User talk:WilliamThweatt/Archive 5

"Thai" languages
Proto-Thai is Proto–SW Tai, isn't it? I'm coming across plenty of refs to "Thai languages" which include more than just Siamese or languages in Thailand, but not finding a clear definition. The edit was from last year and I don't remember where. Rv. me if I got it wrong. — kwami (talk) 21:27, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Cambodian People's Party
Note, I've changed you're edit to the infobox and replaced it with "Non-ideological"... It sounds about right, don't you think? You may disagree but hegemonic and authoritarianism are not ideologies, they are something even more diffuse. --TIAYN (talk) 19:59, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Help for Albania article
Hi there, I just noticed the above article. User 77.49.58.129 has been doing some sourced edits, while User:Malbin210 has been reverting constantly with no justification. I can see you also got in between. I suspect also sockuppetry from User:Malbin210, creating multiple accounts to avoid 3RR. I think we need an Administrator to put an end to it. This article containts lots of inaccuracies coming mostly from Albanian editors (no suprise here). Thanks. Astarti34 (talk) 21:46, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I first reverted here yesterday thinking it was a simple case of restoring a deleted, properly sourced, fact and left a message on User:Malbin210's page about claiming to revert "vandalism" in an edit summary that clearly wasn't vandalism. Today, after seeing the fact was removed once again I checked the page history and noticed that it was just a small piece of a larger on-going edit war. I'm planning to notify Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring shortly.--William Thweatt TalkContribs 00:27, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Your revert on page:Hun Sen
Hello. You reverted an edit of mine on page:Hun Sen and removed:

"According to Reuters"

in the Section on his political career, claiming he had vowed to rule Cambodia until 74 years of age.

I am here to explain why you are wrong and why your revert will not be accepted.

The page need a source on this claim and I put up a source needed template. The Reuters article was provided, along with a stupid comment, that it was "common knowledge". We all know that "common knowledge", is not a proper source for anything. well, anyway the Reuters source was provided.

The Reuters source however, does nothing but mention the same claim, that is expressed in the article. The Reuters article does not cite Hun Sen or explain in what context he vowed (or said) that, they just happen to mention it. This is not a credible sourcing. Secondly the Reuters article only says that Hun Sen had vowed to rule until 74 years old, not that he vowed to rue Cambodia until he was 74 years old. This could very well be a reckless translation of him vowing to stay in politics until 74 years old, if he ever vowed to do anything in the first place. On this background I could have inserted a template of better source needed, but instead I choose to insert "According to Reuters", which is a better solution in my opinion.

Your revert will be reverted on this background and if you want to discuss the issue, please comment below, as edit-wars are unwanted.

PS. It may be that the claim is "common knowledge", but this would just make it easier to give a proper acceptable source, right? If this source can not be given, this "common knowledge" might in fact be wrong.

You may think this is a small thing, but the page on Hun Sen, is filled with so many similar unsourced (or badly sourced) claims, that overall something must be done and every small bit counts towards improving the page to an acceptable level. I have started the clean up and you are welcome to join this project in a constructive way.

RhinoMind (talk) 04:52, 16 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I have been "working on this project" since 2005, so please dispense with the condescending attitude now. From what you wrote above I can't tell if English is not your first language or if you just don't understand the concept of reliable sourcing. And if you knew anything about Cambodia, its history and its politics, you'd know that this fact is fairly well established and the Reuters article is plenty sufficient to support its existence. In general the more outlandish or controversial a piece of text is, the more stringent the sourcing requirements should be. Although "common knowledge" doesn't need to be cited, I agree this isn't common knowledge, but for people who follow or are involved in Cambodian politics, this fact, as I said, is fairly well established (neither outlandish nor controversial). A quick google search reveals countless references for it. For example, here is a newspaper article directly addressing it. Throughout the years we've had many CPP supporters and Hun Sen apologists try to whitewash this article, which is just as unacceptable as edit-warring and unsourced fact. Aside from all of this, from a style standpoint, a sentence that is appended with a footnote attributing it to a particular source should not, in general, start with "According to (the source)"...that's just redundant and bad writing and why I reverted it. I'll update the article with this better source.--William Thweatt TalkContribs 08:40, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Hello. I have moved this discussion to Hun Sen's talk page.


