User talk:Vulpes tartuensis

Sino-Uralic
Please don't write to promote a theory. ValtteriLahti12 (talk) 08:25, 28 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Obviously the so called "promotional tone" is no more than a subjective judgment, while my update is based on a series of published resources, your emotional derogation of the edition is not supported by authoritative resources mostly. Vulpes tartuensis (talk) 09:24, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * If you keep making POV edits, I will have to make a report. --ValtteriLahti12 (talk) 09:57, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * You have right to mark and argue on resources that you think are wrongly used, but it not responsible to delete all the cited resources in new version just because they don't correspond with your POV, -if you are able to understand these resources correctly. Vulpes tartuensis (talk) 11:16, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The theory cannot be presented as anything else than a minority position, Sino-Uralic, though interesting is not taught by most linguists and the sources you used were mainly people mentioning it or expressing some interest, not directly endorsing the theory. --ValtteriLahti12 (talk) 12:46, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * It is double-standard to define what is an endorsing, for endorsing may be both academical or verbal, as Jaan Kaplinski did. And what's more, arguing the definition of "endorsing" doesn't give you right to delete whole citation of Jaan Kaplinski's and other author's resources, for they are indeed related to this theory. I may change the expression, eg about Jaan Kaplinski's mentioning. But I will have to make a report if you keep to delete all the added citations. Vulpes tartuensis (talk) 16:24, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The article mentioned Kaplinski even prior to your additions. ValtteriLahti12 (talk) 17:24, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

But without citing what Kaplinski exactly said 46.131.31.202 (talk) 17:32, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * That isn't necessary --ValtteriLahti12 (talk) 17:55, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * What Kaplinski said is included within the idea of "expressing interest". --ValtteriLahti12 (talk) 18:03, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

I think it is necessary to complement what are the interests with examples such as Kaplinski’s statement. And also, readers have right to know other researchers’ attitudes toward this theory. It is definitely arrogance to decide yourself what is “necessary” and stop our readers from knowing related opinions. 46.131.31.202 (talk) 18:17, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Why do we need Kaplinski's statement directly quoted, but not the statement of every other author commenting on it? --ValtteriLahti12 (talk) 19:27, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * It is absolutely not a disgrace in any academical and science popularizing article to give examples of any opinion, on the contrary, not offering typical and concrete examples to readers is a disgrace. And among all the comments to this theory in English, Estonian and Chinese that I've read, Kaplinski's statement is a representative one. Of course I'm not opposed to it, if you are willing and able to list more statements, including negative and criticizing ones, eg that one in Kumar, van Driem and Stobdan's book Himalayan Bridge, which is no more than a sentence even shorter then Kaplinski's. Vulpes tartuensis (talk) 20:20, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Copying what is said is not what is necessary, it is enough to summarize. Additionally one source used for the Chinese academics was only a presentation. ValtteriLahti12 (talk) 05:32, 29 November 2022 (UTC)


 * I have no disagreement if you delete my addition to article related to resources that you think are wrongly used, one by one, and pointing out the mistake you think. I'll add it back anyway if it turns to be based on your misunderstanding, bias and lack of knowledge on this theory. Vulpes tartuensis (talk) 09:19, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

In the contrary, preventing reader from knowing what is said about the theory is not what is necessary, and this is what you are trying to do. And if news and web resources can be used, obviously presentation can be used as well. Again, you have no right to decide wether any statement related to this theory based on reliable resources is necessary or not. 2001:BB8:2003:B:1D1:989B:B2AF:2CD7 (talk) 06:45, 29 November 2022 (UTC)


 * And the report is not a presentation but a journal article. Vulpes tartuensis (talk) 07:31, 29 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Come to the wiki talkpage before adding anything back. --ValtteriLahti12 (talk) 10:09, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

November 2022
Your recent editing history at Sino-Uralic languages shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you do not violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Austronesier (talk) 09:16, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Possible conflict of interest
All of your article-space edits have been to Sino-Uralic languages, where you have strongly favoured the theory of Gao Jingyi. Do you have an undisclosed connection with this author and his theory? If so, that would create a conflict of interest with respect to this article, and per Conflict of interest, you should disclose that you have a COI. That link also gives guidance on how editors in that position should approach affected articles. Kanguole 09:52, 3 April 2023 (UTC)