The

Adventure

Hi Kanjuzi!! You're invited: learn how to edit Wikipedia in under an hour. I hope to see you there! Ocaasi Play The Wikipedia Adventure This message was delivered by HostBot (talk) 17:32, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You searched for the correctios that I applied to the article on Latin conjugation and reverted all of them.

In particular, when it comes to the number of conjugations, you reverted my fixes to a wrong version that cites a work from 1895 as something written by a 'grammarian' 'in modern times'. You also reverted a correction whereby I make clear that the four inflectional class names are based on the infinitive verb, not the 1st person singular present active as the previous text suggested. And another correction whereby I make sure the sequence of two verbs 'sum, esse' is not called 'verb', but 'vocabulary item' (or 'dictionary entry', or 'lexical item', if you will). For inflected words, one vocabulary item corresponds to multiple words. Finally, you removed all remarks that point to the fact that there are five conjugations, not four, and the historical reasons why one regular conjugation is called 'mixed conjugation'.

The reason for reverting was "New rewriting is too verbose and "chatty"." Why? Why? Are you upset because of something I told you in Talk page? I do not want to enter an edit fight, I just want to understand. Currently, without any message, it feels like you are invested in preventing any corrections to that page. Daniel Couto Vale (talk) 08:47, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Daniel Couto Vale: Some answers to your questions. 1. 1895 is modern, in comparison to Varro and Donatus. The system of four conjugations has not changed since then. For example, Langenscheidt's pocket dictionary (I have it here) reports that capio is "3", i.e. 3rd conjugation. The same is true of all the other standard reference books written in English. 2. No one at all says that -ontur verbs make a different conjugation. This is something you have invented. 3. I don't know why you claim that sum is not a verb. All the dictionaries call it a verb. Merriam-Webster's dictionary calls the English equivalent "be" a verb. 4. The introduction, as you left it, was more like an essay. We should stick to the standard encyclopaedic style. The introduction should be as concise as possible, without going into unnecessary details. 5. I'm not annoyed about anything you wrote on the Talk page but I just think that you don't understand the Wikipedia rules, which are that an article has to summarise the standard view, not give your own personal ideas about the subject. 6. Any statement of anything except the most basic and uncontroversial facts needs a reference to a standard work on the subject. A random sentence from Varro in which he happens to use a verb with the spelling -ontur cannot be used to support the view that -ontur verbs are generally held to form a separate conjugation. Kanjuzi (talk) 12:35, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1a. No one reading wikipedia will think that 1895 is 'modern'.

1b. Go to the end of the dictionary in Langenscheidt at the section "Conjugation" ("Konjugation" in German). As I cited in the version you reverted, they present FIVE conjugations: in German, "1. ā-Konjugation", "2. ē-Konjugation", "3. konsonantische Konjugation", "3. gemischte Konjugation", "4. ī-Konjugation". They do two classifications of the conjugations: a number classification with four categories of conjugation ("1.", "2.", "3.", "4."), one of which subsumes two conjugations; and a word classification with five options (ā, ē, konsonantische, gemischte, ī). The numbers correspond to the endings of the infinitive. The words correspond to the conjugations as inflectional classes. The latter classification is the most modern one.

2. This depends on whether you want 'conjugation' to be a descriptive term or an invented enumeration. If conjugation is an inflectional class, all digital systems for processing corpora will need a specific class for this inflectional class. You might be ignoring the works in the last 30 years in computational corpus study of Latin. But this is my focus, it needs not be yours.

3. I did not claim that sum is not a verb. I said that sum is a verb, esse is a verb, but that sum, esse, fuī, futūrus is not a verb, but a vocabulary item (a.k.a. lexical item, dictionary entry). There are many verbs such as sum, es, est, sumus... which belong to that vocabulary item. It is the vocabulary item, not the verb, that belongs to a class. For instance, the verbal item putō, putāre, putāvī, putātūrus belongs to the ā conjugation (a.k.a. 1st conjugation); in turn, the verb putō belongs to the first-person, singular, present, indicative categories, not the vocabulary item. In Latin, vocabulary item = vocābulum and word = verbum.

