User talk:JorisvS

This user may have left Wikipedia. JorisvS has not edited Wikipedia since 2 June 2018. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.

Welcome to my talk page. Here are some tips to help you communicate with me: I prefer to keep discussions together in one place: I'd rather discuss the content of an article on the article Talk page. 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. I'll respond here to comments that are posted here, so you may want to watch this page until I respond. I prefer to keep discussions tidy: You should sign your comments. You can do this automatically by typing four tildes (~~~~). Add or respond to an existing discussion under the existing heading. Indent your comment when replying by using an appropriate number of colons ':'.

Archives

2006 2007 2008 2009 Archive5

I have nominated Venus for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. 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 here. Anon 09:45, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Audouin Dollfus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rock. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:10, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I've been expanding the stub at Accretion (astrophysics) and I would be happy if you could check it out and give it a makeup as needed. Thanks, BatteryIncluded (talk) 14:44, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your assistance. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 23:38, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Minor planet 90377 Sedna > Sedna (minor planet) discussion taking place at Talk:90377_Sedna#Odd_name. Please join in if it catches your fancy. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:27, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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 would be loaded with crap. Jonathunder (talk) 19:40, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Jonathunder: 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 not the only source. 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. --JorisvS (talk) 09:56, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that some other planet's axis has a greater orbital eccentricity? DOwenWilliams (talk) 22:48, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Did you say this just about my edit summary, or (also) about the sentence in the article? --JorisvS (talk) 11:42, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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

DOwenWilliams (talk) 15:53, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, per Glottolog it's not Croatian, but a separate language from Serbo-Croatian. — kwami (talk) 02:59, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. Only Kajkavian? What about Chakavian? So, what should we do with [1]? --JorisvS (talk) 10:29, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And what about Torlakian? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.252.235.195 (talk) 22:21, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I saw you deleted the dialect map from Italian language. It's not clear to me why.

What does "really + ce" means?

Anyway it's a copy of the map already present in the page, only in SVG format.

It's not a problem for me to remove it, i'm just curious to know why and what "really+ce" means.

ps. not sure if this is the right place to discuss about it, or if it is better the Italian language discussion page.

best --Mikima (talk) 10:59, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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 languages of Italy, not the "dialects of Italian" (whatever that is supposed to mean; this term is ambiguous), nor about Regional Italian. 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). --JorisvS (talk) 18:11, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 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. --JorisvS (talk) 06:13, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Whatever I have added is with a definite valid source. Many sources are reused or re-referenced.

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 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.^[1]

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 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."^[1]

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), 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.^[2]

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 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.^[3]

The Maharashtra language in Konkana contains Kannada names such as Mane and Nichchane.^[4]

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 varavithalane"^[5]

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)

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 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. --JorisvS (talk) 19:11, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JorisvS, could I please have your attention and request help for an article on Ooty? Its information is in its Talk page - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ooty&action=edit&section=21. Thanks!--NitinBhargava2016 (talk) 17:27, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JorisvS, can you please help me raise the issue 'https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ooty&action=edit&section=21' 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 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,--NitinBhargava2016 (talk) 15:23, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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. --JorisvS (talk) 17:43, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot JorisvS! I've done the necessary changes. Please update the article (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ooty&action=history) 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, --NitinBhargava2016 (talk) 19:15, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JorisvS, 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 - Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Ooty.23Did_Pandyas.2C_Cholas_and_Cheras_ever_rule_Nilgiris.3F. Thanks. --NitinBhargava2016 (talk) 06:02, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JorisvS, 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 Wikipedia from vandalism by such established Wikipedians which is extremely dangerous than vandalism by unregistered users and IP addresses!

Please let me know if you need any information. Regards,—NitinBhargava2016 (talk) 17:43, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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. --JorisvS (talk) 18:01, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I noticed you reverted 74.130.77.163's changes to IPA spellings at Charon (moon) and Umbriel (moon). I was wondering if you might also review their edits at Deimos and Mimas. 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! A2soup (talk) 06:41, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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. --JorisvS (talk) 18:42, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you rolled back my edit to the Ngwe language 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 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. —Firespeaker (talk) 22:11, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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 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. —Firespeaker (talk) 22:11, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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 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.

