User talk:Shabidoo/Archive1

Mahjong

I added some new material and changed the introduction a little. I made the introduction cover the mechanics of the game and variations quite lightly, so that the actual information of the variation can be covered in that section. I also introduced the aesthetics of the game and quickly mentioned that mahjong results in gambling problems in some communities.

Please feel very free to disagree with the change and to suggest how it could be done better.

Shabidoo (talk) 14:12, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Mahjong

Thanks for your appreciation. If later on you wish to thank another editor, considering giving him/her a barnstar.OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 02:45, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Hey!

Can you explain why you reverted my edit[1]? Aaker (talk) 23:38, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Sources contra counting words

Since you so kindly asked for sources against word counting I post some here:

• wordinfo.info[2] "It is impossible to count the number of words in a language, because it is so hard to decide what counts as a word."
• oxforddictionaries.com[3] "It's impossible to count the number of words in a language, because it's so hard to decide what actually counts as a word."
• economist.com[4]article explaining why it is impossible

Have a great day! Aaker (talk) 23:56, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Things I like and don't

First, calm down a little! The reason you couldn't find the sources was that you replied so fast that I didn't have time to post them. Second, that English has a larger vocabulary than any other language is certainly not a "fact". Just see the above mentioned articles. When it comes to Arabic in the EU it is indeed a "Significant unofficial language" so I give you right there. The reason I deleted it is that it is unlike all the other languages there is a newly come immigrant language, all the others being historical minority languages (with the possible exception of Russian). I thought recognition was relevant because in terms of speakers Saami is certainly not a "significant unofficial language" and instead we should add languages immigrant languages with much higher numbers of speakers. Therefore the wording "significant unofficial language" is in my opinion unfortunate and should be changed to something like "historical minority and regional languages". Aaker (talk) 00:10, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay, hopefully I have calmed down :) ... I can see how you find arabic out of place in the list, since, it is not like unrecognised regional languages, but then, was Arabic not spoken in the Iberian peninsula and other parts of Southern Europe for centuries, and has there not always been minority communities of Arabic in Europe? What exactly should be the subtitles? Languages which have been spoken in a specific area for a long time up until the present which is not officially recognised? Why should there be a distinction? Shabidoo 00:34, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

If there should be a distinction is of course discussable. However, such a distinction is very often made by sociolinguists and legislators (see minority language). Yes, Arabic was spoken on the Iberian peninsula until 1609 when they were expelled (seeExpulsion of the Moriscos) and has not been continually present since then. Spain's current Maghrebin population does not consist of descendants of descendants of the historic Moriscos but is the result of recent migration. If there is a place in the EU there Arabic has been continually present for several centuries then it should of course be considered a historical minority language. Unfortunately I don't know which exact subtitle would be most suitable. The CoE uses "Regional or Minority Language" as inEuropean Charter for Regional or Minority Languages. Aaker (talk) 00:51, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't have any attatchment to Arabic really. I dont care what list it is in. Its just, in one article you are using the rule of a subtlety to edit out word counts in english, i.e. that counting words is tricky, what is a word? etc. The same applies to minority languages. Yes, the Arabs were expelled and so were the Jews, but, hey, a few Jews stayed, and yes, arabic has indeed been spoken in Andalucian cities since the expulsion, even though its a small small amount of people. Very small. Its a subtlety, but there you go, with this line of reasoning I say, hey, its impossible to say what is a minority language so lets just delete it out. So maybe its better to make up our minds, will we delete out a fact just because its hard to count things or define things or will we define things and make titles and keep facts based on sources? Shabidoo 01:14, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Word counting and minority languages are two completely different issues. I get your point however: "How many people need speak a language in order to be called a minority language and for how long time..." Yes it's a matter of definition and fortunately, unlike word counting it is possible to estimate how many speakers of a language there is and how long they've stayed. Therefore a possible npov-criterion could be recognition. Btw in which Andalusian city has Arabic been continually spoken since the expulsion? All sources I could find for such a claim considers Ceuta or Melilla in Africa which in deed belong to the EU but then, should we include the languages of the French overseas possessions as well? Aaker (talk) 10:04, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Ceuta and Meilla is an integral part of Spanish territory mere kilometers from the rest of Spain. In anycase its not important. My point is, counting words in a language is possible just as difining limits for what an immigration language would be. It just has to be based on criteria we agree on (if you include derrivatives, conjugations, base words, compound words (i.e. for ergative languages), including technical words or not, or even deciding on a case by case per language. The inability to do it easily, objectively or even fairly doesnt mean its impossible to do it. I just dont believe that just because people say its impossible or hard doesnt make the opposite view not a fact. Wikipedia asks that information is backed up by facts, a fact being relevant information that is backed up by a good source and I dont think that expert opinion or something generally agreed on in an academic community or scientific consensus is the only usable fact...assuming even that this is backed up by a good source which is often not the case either. Shabidoo | Talk 21:52, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Narendra Modi

