Archives

Tasglann gu deireadh 2008 Tasglann gu deireadh 2009 Tasglann gu deireadh 2010 Tasglann gu deireadh 2011 Tasglann gu deireadh 2012

A happy festive season to you. Foolishly I am wasting my holidays in chasing references for the Skye FAC. One I am missing is re the etymology "but no definitive solution has been found to date and the placename may be from a substratum language and simply opaque." referenced to Oftedal, M. (1956) "The Gaelic of Leurbost, Isle of Lewis." In A Linguistic Survey of the Gaelic Dialects of Scotland. Supplementary volume. Norsk Tidskrift for Sprogvidenskap. Oslo. H. Aschehoug. A. I had assumed this was a relatively short supplement but I can see no sign of any page ranges on Google books. If you have a page no. to hand I'd appreciate it. If not I can find another reference easily enough. Ben MacDui 12:00, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And a guid Hogmanay to you too! Sorry for the delay, been trying to stay away from the screen a bit. I had a look but can't remember off the top of my head where he says that. I saw you used another ref for now - if I do find it, I'll add it back with a page ref. Akerbeltz (talk) 14:50, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK and many thanks. Ben MacDui 15:38, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Skype, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ligurian language (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 10:52, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. This publication is not a historical biography about Juan Sebastian Elcano, but a travel guide about Bilbao and the Basque Country. Please find an appropriate reference to the matter at hand. Thanks, --Bashevis6920 (talk) 18:41, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A publication does not have to be specifically about a topic to qualify as a source. Please familiarise yourself more with the use of sources before "pouncing in". Akerbeltz (talk) 18:42, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is very clear about this, any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources (WP:EXCEPTIONAL), and discuss the ethnic component, it is.--Bashevis6920 (talk) 18:58, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Except this is not an exceptional claim. No one is saying he's Martian... he was born Basque, get over it. Akerbeltz (talk) 19:44, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, sorry, it's very different to say that someone was born in the Basque Country, to say that someone is an ethnic Basque, something that has not even been convincingly shown to exist. --Bashevis6920 (talk) 19:49, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but to say the Basques as an ethnicity do not exist is so totally a Fringe that the onus is on you to prove you're right, not on me to prove your nuts. Akerbeltz (talk) 20:30, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did not see that you were reverting vandalism and blocked you in error. My mistake was pointed out to me and I apologize to you for that. I have memorialized my error in your block log as well. I'll keep an eye out for any autoblock. Again, my apologies. Toddst1 (talk) 16:55, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey that's ok, no worries, stuff like that happens. Thanks for fixing it so quickly! Akerbeltz (talk) 17:38, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever you do, please do not continue the dispute on their talkpage - right now that would be the equivalent of poking a sleeping bear, especially when they're currently blocked (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:55, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, won't happen again! Akerbeltz (talk) 18:02, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is worthy of some debate, although I am ill-placed and ill-prepared to do so. According to the 2007 American Community survey, roughly 1,445 people speak Scottish Gaelic at home. Though that is a miniscule number when compared with the overall population of America, that is still very significant when compared with the numbers of people speaking Gaelic at home in Scotland. However, it seems that the study did not show whether or not those speakers were concentrated in one particular area or spread across the whole of the country. I do understand that by "native" you mean areas where there are communities in which Gaelic is still spoken, Canada being one such place. I am not familiar enough with the USA or New Zealand or Australia to debate that with you, although I am sure there are experts on Wikipedia who would.

Perhaps the issue is that Scottish Gaelic was once native to Australia, the United States and New Zealand - flourishing Scottish Gaelic speaking communities existed in all three - but they have recently declined to the point that they are no longer spoken. By removing United States, New Zealand and Australia from the "native" countries section on those grounds, could we say that Gaelic is not native to Perthshire?

--81.131.242.167 (talk) 19:36, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's slightly different with countries where the language was indigenous to begin with but to get back to the point, it's a bit of a grey area I'd say but it doesn't hinge so much on the number of the the type and distribution - as in, are these even vaguely coherent communities or are they just (a lot) of isolated learners. In the case of Canada, there are still, however weak they may be, coherent communities (say in Nova Scotia) where if you say "Gaelic" even non-speakers will recognize the relevance of the language to the place/history. There are no such communities left in the US, Australia or NZ as far as we know, though Irish is in pockets in the US.

Or to put it the other way round, if a lot of people in New York decided to learn Aynu, would that qualify New York for an inclusion on the Aynu language page? Akerbeltz (talk) 23:22, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, but I am certain if you mention "Gaelic" to people in areas in which Gaelic was spoken commonly up to 40-50 years ago (there are many such places in the USA, Australia and New Zealand) they would know exactly what you meant and recognise its relevance. They would probably acknowledge that it is extinct there, of course.

It would be good if there was a way to show the original extent of Gaelic, perhaps as a sub heading i.e. "Former Native Areas" or something.

--81.131.242.167 (talk) 18:06, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Which raises the annoying (not your fault of course) question of when is an immigrant language ever a native language? But yes, it would be an interesting map to show where in the world coherent Gaelic communities existed - I would probably pick a date that's 1-2 generations removed from the last major clearances. Nova Scotia certainly... but I'm not sure where else there would have been enough of a base for actual communities (similar to French in Quebec say or Mennonite German). But I don't have time. Akerbeltz (talk) 18:52, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I can tell you there were significant Scottish Gaelic speaking settlements (i.e. of the significance you are thinking of) roughly at that time in Cape Breton, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, Ontario, Mainland Nova Scotia, Newfoundland, Quebec, North Carolina, allegedly parts of Upstate New York, Southern parts of New Zealand (including an entire settlement founded by Cape Breton Gaels) and places in Australia that I'm not so certain about.

--86.133.250.253 (talk) 22:50, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Akerbeltz, since you were kind enough to go the Gaelic IPA for Giffnock for me a while back, I wonder if you'd be able to take a look at Newton Mearns and put that one in also. Thanks! Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 07:48, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done! Akerbeltz (talk) 10:39, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello once more, if you get a chance would you be able to do the Gaelic IPA for Clarkston, East Renfrewshire. Much appreciated Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 08:33, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kaixo, Akerbeltz. As you are an active contributor to Basque subjects in the English Wikipedia, I've thought that you may want to give your opinion on this. Ondo izan. --Xabier Armendaritz^(talk) 20:12, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Egunon Akerbeltz eta barka erantzun honen atzerapena, denbora faltak eragin du. Onartzen dut eta eskertzen dizut martxoaren 24an "Basque people" artikuluko "History" atalean nik idatzitakoari egin zenion zuzenketa. Aitortzen dut Euskal Herriakiko maitasunak itsutu ninduela; etorkizunean zuzen eta egoki izaten saituko naiz.

Baita arrazoi oso aitortzen dizut ekarpenetan erreferentzirik adierazi behar dela oroitarazten didazunean.

Aitzitik, ene ekarpenari esleitu diozun "propaganda" izendapena ez dut erabat egoki irizten. Gogoan har pentsamendu eta sentimendu politikotan legeak, ofizialtasunak, derrigorrak azken finean, duten eragina. Pentsa, adibidez, egun ofizialki "Nafarroa"-tzat gogartzen dena indarkeriz menperatutako nafar erresumako azken zati penintsularra baino ez dela. Euskal Herriko historia luzeak geure kabuz pentsatzeko eta sentitzeko eskubide, behar eta betekizun eskaintzen eta eskatzen digula uste dut, zentzuz eta neurriz, noski.

Izan untsa.

