The first vowel in ĀsanaEdit

Hi, I see you are changing the IPA for many Āsana articles so that the first vowel becomes a front "a" instead of a back "ɑ".

I just wanted to check this isn't because Americans use front and Brits use back, as I think possible? We Brits do I think use the back vowel for Āsana, in which case all the IPAs were either correct if British English was in use, or inconsistent ... if that's what's happening, I see no reason to Americanise these articles (and if anything, they should be Indianised, whatever that might imply; if all these are different, perhaps the IPA would be best avoided altogether). What's your view on the matter? Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:17, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Right now I'm conforming all Sanskrit IPA transcriptions that link to Help:IPA/Sanskrit to conform to what's at that chart. If you feel like [ɑː] is better than [aː], the best choice of action would be to discuss the matter at Help talk:IPA/Sanskrit.
If we're talking about the pronunciation of these words in English, we would want to use {{IPAc-en}}, which is pretty dialect neutral, though the use of /ɑː/ vs /æ/ is one of the dialectal differences that we'd need to either provide two transcriptions for or have a really good reason to pick one or the other. — Ƶ§œš¹ [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 17:24, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
I think I understand what you're saying, but I can't see from Help:IPA/Sanskrit who might be pronouncing the Sanskrit, 2000-year-old priests being in short supply. If you're confident that it's dialect-neutral, that's clearly best. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:22, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, if we're talking about Sanskrit pronunciations, then it's only dialect neutral in that it's not English. — Ƶ§œš¹ [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 01:13, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
Thanks! Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:39, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 24Edit

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Lhakar, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tibetan language (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 09:23, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Accidental RollbackEdit

Thanks for catching that accidental rollback. Wikipedia is a pain in the ass on mobile, unfortunately. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:36, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

No worries. :D — Ƶ§œš¹ [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 17:40, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussionEdit

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the noticeboard regarding whether Kamrupi is a modern speech without history or a old language with literature. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is "Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Talk:Kamrupi_Prakrit, Talk:Kamrupi dialect". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! --भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 11:17, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Do you have any better suggestions for how to make progress? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:27, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
I like your idea of a topic ban, but I think it would need to be permanent. — Ƶ§œš¹ [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 16:37, 20 May 2019 (UTC)


Thanks for continually fixing my citations! You're awesome :)

Sammobee (talk) 21:46, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Absolutely! :) — Ƶ§œš¹ [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 00:33, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

IPA redirectsEdit

My main motive for changing the redirects is that cross-namespace redirects are discouraged. Plus, those help pages are merely guides on what each symbol in our language-specific IPA notations means that reflect consensus more than reliable sources and don't receive the same scrutiny as the articles. And I see no incoming link to those redirects except from a few old talk pages, so I don't know what you mean by "given what links to these". (I'm also a bit confounded by the fact you reverted the "IPA chart for [language]" redirects and not the "IPA for [language]" ones. Maybe they're just the ones that were on your watchlist?) Nardog (talk) 04:42, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

The ones I reverted were those on my watch page. I didn't dive into your contribs to do additional reverts on the off chance that you'd convince me. I think you have. People looking for the actual IPA charts should be able to find them with the hatnotes at the top of phonology pages. I'll self revert. — Ƶ§œš¹ [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 16:18, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Your revert at Help:IPA/PolishEdit

Can you give a reason for this revert? In general, I think it is polite to at least give a hint of one's rationale in the edit summary when reverting another editor's contributions.  --Lambiam 05:58, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

I thought the rationale would be pretty clear, given that the preceding edit was a request that editors discuss including additional sounds before adding them. If you'd like to include palatalized labials, please discuss it in the talk page first. — Ƶ§œš¹ [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 12:58, 18 April 2019 (UTC)


A user recently created Help:IPA/Macedonian. Do you think this was necessary? If so, you may want to clean up it and Help:IPA/Bulgarian and Macedonian (that is, of course, if you're up for it). Nardog (talk) 15:42, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

It seems like it's warranted, since there are over 160 articles using the IPA-mk template. — Ƶ§œš¹ [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 16:04, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
I don't see how the transclusion count of IPA-mk has any bearing on whether we should have separate guides because the template already linked to Help:IPA/Bulgarian and Macedonian, not Help:IPA, and e.g. IPA-hi being used in a couple hundred articles doesn't warrant a split of the Hindustani guide. But we do have separate phonology articles for Bulgarian and Macedonian after all, so I just completed the split. Nardog (talk) 00:31, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Please read this notice carefully.