 * Personal comment: First, I dont think I am the one being patronizing. Secondly, google searchs, number of digital hit or "countless references", does not necessarily imply a proper referencing per se. As an example, I can find several on-line sources claiming that the Earth is no more than 6.000 years old or so or that our planet have been visited by aliens. Statements that are either objectively wrong or unsourced at best. So these are not criteria for good references at all. Thirdly, political motivated edits are always a problem in a project like Wikipedia. If we could stick to properly sourced material and statements, we could also minimize and isolate these problems. Thank you for putting up the better source.


 * Btw. There are several murky spots in the article overall, can you provide a proper source or reference to the statement that:

"In 1987, Amnesty International accused Hun Sen's government of torture of thousands of political prisoners using "electric shocks, hot irons and near-suffocation with plastic bags.""


 * for example? Its important, and I believe you would agree? RhinoMind (talk) 23:04, 16 February 2014 (UTC)


 * At least we can agree on that. BTW, my mention of "countless references" was not made as a prima facie justification for the fact in question but rather to point out that the comment was neither so outlandish nor so controversial as to require extraordinary sources (which see). It was also an implied suggestion that instead of drive-by tagging, it would be relatively easy to find a source that you find more acceptable. The Amnesty International accusation is a different story, a statement such as that does indeed require sourcing to a higher standard. I haven't checked the present source yet, but I will get to it later on this evening. Cheers.--William Thweatt TalkContribs 02:05, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

GDP of albania
Thanks for your recent contribution to article Albania. You said that figures from both sources need to remain. But here is a point. The article shows that GDP per capita of Albania as a whole is 31 billion(government source) but the estimate from world bank is not mentioned. Could u please get the figure from world bank site and place it on article. do it also for gdp purchacing power parity.Will be very thankfull. Further could u please resolve my dispute with user malbin. At one time he reverts my edit through his wikipedia account and in the next time does this by an anonymous IP address making me confused. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mingling2 (talk • contribs) 10:47, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Your request does not make sense. Two very different figures are given by two different sources, so citing a range is preferable to cherrypicking which source we like or don't like. Estimates for other statistical categories have no bearing on these figures. As for your dispute with Malbin, I don't have the time or the patience to get involved with that mess. It looks like you both are revert warring when you should be engaging in discussion and attempting to reach a consensus on the article talk page instead. If you both can observe WP:Civil and WP:AGF, you can try to ask for an editor to give a neutral third opinion or else see WP:Dispute resolution. For allegations of sock puppetry see Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Guidance. Continued edit warring (especially on any Balkans related article) is just a waste of everybody's time and will likely result in you both being blocked so I suggest you both take advantage of the more productive processes available on Wikipedia.--William Thweatt TalkContribs 18:58, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

A page you started (Khieu Chum) has been reviewed!
Thanks for creating Khieu Chum, WilliamThweatt!

Wikipedia editor Carriearchdale just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

"Thank-you!"

To reply, leave a comment on Carriearchdale's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

