From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

In AMERICAN english please ![edit]

All the states of these pages are written in british english IPA (International Phonetic Alphabet). It is not Wisconsin (/wɪˈskɒnsɪn/ It is Wisconsin (/wɪˈskɑnsən/)[1] /ɒ/ and /ɑ/ are two different phonems.
/ɒ/ sound does not exist in american english[2], it is a british sound.

The persons who have written these words in API should edit them.

American states should be pronounced in american english, not in british english.

The current prononciations of these articles are real traps for non fluent English speaking persons like me. One believe to find here a reliable reference. In reality, this is not the case.

--MYR (talk) 07:57, 18 September 2017 (UTC)boi


Semi-protected edit request on 3 February 2018[edit]

Could someone please correct the misspelling in the Transportation-Major highways section? (In case you can't figure out the misspelled word: "transverse" should be "traverse".) (talk) 02:06, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

 Partly done: "Transverse" and "traverse" are arguably both correct but they are also both more-convoluted ways of saying "are located in". Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:14, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Can someone who is a native speaker of English, has at least a ninth-grade reading level, and understands the difference between a noun, an adjective, and a verb, please address this request? ("Transverse" is an adjective or a noun, not a verb; "traverse" is a verb.) "Are locate in" is incorrect because most of those interstate highways are also "located in" other states. (talk) 19:18, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Somebody who is a native English speaker with a graduate-level education and a profession in writing already responded. Transverse is also used as a verb, being the present participle of transversing, which means to cut across. Also, "are located in" does not necessarily mean or imply "are exclusively located in" and the inclusive sense of the phrase is made explicit by the fact that it modifies Interstate highways. Please also see the policy on implying lack of qualifications about another editor. Wikipedia is not Facebook or other social media and treating it a such is a good way to earn quick blocks. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:59, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
Just because Wikipedians like sources, here's a very early usages of "transverse" as a verb: "The ceilings of these apartments were low, transversed by large unwrought beams in different directions, and lighted, if that phrase could with propriety be applied, by small casement windows."[1]


  1. ^ Moser, Joseph (July 1802). "Vestiges, Collected and Recollected". The European Magazine, and London Review. XLII: 11. |access-date= requires |url= (help)

Undue material in agriculture section[edit]

I've tagged @Soibangla:'s addition to the agriculture section as undue.[[1]] The rest of that subsection and the parent Economy section was largely factual and didn't contain specific political commentary. The material added was a partisan assessment of Gov Walker's efforts in the area. Beyond undue, the material restoration doesn't follow WP:BRD as this is new material that was challenged and restored without gaining consensus. Springee (talk) 17:28, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