--EnekoGotzon (talk) 11:43, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kaixo laguna! Lasai atzerapenagatik, ni ere lanpetuta nabil.

Hau gai nahiko korapilatsua dela eta bi aldean amozio asko ta argumenta gutxi entzuten dira askotan eta hemen saiatzen ari gara emozioak uzteko eta "facts" biltzeko eta oro har nahiko ondo moldatzen ari gara, beste Wiki ta komunikabide gonparatuta. Adibidez, orain dela gutxi editore hau blokeatu dute adminek, Euskaldunak ta Katalaniarrak etnia ez direla idazteagatik behin ta berriro. Hori ez zen egoki bain, bide berean, idatzi duzuna (hau adibidez The French Republic does not recognize any legitimacy to the Basque people.) ere ez zen egokia. Frantziako errepublikak ez du inoiz esan Euskaldunak ez direla eta adierazteko modua oso ... emozionala zen (ta erreferentziak gabe gainera). Horrelakorik Frantziako gobernua esan balu, hobe zenuke horrela jartzeko On May 15 1997 the French Government voted against a motion to establish a unified Departement du Pays Basque as a unitary authority, causing condemnation from Basque cultural groups accusing them of ignoring the rights of the Basques as an ethnic group (erreferentzia bat edo biekin). Adibidez. Neutrala, emoziorik gabe. Gainera, Politics atalean ia hori adierazten da: The Northern Basque Country today does not exist as a formal political entity and is officially simply part of the French department of Pyrénées Atlantiques, centered in Béarn. In recent years the number of mayors of the region supporting the creation of a separate Basque department has grown to 63,87%.[35] So far, their attempts have been unsuccessful.

Wikipedia ez da PPen adarra baina ez HBaren ere :) Akerbeltz (talk) 13:04, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

World Digital Library Wikipedia Partnership - We need you!

Hi Akerbeltz! I'm the Wikipedian In Residence at the World Digital Library, a project of the Library of Congress and UNESCO. I'm recruiting Wikipedians who are passionate about history & culture to participate in improving Wikipedia using the WDL's vast free online resources. Participants can earn our awesome WDL barnstar and help to disseminate free knowledge from over 100 libraries in 7 different languages. Multilingual editors are welcome! (But being multilingual is not a requirement.) Please sign up to participate here. Thanks for editing Wikipedia and I look forward to working with you! SarahStierch (talk) 22:20, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I now have the three volumes in front of me and they are not fake. It is in fact a high quality topical encyclopedia with articles written by topic experts. This is the kind of tertiary source that is very useful as a source on wikipedia. Basques are covered in volume 2 pages 265-267.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:57, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Seems like I was wrong. If I can find the time, I'll self revert some of the ones I took out. Akerbeltz (talk) 18:10, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kaixo Akerbeltz, uda ongi? Hope you are doing well. I went to Donibane Lohizune on a daytrip last month, and as I sat at a café I came across this colourful beer with a great design, happens to be Akerbeltz, he he. It tasted good as far as I remember, ever tried it??? Anyway, I decided to take a picture and here you are. Feel free to use or modify it! Iñaki LL (talk) 22:31, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kaixo Iñaki! Bai, 2012 baino askoz hobe aurten. I've heard of this beer but not actually seen or tried it - it's on my to do list for next time I'm in Iparralde, so thanks for the nice pic and the reminder! Zu ere ondo zaudela espero dut. Akerbeltz (talk) 10:19, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Akerbeltz, ez horregatik, pozten naiz gauzak ondo doazkizula! I think I will be around for a while in Donostia, so feel free to contact me and chat over an Akerbeltz if you happen to be around:) Iñaki LL (talk) 21:02, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Akerbeltz, there seem to be errors in this table, in NOR-NORK Conditional section (for example, it should be zintuzketedan instead of zintuztekedan according to Euskaltzaindia's rules) and I don't know how to fix it. --Adnyre (talk) 13:59, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kaixo. I'm not home just now but I'll check it out when I get home. Just that one or did you spot any others? Akerbeltz (talk) 22:28, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1) In all 3 sections the 3rd person plural suffux (NORK) is E while it probably should be TE; 2) the 2nd person plural suffix TE goes after the potential marker KE, not before it and 3) TU+KE becomes TUZKE. There's also a typo in the indicative past section where it is genuan instead of genuen.--Adnyre (talk) 08:40, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed genuan > genuen (after a minor "episode" because I did this in Publisher originally, fortunately it turns out that LibreOffice opens a shedload of legacy formats, including Publisher). Come to think of it, maybe I should upload the .odg file too. Anyway, I can't spot the others - could you maybe donwload the graphic, circle the wrong forms and email it to me? Just google akerbeltz and any page that has some reference to Gaelic is me, so any of those email addresses will work. Cheers. Akerbeltz (talk) 22:29, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've uploaded the version as it is now and attributed your help in the log, many thanks for spotting these, letter me know and helping improve the graphic! Akerbeltz (talk) 17:34, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

		The Special Barnstar
		The Description just made it to FL - it couldn't have happened without your help and enthusiasm. Ben MacDui 10:27, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey that's great news, well done you too! Any time! Akerbeltz (talk) 12:13, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kaixo Akerbeltz, hope you are doing well! I know history is not your field but Basque is. I thought you would be interested in an ongoing discussion at the Duchy of Gascony that is affecting the pillars of contribution to any wikipedia article. Goraintzi Iñaki LL (talk) 11:09, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kaixo Iñaki! Sentitzen dut baina ia ezer ez dakit gai horri buruz, ez dakit zer esan edo iradoki han. Akerbeltz (talk) 12:12, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kaixo jauna, it was actually about basics in the wikipedia contribution but who knows, sometimes you see very baffling things, you know. No worries, admittedly there was quite a lot of text to read. Matters came back to normal, so it's fine. Urte berri (wikipedi) on! Iñaki LL (talk) 18:28, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

the basque country page is the page of an spanish autonomous community, and an european union region. for anything else you would wish, use a personal notebook. --213.254.88.62 (talk) 23:01, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In spanish, "País Vasco" refers to Basque Country (autonomous community), and not the Basque Country (greater region), which is called in spanish "Vasconia" (which means as "The land of the Basques"). The Basque Country (greater region) is not a recognized political entity by any country, and therefore is called as "Vasconia" (Land of the Basques) and not "País Vasco" (Basque Country). --Tximitx (talk) 12:40, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In a perfect world there would be such a clear distinction but the reality is that País Vasco is as vague a term as Pais Basque or Basque Country - it can mean either the EAE, Iparralde or the whole thing depending on who's talking. It explains that in the article on the greater region somewhere, perhaps we should copy that section. Akerbeltz (talk) 12:45, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