You are receiving this notice because you recently edited one or more pages relating to blockchain or cryptocurrencies topics. You have not done anything wrong. We just want to alert you that "general" sanctions are authorized for certain types of edits to those pages.

A community decision has authorized the use of general sanctions for pages related to blockchain and cryptocurrencies. The details of these sanctions are described here. All pages that are broadly related to these topics are subject to a one revert per twenty-four hours restriction, as described here.

General sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after the editor has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. It is only effective if it is logged here. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Important notice, please read:Edit

 This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Tsumikiria 🌹🌉 21:13, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Recent edits to Merchant and other articles reveals an inconsistent pattern of editingEdit

You can cry “nonsensical justification” as much as you like. However, the reality is that WP maintains a record of all edits which can be checked for their appropriateness and context. Your recent edit to the article, Merchant here replaced phrases such as “term that describes”(or similar) with “refers to”. This is a matter of record. In support of this edit, you quoted the policy/guideline, WP:ISAWORDFOR which states that dictionary-style introductory sentences, in the form of "X ‘’’is a term’’’ for blah, blah, blah,” and “X ‘’’refers to’’’ blah, blah, blah “ [Emphasis added]. Further, the policy suggests that editors should replace "is a term for", "is a word that means", "refers to" with the more direct "is" construction. This is also a matter of record. In the case of the article Merchant you replaced one phrase which the policy suggests should be avoided (“term that describes”, or variant) with a different phrase that the policy equally suggests should be avoided (“refers to”). A quick glance at your recent editing history shows that you have repeatedly replaced the phrase “refers to” as you did

However, in other articles you have taken the phrase “term used to describe” (or similar) and replaced it with “refers to” as you did here

This inconsistent pattern of editing defies comprehension and is entirely at odds with the current policy. The policy in relation to "refers to" applies to introductory passages, not to entire articles. In spite of that, the phrase “refers to” has now become so controversial, there is a veritable army of editors out there on a ‘search and destroy’ mission replacing “refers to” wherever they find it. Some of these editors are in such haste to remove and replace the ‘offending phrase’ that they have leave grammatical and logical errors in their wake. In your haste to change the prose, you have left an error

In the case of the Merchant article, your edit replaced “described” with “referred to” in the section entitled “In Art”. The section, which was not an introductory passage, discussed the way that changes in the socio-economic external environment led to new terms being coined to describe different types of merchants. In this context, there was no attempt to turn the article into a dictionary-like entry; rather it showed how language needs to change to keep pace with social developments. Either the original passage or your changes would have been perfectly acceptable. However, WP editors generally are much more vehemently opposed to the use of “refers to” anywhere in the article, so it just a matter of time before your changes will be reverted by a pedant.

I also note that you have gone into my edit history and made a number of reversions to my recent edits. This type of activity could be construed as WP:HOUNDING or stalking. Whatever you want to call it, it is clearly activity designed to alienate good faith editors in order to serve some personal agenda. There is already far too much of this type of hounding, which is a form of abuse, taking place on Wikipedia.

My prior experience as a past editor suggests that once an editor, such as yourself, has been challenged, the challenger inevitably becomes a victim, and there is no end to the number of punitive edits that must be imposed.A few years ago, I quit editing altogether after being hounded for more than half a year by a couple of bullies, who were content to revert entire articles (save for an intro or a conclusion) amongst other things. I see this pattern emerging here and obviously, I will be forced to quit once more. It’s a shame because I had planned a total overhaul of an article that had been tagged with “essay-like” and was ready to upload the rather substantial and well-researched amendments later this week. I also had a new article on a 19th century female calligrapher prepared and was ready to upload it to the main space in the next week or so. Now that I know you are gunning for me, clearly, I will not be able to undertake these improvements at any time in the near future.

