User talk:Lfdder/old: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 07:35, 7 February 2014

Blocked

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

- Since you've already had three in recent days, I've applied a longer block for violating the civility policy. We can't build an encyclopaedia together unless we work together. Here's why. Note that unless you give some thought to your behaviour, future ones are just going to be even longer. WilyD 11:27, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Go fuck yourself. — Lfdder (talk) 11:29, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and please turn autoblock off. — Lfdder (talk) 11:32, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take the first point under advisement, but I'm not terribly interested in helping you engage in block evasion. WilyD 12:05, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Really. @Mr. Stradivarius: can you help? — Lfdder (talk) 12:32, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, this feels a bit too much like admin shopping or canvassing to me, especially seeing as it's not something that we normally do. I'd post an unblock request just asking for autoblock to be removed and see what other admins say. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 13:46, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

sigh. There's a million ways to go about evading my block if I wanted to (which I don't). The autoblock is a horrendous privacy breach. Not only that, it means that about 500 people I share this IP with now can't edit Wikipedia. Good going. — Lfdder (talk) 14:08, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Lfdder (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

To remove autoblock, as suggested above.

Decline reason:

Unblock declined, but I see no reason to assume you'll evade the block if the autoblock is removed (as far as I can tell, you didn't last time), so I've done so. Yunshui 雲‍水 14:46, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Thank you. — Lfdder (talk) 14:47, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Vanisaac: I've been blocked twice before for incivility, not four times. I didn't "throw around names and childish insults"; I said he talked like an idiot -- stop dramatising. WilyD declined a technical deletion 'cos it was improperly tagged, he thought. Doubtful, but fair enough -- what did WilyD do next? Did he point kwami to the right tag to use? No, he said kwami was disruptive and threatened with 'escalation' -- all for wanting to delete a bracketed redirect that had outlived its purpose. In short, he talked (and acted) like an idiot. The redirect was deleted shortly after (before I was blocked, in fact), after I'd g6-tagged it. — Lfdder (talk) 12:12, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocked

Per the consensus at the administrators noticeboard, I have unblocked. 28bytes (talk) 16:30, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back, Lfdder. I hope you'll be here for a while. Drmies (talk) 03:01, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. — Lfdder (talk) 03:08, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Things

@Kwamikagami: Lahnda language possibly needs to be reverted again, Kathypearl reverted to their favourite version. — Lfdder (talk) 18:03, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Hadn't noticed. — kwami (talk) 18:13, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Denti-alveolar sibilant affricates

Hi. Why aren't these denti-alveolar in your opinion? They're "made of" a denti-alveolar stop and a post-dental sibilant fricative. What doesn't make them denti-alveolar then? The fact that it's the lower teeth that is used to pronounce it, not upper? The name is not as specific, it doesn't say "upperdenti-alveolar" or what have you, just "denti-alveolar". --Helloworlditsme (talk) 12:45, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

