User talk:Jeppiz/Archives/2021/May

Icelandic IPA
Okay, so...if normal vs. pause forms are confusing, then which form should be preferred? Wiktionary entries generally show the normal form, while Wikipedia articles usually showed the pause form. - Gilgamesh (talk) 20:38, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

This is actually a very relevant question because I already edited hundreds of articles with Icelandic IPA with that dual pronunciation pattern, and not just the one you reverted. - Gilgamesh (talk) 21:04, 4 May 2021 (UTC)


 * , we use pause forms for names. The dual pronunciation is confusing, yes. Even as someone with a certain knowledge of Icelandic phonology, and an academic knowledge of devoicing and IPA, I was not certain what was meant. It seems a safe bet that 999/1000 readers won't know either (unless they are Icelandic, in which case they already know). Otherwise, only readers with a knowledge of both Icelandic phonology and IPA will know. Jeppiz (talk) 21:44, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay. I think I can track down most of that and revert it. - Gilgamesh (talk) 21:51, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your good work with Icelandic names, much appreciated! Jeppiz (talk) 22:08, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay, I think I reverted almost all of them, if not all of them. If you're right, then any stragglers may at most confuse, but not seriously mislead.  And I admit I'm not an expert on this topic.  What I am is someone who studies linguistics.  I initially only had the Icelandic phonology article to go on (which is frankly a mess, as I've attempted to discuss), but I've accumulated more in-depth academic PDFs.  The problem with this particular linguistic topic is similar to the problems we've had at Marshallese language for years&mdash;reach out to find other editors even remotely knowledgeable in the topic to help out, discuss issues and improve articles, and it's like speaking to an empty room.  Most other even remotely useful correcting edits I've seen since I even started editing this, have been by anonymous users without registered accounts.  It's dawning on me more than ever that the two problems have the same basic root cause:  These languages may be in vigorous local use where they are spoken, but there seem to be just too few people in the world using them or ready to discuss them academically, at least on the internet. - Gilgamesh (talk) 04:40, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

You keep reverting the update on Georgian Genetics section
You accuse me of edit-warring but this is ridiculous. I have updated a source based on FamilyTreeDna on current percentage breakdown of Haplogroup data collected from various Georgian regions. You somehow implied that FamilyTreeDna is not a reliable source. I am not sure where to start on answering that claim. If you are not familiar, FamilyTreeDNA is a database that collects genetic results of every person who has officially tested their Y-Chromosome or MtDNA markers to find out which haplotypes they belong in. Every entry in the data is vetted by two part laboratory process and certified for its accuracy. As far as quantitative research goes, it is a gold-standard for reliable data.--47.16.139.28 (talk) 18:13, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 * First, if you reinstate your edits as you did, you are by definition edit warring. That's just a matter of fact, not an accusation. Second, I know perfectly well what FamilyTreeDNA is; it is not an academic source. Third, it's rather dishonest to write "you keep reverting" when I've done exactly one edit whereas you have reverted several times. If you lie about such simple facts, how do you expect anyone to believe other claims you make. Jeppiz (talk) 18:18, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Edit war at Republican Party (United States)
Do not continue to revert. BRD means that if a change is reverted, you discuss, not that you continue to revert your change in until the discussion is complete. The status quo should be maintained until you gain consensus that the tag is necessary - multiple people have now disagreed with you and continuing to revert is edit warring. I'll note that you are very close to 3RR, and another revert even though it'd be exactly 3 is likely to be considered edit warring by an administrator. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 00:15, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , most of what you say is false, unfortunately. First of all, I restored a tag that was removed repeatedly by exactly one user, not several. I also note you didn't warn the other user who reverted several times so even trying to assume good faith, you hardly come across as a neutral editor having adherence to policies at heart. Jeppiz (talk) 00:21, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * You are in the wrong, not them. BRD says that you discuss after you're reverted. You continued reverting. I would've warned them had they continued reverting - but they stopped after 2, whereas you continued. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 00:23, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Jeppiz, I was going to jump to your defense, but in this case I can't: you need to stop reverting. Drmies (talk) 00:27, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , of course and I already did. I have no intention of reverting as two users have now opposed the tag. When I reverted, all that had happened was that one single user had deleted the tag without providing argument, and that was a different situation. As an academic, I also feel we misrepresent the author we use as source. He described the GOP of John McCain as conservative, and rightly so. We use his book written long before Trump entered politics to describe the current GOP as having the same ideology. So once more, I won't revert but I find it problematic that English Wikipedia tiptoes around Trump in a way we don't do around Erdoğan, Putin or Lukashenka. Jeppiz (talk) 00:43, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , I'm sure it's an honest mistake on your side but if you check, you'll find that we each reverted twice. What is more, I at least tried to discuss while the other user only stuck to WP:IDONTLIKEIT without providing any argument. Jeppiz (talk) 00:31, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * You've provided no sources or edits you want made, but you've made a lot of comments suggesting your editing here is righting a great wrong of society. That's not appropriate, and hence why I warned you. The other editor asked you to discuss - you posted one comment and then continued reverting - which is not what BRD says. If you have sources for your desired edits, then provide them. You've made the claim that "numerous" exist - so provide them and/or just make the edit. Otherwise, you're attempting to drive by tag to scare people/make people doubt information that is well sourced - which is not appropriate and again RGW. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 00:36, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , I take note of your opinion but disagree with most it. That said, you are of course right sources are needed and I would not add any unsourced information. Once more, for the record, all I added was one single tag suggesting one source is outdated. That's all. Jeppiz (talk) 00:43, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Doing so, when you claim to be aware of sources which could be used but have still refused to provide them, is WP:DRIVEBY tagging - it's such a simple problem that you could just fix it yourself if you had the sources. Please continue on the talk page of the article - I won't be continuing here. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 00:44, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Just to add, I share your frustration at a decent number of "republicans" focusing too much on things that are appalling. That being said, our personal opinions and Wikipedia itself can't be used as a "tool" to "shame" those who are failing as politicians by ignoring their supposed values. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 00:46, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , thanks. Your advice is sound and I take note of it. Obviously I would've handled it differently had I known there would be this much controversy over a simple tag that I perceived (first) as uncontroversial. I should have refrained from re-adding it, agreed. Thanks again for your time. Jeppiz (talk) 00:50, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * At the risk of someone yelling at me for NOTFORUM, I tend to agree that within the next 4 years or so it's likely that a different description will be warranted. But to be fair, those that we would be hoping see it (i.e. those who are "republican" but not conservative anymore) aren't even going to read Wikipedia, and it's more likely that OANN or someone they do read/watch is going to take the change of the description and run with it, just motivating them even more. To be fair, both parties have factions like this - but hopefully within the next year or so the faction in the GOP that was so large when Trump was in office will continue to decrease in numbers - there's a reason that a recorded vote wasn't called on Cheney's ouster today - because they knew that doing so would screw them and likely show barely half support if even that. Sorry for being so curt with you - I'm frustrated at the political situation and I tried too hard to not let that affect my WP editing, and it ended up affecting it anyway. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 00:53, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree completely with everything you say, very nicely put. My apologies for coming across as a bit hostile. A bad day outside Wikipedia but that's not an excuse and I shouldn't let it affect me. All the best! Jeppiz (talk) 00:56, 13 May 2021 (UTC)