cites as background for what he considers to be contrastive in the language—she appears to've written a grammar and

576:

It's actually even worse than I thought so far. I already saw the meaningless listing down in there (dictionaries and stuff), the for English speakers meaningless usage of native material, and the mere listing of names in the "historical Kannada rules ..." (which is also off-topic: It is about the

400:

There have been some interesting psychological studies of how people understand language. Formal syntax has little to do with understanding. Apparently, the brain takes the words in a sentence and assembles them into a sensible meaning. "The tree climbs the squirrel" is understood as "The squirrel

3186:

I think you missed my edit summary. I clearly mentioned that I have excluded Hindi dialect speakers from the 250 million I mentioned. You need to clearly look at the source before reverting my edits. Hindi box at 6 number in the Census source is mentioned to have 50 dialects with "Others" at 50th

1987:

by GregU, which fixes hyphens to dashes and related things. That's really helpful, because a lot of people don't know how to distinguish properly between the four different characters hyphen (-), endash (–), emdash (—), and minus sign (−). It's not 100% perfect, because there are a few subtleties

1483:

How can a branch be red? It's the stars that are red. Yes, it was first "giant branch", with all giants thought to be red giants. When it became clear that not all giants are red giants, "giant branch" had to specified further to indicate that it is the one for red giants specifically, i.e. "(red

994:

First, it was an undo/revert, not a rollback. Secondly, you neglected to mention a reference to the source in your edit summary (not necessarily as explicit and definitely not in all caps; a simple 'per source'/'per ref' suffices), suggesting that you may only have read the WP article and not the

315:

Your user page says "This user recognizes the importance of citing sources." It's also important to use reliable ones. Twitter is not an acceptable source for alternate spellings of Planet Nine's nicknames. If we started listing all the stuff about Planet Nine that comes up on Twitter the article

1468:

Why is a "red branch of giant stars" nothing? That's exactly what it is. It became obvious that the "giant branch" as-was (no red at the time since all giants were thought to be red) needed to be split into two, called variously first and second or red and asymptotic. I think you're forcing a

1453:

So it appears that "giant branch" can be parsed as "giant-star branch", which actually makes sense, because "giant" can mean "giant star" when the context is clear. A 'red branch of giant stars' is clearly nothing so that it must be 'branch of the red giants', whereas it appears that "asymptotic

1753:

Hi, thanks for your help, but it seems like you've (accidentally) messed up some of the re-directs. Powari is a seperate language, and Gowli is as well. However, I think you might have redirected them to inappropriate pages. The former to another language, the latter to the ethnicity. Could you

1697:

Oh, I thought you were objecting to the term "classification". But I can't say I get what your point is. Knowledge cannot report on some kind of absolute "objective reality", only on results of scholarly research which may or may not reflect that reality closely. The state of our knowledge, not

978:

P.S. I don't think a reversion of my edit was the right action. My edit is consistent with your subsequent edit (though far from as detailed), and both are contrary to the original content of the page, which you restored. In your reversion comment you seemed to imply that you thought I hadn't

594:

The below piece of information is an extremely important information about Kannada language itself : Regarding the range(extent of native Kannada) and principal seats of the Kannada language a thousand years ago, i.e., at about the beginning of the 9th century, we have the following interesting

606:

Nashik district has a distinct tribe called "Hatkar Kaanadi" people. Maybe they are named that way because they lived in Huts and spoke Kannada (Kaanadi). Per Chidananda Murthy, they are the native people of Nashik from ancient times. Even today that tribe speaks sentences like: Ninge magadir

1854:

I apologise for transgressing the Wiki protocols. I'm 18 btw, not someone massively experienced with scripting and procedure, etc. Ultimately, I feel like we're discussing nomenclature. The whole point is that I was forced to designate them temporarily as "tongues" because those redirects to

1555:

I wrote 'gibberish' because I could not make heads or tails of the intended meaning. I can now. My next response is: what's your source? The article's sourcing is poor, but that's no excuse not to require sources. Most languages do assimilate /n/ before velars (not all, Russian is a notable

1384:

Asymptotic(-)giant branch is an interesting term...so far I've failed parsing it. AFAIK, there are neither asymptotic giants, nor giant branches (well aside from the obviously not intended meaning of a branch that has very many members). When I'm not able to parse it, I adopt a strategy of

1025:

and it was immediately deleted for lack of "noteworthiness"—with no attempt at discussion—apparently because I didn't provide any additional sources (or sources in English) :( A better approach would have been to ask for citable sources, instead of asking me to justify that the person was

1141:

I'm not using it wrong. I have first written "orginary", then it was improperly changed to "originally", and the phrase did not retain the sense. - The word may be a bit of rare use, but it is not obsolete or archaic. It is more precise than "original" and different from "originally".

