User talk:Oklopfer

I added one citiation in the Filipino language Wikipedia page, It appears as [1], after the phrase Manileño Tagalog. ~2026-41107-59 (talk) 03:24, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-41107-59 the source you added does not support the claim you are making. Also, please stop changing the IPA, it does not follow the diaphonemic system defined in Help:IPA/Tagalog. ~ oklopfer (💬) 03:29, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

Is this allowed? I don't think it is. Sixaxis^Yes 18:11, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

@Sixaxis why would it not be? ~ oklopfer (💬︎) 18:17, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

i think i had already seen a wikipedia (i think the ptwiki) that disallows emojis. idk. Sixaxis^Yes 18:19, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Actually i got it wrong it didnt allow images. Thats an error on my part. Lol. Sixaxis^Yes 16:37, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi there, just re: the sentence I added to the Nizamuddin Auliya page, I was wondering if re-phrasing it as "He is also said to have encouraged his disciples not to promote forceful conversion" would be more accurate? Or should I move the quote directly to the disciple's page instead? ParadiseKuna (talk) 15:57, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

@ParadiseKuna I think it makes more sense to put on the disciple's page. Otherwise we are making too much of an assumption of Nizamuddin's positions, unless a reliable source explicitly says he held those same beliefs. ~ oklopfer (💬︎) 17:51, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Ok fair enough, thanks for clarifying. ParadiseKuna (talk) 18:20, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Hey just a quick update, I thought that the Wikipedia page for Qutbuddin Bakhtiar Kaki referred to the same person as the disciple in the Fawaid, but it turns out they are different, and I don't think the disciple has a page of his own. However, the disciple who is speaking in the Fawaid is likely speaking in the presence of Nizamuddin, since it is a likely a contemporary account made in his khanqah during his lifetime. Is it reasonable to assume that he was likely echoing Nizamuddin's views, or is that stretch? ParadiseKuna (talk) 18:34, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

@ParadiseKuna unfortunately it is probably still a stretch, but you could perhaps rephrase the context as "some of his disciples held this view" rather than "he held this view". ~ oklopfer (💬︎) 19:20, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

Ok that makes sense, I will add a line to that effect, thanks. Sorry about the repeated messages, it's just I thought it was a good example of that general belief system (though not directly from him) so I thought it's important it should be catalogued somewhere accessible. ParadiseKuna (talk) 20:48, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

"Dorsal consonants" as a phonological concept does include sounds like /j/. However, in PIE studies, the term "dorals" refer to the nine reconstructed consonants *k, *g, *gʰ, *ḱ, *ǵ, *ǵʰ, *kʷ, *gʷ, *gʷʰ. Further more, it is the reflexes of these 9 consonants, all denoted with variants of "k" or "g", that is the defining difference between Centum and Satem languages. This is the reason why I support removing "Y" from the lead section of "Centum and Satem Languages".

In the PIE phonemic inventory given in table 2.5 the dorsal consonants were grouped into three different places of articulation: ‘palatal’ (∗k´ ∗g´∗g´h); ‘velar’ (∗k ∗g ∗gh); and ‘labio-velar’ (∗kw ∗gw ∗gwh).

Although the term velar normally refers specifically to k or g, all the six sounds we have just reconstructed - *k *g *ḱ *ǵ *kʷ *gʷ are collectively referred to as "velars" in Indo-European studies (or "gutturals" in older literature; occasionally they are also called dorsals or tectals).

I hope we can reach an agreement on this issue. One other solution is to use the term "velars" instead of "dorsals" here.

Leslie255 (talk) 11:29, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

@Leslie255 yes, velars would be better suited. I've made the adjustment. ~ oklopfer (💬︎) 15:06, 3 August 2026 (UTC)