User talk:Aeusoes1
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 Archives |
|---|
Contents |
[edit] CMT
Thank you for your edits to Central Morocco Tamazight. The one issue which I'm unsure about is the Latin transcription of the Berber. I'm still unclear as to whether the Berber Latin alphabet is used for CMT; assuming its not I can understand your decision to change it to IPA. However it seems somewhat unwieldy to enclose every word in phonemic brackets //. I'm not sure what the practice of well-established articles on languages without an official orthography is; however I would think that it would become cumbersome. Mo-Al (talk) 21:46, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
- I wasn't sure of the transcription system either, but I figured it would be simplest for the reader to be presented with IPA (which Wikipedia already uses to indicate pronunciation) rather than use a transcription system that readers will have to learn. This is how it's done in Ubykh language (a language with no writing system) and Yanesha' language (a language with a writing system). Slashes aren't too much more cumbersome than italicizing words. — Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 22:39, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
[edit] My questions
Thank you for taking the time to answer my questions between the difference of J and tɕ. :) --Bluesoju (talk) 06:43, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Hard/soft C/G
You redirected these pages, effectively destroying the contents, with the comment that the redirection should account for the exceptions. Well, clearly, it doesn't! Do you see any accounting for the exceptions? I don't!
Any general principles are noted in the page you redirected from: GG is hard, NG is as in "thing". But exceptions from these rules are not accounted for by any otherrules, so why not have a list to gather them all together?
Jonathanrcoxhead (talk) 02:05, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
-
- Both pages have huge OR problems, not just in content but in scope. Added to that are POV problems. "Pronunced exceptionally" according to whom? It's not stated and the G page has "rules" that don't go in accordance with the facts.
- Both pages also have problems in that they purport to list words that have an orthographic or phonetic peculiarity. That is the job of a dictionary, not an encyclopedia.
- After the merger, I tried to account for such "exceptions" though the list may not have been exhaustive, it was illustrative enough. Any of the unincluded content from those two pages that is encyclopedic can still go to where the pages are redirected.
- A number of these exceptions aren't really exceptions at all, especially after the Hard and soft C and Hard and soft G articles got a whallop of a restructuring themselves so that they already account for those things. Namely, all of the Hard c where soft c expected words are mentioned, as are the digraphs <ae>, <oe>, and <sc>. More problematic is your assumption that soft g is expected before <e i y> when that isn't the rule at all for quite a few words.
- Calm down. It's just an encyclopedia. — Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 02:22, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
"Both pages have huge OR problems, not just in content but in scope. "
Nonsense. Any dictionary confirms these lists.
"Added to that are POV problems. "Pronunced exceptionally" according to whom? It's not stated and the G page has "rules" that don't go in accordance with the facts."
Nonsense. The rule is that C and G are soft before E, I and Y and hard elsewhere. This is clearly stated in the referred articles.
"Both pages also have problems in that they purport to list words that have an orthographic or phonetic peculiarity. That is the job of a dictionary, not an encyclopedia."
Then please cite a dictionary which does so.
Also, please explain the existence of the articles in "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Lists_of_English_words".
"After the merger, I tried to account for such "exceptions" though the list may not have been exhaustive, it was illustrative enough. Any of the unincluded content from those two pages that is encyclopedic can still go to where the pages are redirected."
You should have done that yourself, or else you have removed content. For example, the word "supercalifragilisticexpialidocious" is not mentioned.
"A number of these exceptions aren't really exceptions at all, especially after the Hard and soft C and Hard and soft G articles got a whallop of a restructuring themselves so that they already account for those things. Namely, all of the Hard c where soft c expected words are mentioned, as are the digraphs <ae>, <oe>, and <sc>. More problematic is your assumption that soft g is expected before <e i y> when that isn't the rule at all for quite a few words."
Having the list is still useful. Redundancy is not a crime. In any case, who appointed you the guardian of redundancy? If you don't like the article, don't read it. Others may find it useful.
"Calm down. It's just an encyclopedia."
Don't be patronising.
Jonathanrcoxhead (talk) 22:44, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
- You got me. It is possible for Wikipedia to have articles with lists of words that have orthographic features. The dictionary I was thinking of was wiktionary.