I do not mind corrections regarding encyclopaedic style. From my perspective, the problem only comes when the information is wrong, contradictory or poorly structured discursively. Currently, the article is poorly structured and contains false/misleading information. Daniel Couto Vale (talk) 15:45, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Daniel Couto Vale: 1895 seems very modern compared with Varro! How do you know that other people won't think it's modern?

German terminology differs from the terminology typical of English-language publications. But even in the German-language Langenscheidt, as your quotation makes clear, capio is classified as a 3rd conjugation verb. It's just a different variety. In the same way rex and turris both belong to the 3rd declension, even though they are slightly different and the accusative singular is regem but turrim. ā-Konjugation is commonly used in German publications but not often in English ones.

To call sum, esse a "vocabulary item" is slightly weird. Everyone else calls it simply a verb, e.g. Lewis and Short's dictionary.

Your idea of "poorly structured" differs from other people's. As I mentioned before, you can classify Shakespeare's plays in a library alphabetically or chronologically but not both at the same time. When the librarian has already decided on the alphabetical arrangement, it isn't for you to come along and rearrange everything according to your preferences, if other users are happy with the way it is. In Wikipedia the people who got there first and created the article tend to get to decide the way an article is arranged. Why don't you find a new topic and write about that? I have created nearly 60 Wikipedia articles so there are plenty of topics to choose from. Kanjuzi (talk) 18:48, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ask any person you trust what time range he/she imagines when he/she reads "In modern times, grammarians...". If they give any date before they were born, you tell me here. One person is enough.

"capio is classified as a 3rd conjugation verb" - This is not true. The vocabulary item capiō, capere is classified as "3rd mixed conjugation". The authors were very clever when they did this. They contemplated the fact that some people still use four historical conjugation names (1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th) and that other people adopt the more modern naming convention with one name per conjugation (ā, ē, consonantal, mixed, ī). I know you are one of the people who still use the historical conjugation names and that you want them to be the "modern ones". However, this is not the case.

There is almost 130 years of research between the book you cite and today. Modern linguistics as a science first began in the early 1900s, decades after this book. Now we have computers. We have corpora. We have unicode. We process texts automatically. We are communicating through a talk page of a wiki article. A modern way of thinking includes understanding what a unit is, what a class is, what a name is, and how to use them in a scientific way. It also includes the expectation that any reader can use a concordance tool such as [PHI Latin Texts] to verify examples and a translation tool such as [Google Translate] to understand them. The information that people will search for in wikipedia is that which they cannot do already with those digital tools. We are coming from two very different perspectives.

"As I mentioned before, you can classify Shakespeare's plays in a library alphabetically or chronologically but not both at the same time." - I am 100% sure that you did not understand what I wrote. I was exactly telling you that the article is organized in one way until the half (say 'alphabetically'), then there are two sections of lightly related topics organized in a different way (say 'chronologically'), then one section with miscelanious information that should be somewhere else within the article (wrong place according to your own ordering). But you are informed and you think the article is good despite my feedback. I know that you will revert any change, so I will not try to correct or improve it anymore. Daniel Couto Vale (talk) 22:48, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edit to Huntsville, Texas appears to have added the name of a non-notable entity to a list that normally includes only notable entries. In general, a person or organization added to a list should have a pre-existing article before being added to most lists. If you wish to create such an article, please first confirm that the subject qualifies for a separate, stand-alone article according to Wikipedia's notability guideline. Thank you. John from Idegon (talk) 20:08, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chichewa tones, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:02, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Mark Hanna Watkins ca. 1930.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Eeekster (talk) 15:56, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Boundary tone (linguistics), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

MatthewVanitas (talk) 01:26, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Anna came with Manny.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:43, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Innocent Masina Nkhonyo requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. — Masum Ibn Musa  ^Conversation 06:06, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Tobias Dossi 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/Tobias Dossi until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 21:44, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:08, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Kanjuzi. You have new messages at CatcherStorm's talk page.
Message added 07:20, 28 December 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.[reply]

CatcherStorm ^talk 07:20, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Kanjuzi. You have new messages at CatcherStorm's talk page.
Message added 09:15, 28 December 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.[reply]

CatcherStorm ^talk 09:15, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Earl Stevick, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://www.kidzsearch.com/wiki/Earl_Stevick.

