User talk:Stevey7788/Archive8

Category:Somali-born male long-distance runners has been nominated for discussion

Category:Somali-born male long-distance runners, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. SFB 22:10, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Chesu language

Hi Stevey,

You forgot the tone on a syllable in the endonym. Could you add it in IPA? There should be an IPA option under your edit window. Thanks, — kwami (talk) 08:59, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Okay, thanks! — kwami (talk) 01:21, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

could you please use IPA for tone too?

Hi Stevey. I just converted one of your contributions to IPA, as I do when I come across them, and realized I got it backwards. Now I wonder if I may've gotten others backwards and just not noticed before. Could you please put the tone in IPA, to match the rest of your transcription? All the symbols are available at the bottom of your edit screen. Thanks — kwami (talk) 03:44, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

th:แมงมัน

Is it exactly Carebara castanea?Xx236 (talk) 08:39, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Carebara castanea is a type of แมงมัน. — Stevey7788 (talk) 11:35, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

sawndip further reading

The two links added to Sawndip seem to be inapropriate. Both are criticisms of the wikipedia article. They are an individuals notes, a sort of blog, containing a large number of mistakes, not academic articles. Johnkn63 (talk) 15:22, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

OK, removed. But please keep in mind that journal articles are not necessarily written better. Well-written, organized blogs written by respected academics can be better than many journal articles in this age of predatory publishing and journals of questionable quality. — Stevey7788 (talk) 15:28, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for removing the links. Agreed some blogs are well written, and somtimes even a less than excellent written source may contain much useful information. However the mentioned links are not such cases.Johnkn63 (talk) 01:37, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Sorry to have to mention it,but noticed you also added some same links, and a few extra to Zhuang languages. These are just snippets written by an author writting outside of his area of expertise. He is writing about how Sawndip characters areee formed but makes no reference to other authors on these characters, nor does he appear to have read what others have written about these characters.Johnkn63 (talk) 02:23, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that's why it's called "further reading," not "references," and are not actually summarized in the articles. "External links" can lead us to plenty of unreliable resources too. For further reading, we can check out credible resources but the point is to lead the reader to discover more resources. Please see Wikipedia:Further reading.

The reason I have removed the links from Sawndip but not from Zhuang languages is because Kra-Dai / Tai-Kadai historical linguistics is within Miyake's area of expertise, but not Sawndip. — Stevey7788 (talk) 08:12, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

The links are placed in the "bibliography" and lack accuracy. Take [[Sawgun stratography?]] here the author starts by quoting, the 2011 Sawndip article, talks about characters for "gun", and then for "saw". His topic writting about the characters not the language. His only source used for Zhuang languages is the Zhuang character dictionary, 'Sawndip Sawdenj' which is insuficient for the task, and so makes wrong conclusions, and so considers 'gun' to be cognate to '汉', but really it is cognate to '官'. Many Zhuang languages use 'hak' not 'gun' and which even 'Sawndip Sawdenj' says means '官'. The main theme of this link is not Zhuang languages, and where it does drift onto a language point like the word 'gun' it is wrong because the author did not even both to check more than one dictionary. Johnkn63 (talk) 14:55, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Well this guy is a good linguist, but maybe he's not a Zhuang character expert (that would be David Holm). I'll take the Sawndip stratigraphy article off. But the linguistics blog posts are worth listing. They contain quality academic stuff but aren't going to be published in print anytime soon. — Stevey7788 (talk) 16:04, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

These are short blogs of limited scope, showing the authors reaction to unfamiliar material, but are unbalanced as the author does not consider the views of other authors. I will move them to the talk page of Zhuang lanuages. Happy to discuss there the pro's and con's of any particular item.Johnkn63 (talk) 17:01, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

No problem. — Stevey7788 (talk) 17:39, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. Johnkn63 (talk) 17:48, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

*pKra diphthongs

Hi Stevey,

Just noticed that for proto-Kra, you list a diphthong *aɯ, but there's no corresponding monophthong *ɯ. Just wondering if that was an oversight. — kwami (talk) 21:13, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

I checked Ostapirat, and he doesn't list Proto-Kra monophthong *ɯ. ɯ only occurs as part of *aɯ. — Stevey7788 (talk) 21:17, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Okay, thanks.

