User talk:BirdValiant

If you want to use IPA without getting the boxes, use the Template for IPA. That is, type {{IPA| then the transcription, and then close it with two }'s. Just thought I'd help you out a bit since you mentioned you didn't know how to do so. AEuSoes1 06:25, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Cross-Wiki Question
Is the first link in the Russian Wikipedia article pro-violent jihad? I don't want the CIA to come after me for clicking on it. If it is, it should probably be removed there. BirdValiant 02:37, 20 March 2006 (UTC)


 * And what about the second one (of only two)? Clicking around I'd say it looks like a weird Islamist web spam trap... Unfortunately my two or three russian words won't help me much when edit warring, so let's hope bad ol' FSB get's them one day. --Джихад? нет товарищ! 03:35, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Russian
The source that I have, The Phonetics of Russian, states that /o/ between palatalized consonants is a central vowel. The weird thing is, though, that the authors use <ö> which looks like an umlaut (which would indicate full fronting in systems other than the IPA). I believe that whoever edited the Russian phonology page may have used this same source and thought it was a front vowel. Thus, as far as I can tell it is Eventually, once I finish reading the book, I will ask Kwami to help me edit the Russian phonology page since he's got a copy of a more recent book on Russian phonology. Thus it will have actual sourcing and more accurate data. AEuSoes1 00:40, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

wheel of fortune
I suppose the russian version should not be mentioned unless it is verified 13:41, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Hello, I've just created an article Pole_Chudes for your consideration. I'm sorry if I've done something wrong, cause I'm still a novice, and please forgive my poor English%)) Anyway the variant should be added to Wheel_of_Fortune_in_different_countries Posse 11:59, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

ok Ive updated the map (and also added past broadcasts listed in the article) --Astrokey 44 09:03, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


 * you have to clear your browser's cache (hold shift and press refresh in firefox). Regards, --Astrokey 44 03:44, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Anonimous Vandal
The correct procedure is to give the vandal a warning or two using a template from to  (test1 - the politest, test4 - the last warning), then report the matter to WP:AIV.

The user can be from a shared IP and was not warned for a month, but he seems to be a repeated vandal, so I gave him test4 - the last warning. At the next vandalous act an admin would block the IP.

Thanks for acting ob vandalism. Some people think that we absurdly polite and lenient to vandal, but the system seems to work abakharev 14:36, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

What should I do If one of my articles requires copy editing?
Hello BirdValiant, first of all thank you for all your work done for Pole Chudes article, it looks much better now.

I have another article, namely Dmitriy Puchkov which requires copy editing, the problem is I am not much in copy editing yet%)) What I am supposed to do to attract people, like you, for further improvement of such articles?

Thanks again.

Posse 20:35, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!
Many thanks for helping fend off the vandals while Gregorian chant was on the main page. I wasn't prepared for the level of vandalism. It's heartening to know how efficient and diligent you WP admins and editors are to revert it! Peirigill 07:07, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * "I just saw that it was vandalized at the right time ... so I just reverted it." My point exactly.  :-)   Peirigill 07:17, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Views on U.S. Currency
I just read your post on Blogspot at, and let me just say, your views are pretty much the same as me. While in Europe, I (and my friends) realized just how crappy our system of currency is, and since then I've been hoping for some change. Ideally, the currency would have many of the suggestions you made, but still have national individuality, and shouldn't be exactly like the Euro. After all, we're all the way across the pond. BirdValiant 03:30, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your support. My blog is still at its infant stage, so I need to understand where my readers come from. Can I ask you how you found out about it? Thanks. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 05:40, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Activity of Po-210 vs Ra-226
FYI, I undid your edit of Polonium from March 31, 2007; see Talk:Polonium. I believe the original figure was essentially correct, due to the different atomic masses of the two nuclides. You are, of course, welcome to double-check my math. Hqb 11:37, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Germany Invitation
--Zeitgespenst (talk) 01:22, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Your inquiry by email
In regard to the matter about which you inquired of me by email, I'm no expert on conduct matters but I doubt that protected status would be granted to the page in light of the low rate of editing done on the dispute in question (but I've been wrong before) and even if it were granted it would probably only be of short duration. What I would recommend, therefore, is the use of dispute resolution. Since the IP editor or editors seem willing to discuss, then they might very well be willing to participate in DR. If they will not participate in one of the voluntary means of DR, such as Third Opinion or Dispute Resolution Noticeboard, then I would suggest attempting a request for comments. (While participation in a RFC is also voluntary, unlike the other forms of DR if one does not participate then one's position may well be ignored and consensus formed without one's input.) However, before Third Opinion, DRN, or Formal Mediation can be used, there's going to have to be some fresh discussion on the article talk page since all of those forums require recent, thorough talk page discussion before seeking help there. If that can't be restarted, then it might be best to jump straight to a RFC. Frankly, the way this will eventually be solved is through the use of high quality reliable sources as defined by Wikipedia and neither party's sources are all that great at this point in time. If I were involved in this dispute, I'd spend some hard work looking for sources which clearly fit our definition of independent third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy and which actually say in so many words that the dollar is either commodity currency or fiat currency. If the source doesn't say it in so many words, especially with technical terms such as those, then it's probably going to be prohibited original research to conclude that that's what the source means. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 05:24, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for your guidance. BirdValiant (talk) 06:08, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Capital gains tax in the United States
Anon has removed the text you added about a situation where a taxpayer can pay the long-term tax rate on short-term gains. You had a citation from the IRS, but Anon makes an interesting point in his Edit Summary. I have restored your text but invite both of you to debate it on the talk page. Spike-from-NH (talk) 01:32, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the notification. I've made a reply. BirdValiant (talk) 03:54, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