It is possible that the bot was mistaken and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 16:43, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Earl Stevick requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article or image appears to be a clear copyright infringement. This article or image appears to be a direct copy from http://www.kidzsearch.com/wiki/Earl_Stevick. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website or image but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Qpalzmmzlapq (talk) 21:30, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Got to use Template:Copied templates for large content splits like that. I've taken care of it though. Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)^[1] 08:37, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Brightgalrs: Thanks! Could you also deal with the article Infinitive (Ancient Greek) which I have split off from Ancient Greek grammar in the same way? The Template:Copied template seems complicated! Kanjuzi (talk) 09:51, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Yep, no problem. Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)^[1] 09:53, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Prosody (Greek), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Alcaeus. 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) 09:47, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Prosody (Greek), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Alcaeus. 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, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Kanjuzi. I see you've done quite a bit of work relating to quantitative metrics. I expect I have nothing to tell you on that topic. However, you may find some of my struggles with the display of scansion useful.

  –  u   u  –     –      –  u   u  –    u   u   –   u  u  –    –  
Scanning a verse line: starting a line with a space is a good way.

(I know; inappropriate for English. It's just an example.) The alternative is this markup:

<pre style="border:none;background-color:transparent;margin-left:1em">

scansion

verse text

</pre>

I happen to prefer the initial space, because markup (anything from, say, bold to an inline reference) works with it. This is not true with the "pre" markup, but I think most people feel that it meshes with the rest of the text better as it lacks the boxy background. I see you generally keep your scansions separate from the verse text. Personally I prefer pairing the scansion with each line (as above), but even your method can benefit from a monospaced font, since this:

| – u – – | – u – – || – u – – | – u – |

| uu u uu – | uu u – – || – u – – | – u – |

...from your Metres of Roman comedy becomes (I think) much clearer if reformatted and stacked:

| –  u –  – | –  u – – || – u – – | – u – |
| uu u uu – | uu u – – || – u – – | – u – |

This kind of stuff can be done with tables too, but I believe this is a bad choice because it requires more skill both for the initial editor, and for any subsequent editors who wish to modify it. Furthermore, both methods shown above are WYSIWYG, which helps immensely.

My other bit of work was User:Phil wink/Quantitative scansion code which itself seems to be of no use, but by-the-bye contains several notes on what potential scansion symbols tend to render correctly, and a couple of tricks to do stuff like this: u͝u (in case you're ever unlucky enough to need it). Cheers. Phil wink (talk) 05:09, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Phil wink: That's a good idea. I will experiment and see how it looks. Usually I avoid the initial-space courier-font boxes as they look ugly, but the stacked scansions as you have done them look attractive. Kanjuzi (talk) 09:26, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't like the boxes, then use the "pre" style, particularly since these lines, at least, have no other required markup:

| –  u –  – | –  u – – || – u – – | – u – |
| uu u uu – | uu u – – || – u – – | – u – |

Phil wink (talk) 13:00, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Phil wink: I've tried it now on one section of Metres of Roman comedy to see how it looks. It looks fine, except for the big space above and below the scansion. I don't know if that can be got rid of easily? Kanjuzi (talk) 09:42, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To my knowledge the space is unavoidable. It may not be exactly what you want, but I don't think you should see it as a terrible thing. These are, after all illustrations, not part of the continuous text, and a little framing (even just white framing) doesn't hurt (not unlike a blockquote). And on Wikipedia, there is no limit on "ink and paper". I've tried a lot of crazy combinations of html tricks (and I needed someone else to figure out the "pre" solution). Almost all fail, usually because almost all replace multiple spaces with single spaces, which is death to our attempt to line up characters WYSIWYG. Cheers. Phil wink (talk) 13:36, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	I have been reading through your linguistics articles. They are clear, informative and understandable, even to a layman such as myself - everything Wikipedia aspires to be. Thank you for your contributions. Jbh Talk 14:04, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Pitch accent, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Turkish (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:26, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Kanjuzi:, thanks so much for all your contributions!

