Silesian inheritence of dom edit

dōm can pretty easily come from Old Polish - there was some wavering if the vowel was long or short depending on the dialect, as can be seen also in Middle Polish - Silesian inherited the long vowel variation and Modern Polish the short, as Modern Polish didn't lengthen as much before liquids. Vininn126 (talk) 11:02, 2 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Vininn126: Firstly, Silesian does not come from Old Polish. Secondly, I have not seen a vote in which it would be decided that this is not the case or vice versa. Thirdly, I think that you did it arbitrarily abusing privileges, but I may be wrong. ɶLerman (talk) 12:01, 2 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There was a beer parlour discussion in which I point to many different regular sound changes, and there was general consensus to do so, and other regular Slavic editors incluing KamiruPL and Zombear seem to show agreement by listing Old Polish inheritance in entries. If you look at CAT:Silesian terms inherited from Old Polish you'll very clear inheritance, as opposed to it being Czechoslovak. Finally, please WT:Assume good faith. Vininn126 (talk) 12:04, 2 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Finally, the discussion was mentioned in the change diff, so it's all been documented. Vininn126 (talk) 12:21, 2 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Vininn126: Too little material was presented in this discussion, and I also still disagree with Zombear about the origin of Ukrainian and Belarusian from Ruthenian. So it's all questionable. I didn't say anything about Czechoslovak at all. Finally, I follow this. ɶLerman (talk) 12:51, 2 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well you have the right to your opinion, but there's still an overwhelming number of editors who disagree with you. Vininn126 (talk) 12:53, 2 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Vininn126: Of course, but this imaginary overwhelming majority has no evidence of the existence of such language origins. I consider it pseudoscientific for 2023. ɶLerman (talk) 13:01, 2 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okay bud. How the inheritance of nasal vowels, Old Polish long vowels, and inheritance of Old Polish semantics and aorist is insufficient for you, as well as the numerous sources on Silesian language, I don't get. It has to be either Czechoslovakian or Old Polish, it's not its own branch, and the vast majority of sources and reflexes point to Old Polish. I'm sorry, but you've not provided any counterarguments, and I have provided numerous regular sound and grammatical correspondences and sources on Wikipedia, so at this point I'm going to ignore you. The fact you DIDN'T mention Czechoslovakian shows you haven't done much research on this. Vininn126 (talk) 13:06, 2 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Vininn126: Because this does not indicate that Silesian originated from Old Polish. Did I argue with sound and grammatical correspondences? No. Fortunately, I am not interested in pseudoscientific research. ɶLerman (talk) 13:22, 2 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You argued nothing - you made a claim with no proof. That is closer to the definition of pseudoscience that the proof I have presented. Do you hear yourself? Vininn126 (talk) 13:23, 2 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Vininn126: No, I just rejected your unsubstantiated claims of kinship. ɶLerman (talk) 13:36, 2 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, it still doesn't matter. You're the only dissenter, and don't go around removing it as not inherited. Vininn126 (talk) 13:38, 2 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Vininn126: Don't you dare threaten me. ɶLerman (talk) 13:40, 2 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I didn't, I made a request. Vininn126 (talk) 13:40, 2 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@ɶLerman Lol, just because you don't agree with some mainstream views doesn't mean they're up for debate. Anti-scientific conspiracy theories spread by kooks like you don't matter. Ukrainian and Belarusian both come from the Ruthenian dialect continuum, and Silesian and Polish come from Old Polish, they're sister languages, no matter what stupid conspiracy theory you come up with. Thank you for your attention. RainbowFlames (talk) 21:57, 7 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@RainbowFlames: It’s interesting to read you from the point of view of post-positivism, it looks like an anecdote :) 22:10, 7 October 2023 (UTC) ɶLerman (talk) 22:10, 7 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you don't know, I have always disliked the mainstream, quite recently I came across Feyerabend's work and saw in it the same behavior that I have always used. I was pleasantly surprised. That's why I don't agree with you. Haha. ɶLerman (talk) 22:16, 7 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
lol, disagreeing with the mainstream just to be edgy and different is just stupid. especially since the mainstream is statistically almost always right when the consensus is based on the scientific method of falsifiability. RainbowFlames (talk) 22:22, 7 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Feyerabend - ugh, anarchists are probably the dumbest group on Earth. Just ask them who would produce insulin and what would be the incentive to do so in their stateless and profitless society xd RainbowFlames (talk) 22:28, 7 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Finally, philosophy is for people who are too dumb to understand maths and physics (which are the only real sciences) but who still want to feel smart. The only philosophical theory that makes sense is logical positivism/physicalism cause it's basically equivalent to maths. People who believe in relativistic theories are just woke dullards who are too afraid to face the real world, sorry. RainbowFlames (talk) 22:36, 7 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@RainbowFlames: It's strange, but the teachers I know who teach philosophy of science understand both mathematics and physics well. Maybe you were taught wrong? ɶLerman (talk) 23:07, 7 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Anarchism is not the main thing. ɶLerman (talk) 23:10, 7 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@RainbowFlames: Yes, the most important thing is to call this method scientific and it will be scientific. ɶLerman (talk) 22:56, 7 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply] RainbowFlames (talk) 23:09, 7 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@RainbowFlames: By the way, I personally believe, and so far I have not seen such an idea from anyone, that Karl Popper picked up the idea of falsifiability from Vladimir Lenin. ɶLerman (talk) 23:21, 7 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Lenin was a fckng dumbass. "I have not seen such an idea from anyone" - HMM I WONDER WHY. oh wait, maybe because it makes no sense at all and is based on literally nothing??? RainbowFlames (talk) 23:23, 7 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@RainbowFlames: OMG, dumbass? Indirectly there is. By the way, I know that Karl Popper participated in the translations of Lenin into German. ɶLerman (talk) 23:45, 7 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