While, no doubt, you will feel the need to respond with more disingenuous claims of “nonsensical” reversions and more punitive edits, however, please understand that I have made the decision to quit for the time being and will not be monitoring my talk page or edits after today. So, you can have the satisfaction of knowing that you have driven yet another editor off Wikipedia. Go ahead and revert away, but please consider your own advice and only revert when absolutely necessary. Thank-you. (talk) 02:01, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the time and consideration in explaining your thought process behind the revert. I see what you mean in that, replacing describes with refers to is more in keeping with my understanding of the differences between these words (describes is more accurate with adjectives, refers to is more appropriate for everything else) less than the general point of WP:ISAWORDFOR, which is more about avoiding referring to things as terms. Thus, refers to should still be avoided inasmuch as we avoid talking about things as terms, but when we can't avoid discussing things as terms (as is the case with Merchant), refers to is the better choice.
I tend to link to this policy page in the edit summary when phrasing like "term used to describe" attracts me to an article, as it most closely articulates my concerns in targeting this kind of language, though I can see how it might have been confusing because there were a number of other edits beyond this, only some of which were in keeping with this policy (namely, changing the meerseniers which referred to local merchants including bakers, grocers, sellers of dairy products and stall-holders, and the koopman, which described a new, emergent class to the meerseniers which were local merchants including bakers, grocers, sellers of dairy products and stall-holders, and the koopman, which were a new, emergent class). I do this even when I am changing language outside of the lede and have found it efficiently clarifies my intentions in the limited space of an edit summary, even if the policy imperfectly encapsulates what I am doing.
I am not sure what error you see in this edit at Hipster (contemporary subculture), the only mistakes I see are in the edit summary, where there is a typographical error, and I should have probably linked to WP:NOTDIC instead. A better example of a mistake I made due to "haste" is in the Merchant article itself, which I have fixed.
As for your accusation of hounding, the irony is quite rich coming from such a methodical and antagonistic comb-through of my recent edits. I have made zero reversions of your edits outside of the Merchant article. In two instances, I made edits that piggy-backed on your own; in one instance, I cleaned up the language without removing the content and in the other, I restored unproblematic content lost from a blanket revert.
With such a battlefield mentality, it's no wonder you have become frustrated and disillusioned with Wikipedia. You perceive slights where there are none and find enemies among people who are nothing of the sort. If this is how you normally interact in talk pages, then it's probably for the best that you stay away from the project. Regards. — Ƶ§œš¹ [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 03:06, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Creole edit thanksEdit

Thanks for the "thank you" for my brief edit on Creole. I just noticed that you're a grad of USM, and thought I'd say hi and thanks for your many contributions to wikipedia. I was attending Gulf Park for the past 2 years, in the biology licensure program. SMTTT! Trumblej1986 (talk) 22:23, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

What a coincidence! — Ƶ§œš¹ [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 16:00, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 21Edit

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Cloud gaming, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Online gaming (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 07:26, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Spanish phonologyEdit

Sorry, which part of MOS:HYPHEN supports this edit? The third item says "Avoid using a hyphen after a standard -ly adverb ... unless part of a larger compound." It also says "A few words ending in -ly function as both adjectives and adverbs ... Some such dual-purpose words (like early, only, northerly) are not standard -ly adverbs", but as far as I know frequently is always an adverb. You also changed word-medially back to word medially; was this intended? Nardog (talk) 01:40, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Taking a closer look, I see I was partially in error. It seems as though the proscription of -ly words has to do with the unambiguous adjectival nature of a number of a number of words so that, e.g. quick (adjective) and quickly (adverb) are easily distinguished and a hyphen is therefore unnecessary. In that sense, frequently-used does have a redundant hyphen. However, word medially occurs predicatively (that is, separated from the noun it modifies) and therefore our style guide indicates we should not hyphenated. So it should be "...codas occur word medially and at the ends of frequently used function words..." — Ƶ§œš¹ [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 02:52, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
Word-medially (or word medially) is an adverb, not an adjective, and in this case modifies the verb occur so the rule about attributive vs. predicative doesn't apply. Even its adjective form is usually spelled with a hyphen, word-medial, whether it's attributive or predicative; "word" being a noun, it's closer to "hand-fed" than to "light blue" in the MoS. Nardog (talk) 03:05, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
Ahh, I see now. Well I learned something today. Thanks for taking the time to explain it to me. — Ƶ§œš¹ [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 23:57, 2 July 2019 (UTC)