that supposed "greater region" is something that doesn´t exist appart from in a concrete ideology. This is not a notebook, if you want to promote personal ideas, this is not the place. In the same way, every spanish region has the same structure of presentation, to make wikipedia cohesion. The same happens with every state of the european union, or every state of USA etc. That´s why, when you change that map to a different one than all the others, you are making and objective mistake. --213.254.88.62 (talk) 20:09, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Akerbeltz. Although outside Spain Basque Country (greater region), by confusion, is known as "País Vasco", that does not mean it's right. Basque Country (greater region) (Euskal Herria or Vasconia; literally "land of the Basques (people)" or "land of the Basque (language)") is a historical and cultural entity that spans multiple regions of Spain and France, while Basque Country (autonomous community) (Euskal Autonomia Erkidegoa or País Vasco) is a Spanish region with political recognition. The Basque Studies Society, "Vasconia" used to refer to Basque Country (greater region) and País Vasco to refer to Basque Country (autonomous community), because they are different denominations. Simply perform a search on your webpage "Vasconia" term. --Tximitx (talk) 12:36, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that clear usage would be nice but please remember Wikipedia isn't prescriptive in that sense, as an encyclopedia shouldn't be. For example, technically the Republic of Macedonia is known FYROM but the page still is under Republic of Macedonia on Wikipedia because that is the de-facto usage, even if technically that is not correct. I think it's WP:COMMON or something. So similarly, because on the whole Vasconia, however right or wrong. is not in general usage, it should not have undue prominence on Wikipedia. De fact, Páis Vasco AND Basque Country are very ambiguous terms which, unfortunately, are also the predominant terms. Akerbeltz (talk) 15:58, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Basque country (greater region) is a shame of article. It is an article of something that doesn´t exist, but that want to be promoted for an ideology. It is ok to say: "this is the project of some people having X ideology", but not having an article here. It is something about basque nationalism, like iberism. Iberia is not anything but a project of some people. The Basque Country is and only is an autonomous region of spain. That´s all. --213.254.88.62 (talk) 20:13, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Go away and take your irrational hatred somewhere else please. Akerbeltz (talk) 20:38, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The truth is not irrational. You confuse your wishes with reallity. The basque country is no more and no less than an spanish autonomous community. For other nationalistic believes, you have the page "basque nationalism". It is an ideology, which means some people think that would be a good project and some not. But it is not something real nowdays. --213.254.88.62 (talk) 20:45, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Akerbeltz,

Could you maybe add your ref(s) to your Basque dialect articles? At least a general one. They're a good fraction of the remaining completely unref'd language articles. — kwami (talk) 12:43, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I created Roncalese dialect. It looks nice, for a stub, but it could be fleshed out a bit. — kwami (talk) 22:40, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see if I can find time - I didn't actually create the subdialect pages but thanks for headsup. Akerbeltz (talk) 12:20, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

	Basque Barnstar of National Merit
	I believe you deserve this for your hard work contributing to Basque-related articles. Even though you aren't as active anymore, I appreciate your work! Cheers, Original European (talk) 09:22, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I celebrate this long-deserved reward. As far as I know, Akerbeltz is the person who has contributed most to making the Basque-related articles in the English Wikipedia more accurate and complete. Eskerrik asko, Akerbeltz! --Xabier Armendaritz^(talk) 11:00, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aww, eskerrik asko/thanks! :) Akerbeltz (talk) 13:41, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

'Rubbish' is a bit hard. Richens was Director of the Commonwealth Bureau of Plant Breeding and Genetics at Cambridge; one would have hoped he knew what he was talking about. Surely Lake of the Elms could stand as a possible interpretation? Regards, Ptelea (talk) 12:19, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure he knew his plants but the Gaelic is so desperately wrong it cannot even be a possible. 'Lac' is and never was a Gaelic word (though I'm sure he means 'Loch') and if he or his source cannot get right even such a basic term, how can one have confidence in the rest of it?

That aside, though you may brand this as OR, even when 'leamhan' was written 'leaman' (middle or old Irish) the sound value was still /v/ and it is nigh on impossible under the rules of sound development to derive modern Laomainn from that form, never mind accounting for the change from /ʎ/ in leamhan to /l̪ˠ/ in Laomainn. Akerbeltz (talk) 16:41, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thought you might be interested in this other source, found in Henry & Elwes (1913) Trees of Great Britain and Ireland '...names of places, derived from U. montana (U. glabra) in Britain and Ireland', quoting from Sir Herbert Maxwell's Scottish Land Names (1894): The old Gaelic name for it was leam (lam), plural, leaman. Ptolemy's Leamanonius Lacus is now Loch Lomond, the lake of the elms, out of which flows the Leven, which is the aspirated form of leamhan (lavan); and it is interesting to find these two forms again side by side in Fife, where are the Lomond Hills overlooking the town of Leven. Ptelea (talk) 09:58, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It's an interesting theory but to be honest, most of the time when specialist authors (like biologists) comment on linguistics, it often violates the most basic tenets of linguistics/etymology - even if their credentials in botany are impeccable. In many cases, you can actually trace copy-paste errors through various books but only rarely do they check with a linguist and once an error is in print, it just propagates.

Sir Maxwell first misquotes the attested form, which is actually lem(h), his pronunciation guides are wildly off and I can actually not find an instance of Ptolemy talking about Leamanonius Lacus.

The AAA (the Gaelic place name body) ventures no opinion on its etymology which usually means it cannot be said for certain. In any case, any etymology of Laomainn would have to account for the -nn (as opposed to -n in Leven) which are phonetically and etymologically distinct. In modern Gaelic it is very often the result of the well attested and common shift from -nt- > -nn- (cf the English form Lomond). If I had to venture a guess, a connection to the surname (ultimately from Norse Logmaðr) is a much more likely derivation (with Clan Lamont being strong around Cowal, a stone's throw from LL) as it fits the phonetic outcome to a tee (-og- would result in /ɤː/ which can be written as -agh- or -ao-, and the maðr with cross infection from a form containing -n- would yield nn, with the genitive palatalising it to -inn). Akerbeltz (talk) 12:17, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Scottish Gaelic alphabet, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Digraph (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 08:50, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I seem to recall that you are a speaker of Euskara. Could I ask for a small bit of advice? The eu.wikipedia article on the Asno de las Encartaciones is at "Enkarterriko asto", but almost everywhere else I find "Enkarterriko astoa" (obviously there will be a simple explanation for this, but I am too simple to know it). Which should I use as the altname in the article? Thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:31, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya. The -a is the absolutive ending so in the citation form of most words that is taken off (barring some exceptions where the -a is inherent in the root). Or in less geeky speak, the correct form to use is 'asto' 'donkey' because 'astoa' means 'the donkey'. Hope that helps. Akerbeltz (talk) 14:18, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed it does, just what I wanted to know. Many thanks indeed. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:32, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"gu bràth adv For ever, ever (future time only)." From the reference you supplied. Murry1975 (talk) 23:09, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not getting paid to give you a Gaelic lesson. If you don't know how Gaelic forms adverbs, kindly find another page to troll. Akerbeltz (talk) 02:38, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The link you gsve actually confirms for ever, I am not getting paid to give you a competency test or a reading lesson, nor a scottish one. BTW WP:NPA dont call me a troll or vandal. If you can show a use of gu brath meaninf til judgement, do otherwise I will use the one you gave. Murry1975 (talk) 02:49, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Then pick whatever label you feel fits someone who knows jack about a particular language yet insists he's in a position to over-rule experts even if they can back up their facts. Perhaps you'd care to review Dwelly's entry on bràth [1]. Your Irish may be the beez neez but this is Scottish Gaelic. Akerbeltz (talk) 03:40, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I noticed you reverted a change I made to the Scottish Gaelic article. You changed native to from "United Kingdom" to "Scotland", pointlessly. You gave the reason "it's the UK gov which is signatory to things like the European Charter for M Langs, not Sc Gov)". Of course, this is a large irrelevancy since it's still native to Scotland, which is a country, and therefore belongs best to the article to Scottish Gaelic. The state that recognizes the "signatory to things like the European Charter for M Langs" is, as I said, quite irrelevant. If it were to be managed by the EU, would you put European Union and not Scotland?

If you disagree, please explain.