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: "Some of the vowel contrasts in Ngwe" [emphases mine], which indicates that a) these are contrastive, b) there could be more contrasts. Who is Dunstan? --JorisvS (talk) 07:37, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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 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 stub on a prominent artist 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 "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). —Firespeaker (talk) 19:53, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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 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. --JorisvS (talk) 05:34, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On this edit, you changed the word originary to originally, transforming the phrase "the Slavic peoples, originary from Eastern Europe" into "the Slavic peoples, originally 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. Originally is an adverb meaning "in the original way" or "as in the beginning" whereas originary 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 originary is replaced by originally it would not maintain the same sense. - Alumnum (talk) 18:25, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

As for "originally", see the dictionary example here, "a New Yorker who is originally from Mexico".

I'm reverting. —Largo Plazo (talk) 18:34, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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". Alumnum (talk) 18:59, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Two dictionaries (Merriam Webster and the OED) say it's obsolete or archaic. Prithee, use not ancient language when writing in Wikipedia. And neither gives a meaning where the word could be followed by "from". —Largo Plazo (talk) 19:45, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, see Wikipedia:Use plain English. The bottom line is that nobody talks or writes like that. —Largo Plazo (talk) 19:48, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, "originally from ..." has exactly the meaning as "coming from ..."/"beginning from" (not 'beggining', BTW). Next, wikt:originary does not list your meanings, even though Wiktionary is typically pretty complete when it comes to English. Lastly, you're using an adjective as if it were an adverb (i.e. as you would 'originally'). --JorisvS (talk) 19:52, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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. See 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. —Largo Plazo (talk) 20:12, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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. 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 —Largo Plazo (talk) 20:15, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

More: a comparison of "originally from Eastern Europe", etc., and the same for Poland and Spain. It found no instances 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. —Largo Plazo (talk) 20:50, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have to admit: I didn't know originally had that sense, and that originary was mostly obsolete. I incorrectly suggested originary meant the same as the false cognate originario used in Romance languages, which equals English originating, hence the reason why the following "from" made sense to me. I apologize for the little trouble. - Alumnum (talk) 21:10, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Be especially careful when you get to French, where "original" and "originel" have different meanings! —Largo Plazo (talk) 21:48, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Asymptotic giant branch and Red giant branch. 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 subgiant branch 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. Lithopsian (talk) 18:50, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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 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. --JorisvS (talk) 20:09, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the [earliest reference] I can find to asymptotic giant branch 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 earliest reference I can find using asymptotic as an adjective separate from the term giant branch 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. Lithopsian (talk) 21:30, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also see page 608 in this journal where what we now call the red giant branch and asymptotic giant branch are labelled as the first and second giant branches. Lithopsian (talk) 21:44, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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 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. --JorisvS (talk) 05:37, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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 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. Lithopsian (talk) 10:15, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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 giant) branch", hence "red-giant branch". --JorisvS (talk) 17:40, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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, 31.52.164.14 (talk) 16:13, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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. Thanks.--Carnby (talk) 17:57, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Carnby: 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 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). --JorisvS (talk) 18:33, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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 always a nasal velar consonant (thus not only in anca and fango – like in standard Italian – but also in canpo): Zamboni, Alberto (1975). Cortelazzo, Manlio (ed.). Veneto [Venetian language]. Profilo dei dialetti italiani (in Italian). Vol. 5. Pisa: Pacini. p. 12. b) n a s a l i: esistono, come nello 'standard', 3 fonemi, /m/, /n/, /ń/, immediatamente identificabili da /mása/ 'troppo' ~ /nása/ 'nasca'; /manáse/ 'manacce' ~ /mańáse/ 'mangiasse', ecc., come, rispettivamente, bilabiale, apicodentale, palatale; per quanto riguarda gli allòfoni e la loro distribuzione, è da notare [ṅ] dorsovelare, cfr. [áṅka] 'anche', e, regolarmente in posizione finale: [parọ́ṅ] 'padrone', [britoíṅ] 'temperino': come questa, è caratteristica v e n e t a la realizzazione velare anche davanti a cons. d'altro tipo, cfr. [kaṅtár], it. [kantáre]; [iṅvę́rno], it. [iɱvę́rno]; [ọ́ṅʃar] 'ungere', [raṅǧárse], it. [arrańǧársi], ecc..--Carnby (talk) 11:42, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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. --JorisvS (talk) 14:16, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand your objection here – how is that not classification? I don't know any other term for the study of determining into which families and branches languages belong. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 23:48, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Whether we have classified it as one or the other makes to difference to what it is 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 underlying objective quality, not the surface thing that is our knowledge. --JorisvS (talk) 17:22, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I thought you were objecting to the term "classification". But I can't say I get what your point is. Wikipedia 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 "truth", as far as it even exists. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 01:28, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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 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. --JorisvS (talk) 17:56, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Erm, OK, thanks. Now I get it, although I wouldn't personally have interpreted it that way at all. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 03:14, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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 please undo this, and give them the pertinent re-directs? I can't even find some of the pages I've created, now. Thanks. --Navistheman (talk) 11:19, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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 are wrong, I encourage you to do so. --JorisvS (talk) 11:33, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Navistheman: And absolutely stop affixing "tongue" to language articles; that's very inappropriate and against the standardization of our article titles. --JorisvS (talk) 11:40, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Navistheman (talk • contribs) 11:44, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Navistheman: It's okay being new. Exactly because you're new and so are unfamiliar with a lot of things that help make Wikipedia 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, 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. --JorisvS (talk) 11:50, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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 "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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Navistheman (talk • contribs) 11:55, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, discussion normally comes 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. User:Kwamikagami 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 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. --JorisvS (talk) 12:08, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Discussion normally come down to content or procedures" – What do you mean by this? Is this a typo? And thanks for the advice. --Navistheman (talk) 12:20, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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 comments about the person (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 (:).--JorisvS (talk) 12:29, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm learning! Thanks! Do you spend quite a lot of your day on Wikipedia, then? Does it ever get boring or frustrating?--Navistheman (talk) 12:33, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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 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. --JorisvS (talk) 12:44, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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 projects that require extensive attention. Do you know anything about scripting? And using these gadgets and tools, etc?--Navistheman (talk) 15:14, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Scripting definitely helps getting things done. There's User:GregU/dashes.js 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 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. --JorisvS (talk) 21:14, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for your helpful advice. People like you are the backbone of Wikipedia. God bless you and have a nice day.--Navistheman (talk) 17:33, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I see that you've moved the article about Kabardian not back to Kabardian language (where it has always been), but to Kabardian dialect instead. Uanfala (talk) 19:23, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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 WP:RMT. --JorisvS (talk) 20:21, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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. Uanfala (talk) 21:09, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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. --JorisvS (talk) 21:19, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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. Ajraddatz (talk) 19:27, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[2]Sources about auvergnat languages : thesis of the own language : Karl-Heinz Reichel, Dictionnaire général auvergnat-français, Éditions Créer,‎ 2005 (ISBN 9782848190211) http://cercleterredauvergne.fr/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aavitus (talk • contribs) 15:52, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Aavitus: 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>...</ref> 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 WP:RS. 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. --JorisvS (talk) 17:27, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Classical planet may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• astro21/sandt/latitude.html Sky Publishing – Latitude Is Everything<!-- Bot generated title -->]</ref> Mars is at its brightest when it is in [[Astronomical opposition|opposition]], which occurs