I see you've been using the name "Kra–Dai" a lot for the family. Has that now largely displaced "Tai–Kadai", or is it personal preference, or the sources you're using for particular edits? I'm asking because I'm trying to decide which name to use in print. — kwami (talk) 19:36, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

I've changed the language infobox so that if you put either "tai-kadai" or "kra-dai" in as the family color, it will generate Kra–Dai as the family. It's not necessary to put anything in the fam1 field. (See the result of me blanking the fam1 field at Be language.) Leaving it blank won't matter if we don't move the article again, but will allow a quick universal update if we do. — kwami (talk) 20:31, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! — Stevey7788 (talk) 20:32, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Would you mind if I reversed your additions to fam1? It won't make any visible difference, but will leave us more flexible. — kwami (talk) 20:48, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Sure, as long as Kra-Dai is maintained via "Kra-Dai" using the family color label. — Stevey7788 (talk) 20:54, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

It will be unless we change it. But any change would be the result of a discussion involving the name of the main article. — kwami (talk) 20:55, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Editing Tai peoples

Hi,

Please help with editing the prehistory origin part of the article Tai peoples. Thanks. Daevexc (talk) 06:23, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Which sub-topics in particular? Please be more specific. — Stevey7788 (talk) 13:20, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 30

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Palauan language, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Unicorn fish (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:24, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thank You for editing Kra–Dai languages Jkrn111 (talk) 13:54, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! — Stevey7788 (talk) 14:13, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 8

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Puroik language, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Copula (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:35, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 22

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Greater Magaric languages, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tibetan language (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:15, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Pai-lang

I just wanted to point out a new relevant publication for this article that you have contributed to. Some of the conclusions are different from those of Beckwith or Coblin.

• Hill, Nathan W. (2017) 'Songs of the Bailang: A New Transcription with Etymological Commentary'. Bulletin de l'École française d'Extrême-Orient, (103), pp 387-429.

Tibetologist (talk) 11:34, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, just downloaded. — Stevey7788 (talk) 15:55, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Daniel Esquivel

The article Daniel Esquivel has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

While at the moment it is an unsourced and non-English BLP, the latest English version also gives no indication of notability for this musician.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. HyperGaruda (talk) 04:29, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 30

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Boonthung Srisung, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sukhothai (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:10, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Sourcing

I notice you have added a lot of what appear to be unpublished or self-published sources (e.g. by Andrew Hsiu). Please note that Wikipedia requires reliable independent secondary sources, primary research by academics is also normally OK but only if it is published in the peer-reviewed literature. Much of what you're adding is published directly to Zenodo with no evidence of peer-review. Guy (Help!) 16:54, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

This is because primary data for many little-known languages or recently discovered languages in Asia and Africa are present only in the form of obscure and difficult to access grey literature - a rather unfortunate situation. You will see that many peer-reviewed publications in linguistics have to reference a lot of unpublished sources and even cite personal communication. Much of this valuable information will never be peer-reviewed because they will be stuck in unpublished manuscripts for eternity. This is a major problem with the field of linguistics; it's not bioinformatics yet. This data problem is a point that the authors of Glottolog, etc. have been making, and in response, they have tried to make available as much grey literature as possible. Referencing such non-peer reviewed sources is absolutely crucial in this field, like directing the reader to important but unpublished raw data such as audio recordings and word lists. The point of listing such sources is not to promote the arguments of Marc Miyake or George van Driem's students or Roger Blench, etc., but rather to make important grey literature known. For some phylogenetically important languages, all we have is a short unpublished word list found somewhere on the net, and we absolutely need to make this stuff known to the world.

Using such sources would not be acceptable for a Wiki article on frog species or bacteria because biology is way more advanced now. But in linguistics, we absolutely NEED to use such resources because absolutely nothing else is available. Many major peer-reviewed linguistics sources rely on such primary resources. It is absolutely appropriate to list such sources on Wikipedia, at least in the Further reading or External links sections. If we think that it's inappropriate to cite such sources in the main text of an article, then fine, but at least putting them in the Further reading section is a must when the ONLY primary data of a language is only recorded in these sources. Readers of such specialized articles will absolutely benefit from lists of such resources, and many academics and students have personally told me about how they find these Wikipedia articles to be extremely helpful. Believe it or not, even Ethnologue editors use Wikipedia articles a lot. These guys may not directly cite Wikipedia, but they certainly do find Wikipedia references to little-known unpublished resources to be extremely invaluable.