WP:INVOLVED requires that an admin has been engaged in the article prior to an action. I haven't. As far as I recall, I never saw that article prior to today. If someone wants to make specific requests for changes in neutral terms that are not belligerent and disrespectful of established editors, they are free to do so. That comment was none of those things. Guy (Help!) 21:02, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry, which comment are you referring to?
Your rationale for closing the discussion doesn't seem to fall in line with WP:CLOSE or WP:TPG. The comments that you've placed as part of the archive template are full of misstatements. The lede has not "been hammered out over a long time". Moreover, the phrase transphobic hatred is still in the article (it was just taken out of the lede), amid talk page objection. You keep implying that Rhino was disrespectful to other editors, but I'm not seeing it. Certainly nothing they've said is as brazenly uncivil as "You may be mistaking me for someone who cares". I'm also confused as to how you can surmise that all of the objections raised are the result of bad faith, off-wiki recruitment, rather than legitimate concerns. — Ƶ§œš¹ [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 21:36, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
I believe Guy was referring to this, which clearly accused them of being involved in spite of INVOLVED and AGF. As far as the "misstatements" in Guy's summary, I think most of that is a matter of perspective. The page in question is part of the gender-related sanctions area, so we all do have to be on best behaviour when it comes to AGF, ASPERSIONS and CIVIL in general. Your edit summary linked above certainly failed that test. Newimpartial (talk) 22:00, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
I see. Yes, I've been sufficiently corrected on what it means to be involved. I had taken it to mean that the editor be unbiased and impartial, which is why it was a concern to me that Guy expressed his strong opinion in favor of the status quo as his rationale for closing off the discussion, rather than administrative reasons mentioned at WP:CLOSE or WP:TPG. Your tone tells me that there is apparently an aspersion of bad faith inherent in saying someone is an involved editor, so I apologize for any offense.
As for the misstatements, since you haven't actually provided a perspective-based rationale for how Guy's misstatements aren't actually misstatements, I think it's going to be pretty easy to reject this argument. What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence. — Ƶ§œš¹ [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 22:54, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence" QE quite precisely D. Newimpartial (talk) 23:06, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboardEdit

Sir, kindly see these violations [1]. Thank you. Treannmust (talk) 03:42, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Occlusive terminologyEdit

an affricate is a stop. That's why we use "stop" instead of "plosive" So is a nasal. And Plosive redirects to Stop consonant, not to mention we are using "Stop" to refer to plosives exclusively in our consonant chart. I think it's about time we followed the IPA and started using the term "plosive", which is less ambiguous as it excludes nasals, affricates, ejectives, implosives, and clicks. It seems like our preference of "stop" comes from the fact in some definitions the term also excludes inaudibly released stops, but Wells, former IPA President, dismisses this idea. Thoughts? Nardog (talk) 15:30, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

If we're talking about phonetics in general, yes. I think there's a bit of wiggle room when we get into language-specific phonologies, where sounds are grouped together in certain ways. It seems that scholarship allows for a bit of terminological wobbliness in phonological descriptions. — Ƶ§œš¹ [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 15:41, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
Yes, my suggestion is to replace "Stop" with "Plosive" in {{IPA pulmonic consonants}}, move articles named "...stop(s)" to "...plosive(s)", and move Stop consonant to Plosive (possibly with some content migrating to Occlusive). I'm not advocating for a blanket change in language-specific phonologies.
Speaking of which, do you think our having separate articles for voiceless approximants is justified? They're never found to contrast with homorganic fricatives, and it seems some if not many phoneticians hold that a voiceless sound produced with not enough constriction to be a fricative if voiced is still a fricative and that a "voiceless approximant" would mean silence.[2][3] Even Ladefoged & Maddieson (1996), who argue for making the distinction between voiceless fricatives and approximants, indicate that the view which does not posit it is the traditional one (198), and say there are cases where "it is difficult to decide whether a voiceless lateral should be described as an approximant or a fricative" (199). The IPA seems to hold the traditional view, defining ⟨ʍ⟩ as a fricative. So the current organization of articles doesn't strike me as giving due weight. RoachPeter brought this up here seven years ago, and you seem to have been somewhat persuaded in light of what Ohala said, but the conversation seems to have petered out there. (I'm not sure if "Ohala's wording suggests that his view wasn't common", though. As far as I can see, he is only talking about how the mechanism of a voiceless fricative was hitherto not fully understood, not that such a sound would have been regarded as an approximant.) Nardog (talk) 18:59, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
I could get behind merging the voiceless approximants with their relevant fricative pages and defining ʍ as a fricative, but we would probably want to get a discussion on that. — Ƶ§œš¹ [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 04:32, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. I just wanted to test the water with you before taking it to the community. Nardog (talk) 15:55, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter messageEdit

 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) 00:05, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Macrothink InstituteEdit

The Macrothink Institute is a predatory publisher, and it's journals are not WP:RS. Please don't re-instate them as you did here. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:11, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi Headbomb, and thank you for clarifying your rationale. I hadn't heard of predatory publishers before, and I think it might be a good idea to provide clarity in your edit summaries for other editors in a similar position to understand where you're coming from and to keep your edits from looking disruptive. A link to predatory publisher would be a good start, but being explicit can also help in this regard. For the edit in question, something like

removing citation associated with Macrothink Institute, a predatory publisher.