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:00, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Fixed. --JorisvS (talk) 17:19, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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. Keep it up! :) --Dk1919 (talk) 21:19, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing. After all, that's the Wiki spirit! --JorisvS (talk) 08:37, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Joris, would you kindly correct this sentence in case there is something grammatically wrong? Thanks in advance.--Dk1919 (talk) 13:25, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Multicellular organism page, your edit caused a DOI error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:18, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Fixed. --JorisvS (talk) 09:00, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Giant planet may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• hydrogen-rich atmosphere that extends from the cloud tops down to about 80% (Uranus) or 85% Neptune) of their radius. Below this, they are predominantly "icy", i.e. consist mostly of water, methane,

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:12, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Fix. --JorisvS (talk) 19:33, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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.

It's not worth fighting about.

DOwenWilliams (talk) 03:00, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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). --Sintesia (talk) 13:25, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Sintesia: It's not the first directly imaging exoplanet. Out of the top of my head, Fomalhaut b 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. --JorisvS (talk) 15:29, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you reverted my added link in planet for Eris. Why was that? What does "ce" in your reason (+ rm link/ce) mean? Mistakefinder (talk) 00:37, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Mistakefinder: Next time, please add a link to the edit in question, especially when it's been so long ago. Like this: [3]. "ce" is short for 'copyedit'. 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, WP:SEEALSO. Removing the link to Eris is because it was a clear case of overlinking: it was already linked in the paragraph right before. --JorisvS (talk) 10:24, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Exoplanet for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. 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 here. DrKay (talk) 08:31, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