This is the wrong place to debate this but the reason is that that category is for "Recognised minority language in" and ScG is a recongized minority language both at the UK and at the Scottish level so both countries are appropriate. For example, the Home Office recognizes Gaelic as fulfilling the language requirement for applying for citizenship. That is the UK level, not the Scottish level, even if the Scottish Parliament passed an act as to that end it woulnd't work because immigration is not a devolved issue. Akerbeltz (talk) 12:20, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Akerbeltz,

I noticed this article cuz it triggered a template error. I don't know what the pron. is supposed to be, so I can't fix it. — kwami (talk) 01:59, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In which case that was a really poor way of communicating that :b The English would be /dal'uənjə/ i.e. same as Gaelic but t̪ > d and ɲ > nj. So going by [2] what I had looked right, at least to me. No idea what or why it broke something. Akerbeltz (talk) 10:32, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of whisky distilleries in Scotland, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Annan and Knock. 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) 11:33, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kaixo Akerbeltz, ongi? I wanted to let you know that I have just created an infobox for Basque culture, but it is still well in need of improvement. You are a major contributor to Basque topics, so any input is appreciated, by adding relevant links, or adjusting/improving format. Izan untsa! Iñaki LL (talk) 21:38, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. The 18th edition of Ethnologue just came out, and if we divide up our language articles among us, it won't take long to update them. I would appreciate it if you could help out, even if it's just a few articles (5,000 articles is a lot for just me), but I won't be insulted if you delete this request.

A largely complete list of articles to be updated is at Category:Language articles citing Ethnologue 17. The priority articles are in Category:Language articles with old Ethnologue 17 speaker data. These are the 10% that have population figures at least 25 years old.

Probably 90% of the time, Ethnologue has not changed their figures between the 17th and 18th editions, so all we need to do is change "e17" to "e18" in the reference (ref) field of the language info box. That will change the citation for the artcle to the current edition. Please put the data in the proper fields, or the info box will flag it as needing editorial review. The other relevant fields are "speakers" (the number of native speakers in all countries), "date" (the date of the reference or census that Ethnologue uses, not the date of Ethnologue!), and sometimes "speakers2". Our convention has been to enter e.g. "1990 census" when a census is used, as other data can be much older than the publication date. Sometimes a citation elsewhere in the article depends on the e17 entry, in which case you will need to change "name=e17" to "name=e18" in the reference tag (assuming the 18th edition still supports the cited claim).

Remember, we want the *total* number of native speakers, which is often not the first figure given by Ethnologue. Sometimes the data is too incompatible to add together (e.g. a figure from the 1950s for one country, and a figure from 2006 for another), in which case it should be presented that way. That's one use for the "speakers2" field. If you're not sure, just ask, or skip that article.

Data should not be displayed with more than two, or at most three, significant figures. Sometimes it should be rounded off to just one significant figure, e.g. when some of the component data used by Ethnologue has been approximated with one figure (200,000, 3 million, etc.) and the other data has greater precision. For example, a figure of 200,000 for one country and 4,230 for another is really just 200,000 in total, as the 4,230 is within the margin of rounding off in the 200,000. If you want to retain the spurious precision of the number in Ethnologue, you might want to use the ((sigfig)) template. (First parameter in this template is for the data, second is for the number of figures to round it off to.)

Dates will often need to be a range of all the country data in the Ethnologue article. When entering the date range, I often ignore dates from countries that have only a few percent of the population, as often 10% or so of the population isn't even separately listed by Ethnologue and so is undated anyway.

If Ethnologue does not provide a date for the bulk of the population, just enter "no date" in the date field. But if the population figure is undated, and hasn't changed between the 17th & 18th editions of Ethnologue, please leave the ref field set to "e17", and maybe add a comment to keep it so that other editors don't change it. In cases like this, the edition of Ethnologue that the data first appeared in may be our only indication of how old it is. We still cite the 14th edition in a couple dozen articles, so our readers can see that the data is getting old.

The articles in the categories linked above are over 90% of the job. There are probably also articles that do not currently cite Ethnologue, but which we might want to update with the 18th edition. I'll need to generate another category to capture those, probably after most of the Ethnologue 17 citations are taken care of.

Jump in at the WP:LANG talk page if you have any comments or concerns. Thanks for any help you can give!

— kwami (talk) 02:46, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In case you're interested, Glottolog has added four Persian-Romani languages. I listed them at Para-Romani. — kwami (talk) 23:16, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[oops, posted this yesterday & the 'save' didn't take] I'm wondering if it isn't more like that they're para-Domari. Isn't that what Iranian Gypsies are? Did Glottolog overlook the fact that Gypsy = Roma only works in Europe? — kwami (talk) 06:00, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly but that might fall under OR, no? We could add a separate section with a comment. Akerbeltz (talk) 08:40, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started as a contributor! thanks for the pat in the back, appreciate it!

Daemian79 (talk) 21:02, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sgian-dubh, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dental. 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) 08:53, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at Adıyaman Province. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: ((unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~)).

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

Please note that in handling this matter I have given consideration to the possibility that your edits may come under WP:3RRNO exemption number 4. I have concluded that they do not come under this exemption, as it is not clear and obvious that the edits you reverted were vandalism. Stifle (talk) 09:00, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, had a look at your sandbox. Glad to help with Irish IPA but not sure what version we should go for. I'm sure you know there's three 'main' dialects, as well as the standard. The problem with the standard is that it's a standard for the written language, so no such thing as a standard pronunciation. I'll have a go, and you can change as you want. That's what sandboxes are for. The IPA I'm adding is best described as "Munster standard", so not going into specific differences within Munster Irish, but adding versions that all Munster speakers would find natural as recognize as Munster Irish (and all Irish speakers would recognize it as 'genuine' Irish). Jeppiz (talk) 22:23, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input. Don't think it being Munster is an issue, we can add a note. Any other terms you think might be good to add? Was thinking of some past tense forms maybe? Akerbeltz (talk) 22:32, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Great! I'll think about a few other additions we could make. Speaking from an Irish Gaelic perspective, the noun 'codladh' would be much more natural. We rarely use 'codail' in Irish, if anyone intended to say she's sleeping said 'codlaíonn sí' (instead of 'tá sí ina codladh'), it would immediately indicate that the person doesn't speak much Irish. So while the word exists, it's use is very much restricted. I don't think I exaggerate if I say I've heard 'codladh' 100 times for every 1 time I've heard 'codail'. Jeppiz (talk) 22:35, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, same here... I guess I added it because it was on the Swadesh list but there's no reason we have to stick to it. We can change that to the verbal noun sure enough. Akerbeltz (talk) 23:35, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Scottish Gaelic 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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:11, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is not obvious vandalism. A content dispute would seem a better description. 3RR is a bright line. See wp:3RR you have been around long enough to knowDo not edit war even if you believe you are right. Determining who is correct can be difficult and is disruptive. Take it to talk and report the person to wp:AN3 if they continue. Jim1138 (talk) 23:41, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any idea how many map warriors we get breezing through on a regular basis on those Spain pages? Our fingers would start bleeding from reporting them. I honestly don't care, block me. There are good reasons why I'm doing little on the English wiki these days and this is one of them. Akerbeltz (talk) 01:28, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi.