POG edit

A dictionary is cited by its headword. In {{R:cau:NCED}}, the Proto-North Caucasian reconstruction is the headword, not the Proto-Nakh reconstruction. See an example. Therefore, you should put the Proto-North Caucasian reconstruction as the first parameter of {{R:cau:NCED}}. You should also add a URL, like this. Do you understand? Vahag (talk) 18:25, 7 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Vahagn Petrosyan: Hi. Yes, but there is no such language. Therefore, I refer to the PN corpus. ɶLerman (talk) 09:50, 8 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree that there is no such language, but this is about bibliography and scholarly citing practice, not about substance. You have to refer to that dictionary by "Proto-North Caucasian" reconstruction because that is how it is organized. Vahag (talk) 10:56, 8 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Vahagn Petrosyan: No, I don't owe anyone anything. And no one owes me anything. ɶLerman (talk) 11:37, 8 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@ɶLerman: You don’t do it for them, you do it for the truth, which you are committed to. Also, if you are explicit about the errors of others you appear even smarter than them and your proto-reconstructions are more outstanding. Fay Freak (talk) 16:12, 8 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Fay Freak: Hi. Have you listened to the field recordings? ɶLerman (talk) 13:30, 9 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@ɶLerman: Yes. I see no relation to the matter. Fay Freak (talk) 17:06, 9 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Fay Freak: Are you really interested in discussing his bureaucracy, I'm not. LOL ɶLerman (talk) 20:59, 9 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
NCED's reconstructions are unreliable; {{R:cau-nec:NDSG}} flatout calls its reconstructions incomprehensible. It's a good resource for actual cognate sets though. I believe that a good compromise is creating templates for each subfamily, i.e., {{R:cau-nkh:NCED}}. At the very least it must be done for Abkhazo-Adyghean so at least someone is saved from tinfoil hat reconstructions. კვარია (talk) 15:56, 10 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Guys, this is not about the reliability. You can't falsify bibliographic data when referring to a source. Link to NCED using their fake headwords, but don't rely on their reconstruction in the actual entry. Or, if you are squemish, don't type a headword in {{R:cau:NCED}} (first paramater or entry=) and link with url= to the subsection you want. But DON'T put Proto-Nakh *bɦoḳ́ as the headword because if I went to a library and opened the book at the supposed *bɦoḳ́ entry, I would not find anything. Do you all understand how dictionaries work? NCED is an actual, print dictionary. I have seen it and held it in my hands. Vahag (talk) 16:20, 10 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's what I said, it should be done automatically with a template. That's what templates are for. For other templates that could benefit from such division, see {{R:trk-pro:SDM}} which is misused in exactly the same way. კვარია (talk) 16:39, 10 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No new templates are needed. You can do like this. Vahag (talk) 16:43, 10 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is tedious, error-prone, and makes the link harder to notice. კვარია (talk) 16:51, 10 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
On further thought, the correct headword is obligatory. If there is no headword and the URL stops working how am I supposed to know which part you are referencing? A page number without a headword would work too, but you proles do not have the print edition. Vahag (talk) 16:52, 10 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So is this the final iteration? Oh boy, have you got yourself one big helicopter-mothering task monitoring all current and future use-cases of {{R:cau:NCED}} and {{R:trk-pro:SDM}}. კვარია (talk) 17:06, 10 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Or you can all create a new template for the subbranches of NCED's Starling database. {{R:cau:NCED}} is for the paper version: note the year 1994, place of publication and publisher. Vahag (talk) 18:10, 10 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Fay Freak: Hi. Oh, about the truth, I like the quote: “To defend such a theory, which to the best of your knowledge you consider to be true, against unfounded attacks and at tempts to corrupt it is not to imply that you are an enemy of all criticism.” I like criticism in the style of Alexander Vovin. I'm trying to use his “template.” However, because of this, the volume of work grows and not every magazine will publish it, well, let it not publish, it doesn't matter to me. ɶLerman (talk) 21:30, 14 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Marxism, cringe edit

Marx was at best a boring science fiction writer and at worst a lousy philosopher. The idiotic Marxist way of thinking is that material conditions determine one's outcomes, which is a very naive idea. Marx believed that once economic inequality was eliminated, people would be eternally happy and cooperative, and everyone would have the same chance to succeed in society. Too bad everyone always forgets that Das Kapital was published only 8 years after the publication of Darwin's On the Origin of Species, or Marxists simply ignore genetics and evolution and the fact that genes determine things like intelligence, propensity for violence, etc. But you can pretend that genes don't exist, it's your choice to be an anti-scientific conspiracy theorist; you're not much different from right-wing flat-earthers in your beliefs. Darwinian evolution and Marxism are incompatible because the latter is naive idealism. RainbowFlames (talk) 22:19, 7 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The most logical and ethical position today is to embrace social democracy (with slightly more socialist than capitalist elements) and reject such destabilising and radical ideologies as communism and anarcho-capitalism altogether. RainbowFlames (talk) 22:39, 7 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@RainbowFlames: Yes, I knew that Western and Russian anti-communists had similar thoughts. You didn't give me anything new, but thanks for the interesting comments :) ɶLerman (talk) 22:40, 7 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
bobs and vegana uprawa SEXXU RainbowFlames (talk) 22:43, 7 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@RainbowFlames: The most important thing is not to get angry when discussing such things xD ɶLerman (talk) 22:46, 7 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply] RainbowFlames (talk) 23:08, 7 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okay, I’m off to bed, it’s always been interesting to communicate with crazy people like you, I think you’re a genius. ɶLerman (talk) 23:25, 7 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply] RainbowFlames (talk) 23:31, 7 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]