The Arctic Home in the Vedas
I see. Regards, Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  08:03, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Proto-Slavic aspect
I don't know why you keep insisting that the PS distinction between imperfective and perfective verbs is inherited from PIE, when it was clearly an innovation brought on by the addition of prefixed adverbs. The source you gave in fact illustrates this and does not verify your claim. The present tense forms nesetъ and ponesetъ both reflect PIE imperfective verbs, even though in Slavic the latter is perfective. The Slavic perfective is a novel formation and not in any way related to the PIE perfective; the PIE perfective became the aorist in Slavic, not the perfective verbs, which stem from the PIE imperfective. Rua (mew) 20:24, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The (expanded) quote from the chapter by Krzysztof Migdalski reads, with my emphasis [and my note]:
 * "The origin of the aspectual oppositions is related to the presence of aspectual tenses and morphological changes in aspect marking in Proto-Indo-European. Old Church Slavonic inherited two aspectual tenses from Proto-Indo-European: aorist and imperfect. Inflected verbs in Proto-Indo-European had a three-element structure: the stem was formed by a root followed optionally by a suffix and obligatorily by an inflectional ending. The suffix assigned a stem to an inflectional paradigm and expressed aspectual information, often associated as well with action type (Aktionsart). ... Due to the weakening of the distinction between the aspect-marking thematic suffix and the inflectional endings [illustrated in the text by the fusion of the aspect-marked suffix with the inflectional ending in the 1st sg. and 3rd pl. endings], it was becoming increasingly difficult to mark aspectual oppositions. The change was taking place slowly, but the aspectual system of Late-Proto-Indo-European started to show gaps. ... However, Proto-Slavic was in this respect the most conservative language in the Indo-European family, because it retained the original ways of marking aspect. Still, the aspectual system it had inherited from Proto-Indo-European was irregular, because sometimes there were no systematic aspectual pairs of verbs. Therefore, Proto-Slavic had to reconstruct and regularize the whole verbal system. At the same time, it further developed the aspectual tenses, the aorist and the imperfect, inherited from Proto-Indo-European."
 * Note that Migdalski distinguishes between aspectual tenses and aspect marking in PIE. It is the latter which concerns us.
 * Let's walk through this.
 * 1.) In addition to the aspectual tenses, aspectual information was conveyed in PIE via aspect-marked thematic suffixes.
 * 2.) The usage of the word "sometimes" in the phrase "sometimes there were no systematic aspectual pairs of verbs" shows that in PIE, there were some aspectual pairs of verbs.
 * 3.) From 1.) and 2.), this means that, in PIE, there sometimes were aspectual pairs of verbs distinguished by aspect-marked thematic suffixes.
 * 4.) In Proto-Slavic, this irregular system was made regular by reconstructing and regularizing the whole verbal system.
 * 5.) In PIE, some aspectual information was contained in thematic suffixes; in Proto-Slavic, this information was transmitted into regularized pairs, with each verb being imbued with the aspectual information, rather than it being contained within a suffix.
 * 6.) Therefore, in PIE, an opposition between imperfective and perfective information (incompleted/repeated actions vs. completed actions, etc.) was partly mediated by aspect-marked thematic suffixes (as well as aspect tenses); this information transmitted from PIE into Proto-Slavic and used to create a regular system where virtually every verb was a part of an aspect-opposed, lexically-marked, verb pair.
 * I am not saying that PIE perfective verbs became Slavic perfective verbs. What I am saying is that the very existence of lexical aspectual information from PIE was transmitted into Proto-Slavic.
 * That's why it's incorrect to say that the Slavic system of aspectual oppositions is a direct continuation of the PIE system. However, the very idea of having an aspectual opposition itself was continued from PIE into Proto-Slavic. Specifically, the information contained within aspect-marked thematic suffixes from PIE was transmitted in Proto-Slavic and expanded. Lexically-marked verbs were created for missing members of pairs not just by prefixes, but suffixes as well, and by suppletion.
 * Thus, while not a direct continuation of the PIE system, the system in Slavic is a continuation in a meaningful sense. This is why phrases like "created anew" or "unrelated" are inappropriate to describe the relationship between the modern Slavic aspectual system and the PIE system. The Slavic system was not created ex-nihilo. There was never a time when the concept of imperfective/perfective opposition was destroyed in the development of Slavic. The concept continued, but, of course, changed. BirdValiant (talk) 22:56, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * However, the system of imperfective versus perfective verbs in Slavic arose by prefixation, which is totally different from how it worked in PIE. Again, the PIE aspectual distinction is reflected in the Slavic present tense vs aorist distinction, and has nothing to do with the innovated system of prefixed verbs. Lexically imperfective or perfective verbs did not exist in Proto-Balto-Slavic, and are not present in the Baltic languages. The PIE distinction lost its lexicality and became integrated into the inflection system. Every PBS verb was simultaneously imperfective (in the present tense) and perfective (in the aorist). That is the system that Proto-Slavic inherited, and it then created a new system, layered on top of that and entirely separate from it. Rua (mew) 10:17, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