3538:

is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

1925:(instead of content, procedures, or behavior), but that does not follow the talk page etiquette and should really be avoided at all times. P.S. Responses to other editor's posts should normally be indented one level more than that other editor's post using one or more colons (:).-- 1220:

https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=originally+from%2C%28originary+from+*+100%29&year_start=1800&year_end=2000&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2Coriginally%20from%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2C%28originary%20from%20*%20100%29%3B%2Cc0

342:. In fact, I added the other one in which it is used, not the Twitter source, which was already present but was used to source a statement not quite in concordance with it (a quotation taken not in the Twitter source, and using "Fatty", not "Phattie"). I fixed that. -- 1713:

is simply a statement of what it is to the best of our knowledge. On the other hand, saying "Silesian is classified as a Lechitic language" implies that the topic of the statement is the process of acquiring knowledge about its relationship with other languages. --

3044:

Hello, Could you please revert the edit to the Ithkuil page? There is lots more to change. I removed the irrelevant grammar from past versions of the language because it has been incorporated into the 2011 version. The creator has even asked for this a while ago:

2427: 1085:

from Eastern Europe". This change did not improve the text at all, since it made it wrong or confuse. Perhaps you suggested that "originary" was a misspelling of "originally", what is not right, for they are completely different words from different classes.

3287:

Says you. And you've been reverted by multiple people. The real problems are: The references you deleted are very well and clearly documented and are clearly in no way original research; your reference isn't half as well documented. Then there is the huge

3386:

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.

2439: 3615: 2514: 2255: 1532:

Well I found "gibberish" rather offensive for a non-native speaker of English like me, but notice that Venetian does not show assimilation of nasal to the following consonant. Please rewrite it in a "more English" way but don't scrap away the fact.

2131:

That edit was made by a cross-wiki vandal, as part of his usual MO of making a few somewhat constructive though really unnecessary edits between vandalism and attacking people. But I suppose it didn't need to be reverted, so thanks for fixing it.

1920:

A discussion is seldom about code. It's most often about article content. Sometimes it can also be about the procedure that should be followed or something. Discussions about user behavior also occur. Sometimes, discussions can escalate into

934:

They could be okay, that's why I haven't reverted them so far. I see now that there is not source at all, unlike for Umbriel (which I wouldn't have reverted if it weren't for the source). I have therefore tagged them for needing a citation.

2843:. As for why there are articles on the magnetospheres of Jupiter and Saturn but not on their magnetic fields, that sort of thing happens when you have a lot of volunteers writing about what interests them. I think it would be good to have 1454:

giant branch" should be parsed as the 'asymptotic branch of giant stars'. This means that despite the superficial symmetry between the terms, "red-giant branch" should be hyphenated but "asymptotic giant branch" should in fact not be. --

3345:, right?. The authors specifically distinguish between Iranian languages, and Caucasian languages throughout the article, so it cant possible refer to languages such as Armenian or Azeri (which are nowadays spoken in the South Caucasus 3292:

problem with your source: It treats the regional languages of Italy as "dialects of Italian". Ignoring the "dialect"(ahum) Sardinian would indeed give Italian first place. But that's heavy POV and not worthy of a good encyclopedia.

603:

Veergal (stone inscription for a martyr), Mechu (small sword like device), Hon (gold), etc. In depth, Marathi has a Kannada or Dravidian foundation from ancient and medieval times, but the upper structure is that of Aryan language.

617:

If any of these above information is not fit for Kannada language wiki, please let me know where else to add it or how it should be changed in order to make it fit. Thanks,NitinBhargava2016 (talk) 18:02, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

2104:

I stopped archiving a long time ago for some reasons back then, but it has been bugging me too, especially the loading of the sound files that were posted a while ago. There is no hidden motive to it. I've archived it.