File permission problem with File:RomvongExample2009.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:RomvongExample2009.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add OTRS pending to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as non-free fair use or one of the other tags listed at File copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in [ your upload log]. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:39, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for the explanation about The Big Bang Theory. Fresheneesz (talk) 21:38, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Artist
And I also suggest you read WP:SOCIALMEDIA. I agree that the article needed third party independent sources but do NOT remove sources and then tag as you did so. One self published source contains valuable biographical data is acceptable if it is combined with others.♦ Dr. Blofeld  06:26, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Cambodia info box - Talk page
William, there's a Talk page discussion of the question of what to put in the info box - you might like to comment on the merits of the case there. PiCo (talk) 05:06, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you, PiCo. I noticed that after I reverted and I was in the process of composing my response when you left this message. I have made a case regarding animism in Cambodia, including a few, admittedly hastily gathered, sources. I could go into more depth with better sources if these won't suffice.--William Thweatt TalkContribs 05:33, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Some confusing information on crocodile flags. The flags hung at temple festivals and the flags hung at houses for funerals are both tung krapoe. The reason: the crocodile supports the earth and is under the earth, and the flag therefore reminds people that they will return to earth. (BUT WTF???? THEY GET CREMATED!!!!) Maspero apparently wrote on this, but the Hun Sen Collection at RUPP lacks the relevant work.
 * Can you help with this one: An old lady (90 years old) told us on Saturday that meba are only called meba at weddings; when not on duty they have another name. Also this same old lady has a special shrine in her house for what I gather is the caul in which one of her children was born - shrines just keep multiplying. Do you know about this? PiCo (talk) 10:19, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Apologies for the delayed response. I get so busy in real life, I don't have nearly as much time for Wikipedia as I'd like anymore. I'll list my thoughts below.
 * The white mourning flags and the colorful temple flags are indeed both called ទង់ក្រពើ (tong krapoe). I tend to believe that the legends regarding their (separate) development are mythologized embellishments on and conflations of some probably semi-historical and events. I've also found that the modern Cambodian laity are often unaware of the historical origins and significance of even a lot of their more important spiritual practices (e.g. Pchum Ben: rooted in pre-Buddhist ritual, but adapted to a merit-making opportunity, rather similar to the way Samhain became Halloween in Christian culture...try to get a lay person to describe what exactly is going on spiritually or how/why it works or when the practice began, you'll get vague and conflicted opinions as well). Due to this lack of awareness, I believe the separate origins of the two uses of the tong krapoe have been merged into one in the minds of most modern laypersons by newly- (or relatively more recently-) imagined "folk histories".
 * I'm sure you're aware of the etymology of មេបា (me ba), i.e. "mother father". Also I'm sure your aware the primary usage of the term refers to the go-between(s) in negotiations for marriages. A tertiary meaning is "spirits of the ancestors of the bride and groom". Outside of the context of marriage-related issues, these same spirits are most often referred to by the parallel construction ជីដូនជីតា (ci doun ci taa, "ancestors, grandparents"). So, simply put, the me ba are the ci doun ci taa of the bride and groom who take an interest in their marriage and marriage related issues. Oftentimes I find a comprehensive dictionary can be helpful in getting the native sense of how terms are supposed to be used. Here are some examples from two (Headley's and Chuon Nath's): មេបាចាស់ទុំ (me ba cah tum) "name given to ancestral spirits who intervene in quarrels between husbands and wives"; មេបាពំនាក់បំពង់ (me ba pumneak bampong) "name given to ancestral spirits when they intervene in a case of adultery"; សែនផ្ដាច់មេបា (saen pdach me ba) "to make a spiritual offering to release a young woman from the control of her ancestral spirits"; សែនមេបា saen me ba "...a kind of marriage ritual...offerings are made to the young woman's ancestors to placate them...in order to legalize an elopement".
 * Sorry but I'm not sure what "caul" is supposed to mean. Is it Khmer? If so, I'd probably recognize it if you could write it in Khmer. But, yes, some people do get carried away with shrines (ហ៊ឹង hɨŋ). Yesterday I was at the house of a ~60 yr old widow who had 3 in her living room: what appeared to be the main one adorned with a picture of the local head monk and various Buddha figurines, a separate one for her deceased husband and parents, and a third one with pictures of various yantras, tevedas, Riahu, grut, etc. My mother-in-law, on the other hand, has one large hɨŋ that takes up half of a wall in her living room with all of these elements combined and a much smaller one at the head of her bed specifically for her deceased children, parents and husband. So it seems to some degree a matter of preference informed by whatever is most spiritually or supersticiously (is that a word?) important to the person in question. Also a គ្រូខ្មែរ (Khru Khmer) consulted for reasons of illness or bad fortune will sometimes prescribe maintaining a shrine to whichever spirit/teveda/etc. he divines is either responsible for or can remedy the situation.--William Thweatt TalkContribs 00:53, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * William, thanks for the long and thoughtful response. I've made several attempts to reply but they don't satisfy me and take up too much of my time. What I'm doing, and the reason for this interest, is that I have a contract with a publisher to produce a handbook on Cambodian beliefs. It's something that's completely lacking in the market at the moment - visitors come here and see the spirit flags or experience Pchum Ben and ask what's going on, and there's no answer. So I'm going wide but, by necessity, shallow. And I have a deadline of early January. So, if you are willing, would you agree to being a "reader" of the draft? Not that it's anywhere near ready. PiCo (talk) 04:38, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The caul, by the way, is the amniotic sac - sometimes, rarely, a baby is born with part of the sac, usually on the face or head. Very very rarely, the entire sac is unbroken, as in this story:

Cambodia
Hi William! i came across you - these days. I guess you are around Wiki for quite some time - i am not. On top of that i am no English native speaker. And - i presume you are into Cambodia topics. Anyhow, it would be great to have your advice and support once in a while! All the best!!! Wikirictor (talk) 00:51, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

List of islands of Cambodia
Hi! Can you please have a look at the article - lots of bad editing has been going on lately. Thanks!Wikirictor (talk) 18:36, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Reported at WP:AN3
Please see WP:AN3. Though I have closed the request with no action, if you have any comment to add you can do so. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 22:36, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Population update project
Hi. The 18th edition of Ethnologue just came out, and if we divide up our language articles among us, it won't take long to update them. I would appreciate it if you could help out, even if it's just a few articles (5,000 articles is a lot for just me), but I won't be insulted if you delete this request.

A largely complete list of articles to be updated is at Category:Language articles citing Ethnologue 17. The priority articles are in Category:Language articles with old Ethnologue 17 speaker data. These are the 10% that have population figures at least 25 years old.

Probably 90% of the time, Ethnologue has not changed their figures between the 17th and 18th editions, so all we need to do is change "e17" to "e18" in the reference (ref) field of the language info box. That will change the citation for the artcle to the current edition. Please put the data in the proper fields, or the info box will flag it as needing editorial review. The other relevant fields are "speakers" (the number of native speakers in all countries), "date" (the date of the reference or census that Ethnologue uses, not the date of Ethnologue!), and sometimes "speakers2". Our convention has been to enter e.g. "1990 census" when a census is used, as other data can be much older than the publication date. Sometimes a citation elsewhere in the article depends on the e17 entry, in which case you will need to change "name=e17" to "name=e18" in the reference tag (assuming the 18th edition still supports the cited claim).

Remember, we want the *total* number of native speakers, which is often not the first figure given by Ethnologue. Sometimes the data is too incompatible to add together (e.g. a figure from the 1950s for one country, and a figure from 2006 for another), in which case it should be presented that way. That's one use for the "speakers2" field. If you're not sure, just ask, or skip that article.

Data should not be displayed with more than two, or at most three, significant figures. Sometimes it should be rounded off to just one significant figure, e.g. when some of the component data used by Ethnologue has been approximated with one figure (200,000, 3 million, etc.) and the other data has greater precision. For example, a figure of 200,000 for one country and 4,230 for another is really just 200,000 in total, as the 4,230 is within the margin of rounding off in the 200,000. If you want to retain the spurious precision of the number in Ethnologue, you might want to use the sigfig template. (First parameter in this template is for the data, second is for the number of figures to round it off to.)

Dates will often need to be a range of all the country data in the Ethnologue article. When entering the date range, I often ignore dates from countries that have only a few percent of the population, as often 10% or so of the population isn't even separately listed by Ethnologue and so is undated anyway.