- My other points still stand. Just because "any dictionary" can confirm whatever is on these pages doesn't mean the page is sourced. I also don't buy that claim. Per WP:V, "...any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." I'm challenging anything I've not duplicated in Hard and soft C and Hard and soft G. As for the "rules", Hard and soft G states: "In word roots of Romance origin, the soft ‹g› pronunciation occurs before ‹i e y› while the hard ‹g› pronunciation occurs elsewhere; in words of non-Romance origin, ‹g› is typically hard." If you continue to maintain an article that says altogether, girl, and angel violate this then you're making two articles contradict each other.
- I don't get how you can intepret "these aren't actually exceptions" to mean that I'm saying the page is redundant. I'm saying that they aren't exceptions. When you take out what's accounted for, the remaining words are so few that it's not worthwhile to maintain a separate page. Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious is not mentioned by name (it's a rediculous nonce word, anyway) but it is accounted for. Have you read the article?
- You'll have to pardon my patronizing tone. I see now that, although you've been at Wikipedia for a year and a half, in the past five months you've done almost nothing but work on these two articles. You must be taking it hard that other editors seem to find your contributions worthless. But your personal feelings of attachment should not play into this (see WP:OWN). I don't need to be a "guardian of redundancy" to take my position (again, see WP:OWN) and implying that I think you're a criminal is strawmaning my position.
- If you want to contribute to Wikipedia in regards to hard and soft C/G, we have articles where you can direct your attention. If all you want is to brandish a list of accomplishments in your user page, then you don't have Wikipedia's best interests in mind. — Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 00:17, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
"You got me. It is possible for Wikipedia to have articles with lists of words that have orthographic features."
Well, I only need one of my points to stand, and the whole argument stands. Hopefully you will respect the logic of this, but if you do not, I will continue to make my case.
I really don't understand your motivation here. What possible benefit can removing an article have? If you don't like it---don't read it! Easy!
"Just because "any dictionary" can confirm whatever is on these pages doesn't mean the page is sourced."
It is not Wikipedia policy to remove unsourced material. Add a copy of the standard warning, if you like. I or someone else can fix it easily enough.
The rule "in words of non-Romance origin, ‹g› is typically hard" is not lexical. This information is not intuitive to a non-native speaker. So let's make a list!
"If you continue to maintain an article that says altogether, girl, and angel violate this then you're making two articles contradict each other."
Not really. The rule is stated at the top; the exceptions follow. The "Hard/soft G" article explains why these exceptions exist, but it does not enumerate them.
"When you take out what's accounted for, the remaining words are so few that it's not worthwhile to maintain a separate page."
That's your judgement. Obviously, I differ. Anyway, no-one is asking you to maintain a separate page. So don't!
"Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious is not mentioned by name (it's a rediculous nonce word, anyway) but it is accounted for."
That's a prescriptive statement. Modern encyclopedias strive to be descriptive.
Also, your case would be stronger if you could spell "ridiculous".
"Have you read the article?"
Wow! I hadn't thought of that! I'll do it right now!
Sarcasm. Apologies.
"You'll have to pardon my patronizing tone. I see now that, although you've been at Wikipedia for a year and a half, in the past five months you've done almost nothing but work on these two articles. You must be taking it hard that other editors seem to find your contributions worthless."
One other editor, in fact, namely you. Yes, you are very annoying. Please stop!
"But your personal feelings of attachment should not play into this (see WP:OWN)."
Neither should yours. If you want to make a useful contribution, go ahead. If you want to be a vandal, go elsewhere. My contributions do not diminish yours in any way. Please try to respect them for what they are, which may indeed not be much, and if you don't want to improve them, kindly leave them alone.
"I don't need to be a "guardian of redundancy" to take my position (again, see WP:OWN) and implying that I think you're a criminal is strawmaning my position."
My apologies; I intended no such thing.
"If you want to contribute to Wikipedia in regards to hard and soft C/G, we have articles where you can direct your attention."
No, that's not my motivation at all. I had these lists available from another project, I couldn't find them online anywhere, and it seemed to fit into Wikipedia's framework. So it seemed worthwhile to share them with others. If it is actually of no interest to anyone else, no harm done, eh?