Please at least do a little basic research on the fields of Southeast Asian and African documentary linguistics before making such generic edits. — Stevey7788 (talk) 18:22, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy doesn't say that sources have to be reliable unless reliable sources don't exist, in which case you can use whatever you decide is good. And that's just as well, if it did we would have gushing articles on all manner of charlatans. Guy (Help!) 19:53, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Indeed. I collaborate with leading experts in the subfield to improve these articles, and am completely aware of what the charlatan edits look like. — Stevey7788 (talk) 20:04, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

I am not thinking of this area. In alternative medicine, for example, there are a bazillion self-proclaimed experts who write the most appalling tosh. We keep it out of Wikipedia by following policy: WP:RS. If these documents are available only via Zenodo, which has absolutely no source verification and no effective checks on copyright, then we can't include them. Guy (Help!) 20:14, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

I think that in cases such as these, it shouldn't a problem to use 'grey' lit. Possible complications are promoting every village accent as a 'language', but then that happens even w well-ref'd languages (e.g. 'Croatian', 'Hindi', 'Indonesian', none of which are languages in the cladistic sense), or demoting languages to 'dialects' (but again in well-ref'd areas, e.g. 'Chinese', 'German', 'Italian'). Another possible problem would be nationalistic BS, but that's usually pretty easy to spot, and not a problem w Stevey's contributions. — kwami (talk) 21:35, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Stevey7788. 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)

Gehuo or Angluo?

Hey Stevey,

From Gehuo language#Distribution, it's not clear if Gehuo and Angluo are different languages. Per your articles, they both go by the name 'Gehe'. Could you maybe clarify in both articles, so the naive reader can tell which is which, or merge the articles if they are the same?

Thanks, — kwami (talk) 21:40, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

They're not the same. This is because Chinese has a lot of homonyms. — Stevey7788 (talk) 21:43, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. But you said their exonym is Angluo, and linked to the Angluo language article, which makes it seem they're the same thing. I'll try to clarify, but please fix if I get it wrong.

BTW, when you split off Biao Mon from Iu Mien last week, besides leaving the ISO and Glottolog codes for Biao Mon in the infobox of the Iu Mien article, there's also a complication with redirects. We've got it set up so that all ISO codes will redirect to the appropriate article (even if several ISO codes are lumped together, whether because we haven't gotten around to dividing up the article yet, or because we've judged an ISO code to be redundant, spurious or for a dialect of the language). I'm adding the code for a search box at right. The official ISO site makes use of this, so for example if you look up [bmt] there, on its page there's a link to Wikipedia that takes you to our ISO 639:bmt redirect, which still took you to the Iu Mien article instead of the Biao Mon article. So we could be misdirecting a lot of people, who might never see the article you wrote. I just fixed it, but another complication to keep in mind. We really need to run a bot and straighten up all the ISO rd's, as it's been years since we've done it, but it's a lot of work and I don't feel I have the time. Also, if you leave the ISO code at Iu Mien, then the bot wouldn't have caught it anyway: it would've just confirmed that the [bmt] rd links up to an article with [bmt] in the info box, and not report that it should now rd to somewhere else. — kwami (talk) 22:28, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll keep this in mind. — Stevey7788 (talk) 22:36, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Oh, at Alu language (Sino-Tibetan), it says 'Hsiu (2017) [The Lawu languages] suggests that Awu may be related to Lalo'.

I assume that should be 'that Alu may be related'? — kwami (talk) 23:20, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

No, the paper says that Alu is related to Lalo, not Awu. Fixed. — Stevey7788 (talk) 23:22, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

tone in pMM

New thread. This is more a request. At Proto-Hmong–Mien language, you don't say anything about tone. From the transcription, with -X or -H on only some words, I would assume the situation is thought to have been similar to Old Chinese, but it would be nice to have that confirmed, and also how the modern tones arose. I'd thought tone was quite old in MM, so I'm surprised to see such a simple reconstruction.

I moved the mention of TK in four tones (Middle Chinese) to a 'See also' section, so it wouldn't look like TK tone derived from Middle Chinese. But if all the families in the region had a similar -0, -X, -H, -ptk pattern, that would be quite interesting, and it would be nice to have all the reconstructions linked there. And probably a comment in the 4-tones article that the pattern was typical of the area, which is what I suspect the comment I changed might've been trying to say. — kwami (talk) 01:24, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Also, at Muda language, what do the parentheses mean in e.g. ()dzɛ⁵⁵()? I haven't seen that convention before. — kwami (talk) 06:03, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

The preceding and suffixing syllables had been removed. -dzɛ⁵⁵- should be better. — Stevey7788 (talk) 09:06, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. — kwami (talk) 19:31, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 8

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Calamian Tagbanwa language, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Coron (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:34, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 15

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Calamian Tagbanwa language, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Baras (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:46, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Maram

Hey Stevey,

Per your rd of Maram language (Austro-Asiatic) to Kuki-Chin, should the name "Maram" be deleted from the article Khasic languages?

