User talk:Futhark

please support our Yiddish wikipdia by visiting and vote to put up user statistics there. thanks--71.247.152.36 13:23, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Þökk fyrir. Evertype 19:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi There! Can you translate my name in what language you know please, and then post it Here. I would be very grateful if you do (if you know another language apart from English and the ones on my userpage please feel free to post it on) P.S. all th translations are in alpahbetical order so when you add one please put it in alpahbetical order according to the language. Thanks!!! Abdullah Geelah 18:31, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kudos for vastly improving the Klezmer-loshn article, which I wrote most of a while ago :) Dan Carkner 20:12, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It turns out I'm booked elsewhere on October 13-14, so if possible October 20 would be my preferred date for a meeting. --LA2 07:58, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you are able to get access to an appropiate meeting place, it would be convenient to have date and place published on the page set up for Wikipedia:Sverige. Wanpe 14:52, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I lived in Israel for several years. Whenever people spoke about the Yiddish language, they called it Iddish. Erudil 18:25, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't define the full scope of Israeli usage but is, in any case, entirely consistent with the initial sentence in the Yiddish language article, which clearly declares the pronunciation idish. Why does it need to be restated in the section about Israel? --Futhark|Talk 18:36, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for getting the message to me. I've left a message on his/her talk page concerning the content he's been trying to create. In any case, I applaud you for not reverting after his revert, and for keeping your cool throughout the matter. I have my doubts concerning the notability of the subject material he's attempting to submit, and there may be a conflict of interest problem at hand. Nevertheless, try to work with him on the matter through discussion and feel free to inform me if problems arise. Best regards, Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 09:23, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just left a note about this on his talk page. Thank you for your assistance. ----Futhark|Talk 09:38, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the contact (I think I am doing this correctly). I was in contact with another admin about this.

The list of museum's is for catagory museums. We do not fit into the other catagories, and hence we are trying to establish our own.

We are a sponsored LEGO(r) museum, and we are the only one so far!!! The list of museum's on there are specific for the museum's listed, not generic catagory listings (aka: hall of fame, another unique museum). I undid your removal of our museum, but as with the other admin would love to find "where we fit" in the mix.

Thanks for any help. We are not a big wikipedia user, but since we are in the Guinness Book of World Records, and we are establishing a new era of "building base" museum (not only toy bricks, but other building based tourism attractions as well), I would love to come up with an appropriate catagory for the museum, and keep within your guidelines for it.

Thanks

Dan —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clarity2199 (talk • contribs) 11:27, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The original Yiddish is visible, but “plainly” is debatable… (for example, waw can look like resh to a goy… ;) Also, I guess my thinking was that machine agents (bots, Google) + blind users can read the Unicode, but not so much the image (which doesn’t have the title on the description page, either… Maybe I’ll add it there; yeah, that’s the ticket…) In addition, it’s transcribed as Jidische, and yet uses a different orthography than the אידישע and ייִדישע provided at the head of the article. —Wiki Wikardo 18:33, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The spelling Jidische is the one used in the original publication, and appears directly in the image. This trumps any transliteration rules that might otherwise be applied. --Futhark|Talk 19:09, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, no… I’m just saying it’s a curiosity to see יודיש after the article starts out talking about ייִדיש and אידיש. Nothing to do with the Roman alphabet. —Wiki Wikardo 19:35, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the WP article had been written in 1917, the lead paragraph likely would have included the variant יודיש. At that date, the YIVO orthographic rules were still a long way from being codified, and their romanization rules were further away, still. I'm not at all convinced that your yivo-ish transliteration is appropriate to the description on the image page. The publisher provided the title in both Yiddish and Roman form, and it is counter to established practice of bibliographic control to normalize either --Futhark|Talk 20:17, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have time to peek at Malaysia–Sweden relations, a little help finding sources would help. I see you have edited in the article on Sweden. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 13:29, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Birebidzshan.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. +Angr 09:57, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Although the article you started entitled A language is a dialect with an army and navy is interesting, portions of the article suggest a possible lack of familiarity with Wikipedia policy on speculation and original research. Out of respect for your substantial contribution to the article, I didn't want to go in hacking out unverified/unverifiable material until you'd had a chance to familiar yourself with the policies and make appropriate edits as you see fit. However, any editor may legitimately remove speculation and OR. See also my comment on Talk:A language is a dialect with an army and navy. - Regards, PhilipR (talk) 07:55, 7 January 2010 (UTC) - edited for grammar[reply]