I have some more I may also contribute: TH pronounced voiced/unvoiced; Y as a vowel or a consonant; various pronunciations of GH, etc. Just lists of words that may enhance Wikipedia in some small way.
"If all you want is to brandish a list of accomplishments in your user page, then you don't have Wikipedia's best interests in mind."
No, I'm not very interested in brandishing. Do you see any evidence of brandishing anywhere? Maybe you are confusing your own motivations with mine; I couldn't say.
Well, as I said at the top, as long as you agree that one of my points stands, you logically should respect the integrity of my contribution. I hope you do.
Cheers
Jonathanrcoxhead (talk) 08:31, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
From WP:BURDEN: "Any material lacking a reliable source may be removed, but editors might object if you remove material without giving them sufficient time to provide references, and it has always been good practice, and expected behavior of Wikipedia editors (in line with our editing policy), to make reasonable efforts to find sources oneself that support such material, and cite them."
Please follow this rule!
Jonathanrcoxhead (talk) 09:02, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
- How am I not following it? You've had two weeks to provide sources after asked and instead you've chosen to revert war and antagonize other editors. Have you even tried to look up sources? — Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 21:42, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Lots of sources added.
"How am I not following it?" You removed the page BEFORE you asked for sources. Please strive to be accurate in your claims. How is that "giving time"? Also, there is a recognised template you could put in the page to request sources; you didn't do that.
"You've chosen to revert war". I think you'll find the first move was yours, not mine. Again, please strive to be accurate in your claims.
I'm starting to think you are acting in bad faith, though I don't know why. (It seems you think of Wikipedia as some sort of competition, rather than as a way of sharing knowledge, and that my contribution makes you look bad in some way. This is not the case!)
If you revert again, I will investigate reporting your actions as vandalism.
Jonathanrcoxhead (talk) 19:40, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
- I'm glad to see that you've attempted to find sources, but finding sources on the pronunciations is not finding a source for the biggest claim in both of these articles, that they are exceptions to some sort of rule. You also still haven't demonstrated how this information can't be covered in Hard and soft G and Hard and soft C. As I said in an edit summary, I think we should move this discussion to those pages so it's not just you and me talking about this.
- As for my behavior or the "accuracy" of my claims. Here's how I see it: I reformatted and reorganized Hard and soft G and Hard and soft C. Part of this reorganization involved the two articles in question here which had the problems I've mentioned. I incorporated as much information as I felt was appropriate and anything I didn't include was (IMHO) either redundant or seemed self-contradictory. Thus, by removing it, I was inherently questioning the accuracy. This was clarified above (on June 13, about two weeks ago) when I mentioned the OR problems. The tags are one way of calling attention to citation problems, but the absence of tags is not absence of a problem.
- I don't think you understand what "bad faith" or "vandalism" mean. Bad faith means in contradiction to the aims of Wikipedia. This includes accurate verified information and use of consensus to make agreements. Vandalism is not simply contentious editing. It is a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of a page.
- Here's what I'll do. For a short period of time, I will not revert to the merger for those two pages if you start a discussion either at Talk:Hard and soft G or Talk:Hard and soft C. The case you should be making is whether the pages should be split (what you want) or combined (what I want). If you don't bother starting a discussion, it will tell me you're not interested in contributing to Wikipedia in a way that runs with our practice of consensus. — Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 20:04, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
If you want sources for any claims, you know what to do: you annotate the page itself. The "fact" tag is your friend.
Yes, I know what "bad faith" and "vandalism" are. Repeatedly removing content is more than contentious: it is destructive. Even if the content is redundant, it does no harm. I expect most of the lists in Wikipedia are redundant: are you going to remove them all?
Take "caesium", for example. The remark that "The soft ‹c› pronunciation occurs before ‹i e y› as well as ‹ae› and ‹oe› in a number of Greek loanwords (e.g. coelacanth, caecum)" is not enough to tell you that "caesium" is such a word; for that, you need a list. But why burden an encyclopedia entry with that list? It is logical and sensible to leave the list in a separate place. It may be a failure of my imagination, but I see no constructive reason to remove the list. The nearest I see above is that it is "redundant or self-contradictory". I think the "caesium" example proves it's not redundant. If it's self-contradictory then, the contradiction must be the result of one (or more) incorrect statements. If all the content is true, there can be no contradiction; so let's fix it by correcting the falsehoods, not by deleting content which is actually true (and now---ta daaaaa!!---sourced).
