User talk:Lfdder/old: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 15:52, 21 July 2013

Affricates

Hey Lfdder. With some of your edits (including this one) you've removed my contributions removing the lead section heading. Could you explain why? If you look at any other Wikipedia article, you'll see that the lead section does not have a heading - it causes substantial UI problems. Ironholds (talk) 17:51, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But there was no lead? — Lfdder (talk) 18:04, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see what you mean, now; my mistake. For future reference, articles should have lead sections :). Ironholds (talk) 18:13, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I did add a lead afterwards. — Lfdder (talk) 18:16, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome! Thanks for solving the problem so promptly; sorry for bothering you :). Ironholds (talk) 21:48, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Antetokounmpo correct pronunciation

This debate has come up before. This is not the correct pronunciation of his name, and it's not how his name is pronounced in Greece, nor is it a Greek pronunciation either. Besides, the name isn't pronounced in Greek phonetics. We should either post the correct pronunciation, or we should not have any pronunciation listed at all. But we should not have an incorrect pronunciation listed, as we do now. I am fine with no pronunciation being listed, and that would be perfectly good, as most articles don't have this. But if we are going to list a pronunciation, then we need to actually list one that is correct. The one that is currently listed isn't correct. It's also nothing related to any Greek pronunciation either.Bluesangrel (talk) 17:53, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What is incorrect about it? — Lfdder (talk) 18:00, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 7: / Line 7: @@
 }}
 {{TOC right}}
-== Whole lot of speculation and accusation and general obnoxiousness ==
-Not easy to decide which editor was reponsible for which of these, in your handy summary. I had not realised that I was contributing, in perfectly good faith, to a "rubbish pit". Kind regards. [[User:Martinevans123|Martinevans123]] ([[User talk:Martinevans123|talk]]) 11:20, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
-:You were speculating about the ILS and the OP was links to speculation. — [[User:Lfdder|Lfdder]] ([[User talk:Lfdder#top|talk]]) 11:36, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
-::I see. I regard the non-operation of the ILS as a fact in the circumstances surrounding this event and thus relevant. But does this mean I am responsible for producing, in your words, a "rubbish pit"? [[User:Martinevans123|Martinevans123]] ([[User talk:Martinevans123|talk]]) 12:48, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
-:::I retract my calling it a 'rubbish pit'. — [[User:Lfdder|Lfdder]] ([[User talk:Lfdder#top|talk]]) 13:00, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
-::::I think that's wise, although previous edit summaries are quite difficult to change, aren't they? The heading you have given the collapsed thread is not the most inviting either, is it? I guess you must be hoping that, in this way, the "contamination" will  not spread and infect other threads. But I'm not sure how successful that approach will be. [[User:Martinevans123|Martinevans123]] ([[User talk:Martinevans123|talk]]) 13:16, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
-:::::Maybe not inviting but true enough. What would be a successful approach? — [[User:Lfdder|Lfdder]] ([[User talk:Lfdder#top|talk]]) 13:25, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
-::::::I’m not sure. But avoiding the use of insulting language in the name of “truth” might be a good place to start. Perhaps requests at individual editor’s Talk Pages to adopt a different approach. I wonder do you have any suspicions as to the identity of the anon ip editor, who uses Wierless Vorizon, in San Francisco? [[User:Martinevans123|Martinevans123]] ([[User talk:Martinevans123|talk]]) 13:59, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
-:::::::There have been posts on the article's talk page and on one user's talk page. nope, what's your suspicion? — [[User:Lfdder|Lfdder]] ([[User talk:Lfdder#top|talk]]) 14:07, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
-::::::::I really have no idea. It's just a little annoying to be accused of "trollling" by an editor who might well be a troll themself. But thank you for your understanding approach to my queries. [[User:Martinevans123|Martinevans123]] ([[User talk:Martinevans123|talk]]) 14:15, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
-:::::::::Might just be a misunderstanding (but still doesn't warrant accusing you of trolling, of course). Pilots are trained in performing visual approaches (i.e. where landing aids are visual). If they needed ILS to perform a visual approach, then the issue would rather be inadequate training (inaptitude) or maybe something about the safety of visual approaches in general I think. — [[User:Lfdder|Lfdder]] ([[User talk:Lfdder#top|talk]]) 14:39, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
-::::::::::Well, who knows (... those particular pilots do, I suppose). One might even say it was lucky that the ILS was down, because that fitted in nicely with the instructor pilot wanting his trainee to do a visual approach. But you won't catch me saying that. As I said at the article Talk Page, we'll have to wait and see if ILS gets any mention at all in the accident report (although many of the things that participants and eye-witnesses say have a habit of getting into articles long before any report gets published, don't they?) [[User:Martinevans123|Martinevans123]] ([[User talk:Martinevans123|talk]]) 14:55, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 == Affricates ==