:User talk:Kwamikagami

Good day. I saw that you are the one who edited the Direct case article that adds a section about Philippine languages. I notice these names ("direct", "indirect", and "oblique") too in Tagalog and Cebuano grammar entries here. I assume that this is for theory-neutrality. Is there any reference that you have that made you use those names? Simple9371 (talk) 20:06, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

:Hi. It was presumably Blake (2001) Case, or less likely one o the chapters in Wouk & Ross (2002) The history and typology of western Austronesian voice systems

:Yes, 'direct' was intended to be a theory-neutral term that described the distribution o the form as {A, S, O} without making any claim as to what governed it — kwami (talk) 20:49, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi Kwamikagami, I have fully protected the Twi article for another 48 hours to halt the edit warring, per a request for page protection that was submitted in response to this dispute. Please participate in the discussion at {{slink|Talk:Twi#Resolving the content dispute}} and seek additional input through the dispute resolution noticeboard or a request for comment if necessary. Thank you. — Newslinger talk 02:44, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

:We're just waiting on Bosomba stating which changes they want and providing sources that support those changes — kwami (talk) 03:21, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

::Please note that there are very few exemptions to the policy against edit warring, and repeated reverts are considered edit warring even if an editor has made fewer than three reverts in a 24-hour period. If Bosomba Amosah resumes reinstating their preferred version of the article, repeatedly reverting their edits puts you in violation of the policy. The best way to settle a content dispute is to use some form of dispute resolution, such as a request for comment. If the other editor ignores the consensus resulting from dispute resolution, then the dispute becomes a conduct dispute and can be reported to the incidents noticeboard. — Newslinger talk 03:37, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Are you willing to mediate? I accept Bosomba's refs that I can access -- I've used several of them to improve these articles -- and they're quite clear. — kwami (talk) 04:04, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

::::For mediation, I believe the dispute resolution noticeboard (DRN) would be your best option. The mediators on that noticeboard use a formal process that works very well for disputes related to sourcing, particularly when all involved parties have already made substantive comments on the article talk page. Perhaps you could file a DRN case for the Twi article to start, and then file additional cases for the other articles if Bosomba Amosah is willing to participate in this first one. — Newslinger talk 08:28, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

File:Peacedove.svg

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! {{clear}} Bosomba Amosah (talk) 18:04, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi Kwamikagami, I've been working on the article about the Aruã people in Brazil, and I've seen that you already started the article on the Aroã language. In most Brazilian literature, their name is spelled Aruã with a u. I am thinking about renaming the article to Aruã language, with Aroã and Aruán als alternative spellings. Even Glottolog gives it the code arua1264 with a u, with is further justification for the change. Would you agree with this? LeRoc (talk) 11:14, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

:Works for me. The people and language articles should normally go by the same name and spelling. — kwami (talk) 11:23, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

:Since two rounds of full protection were insufficient to prevent further edit warring, we have to proceed to blocks. This partial block applies only to the most recently edited articles (Bono dialect, Akan language, and Central Tano languages) and is intended to last for the duration of the dispute resolution process. When dispute resolution is finished for any of the articles, which can be accomplished by:

:* Completing a dispute resolution noticeboard case,

:* Having a valid request for comment closed, or

:* Reaching a consensus agreement for any of the articles through talk page or noticeboard discussion

:please apply to be unblocked from editing the resolved articles. — Newslinger talk 17:20, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

::Two things,

::Per BOLD, isn't edit-warring when you restore a reverted contentious edit, not when it's reverted?

::Second, can't you protect the status-quo ante? The idea is not to freeze in disruptive edits. Regardless of the dispute, we're supposed to provide reliable info to our readers. — kwami (talk) 20:19, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

:::No, edit warring refers to {{xt|"a series of back-and-forth reverts"}}, and repeated reverts of disputed edits are also considered edit warring unless they are exempted. Per the policy on edit warring exemptions (WP:3RRNO), there are eight types of reverts that are exempt from edit warring, but none of your reverts or Bosomba Amosah's reverts qualify for any of those exemptions. My previous comment in the above section contained a link to this policy.{{pb}}Per {{slink|Wikipedia:Protection policy#Content disputes}}, {{xt|"Fully protected pages may not be edited except to make changes that are uncontroversial or for which there is clear consensus. Editors convinced that the protected version of an article contains policy-violating content, or that protection has rewarded edit warring or disruption by establishing a contentious revision, may identify a stable version prior to the edit war and request reversion to that version. Before making such a request, editors should consider how independent editors might view the suggestion and recognize that continuing an edit war is grounds for being blocked."}} You are welcome to create an edit request for each article to implement a stable pre{{endash}}edit war version of the article while dispute resolution is ongoing, but because edit requests can be contested by any editor (including Bosomba Amosah), it would be more productive to simply continue with dispute resolution. — Newslinger talk 02:49, 2 May 2025 (UTC) {{small|Corrected word 04:57, 2 May 2025 (UTC)}}

::::{{ping|Newslinger}} But that's not what our policy is for cases like this. That's for additional edits that people want to make to protected articles. The relevant part of our policy is, When protecting a page because of a content dispute, administrators have a duty to avoid protecting a version that contains policy-violating content. One of our policies is that we need to follow RS's. What you're saying instead is that if someone makes disruptive edits, and the article is protected, then for all practical purposes they win -- their disruptive edits are frozen into place. We have a duty to our readers to provide reliable info. You can rv back to before the dispute, as far back as you like, but you should not promote demonstrable nonsense such as contradicting sources. — kwami (talk) 03:48, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::The articles are currently not protected at all, so any editor who is not partially blocked from editing the articles can correct any policy violations that they recognize. When you create a dispute resolution noticeboard case for an article you are partially blocked from editing, you can ask the mediator to perform a revert to a stable pre{{ndash}}edit war version while the dispute is pending. Alternatively, you can use {{tl|Edit partially-blocked}} to submit an edit request on the article talk page, start a discussion on an appropriate noticeboard, or initiate a request for comment. Since this is an unresolved content dispute that has been ongoing for multiple months, it is not obvious to an uninvolved editor which version of the article is the most policy-compliant one. — Newslinger talk 04:56, 2 May 2025 (UTC)