I have created a personal user award to recognize contributions related to ancient Roman history, which I have dubbed "The Barnstar of Tacitus". Could you check my translation: "stella horreorum Taciti"? Thanks. Informata ob Iniquitatum (talk) 22:42, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's correct if you mean a "star of Tacitus's barns". How about stella horreatica Taciti? Or even, since the star is a small one, stellula horreatica Taciti – though perhaps the latter's a bit fussy; the first is better. Try running it past someone else who knows Latin! Kanjuzi (talk) 04:59, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Salve amice,

Aiutum! I am struggling with the difference between evocare and devocare, evoco and devoco. I understand evoco to mean to summon, or lure. An evocatio was a ritual designed to "distract" a city's gods by a besieging army. But I find in Pliny's Natural Histories XXVIII ch.4, devocare is used for summoning Jupiter. Are the two interchangeable?

Evocatus is a veteran heeding the call to return to duty. So what would a devocatus be?

If you can help, awesome, don't feel obliged to respond if you can't :-) Informata ob Iniquitatum (talk) 04:51, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Lewis and Short entries, which you will find here: http://logeion.uchicago.edu/index.html#evoco and here: http://logeion.uchicago.edu/index.html#devoco, make the difference fairly plain. Evocare is to call someone out, supposing they are in something, e.g. in their home, in a city, and so on. Devocare is to call someone down (e.g. to call on a god to come down from heaven to help), but it also has a range of other meanings such as invite, lure, etc. The form devocatus doesn't seem to be used. Kanjuzi (talk) 05:15, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is an entry for devocatus. Sadly, I am unable to understand the definition provided. Informata ob Iniquitatum (talk) 05:37, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is from a medieval book (the Statutes of the Premonstratensian Order) and it says Si lector mensae devocatus benedictionem neglexerit = 'if a reader, invited to the table, neglects to say a blessing'. Underneath a footnote queries the word and suggests that perhaps it ought to say denotatus, which would mean 'specified' or 'designated'. Anyway I don't think it's worth worrying about. Kanjuzi (talk) 05:58, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ancient Greek accent, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Mora and Hausa (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:18, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ancient Greek accent, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Alcaeus (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:14, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ancient Greek accent, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Stress (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:16, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Latin profanity, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ganymede (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:20, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Latin profanity, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dione (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:31, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Thank you for your message; if you are concerned about the rating you could ask a member of the Latin WikiProject to review it.--Johnsoniensis (talk) 17:04, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit of yours to the page Graham Hancock has an edit summary that appears to be inaccurate or inappropriate. The summaries are helpful to people browsing an article's history, so it is important that you use edit summaries that accurately tell other editors what you did. Feel free to use the sandbox to make test edits.

I don't know whether your edit was perhaps a misclick, but you said that you were restoring references, when the edit in fact removed neutrally phrased and sourced info, replacing it with phrasing that was against a strong and long-standing consensus on the article talk page. If it was an accident, then please be more careful. Regards, bonadea contributions talk 13:36, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Bonadea: No, it was not a misclick. The change I made was to restore two references to books which refer to Hancock's ideas as pseudoscience. Somewhere during the last few edits those two references had been removed, although not by me, and I thought it useful to put them back. So my edit summary was quite accurate and your comment is puzzling. Perhaps you were mistaking me for the other editor who made the earlier change? Incidentally, the introduction as it now stands seems to me to be a little over-emphatic on the attacking side. Is it necessary to say twice in six lines (with a repeated reference) that his work is pseudoscientific? Personally I preferred the previous wording that his work is regarded as pseudoscientific. It seems more neutral. And it only needs to be said once. Kanjuzi (talk) 16:59, 30 March 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) 00:19, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Kanjuzi. I happened to notice a couple of your recent edits, in which you're dealing with pipes (|) in sensitive situations. I suspect that the trick you're looking for is ((!)), which correctly and safely displays the pipe character both within tables and within templates, without breaking the functionality of either. And as far as I know, it works in other situations too, but to my knowledge, regular pipes won't break other stuff. Cheers. Phil wink (talk) 00:34, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! That's a good trick. I didn't know that. Jolly useful. | Kanjuzi (talk) 13:09, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion has been moved to Latin tenses: Talk. Kanjuzi (talk) 12:55, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Kanjuzi: Should I create a separate Wikipedia article about grammatical tense in Latin so as to give readers access to the current theory of grammatical tense in Latin? That way you can make the article on Latin tenses stay the way it is now and at the same time you would allow Wikipedia visitors access to facts about the Latin language described in the literature. --Daniel Couto Vale (talk) 22:33, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Khwaju Kermani tomb, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Roknabad (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 13:00, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Roknabad, Shiraz, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Bkissin (talk) 21:46, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Number 1