I know this is wikipedia in English, but the article in wikipedia in Spanish have lost their heads and not put not even the basic tab. I ask for help to see if anyone can contact them to see reason. There is an awful adictadurav in Spain including wikipedia in Spanish. We are already desperate because you can not write anything because everything cleared. I am forced to ask for help from wikipedia in English to be the strongest . Oh, and they have also blocked the discussion area ; is incredible — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.86.205.123 (talk) 18:11, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings and sorry for my English that is obsolete.--85.86.205.123 (talk) 18:24, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Eskerrik asko. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.86.205.123 (talk) 17:56, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kaixo! First, I'm not entirely sure what specifically you're asking but I'm rarely active on the Spanish Wikipedia, both because my Spanish is non-existent and because editing Basque topics on the Spanish Wikipedia is very frustrating, there are too many people pushing a todo por la patria agenda. Sorry. Akerbeltz (talk) 11:05, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for answering. There is much fascist in Spain. It is true , it is very frustrating trying to collaborate on wikipedia in Spanish. People in Spain is very fascist and very closed. Just accept that everything is Spain and nothing else. I ask for help Wikipedia in English for the article " Low Navarre " because they have broken, and not make reasons ; and other wikipedias step give them a touch of attention to see if you start to change something ... I do not speak good English , but if Euskara ... Agur bero bat.

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 Proposed second Scottish independence referendum page, your edit caused an unnamed parameter 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) 00:35, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I noticed your significant contributions to Basque, Vasconic and Iberian Language group. Are you Basque? AN expert? Can you explain to me, why Basque posesses, what they call "free word order"? What exactly is free word order? What does this mean? Thank-you. Machtinstinkt (talk) 13:12, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. No, I'm not Basque but I have studied and learned the language. Free word order, well... what that means is that you can move different parts of a sentence around to a large degree and the sentence largely still means the same thing. Take English "The man eats the chicken". That means one thing. If you switch the word order, it means something entirely different: "The chicken eats the man". That is because English relies largely on word order to mark Subject and Object, having lost most case markings. In languages like Basque which clearly mark Subject and Object, because the ending marks either clearly, you can shift them around without changing the meaning massively. So in a sentence like "Man-ak chicken-a eat" where -ak marks the subject and -a the Object, even if you said "Chicken-a man-ak eat", you still know it's the man who's doing the eating, not the chicken. English has vestiges of this: I see him vs Him I see has "free word order" in that sense too because in a sentence with he and him, you always know who is the object (him), so the other one has to be the subject.

Note that "free" isn't usually the same as "random" or "100% free". There are usually some constraints and if you deviate from the most common order, then usually there is some force behind it i.e. the focus changes slightly, so if you move something that is normally at the end right to the front, it often works as a flag saying "oy, this bit here, pay more attention to it". Like "him I see" sounding fancier than the usual "I see him".

Make sense? Akerbeltz (talk) 16:20, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much, very well explained -- I had thought so - that this was what free word order was totally about. On a website about anthropology, I was banned for stating almost the same explanation as you have here, because apparently, what I was saying "made no sense". (But, I guess this was pure Moderator jealousy?) Thanks again. -- Machtinstinkt (talk) 17:36, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! Yeah, the rifts between linguists and archeologists/anthropologists at times makes me feel a bit like Gandalf who said that If all the grievances that stand between Elves and Dwarves are to be brought up here, we may as well abandon this Council :) Akerbeltz (talk) 18:39, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Akerbeltz, I’m looking for feedback on a proposed title that reflects the now-agreed-upon scope at Talk:Parts of a sail#Resolution?, where I asked:

Then how does Sail components sound? It begins with Sail and we're really talking about the constituent components of a sail. It's also two words to the current title's four. The lead could be, "Sail components include the features that define sail shape and function, plus its constituent parts from which it is manufactured."

Please let me know whether this works for you at the talk page. User:HopsonRoad 14:17, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Um... It does...?

For English words, transcriptions based on English spelling ("pronunciation respellings") such as prə-NUN-see-AY-shən (using ((respell))) may be used, but only in addition to the IPA (((IPA-en)) or ((IPAc-en))).

— WP:PRON#Other transcription systems

Per the Manual of Style, respelling should follow the International Phonetic Alphabet, and never be used in place of it.

— Template:Respell

Nardog (talk) 21:58, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I see you deleted the Spanish flag from the page Basque Country (autonomous community), and added an invented "rule" of no flags, yet for any region or authonomous community of virtually any other European country, the flag of the country appears there, so Spain should appear on the Basque page, since don't showing it equals to a kind of nationalistic political movement in my opinion. I overreacted a bit when I wrote the comment about the changes in the page, but I still strongly believe the flag shouldn't be removed as for any other region of Spain, the Basque Country is a full region of Spain, it's not a separate nation or neither has a special authonomy status but it's another authonomous community of Spain. I would thank you if you leave it as it is, it's just a small flag accompanying as well the Basque flag and the Alava and Vitoria flag, since I added all of the proper flags in the article and just there, I didn't add them in other parts of the Basque Country page.

Thanks. --TechnicianGB (talk) 13:45, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Read Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Icons#Avoid_flag_icons_in_infoboxes Akerbeltz (talk) 14:37, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Too broad and old description, doesn't say to which articles it should be used or not. It can't be neither used as a reason for this. Literally any European region or city does use it, so as no one will delete hundreds of these flairs from European cities, it's better to adapt by putting them. It might be a discussion for the flairs on the page Basque Country (autonomous community) but for Vitoria-Gasteiz there is no possible discussion, they have to remain there. --TechnicianGB (talk) 15:12, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In my edition https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Basque_Country_(autonomous_community)&diff=835670899&oldid=833429898 I added the 3 flags, yet in both of your editions https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Basque_Country_(autonomous_community)&diff=835709996&oldid=835670899 and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Basque_Country_(autonomous_community)&diff=835746704&oldid=835728921 you cautiously picked and just deleted the Spanish flag, not the others which I added, proving it's clearly a political/ideological change, since it's not the rule you wanted to inforce "no flags" (which is not really valid, as isn't a rule but you wrote "no flags" without asking anyone if you are able to or if someone else agrees) and now it's clearly this is all about ideologies, not about showing the reality and how things work. I am sorry if the Basque Country (autonomous community) being a part of Spain is nothing of your likings, but since this is not a personal blog but the Wikipedia, I strongly recommend you to leave a simple flair where it should be, because the Basque Country is a full region of Spain, and as most of the similar regions in Europe have the flags as well, this should be left here. You're just 1 revert from breaking the 3 revert rule as well, and I will open a dispute if it's necessary. --TechnicianGB (talk) 15:18, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You just broke the Wikipedia:Three revert rule enforcement of Wikipedia and you started an Edit war. Be sure it will be notified to the administrators noticeboard. --TechnicianGB (talk) 15:22, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm shaking in my boots ... Akerbeltz (talk) 15:31, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

