358:
glottochronology, making it seem like it isn't bunk after all, but as you have found for yourself, the general view in linguistics hasn't changed. The general views of the rest of the scientific community isn't really relevant: the ones who do not engage in linguistic phylogenetic have only a street-man's opinion, and the ones who do engage in it are vastly outnumbered by the linguists that disagree with them. The "weakness in the study" was that it was not necessary for the researchers to define at the start which two homeland scenarios they tested for(since they have a singular input), they can have easily chosen their candidates after the fact (or after a pilot experiment), with no evidence of foul play to be found. As it is, their number sounds much more credible because of the "background story" of comparing two specific scenarios (as you yourself said, falsifiability adds merit), but what I meant was that the "falsifiability" arises out of their prose, not out of their method. And falsifiability at around 8000 years time depth isn't all that great. However, while that's clear as day to me, I don't have time to find sources to that fact, so it's original research and has been cut, also it's not that relevant.--
335:
same screen names were used there as here. That does seem like a conflict of interest, and the thread specifically contains the moderator's denial that the dissenting opinions were at issue. That said, somebody somewhere has probably used disemvoweling against a contrary opinion, and this is probably as close as I've seen to an example of that. It doesn't seem all that rude to me. As you rightly point out, though, it's all very subjective and OR, and extremely hard to source. It took months to come up with sufficient reliable sources to make this article work the first time around. And maybe it's combat fatigue from that experience, and my discouragement over all the photos disappearing daily from my watchlist articles, but I don't want to get into another protracted negotiation with someone who obviously has an axe to grind. Regards,
404:
I believe in writing what I believe to be true and then of course supporting it wherever possible with citations. Sometimes I edit quickly in this way, keen to improve the article, knowing that while I like from my own knowledge there are others who like to spend their time validating and criticising. Together we do a good job in the end. Material that cannot be immediately supported but is true is better than cited material that is untrue in my view, and as you say
Knowledge (XXG) is work in progress.
176:
user), that's a really tedious job. That's also why constant monitoring of recent changes is still absolutely imperative if we want to avoid loads of vandalism being "buried" under more recent, useful edits. I believe that if one's concern is limited to a certain set of articles and a certain edit is not easily traceable and some time has already passed, it's probably the easiest way to just edit it back to an acceptable state, and then see if someone re-introduces the errors. ā
688:
31:
380:
like for example
Romance languages and other ancient literate languages. Swadeshs method has always been wide open to the researchers "schooling" of the input to get a desired result, and it doesn't sound like G&A have done much to reduce that, in fact it sounds like they have done some very specific schooling in their chosing of "cognate sets".--
145:, just make sure to keep it very concise, like e.g. "IP 123.456.789.000 continues to add unsourced OR/POV material to articles ], ] and ], after final warning. ~~~~". An admin will then take a look and possibly issue a block of the IP in question. It's a last resort however, and our admins' workload is considerable
357:
I see what you mean, thanks for the advice. I have now cut it down, perhaps not enough? These new developments are relevant because the theory of swadesh lists is generally regarded as bunk by linguists, but as intriguing by outsiders. There are editors that like to add stuff about "new and improved"
403:
Thanks for the support regarding those comments on my talk page. I've done quite a lot of editing, and most of what I ever wrote remains, which pleases me, so although I have changed as I've gone along and become more inclined to find cites I'm not about to start what I call 'cut and paste' editing.