1. Salve, Kanjuzi!
2. Gratias tibi for your contributions!
3. I really cant help but say, you did a great job marking the (synaloephae)!

Number 2

It is a miracle to find another user who also knows Carmen 63 of Catullus. Legi I read hoc this and when vidēbam I was reading the part for Carmen 36, fui valde laeta I was really happy, although Carmen 63 was indeed written in Versus Galliambicus et and based upon the Ionic meter, sed but, in Versō Galliambicō the Galliambic Verse, syllaba postrēma the last syllable is an anceps...which means the last syllable can be either short "u" or long "-" and this is the part where I have some objections to the meter. Not all of the last syllables are long "-", they dont count as a long syllable by nature nor a long syllable by postion.

• A syllable is long by nature when you can see that there is a "-" across the vowel, e.g. :nāvis. "nā" is a long syllable (tempus longus) by nature and "vis" is short (tempus breve)
• A syllable is long by position when (please allow me to show you examples, it may seem really confusing):

1. a vowell before 2 consonants or a double consonant e.g. : maximus "ma" is long by position
2. vowell before a consonant ending the former word and a consonant e.g. : caelum caeruleum "lum" is long by position
3. even if a former word ends with vowell that is short by nature and the next word begins with 2 consonants e.g. : occulta spolia "ta" is long by position

this is what you wrote:

Super alta vectus Attis celeri rate maria
Phrygi(um) ut nemus citato cupide pede tetigit
adiitqu(e) opaca silvis redimita loca deae,
stimulatus ibi furenti rabie, vagus animis
devolsit il(i) acuto sibi pondera silice.
The meter is:

u u – u – u – – | u u – u u u u –
u u – u – u – – | u u – u u u u –
u u – u – u – – | u u – u u u u –
u u – u u u u – – | u u – u u u u –
– – u – u – – | u u – u u u u –

(I must say again..you did a good job marking the synaloephae..not everyone knows how..) In your meter the last syllable of every sentence are all written with "-", indicating that they all are long syllables, I'm sorry to say, but, not all the last syllablae are tempi longi. for example lets just say "tetigit", "git" is not long by nature nor is it long by position, and therefore it should not be marked with "-". *There are a few more that should not be marked with "-"

Number 3

vagus animis

From the poem I've been taught to read, it says, "....vagus animī" instead of "...vagus animis", and to my interpretation, it means "wandering mind of his" and that should be "animī" instead of "animis" as it should be in genetivus singulāris, genetive singular, and not datīvus plūrālis nec ablātīvus plūrālis, not dative plural nor ablative plural.

Number 4

Ah..you must be a little shocked to find that I have a fouth thing to point out, but don't worry :), its just a little suggestion. I know it's really annoying writing all the "-" thingies on top of letters when writing in Latin. I find it really annoying, escpecially when typing, and sometimes I dont remember whether or not there is one. BUT....it is best to write it, particularly when writing carmina, quia it gives at least it gives me a better sense when figuring out the tempus longus vs tempus breve it actually really does.

AND...it can change a word..for example, you should be familiar with the 4 categories of verbs..? well...yes...

• the 2nd category of verbs end with "-ēre"
• the 3rd category of verbs end with "-ere"

..so if I forgot the "-" thingie....I could mess up with the whole conjugations...and that would be a disaster...(at least for me) OH YEAH...it changes the pronounciaton too.. did you realize..?