lol, I know nothing will happen, it's just for you to hear what a 3rd party has to say about this topic. It is clear you did these changes with some ideological issues on the middle, since you only deleted the Spanish flair, but left the others, which were as well added by myself. Curiously how you used that "no flair rule" meanwhile just deleted the Spanish one but left the Basque and Alava one. --TechnicianGB (talk) 15:35, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Akerbeltz: I made already the page in the noticeboard: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Akerbeltz_reported_by_User:TechnicianGB_(Result:) I just ask for a bit of meditation and a gentle warning to you for breaking the 3RR, I don't seek for a block or much less, since you don't deserve it. But it's clear these changes were enhanced by some kind of ideology since as you use the "flair rule" you should delete all of the 3 flairs; instead you only deleted the Spanish one. Thanks. --TechnicianGB (talk) 15:54, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Iñaki LL (talk) 22:06, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was looking for a simple etymology of "Coignafearn" and looked up Ainmean-àite. Mac an Tàilleir has a lot to say: It is apparently from Cóig na Feàrna and means "The fifth of the alder". He then goes onto say that Strathdearn "contains five cóigs, Coignafearn, Coignascallan, Cóig na Sìthe, Cóig a' Mhuilinn and Cóig nam Fionndaraich. There is a saying comparing the five divisions of Strathdearn (which means the strath of Ireland, referring to the Findhorn River) with those of Ireland, Tha cóig cóigimh an Éirinn 's tha cóig cóigimh an Srath Éireann, ach 's fheàrr aon chóigeamh na h-Éireann na cóig cóigimh Srath Éireann, 'There are five fifths in Ireland and five fifths in the strath of Ireland, but one fifth of Ireland is better than five fifths of the strath of Ireland'. The distinctiveness of Strathdearn's placenames is commented on in another saying, Tha cóig bothan an Loch Abar, cóig gasgan ann am Bàideanach 's cóig cóigean ann an Srath Éireann, 'there are five boths in Lochaber, five gasgs in Badenoch and five cóigs in Strathdearn'." This is all very well but despite all the detail it is still not completely clear to me what "Coignafearn" actually means. "The fifth of the alder" is hardly standard Anglais. I am guessing from the phrase "the five divisions of Strathdearn" that a cóig also means something like a dabhach. Can you enlighten a poor sassenach? Hope you are well. Ben MacDui 15:58, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Còig in place names (generally) is short for Còigeamh 'fifth' and yes, it's linked to dabhach, a dabhach can be subdivided into halves, quarters or fifths. Make sense now? Yes, not too bad, yourself? Akerbeltz (talk) 21:39, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm good - & many thanks again for your help. Ben MacDui 06:34, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kaixo Akerbeltz, hope you are doing well! I am starting a new article on the (external) history of Basque, much like the one on Scottish Gaelic. I think this specific aspect is missing in the EN WP and since you have contributed to the article Basque, please feel free to add or correct! Best regards Iñaki LL (talk) 19:47, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kaixo Iñaki - thanks, I'll take a look Akerbeltz (talk) 22:41, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. I know that Tartessian and Iberian are unverifiable as Vasconic languages, which is why I denoted them with a question mark. I got the idea from the Tyrsenian languages page. Surely, the features of Iberian, at least, are too striking to ignore, and this view conforms with the scholarly consensus, wouldn't you agree? Can we come to some sort of compromise? 2607:FEA8:8400:1E9D:8D0B:6BD3:2B89:E7B2 (talk) 16:42, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We know precious little about Iberian, there's something going on between Vasconic and Iberian but nobody can say if it's a link or just some sprachbung features or even just borrowings. I see little point in adding (even with question marks) stuff that is on *such* thin ice. It's pure conjecture at this stage based on geographical proximity and some similar looking features - even less with Tartessian. Akerbeltz (talk) 16:48, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The shared origin of the languages' numerical systems seems to warrant at least *some* mention. If not, would you recommend that I delete Camunic from the Tyrsenian page? 2607:FEA8:8400:1E9D:8D0B:6BD3:2B89:E7B2 (talk) 21:17, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have no views on Camunic or Tyrsenian. The potential links between the numbers are discussed in detail in Iberian_language#Iberian_and_Basque. I don't think we need to duplicate that information. Akerbeltz (talk) 09:35, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Please let me know what you didn't like about my edit. Wolfdog (talk) 17:14, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Only Scottish Gaelic is commonly referred to as "Gaelic", Irish Gaelic mostly is just called Irish and Manx Gaelic is usually just Manx, so redirecting Gaelic language to Scottish Gaelic is appropriate as it's the primary usage. For the same reason, the hatnote is also appropriate on the Scottish Gaelic page. Akerbeltz (talk) 22:44, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This may be true in Scotland, but in the U.S., Canada, and perhaps elsewhere, the Irish language is very commonly called "Gaelic", so I think you need to take a more global view on people's misconceptions and common confusions. Even just listening to the first 15 or so YouTube clips here, you'll find Gaelic mostly referring to Irish culture and somewhat often the Irish language itself (including by one obvious Ulster speaker in clip #16). Thanks. Wolfdog (talk) 00:16, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You will get different answers depending on whether you use "Gaelic" on its own or "the Gaelic language" as a string. If I search for "the Gaelic language" on Google, page 1 has just one result referring to Irish, page 2 and 3 none at all, page 4 has 3, page 5 none (one to Manx). You need to be careful about how you configure your search strings. Akerbeltz (talk) 12:56, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I gave you audio-in-context to listen to; some of those speakers are talking about the Irish language. Ans to your point above, North Americans rarely refer to the Irish language as "the Gaelic language" but they do commonly refer to it as "Gaelic". I understand this may be a misnomer, but the whole point of hatnotes is to redirect confused laypersons, right? There are plenty of sources to confirm this lay use of "Gaelic": 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Wolfdog (talk) 15:32, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, take it to talk on the page in question, not a personal talk page for starters. My view is, for "Gaelic" to redirect to a general page is accurate, for "Gaelic language" to do so you have to bring a really good case why you want to change something that has been stable a long time. Something that is specific to "Gaelic language". Akerbeltz (talk) 16:57, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh okay, you are right about Treviño and the map. No problem then! --TechnicianGB (talk) 17:21, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers. Sorry if I sounded curt but every few months someone breezes through and changes that map, it eventually wears you down. Akerbeltz (talk) 18:05, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Easily Ltd shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
See also Talk:Easily_Ltd#Removal_of_non-rs Praxidicae (talk) 13:13, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Akerbeltz,

I see you make a lot of contributions with regards to linguistics. I'm interested to know what your interest is in the language of our island lutruwita?