613:

One of Dnyaneshwar's abhanga is fully in Kannada : "Akka nee keLe chikkana maatu karaledasige maruLaadane | cheluvaane cheluvaane Pandharirayaa cheluvaane elli korakuvanee || Pundaleekana bhaktige bandaa rukhumaadevi

3249:

It really has not much to do with your edit, except that it's what made me see it. The article wasn't consistent in its spelling, which I fixed. The -ize spellings were a little more common, so I opted for that.

3053:

to the Ithkuil Knowledge page. (And while you're at it, get rid of all the obsolete material about earlier versions of the language that simply serve to confuse readers and prolong out-of-date impressions of the

3631: 3639: 1156:

Two dictionaries (Merriam Webster and the OED) say it's obsolete or archaic. Prithee, use not ancient language when writing in Knowledge. And neither gives a meaning where the word could be followed by "from".

1988:

involved in properly detect which of those characters should be used, but it's correct most of the times and so a very big help. Unfortunately, a lot of the work that I do is much more difficult to script. --

1512:

Hi JorisvS, thanks for fixing up that ref. I should have spent a bit more time myself trying to find it rather than just removing the dead link. I tweaked the text slightly to align it with the ref. Regards,

3086:

from adding the information anyway? The sections are clearly marked and give a historical perspective. As for "the creator asked", being the creator or otherwise specially connected to a topic does mean one

876:

You could open a section at DRN yourself, instead of waiting/hoping/... for the other one. That article is not my area of interest, nor expertise. I'm happy to give advise, but not to try to figure it out.

4081: 3060:

Incidentally, the "~500 learners" figure is also from Reddit. I don't feel it's worthwhile to list that as a source, but the estimate itself shows readers that there are people interested in the language.

2423: 2089:

I see, I should have looked there first. Btw, your talk page is enormous, it does slow my computer down when I try loading it. I'm wondering if this isn't a trick to dissuade editors from writing here.

3550:. 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 3398:. 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 828: 3308: 827:, the user has again reverted to his contents. Can you please add something to it at the earliest and help me on the issue at Admin's notice board? Issue has been raised on Admin's notice board - 4406: 1094:

is an adjective meaning "coming from" or "beginning from". In the said phrase, "originary from Eastern Europe" would mean the Slavic languages have arised in the region of Eastern Europe, and if

3875: 2944: 3854: 4038: 3651: 2879:

You "Undid revision 727496036 by BeKowz (talk) inconsistent with the source; they are dental and alveolar, but acoustically more similar to alveolar and post-alveolars, hence the symbols"

2071:

Yeah, I wanted to move it back to "Kabardian language", but forgot to also type that into the move menu. When I subsequently tried that, it refused to do that. Therefore, I've added it at

4380: 3985: 3867: 3856: 4396: 4381: 4227: 3566: 3414: 2251: 3724: 2970: 1236:

I thought I'd throw in the incidence of "originary of" which, at least, has the benefit of being correct usage (which "originary from" isn't). I had to multiply that by 100 as well.

3227:

My edit was a revert to the existing version, not a spelling change. I checked the article back over the past few years and the form used was the same as the edit I made. Regards

2510: 1840:

so that you can get input from other, more-experienced editors. It is also better to rewrite articles in smaller bits, so that they can be more easily checked by other editors. --

3601: 998:

We could put in the 1971 book, but because it is no longer used, we should add it to a 'Further reading' section. As for the contrastiveness of the vowels, he says about them: "

3676: 3134: 2960: 2945: 2589:

Of course, this is largely a matter of taste, and depends on he dialect of English on which one was raised. We know that your linguistic background was different from mine.

1365:. There are obviously "red giants", but the assumption has been that there are not "asymptotic giants". Hence it seems there must be "giant branches" (and incidentally a 4030: 4019: 3698: 2202:

I don't want to dispute the claim, but needs the reference. The specific page that says that has to be used to reference the statement, by placing it between <ref: -->

1570:

This is an authoritative source where it is explicitly said that in /n/ plus consonant clusters Venetian (and most, but not all, Northern Italian dialects/languages) uses

4055: 3977: 3966: 2844: 1627:

Good, that's good content for in the article (albeit it of course needs to be paraphrased more) and in fact a claim different from your original. I'll let you add it. --

475: 1415:

but definitely associated with it. The names (see page 9) are different from modern terminology, but there is a nice picture so you can easily tell what it all means.