If Ethnologue does not provide a date for the bulk of the population, just enter "no date" in the date field. But if the population figure is undated, and hasn't changed between the 17th & 18th editions of Ethnologue, please leave the ref field set to "e17", and maybe add a comment to keep it so that other editors don't change it. In cases like this, the edition of Ethnologue that the data first appeared in may be our only indication of how old it is. We still cite the 14th edition in a couple dozen articles, so our readers can see that the data is getting old.

The articles in the categories linked above are over 90% of the job. There are probably also articles that do not currently cite Ethnologue, but which we might want to update with the 18th edition. I'll need to generate another category to capture those, probably after most of the Ethnologue 17 citations are taken care of.

Jump in at the WP:LANG talk page if you have any comments or concerns. Thanks for any help you can give!

— kwami (talk) 02:11, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

ethnicities in language articles
Hi William!

FYI, when you add ethnicities like this, it's useful to also add it to the language box, like this. Just in case you weren't aware of that parameter. Ideally, all of our language and ethnicity articles would x-ref each other from their info boxes. The ethnicity articles do a decent job, language is a bit behind. — kwami (talk) 04:58, 17 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the reminder. I was dealing with some redirects piped links left behind by my page move which resulted in said redirects piped links pointing to the wrong article when I added the ethnicity as an afterthought. I usually do address the infobox as well, but, in this case, I seem to have forgotten. Thanks for catching it.--William Thweatt TalkContribs 05:28, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Regaring Khmer vowel េ
For the word ទេព, I think it changes between /ei/ and /ee/ depending on the context. Huffman gives the value of this vowel as /ei/ but Headley give it as /ee/ as well as /ei/ under some circumstances. Thanks for fixing the vong part, I knew there was a diphthong but couldn't remember how to transcribe it. --Dara (talk) 01:47, 29 April 2015 (UTC)