Linda Lindaseaborn (talk) 12:55, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Linda. Yes, I have a background in linguistics though the connection to palawa kani is not really through that. I mainly speak and work with a small European language, Scottish Gaelic and one of our magazines once ran a feature article on palawa kani and since I am also active on Wikipedia, I checked to see if there was a good article and if I remember rightly, there was no article so I thought I'd create one, starting with the article in the magazine and then tried to see what other info I could find. Akerbeltz (talk) 13:07, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Akerbeltz, I would appreciate you to revert the changes made in Basque Country in the section: Notable people. The definition of a remarkable person is a person who excels in a particular profession or field. Throughout the history of mankind there have been many people who have been notable within their fields of development. Patxi Xabier Lezama Perier is a remarkable person within the field of Basque mythological sculpture, on the contrary Jose Maria Cundin is not a remarkable painter in absolutely nothing. You should stick to the definition of a remarkable person and not your personal valuations. Eskerrik Asko.--85.84.35.74 (talk) 09:45, 17 June 2019 (UTC) Let's not confuse: famous person = Who has fame or is well known among people; What a Notable people = What stands out in a particular profession or field.--85.84.35.74 (talk) 10:30, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Akerbeltz: I noticed you posted a cleanup tag on the article. I see certain problems with it now that you have posted it, I'm assuming it is the mythology stuff? scope_creep^Talk 11:54, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think he is notable but the article may need to spend a bit of time in draft.scope_creep^Talk 11:56, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The bio and work sections read like a fluff piece and the sources are dominated by stuff the artist wrote. I think if you applied the rules rigorously, you'd have to stub it to the award and bio data at this stage. Akerbeltz (talk) 12:01, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Akerbeltz: I've pushed it backed to draft at the moment while we discuss. Usually in these cases I try and get a seed article going even if it is very small, but I cant identify any decent secondary sources. From his work I think he is notable. Is there a ref for the award? It would be a small seed stub, per your suggestion, and get rid of all the spelling and wizard stuff. If I do it, can you please take a squint and see if it is ok. scope_creep^Talk 15:18, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if there are any sources not by the guy himself - never heard of him before to be honest - which isn't of course a criterium of notability but it just means I have nothing on this guy, sorry. The Basque article doesn't seem to have much "hard" stuff either. Googling his name, I get 4 pages of results, a lot of which are Wikipedia. I'm not even convinced of notability to be honest. Akerbeltz (talk) 16:26, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like somebody would make the same conclusion and take it to Afd. I was basing it on the large number of images of artworks the man has created over a sustained period of time plus the presence of the Basque article. I strip it to the core per instructions and see what happens. scope_creep^Talk 19:14, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A stub should probably be ok for now and maybe we can find a bit more. I've also gone round and removed his book from all the Basque mythology pages, that was seriously self-promoting. Akerbeltz (talk) 20:39, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Scope creep: Most of that article in draft still has to go. The bibliography is basically the same book 3x, the Bio/Work sections look like a copypaste job (apart from being fluff). Anf I think we need to tag the award as citation needed for now. Do you want me to have a go? Akerbeltz (talk) 09:19, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yip. As long as there is enough for a seed article for mainspace. scope_creep^Talk 10:57, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Akerbeltz: In reference to your edit here, it appears the correct name of that party was in fact "Nationalist Party of Puerto Rico" as Thomstrijd had edited it. What was the basis of your reversal? Thanks, Mercy11 (talk) 00:43, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya! Either the page name is wrong or the name in the lede is wrong - unless my eyes were going squinty, the edit created a mismatch between the two. I'm agnostic as to which it should be but the page name and name in in the lede should match. Akerbeltz (talk) 11:34, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes there was a mismatch between the title and the lede the way the other user left it. To have completed his/her edit properly, the article title should had been changed as well. Political parties in PR are named in Spanish, not English. Several reliable sources (I can provide them if required) call this party "Partido Nacionalista de Puerto Rico". The proper translation into English would be, of course, "Nationalist Party of Puerto Rico" (the way Thomstrijd had changed the lede to), as opposed to the shorthand "Puerto Rico Nationalist Party". I will wait for your response; if there's is none in the next day or two and, unless it has already been moved by then, will move it to "Nationalist Party of Puerto Rico". Please comment, if any. Thanks, 18:44, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense, I'd be fine moving the page, as I said, I have no beef with either name other than that it should be consistent :) Akerbeltz (talk) 20:59, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Akerbeltz:. You reverted my edit on the Basque page, specifically the short description. I also notice that this is a topic which you devote a significant amount of attention to. Would you be satisfied with expanding the short description to "European ethnic group", to add some specificity, as opposed to only leaving the words "Ethnic group"? werewolf (talk) 13:36, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, that sounds ok. Akerbeltz (talk) 15:18, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:09, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dia dhuibh, Akerbeltz! You fixed the translation of this mountain's name twenty golden years ago. Would it be all right with you if I took the "the" out of one of the possible English translations of this hill's name in the text of the article ("Peak of the wells or springs"), since the Gaelic has the indefinite "fhuaran" (or would you say the English translation is better with the definite article no matter what the Gaelic name has)? I took the liberty of fixing the translation in the infobox (which read "Obscure well/fountain", a result of a misunderstanding that took place in a change right after yours); the infobox translation now reads "Obscure; peak of wells/fountains or Odhran's peak" (no article). Please let me know if you think I should add "the" before "wells" in the infobox, remove it in the article body, or not touch the article anymore. Thank you (and thank you for all your Gaelic-related work)! 999999 (talk) 03:13, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think the following may be relevant, because the indefinite fhuaran is unlike the other four runny toponyms in Watson (1904), which are nam fuaran (so it's all the more likely to be an incorrect interpretation/etymology): "Sgùrr U(dh)ran (3505) - ? Oran's peak ; Oran, G. Odhran, from ' odhar ['], dun, is in the Dean of Lismore's Book written phonetically ' ooran.' Equally possible however, is odharan, the plant cow-parsnip. The O.S.M. has Sgùrr Fhuaran, as if Well-peak, but the local pronuciation is quite against this" (emphasis mine) (William John Watson (1904). Place-names of Ross and Cromarty. Northern counties printing and publishing Company, Limited. p. 173) 999999 (talk) 08:23, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You'Re welcome :) and yes I'd be ok with dropping that remaining 'the'. Re fhuaran, the use of an indefinite - while rare - is not unheard of, cf Meall Fhuaran. Beyond that, a lot hinges on pronunciation and I'm not sure Watson recorded anything that is useful for this one? Akerbeltz (talk) 10:06, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, done; I don't know what Watson recorded about Sgùrr Fhuaran beyond what's in that book, and also I can't count to 10 (years ago). 999999 (talk) 16:43, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya - I hope you recall our endeavours of yester-year on the Description with fondness. I too am semi-retired here these days but I decided to add something to Scottish island names which just grew arms and legs. It's here and if you have any comments or amendments they would be most welcome. I am afraid it is much less of the fun in unravelling Monro's garbled Gaelic and a bit more simply listing stuff that I have found here and there. I plan to 'go live' with it next weekend. Best, Ben MacDui 13:55, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome

Ten years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:46, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've applied semi-protection to the page for 36 hours and invited the IP to respond to your section on the article talk page. If the current situation arises again, once it gets to a point before this (I think you're on 7 reverts in the last 24 hours) then consider reporting the issue at WP:AIV. Nthep (talk) 19:25, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:39, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I thought you might be the one to ask about checking the new Basque-related articles here. To me they look very, what's the word... professional. Which is not to say they look bad. It is rare though that a new editor comes up with 11 drafts or new articles in ten days.--- Possibly (talk) 22:48, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Possibly: Hiya. I had a look, the topics are legit and not obvious copyvios from outside Wikipedia though they do seem like translations of sections of the corresponding Spanish pages, for instance:

With the modernization of political structures at the beginning of the 16th century, new needs also appeared, such as the creation of a fixed and closed space that would allow the Meetings to be held conveniently. This led to the construction of a meeting house around 1500. In 1590, the construction of a new one was commissioned, the final finish of which took place in 1632 with the placement of the great shield. This building was a large cubic mansion with a semicircular arch that mainly followed Renaissance criteria. It had two floors, the lower one for a jail, and the upper one for the Juntas. Opposite a hermitage (called the Angel) was built which was completely renovated in 1675/76.

seems to come straight from

Con la modernización de las estructuras políticas a principios del siglo XVI, aparecieron también nuevas necesidades como la creación de un espacio fijo y cerrado que permitiese realizar convenientemente las Juntas. Esto llevó a que, hacia 1500, se construyera una casa de juntas que, al parecer, se quedó pequeña rápidamente por lo que, en 1590, se encargó la construcción de una nueva cuyo remate final se produjo en 1632 con la colocación del gran escudo que a día de hoy aun podemos ver. Este edificio era un gran caserón cúbico con arco de medio punto que seguía principalmente criterios renacentistas. Disponía de dos plantas, la de abajo para cárcel, y la de arriba para las Juntas. Enfrente debió situarse una ermita (denominada del Ángel) que se reformó completamente en 1675/76.