a) denti-alveolar means with the tip on the alveolar ridge and upper teeth, always, I thought, and b) what you're describing is laminal alveolar; if the tip's resting on the lower teeth, does it matter much? I may of course be wrong -- @Kwamikagami: what do you think? [1] — Lfdder (talk) 12:52, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tip on the lower teeth makes the hissing noticeably stronger. So yes, I'd say it's pretty important. Besides, is it even humanly possible for the tip to touch alveolar ridge and the bottom of the upper (not to mention lower) teeth at the same time? That's why denti-alveolar /t d n l/ are laminal - they're pronounced with both the blade and the tip. Given the fact that all languages that are listed (or most of them) that are using this sound have denti-alveolar /t d/ and laminal post-dental /s z/, /t͡s d͡z/ is basically a combination of their /t d/ and /s z/. Now, when denti-alveolar /t d/ that are normally pronounced with the tip of the tongue behind upper front teeth are assimilated to say post-dental /s z/, so that their tip is no longer behind upper but behind lower front teeth, does that make them non-dentoalveolar? Because they sound exactly the same, there's no difference whatsoever... --Helloworlditsme (talk) 13:44, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can't speak to the specific language you're considering, but the place is usually taken to be that of the fricative. Wow, just noticed that our voiced dental fricative article is messed up. A voiced dental fricative is [ð], so a voiced dental affricate is [d͜ð]. I think we'd need to specify that it's a sibilant if we're gonna call it dental, but fronted alveolar or denti-alveolar might be better. An actual dental would mean no contact w the upper alveolar ridge. I haven't looked into this for a while, and unfortunately phonetic terminology seems to vary a lot as people think they've come up with a better description than anyone else, so I'd consider broad overviews like SOTWL. — kwami (talk) 20:25, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We're talking about "dental" /t͡s d͡z/ in general. If it's usually the fricative that defines the place of active articulation, then I suppose that is the reason why Basque retracted /t͡s/ is called apical - even though the stop is laminal. May I ask why you think it's messed up? I moved sibilants to the alveolar pages, since teeth do not actively participate in the articulation. They're just... important to mention, as placing the tongue behind lower front teeth is essential for the proper "hissing" pronunciation. To tell you the truth, RP English /s z/ (laminal non-fronted alveolar) sound like a lisp in Slavic languages, because they're too slow (which I suppose is the main cause of massive problems that many Anglophones have with Slavic consonant clusters) and not distinct enough from our post-alveolars. Slavs seem to focus a lot on the quality of their /s z t͡s d͡z/, which are very uniformly-sounding.

Kwami, if you haven't noticed, "dental" sibilants were moved to voiceless alveolar sibilant and voiced alveolar sibilant - because, as I said, technically they're still alveolar. I don't remember which one, but some book about sounds in world's languages by Ladefodged from the 90s cited some research from the 70s about Polish /s z/. Maybe one of you will know which book it is, as my memory can be quite shite. They called those sounds "dentalized (laminal) alveolar", or similarly. Jassem (2003 I think; JIPA) calls Polish /s z t͡s d͡z/ "post-dental", which again confirms what you said about the fricative defining the place of active articulation of the affricate - as the stop is definitely laminal denti-alveolar (blade on the alveolar ridge, tip behind lower front teeth) - as long as we're not as strict in defining what "denti-alveolar" means. Honestly, I don't know how else one could call that. I know that I'm repeating myself here (look above Kwami's message), and I hope that Lfdder will answer my question.

Could you clarify a bit on "I think we'd need to specify that it's a sibilant if we're gonna call it dental"? I think we're being specific enough on all pages, separating sibilant fricatives and affricates from the non-sibilant ones wherever it's necessary. As I said, I moved "dental" /s z/ back to the alveolar pages, so maybe that's why you wrote it. --Helloworlditsme (talk) 00:43, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, don't have much time to spend on this right now. (1) The page is messed up because it contains a subheading and nothing else. It looks like half the article is missing. (2) We can't call /ts/ a "dental affricate", because people will misunderstand us as meaning /tθ/. — kwami (talk) 08:48, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"I moved sibilants to the alveolar pages, since teeth do not actively participate in the articulation. They're just... important to mention, as placing the tongue behind lower front teeth is essential for the proper "hissing" pronunciation." This is what I meant above. Essentially, what's important is the shape the tongue makes. Either way, I wasn't questioning the description, but labelling it denti-alveolar, which may confuse readers who know it to mean with the tip on the upper teeth. — Lfdder (talk) 09:08, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, it was late and I didn't connect the dots in the Kwami's message properly. So basically, if we ignore the stop we're left with "alveolar fronted" name (since that's how I called alveolar fronted sibilants). Ok, I'm moving them then. That's clear enough, thanks. --Helloworlditsme (talk) 13:46, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greek diphthongs

Re this, we probably want to update Ancient Greek phonology, then. — kwami (talk) 22:10, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what period that article is meant to represent, exactly. Some descriptions seem to be classical, others post-classical. ⟨υι⟩ was monophthongised before the onset of Koine. In fact, I remember reading that it happened 'prehistorically'. (Also, ⟨υ⟩ is only [y] in Attic, other dialects had [u].) — Lfdder (talk) 22:29, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template edit question