BTW, "caesium" is latin, not greek. So is "Caesar". I suppose I should fix that. Ho hum ...
Thanks for motivating me to source the articles, BTW. I think they are better as a result.
So then, OK, I accept your suggestion of a discussion elsewhere. Give me a couple of weeks, please.
Cheers
Jonathanrcoxhead (talk) 22:41, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Affricates
Regarding this edit you made, I just want to make sure one thing, because I don't know if I made my point clearly enough. Do you actually realize that those phonetic symbols written with and without the tie-bar represent completely different pronunciations?
I'm asking you this in good faith, as I know it can be difficult for English native speakers to hear the difference between affricates and their plosive-fricative sequence counterparts, so it is quite understandable for them to consider that the tie-bar is not really necessary, especially when it doesn't always display correctly.
By the way, I still don't know what "does not display correctly" looks like. On my computer, both in IE and Firefox, I have no problems (and I don't use IE at all, so I haven't adjusted any of its font settings). So I wonder how many readers suffer from the tie-bar not displaying correctly, and to what extent.
You might also want to know that there are Romanian words spelled with -dj- (usually loans from Russian or French) that are pronounced with an affricate (for example azerbaidjană), whereas others are pronounced with a plosive-fricative sequence (for example tadjică). This means that even for someone who does speak Romanian (including natives), the pronunciation is not always obvious from orthography. Surely, for readers who know too little about the Romanian orthography rules it's even worse, because they may be tempted to think that Romanian words like adjectiv and adjudeca are pronounced with an affricate (like their English equivalents are), which is wrong.
I'm still waiting for a good argument to omit the tie-bar. The precedent of other similar pronunciation keys is a non-argument. The incorrect display problem is just a question of appearance, unless the tie-bar utterly disrupts the display of the whole paragraph or page, and should be dismissed as being a weak argument in comparison with the really important aspect, the pronunciation. Finally, the effort of adding the tie-bar was quoted as an argument, but I have already added the tie-bar to a few dozen articles (all I could find), and it wasn't much of an effort.
I could agree to a compromise. We could give both versions in the key and warn readers that one is correct (but may not display correctly), whereas the other is accepted, but potentially misleading. — AdiJapan 05:49, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
- I do realize that they're different pronunciations, though as an English speaker I can't say that I'd be able to hear the difference. Similarly, I can't usually tell the difference between [tʃ] and [tɕ]. In my experience, when tie-bars don't display correctly they either aren't aligned correctly or they appear as a box. It is mostly a question of appearance.
- Perhaps a better way to refer to other keys is to say that, since a number are no different than Romanian in making phonemic contrasts between affricates and stop+fricative sequences, arguments for and against tie-bars apply to those equally to Romanian. As far as I can tell, our policy on Romanian would also apply to Polish, Russian, etc. Your reference to loanwords is a potential difference, though I'm not sure how common such loanwords are nor how productive these affricate-stop+fricative cluster contrasts are. As it stands now, the article reflects the compromise you propose though it could be worded more clearly. — Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 06:30, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Foreign accents of English
I saw you reverted three changes in that article. Two of them seem to be actually good contributions. Did you accidentally undo too many? What does the abbreviation "OR" mean in your edit summary? Robert Will (talk) 15:27, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
- OR is a reference to WP:OR, which details our policy on original research. That particular page has a long history of people contributing with original research and it's been decided that there won't be any more. Check out the talk page. — Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 17:48, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
[edit] John Titor article
--76.119.61.141 (talk) 19:27, 26 June 2009 (UTC)http://en.wikipedia.org/skins-1.5/common/images/button_sig.png Okk are you willi9ng to work together with me on the John titor article [1]. We should make a game play nad attack from that position. 76.119.61.141 (talk) 19:27, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
- Game play? Attack? Let's keep the discussion to Talk:John Titor so that others can contribute as well. — Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 19:30, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Gorbachev
This should probably be listed in Gorbachev (disambiguation) instead, to reduce hatnote clutter, wouldn't you agree?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:26, June 29, 2009 (UTC)
- Good idea. — Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 21:15, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