If there is a policy page or discussion that can help inquiring editors, linking to it will help keep ignorant editors such as myself from making the same error. — Ƶ§œš¹ [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 03:00, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
Well, I felt "predatory journal" was clear enough, but I supposed I could have linked it. As for policy/guidelines, well the real one is WP:RS, but you might be interested in this Signpost piece and WP:CITEWATCH, or User:JzG/Predatory for various cleanup efforts. It's a fairly big problem, but I've made a big dent in it these past few days. Probably removed 2500+ citations to such predatory journals and publishers in the last 4-5 days. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:40, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, this is one of those situations where clear edit summaries can save you a headache later on. You're doing great work. — Ƶ§œš¹ [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 15:35, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Korean vowel "eo"Edit

I want to use [ə] for short "eo" like a long sound, because it sound like schwa sound in eng approximation. And sometime, I can hear a bit of [ɔ]; both short and long sound. I think you have to analyze these sounds, again. Juidzi (talk) 15:41, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Watch on "Help:IPA/Korean", please! Juidzi (talk) 15:43, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

In seoul accent, the vowel "eo" can hear a bit [ɔ]. But use [ɔ̟] to clear the description. Juidzi (talk) 16:11, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

This is a source, that I confirm the "eo" in seoul accent. Juidzi (talk) 18:37, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

More references. Juidzi (talk) 18:39, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

@Kbb2 remove my discussion. Juidzi (talk) 18:40, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

But ⟨ɔ⟩ −> ⟨ɔ̟⟩ is more accuracy. Juidzi (talk) 18:42, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Reply me, please! Juidzi (talk) 07:43, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

I've already replied to you. Take a look at WP:NOR and WP:V. If you want to update the information we have on the sound system of Korean, you'll need to do it with linguistic sources. — Ƶ§œš¹ [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 15:08, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Diphthongs [ju] and [iu̯] in spanishEdit

I notice that in the wikipedia in Spanish a difference is made about these two diphthongs in Spanish, but not in the wiki in English, and that even the word they use in wiki in english to represent the diphthong [ju] it is used to represent the diphthong [iu̯] in wiki in spanish . I believe that the two are the same diphthong, [ju]. I say this since I have not found a difference in my speech, I being Mexican, but it may be that, yes, just because of that I tell you that it might be convenient to estudy by us something — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unvatopensante (talkcontribs) 18:12, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

AFAIK, there isn't a contrast between the two. It's possible some dialects exhibit both, either as allophones or as a reflection of free variation, but I haven't seen anything about that. — Ƶ§œš¹ [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 21:08, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

'Ad hominem' argumentEdit

You took me to task on Wikipedia:WikiProject_Linguistics#Problems with IPA templates for misusing the term 'prescriptive'. It was clear from context, however, that I was using it in its normal English sense of a set of instructions that tells people (in this case phonologists) exactly what they have to do (in this case, what symbols to use), in situations where they should arguably be given discretion. Since you have no information on my background or experience, you should not have assumed that I would plausibly make that mistake; I think you were just looking for a way of attacking someone you disagree with. You should therefore withdraw your remark. Let's assume that you've done so, and leave it there. - Farnwell (talk) 15:18, 20 February 2020 (UTC).

If you're going to be so prickly as to take offense at someone correcting you with mild language like I think you're confusing terms here, then you're going to have a bad time here. You're also going to have a bad time if you continue down this line of making bad faith assumptions about my intentions. I did not make an ad hominem attack. Not even close. I'm not going to withdraw my remarks, nor am I going to let you try to intimidate me with false accusations of incivility.
I don't need to know your background to make my comments. Though, since you brought it up, it strikes me as very strange for someone with a background in linguistics to use prescriptive to have any other meaning than prescriptive grammar. In linguistics, the term prescriptive is so loaded that using it in any other sense (including the "normal English sense" that you talk about) is generally avoided. Take it as a warning, I suppose, that other people will also read your comments the way I have, and write your comments accordingly. — Ƶ§œš¹ [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 16:14, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Hello Xevœpaŋaa! (Wikipedia)Edit