379:
On the needfulness of the Gray
Atkinson study, I think it's clear from their omissions that they didn't really care about the strict scientificness of their study, perhaps they wanted to generate publicity. If they wanted to make science they would have tested their method on documentable languages,
227:
is for cases of potential libel. The "last rites" assertion was indeed unsourced, but it doesn't constitute that kind of libel. However, that website was clearly inacceptable as a reference, simply because it cites the
Knowledge (XXG) article as its only source. I removed it and it was replaced with
497:
Me and my brother
Sibirian Artjom (named after Sydor's father Artjom) we are the youngest of the four Great grand anserters of Sydor Kovpak. We need help and or life is in danger. My father has made for us a social program this program is of social effort and is the fight to rescue Missing children
375:
That's a lot more interesting. It doesn't really make sense to me to use computers to boost the performance of analog methods (like swadeshs). Like that article suggests the real benefit of computerization is exactly it's immunity to meaning, or rather it's indifference to it. Of course it would be
330:
That looks like a good compromise, although I doubt it will fly. Some time ago, I spent months trying to negotiate a settlement in a nasty edit war over this article, basically one or two people with a personal grudge against people who frequent Making Light but were nevertheless trying to be NPOV
334:
The editors (possibly one editor and a sock, but I'm not certain about this) who made the recent edits and arguing in their favor were banned from Making Light (for sock puppetry) and possibly Boing Boing (for rudeness and sock puppetry) as the result of the same thread referenced in the edit. The
297:
Interesting. I just removed references to Soini because I couldn't find any source except a old newspaper that names him as a record holder. And the fact that
Gardner supposedly never appeared in the Book required the removal of its mention except for one sentence stating this fact. You could word
175:
With popups installed, you can check that user's/IP's contrib history, and hovering the cursor over diff will follow the link and display what was being removed/added. But I know what you're talking about wrt to article contrib histories (which is necessary to isolate an edit and allocate it to a
423:
Having looked at the page in question it seems to me that there has been no real change, as mW m-2 nm-1 is the same as mW/m2 nm (excuse me not using suffix notation - never worked out how to). I think the new form is clearer. The reference I used for those figures is clearly given in the inline
87:
I handle small vandalisms myself, but this one I would like to pass on to someone better equiped to offer the appropriate instructional comments, and root out the damage, if anyone cares enough about fancruft to do so. Is there a noticeboard where this kind of thing can be passed along?
498:
in the
Ukraine in or name! For this we survived assassinations and now we are in a situation that needs attention of all who are involved in Sydorās vision and heroics acts for the Russian and Ukrainian people. I ask can you get in contact with us to listen to or story. Or email is
248:. Personally, I don't think there are many (or any) really controversial assertions in the article. Nevertheless, ideally everything should be attributable to a reliable source, so your concerns were indeed justified. Btw, I'm not an admin. |dorf|trottel| |
103:". However, the superlative problem is not one limited to Sopranos articles, it frequently surfaces e.g. on sportspeople biographical articles (as in "X is said to be the best/one of the best tennis/football/etc players of all time").
98:
First off: Yours is a justified concern. As of right now, the IP editing flurry seems to have ended. The simple argument against that kind of edits (and also the content of according warnings, should this continue) is one of
137:}} and escalating from there if necessary. If you notice the behaviour to continue without any reaction to a first warning, you may eventually issue a final warning, in the case of these unsourced additions I'd go with {{
228:
another source, a book which I can't immediately judge since it's not online (but it's probably safe to assume that it makes for a far better source than the website). The article is for now appropriately tagged with
408:
Regarding UV I remember being pleased when I found sources that enabled me to get to the truth of the matter and I thought I was careful to get the units right. I'll take a detailed look again later. Regards
79:
I just noticed an anon user with a persistent practice of adding superlatives, mostly to articles concerning the
Sopranos. The user has not so far been notified that these edits are inappropriate.
298:
the first sentence however you wish. I found it a little awkward but couldn't think of anything to write instead. And I doubt there is an established record for longest time spent without sleeping.
447:
I've found the problem to make the program work. It was because it isn't possible to declare a variable with underscores in this environnement (MediaWiki doesn't like undescrores in a tag). ~
129:
In case you notice this kind of behaviour to continue, particularly if it's from the same or a very similar IP address, you may warn against continuing that behaviour via the applicable
149:, so we shouldn't lightly report to AIV without established necessity and ideally trying to come to terms with the user in question via sensible talk page discussion. Best regards, ā
471:
entry and thought you should be aware of this new short documentary. Perhaps it would be a valuable reference or external link. Thanks for your work on
Knowledge (XXG).
595:
605:
591:
552:
116:". Some people appear not to be able to differantiate between fan enthusiasm and professional enthusiasm. They just don't understand that that kind of POV/
655:
and I have wondered who chooses to edit OER-related articles and why. Regardless of whether you've taken the WIKISOO course yourself - and/or never even
474:
635:
Hi MaxEnt, I'm sending you this message because you're one of about 300 users who have recently edited an article in the umbrella category of
542:
601:
548:
313:
538:
510:
644:
264:
249:
598:). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles.
545:). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles.
190:
344:
648:
660:
162:
Just noticed that you have been here for quite some time (longer than me) and probably know all of the above already. ā
376:
the trick to decide the input form for a similar analysis of languages since human-based annotation is always analog.
716:
695:
636:
582:
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Knowledge (XXG) appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited
529:
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Knowledge (XXG) appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited
59:
38:
665:
before 27 April. No personal data is being collected. If you have any ideas or questions, please get in touch. My
514:
475:
http://www.motherboard.tv/2010/5/3/sound-builders-cyborg-inventor-steve-mann-builds-instruments-out-of-water
506:
583:
385:
363:
268:
253:
196:
179:
165:
152:
429:
414:
138:
479:
299:
130:
483:
232:
221:
134:
621:
568:
444:
340:
284:
109:
704:
674:
666:
652:
381:
359:
82:
47:
17:
142:
120:
exaggerations is actually worsening the representation of their favourite subject. Compare
113:
451:
425:
410:
242:
117:
100:
640:
455:
114:
Assert facts, including facts about opinionsābut do not assert the opinions themselves
612:
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these
559:
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these
617:
613:
564:
560:
530:
336:
108:
The second problem is that people often are not truthfully quoting their sources.
283:
Thanks for reaching it out to him and trying to explain. It seems to be helping.
703:
If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the
678:
670:
659:
the term OER before - we'd be extremely grateful for your participation in this
625:
572:
518:
502:
499:
487:
457:
433:
418:
389:
367:
347:
320:
317:
302:
287:
272:
257:
201:
184:
170:
157:
92:
89:
46:
If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the
468:
448:
587:
643:). In evaluating several projects we've been working on (e.g. the
493:
Sidor
ArtemieviÄ Kovpak ancestors on the run for assassination
682:
534:
25:
83:
http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/24.107.62.120
141:}}. If it still goes on then, you can issue a report to
586:, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page
533:, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page
121:
443:
Hello, I don't know if you are still interested: in
525:Disambiguation link notification for November 11
101:Exceptional claims require exceptional sources
8:
578:Disambiguation link notification for April 5
189:However, all that may improve a lot once
669:page awaits. Thanks for your support! -
133:on the IP's talk page, starting with {{
701:Do not edit the contents of this page.
44:Do not edit the contents of this page.
7:
263:Ok. You're welcome. |dorf|trottel| |
467:Hello. I noticed you've edited the
24:
686:
331:and source everything properly.
29:
316:having passed with 72-1-4-99%.
112:) gives the useful advice to "
1:
573:12:41, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
321:01:55, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
303:06:53, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
273:15:12, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
258:14:58, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
202:14:03, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
185:14:01, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
171:13:01, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
158:12:55, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
93:08:25, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
348:05:24, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
288:03:54, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
458:14:29, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
742:
679:20:44, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
637:open educational resources
519:15:57, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
434:10:50, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
390:20:14, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
368:21:54, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
626:08:58, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
419:17:30, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
312:Thank you for supporting
398:Memestream and UV factor
662:brief, anonymous survey
488:21:50, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
699:of past discussions.
584:Time-invariant system
445:mw:Extension talk:Lua
42:of past discussions.
614:opt-out instructions
561:opt-out instructions
596:fix with Dab solver
543:fix with Dab solver
314:my steward election
308:My steward election
604:ā¢ Join us at the
551:ā¢ Join us at the
75:Superlative excess
729:
728:
711:
710:
705:current talk page
609:
556:
509:comment added by
453:
353:On swadesh lists.