I reverted this edit, because it caused a template loop, and did not see any adverse results. Just to make sure I'm not missing anything, I wanted to ask you, what is the reason you made this edit in the first place? Debresser (talk) 02:34, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just saw the same thing here and here. Debresser (talk) 02:46, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It'll only cause a loop when there's no param, so there's not really any point in reverting these edits. I made the changes in preparation for replacing {{ISO 639 name}} with a Lua module I was writing at the time. It never was deployed. — Lfdder (talk) 02:54, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The problems arose indeed only when there were no parameters. But even that can be avoided, which I did. I am working on emptying Category:Template loop warnings. I now understand what you did. Thanks for your reply. Debresser (talk) 03:30, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Romance-speaking Europe

Uncontroversial? Really? Talk pages exist for a reason pal. Rob (talk | contribs) 14:45, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not 'pals' with condescending arseholes. — Lfdder (talk) 14:50, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted his edit. It seems that this user is clearly a disruptive editor. Afro-Eurasian (talk) 17:04, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Really. — Lfdder (talk) 17:13, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've responded here. Afro-Eurasian (talk) 17:25, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Northern Cyprus: introductory paragraph

You may offer better sentence I think, perhaps you may be a native speaker. I found a new composition of sentences. Look, please:

My view is that: If "no recognition" is followed by "no acception", then "though" will be meaningless. But,
The teams of Northern Cyprus and Rep. of Cyprus was matched and played in international organizations,
European and World Championships was organized in Northern Cyprus,
Some international organizations establised its headquarter in Northern Cyprus,
The accreditation institutions of Northern Cyprus was accredited to European accreditation institutions,
Northern Cyprus became members of some international political unions of countries,
The educational, sportive, and other institutions of Northern Cyprus became members of international educational, sportive, and other unions, etc.
I proved all these. If all were not realized, then "though" will be meaningless, I think. The usage of connectives like "though" is just to provide consistency in sentences of paragraphs.
It would be nice if you can provide a better composition of the infos:
"recognition only by Turkey and considered by the United Nations to be occupied territory of the Republic of Cyprus" and "Northern Cyprus has an increasing international acception".
What about (a brain-storming):
Northern Cyprus is recognised only by Turkey and considered by the United Nations to be occupied territory of the Republic of Cyprus, but it has an increasing international acception.
??? Alexyflemming (talk) 07:19, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

'Increasing intl acceptance' is an interpretation (I'd say an ambiguous one). Unless this is a resounding opinion in academia, I don't think it's lead material. 'Though' suggests a relationship btn recognition and 'acceptance' that's absent from the source. If you think that bit absolutely ought to be added, the best place would be under the 'International status and foreign relations' heading. It should say something like, 'According to one analyst, Northern Cyprus's opening of a trade office in Israel is indication of growing international acceptance' -- i.e. it should paraphrase the source, but not extrapolate from it. Frankly, I think it's WP:UNDUEWEIGHT, but others may think otherwise. Best to take the discussion back to the article's talk page. Pinging User:Chipmunkdavis, User:Dr.K. and User:KalJohnson since they're involved in the discussion there. — Lfdder (talk) 13:23, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I fully agree, as I said before just above. 'Increasing international acceptance' is weasel, undue weight, synthesis and original research unsupported by the vast majority of sources which consider Northern Cyprus a part of Cyprus and illegally occupied at that. We cannot aggregate minor sport, cultural and political organisations which gave TRNC membership and call it "international acceptance". That's the very definition of synthesis. BTW that was one of the standard goals of a series of Justice Forever socks through the years who kept insisting about similar things on the TRNC talkpage. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 14:25, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Lfdder that international acceptance is an interpretation, but furthermore, acceptance of existence should not be contrasted with recognition. If some groups are thinking, well, Northern Cyprus exists, and there's people there, so let's let them play sports, that does not mean that recognition of Northern Cypriot statehood follows. Similarly, if international organisations refused to interact with Northern Cyprus, that would not mean it didn't exist. CMD (talk) 14:32, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I fully agree. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 14:40, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not synthesis: Here are the reliable sources

"Northern Cyprus has an increasing international acception" is not synthesis. There are reliable sources that support this statement:
1. http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Turkish-Cypriots-to-open-trade-office-in-Israel Jerusalem Post 03.10.2008
"Northern Cyprus is opening a trade office in Israel, according to a prominent Israeli attorney, an indication of growing international acceptance of the isolated breakaway state."
2. http://www.turkishny.com/other-news/4-other-news/32263-ba-kktcnin-uluslararas-kabul-gormesinde-talatn-pay-buyuk/printing
Bagis: "The share of Talat in international acceptance of TRNC is high."