OK, well, I agree that the topic headings were making your text look more speculative than intended, but I appreciate you editing it a bit. Just wanted to bring these issues to your attention. Cheers, PhilipR (talk) 20:41, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please explain the POV that prompted you to revert this here?--Shmaltz (talk) 05:02, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A letter sent to a newspaper expressing an opinion is a POV statement, as is a non-editorial response from "someone" at the newspaper's office. If you wish to ascribe encyclopedic significance to the personal statements of those two anonymous individuals, you will need to support it by some means other than referencing user talk pages. --Futhark|Talk 09:15, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

While I cant disagree technically on the first point of yours about a letter sent to a newspaper. I do disagree with your last statement. The references to the user talk pages were there to show who made the edits, which is totally acceptable and has been done on WP as a reference more than once. You obviously have other reasons than ascribing encyclopedic significance.--Shmaltz (talk) 15:15, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:CIRCULAR posts on the Wikipedia should not be used as sources. The two references you made to user talk pages were inappropriate on that ground alone. --Futhark|Talk 19:46, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I started this conversation here, please keep it here.--Shmaltz (talk) 15:15, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is common practice to reply to a question left on someone's talk page, on the talk page of the person who posed the question. If that bothers you, I'm perfectly content to continue the discussion here. --Futhark|Talk 19:46, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Who exactly are you fooling? It is common practice to reply to a question left on someone's talk page, on the talk page of the person who posed the question. If it's so common, then why is this the first one on your talk page I can find that you handled like that?--Shmaltz (talk) 22:07, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I was looking thru your contribs, thanks for your real nice and good work :) .--Shmaltz (talk) 23:33, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! --Futhark|Talk 08:45, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Der Blatt.png. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk 03:01, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Futhark. An IP editor is on the loose and is changing the article back to "28 letters". I have it on my WL and will cover it. Assuming you are Swedish or at least speak and write the language, would you take care of the Swedish language version of the article? The same IP makes similar edits there. I understand Swedish very well, but I would have a hard time writing a meaningful sentence in perfect Swedish, so rollback on the Swedish language version of the article and comments on its talk page would be done with greater impact by somebody else. Thanks. MarB4 •ɯɒɹ• 10:49, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take care of it on the Swedish side.--Futhark|Talk 11:13, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hejsan once again. Did you consider, if that clarification (my version) actually could serve to eliminate or just make the amount of the dispute less? The average reader does likely seldom read the refs. Thanks. MarB4 •ɯɒɹ• 21:06, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me for my denseness, but I don't understand the last bit of your edit summary in an edit of Yiddish language: "It's not Swedish nor was the correction now reverted." What's not Swedish? I mentioned Yiddish, not Swedish, in my edit summary right before. What correction are you talking about? Do you mean my edit that I intended as a correction, which you reverted? But then the correction was reverted by you.

Sorry for bothering you, since I'm sure your edit summary makes obvious sense somehow, but it isn't coming through to me. — Eru·tuon 14:58, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When a Yiddish publication provides a romanized form of its own title, it is that form that is used in a context such as the one that you edited. If a normalized transliteration is added to this, Wikipedia articles use the YIVO transliteration rules. These do not use the germanified 'sch' at all, so the transliteration would be 'folksshtime' not 'folksschtime'. What's Swedish about it is that it's a Swedish publication and its romanization follows the practice of that country at that time — as given in the banner itself. --Futhark|Talk 15:55, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I have just seen it. It's pretty tiny, you must admit. --Redaktor (talk) 17:32, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comment on Moyshe/Moishe in the discussion of Yiddish Literature. While the origin of Moyshe is semetic, in my limited understanding, YIVO does deal with moyshe as a modern first name, and prefers "Moyshe". More important: What is your understanding of the best transliteration of this name and why?

The article on Moishe Nadir is in the English language and the translated work of his that it cites (together with any others that could be added to it) was published using the anglicized form, Moishe. Established bibliographic practice dictates the retention of that form regardless of any discussion that might attach to the transcription of Hebrew proper names in running Yiddish text transliterated according to YIVO rules. The shuffling back and forth between Moyshe and Moishe in the article's heading serves no useful purpose (although Nadir, himself, would likely find it mirthful). --Futhark|Talk 21:37, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Futhark, do you know the Hebrew alphabet? In the word פאלקסשטימע there is a samekh an then a shin, the transliteration of samekh is "s", the transliteration of shin is "sh", therefore it is folks-shtime, there is no letter one would transliterate with a "c" in English in the word פאלקסשטימע. In German the transliteration would be folks-schtime, with "sch" for shin, but this is an English article, and if one would transliterate it in the German way, there should be two "s" anyway. Take a look at these two articles: samekh and shin. Metron (talk) 12:09, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've responded on the article talk page. --Futhark|Talk 13:07, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to report that there were not enough accounts available for you to have one. I have you on our list though and if more become available we will notify you promptly.

We're continually working to bring resources like Credo to Wikipedia editors, and this will very hopefully not be your last opportunity to sign up for one. If you haven't already, please check out WP:HighBeam and WP:Questia, where accounts are still available. Cheers, Ocaasi 19:12, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the mistake on the legitimate name. It did not appear to me to line up with what was already in the article. Also, it came from an IP user address with a history of vandalism. In retrospect, I should have left it alone as a possible good faith edit, even if I had doubts. I put a brief word of apology in an edit to a blank edit in the article. I had not placed a vandalism warning on a talk page. Donner60 (talk) 07:41, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Yiddish_language#Yiddish_is_a_pidgin

Evildoer187 (talk) 08:31, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi :-) Due to the fact I saw you interested in the topic, I thought you might want to take part in it.

There is a discussion on the Talk:Ashkenazi Jews regarding should Sholem Aleichem and Mikhail Botvinnik be in the collage or not. The discussion is called "Ones and for all, should Sholem Aleichem and Mikhail Botvinnik be in the collage".

Please take part in the vote and state your opinion on the topic. Thank you! 90.196.60.197 (talk) 15:52, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can only assume that was a mistake? — MusikAnimal ^talk 20:57, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea why I was being shown the page prior to your edit. In the belief that I was reverting the vandalized form, indeed, I ended up restoring it. Sorry. --Futhark|Talk 23:30, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

citation?

Dear "Futhark" My name is Alexander Maxwell, and I'm a historian at Victoria University in Wellington, New Zealand. I'm writing a scholarly article (not a wikpedia article) on the witticism "a language is a dialect with an army and a navy." A major theme so far is the evident inability of linguists to cite the witticism correctly. It is pretty absurd, really: I found two yiddish experts in Israel who complained about the inaccurate citations, but themselves gave the yiddish incorrectly: they backtranslated "language" to "loshn" instead of "shprakh", it's amazing. For this research, I've been checking the history of the wikipedia page (which is accurate, much more than linguistics textbooks). I'm not an experienced wikipedian, but if I understand correctly, you're the original author. So, good work. Anyway, I'm writing to ask if you would kindly tell me your name / affiliation / etc. for purposes of my article. It feels awkward to me to cite "futhark". If you prefer to not post personal information on wikipedia, that's fine, feel free to email me at my university account, which is easily obtainable by searching on google for my name + victoria university. If you don't want to share your name, sorry to bother you. best wishes, Alexander Alexander-m-maxwell (talk) 03:57, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the kind words and trophy! I'll contact you via the WP e-mail forwarding facility. --Futhark|Talk 08:03, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide a policy that says that |agency= must be a "mandatory or recognized de facto" body. That information is useful, and as far as I can tell not getting in anyone's way. At worst tag with "(advisory)" or some such tag. StevenJ81 (talk) 13:01, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I believe you're mistaken. Without the pasekh under the two yudn, the word would rhyme with Kate, not kite. Unfortunately Google doesn't seem to be sensitive to niqqud. I know it's not a reliable source, but see the table at Yiddish orthography#The Yiddish alphabet and compare יי (tsvey yudn) to ײַ (pasekh tsvey yudn). Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:36, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Weinreich and Niborski dictionaries both list it with an unpointed יי. There is no uniform pronunciation (the utility of YIVO transliteration notwithstanding) but I had assumed that YIVO is also the primary lexicographic authority for Yiddish text in the WP. --Futhark|Talk 06:50, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies. I don't have a Yiddish dictionary (except an 1898 Harkavy that was already ancient when my grandfather acquired it), so I made the mistake of trying to spell out the pronunciation I have heard. If dictionaries agree about the spelling, I agree that we should use their spelling. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:20, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing to apologize for. In fact, Harkavy does spell it with a pasekh — but his orthography was one of the very things YIVO was trying to standardize past. --Futhark|Talk 07:24, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Futhark. Thank you for looking this over. However, I do not follow your explanation for the revert of my edit. I understand your point about this being the lede, so that a reference won't always be necessary. But I didn't add a new reference there – I only filled it out the details of the existing ref. It was lacking the author and title, and it contained a quotation taken out of context – I added the author and title, and context for the quote (one could just drop the quote if it's really the wordiness of the note you were objecting to). Although you said in your comment that the reference is a duplicate (I don't think it is – if I missed it, could you tell me where this citation occurs elsewhere?), you didn't remove it, but only reverted the improvement I had made to it. The reference remains in the lede but now it is once again lacking author and title ("University of Manchester" is not the title but just the website on which the document is published) – the source is not properly documented. Thanks again, Lutzv (talk) 02:41, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored the questioned edit and apologize for the inconvenience. The core substantive issue is that the term ייִדיש-טײַטש (yidish-taitsh) is a recent analytical construct and not attested in any of the sources that the article presents as "early." I reacted tacitly to the edit that initially made it seem so but didn't intervene. Matres's assertion that Judeo-German was the common form of self-reference until the language was established in the Slavic region needs substantiation, itself.Futhark|Talk 07:06, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Futhark,

