Thiyopa

Hi Thiyopa! First of all: welcome to Wikipedia! It is a shame that you had to wait so long for a welcome :-). I see that you made some contributions to the Lakota language article. Are you a (near-)native speaker or advanced learner of the language? If so, you might be interested in joining a Lakota Wikipedia. It is currently still in its testing phase; its approval will depend on the amount of willing contributors it attracts. If you'd like to find out me, don't hesitate to bother me about it. Steinbach (talk) 17:06, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi Steinbach, thanks for the welcome. It took me almost a year to reply to it but I only now discovered this page. For some reason I am not receiving any e-mails about the pages I would like to watch or about anything else. And I am familiarizing myself with the Wikipedia tools and structure only very gradually.

Yes, I am a fluent speaker of Lakota. I don't believe, however, that it is a good idea to start a Lakota Wikipedia now. The language is currently under the process of standardization, teachers are being trained in writing the language consistently and it will probably take a few more years before there are enough people who can produce texts with a level of consistency in spelling and grammar. Almost all fluent speakers today have a hard time reading and writing the langauge and there are not many who can write it phonemically at all. I personally am active on the Lakota Language Forum (http://lakotadictionary.org/forums/) where many people participate in learning and I think that for a time being that is the place where Lakota texts should be produced. Thiyopa (talk) 15:40, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Spelling corrections on Lakota language

Thank you for correcting the spelling errors on Lakota language. I had a feeling that there were problems with the nasals, but had never bothered to check. (I don't speak Lakota, though I have studied it). Cnilep (talk) 19:46, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Glad to help when I can. Thiyopa (talk) 15:40, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Did you mean Slovene?

I removed you're mention of Czech as a language which has been succesfully revitalized because as far as I know Czech has never been either endangered or subject to revitalization efforts. However thinking about it I came to think that you might have meant Slovene which was supressed after WWII and achieved new momentum when Slovenia became a nation in 1991. I still don't think the Slovene case is comparable to the Hebrew one since Hebrew was essentially a dead language being returned to life but slovene fits the case of a succesfully revitalized language much better than Czech.·Maunus·ƛ· 12:56, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I did mean Czech. Even though the situation of the Czech Language was not as bad as it is some of the indigenous languages today, there were quite a few similarities. The Czech language revival is mentioned even on Wikipedia (see: Czech National Revival: Czech National Revival was a cultural movement, which took part in the Czech lands during the 18th and 19th century. The purpose of this movement was to revive Czech language, culture and national identity.)

Although the language was still spoken by a considerable number of people during the revival it is very likely that it wouldn't have survived without the effort. Thiyopa (talk) 13:05, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Ahh, the 19th century revival. I really don't think that is a special case since it was the same for many, many languages of Europe that they were not languages of literacy until the nationalist period of the 19th century, and that they were subject to a period of revitalization in the 19th century. The same was the case for Norwegian for example, and even to some degree for Danish before 1700. Almost all of the lesser languages of Europe were marginalized during that period. I will not object if you insert Czech again - but I really don't think that the parallel between Hebrew and Czech is good. Much more impressive feats of revitalization exist in my opinion - e.g. Catalan or Irish.·Maunus·ƛ· 13:11, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Sioux language

Dear Thiyopa, I hadn’t noticed that you are likely to be a Lakota (or, anyway, you can speak the language, which is not actually commonest) and so, that your knowledge of the case must be inevitably mach wider than mine.

I am very sorry for the misunderstanding originated by my methodological scruples. In fact, I think that Wikipedia is an interesting, but extremely delicate, instrument (which, BTW, I’ve been lately devoting a lot of time to): everybody can write on it what they like best, but every statement that one intends to report must be drawn out of a publication (which is to be cited, too). Thus, when I read Gibbon’s position (which did not finally seem to me so odd, compared with the heaps of books reporting the notorious misnomer of Yanktons and Yanktonais, etc.), I myself could have directly corrected the article (which might appear too categorical) by reporting his opinion. Which, being in doubt, I would not do preferring to open a debate on the talk page. Should, however, I or anybody else, have corrected the article, the correction could have, in its turn, properly rectified or reverted not by simply arguing that Gibbon is not a linguist, that he does not cite his sources, and so on, but only by reporting the precise position of other authors refuting Gibbon’s thesis (and by explicitly quoting them). If one does not cite the source whence what one writes is drawn, he is just expressing his personal opinions, that is to say that one is making a (however minor) “personal research”, which is (rightly) not permitted by Wikipedia guidelines. The article Sioux Language itself bears, at its beginning, a “template” asserting that “This article may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. Please improve this article if you can”, as it has been written without minutely complying with Wikipedia’s operation rules (even though I have noticed you have already cleaned up around a lot). So, if you had written in an article your statement that Parks/DeMallie and Ullrich’s “classification has been generally recognized by Siouan linguists” I ought to have added the templates or (or something alike, I am not very skilled!)