• e.g. : "vidēre" (2nd category) is pronounced: /veee-day-rrr-eh/
• e.g. : "scrībere" (3rd category) is pronounced : /ss-krr-eeeee-beh-rrr-eh/

can you see ..wait hear..? *hear im sure.. the difference ...? "eh-rrr-eh" vs "ay-rrr-eh"

Gratias tibi for hearing my thoughts :) Wah lao eh... (talk) 23:22, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Wah lao eh...: Thank you very much for your comments. This is a very interesting point, and it seems that scholars differ as to whether a final syllable consisting of short vowel + consonant should be counted as long or short: see Brevis in longo. My understanding is that even a short vowel at the end of a verse was considered by ancient prosodists to count as long, because of the pause that followed it. This is why it is impossible to end a line with a dactyl, since, with the pause at the end of the line, – u u would automatically be counted as – u –. However, lots of scholars would agree with you, so there is no harm in writing "x" for the last syllable if there is any doubt. And it seems that even if it counted as long, a final short vowel was felt to be shorter than a short vowel + consonant and avoided by some poets as insufficiently heavy to end a line. So in a way you are right.

Concerning animis, I looked it up and it seems that the 14th-century manuscripts of Catullus actually have amnis, so some editors emend this to animis and others to animi. Both are possible, I expect.

By the way, yes, as a Latin teacher I hear the difference between -ere and -ēre very well, though you are right that not everyone does! Kanjuzi (talk) 02:05, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Polyglotta Africana, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Soso.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:33, 19 August 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) 02:47, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings,

It seems you have worked on article Saadi Shirazi.

Currently I am working on the article, Anarkali#Inscription on whose tomb a Mughal prince inscribed a couplet.

As I received a ref from other user from recent discussion @ Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities, the said couplet is likely to be of Saadi Shirazi but the reference seems from a journalist, so being RS I included info in the article but still I would prefer to being reviewed/confirmed that the couplet really existed in Saadi Shirazi and that it is not likely to be misquotation by the journalist who attributed the couplet to Saadi Shirazi.

Thanks and warm regards

Bookku (talk) 04:30, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Bookku: It is indeed from Saadi: ghazal 31 line 1. In the article Anarkali, it is misquoted with the half-lines the wrong way round. It should be (the following is the Iranian pronunciation, which is not as appropriate as the Indian pronunciation in the article):

وه که گر من بازبینم روی یار خویش را

تا قیامت شکر گویم کردگار خویش را

vah ke gar man bāz bīnam rūy-e yār-e xīš-rā

tā qiyāmat šokr gūyam kerdgār-e xīš-rā

"Ah, if I could see the face of my lover again,

until the Day of Judgement I would say praises of my Creator"

I have corrected the version in that article, leaving the transliteration unchanged. Kanjuzi (talk) 06:36, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Kanjuzi: Many many thanks for your valuable information and support.

This raises some more curiosity in my mind as follows, (Sorry it seems to have gone bit long below)

• It seems Saadi Shirazi seems to have visited India too but there is a difference of almost 3 & 1/2 century in between Saadi Shirazi & Jahangir; Secondly since times of Akbar Mughals used to have well maintained Kitab Khana, So it would be curious to know whether the verse reached directly from some writing Saadi Shirazi left in India or it came back in form of a book after Saadi Shirazi returned back. I mean to say is whether Saadi Shirazi had left any line of his own followers in India during his visit.
• As far as article Tomb of Anarkali is concerned is it possible to confirm whether what is actually written on cenotaph matches as is with version of Saadi Shirazi ref provided by you or cenotaph is following some little different rendering?

Two cenotaph inscription images 1 2 are available on Wikimedia commons I don't know how far those are readable.

• One more imp point for article Tomb of Anarkali, while now for sure we know that it was kind of plagiarizing on part of Jahangir but since he has put his own name as Majanun Salim Akbar on cenotaph We will need to mention his name too with note that it is actually from Saadi Shirazi

• Last but not least are there any references to story of Layla and Majnun in Saadi Shirazi's literature ? So was whether Jahangir took connecting those lines with word Majnuj from Saadi Shirazi's literature ? or it was his own invention?