I am just inquiring regarding the "undo" edit you made regarding an added citation within the Safety Razor page.

I have been trying to contribute by adding references to where citations are needed. I have been focusing on the topic of wet shaving as this is one of my hobbies and I am following many people and websites in the wet shaving community.

I admit I am still learning but wanted to ask why my latest resource addition was removed and present to you my rationale:

I noted that your comment was "a commercial interview is not a reliable source"

I do recognize that even though the questions do not appear to be commercially motivated and there is no disclosure that this interview was commercial (i.e. sponsored post), I do agree that the responses provided are promotionally bent and thus the integrity of and endorsements should be put into question.

However, the statement that the citation was added to support, "Often different models of razors within a brand share the same razor-head designs, differing primarily in the color, length, texture, material(s), and weight of the handles." is strictly a factual statement that a response from the interview with a leading manufacturer of safety razors.

There is no reason to believe the related response provided within the interview regarding this topic would not be factual (i.e. the accuracy of the information would be questioned) even if the interview was commercially motivated or not.

In other words, the integrity of the specific statement for which the citation was added is clearly not hindered from a commercial motivation and the source is from a leading manufacturer of safety razors. Thus, this is a valid citation for this particular instance.

I hope based on this rationale, you would be willing to reconsider the citation edit.

By the way, I am really enjoying contributing, including the process of defending my contributions. ;)

Best Regards, TylerRead005 (talk) 19:44, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad that you're enjoying all aspects of being a Wikipedian! The rules for identifying reliable sources are described in WP:RS. These basically disallow colloquial discussions found only on the Web. If the participants in such a discussion are addressing matters in which they have a commercial interest, citation is even less permissible. It doesn't matter how objective the statement itself appears to be, it's the reliability of the venue where it is found that counts. Hope this helps. --Futhark|Talk 07:11, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Futhark,

I want why you remove my citation. I have been trying to contribute by adding references to where citations are needed. There is an article which I mentioned.

I noted that your comment was "rv link to commercial site".

I don't know why you remove but there was an informative article which I was mention. It was not for promotional.

I hope you understand my point. Please reconsider my citation edit.

I really want to contribute.

Thank you

I appreciate your interest in productive contribution to the Wikipedia and am not questioning your intentions. The reverted links were all to one and the same commercial website. Such sources are neither objective nor reliable. The information you are calling attention to is also found in sources that are fully compliant with the policies described in WP:RS. Futhark|Talk 09:06, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]