I am a new playe- I mean user, and it's an honor to talk to an aristocrat of Xevœpaŋaa (Wikipedia). UniformMilk192 (talk) 22:20, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you're a good fit. :) — Ƶ§œš¹ [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 02:21, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

How do you become a Wiki-Fairy? UniformMilk192 (talk) 01:54, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

It's not an official thing. Just do what is described at Wikipedia:WikiFairy. — Ƶ§œš¹ [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 14:17, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Ok. I have converted 2 images into text. I love it. UniformMilk192 (talk) 00:51, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm on an alt account. My contributions keep beinɡ stomped on by Nardoɡ. I most likely can deal with this by myself. NardoɡIsMean (talk) 19:44, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't recommend using an alt account. You should only have one account. Take a look at WP:SOCK, which says you can be banned for using multiple accounts.
I would suggest you completely scrap your alt account, which has a username that can be construed as a personal attack (something else that is frowned upon, see WP:NPA and WP:USERNAME).
I would also suggest that you take a look at our talk page guidelines. If you are having trouble with a user disagreeing with you, the best idea is to discuss with them civilly in article talk pages. — Ƶ§œš¹ [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 20:06, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

African-American EnglishEdit

I'm not sure what your issue is, but you need to chill out with comments like this. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 20:50, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Or else what? I don't take much stock in someone tone policing me when I've called them out for acting in bad faith. I stand by what I said. — Ƶ§œš¹ [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 21:48, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Lao vowelEdit

I'm back, and discuss about Lao vowel "ae". The phoneme use "/ɛ/" but please, go to this page and refer lao vowel "ae" because sound like "[æ]" in american eng. Juidzi (talk) 06:35, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Language: Lao ∣ dialect Word: ແບ້ IPA: “[bæ:˦˦˨]” Meaning: Goat Note: Related to "[ɛ̞]" sound. Juidzi (talk) 06:41, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Are you here? Juidzi (talk) 10:08, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm watching Help:IPA/Lao. Anything you say in the talk page there I can see. If you believe that ⟨æ⟩ is a better character to represent this vowel in our transcriptions, you should say so there so that we can get a more inclusive discussion going in a relevant talk page.— Ƶ§œš¹ [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 15:32, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm means about allophone. Juidzi (talk) 13:07, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

IPA for HebrewEdit

Help:IPA/Hebrew has become pretty unwieldy in the last couple of days. But I'm not sure if it should be outright reverted. Will you take a look? Nardog (talk) 02:50, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

The best option would be to do a blanket revert and start a talk page discussion. The IPA guides are a little too high profile to experiment, especially without consensus. But there may be merit to some of the changes, so it's worth it to make the first gesture at getting a discussion going. — Ƶ§œš¹ [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 05:22, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Afrikaans keyEdit

Not pressing you but in case ping didn't work, I would like your input at Help talk:IPA/Afrikaans#Recent changes. Thanks. Nardog (talk) 15:22, 16 May 2020 (UTC)


Good evening. I'm here to ask you the reason for your rollback in Help:IPA/Italian. The edit was correct, because the 'N' in "ma'n'giare" is phonetically a dental [n], not a palatal [ɲ]. The phoneme [ɲ] in Italian exists just in the form 'GN' and before a vowel. The 'N' before a soft 'C' or 'G' is always [n] because soft 'C's and 'G's are pronounced [tʃ] and [dʒ], not [c] and [ɟ], and the dental [t] and [d] are the first elements of the postalveolar affricates (the same goes for the alveolar affricates [ts] and [dz], both written 'Z', where the preceding 'N' is [n] too). In fact if you check any Italian IPA with containing 'NC(E/I)' or 'NG(E/I)' letters sequence you'll verify that they're all transcribed as [ntʃ] and [ndʒ], never as [ɲtʃ] and [ɲdʒ]. So, please, return the example "mangiare" in the [n] box, and possibly remove the "nasal" note number 5 form the [ɲ] box because it has nothing to do with it. Thanks for your collaboration.--Tillotal (talk) 17:43, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