 * In the Huffman work I'm looking at, he gives the value /ei/ for first series (i.e. ក, ត, etc.) and /eː/ for second series (e.g. គ, ទ, etc.). You seem knowledgeable in Khmer so I'm going to assume you already know this, but I'll mention it just in case anybody else comes along and is curious. Like most other Khmer alphabet vowel signs, the vowel sign sra' ei (េ) has two values which depend on the inherent vowel of the consonant to which it's attached. With first series consonants the value is a diphthong, phonetically /ei/ (but sometimes realized/transcribed as /eɛ/). With second series consonants the value is a "pure" vowel /eː/. So, in standard Khmer, we have:
 * តេត = /teit/ ~ /teɛt/ (sparrow) but ទេព = /teːp/
 * កេរ្តិ៍ = /kei/ but គេ = /keː/
 * ចេក = /ceik/ ~ /ceɛk/ but ជេរ = /ceː/.
 * The works by Ratree Wayland and Makoto Minegishi cited in the article both also support this analysis by Huffman. Now, this only holds true, though, for citation forms in Standard Cambodian Khmer. In Western Khmer dialects, the difference is one of phonation instead of vowel quality. In Surin/Northern Khmer dialects, diphthongs have been leveled. In the Takeo dialect of the Minegishi work, what he called e1 and e2 (/ei/ and /eː/, respectively) seem to be in the process of merging. Anecdotally, Cambodians who learned Khmer in e.g the USA (alongside English) tend not to differentiate /ei/ and /eː/ (or /ae/ and /ai/ for that matter). Also, if by "Headley" you are referring to the dictionaries he edited, even though he gives the pronunciations in slashes, I don't think they are meant to be true phonetic transcriptions, but rather only guides to pronunciation. I have access to both editions (1997 and 1999) and his pronunciations for the same words vary widely between the two editions. We're better off sticking to linguistic sources for IPA phonetic transcriptions.--William Thweatt TalkContribs 03:50, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the insight William! You're right, I learned Khmer in the US. I shall stick to the Help:IPA for Khmer guide then. And, yes, Headley as in the dictionaries. --Dara (talk) 00:45, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Chi river
I saw you editing Surin province where you added the "Chi Creek" (ห้วยลำชี) and tweaking Chi river, but without adding this information. In my view the difference in the names is artificial, but useful. I think both should be mentioned in the "Chi river" article. Actually, the picture of the ferry is on the Chi Creek, near Satoek (in Buriram). &minus;Woodstone (talk) 07:33, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah the "tour guide" mentality of our Thai and Cambodian province articles really annoys me so I thought I'd give it a go with my favorite Thai province. Anyway, the two rivers named Chi was kind of confusing to me at first. I'm translating from a Thai map I have. I knew about the big Chi river that flows south easterly out of Chaiyaphum and joins the Mun from the north in Sisaket but the smaller huay that originates in the Dangrek mountains is also called Chi and is a completely different body of water. It flows northward forming the border between Buriram and Surin, and empties into the Mun from the south way upstream from the mouth of the Chi river. So I translated huay as "creek" to differentiate it from the river of the same name. I wasn't sure about adding it to the Chi river article since it refers something different.
 * Regarding the picture, I see you are the photographer. Thanks for adding your pictures, I wish we had more pictures of the area (and more sources in English while we're at it...all this translating is making my brain hurt). But now I'm wondering if that particular picture is appropriate for the Chi river article if it is actually taken on Chi creek. Since you were obviously in Surin (or Buriram) to take that picture, you wouldn't happen to know the name of the creek/stream that follows the eastern border of Surin (separating Surin from Sisaket)? My map doesn't show a name and I can't find anything definitive online. From the time I was there a long time ago, I want to say it's ห้วยสำราญ but I don't trust my memory.--William Thweatt TalkContribs 08:22, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I have a map by Michelin (nr 965 Thailand), which gives Huai Thap Than (ห้วยทับทัน) forming the border between Si Saket and Surin. On this map both Chi's are just called "mae nam" without distinction. I think we can have a section on each in the "Chi river" article. My photo was taken on the Surin side. &minus;Woodstone (talk) 16:28, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the info!--William Thweatt TalkContribs 01:22, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Template:Cambodian American image array


A tag has been placed on Template:Cambodian American image array requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion because it is an unused duplicate of another template, or a hard-coded instance of another template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is not actually the same as the other template noted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page explaining how this one is different so as to avoid any future mistakes.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page's talk page, where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Diannaa (talk) 01:00, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

"Death Be Not Proud"
Hi. You had suggested this poem, when I posted my question on the Humanities Reference Desk. Thanks for the suggestion. I have often read this poem, but I never quite "got" what it was saying. The words (to me) are seemingly complex and contradictory when I read it. So, I am never quite sure of what the poem's message is (or is supposed to be). I only catch a brief and vague glimpse that the message is: "Death, you think you are powerful, but you really are not so. And we, as people, will overcome you in the end." (or something like that). Can you offer a little more insight? Thanks. PS: I did read the Wikipedia article "Death Be Not Proud". Please reply at my Talk Page. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:42, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library needs you!
We hope The Wikipedia Library has been a useful resource for your work. TWL is expanding rapidly and we need your help!

With only a couple hours per week, you can make a big difference for sharing knowledge. Please sign up and help us in one of these ways: Sign up now Send on behalf of The Wikipedia Library using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Account coordinators: help distribute free research access
 * Partner coordinators: seek new donations from partners
 * Communications coordinators: share updates in blogs, social media, newsletters and notices
 * Technical coordinators: advise on building tools to support the library's work
 * Outreach coordinators: connect to university libraries, archives, and other GLAMs
 * Research coordinators: run reference services