3139: 4217: 4202: 4201: 3329:

Caucasian language, which eventually got replaced by an Iranian language; the present-day Gilaki and Mazandarani languages. Now regarding that, Nasidze et al. adds;

1892:

conclusive evidence that something exists. Also, you should sign your talk-page posts by adding --~~~~ or using the sign button in upper left of the edit screen. --

1556:

exception), so a claim to the contrary definitely needs a reliable source to back up the claim, especially given the subtlety involved (mistakes are easily made). --

3358: 4071: 4056: 4017: 2586:

I disagree. While the use of the definite article is not obligatory in this context, it does make the sentence more logical and fluid, and is therefore desirable.

2775:. These articles have only a small portion of their text devoted to magnetospheres. Indeed, there are really only two full articles on magnetospheres of planets, 2696:

dit'. The reason for reverting you is straightforward: links that already appear in the body of an article should not generally be added to the See also section,

1026:"noteworthy" (which I felt had been done already; instead, it seemed like an attack on non-Western popular culture as insignificant to the history of humanity). — 3964: 3902: 391:

Both. As you had done, I deliberately pretended to misunderstand a sentence, based on its formal structure, even though its intended meaning was perfectly clear.

539:

There are two parts to my edit summary: "off-topic, really" and "ce", which I combine using a "+". With the first part I mean to say that that map is about the

3939: 3714: 3699: 2987: 2208:. Moreover, it has to be phrased more encyclopedically. I could take care of that, but I would have to see the specific context in which that claim is made. -- 1407:

as a single term. See section II "Gaps in the Giant Branch" starting on page L131. The giant branch bifurcation referred to in an earlier paper contains the

919:. I ask you instead of doing it myself because I lack the expertise in pronunciation and IPA/sound spelling to judge whether the edits are legitimate. Thanks! 282: 198: 1369:

that may need checking for hyphenations?), so ... well, I don't know, but the asymmetry in hyphenation styles suggests to me that one or the other is wrong.

4557: 4438: 3439: 2613:

I inserted the reference to CVSO 30 c because it is a candidate exoplanet that has been directly imaged, a first of its kind (please read original paper). --

4552: 3887: 2729: 2618: 3432: 1269:

of "originary" being used in this way for these three particular origins. I also arbitrarily tried Africa, Scotland, and London and got the same result.

3746: 3456:. This is purely for routine maintenance and is not indicative of wrongdoing on your part. You may regain access at any time by simply requesting it at 4497: 3751: 2157:

Sources about auvergnat languages : thesis of the own language : Karl-Heinz Reichel, Dictionnaire général auvergnat-français, Éditions Créer,‎ 2005 (

4113: 3584: 2783:, so one could with equal justice propose that they be renamed. If you disagree with this viewpoint, you are welcome to contribute to the debate at 871: 840: 485: 305: 178: 4259: 3363: 2630: 2614: 1805:

I apologise. I'm kind of new to Wiki. But that's why I'm asking politely for your administrative help in rectifying these erroneous misdirects.

4012: 3471: 4075:

has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the

2964:, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the 1791:

And absolutely stop affixing "tongue" to language articles; that's very inappropriate and against the standardization of our article titles. --

276: 3929: 1041:

reiterate that I did not assume you were trolling; I wanted to try to find out). As for Jolon Mamytov, I wouldn't have jumped to deletion. --

238: 4462: 4448: 4360: 886: 810: 784: 775:

You can do that without any problem, too. Notify me when you've posted it; I'll keep an eye on it to see if I can add something to it. --

3849: 3099: 1736: 1722: 1707: 1692: 4050: 3518: 2373: 2355: 654: 35:. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else. 2767:

renamed, claiming they are "uncontroversial technical requests." However, they are controversial, as you can see by the discussion at

2672: 988: 533: 3959: 2866: 2830: 2713: 2654: 1668: 1352: 950: 418: 386: 218: 2798: 2476: 2204:

tags. Also, it should come from a promotional website (though someone's thesis that can be found on such a site would be okay), per

973: 912: 3302: 2997:

Hi Joris. I think something went wrong when you moved Template:Campaignbox Franco-Flemish War (1297-1305). Could you look into it?

