User talk:Lhokymaes

--Vahag (talk) 18:05, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Formatting errors
Why are you referencing the Etymological Dictionary of the Altaic Languages for Caucasian etymologies? PS. Please slow down and read our formatting conventions in the links I posted above and look at other proto-entries before you proceed. You are making too many mistakes. --Vahag (talk) 18:13, 21 February 2016 (UTC)


 * because I didnt find one for Caucasian etymologies. would you create one for such purpose please?


 * It's . --Vahag (talk) 20:05, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

берг
The Chechen you had so boldly created is attested only in the compound. It cannot have an entry in the main namespace. --Vahag (talk) 18:24, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * ok, move it to then.
 * I don't want to bother. You shouldn't create entries in languages you are not familiar with. --Vahag (talk) 20:05, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

*bHV̆rgĂ
I have deleted your Proto-North-Caucasian entry, because you copied it in whole from Nikolayev, Starostin. That is a copyright violation. You also made a lot of formatting mistakes. --Vahag (talk) 18:27, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * ok, then delete only the so called "copyright violation", not the whole entry please!
 * All of it was a copyright violation. Don't simply copy from the Tower of Babel. --Vahag (talk) 20:05, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I have restored the entry. Please work on it. --Vahag (talk) 17:50, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Etruscus
Again, a fringe theory is a fringe theory; therefore "less plausible" is completely valid. S URJECTION ·talk·contr·log· 11:27, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Exactly because of this reason I deleted this unsourced fringe theory.--Lhokymaes (talk) 22:35, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The "less plausible" part precisely shows that the theories connecting the term to Turkic or Celtic terms are fringe theories, because they are. S URJECTION ·talk·contr·log· 22:37, 18 October 2018 (UTC)