User talk:AsadalEditor

Hi AsadalEditor: I have seen that you have made a number of edits in articles about proposed long-range language families in the East Asian and Southeast Asian area. Many of these articles have become quite messy over the years, and contain a good deal of OR and POV stuff. I really welcome your efforts to clean up these articles, by amending the structure of the articles, adding relevant material supported by sources, together with a solid neutral point of view. Thumbs up for that! Until now, we have communicated just in passing via comment lines, however now I have one issue which I want to discuss more in detail:

You have added a paragraph in several articles about the 2015 ASJP study by Jäger. The two final sentences go: "Though the linguist doing this research said himself that this program only compared today languages and not the proto-languages. Thus it can be not used as prove for the origin of these languages." Is this just your personal assessment, or can you backup this judgement with a source that explicitly reviews Jäger's article? It is defintely not by Jäger himself, as we see from his bombastic claim "This study contributes to ongoing efforts to push the limits of linguistic reconstruction further back in time, and thus to pen a window into the pre-Neolithic human past." Personally, I do not believe that his method is adequate in any way, not even as an auxilliary or complementary tool. Not because he fails to include proto-languages in his samples, but because of the method itself. BUT: is not our part to comment on sources in article space. So I propose to delete these two sentences in all articles concerned, or to provide a source. —Austronesier (talk) 14:48, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you! Yes the 2015 ASJP study by Jäger is a bit problematic. The unsourced part is more or less a personal assessment, so I do actually not have a source for that. I agree that we should delete these two sentences. I will delete them. Maybe I find a source about the method and its acceptance, but for now it is better as you said.--AsadalEditor (talk) 18:25, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

I have found something. This study^[1] does not criticize the ASJP but also does not support it very much. The study says that ASJP can or should not be used to proove a genetic relation. It further states that errors can easily arise and that the lack of modern or ancient languages (proto-languages) can result in mistakes. Also the study claims that ASJP ignores morphological information The last sentence of the study is: "For reasonssuch as these, I believe scholars will find it difficult to acceptthe ASJP and its dates." So we may mention that?--AsadalEditor (talk) 21:26, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

@AsadalEditor:That's a good one! As you can see, the article is divided into three parts: 1. Main article 2. Comments by a number of eminent scholars 3. Reply. Your quote is from Lyle Campbell's comment, one of the sceptics of the method. Others include Bob Blust and Willem Adelaar. I will think of a proper way to sum up this criticism and will add it in the Austric article, and maybe also in the ASJP article, which lacks a "Criticism" section.
BTW, some edit warrior was unhappy with kwami's edits in the article Austronesian peoples, and just reverted (twice!) all edits which were made in the last week. Including your revision of the Religion section, which I think was fine because you added sources. I advice you should restore your constructive edits there. —Austronesier (talk) 08:52, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! Yes, I will reinclude the religion part.--AsadalEditor (talk) 14:20, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Anatolian hypothesis, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:36, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Hello, I have already realized my mistake that I wrongly did change the statements according to my misunderstanding. (see talk page of Anatolian hypothesis). Thank you for correcting my mistakes!—AsadalEditor (talk) 16:38, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

You're welcome; take care. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:43, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Haplogroup R1a. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:50, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied text from Andronovo culture to Peopling of India (your addition has since been removed). While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. If you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:32, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Well, I will take care the next time and apologize again for my misinterpretations. Thanks for the further information.--AsadalEditor (talk) 16:33, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi, about the wikipedia page "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyrgyz_people", the number of kyrgyz people in kyrgyzstan are wrong, it suppose be 4,587,430 instead of 3,804,788. And the total population of kyrgyz people wasn't suppose be 4.5 million since kyrgyz people in kyrgyzstan are already reached 4,587,430 by 2018. My reference is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyrgyzstan#Ethnic_groups. Therefore, can you change the kyrgyz people number in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyrgyz_people?

Done.--AsadalEditor (talk) 16:12, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

I've removed much of your edit on Gojoseon. I think it's inaccurate to say that Gija Joseon was a real historical entity. It's rejected by most experts today, and it is considered to be a propaganda fabricated during China's Han Dynasty to justify its conquest of Gojoseon. If you think otherwise, please feel free to discuss the matter before making radical changes to the article itself. Koraskadi (talk) 21:42, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koguryoic_languages — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.36.134.215 (talk) 02:46, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

I am not sure what you mean? But I can take a look on the article later and update or correct it if it is necessary.--AsadalEditor (talk) 12:04, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

I have corrected some parts about the classification. The article is more or less a kind of summary of Goguryeo language and the inclusion of Baekje remains controversial, as it is also possibly one of the Han languages.--AsadalEditor (talk) 12:59, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi AsadalEditor! You have added a couple of sfns with this edit, but the sources are missing. I guess the text is copied from another article, so you just need to get the missing sources from there. –Austronesier (talk) 14:48, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Hey, yes I copied this parts, I will include the references right now.--AsadalEditor (talk) 22:47, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi AsadalEditor! I just wonder if you have a supporting source for your last edit to Uralic languages which essentially evaluates the various proposals by assigning them to two catogeries. I am not an expert in this matter, but I think we need more than just a healthy "gut feeling" (which I trust you have) about these hypotheses. I primarily want to avoid that the article gets trolled in the future by editors whose POV differs from the evaluation in the current version. –Austronesier (talk) 15:50, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Not exactly a reference about all of them, but most of the theories grouped under "obsolete or fringe" are either outdated or not supporty by modern linguists (currently). But I understand what you mean. I will delete the groupings as long as their is not a reliable reference for it. (Althought I think that theories like Uralo-Dravidian or Indo-Uralic or Uralo-Altaic are mostly discredited today.) Best greetings.--AsadalEditor (talk) 09:55, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

