User talk:LanguageExpert

I see that "expert" means you have an agenda that must be enforced through censorship, rather than by scholarship or discussion. Blanking information from an article without discussion, as you did at Ge'ez script and abugida, is not acceptable behavior. kwami (talk) 18:23, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

it seems to me that you are the one who is working from a biased point of view. LanguageExpert (talk) 07:00, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that must be. After all, I see from your edit summaries that you are "correct", and the rest of us wrong.

I reverted your recent edits, as they messed up table formatting and in one case was poorly worded. kwami (talk) 10:27, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

i am not sure what was so bad about my wording. you can read my reasons. dont really know why you seem to be taking such an "agressive" stance with me? LanguageExpert (talk) 12:31, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You don't enter discussion about disagreements, and your attitude seems to be that anyone who disagrees with you is wrong. Or at least that's the impression I get.

"Alphasyllabary ... sometimes known as an alphasyllabary" is not the best way to put things. Anyway, we've been using Daniels' terminology for years. Other terms might be better, but that would involve scores of articles, and so is something best brought up for discussion, not imposed unilaterally. (Messing up the template formatting is one example of why.) The rest is minor, but as for your alphabetical ordering, I - C - E isn't alphabetical; anyway, the families were ordered according to age and how widespread they are, which is also a reasonable approach. kwami (talk) 20:32, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

i was refering to B C E, b for brahmi script LanguageExpert (talk) 08:54, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm sorry if things upset you. I just wanted to tell you, in case you're feeling confused, that what is written in Wikipedia is not what things should be, but what things actually are. Which may sound disappointing. But as long as what you're thinking is reasonable, it is very likely that there are quite a few people who agree with you and someone published that opinion already. So you can just find it and add a paragraph like this:

Some linguists state that the term ''abugida'' should not be used and ''alphasyllabary'' should be used instead, because of such and such reasons.<ref>Doe, Jane S. (2009), "Abugida vs. Alphasyllabary", ''The Journal of Writing Systems'' '''12''' (3):45—67</ref>

The important part is between <ref> and </ref>. Once you put a proper ref, no one can easily undo your edit anymore. —Gyopi (talk) 08:01, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]