3. http://www.haberturk.com/dunya/haber/510247-kibrista-yeni-donem
Talat (former prsident of TRNC) "....the international acception that we gained cannot be underestimated..."
Suffice?

justice forever sock claim

Δρ.Κ., you already accused me of a sockpuppettry of justice forever:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Justice_Forever/Archive#28_January_2014

Definitely, I am not. I supplied numerous disproofs to your claims. And, Wikipedia authorities closed the case:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Justice_Forever&diff=593263401&oldid=592803341

I am neutral and objective in this Cyprus/Northern Cyprus issue. Do not put those who has (or try) the same objectivity and neutrality in this issue into the same basket. By counter thinking, Lfdder, Chipmunkdavis, you (Dr.K.) seem to defend the similar arguments. Though I did not check your IPs, I do not think you are all the same people.

By the way, it would be more fair if you want to continue to direct your sock accusation in my Talk page. Sorry, Lfdder, if I used your Talk page this much.Alexyflemming (talk) 18:35, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To make such a claim in a lead would need much more than a JPost article and a couple of statements from an involved Politician. Even if sources did generally support some sort of acceptance, the implications of placing it as a contrast to recognition would be highly misleading. If membership of any group is very important and has an impact on Northern Cyprus, it will be in the article. From there readers can make their own deductions. CMD (talk) 18:57, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

By counter thinking, Lfdder, Chipmunkdavis, you (Dr.K.) seem to defend the similar arguments. Though I did not check your IPs, I do not think you are all the same people. Has it occurred to you that we use similar arguments because we know how to apply the policies of Wikipedia? Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 22:38, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you will feel relaxed, I can obtain MSN messenger or Skype account, and you can talk to me directly there and take infinitely many pictures by snapshots. I already said the username is not arbitrary: ( https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Justice_Forever&diff=592773832&oldid=592772379 ). You can talk to me via alexyflemming .at. gmail ..com. You can talk to me in Google Talks or you can specify another platform; I can subscribe to your specified platform.

Anyway, Lfdder's Talk Page is not the proper place to exploit freely for "Northern Cyprus" and "sockpuppettry" issues. That's why, I already took the above relevant discussion to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Northern_Cyprus. If you want to continue to your sockpuppettry claim, you are free and here are the following proper places that are more fair to use:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Alexyflemming

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Justice_Forever

Also, for your last accusation (the knowledge of checking IPs), "checking IPs" is not smt. peculiar to Wikipedia. This is done via that way in almost all of the websites! Alexyflemming (talk) 07:05, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Though I did not check your IPs, I do not think you are all the same people. I was repeating your own words about me, Lfdder, and CMD. These are not my accusations. These are the words you used to describe us three. Have you forgotten your own words? Please read them again just above on top of your own signature. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 07:35, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 119: / Line 119: @@
 :: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Justice_Forever <br/>
 :: Also, for your last accusation (the knowledge of checking IPs), "checking IPs" is not smt. peculiar to Wikipedia. This is done via that way in almost all of the websites! [[User:Alexyflemming|Alexyflemming]] ([[User talk:Alexyflemming|talk]]) 07:05, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
+:::{{xt|Though I did not check your IPs, I do not think you are all the same people.}} I was repeating your own words about me, Lfdder, and CMD. These are not my accusations. These are the words you used to describe us three. Have you forgotten your own words? Please read them again just above on top of your own signature. [[User:Dr.K.|Δρ.Κ.]]&nbsp;<small><sup style="position:relative">[[User talk:Dr.K.|λόγος]]<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">[[Special:Contributions/Dr.K.|πράξις]]</span></sup></small>  07:35, 7 February 2014 (UTC)