Whether that's breaking the rules, I'm not sure. Akerbeltz (talk) 11:41, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Update: Just a heads up, the 85.85 and 85.84 IP addresses that have been arguing with you over at Basque Mythology are very likely sockpuppets. Numerous named accounts have been blocked and globally locked here and on Wikimedia Commons. Locked accounts include Sorginak, Basajaun67, Gorriako, and Ridership. Some of these have apparently operated on es.wikipedia. See this SPI. --- Possibly (talk) 20:53, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the headsup! Akerbeltz (talk) 23:18, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! This Basque (I think) poet/translator musician was in the news recently so I did up a draft. Do you think he is notable? I do not read Spanish so it is hard to tell. --- Possibly (talk) 03:01, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

He's Catalan, and I'm afraid I can't say if he's notable or not. Akerbeltz (talk) 09:09, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've been trying to create inflectional tables on wiktionary (see the ones I've already made in the respective category) and, although the three now made are based on the paradigms you have explained at your website, they don't explain nouns like lagh or mìle. Do you know a good source (preferably available online or via an institutional login) to follow for a maximally complete overview of the existing inflectional paradigms? Thanks in advance. Thadh (talk) 18:51, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya. I don't think there ever was a complete overview but if you create something, I'd be happy to look it over. Forbes [3] covers quite a lot of different paradigms but bear in mind that's very conservative grammar.

In general, I'd avoid the terms 'mutated' and 'aspirated' and stick to lenited. Where a dictionary does not give data on the genitive and where slenderisation is not possible, for example a noun like mìle basically it is the same in all cases bar the plural and dative plural i.e. nom/dat/gen 'mìle, pl nom/gen mìltean, pl dat mìltibh plus lenition, that's it. I'm not sure how you'd state that in your format. Akerbeltz (talk) 20:40, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, me again. I've created an overview of the currently collected paradigms (excluding irregular nouns, since they are uninteresting to the automatic templates). The inflections given by you seem to differ greatly from Forbes' (especially concerning dative and vocative endings), and I can't really place this difference. Also, could you give the points where colloquial declension differs from the conservative ones given by Forbes? Thanks in advance for both. Thadh (talk) 13:42, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Have you checked out the two PDFs at the bottom of the Akerbeltz page where it says There's also printable guides, one for the traditional or conservative pattern and another for the normal or colloquial pattern.? Just checking, that should account for the differences. But in a nutshell, the dative is dead and the inflection of adjectives after feminine nouns is reduced to +/- lenition. I'll check out your table later, shouldn't be on here at all right now :D Akerbeltz (talk) 14:05, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, sorry for the late answer; Yes, I did see the PDFs, but they only concerned the inflections where the vocative ending is -(a)ibh, not the ones where it's -a. I'd really appreciate if you could review my tables, because I can't myself make head or tail of the differences - even if the dative plural isn't in use anymore, why would the ending transfer to vocative? And I haven't even started looking at the adjectives, that's on my to-do list after the nouns. Thanks again in advance. Thadh (talk) 09:04, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, noticed you have an interest in this article. It really does need a good copyedit so I will have another go at this. If you have the language skills, could you provide translation for the non-English sources please? That would help the 'pedia. Friendly regards, Springnuts (talk) 18:13, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I rolled back the reverts you made - please don't add them again without addressing the questions I have put in the talk page about due weight and about level of detail. Again, translations of the relevant part of the source will be helpful; more RS even more so. We're on the same side here! With all respect, Springnuts (talk) 18:17, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Substantive changes such as you made ought to have been discussed on Talk first, so how about you do the decent thing, self revert and head to Talk first? Akerbeltz (talk) 09:59, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, it's fine if you say that transcription is more accurate and decided to modify the help. I have nothing against that, but now you need to go through the instances of ((IPA-gd)) and modify them accordingly. That has been my point from the very beginning. Let me remind you IPA is a convention, after all. 〜イヴァンスクルージ九十八［IvanScrooge98］（会話） 12:39, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's preaspiration, not perspiration, point one. Second, I know what the IPA is. Third, a large chunk of the Scots Gaelic IPA on Wikipedia was/is provided by me, so it's unlikely it needs aligning unless some other hero-who-spotted-a-misalignment-in-something-they-don't-know-much-about-but-jumped-right-in has messed with it. Perhaps next time, raise a question on the relevant talk page? Akerbeltz (talk) 12:47, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You still don't need to be so aggressive. First, that was very obviously a typo from my mobile keyboard's "correction". And if it wasn't for the "hero" here that help page would still be missing quite a few things that were not provided before. Never mind, when I have some time I will check the transcriptions myself, don't even bother. Bye. 〜イヴァンスクルージ九十八［IvanScrooge98］（会話） 12:55, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, this and this are unacceptable. Comment on content, not the contributor. Nardog (talk) 17:03, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

People waste my time, they get curt comments. Akerbeltz (talk) 17:14, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Am Buidheann Dubh is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Am Buidheann Dubh until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:34, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:14, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Akerbeltz, you're German and fairly linguistically aware. Can you give me a second opinion on my translation of the two German quotes at Indo-European ablaut, in notes a and b? They are both rather archaic, though ironically too recent for me as a medievalist, and in the first one in particular I am kind of guessing some bits. --Doric Loon (talk) 17:08, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya, I had a look - I'm not sure I understand the first quote myself but your translation sort of feels right, the second one seems fine, if I were to nit-pick, unartig to me is more like impolite/crude and übel closer to badly/poorly but that's based on modern German usage, it may well have shifted meaning since the 17th century. Sorry I can't be of more help. Akerbeltz (talk) 12:08, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that's really helpful. Doric Loon (talk) 15:00, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome :) Akerbeltz (talk) 21:32, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Go away"? But what kind of answer is that? I'm not going to make personal judgments about you, but at least have some education. Venezia Friulano (talk) 21:51, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No. People like you waste everyone else's time for no purpose. Akerbeltz (talk) 09:44, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Greatly reducing my involvement on the English Wikipedia. Too many nutters, POV pushers and Wiki lawyers without a shred of common sense and not enough people willing to stand up to them"

Maybe the world is not the problem, but you... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Venezia Friulano (talk • contribs) 11:41, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You reverted an edit (by me) on "Scottish Gaelic phonology and orthography", and said “that’s not how this works” could you explain (really don’t know what I did wrong; not arguing against revert just curious). 78.16.141.72 (talk) 11:58, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sure :) So while the duplication of entire pages is generally frowned upon or indeed if particular sections get so big they really work better as a summary and a link to a main page, if the subject is better explained by duplicating a fair chunk of info in one or more places, then there's no rule against that. There IS (as you spotted) quite an overlap on both those pages but in both cases, having the 'duplication' just makes the page work better because the reader doesn't have to jump between pages. Hope that makes sense. Akerbeltz (talk) 13:10, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see now, thank you. 78.16.141.72 (talk) 13:23, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome :) Akerbeltz (talk) 16:47, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Next time try to find a more neutral phrasing than adding stress symbols to shut up the IPA lawyer. Sol505000 (talk) 14:08, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to take lessons on civility from someone who has nothing better to do than to edit war over the primary stress symbol. Akerbeltz (talk) 16:56, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, at this point I'm not surprised at all to learn that you think the rules don't apply to you. All the best with that approach. Sol505000 (talk) 17:13, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Help:IPA/Basque shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
Also in the articles: Álava, Basque language and San Sebastián. Sol505000 (talk) 23:18, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cute, a two year old account lectures me on the 3RR ... Akerbeltz (talk) 10:02, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Sol505000 (talk) 19:38, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:31, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

May I suggest that you add it to William Livingston (poet)? 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 22:43, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I may eventually but I'm seriously busy, feel free to add it yourself it you want :) Akerbeltz (talk) 10:17, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Done --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 14:50, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:26, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Mozilla localizations is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mozilla localizations until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Greatder (talk) 17:46, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]