User talk:Burusho

Sorry, Casule's linguistic work is barely notable on the Burushaski page, let alone anywhere else. Even there, WP:Weight means giving it no more attention than other such claims, such as Karasuk or Burushaski-Caucasian. kwami (talk) 06:20, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Burushaski language

 * Please don't Editwar. Get consensus for your changes before making them. Continuing like this will only get you blocked.·Maunus· ƛ · 00:08, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

[Edit conflict] You've been blocked for violating 3RR. The consensus at Burushaski and at proto-Indoeuropean, as I'm sure you know, is that Casule's work is fringe, and only advocated by himself. Even Sino-Caucasian is more respectable. Their opinion is that only reason he is worth any mention at all is that he got published in the JIES. If you wish to dispute this, bring it up on the talk page--best the pIE talk page, which gets more traffic--and convince the editors there that Casule is notable enough for more that the single line of coverage that he has now. kwami (talk) 00:13, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Are you aware what you are doing? Which consensus says that Casule is fringe? I have given you detailed, sourced information of linguists who support his work - new information. You can't reverse my changes before there is any further discussion. If the world's top specialist on Phrygian, V.P. Neroznak, agrees with Casule, and he has received highly affirmative reviews by respected scholars in related fields (E.Bashir, E. Vrabie, J. Alonso de la Fuente and his work is mentioned in the 2006, 14 volume encyclopedia of Linguistics (Elsevier, what gives you the right to say he is fringe. And most reviews (exzcept Fuente) are of his 1998 work, and JIES is in 2003. Van Driem's views on Burushaski receive no mention in the same encyclopaedia. You are the one who is abusing the editing process. You even took out his name from the main text. You are undermining the basic principles of Wikipedia. Imagine for a moment if this was a real encyclopedia - the editor asks for evidence of acceptance of a theory, gets it, then blocks the one who sent him the evidence and destroys the evidence???????Burusho (talk) 00:29, 16 October 2008 (UTC)