2361: 2013: 1997: 1978: 1963: 1948: 1934: 1915: 1901: 1875: 1849: 1825: 1800: 1779: 1378: 1197:

does not list your meanings, even though Wiktionary is typically pretty complete when it comes to English. Lastly, you're using an

1066: 1050: 1035: 1015: 916: 458: 351: 3512: 3259: 2575: 2317: 1906:"Discussion normally come down to content or procedures" – What do you mean by this? Is this a typo? And thanks for the advice. -- 1493: 1478: 1463: 1448: 1424: 1394: 1338: 1324: 1278: 1248: 1231: 1184: 1166: 1151: 1136: 2754: 2648: 1193:

First of all, "originally from ..." has exactly the meaning as "coming from ..."/"beginning from" (not 'beggining', BTW). Next,

956: 4518: 4343: 3943: 3906: 3826: 3605: 2733: 2217: 2114: 2099: 2084: 1210: 631: 572:

Who or what decides if some information is 'encyclopaedic' or not? Regards, NitinBhargava2016 (talk) 03:37, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

182: 3214: 2938: 2451: 1659:

classification? I don't know any other term for the study of determining into which families and branches languages belong. --

1636: 1622: 1565: 944: 769: 746: 560: 4264: 3188: 2639:

has been imaged years ago (over a decade ago). And if something like that is the point, then that's how it should be said. --

1646: 1439:

where what we now call the red giant branch and asymptotic giant branch are labelled as the first and second giant branches.

1117:

I know what both words mean, and (a) you're using "originary" wrong" and (b) dictionaries mark it as "obsolete" or "archaic".

471: 214: 211:. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 3031: 447: 338:

You don't seem to be reading my edit summary, otherwise I wouldn't have to repeat myself. I said that the Twitter source is

4432: 4253: 4107: 4006: 3580: 3428: 1754:

please undo this, and give them the pertinent re-directs? I can't even find some of the pages I've created, now. Thanks. --

4375: 3693: 3313:

Hi Joris, I wondered whether you could help me and out and state your opinion about a particular aspect of this research;

2550: 2292: 1969:

projects that require extensive attention. Do you know anything about scripting? And using these gadgets and tools, etc?--

551:. I didn't remove it because you changed it, but because I saw an off-topic map (though your edit did make me see it). -- 4538: 4411: 4232: 4086: 3729: 3453: 2975: 2686: 2340: 2004:

Thanks a lot for your helpful advice. People like you are the backbone of Knowledge. God bless you and have a nice day.--

3173: 3159: 1939:

I'm learning! Thanks! Do you spend quite a lot of your day on Knowledge, then? Does it ever get boring or frustrating?--

928: 4443: 4034: 3981: 3871: 3742: 3617: 2381: 2143: 1514: 898: 3452:

may be temporarily removed. If you do not resume editing within the next week, your username will be removed from the

401:

climbs the tree." Many people would not even notice that the first version is wrong, if they heard or read it quickly.

4180: 3947: 3910: 3609: 3273: 3199: 2737: 2161: 1871: 1821: 1111: 544: 186: 733:, could I please have your attention and request help for an article on Ooty? Its information is in its Talk page - 718: 586: 2482: 2223: 3236: 1522: 4522: 4347: 3830: 3576: 3497: 3481:

Glad to see you're back. I've been checking your edit history on a monthly basis for the last 2 years... Cheers,

3424: 3178: 371: 4400:

has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the

3718:

has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the

3055: 2187: 699: 479: 261: 60:

If I have left a message on your talk page, please DO NOT post a reply here, I'll be watching it for your reply.

4221:

has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the

3656: 3073: 2124: 1060: 684: 669: 325: 4196: 3272:

I added a reliable source. Months ago someone changed it with an original research and nobody did anything. --

2603: 1006:

in Ngwe" , which indicates that a) these are contrastive, b) there could be more contrasts. Who is Dunstan? --

3924: 2183: 2155: 566: 203:

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Knowledge appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited

27: 4169: 2902: 2513:

again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on

2254:

again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on

1763: 1594:

b) n a s a l i: esistono, come nello 'standard', 3 fonemi, /m/, /n/, /ń/, immediatamente identificabili da /

440: 3559: 3407: 3105: 2898: 2784: 2768: 829:

Knowledge:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Ooty.23Did_Pandyas.2C_Cholas_and_Cheras_ever_rule_Nilgiris.3F

3281: 4510: 4466: 4444: 4335: 4296: 4287: 4265: 4118: 3818: 3774: 3752: 3571: 3419: 3205:

You've also been reverted by someone else. I suggest you try to make your case on the talk page there. --

2835:

I agree that the "main" link was problematic, so I changed it to "see also". I don't see a problem with

1172: 867: 836: 806: 765: 742: 4404: