User talk:Arban Blandi

Welcome
— JohnC5 20:33, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Sources, families, etc.
Pinging for reference. Thank you for taking an interest in Wiktionary and in Proto-Indo-European particularly. I would ask that you pause your editing to read more about our WT:Layout, about Proto-Indo-European, and about WT:Citation. Your edits are not correctly formatted, use language groupings that we do not recognize as proven within the Indo-European family, and list terms in unattested languages. Please read these pages carefully and ask any questions you have before continuing. Otherwise I will have to keep reverting your edits. I'm happy that you want to contribute to this project, but currently your additions are counterproductive. — JohnC5 20:38, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. I use only academic references in every entry and I will add more references. You have to update your classification. Ligurian, Lusitanian and Ancient Belgian are Indo-European languages from the same branch of Italo-Celtic. Dacian and Thracian are, like Old Prussian and Lithuanian, two branches from the same Daco-Thracian subgroup. Phrygic languages from the same subgroup with Phrygian proper are Paeonian, Mysian, etc.


 * Arban, you need to listen to what John is telling you. The entry sabaia is a mess, but I'm not exactly sure how it should be cleaned up best. Ill-formatted Illyrian brings back bad memories... —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 23:53, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Ancient Belgian is highly theoretical, not directly attested, and lacks even a language code on Wiktionary or from ISO. No one has believe in Daco-Thracian since the 1950's, and certainly does not contain Old Prussian or Lithuanian, which are Balto-Slavic. Paeonian and Mysian, if together, are more likely members of Anatolian, of which Phrygian is not a member. Italo-Celtic is the closest you've come to being right, but that is still speculative. Please list which sources do you use? Also,, while potentially borrowed from Illyrian, is mentioned in a Latin text, has an adjective derived from Latin, , and so would be considered a Latin word, not Illyrian.
 * None of this, however, forgives how very ill-formatted you entries are. Even if they are accurate, I still have to revert them or completely rewrite them because of bad formatting. — JohnC5 05:27, 6 May 2017 (UTC)/
 * Thanks, John. I feel like I brought this up before, but we really ought to make Illyrian an etymology-only language to prevent lemmas from being created., any opposition to me doing that? —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 05:47, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I have no qualms with that. — JohnC5 05:59, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Arban, please slow down and consider your additions more carefully. For instance, Phrygian and Messapic are not written in the Latin alphabet. If you don't slow down, I'm going to have to take stronger action. — JohnC5 18:13, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Arban, Messapic is written in its own script derived from the Ionic Greek alphabet. That script is not in Unicode. You can't do this. --Vahag (talk) 08:13, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Arban, if a word is mentioned in a different language (e.g. Latin, Greek, random place names), then it does not constitute a usage in the original language. Unless you are adding one of the handful of names on the one known Dacian inscription, then it is not a Dacian word. A word may have come through Dacian, Illyrian, or Paeonian, but must be reconstructed. You cannot make entries for them in the mainspace. Also, "Hayasan" is not a recognized language on Wiktionary. — JohnC5 15:54, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Removing rfc / rfd / rfv templates
Doing so on your own entry is a very bad idea and might be construed as trying to get around the rules, in which case you might very well be blocked. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:50, 9 May 2017 (UTC)