It is not a partisan assessment. It is a fact that Walker instituted the program and it resulted in a glut and depressed prices, and it is a fact that retaliatory tariffs have exacerbated the situation, as reliably sourced. I realize these facts may cause some to experience cognitive dissonance, but they are facts. Please remove the tag and allow the edit to remain. soibangla (talk) 17:34, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
The rest of the section has no political material and doesn't address the outcome of any specific policy initiative. It is certainly undue to include a very political paragraph sourced to a single RS in an otherwise non-political section that delivers high level assessments. For example the manufacturing section just below doesn't talk about retaliatory tariffs resulting from Trump's trade war that have targeted Harley Davidson. It doesn't talk about how medical device spending will impact GE's imaging business located in the state etc. This isn't a case of facts causing some to "experience cognitive dissonance". This recent addition is the only material of its kind in the whole section. Per BRD (and CONSENSUS) the proper procedure is to remove the material until consensus supports inclusion. Rather than just remove the material outright I've added the undue tag. Other editors can decide if your addition was reasonable. Springee (talk) 17:49, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
I stopped reading at "political material." There is no political material. Period. soibangla (talk) 17:52, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
The fact that Harley and GE are not mentioned in the article does not mean that this material regarding "America's Dairyland" should not be here. "America's Dairyland" is in the lede; are Harley and GE? Feel free to add material about Harley and GE. I would also appreciate if you would specify precisely how the edit deviates from the facts and ventures into the political realm. soibangla (talk) 23:18, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
Especially considering the source used (a dairy trade publication), this does not belong here. Unless other, more neutral sources can be proffered, this does not belong at all. Even if it can be better sourced, it doesn't merit that much space and it certainly shouldn't lead. Wisconsin has been a state for close to 200 years. An event in this decade does not merit that prominent of coverage. Further it is a drastic fail of WP:NPOV. I'd support and suggest immediate removal (which I would do myself right now due to failure to follow BRD, but I cannot completely load pages with pending changes on my phone so I cannot), with discussion of other possible sources here looking toward possibly adding a sentence or two in proper chronological order. John from Idegon (talk) 17:56, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
The RS is the NYT. Wisconsin has been a state for close to 200 years Relevance? that much space and it certainly shouldn't lead Two sentences deep in the article, actually. drastic fail of WP:NPOV The edit is 100% factual and unbiased, in fact. soibangla (talk) 18:02, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
@John from Idegon:I believe I have adequately addressed your stated concerns. Is there anything else you would like to express? soibangla (talk) 17:11, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
You haven't made any arguments to respond to, Soibangla. You've only asserted things, not responded with argument based in sources and policy (see WP:ILIKEIT. Just so you are clear, I am arguing that a bit of this size, sourced only to a trade publication of an involved organization cannot possibly be neutral. Further, I'm arguing that it certainly shouldn't lead as that gives it undue prominence. It should be in chronological order. Additionally, the amount of copy gives it undue WP:WEIGHT. I still oppose including your preferred version. It appears Springee opposes anything on this, a position he supports well. I might be amiable to inclusion of a small (like one sentence) bit about this with better sourcing in the proper chronological order. Why don't you propose something and see if it flies? John from Idegon (talk) 17:33, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
I fail to understand why you continue to assert that the edit was in the lead when it clearly was not. It wasn't even the lead of the section. I deliberately placed it as the second paragraph, but if you still believe that placement is too prominent, feel free to move it down. Easy! I also explained that the source is the NYT, a reliable source, yet you continue to assert it's from a trade publication, and even if that were true, it tends to refute your concern because trade publications closely follow their specific industries. You continue to assert that it gets too much copy, when it's actually three sentences deep in the article about what is the most prominent industry in the state. Now you ask me to propose an alternative, but instead of doing that yourself, you chose to falsely assert there was consensus to revert the edit (as later tagged by Springee) in full. A reasonable person might conclude that this was not a good faith action to collaborate. soibangla (talk) 17:48, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
I agree with John from Idegon, this material is undue in the section in which it was inserted (regardless of how many RS's back it) and more so since it was sourced to a single NYT article. Soibangla, I don't see the bad faith editing you are seeing. Perhaps @Ponyo: could suggest what I've missed. Springee (talk) 18:00, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
I am fully confident that I have decisively demolished the arguments of both of you, and your responses are to repeat flat falsehoods or dodge. Consequently I now have reason to suspect that specious arguments are being made to filibuster valid, factual content that some find inconvenient, and I may seek admin intervention unless you can convincingly persuade me not to. So far, it ain't workin', as any reasonable, objective observer would agree. soibangla (talk) 18:34, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Soibangla: The material you are edit warring to restore has been challenged by multiple editors as WP:UNDUE. You need to get consensus for its inclusion prior to restoring it to article space. I'd leave a notice on your talk page affirming our policies in this regard, but you seem to blank it regularly claiming that your moving the material to an archive which doesn't really exist. -- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 22:58, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
The editor's assertion that there was consensus to remove the edit is false, as is this: you seem to blank it regularly claiming that your moving the material to an archive which doesn't really exist soibangla (talk) 23:09, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
The burden for inclusion of challenged material is on the editor who wishes to restore it. Regarding your blanking of talk page content in lieu of archiving, could you provide me a link to "archive 3" that you note here? -- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 23:20, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
Ponyo No, I will not indulge your request after you falsely accused me of devious behavior. Perhaps there was an error, but there is no attempt at deception. I encourage you to strike your accusation and apologize. soibangla (talk) 23:23, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
I never accused you of deception, I just noted that there didn't seem to be a point in trying to explain the policy to you on your talk page as you blank the content noting it has been archived when it doesn't appear that any archives exist (also here for example). It's not nefarious, just not particularly accurate or helpful (see Help:Archiving a talk page). No point in taking up any additional space here discussing it.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 23:29, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
I do not blank it "regularly," I have done it thrice in the lifetime of my account, and BTW, archive3 does exist, there was no error. Please strike and apologize. And BTW, why do you have in interest in monitoring my Talk page so closely? soibangla (talk) 23:32, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
I have an interest in your talk page due to the fact that I am an admin who, upon stumbling upon an edit war, was looking to see whether you had been warned previously regarding edit warring, only to find a blank page and edit summaries for archives that don't appear to exist. You still have not provided a link to archive 3 (or any of the others). But again, as I have obviously captured your attention and was able to remind you of our policies regarding consensus, this is no longer a relevant discussion for this page.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 18:45, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
Do you believe it was proper for John from Idegon to assert consensus by reverting an edit in full, after it had been tagged by Springee, when this matter wasn't even half a day old and only three editors had engaged the matter? soibangla (talk) 19:02, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
Soibangla, I won't be saying this again. If you have a problem with my behavior, take it to a noticeboard. Please limit your posts here to discussion of the issue at hand. Thanks. John from Idegon (talk) 19:24, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
@John from Idegon: I am, in fact, discussing the issue at hand. Now, do you have a response to my earlier edit regarding your repetition of false and specious objections to justify exclusion of the edit? soibangla (talk) 22:03, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Soibangla, we were both recently, gently warned about edit warring by MelanieN.[[2]] CONSENSUS is clear that if an edit is challenged then we head to the talk page. If consensus for a change can't be reached then the previous stable text is restored. Springee (talk) 23:52, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

@Springee:Please respond to my questions above soibangla (talk) 23:53, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

"Winconsin" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]


An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Winconsin. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Steel1943 (talk) 23:08, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

"Wiscansin" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]


An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wiscansin. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Steel1943 (talk) 23:09, 20 September 2019 (UTC)