Can you checkWikipedia:Pending_changes/Feedback#Confusion_on_Narendra_Modiand add to your version (what you observed)? It deals with an edit you just made. Thanks. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 16:06, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Reviewing

Thank you for reviewing articles. I noticed that you just reviewedWhite people[5]. That was a bit tricky since the book and author really exist, but I I think it was the right decision to revert since it did look fishy. However, I wouldn't call it a "POV issue"; if it were, then appropriate remedies would be as described at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, which includes giving equal validity to opposing opinions. Seldom can NPOV be achieved by removing a quote sourced to a reliable source. Another question is how reliable the book is - but that's not a POV issue, it's a WP:RELY issue. Since there is a chance that the quote is real, I would, after removing it, write a note about it on a talk page. In this case, the article talk page may be most appropriate, in other cases it may be the user talk page. — Sebastian 00:34, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Sebastian. I don´t think that the intent of the quote was point of view, but that the way it was worded came across as point of view (mentioning it as a clear fact and then mentioning the author later) making it seem further more as a personal quote then backed up by the quoted authors, and I said it needed to be reworded. Reworded, it would not come across as POV. You are right, I should have made that clear and addressed it on the article talk page. Thanks again. Shabidoo | Talk 01:06, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Re; Competition

I'd be happy to help once I know how college's third semester starts in the fall for me. As soon as I can get that handled, I can develop on it. The idea works to some degree, but there are places it does need work. A competition to work on one article doesn't make much sense.Mitch32^{(Growing up with Wikipedia: 1 edit at a time.)} 18:42, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

"out of control" in Economics

A quick comment, S. I'm probably not the one to comment on your TP comment as to Economics, but I do agree that your blank-slate approach to reading & tweaking the article is very appropriate. If you'd be interested I'd like to recruit you as reviewer/Editor on the concern you raised at some time in the foreseeable future. Nothing limits you in the meanwhile of course. I'll put this page on my watchlist for any response. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 22:39, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

OK. My earlier impression was that you thought the article was very unclear. I do agree that the article should be relatively self-sufficient & not raise questions such as "Partial equilibrium of what?" Of course, the content should be such that at each point along the way, the reader is not asking "Who cares?" Despite efforts of many people (including me), I don't think that the article as a whole is ready for a general vetting, so that's why I was looking to the future when you'd be able to give the article a closer reading. I do take clarity and good writing very seriously, as do you. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 15:46, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Re: Revert

I reverted the edits of that IP because they made a couple of test edits. I made sure to leave an appropriate warning on their talk page. Have a good day. Hmrox (talk) 16:55, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay Hmrox, what do you mean by a "test edit" Im just not sure what you are refering to. Do you have an actual problem with the content of the edit? Shabidoo | Talk 17:03, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

A test edit is when some is experimenting with an article unaware that they are vandalizing it. They had inserted Jana Aguila which was unrelated to the article they added it to. I hope this clears things up for you. Hmrox (talk) 19:31, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. In Heater, you recently added a link to the disambiguation page Conduction(check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:35, 19 December 2011 (UTC)