Thanks and warm regards

Bookku (talk) 07:24, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Bookku: (1) That Saadi himself visited India is doubtful. In particular, his description of the visit to the temple at Somnath is described by the scholar Katouzian as "almost certainly fictitious".

(2) However, his poetry was very well known both in India and Persia throughout all the centuries from his lifetime up to the present day, and it is not possible that anyone who knew anything about Persian literature would not know that this line (the opening line of his 13th ghazal) was written by Saadi. Just as for anyone who has read any English literature, it is obvious that "Whan that Aprille with his shoures soote" or "I wandered lonely as a cloud" or "O wild west wind, thou breath of autumn's being" are written by Chaucer, Wordsworth, and Shelley respectively, without any need to name the author. So it is unlikely that Salim is claiming that the line is his or that anyone would understand him to be claiming that.

(3) Examining the photos carefully, I see that (although it is very faint) the first word of the line is in fact "āh" rather than "vah ki", so I have changed the transcription back again. Either variant is metrically possible.

(4) It is not clear from the photos which order the half-lines come in. Is photo 2 the one on the left and photo 1 the one on the right or the other way round? But in any case, it seems from the meaning that the half-line "Ah, if only I could see the face of my beloved again" ought to come first. If they are the other way round the couplet doesn't really make any sense.

(5) References to the story of Leyli and Majnun are found not only in Saadi but also in virtually every classical Persian poet, so if Salim referred to himself as "Majnun" everyone would know what he meant. The story is very well known.

(6) The description of the tombstone as "one of the finest pieces of carving in the world" seems to me an absurd exaggeration. From the photographs it looks a fine piece of carving but nothing particularly special: there are hundreds of others like it.

Hope this helps. Kanjuzi (talk) 11:06, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Kanjuzi: Many thanks again for your detailed and helpful reply and edit help. On your last 6th point I do completely agree wonder whether such exaggerations are South Asian signature feature, I hope I have not started exaggerating myself being student of South Asian studies. There are so many of instance that any courtesy appreciation along with exaggerations involved by guests specially foreign one is taken by heart by most South Asians. Usually I leave such things for Copy editors to take care.

Thanks and warm regards

Bookku (talk) 11:34, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Latin tenses, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ides.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:02, 9 May 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) 00:47, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Kwamikagami: I am composing an article about iambic shortening. Most of it is about Latin, but I would like to add something about English iambic shortening too, e.g. allérgic vs. állĕrgy, or márrow vs. márrŏwbone. But despite searching everywhere I can't find any articles about this to refer to. Can you suggest anything? You are the sort of person who might know. Kanjuzi (talk) 12:55, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Closest I can think of is disyllabic laxing. — kwami (talk) 18:35, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's very interesting. (I've added an article by Scott Myers [1] which is relevant to that.) But it isn't iambic shortening. I've found one by Dabouis which partly fits the bill but am still searching. It discusses reduction of vowels, but not the shortening of whole syllables such as Kensington – – – vs. Kennington u u –. Kanjuzi (talk) 19:08, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, do you know the Chichewa names for the planets, even if just assimilated English ones? — kwami (talk) 18:48, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chichewa has no names for any stars or planets, apart from the Pleiades, the Milky Way, and the Morning Star, which they call nthandá. I once asked the writer Professor Steve Chimombo about this, and he went and asked in the university for me but came up with no names apart from these. The Malawians have lots of names for different edible termites and caterpillars, but it seems that they have never been interested in the stars, which is surprising. Kanjuzi (talk) 19:08, 14 April 2022 (UTC) I forgot to ping @Kwamikagami:. Kanjuzi (talk) 19:10, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not too surprising, really. If they don't play an important role in the culture, say in a calendar or for seafaring, how would you ever keep track? How would you know if a particular light was Jupiter or Saturn? Certainly over multiple generations. Even if there were names, it's likely that you'd get different identifications from different people. But I thought it worth asking, so thanks. — kwami (talk) 06:50, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings @Kanjuzi This wiki misses you as you were one of the active users who were correcting mistakes,fixing general errors. Your presence there mattered and matters. Thanks. Tumbuka Arch (talk) 02:13, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Tumbuka Arch: How very kind! Thank you. I am not really an expert in Tumbuka, but I will do what I can. Keep up the good work! Kanjuzi (talk) 14:47, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@KanjuziThank you.

