View source for User talk:S.K.

{{retired|date=December 2022}}
{{Nobots}}
{{NoACEMM}}

== First User Block in 18 years in any Wiki by JBW ==
<div class="user-block" style="padding: 5px; margin-bottom: 0.5em; border: 1px solid #a9a9a9; background-color: #ffefd5; min-height: 40px">[[File:Stop x nuvola with clock.svg|40px|left|alt=Stop icon with clock]]<div style="margin-left:45px">You have been '''[[WP:Blocking policy|blocked]]''' temporarily from editing for long-term [[WP:EW|edit-warring]] and refusal to accept consensus regarding Aramaic. Anyone who edits Wikipedia to any significant extent is likely to find at times that a consensus of other editors holds a view which one personally regards as completely wrong. However, Wikipedia is a collaborative project, and when consensus is against us, we have to accept that, however much we dislike doing so.  Once the block has expired, you are welcome to [[WP:Five pillars|make useful contributions]]. </div><div style="margin-left:45px">If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the [[WP:Guide to appealing blocks|guide to appealing blocks]], then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: <!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. --><code><nowiki>{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}</nowiki></code>. &nbsp;[[User:JBW|JBW]] ([[User talk:JBW|talk]]) 23:21, 13 December 2022 (UTC)</div></div><!-- Template:uw-block -->

{{unblock reviewed |1=The block IMHO misses to correctly evaluate the result of the move discussion to judge my behavior. The move request was denied not based on the question if Aramaic was a language family or not, but based on the grounds that Aramaic was considered a common name/precise enough. :To explain this reasoning see for example the following comments from the discussion: :*<q class="inline-quote-talk ">While I think the underlying point is sound, I don't think it necessitates that we change the title of the article. […] In my view, it'd be more helpful to discuss the language-vs-group status of Aramaic in the article body, while leaving the title as is. ModernDayTrilobite(talk • contribs) 19:37, 3 August 2022 (UTC)</q> :* <q class="inline-quote-talk ">Oppose per AjaxSmack, and per the fact that 'Aramaic' is very commonly used to refer to any of its variants. It would help though if the lead would sooner and more clearly specify that it's also a language family. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 10:17, 11 August 2022 (UTC)</q> :That’s what I did after the move was declined, adapt the lead/article, providing reliable sources. :On the other hand did you check the language and behavior of Syriac563 before you judged my vandalism report regarding him? Or is <q class="inline-quote-talk ">It is clear that you are an Assyrian nationalist</q> considered normal discussion language? Did you check related edit comments from him and IPs on the page? And comments from Syriac653 towards other editors regarding theses topics? :That‘s why I think the evaluation of me "long-term edit warring" is grossly misrepresenting the actual events/behavior, the block is therefore IMHO inappropriate. [[User:S.K.|S.K.]] ([[User talk:S.K.#top|talk]]) 00:08, 14 December 2022 (UTC) |decline = You are blocked for edit warring. Of course you think you are correct. Everyone thinks they are correct when they engage in edit warring. This is not relevant. [[User:Yamla|Yamla]] ([[User talk:Yamla|talk]]) 01:40, 14 December 2022 (UTC)}}

== Dan Palraz: Response to your comment at Talk:Aramaic  ==

@[[User:Dan Palraz|Dan Palraz]]: With the ridiculous block of JBW I can't at the moment and given this overall experience I don't want to contribute to the English Wikipedia anymore.

Just one last response regarding [[Special:Diff/1127757757|your comment]]: There are a two reliable sources accepted by at least three of the six participants of the move discussion from what seems to be one of the most respected Aramaists in the world (look at the book description at the publisher etc. and search for him in Wikipedia and be surprised that articles of him are cited in many of the articles in this language family) and two other evenly well respected researchers on language classification cited by a renowned research institute as the basis for [https://glottolog.org/resource/languoid/id/aram1259 their classification of Aramaic as language family].

So assuming for the moment there is a "language family" "Aramaic" what should that be besides that what is currently described in the article Aramaic? The current article describes all historic and current varieties. And yes, which of those varieties are considered languages and which are considered dialects based on which definition of language is open for discussion. That's why I put in the Cleanup template. But this needs to be resolved IN THIS article, as I see no place for two articles. They would describe the same thing, only under different titles.

BTW: One last word regarding the wording "language family": The German Wikipedia distinguishes between "language family" and "[[:de:Genetische Einheit]]". The English Wikipedia uses the same word for both concepts. That's why I used "sub-group of the Semitic languages" to describe the concept, where in German I would have used "Genetische Einheit". [[User:S.K.|S.K.]] ([[User talk:S.K.#top|talk]]) 16:05, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

:I’m glad @[[User:Austronesier|Austronesier]] sees it (with different words and a nice name) [[Special:Diff/1127809521|the same]]. [[User:S.K.|S.K.]] ([[User talk:S.K.#top|talk]]) 09:03, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
::You might have you missed the most important part of my comment: the word "moot". Linguistic diversity is ''never'' adequately captured by taxomomic structures. Atomizing dialect chains into ISO-coded languages is a choice made by certain organizations, but not the ultimate guide for Wikipedia. We have had similar discussions for Ainu, Nivkh, Berber, Chinese etc. and in each case, there are other arguments at play than just linguistic distance measured by Swadesh counts and mutual intelligibility.
::Btw, this block leaves me totally bewildered. While I agree that there should also be a point to [[Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass|slowly leave the dead horse]], I don't see any egregious violation in your few comments in [[Talk:Aramaic]] and the (utterly annoying) hatnote[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1126656820&oldid=1126625838&title=Aramaic]. By this austere standard, I could list dozens of blockables in a minute (you know, the very ones that always prove to be miraculously unblockable when brought to ANI). –[[User:Austronesier|Austronesier]] ([[User talk:Austronesier|talk]]) 21:52, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
:::Thanks for your comment. I did see the word “moot” in your comment. And I understand your point. Those classifications into languages and ISO codes have multiple factors beyond pure linguistic ones. Just in the last days I was involved in a discussions around [[Serbo-Croatian]] vs. the individual “languages” in the German Wikipedia. There are many sociolinguistic/political/… etc. aspects involved besides “core” linguistic points like e.g. mutual intelligibility. But my main point was, the set of varieties described in the article Aramaic is labeled in the most modern RS provided as “language family” or “a historical-linguistic abstraction”. So the current scholary opinion based on those sources seems to be that the set of varieties over all times is more than a single individual language, it’s better described as “language family” (or depending on the definition of language family as “Genetische Einheit”). It might well be that saying those 7 varieties are "languages", those 3 are "dialects” and the remaining 5 are "registers” is moot as you say. But for this one would have to read the complete articles/books cited to understand the arguments how they arrive at the conclusion that overall Aramaic is more than a single language. And describe this in the article (this is what the hatnote was about).
:::Regarding the block: it might have been that my main “crime” was listing Syriac563s behavior as [[Special:Diff/1127291535|vandalism]]. But instead of throwing it back as “boomerang” one could have looked at the contributions of Syriac563 not only related to me and the article Aramaic. And one could have taken into account some IPs mysteriously having related opinions and wording in similar articles. But no, better block an 18 year contributor with (including Wikidata) over 230.000 edits that cites sources and expects the same from those having different viewpoints without previous warning for one month. Better protect an innocent accounts right to label me and others as {{tq|Assyrian nationalist}}. [[User:S.K.|S.K.]] ([[User talk:S.K.#top|talk]]) 05:21, 20 December 2022 (UTC)