User talk:Rua/Archives/2013/November

Thanks for reverting 'Goths' to good original, two times now
Thanks for reverting the latest "total revision" to Goths by user: 74.68.135.38. He/she has uploaded the exact same revision at least 6 or 7 times since the beginning of September under the user name Koolx or Koolx1; both names have been blocked. I'm relatively new to Wikipedia so don't really know what can be done about getting this new incarnation of Koolx blocked. In any case, thank you! Xenxax (talk) 12:48, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Linux Mint 16 Edit
Hi CodeCat,

I noticed you removed my edit on the new release of Linux Mint 16 and stating it had not come out. However, I have found on the Linux Mint Website that it is availiable and there is also an entry on the main opening article on the Wiki.

I think what I might do is find some sources and make it valid.

Thankyou for your time.

--William Wright (talk) 19:16, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * All I can find on the website is an announcement for the RC, nothing for the final release. CodeCat (talk) 19:20, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Zulu language
I've found answers to your questions, but cannot access them: Imisindo YesiZulu: An Introduction to Zulu Phonology (Noverino Canonici, 1996). The charts in our article are mostly phonemic, but I wasn't sure about a few cases, so I changed the slashes to brackets just to be safe. If you can dig up Canonici, that would be a big help. The article's been in a rather pathetic state for far too long. — kwami (talk) 03:01, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

'The collective of dialects is "Serbo-Croatian" and standard Croatian is actually Štokavian, so you implied "Čakavian Štokavian" which is silly.'
I'm not the person who made the SC>Croatian change, but I found your reasoning for the revert on that article to be weird. There was no mention of "standard" Croatian, and while you might hold the opinion that the word Croatian can (and must) mean only one single thing, that is, the Croatian standard of Štokavian, such an opinion is in conflict with at least part of the linguistic community. Croatian can (and has) been used as a term referring to Croatian dialects, i.e. dialects spoken by Croats and not by other groups. Your reasoning, that is, that "Čakavian Croatian" must mean "Čakavian Štokavian" is as faulty as it would be to say that "because standard Serbo-Croatian is actually Štokavian", then "Čakavian Serbo-Croatian must mean Čakavian Štokavian".

Furthermore, the term Croatian Čakavian and Čakavian Croatian can be found in foreign (western-made, not from the region) articles on the dialects in Croatia. Same goes for linguistic works on Kajkavian. (as seen |here, |here and |here)

I'm not asserting that there is to be any change from SC to Croatian nor that I would want that, just found your reason for the revert, well, silly and ultimately misguided. 93.139.108.138 (talk) 16:37, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm more familiar with seeing "Croatian" meaning the standard language and "Serbo-Croatian" for the whole linguistic area. If Croatian can also refer to any language spoken by Croats then it might be ok to call it that. But such a term can be rather vague and inaccurate because it groups languages based on ethnicity and not linguistics. So I think it should be avoided, we should just call it "Čakavian" and either leave out the linguistically vague term "Croatian", or qualify it with "Serbo-Croatian" (which is better, but not perfect either). CodeCat (talk) 16:55, 30 November 2013 (UTC)