I didn't use rollback. I just reverted the edit since a recent discussion at Talk:Italian phonology has made it clear that the IPA key as it was is correct. If there are articles that deviate from this, we should fix their transcriptions. — Ƶ§œš¹ [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 18:13, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Rollback or revert, it doesn't matter, you undid a right correction. I've watched the links contained in the last discussion of that talk, nowhere I've read a single example of a palatal nasal [ɲ] preceding a postalveolar affricate [tʃ] or [dʒ]. Forgive my naivety, I've taken for granted that you understood something about phonetics, that's why I explained in detail all those things in my previous comment. The information I wrote there is fully correct, any expert in phonetics could confirm that, but if a discussion among a few users could also establish that the current president of the States is Hillary Clinton it wouldn't make it true, and since there're no sources saying that in Italian a nasal preceding a postalveolar affricate is a palatal this is just false.--Tillotal (talk) 19:55, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
I'm detecting an untoward level of incivility here. You're apparently new, so I recommend you talk a look at WP:CIVILITY. If you have a problem with the conclusion drawn in the discussion I mentioned above, I recommend you bring it there. Attempting to insult or browbeat other editors will not work. Regards. — Ƶ§œš¹ [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 22:52, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
If I've been somehow incivil I apologise. I was just taken by replying and maybe I didn't realise I was overshooting. However, I'm happy for the intervention of an expert in phonetics who solved the problem, thank you for your colaboration--Tillotal (talk) 06:48, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
Aeusoes1, have another look at Talk:Italian phonology#Isn't "palatalized postalveolar" alveolo-palatal?. Admittedly the change I made was hasty. I've reverted changes to transcriptions in articles and to the footnote in the key, but I neglected to (re)move the example I had added. The IP's edit was correct. Nardog (talk) 02:09, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for jumping in. — Ƶ§œš¹ [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 03:50, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

The Langfocus AAVE lecture on YouTubeEdit

User:Aeusoes1, Hi. Can I ask you why you felt it necessary to delete the "External links" entry in this article, which gave a very good overview of the subject AAVE? Just curious.Davidbena (talk) 13:51, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

I clicked on the link to see if it was worthy of inclusion (which I suspected it would not be, per WP:YOUTUBE). But when I did so, the video wasn't available.
Looking closely, I am now able to see that there was an error in the link. Looking at the video, it does seem informative but I don't think that it is a good link to include, per WP:ELNO items 1 and 11. — Ƶ§œš¹ [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 16:37, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
Well, as you are most certainly aware, YouTube is not one of the links that should be avoided, as in many cases, the YouTube presentation is strictly educational, as this video here. If you're having problems accessing the YouTube stream, I can change the format for you. In short, this short overview of the subject is easy for laymen (like myself) to comprehend and is well-articulated, IMHO.Davidbena (talk) 22:50, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
I've given my rationale and it looks like you're ignoring it. Not sure what you're expecting here. Read the links. My reasoning still stands. — Ƶ§œš¹ [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 06:43, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Quotes in Semitic languageEdit

Hello Aeusoes, don't you think that single quotes when used with Semitic words, are confusing and chaotic? Haven't you already noticed that Semitic languages commonly have a pharyngeal and a glottal consonant, and they are transliterated with similar symbols, including the single quote, even initially and finally? An example is علاء /ʕalaːʔ/ 'alā' 'highness' could be rendered ''alā'', appearing slanted without the first and the last consonants, alā, not to mention the discomfort caused by reading single quotes transliterating consonants and single quotes surrounding glosses. --Mahmudmasri (talk) 21:34, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

I see what you're saying, but WP:SINGLE is quite clear on prescribing the use of single quotes for simple glosses across the project. That policy itself comes from the use of single quotes for glosses outside of Wikipedia, including works covering Semitic languages. If there's any room for confusion, something like علاء /ʕalaːʔ/ ʿalāʾ ('highness') with the gloss in parentheses and the transcription in italics should work to keep things clear. As long as things are written with correct transcription and spaces in appropriate place, there will be no unintentional italics. — Ƶ§œš¹ [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 01:46, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
The article you referred to is about a very different context, in songs, which uses double quotes. I commonly see normal single quotes used to transliterate the aforementioned consonants, and missing or hyper-corrected quotes.
Quoting you, that example, علاء /ʕalaːʔ/ ʿalāʾ ('highness'), isn't always applicable, as the whole line might be already inside brackets, (علاء /ʕalaːʔ/ ʿalāʾ 'highness'), making ʿalāʾ and 'highness' written next to each other. --Mahmudmasri (talk) 16:28, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
Oh sorry, that should be MOS:SINGLE.
A space between the '' that closes the italics and the single quote that brackets the simple gloss is all that's needed to keep things looking as intended. Again, as long as things are written correctly, there will be no unintentional italics and therefore no problem. If someone is using ⟨'⟩ for either ⟨ʿ⟩ or ʾ in Semitic transcriptions, then the transcriptions are incorrect and potentially confusing, so if you see those you should fix them. — Ƶ§œš¹ [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 04:41, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Missing cite in ApproximantEdit

