User talk:Kwamikagami: Difference between revisions

Word/quotation of the moment:

Astrology has no effect on reality, so why should reality have any effect on astrology? – J.S. Stenzel, commenting on astrological planets that astrologers acknowledge don’t really exist

Do you think the liberals are using these school shootings to further their anti-tragedy agenda? — Col. Erran Morad, Who Is America?, s01e01 yod-dropper — (when you need something that sounds like an insult)[1] ALL keys matter — response to the scale-wandering rendition of the national anthem at CPAC 2021 The Lunatic-in-Charge becomes the Lunatic-at-Large Lame duck à l’orange (AKA canard à l’orange) It is a mortifying circumstance, which greatly perplexes many a painstaking philosopher, that nature often refuses to second his most profound and elaborate efforts; so that often after having invented one of the most ingenious and natural theories imaginable, she will have the perverseness to act directly in the teeth of his system, and flatly contradict his most favorite positions. This is a manifest and unmerited grievance, since it throws the censure of the vulgar and unlearned entirely upon the philosopher; whereas the fault is not to be ascribed to his theory, which is unquestionably correct, but to the waywardness of Dame Nature, who, with the proverbial fickleness of her sex, is continually indulging in coquetries and caprices, and seems really to take pleasure in violating all philosophic rules, and jilting the most learned and indefatigable of her adorers. […] The philosophers took this in very ill part, and it is thought they would never have pardoned the slight and affront which they conceived put upon them by the world had not a good-natured professor kindly officiated as a mediator between the parties, and effected a reconciliation. Finding the world would not accommodate itself to the theory, he wisely determined to accommodate the theory to the world. Pela primeira vez na sua vida a morte soube o que era ter um cão no regaço. For the first time in her life, death knew what it felt like to have a dog in her lap. It is now generally accepted that the megaliths that make up Stonehenge were moved by human effort. — as opposed to by what? Anybody who says you only have yourself to blame is just not very good at blaming other people. When poppies pull themselves up from their roots and start out, one after the other, toward the sunset – don’t follow them. And the dough-headed took their acid fermentation for a soul, the stabbing of meat for history, the means of postponing their decay for civilization. The Church says that the Earth is Flat, but I know that it is Round, for I have seen its Shadow on the Moon, and I have more Faith in a Shadow than in the Church. — (commonly misattributed to Magellan) In the early years of the study there were more than 200 speakers of the dialect, including one parrot. Mikebrown is unusually eccentric and not very bright. […] Astronomers have not noticed any outbursts by Mikebrown. Ecce Mono Keep Redskins White! “homosapiens are people, too!!” a sprig of spaghetti “I’ve always had a horror of husbands-in-law.” awkwardnessful anti–zombie-fungus fungus “Only an evil person would eat baby soup.” (said in all sincerity)

Hi @Kwamikagami. I just want to express dissatisfaction with your earlier moving of the article titled Atyap to Tyap people, which technically does not represent our identity. Both in English and in the Tyap language, the word “Atyap” represents the people who speak the Tyap language. The construct of using “Tyap people” instead of “Atyap people” is a relatively new one, and I can tell you surely, it is unacceptable. This is the same situation as having Bajju people rendered as “Jju people”. In as much as it is acceptable in the English language to render them so, the native speakers of those languages also speak English but prefer them to stay as they appear when written in the native language (the only exception being the underscore diacritic below the “A” for Atyap and “a” for Bajju). Thanks and warm regards, Kambai Akau (talk) 13:35, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

hello Kambai,

this is a matter of accessibility.

Wikipedia isn’t just targeted to those who know the people and language, but also to those who don’t. as such, our convention is to use the same name for both the people and language whenever possible. this is especially an issue with benue-congo languages, where following the gender inflections of the language would double the number of unfamiliar names that people would have to recognize. you can see this in operation with the bantu peoples and languages, where for example we have ‘swahili people’ and ‘swahili language’, not ‘waswahili’ and ‘kiswahili’. similarly with hundreds of others.

and yes, it should be ‘jju people’. — kwami (talk) 19:59, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Kwamikagami. I respectfully disagree with you on this. We have a situation where people say what they want to be known as and expect others to respect their decision on the subject matter. Others do not care about what they are called because they are okay with the names they are called in different languages. The Atyap people don’t want to be known as Tyap people, same as the Bajju people, not as the Jju people. If Tyap or Jju were the official languages used in Nigeria, perhaps the people wouldn’t care much about what they are called in English. But English is the official language used in Nigeria, and the names for the people are rendered as “Atyap” and “Bajju”, not “Tyap” and “Jju”. The latter is reserved for their languages, not their ethnicity. Of course, I understand the situation with Benue-Congo languages and their noun class systems, but there are exceptions. If the Swahili people insist that their ethnicity be known as “Waswahili” in English language publications tomorrow, I think the world would respect that. Already, there are several software companies rendering their language as “Kiswahili”, not just “Swahili”, just as “Lingala” is not just “Ngala”, and Kinyarwanda/Ikinyarwanda, not just “Rwanda”. I understand your point of view as well, and it is linguistically valid. However, I will end this conversation by appealing that Tyap people be reverted to “Atyap” or “Atyap people”, as a way of respecting our view as well, in the matter and our official usage in Nigeria. Thanks and warm regards, Kambai Akau (talk) 11:51, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

do you have something other than personal testimony? because we often find that people contradict each other in that regard.

also, in the lead of the article we have both forms in bold typeface — kwami (talk) 18:23, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Thus far, I have been able to discover that R. Köppe‘s (c. 1998) and Prof. John Edward Philips‘s usage here (c. 2000) of the word “Tyap people”, are among the earliest online, and some other writers only tend to quote the usage of the term. Places online to find the usage of the word “Atyap” include this play written by Prof. Kyuka Lilymjok (with a clear distinction between “Tyap” and “Atyap people” made on page 89), page 100 of this work, here, here, here, here, Prof. Philips’ later usage of “Atyap” (in 2006) instead of “Tyap people” (in 2000) here, here, and the countless publications in the Nigerian newspapers and books like this one. I don’t know if what I have pointed out convinces. But if these don’t, I don’t know what more to say. Thanks and warm regards, Kambai Akau (talk) 21:11, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve initiated a formal discussion for moving the page back to Atyap at Talk:Tyap people#Requested move 25 September 2025. The process is biased towards the earlier, long-standing name: If no consensus is found, the article title will revert to the earlier title. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 00:23, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, @Jähmefyysikko. Kambai Akau (talk) 12:43, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Kwamikagami, thanks for bringing NATO phonetic alphabet to WP:RFPP. The edit wars over this stuff is very silly and been going on for too long. Dr vulpes (Talk) 05:18, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Moons of Jupiter for featured list removal. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to “Keep” or “Delist” the article’s featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. 🇪🇭🇵🇸🇸🇩 Easternsahara 🇪🇭🇵🇸🇸🇩 04:38, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A couple months ago you edited a bunch of possible dwarf planet articles to include the term “planetoid” in the lede. That term isn’t used by researchers in the literature (see search results for Salacia AND “planetoid” vs Salacia AND “dwarf planet”), and that term is never mentioned again after the WP article’s lede. I’ve removed all mentions of “planetoid” in these articles—as I’ll have to remind you that Wikipedia is not a place for neologisms. Nrco0e (talk • contribs) 16:30, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

“planetoid” is hardly a neologism – it dates from the early 19th century

there are also even more hits for ‘salacia AND asteroid’, so by your criteria we should call it an asteroid rather than a DP — kwami (talk) 17:30, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But it’s no longer widely used among scientists today. If scientists don’t use it, we shouldn’t use it either. See the discussion at User talk:Nrco0e#The reason why I referred Salacia as a trans-Neptunian-planetoid Nrco0e (talk • contribs) 17:36, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

yes, that’s a valid argument – ‘neologism’ for a term over 200 years old is not — kwami (talk) 17:53, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They are once again being extremely disruptive and edit warring at Voiced bilabial fricative. I gave them a fourth warning just now, though all four have been issued in the last week. I presume it has reached the point of reporting their activity to WP:ANI, but I would like a third party opinion, and perhaps some pointers in what should be included in such a report. ~ oklopfer (💬) 18:02, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

why are we adding sections for nasalized consonants again — kwami (talk) 07:09, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

at this point mainly to appease and deter from further engaging in creation of nonsense pages and edit warring. I have been trying to nudge them towards being a more positive contributor and trying to take their findings seriously by correcting the citations and providing any examples if they are actually given. that being said, I have no objections to the merging upwards of the nasalized bilabial fricative with the rest of the occurrences (and have now done so). (See also User talk:BodhiHarp#Voiced bilabial nasal fricative moved to draft space, where they were originally creating a combined page with this sound and a nareal fricative due to the similar terms “bilabial nasal fricative”)

As for the other nasalized consonants with sections, the ones of question would be the taps ɾ̃ & ɽ̃, which probably do warrant their own, and the approximants j̃ w̃ h̃ ɦ̃ which had their own individual pages until I merged them last week into just sections. ~ oklopfer (💬) 08:17, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]