Actually the wiki needs you whenever you have time to create a few templates info boxes (maybe 2,or 3) to be used in countries.Of course when you have time.

Thanks. Tumbuka Arch (talk) 14:54, 13 August 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) 01:25, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please check the new Latin tenses article at my sandbox. All contents of your current article that you do not find there have been moved to subordinate articles. Please give me a go for me to publish the new version or make comments on what you think the page should be improved. Daniel Couto Vale (talk) 11:09, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel, there does not need to be a new article on Latin tenses. There is already a perfectly good article on the subject, and the changes you are making, with your own idiosyncratic terminology, are not an improvement. Why don't you write an article on something else instead? Kanjuzi (talk) 01:05, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created, Metron (poetry), is not suitable as written to remain published. While it appears to be notable, it needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. There are large sections which are wholly uncited. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. I did this rather than removing the uncited material in the article, which I felt would be more disruptive. If you have any questions, do not hesitate to ask on my talk page. When you have the required sourcing (and every assertion needs a source), and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Or feel free to ping me to take another look.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:07, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your moving of my article to draft space surprises me, since it seems that everything is very well documented. The whole thing has been compiled using the books and articles mentioned in the references, all of which are in respectable academic publications. Having now written more than 50 articles for Wikipedia (several of them awarded grade B by reviewers) your strictures on this one are puzzling! If you could kindly point out one or two places in particular where a more precise citation is needed I would be very grateful. I will then go over those places again and others like them and see what I can do. Kanjuzi (talk) 10:39, 5 May 2023 (UTC) I forgot to ping @Onel5969:[reply]

Metron (poetry), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

BuySomeApples (talk) 00:38, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reviewing my article Metron (poetry) so rapidly. But I am puzzled why you have decided to give it only "Start" classification. I have examined the criteria carefully. The sources are all highly reliable. The grammar, spelling, writing style, jargon use etc. are all as far as I can see perfectly good. It is now 30000 bytes, which is a good length for such a minor topic. The article seems clearly organised and I can't think of a better way of arranging it. As for the content it covers everything that is written on the subject in all the major textbooks, such as West's Greek Metre, Maas's Greek Metre and Elwell-Sutton's The Persian Metres; what more could it say without departing into side-topics and irrelevancy? Would you perhaps like more examples of lines of poetry in the metres mentioned? Something on generative metrics? But I deliberately excluded that since it is highly speculative and not particularly relevant to the topic. The quality and length of this article in no way compare to the example given in the criteria of a typical Start-class article (Dirty Laundry (Bitter:Sweet song)). Please advise, or perhaps consider changing the classification to a C. Kanjuzi (talk) 07:48, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. You reverted this edit. Sincerely, this is not justified. Please look up "exbār kardan" (اِخبار کردن) in a Persian dictionary (or here). There are some differences between today and classical Persian; so, there, in that classical verse, you can find the Persian compound verb "exbār kardan". So, simply, the word is not "axbār" (pl. of "xabar"). – Hamid Hassani (talk) 19:38, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Quite right, I stand corrected. exbār or ixbār it is (right at the end of Steingass's entry). Kanjuzi (talk) 18:01, 1 August 2023 (UTC) – And I have been pronouncing it wrong ever since I saw the poem on the wall of bar of the Irantour Hotel in Isfahan 49 years ago! Kanjuzi (talk) 18:04, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So, durūd bar šumā! (Persian: درود بر شما!) – Hamid Hassani (talk) 19:24, 1 August 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) 00:46, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Latin and Greek metre has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:08, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detectedthat when you recently edited Asclepiad (poetry), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Alcaeus.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 17:48, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]