I clearly see your point and basically support the idea behind it. I suggest that you can achieve the same result in a more subtle way, by ordering the proposals according to what you observe to be the overall degree of acceptance, and close each subsection with a mini-assessment supported by one representative source (if available). Uralo-Dravidian serves as a model here, although less detail would do just as well since there is of course the main article for each proposal. Btw, do you think that Indo-Uralic belongs to the obsolete part? Kortlandt is still around, and the proposal still is held up in few recent publications by other scholars. But then of course there is a lot of well-founded criticism by experts on Uralic... Anyway, keep up the spirit, and happy editing! –Austronesier (talk) 11:23, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, I will try to order the proposals and to keep the article in a neutral and reasonable position. About "Indo-Uralic", I think that this proposal is mostly outdated but respect the remaining supporters. I still think that sooner or later this proposal will be obsolete as well (like Ural-Atlaic). I may strengthen the section about Uralo-Siberian, which seems to be the most supported hypothesis currently (as well as Uralic-Yukaghir). I really appreciate your work about linguistics here on Wikipedia and that you try to keep the articles in good quality. Greetings--AsadalEditor (talk) 04:15, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

I have posted on the talk pages of haplogroup E and haplogroup DE regarding the recent changes you made (and responding to your comments). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skllagyook (talk • contribs) 07:52, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi again! I have noticed that the section "Korean theory" in Classification of the Japonic languages has become quite a mix of two fundamentally distinct themes: 1. the relation of Insular Japonic to the Peninsular Japonic languages 2. the relation of extended Japonic as a whole to Korean(ic). Note that several proponents of Peninsular Japonic explicitly reject the idea of a genetic relation between Japonic and Koreanic. I think we should fix this, but am not quite sure yet how to proceed. –Austronesier (talk) 15:54, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Hey! I see, I will try to make this more clear and orderd. We could create a sub-section about the "Peninsular Japonic" languages/theory and rewrite the Korean-Japanese theory with only related proposals (about Koreanic and Japonic).--AsadalEditor (talk) 16:11, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Another question: What do you think about the recent proposals of Robbeets "Transeurasian". It is more or less the successor of the Altaic theory and is built up on similar claims. It seems that Robbeets views have not gained much acceptance (at least I do not find much about it). Would it make sense to create an own article or to incorporate it into the Altaic article?--AsadalEditor (talk) 16:53, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Robbeets' "Transeurasian" is so far a "one-scholar hypothesis", with little impact. As such, it does not deserve a separate article (unlike e.g. Theo Vennemann's Vassconic hypothesis, which is a widely rejected one-man proposal, but which had an enormous impact and visibility in non-specialist literature). There is a mention in the Altaic article, which I think is sufficient. –Austronesier (talk) 11:07, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

I have rewritten parts of the article and included a new section "Primary language family". It should be more mentioned that Japonic is already a primary language family and that this article discuss the external relations. I hope this is more accurate now. Greetings.--AsadalEditor (talk) 23:23, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

I think the current structure is fine. It is much easier now to keep apart the different threads, which is important for any further corrections/amendments (cf. Kanguole's last edit to "Japonic languages"). Section "Austronesian and/or Kra-Dai (Austro-Tai) theory" will need a similar treatment, which I will try myself (and I will restrain my personal evaluation of Itabashi's article...) –Austronesier (talk) 11:16, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Ok, I will also try to find more about the Japanese-Ainu hypothesis, althought I doubt that there is any further support for it. I will include a possible list of cognates (or loanwords) (if I find a referenced one). Greetings.--AsadalEditor (talk) 12:19, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

I've reverted. I think that this is your interpretation. Feel free to use the article talk page or go to WP:RSN but I'd rather not discuss it here. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 13:33, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

I have already explained my edit(s) on the article talk page and included one quote from the study. They speak about "Australo-Papuans" but this term refers to the same groups as "Australo-Melanesian". If you feel that this is wrong or should be rewritte, please feel free to participe in the talk page. Thank you.--AsadalEditor (talk) 16:16, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

AsadalEditor (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log) • SI)

---

Request reason:

It seems that my account got blocked because of a checkuserblock. I guess this must be a mistake, as I do not use other accounts, nor do I violate or disrespect Wikipedia rules. I am a member and editor in Wikipedia since 22. December 2018 and have never violated any rules (at least I am not aware of any violations). I like to spend time here on improving articles and help to make Wikipedia a better place and I think I did good work in the last months (I hope so:)). Everyone can see my edits here; I kindly request an unblock of my account to continue my time here. As in the last months, Wikipedia became a part of my daily life. Thank you very much.--AsadalEditor (talk) 19:19, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I'm sorry, but I cannot unblock you at this time as this is a sockpuppetry and/or checkuser block. Check users have access to technical and personally identifying information they may not disclose openly on Wikipedia. Please read and heed the relevant sections of the WP:GAB. If this is not your original account, you will need to appeal at your original account.   Dlohcierekim (talk) 19:40, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I may add (after reading about checkuser blogs and shared IP adresses (and my home adress, which is also blocked now, is clearly used by another user^[1])) that I live in a community building (with/for international students). Not sure if that can help but I think it is noteworthy.--AsadalEditor (talk) 19:36, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

• I am not going to run CU because I have, as yet, no reason whatsoever to doubt Bbb's results. There's not just technical evidence: there is behavioral evidence as well. If you want to play on Wikipedia you will have to play by the rules. Drmies (talk) 19:48, 24 July 2019 (UTC)