User talk:Madcwa

April 2009
Please do not replace Wikipedia pages with blank content. Blank pages are harmful to Wikipedia because they have a tendency to confuse readers. If it is a duplicate article, please redirect it to an appropriate existing page. If the page has been vandalized, please revert it to the last legitimate version. If you feel that the content of a page is inappropriate, please edit the page and replace it with appropriate content. If you believe there is no hope for the page, please see the deletion policy for how to proceed. Kingpin13 (talk) 08:20, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Illyrian Language

 * Remember that wiki does not work like that you have to bring sources and to discuss your arguments in the talk page. Any claim without sources is POV

As for your claim look here an counter-argument. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aigest (talk • contribs) 07:04, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

What exactly did I add that was controversial? This is what it said originally: "Beginning from the 18th century and continuing up to these days, a number of scholars believe the modern Albanian language to be descended from Illyrian, however, a Daco-Thracian affinity is favored by a small minority." Maybe I'm misreading it, but the way the sentence is constructed is an example of weasel language. It seems to push the Albanian theory by setting up a false opposition with Daco-Thracian. I just reworded it to make the article more neutral. Neither theory has majority support among modern linguists. If you find proof that the Albanian theory has majority support, then you're welcome to add your sources.Madcwa (talk) 07:14, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The words small minority were not mine but of the author of the article, look at the page history. As you can see in the article for the Albanian theory there are the related sources and only from the linguists who have dealed with the specific problem not just giving a general opinion in other works eg Kortland. Aigest (talk) 07:26, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I still don't see what your problem with my edit is. What part of my edit do you find controversial?Madcwa (talk) 07:29, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * First of all in this section is being discussed the language affinitiy which means the language affinity of the Illyrian language (look at the Messapic and Venetic in the same section). As for the Illyrian Albanian affinity I have brought the sources and claims, while for the Daco-Thracian affinity of the Illyrian language I am controlling the sources of the author of the article which in any way are not numerous and supported by the majority. Anyhow when you are declaring something like majority or minority you should bring the sources (look at the Illyrian-Albanian) otherwise is just POV. Aigest (talk) 07:41, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

It's not necessary to bring sources for the statement that neither Albanian nor Daco-Thracian have majority support among modern linguists. If one of them did have majority support, then provide your sources and then you can go ahead and add the affiliation to the infobox as well.Madcwa (talk) 07:46, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Once more, the words majority or minority were not mine but of the author of the article. I was just giving sources to language affinities without mentioning any comparison of the theories. Since the author of the section has used the words of minority in this case and I am not the authour who said that before replacing them you should bring your sources and arguments otherwise it is POV. Wiki edits should be based on sources, otherwise it becomes pure speculation. So your declaration of majority or minority should be based on sources just like the old author has done for the Daco-Thracian affinity. Hope I was clear. Aigest (talk) 07:59, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

So your complaint is that I took out the "small minority" comment regarding Daco-Thracian? If it's sourced, I have no objection if you put that back in. But you shouldn't have reverted my entire edit.Madcwa (talk) 08:15, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * From the sources mentioned by the author resulted no Daco-Thracian affinity for the Illyrian language. Clearly they were different languages. Aigest (talk) 08:31, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
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) 14:02, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
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) 14:08, 24 November 2015 (UTC)