191:flagged revisions
139:subst:uw-generic4
72:
71:
54:
53:
48:current talk page
733:
725:
713:
712:
690:
689:
683:
651:), my colleague
649:WikiProject Open
599:
592:check to confirm
546:
539:check to confirm
521:
452:
247:
241:
237:
231:
226:
220:
131:warning template
68:
56:
55:
33:
32:
26:
18:User talk:MaxEnt
741:
740:
736:
735:
734:
732:
731:
730:
721:
687:
633:
606:DPL WikiProject
580:
553:DPL WikiProject
527:
504:
465:
441:
400:
355:
328:
310:
295:
281:
245:
239:
235:
229:
224:
218:
216:
193:are enabled. ā
135:subst:uw-unsor1
77:
64:
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
739:
737:
727:
726:
719:
709:
708:
691:
641:open education
632:
629:
579:
576:
526:
523:
496:
492:
464:
461:
440:
437:
406:
405:
399:
396:
395:
394:
393:
392:
377:
354:
351:
327:
324:
309:
306:
294:
291:
280:
277:
276:
275:
215:
212:
211:
210:
209:
208:
207:
206:
205:
204:
126:
125:
105:
104:
76:
73:
70:
69:
62:
52:
51:
34:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
738:
724:
720:
718:
715:
714:
706:
702:
698:
697:
692:
685:
684:
681:
680:
676:
672:
668:
664:
663:
658:
654:
650:
646:
642:
638:
630:
628:
627:
623:
619:
615:
610:
607:
603:
597:
593:
589:
585:
577:
575:
574:
570:
566:
562:
557:
554:
550:
544:
540:
536:
532:
524:
522:
520:
516:
512:
511:80.61.202.149
508:
503:
500:
494:
490:
489:
485:
481:
477:
476:
472:
470:
462:
460:
459:
456:
454:
450:
446:
438:
436:
435:
431:
427:
421:
420:
416:
412:
402:
401:
397:
391:
387:
383:
378:
374:
373:
372:
371:
370:
369:
365:
361:
352:
350:
349:
346:
342:
338:
332:
326:Disemvoweling
325:
323:
322:
319:
315:
307:
305:
304:
301:
293:Randy Gardner
292:
290:
289:
286:
278:
274:
270:
266:
262:
261:
260:
259:
255:
251:
244:
234:
223:
213:
203:
200:
198:
192:
188:
187:
186:
183:
181:
174:
173:
172:
169:
167:
161:
160:
159:
156:
154:
148:
144:
140:
136:
132:
128:
127:
123:
119:
115:
111:
107:
106:
102:
97:
96:
95:
94:
91:
85:
84:
80:
74:
67:
63:
61:
58:
57:
49:
45:
41:
40:
35:
28:
27:
19:
722:
700:
694:
661:
656:
653:Pete Forsyth
634:
611:
581:
558:
531:Jordan Henry
528:
505:ā Preceding
495:
491:
478:
473:
466:
442:
424:citation. --
422:
407:
356:
333:
329:
311:
296:
282:
217:
194:
177:
163:
150:
146:
86:
81:
78:
65:
43:
37:
693:This is an
647:course and
631:OER inquiry
382:AkselGerner
360:AkselGerner
279:No problem!
36:This is an
639:(OER) (or
616:. Thanks,
563:. Thanks,
469:Steve Mann
463:Steve Mann
426:Memestream
411:Memestream
233:refimprove
222:Blpdispute
214:Niki Lauda
723:ArchiveĀ 2
717:ArchiveĀ 1
600:Read the
547:Read the
480:CorridorX
122:this edit
66:ArchiveĀ 2
60:ArchiveĀ 1
588:Discrete
507:unsigned
345:contribs
195:Dorftrot
178:Dorftrot
164:Dorftrot
151:Dorftrot
124:of mine.
696:archive
671:Sara FB
645:WIKISOO
618:DPL bot
565:DPL bot
285:Natalie
110:WP:NPOV
39:archive
318:Jusjih
243:inline
143:WP:AIV
90:MaxEnt
657:heard
449:Seb35
337:Karen
300:Ū Ū ā
147:as is
16:<
675:talk
667:talk
622:talk
569:talk
515:talk
501:and
484:talk
430:talk
415:talk
386:talk
364:talk
341:Talk
265:mess
250:mess
238:and
602:FAQ
549:FAQ
535:AHL
439:Lua
269:age
254:age
197:tel
180:tel
166:tel
153:tel
677:)
624:)
594:|
571:)
541:|
517:)
486:)
432:)
417:)
409:--
388:)
366:)
343:|
339:|
271:|
256:|
246:}}
240:{{
236:}}
230:{{
225:}}
219:{{
118:OR
707:.
673:(
620:(
608:.
590:(
567:(
555:.
537:(
513:(
482:(
428:(
413:(
384:(
362:(
267:|
252:|
199:ā
182:ā
168:ā
155:ā
99:"
50:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.