— kwami (talk) 20:12, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Kwami, Maram refers to both a Khasic dialect and a Kuki-Chin language. I've redirected it to Khasic languages. — Stevey7788 (talk) 21:45, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. Can it be identified with a particular language, or is Pnar-Khasi-Maram essentially a single language? I'm wondering why you deleted it after you created it. — kwami (talk) 00:06, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

The redirect is still at RFD. The RFD tag is not to be removed until the discussion is over. 66.87.149.206 (talk) 01:13, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

They're technically all supposed to be separate languages. Please consult Sidwell (2018). — Stevey7788 (talk) 02:29, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Okay. I'll add Mnar too. I don't have the print book, but he has some stuff online. I notice he doesn't list Megam/Migam. Is that one of the Garo languages, then, as we have it at Megam language? I ask because Glottolog has it as closest to Lyngngam. — kwami (talk) 03:48, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Megam is a Bodo-Garo language, not Khasian. By the way, just sent you an e-mail. — Stevey7788 (talk) 06:09, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Phana’ language

Hey Stevey,

Do you know what the apostrophe in this name is? ISO is contemplating replacing ASCII <'> with a proper Unicode letter when it's supposed to be one, but in this case it doesn't correspond to the autonym. — kwami (talk) 05:57, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Glottal stop. Same for 'Ole language. — Stevey7788 (talk) 06:02, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. At Guiqiong language, could you fix the following? I assume it's also supposed to be glottal stop.

The zero-initial is realized as [÷].

I'm confused too. User:Danacheung16 wrote that - maybe ask him. — Stevey7788 (talk) 16:50, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

They were only active for a few months in 2017, possibly for a class project, so don't know if they'll answer. — kwami (talk) 22:21, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I guess I should be calling you "Steve". — kwami (talk) 16:22, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Either way is fine. — Stevey7788 (talk) 16:48, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Oh, at Biao language, in the tone table 9 comes before 8. I didn't want to reorder them because I worried that they were mislabled. — kwami (talk) 17:30, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Don't reorder them. That's because 7 and 9 belong to the voiceless checked series; 8 and 10 belong to the voiced checked series. It's standard practice in Tai linguistics to do this. — Stevey7788 (talk) 17:33, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Okay, that makes sense. I labeled them so that's clear. — kwami (talk) 18:13, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

See Proto-Tai language#Tones. — Stevey7788 (talk) 18:20, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

When a syllable has superscript '5' or 'C1' after it, it would be a good idea to link to that section the first time. Your average reader will have no idea what it's supposed to mean otherwise. I'll see if I can get to it today, but you know the situation better than I do. Same with tone codes in Miao-Yao and Chinese languages. — kwami (talk) 20:50, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

OK, that would be a good idea. We can put "see also Proto-Tai language#Tones" under the section headers then. — Stevey7788 (talk) 03:43, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Could you confirm what is Pray1, Pray2 and Pray3 for me? I remember us identifying them somewhere, but don't have much confidence in it. I just discovered that, according to us, the Pray1 people speak the Pray3 language, but I need to be sure of their identities before I try to correct it. — kwami (talk) 20:52, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Where? I believe Ilia Peiros refers to them as such. — Stevey7788 (talk) 03:43, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Pray 3 redirects to Prai language, ISO [prt], and the ethnicity is Prai people. But at Pray people it says that it's 'Pray 3', and Prai people is 'Pray 1'. So the correlation is mixed up, but which is which I don't know. — kwami (talk) 10:33, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Lang’e redirects to Lavu, but Lang'e has its own article. Should it be removed from Lavu, and e.g. should the ISO code [yne] be in the Lang'e info box? — kwami (talk) 21:01, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Sure, let's do that. — Stevey7788 (talk) 03:43, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Re redirecting ISO [yne] to Lang'e, Glottolog says,

[Ethn.] lists Lang'e [yne] as a separate language of Yongsheng county in Yunnan province, but this language is intelligible with Talu [yta] (Lama, Ziwo Qiu-Fuyuan 2012 :80) which already has a separate entry. There is possibly confusion with the Chinese variety of Lhao Vo [mhx] which is also called Lang'e and also in Yunnan province, but spoken closer to the border with Myanmar (Dai, Qingxia 1999 , Mann, Noel Walter 1998), in which case the entry is also spurious, duplicating Lhao Vo [mhx]. See also: Maru [mhx], Lavu-Yongsheng-Talu [yta].