Back in 2010, you added a short reference to "Catford (1988:161f)" but no such source is listed in bibliography. Any idea what that source was? Can you please add? Also, suggest installing a script to highlight such errors in the future. All you need to do is copy and paste importScript('User:Svick/HarvErrors.js'); // Backlink: [[User:Svick/HarvErrors.js]] to your common.js page. Thanks, Renata (talk) 04:13, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I've added the source that I must have intended. Good catch. — Ƶ§œš¹ [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 16:45, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter messageEdit

 Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 01:15, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

I have a question:Edit

Why did you revert my edit? Villanco11 (talk) 06:04, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

If you're talking about this edit, it's because you replaced "Mexican bandits" with the flag of Mexico, which erroneously implies that the Las Cuevas War was fought between the United States and Mexico, which it was not.
If you're talking about this talk page message, it's because it was both obscene and off-topic. Talk page discussions should be oriented towards improving article content, which your comment was not. To be frank, a comment like that makes you look like you've come to Wikipedia to cause trouble. If your intentions are good, I recommend you take a look at WP:TALK to make sure that you approach discussions with other editors on the best of terms. — Ƶ§œš¹ [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 06:23, 26 November 2020 (UTC)


Can you tell me why you reverted my changes? AleksiB 1945 (talk) 09:56, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

(edit): Since you know you cant pronounce [t͡ʂ] as you cant start of in the alveolar ridge and immediately jump to the retro. POA and in the page there are multiple occasions where the retro. aff. is represented with narrow transcription [t͡ʂ] AleksiB 1945 (talk) 10:08, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
It looks like Nardog explained the rationale in this edit summary. I'm not sure what the articulatory truth is for Polish, but your phonetic claims are inaccurate. It might be more difficult if Polish retroflexes were subapical, but they are not. They are Laminal post-alveolar, which means it's pronounced with the blade of the tongue, it's not that difficult to have a closure at the alveolar ridge with the tip of the tongue and then release it with constriction in the postalveolar ridge. — Ƶ§œš¹ [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 17:09, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
@Aeusoes1: see 'oo' is commonly used to describe [u] and 'ee' for [i] the same with tʂ/ʈʂ i mean its not like you gota use a ton of diacritics there is a single character for it, also considering that many of the words are transcribed under narrow transcription (yes i talked to Nardog) more about it, you gota either fix on something either post alveolar (t̠͡ʃ/t͡ʃ whatever) or ʈʂ either way you cant use tʂ especially in narrow transcription (you cant immediately jump from alveolar to retroflex you gota start in pos alv or retro. t̠ʂ ʈʂ bla bla) + being hard to pronounce just depends on the speaker many langs have true retroflex stops/affricates including mine and that source is messed up once they will say that (Cz) is true retroflex and later trying to prove its pos alv kinda debated ig at the end of all this its still under the "retroflex" column
Why is this even a thing? I didnt add or delete something without giving a source or something like that i just changed (t) to (ʈ) AleksiB 1945 (talk) 21:51, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
It looks like this conversation is spread out. I recommend we move this to Talk:Polish phonology or Help talk:IPA/Polish. Maybe you can explain there why it's impossible to jump from alveolar to laminal postalveolar. — Ƶ§œš¹ [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 22:09, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
@Aeusoes1: i said alveolar to retroflex, lets just move on its just some symbols AleksiB 1945 (talk) 11:57, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
And I said Polish retroflex consonants are laminal postalveolar. If you want to make the changes, you can try convince the people who disagree with you. Until then, you will find resistance to your desired changes. — Ƶ§œš¹ [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 16:10, 21 December 2020 (UTC)


Sentence with the now redirected link is as follows: "but some of these might be pronounced as compound personal names (like the Carl Gustaf recoilless rifle) with no stress on the first". Any problems with that link are now your problem to sort out. BP OMowe (talk) 20:27, 23 December 2020 (UTC)