February 2020
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did at Indigenous Aryans, you may be blocked from editing.

Don't throw sources without reading what they say. Only add what is exactly supported by the sources.  M L 911 18:46, 21 February 2020 (UTC)


 * You've seen the Koenraad Elst quote? "Of course it is a fringe theory." Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  03:34, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * If you remember, the user was blocked indefinitely due to sockpuppetry, quite some time ago. No point in replying to a ghost. BirdValiant (talk) 03:40, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * It wasn't a reply to ML; it's a message to you. Regards, Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  03:43, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh I see, gotcha. I've seen that you've continued to work on the RfC. Thanks. I regret that I haven't been as involved. Mainly, I've been focusing on staying alive and healthy; the constant bombardment of nationalist-tinged pseudoscience centered around COVID-19 has depressed me, and the idea of dealing with another campaign of ideologically-charged disinformation is just not very appealing, even though it remains important to counter. Still, I have slowly been collecting some papers to read through and search for any mentions of IA/OoI. But, as has been stated before (and as I'm sure you know very well), it's rather difficult to find scholars who bother to mention IA/OoI. Much comparison to Intelligent Design have been made, but there is an essential difference here. In the West, a unified defense against ID was mounted in response to ID advocacy US; meanwhile, in the West, there has been no impetus to form any unified defense against IA/OoI because it's not a battle that's happening there.
 * As for the Elst quote, I'm not sure if it's a particularly useful quote, as Elst immediately makes the dubious claim that "in India, ... [IA/OoI] has the support of most archaeologists, who fail to find a trace of this Aryan influx and instead find cultural continuity." I think that by using that quote, one falls into Elst's rhetorical trap of characterizing Western academia as foreign and untrustworthy, with Indian academia (presumably trustworthy and patriotic) being portrayed as unified in their support for IA/OoI. That simply is not the case, as clearly demonstrated by Narasimhan et al., and also by Niraj Rai's courageous public dissent to Shinde. Elst's trap is that, if you try to use his quote, then the burden is shifted to you to prove that the majority of Indian archaeologists do not support IA/OoI. If finding Western scholars who even mention IA/OoI is difficult, just imagining trying to find a survey of Indian archaeologists on their views. It's doubtful that such a survey has even been conducted, or could be conducted in a reliable way given the difficult political climate. Thus, Elst has subtly moved the goalposts. Don't fall for it. The scientific method with peer review is universal. It is for this reason that, even though Traditional Chinese medicine is popular in China and is even officially encouraged by its government, that makes no difference: the Wikipedia article rightfully characterizes and categorizes it as pseudoscience. An idea's popularity in a constrained geographical region is irrelevant, but this rhetorical device will always be used by fringe proponents in an attempt to discredit the consensus achieved by the scientific method and peer review.
 * At this point, I think that it may be the case that no amount of science could possibly convince true-believers. After all, even after the devastating Kitzmiller v. Dover trial, a large bastion of ID true-believers remains. We have seen this phenomenon in action, and you pointed it out. Defenses of IA/OoI invariably involve: 1. baseless assertions; 2. total failure to provide any reliable evidence when asked; 3. claims that scientific methods of inquiry are fundamentally unreliable, or that all scientific knowledge is suspect and can easily be thrown away, so that alternative ideas can be portrayed as at least equally plausible; and 4. claims that there is a conspiracy of Western science vs Indian science. The RfC has clearly demonstrated this pattern of response, and its extreme intellectual poverty is on display for any disinterested observer to see.
 * I'm not sure where the RfC should go. At this point, there has been very little fresh input for a long time. It could be re-listed, but I fear that the bottomless reservoir of Hindu-nationalists would again be tapped; we could provide an ever-increasing mass of evidence, but the true-believers would always keep the goalposts out of practical reach. Perhaps this is one of those inherently-divisive subjects which only the Arbitration Committee can solve. In that case, the goalposts could be more reasonable but, still, a mounting pile of direct evidence showing the fringe nature of IA/OoI in academia is needed. So, maybe we could just keep adding to that pile until it's overwhelmingly huge. Hopefully, at some point in the future, maybe people won't be so fatigued from COVID-19 and its related pseudoscientific nonsense, so that they'd be more willing to tackle this frustrating issue. BirdValiant (talk) 05:58, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Desktop improvements prototype
, BirdValiant!