Moving Burma to Myanmar - new 2015 poll
You participated in a Burma RM in the past so I'm informing you of another RM. I hope I didn't miss anyone. New move attempt of Burma>Myanmar Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:10, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Hindi
1) You are misquoting Ethnologue site in population numbers. The site https://www.ethnologue.com/language/hin shows 260,333,620 total native speakers 2001 and L2 users: 120,000,000 in India (Wiesenfeld 1999). 2) You removed reference to Hindi newspaper readership. Hindi newspapers have 36.5% of daily newspaper circulation in India and 7 Hindi newspapers are in top 20 circulation in India. 3) The page Hindi is getting redirect from Hindi language, Modern Standard Hindi, Hindi. Do you know the difference ? What is your suggestion for putting articles about all 3 topics in same page? PradeepBoston (talk) 23:46, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The article in question is specifically about Modern Standard Hindi, all other dialects/varieties/etc. are outside the scope of the article. Ethnologue's numbers include those of varieties other than Modern Standard Hindi.--William Thweatt TalkContribs 01:47, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * This is why I don't like having MSH at just "Hindi". But people don't want a dab page there either. Maybe we could move the page and leave a rd? — kwami (talk) 20:13, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I would prefer that the current article at Hindi be moved to Modern Standard Hindi and the title Hindi be a redirect to Hindi (disambiguation) where the reader can choose from the list the particular meaning of "Hindi" for which they are searching.--William Thweatt TalkContribs 23:16, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

See response from kwami "::We're not misquoting Ethnologue. The current edition is based on the Indian census, which confuses Hindi with other languages (as the census itself indicates but Ethnologue does not.)
 * I have no problem with the newspaper stats. Put them back if you like.
 * We're not merging 3 topics. The page is about Modern Standard Hindi and only Modern Standard Hindi. I don't like calling it just "Hindi" myself, but people have argued that MSH is the primary use of the word "Hindi". You can make a move request if you like. — kwami (talk) 01:07, 25 August 2015 (UTC)"

PradeepBoston (talk) 05:03, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Also see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/Hindi Who will edit all Wiki pages which are pointing to Hindi page ? Not me :D PradeepBoston (talk) 05:13, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Languages#Article_names says "Please note that when there is nothing to disambiguate a language name from, such as Hindi, Esperanto or Inuktitut, there is no need for the "language". I also referred to "Use commonly recognizable names" section in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Article_titles#Languages.2C_both_spoken_and_programming

PradeepBoston (talk) 05:36, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * All of that is about title policy and is irrelevant to this issue. The article makes it clear that the article is about Modern Standard Hindi. The scope of the article is defined by the article itself (as is usually made clear by the introduction/lede), not by the title. The title is supposed to reflect what the article is about, not the other way around.--William Thweatt TalkContribs 06:45, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

The words "Modern Standard Hindi" only appears 7 times in the article. 2 times by insert done by me. The word "Hindi" appears 152 times in the article. I do not see any issue in having a standalone Modern Standard Hindi and whole article rewritten for Modern Standard Hindi. PradeepBoston (talk) 07:32, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I also read my edits again and I see that I have only written about "Modern Standard Hindi". Which line do you think is not about "Modern Standard Hindi" ? PradeepBoston (talk) 07:55, 26 August 2015 (UTC)


 * There are so many problems with your proposed edits, I don't know where to start. However, if you want to discuss them, this is not the place to do so. Firstly, you need to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia policies so you understand how to work together to build an article. You should read WP:CONSENSUS and "Bold, Revert, Discuss" cycle. Consensus building is the core of the Wikipedia project. You want to change there article and you were WP:BOLD in attempting it. You were reverted (by numerous editors who don't agree with your proposed changes), now you MUST open discussions on the talk page of the article (Talk:Hindi) and seek consensus of other editors for your changes. This page is not the place to do so. If the community agrees with you, then your proposed changes can remain. You can't simply revert back to what you want without discussion or you risk being blocked for WP:Edit warring. Read these policies, start discussing on the article talk page and refrain from reverting again unless consensus is reached on the talk page.--William Thweatt TalkContribs 11:15, 26 August 2015 (UTC)