But we have Lang'e in a different branch of the family than [yta] Lavu, which Glottolog here calls 'Talu', for which we have a different article. — kwami (talk) 10:33, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

OK, since it refers to 2 languages, maybe we can write "not to be confused with Lhao Vo." — Stevey7788 (talk) 14:09, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

What I meant was, per Glottolog, [yta] covers both Talu and Lavu, as they're a single language. We treat them as distinct languages. And [yne] doesn't exist, because Lang'e is either a dialect of [yta] Lavu/Talu or of [mhx] Lhao Vo. Lama (2012) may be wrong in that assessment, but it's not as simple as a simple dab to Lhao Vo. — kwami (talk) 22:25, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Best to keep Talu and Lavu separately; they're described separately in the Chinese literature. — Stevey7788 (talk) 03:52, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Oh, re. Ts'ün-Lao language, is the apostrophe for aspiration? And as a proper letter, should it be a 9-shaped raised comma, or a 6-shaped turned comma?

Yes, for languages in China, it always means aspiration. No ejectives, etc. in that area. — Stevey7788 (talk) 03:43, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Is it okay to refer not-Tai Kradai languages to proto-Tai for an explanation of the tone codes? Do e.g. ABCD in Kra languages correspond to ABCD in Tai? There isn't much on the proto-Kam-Sui and proto-Kra. pages.

Yes, Hlai and Kra and Kam-Sui specialists follow the exact same conventions. Hmong-Mien, on the other hand, follows different conventions, more like those for Sinologists. — Stevey7788 (talk) 03:43, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

At issue are Qabiao language, Jiamao language, Mak language, Maonan language, Mulam language, Nuoxi Yao language. — kwami (talk) 00:41, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Stevey, User Hmoob-Yao

Hi Stevey,

User Hmoob-Yao recent edits in various articles Austro-Tai languages, Austronesian languages, Kra-Dai languages is a sock of WorldCreatorFighter [1]. This person's recent active accounts on Wikimedia Commons are Satoshi Kondo [2], [3] (blocked in German Wikipedia [4]) and LenguaMapa [5] who created this chart

Language tree of the proposed Miao-Dai family based on works of Kosaka and Vovin

.

The person behind this is a Vietnamese, but somehow pretends to be Japanese. This one uses various Austrian IP addresses like 212.95.8.228, 212.95.8.211, 212.95.8.22, 212.95.8.231, 212.95.8.128/25, 212.95.8.244, etc. to edit Japanese-related, Austronesian-related, Kra-Dai-related articles. This one also created a fake Japanese nationalist party called JapaneseSentry, and spreads anti-Turkish, anti-Korean, anti-Mongol propaganda on the internet [6], [7], [8]. Only Quora, this person only claims to be Japanese [9]. I think this person has some mental issue. Please watch this Hmoob-Yao's edits closely. These follwing admin and checkuser accounts on English Wikipedia are associated with this person Bbb23 (checkuser), zzuuzz (checkuser), GeneralizationsAreBad, killiondude. It seems there is a group behind this. I don't think you could report this person as after getting blocked, this one will create many other accounts again. Moreover, your edits may be watched everyday by this person as well. Regards 183.80.103.226 (talk) 11:58, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes I can keep a watch, but his edits look fine. His figure based on Kosaka (2002) is also fine. I'm not into any racial pseudoscience vendettas, so I can't comment much about this. I'm a person who does serious science. — Stevey7788 (talk) 14:22, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Stevey7788 Yes, Stevey7788, I know you do serious science. I sent you an email a while ago and expressed my concern about this Vietnamese-in-disguise Japanese nationalist party, JapaneseSentry. I'm sure you have already read that. I'm worried for some particular scholars who work on the origins of the Vietnamese and Altaic theory because they launch cyber-stalking against them. What they do are not different from bullying other people by taking advantage of their positions as employees of major tech-corporations. 115.75.177.109 (talk) 20:45, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

I didn't get your email. Please send to my Wikipedia email. Thanks. — Stevey7788 (talk) 13:40, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Ok. 113.173.143.135 (talk) 23:51, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Stevey7788, I have just sent you a Wikipedia email. If you got it please let me know. I'm afraid that your activity of reading my email is also watched. 113.173.143.135 (talk) 14:41, 16 February 2019 (UTC)