Thanks for taking the time to participate in the user feedback round for our desktop improvements prototype. This feedback is super valuable to us and is currently being used to determine our next steps. We have published a report gathering the main takeaways from the feedback and highlighting the changes we’ll make based on this feedback. Please take a look and give us your thoughts on the talk page of the report. To learn more about the project overall and the other features we’re planning on building in the future, check out the main project page.

SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 12:51, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Dame guiraude supplice
Hello BirdValiant! Yes, that is certainly a modern illustration. The text is in modern French (although a bit old-fashioned, to make it sound fancier). I'm not sure where it's from, but apparently "Quintilla Y Cordona" is a publisher, not an author, but I can't find a book with that title in French or Spanish. Hopefully that helps...I'll keep looking for the source. Adam Bishop (talk) 14:44, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I also posted the question at the Reference desk, and Lambiam also suggested that it's from a book. BirdValiant (talk) 15:47, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 9
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Accessory fruit, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fig. 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) 06:00, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Content disputes
It's a little gauche to continue a content dispute on the talk page of a blocked editor, like. The blocked editor really shouldn't be using their talk page to discuss the content dispute while they are blocked anyways (they have talk page access for the purpose of unblock requests), and admins are clearly not going to take the merits of their argument into account when judging the edit request. You'd be better off editing the article talk page (with a content not editor focus of course) and waiting for the other editor to return once their block is lifted or expires. VQuakr (talk) 21:10, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * If someone appeals to have a block removed by making false statements about what I have said or done, then I feel like it's my duty to respond. It would make no sense to reply to those claims in an unrelated location. BirdValiant (talk) 21:47, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * But he was blocked for behavior, not the merit of the content. No admin is going to approve an unblock request that so clearly violates WP:NOTTHEM and so completely ignores the reason for the block. Once his block expires, he will either engage on the article talk page, move on, or continue edit warring and be blocked indefinitely. VQuakr (talk) 00:57, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * ETA since I just saw your edit summary - false, the gauchest possible reply would have been much uglier. Maybe just blowing a raspberry. Happy editing! VQuakr (talk) 01:01, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions alert
-Wikihc (talk) 12:11, 19 August 2021 (UTC)


 * I am well aware of policy, thanks. Not sure why you'd wait several weeks and leave that warning on my user page alone. BirdValiant (talk) 13:35, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

PA
Please read wp:npa.Slatersteven (talk) 17:26, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

ds alert us politics
NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:16, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:DTR BirdValiant (talk) 17:30, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah I know, but DS applies only if there is a diff-trail showing a person has knowledge about DS for that subject area.  The community has agreed that one way to establish this is via this template, which sets a tag (602) on the server.  Check it out here..... Template:Ds/alert That means in event of problems later on, instead of ANI a complaining ed can complain at WP:AE instead.  Happy editing, carry on!  NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:50, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. 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 to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:22, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. 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 to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:24, 28 November 2023 (UTC)