Word/quotation of the moment:

Previous:

The Church says that the Earth is Flat, but I know that it is Round, for I have seen its Shadow on the Moon, and I have more Faith in a Shadow than in the Church. (commonly misattributed to Magellan)

In the early years of the study there were more than 200 speakers of the dialect, including one parrot. (from the WP article Nancy Dorian)

Mikebrown is unusually eccentric and not very bright. [...] Astronomers have not noticed any outbursts by Mikebrown. (from the WP article 11714 Mikebrown)

Keep Redskins White!

"homosapiens are people, too!!"

a sprig of spaghetti

"I've always had a horror of husbands-in-law."

awkwardnessful

anti–zombie-fungus fungus

"Only an evil person would eat baby soup." (said in all sincerity)

Please look into the Bengali language article in the infobox "Native speakers" figure has been diluted and more confusing for viewers to read. Please fix it with credible source. Thanks--Priyansh90 (talk) 04:35, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what you mean by "diluted". The figures didn't check out, so I reverted, but there's little difference in the display with it being rounded off. — kwami (talk) 21:35, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Try to do like Punjabi language which u did it by yourself. Punjabi language has rounded figure rather giving breakup of east punjab and west punjab.--Priyansh90 (talk) 06:09, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You mean you don't want it broken down by country after the total? I could put that in the lead. — kwami (talk) 02:29, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi an IP hooper is constantly changing your edits in the Bengali language article. I reverted it but he is still changing it.--Priyansh90 (talk) 05:10, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions. I am happy with the wording you have chosen for the phrase about the Altaic hypothesis (although I do think that it is perhaps a little too harsh on the Altaic hypothesis, there are still Altaicists around, but as I say I'm happy with what is there at the moment).

I am unfortunately not very knowledgeable about linguistics, and so cannot contribute very much to the "isolate" discussion, but my reasoning was that as there are no other universally accepted extant Koreanic languages, it would be reasonable to refer to it as an isolate. I believe it is still referred to as isolate elsewhere in the article and in other articles and I think this should at least be consistent. Would you mind me suggesting that you open a thread on the Korean Language talk page to discuss this with people more knowledgeable than myself.

Thanks for messaging me rather than just reverting my changes.

RobbieM13 (talk) 15:30, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @RobbieM13: It depends on your definition of 'isolate'. Greek is an isolate, within the IE family. We currently list Jeju as a distinct language. As long as we do that, it would be inconsistent to call Korean an 'isolate'. And consensus seems to be that at least some of the other ancient languages of Korea were related to Silla, the ancestor of Korean and Jeju. But it's not just a matter of counting how many refs call Korean an 'isolate', there's also a matter of consistency among our articles. Also, people do speak of "small isolated families" for ambiguous cases, meaning just that whatever you may or may not include in Koreanic, it's not demonstrably related to anything else. IMO that's a more informative approach than debating whether two varieties are 'languages' or 'dialects' and then characterizing Koreanic by the result, so that languages flip-flop between being being small families and being isolates (which after all are just really small families). — kwami (talk) 21:50, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Right. I understand what you're saying. I agree that it should just be Koreanic in the infobox, and plenty of mention of Koreanic being a small isolated family in the body text. Thanks for making that clear to me. --RobbieM13 (talk) 08:39, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you don't mind my recent additions on the topic. On another note, Vovin doesn't think Han languages were Koreanic. He believes they were Japonic, and was replaced by Koreanic speakers from Goguryeo in the Three Kingdoms of Korea period. According to his theory and some others, Silla and Baekje languages were established by these Goguryeo migrants, and prior to this expansion, people in southern Korea, including Samhan and Jeju, spoke Japonic languages. Koraskadi (talk) 09:55, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Koraskadi: But those weren't Han. The Han languages were Sillan and its closest relatives, and today Korean and Jeju. I'd be interested in reading about Samhan being Japonic. — kwami (talk) 09:58, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any proof that Aruba does not recognize same-sex marriages performed in the metropolitan Netherlands as marriages? Recognition of such marriages was established by the court ruling years before the island enacted registered partnership law. And no, unequal treatment is not a proof, as we are talking about the designation of "marriage" itself. Ron 1987 (talk) 17:55, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Our own article and the footnote to the template both say they do not. If they're wrong, they need to be fixed. — kwami (talk) 20:09, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello I was planning to create a Timeline of LGBT history in Mexico (which i did now) u can find it in the history section that is still there I was going to leave the history of precolumbian and moved to the history part that there is now And move the timeline section to a new timeline page (I hope its clear) A pity now that there is some editor who erased all the first history part containing timeline And now its blocked and i cannot find it to move it to the new intended article of timeline of LGBT History in Mexico Any idea how can that valuable content of the first removed history can be found and moved to the new page Any help please Thank you AdamPrideTN (talk) 14:18, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@AdamPrideTN: -- can you narrow down the search for me? Where did the table appear? In LGBT rights in Mexico? And when was it written/deleted? (I just need to know what date range to look for it in.) For example, there's a timeline here. Is that not what you wanted? — kwami (talk) 18:45, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Yes yes that one thank you It is missing some info of late 2018 and 2019 But yes that one If u see the history of the page today an editor name king of xavier delete it all sating no two histories But when i tried to find it to mive it to a new page timeline I didnt Would u look more for it or can u copy that into the new main page the last edit of me in the page Thank u AdamPrideTN (talk) 18:57, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Diannaa: Adam, it wasn't King of Xavier. User:Diannaa deleted the history with the edit summary "remove copyright content copied from https://www.hrw.org/news/2018/10/29/mexico-transgender-ruling-beacon-change." Maybe they could explain? A simple timeline shouldn't be a copyright violation, but maybe you took too much of their wording. Also, they might've deleted stuff that didn't violate copyright because the version of the page with those edits of your also included the copy-vio. Maybe Diannaa could clip out the stuff that wasn't copy-vio for you? — kwami (talk) 19:12, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I removed a paragraph of prose that had nothing to do with King of Xavier's edit. I can restore what King of Xavier removed and if there's duplication like he states in his edit summary that can be dealt with once you folks have a chance to assess. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:00, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! — kwami (talk) 00:08, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kwamikagami,

Some friends and I are currently working on an article that dives deeper into the lesser known side of how Wikipedia works, focusing on the people who are behind the creation and editing of articles and how this process takes place. One of our main areas of interest are how disputes are resolved when two Wikipedia users disagree on an edit. If you have time available, we would love to ask you some questions about the work you do here on Wikipedia, or if you have had any experiences with these "edit wars". If you are interested or would like some more information, please contact us at WikiSpecUser@gmail.com.

We are looking forward to learning more about your insight! — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiSpecUser (talk • contribs) 22:33, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi kwami. I want to merge Nuclear Malayo-Polynesian languages into the NMP section in Malayo-Polynesian languages. The NMP-hypothesis was proposed in a single publication, and never caught up among Austronesianists. It’s definitely not fringe, but just a “one hit wonder”, so a full article runs a bit against WP:Notability. Before doing a bold and cold merger, I ask specifically you first, as you did most edits to the article–most of them 10yrs ago. But I guess, from your current perspective you will probably agree with the merger. —Austronesier (talk) 15:52, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]