JorisvS, you had Earth's magnetic field and Mercury's magnetic field renamed, claiming they are "uncontroversial technical requests." However, they are controversial, as you can see by the discussion at Talk:Earth's magnetic field, so they have been reverted. The same is true for Magnetic field of the Moon. 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, Magnetosphere of Jupiter and Magnetosphere of Saturn, 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 Talk:Earth's magnetic field. RockMagnetist(talk) 21:41, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@RockMagnetist: Then you should clarify the difference and the articles themselves should be clarified. Magnetosphere 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 synonyms. Jupiter 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). I don't care about it either way, but we should be clear and consistent. --JorisvS (talk) 18:21, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the "main" link was problematic, so I changed it to "see also". I don't see a problem with Jupiter#Magnetosphere linking to Magnetosphere of Jupiter. 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 Jupiter's magnetic field, and eventually someone will probably have the time and energy to write it. But for now, Magnetosphere of Jupiter is mainly about a magnetosphere and Earth's magnetic field is mostly about other things. RockMagnetist(talk) 21:48, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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"

Hem.. How can a dental sound like an alveolar ?? How can an alveolar sound like a postalveolar ?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BeKowz (talk • contribs) 08:32, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@BeKowz: The prototypical postalveolars are not simple postalveolars (either apical or laminal), but are "domed", 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. --JorisvS (talk) 19:04, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Geography of Charon, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. MartinZ02 (talk) 21:23, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Kind regards, --MWAK (talk) 19:14, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@MWAK: I suspect it involved a double redirect, but that has already been fixed automatically. --JorisvS (talk) 17:53, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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:

You know, it would be real nice if someone added the kind of information and examples from this blog entry to the Ithkuil Wikipedia 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 language).[4]

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.

Thanks, ChinskiEpierOzki (talk) 22:24, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sources are the cornerstone of Wikipedia. Without them, anything would fly and Wikipedia would be useless. [5] 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 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 owns the page about that topic. --JorisvS (talk) 19:20, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A year ago ...

solar moon summary languages
... you were recipient no. 1269 of Precious, a prize of QAI!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:27, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Four years now! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:24, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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 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: http://www.censusindia.gov.in/Census_Data_2001/Census_Data_Online/Language/Statement1.aspx Vibhss (talk) 18:15, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You've also been reverted by someone else. I suggest you try to make your case on the talk page there. --JorisvS (talk) 18:32, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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 Denisarona (talk) 05:45, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Denisarona: 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. --JorisvS (talk) 05:49, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I added a reliable source. Months ago someone changed it with an original research and nobody did anything. --93.36.3.110 (talk) 18:44, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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 POV 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. --JorisvS (talk) 19:38, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

According to Nasidze et al. (2006), the Gilaks/Mazandaranis 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 Caucasian language, which eventually got replaced by an Iranian language; the present-day Gilaki and Mazandarani languages. Now regarding that, Nasidze et al. adds;

"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 south Caucasian languages."

With South Caucasian languages, they refer to this group of languages right, 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 region). Do you think I got it right there? Bests - LouisAragon (talk) 20:26, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello JorisvS! This message is to inform you that due to editing inactivity, your access to AutoWikiBrowser may be temporarily removed. If you do not resume editing within the next week, your username will be removed from the CheckPage. 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 WP:PERM/AWB. Thank you! — MusikBot II ^talk 20:20, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to see you're back. I've been checking your edit history on a monthly basis for the last 2 years... Cheers, Rfassbind – talk 22:42, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - *entirely* agree - Welcome back... Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 01:30, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Ceres (dwarf planet) for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. 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 here. 20:18, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Russian-Iranian military intervention in Syria. Since you had some involvement with the Russian-Iranian military intervention in Syria redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:01, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Precious

Five years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:54, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:59 Virginis has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 21:19, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article Roderich von Erckert has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable man who has not received any significance.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Koridas 📣 01:11, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Language family with name has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 00:28, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Solar System for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. 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 here.Cinadon36 15:40, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated 90377 Sedna for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. 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 here. Renerpho (talk) 05:47, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:SolarMoonSummary has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 07:20, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:SolarSummaryLarge has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Izno (talk) 19:45, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:1:3 resonance has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 12:55, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Abishe (talk) 20:49, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Uranus trojans has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:45, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article Uranus trojan has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

List with two entries and no nontrivial sourced content. Not a set index article, as neither object is known as "Uranus Trojan".

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 10:00, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:High-proper-motion stars has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 11:02, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article 2006 HH123 has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Nonexistent object.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. SevenSpheres (talk) 18:47, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]