As to me, if I am interested in, read and now even write about American Indians, it is just because I have been loving these populations since I was a child and I have been scandalized, after growing up, by the shameful treatment they were forced to undergo. If, the first time I happen to contact a person belonging (or very close) to this people, she/he should draw the conclusion (or even the doubt) that I prefer Ethnologue or Gibbon to people who spent whole years of their lives working with the Sioux, it would actually hurt me a lot. I was just raising a question of method (and I had not had the chance of reading either Parks/DeMallie or Ullrich): perhaps, you and those that know their work, might try to better explain the characters of that work, quote them more minutely and not avoid citing, as well, a good deal of the disinformation which is still being spread about the matter on world literature. Otherwise one risks not being helpful to all the people, even less informed than I, who will chance to read the article concerned.

All the best. --Jeanambr (talk) 15:54, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Since I would like to correct wrong articles about Sioux in the Italian Wikipedia conforming to Wikipedia guidelines, and since I haven’t at my disposal either Parks/DeMallie or Ullrich, I wonder whether you might let me know two precise quotations, which I can transfer onto the articles, about both the refutation of the traditional three-partition Dakota-Nakota-Lakota (namely, the misnomer of using "Nakota" for Yanktons and Yanktonais) and the relations (mutual unintelligibility) between the three Sioux dialects (or languages) and the two Assiniboin-Stoney ones. Of course, only if you have time and feel like doing.

P.P.S. I think I found the weak point of my examples about German and Italian: in either case there has existed for centuries a generally recognized standard language (in Italy a literary one) and dialects yield to it, however far from or close to it they are. It seems a historical matter much more than a linguistic one.

Dear Jeanambr, if you let me know your e-mail I can e-mail you scan's from Park&DeMallie and from Ullrich's dictionary. Note also, that the comparative tables that I created for the article Sioux Language are also based on these two studies. The comparative tables are actually the most important in deciding the dialect classification - apart from statements from fluent speakers, obviously; I have relatives among the Yanktons and Yanktonais and they would never call themselves Nakota.

BTW, if you are truly interested in the language the New Lakota Dictionary is the most significant material published since Deloria's grammar and texts. So it is worth having it. It is inexpensive and can be easily ordered from Amazon. Thiyopa (talk) 08:09, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I have created a new article concerning especially the Nakota, with a link from Sioux language: see Sioux language's talk page or [1]. Ciao.--Jeanambr (talk) 13:21, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Dakota language

Dear Thiyopa, I have translated into Italian the article Dakota language and I would like to translate soon Lakota language, too.

In reading, however, the section “Grammatical differences”, as a non-linguist I met several troubles in understanding the meaning of the section as a whole and, especially, of the table contained. In order to make the whole matter clearer, I would eventually both add a note to the section, explaining how ablaut runs, and add the infinitive verbal forms to the table, as follows.

“Yankton-Yanktonai has the same three ablaut grades as Lakota (a, e, iŋ) . . . Some exemples:

italiano	andare (via)	andrò	ritornare	ritornerà
santee-sisseton	yá	bdé kte	hdá	hdé kte
yankton-yanktonai	yá	mníŋ kte	gdá	gníŋ kte
lakota	yá	mníŋ kte	glá	gníŋ kte

After editing the new article in the Italian Wikipedia I have noticed that you had already cited above the verb "hdá" and that you give a Yankton variant for it (kdá) which is not reported by Ullrich.

Would you be so kind as to control the matter and, by the way, if you don't mind, the correctness of my additions. Thank you very much.--Jeanambr (talk) 13:41, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I have later noticed that Ullrich does not report ‘kdá’, as a peculiar Yankton variant, in the article ‘glÁ’ (p. 115, where only ‘gdá’ is given for Yankton-Yanktonai), whereas you can find it in a comparison table of the Introduction, but if I think of your comparison table of consonant clusters, I ought to conclude that there is an oversight in the article ‘glÁ’, but also that the Yankton for "he will go back" should be ‘kníŋ kte’ and not ‘gníŋ kte’.

Another question (excuse my pertness!): you wrote that only the ph [pʰ], th [tʰ] and kh [kʰ] digraphs belong to Dakota, but don’t the pȟ [pˣ], tȟ [tˣ] and kȟ [kˣ] digraphs belong to Yankton-Yanktonai, too? And, still, which is the right pronunciation of kȟ: [qˣ~kˠ], as in Sioux language, or [kˣ] as in Dakota language and in Lakota language (unless [kˣ] is an intermediate sound between [qˣ] and [kˠ])?

Of course, I have no competence in the whole matter of phonetics. Thank you, again--Jeanambr (talk) 08:36, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

AfD

Please see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wasi'chu Jaque Hammer (talk) 15:09, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:50, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 3

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Voiceless glottal fricative, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lakota. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:02, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Thiyopa. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Thiyopa. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Thiyopa. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:10, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Ben Black Bear, Jr. moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Ben Black Bear, Jr., is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Mcampany (talk) 00:54, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, Thiyopa. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on the page Sioux language, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

• avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization or competitors;
• propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{request edit}} template);
• disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to disclose a COI);
• avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam#External link spamming);
• do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Also Lakota language, and many other pages.

Looking through the additions and reverts, I'm seeing a lot of citespam type edits on Sioux language by Thiyopa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) starting with:[2], and proceeding with edits like these 23[3] until that article is also heavily-weighted with LLC content. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 21:12, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Ben Black Bear, Jr.

Hello, Thiyopa. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Ben Black Bear, Jr., a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 01:02, 20 February 2022 (UTC)