# User talk:יהודה שמחה ולדמן

Jump to: navigation, search

## Welcome!

Hello, יהודה שמחה ולדמן, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! RJFJR (talk) 15:43, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

## Table style in phonology articles

Hey, I have noticed that you have been editing the consonant inventory tables in some phonology articles. Your edits are fine, but a bit clunky. I have been modifying the tables after your edits, to simplify them. Width specifications are unnecessary in most cases, and it is normal to have the upper left-hand cell be a table header rather than a regular table cell. Also, some of your attempted abbreviations of things like "labiodental" and "bilabial" are not satisfactory: they are hard to figure out and look clunky. I would appreciate it if you would take notice when someone edits the tables and not simply undo changes without giving a reason or without discussion, as you have done in Modern Greek phonology. It is best to keep the code for the tables as simple as possible, removing code that doesn't affect the finished look, for the benefit of editors who will modify the tables in the future, and to follow existing style conventions.

I'm going to revert your edits. Please explain here before reverting my edit. — Eru·tuon 20:30, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Is the clunkiness including the dropping of the lines of "Ejective"/"Labialized" and the phonemes presented with the colors? Because in Abkhaz language someone used colors for some chars - that's where I got the idea of shortning the table. But your right about the Labio-Dental row - I shouldn't have touched it. Do I get your permission? יהודה שמחה ולדמן (talk) 21:02, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
I haven't edited the Abkhaz language article at all, and I'm not quite sure what you're referring to there. By clunkiness I meant how much code you've added, particularly all the width specifications (and the colspan and border specifications, though I have made peace with those). The width specifications, unlike the colspan and border ones, seem in most cases to have no effect: removing them doesn't seem to change the appearance of the table. Therefore, for simplicity's sake I removed them. I suppose you must have added them to make all columns have equal width. In that case, you could simplify by using percentages and specifying the widths of the heading columns at the top. I'll show you what I mean in the Modern Greek phonology article. — Eru·tuon 21:56, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Oh, I just realized, the guy who wrote the Abkhaz phoneme table added the Labio-dentals to the Labial row. He means it's obvious. But if you want I wouldn't do that. And I'm talking about the Green and blue colors he used for marking unique phonemes of dialects. And I just saw your Greek table job - wow... I tried this before and I'm not sure it worked. But will I get your permisson for my table in Adyghe language? I really want to help. יהודה שמחה ולדמן (talk) 23:07, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
You can do what you wish. You don't have to ask my permission before making edits, because I'm not an admin or anything, but just pay attention to edit summaries when people revert your changes, and give a reason (in an edit summary or on a talk page) when you revert someone's change.
Yeah, I noticed some difficulties with using percentages. Not sure if it's the same difficulty you had. I specified percentages for all the columns except the left one (the one with the manners of articulation). If the sum of the percentages was too large, the table suddenly became wider. That was because the left column often needed to be wider than the other columns. So then I simply lowered the percentages, until the table went back to normal. In one case, if I remember correctly, there were 8 columns. I made 7 columns have width of 12.5%. The sum was 87.5%, so there was 12.5% left over for the left column. But I had to lower the percentages to 10%, leaving the left column 30% width, which was what it needed. I used the search-and-replace in a text editor to change the percentages, and moved it back to the Wikipedia editor to preview it. Anyway, maybe that information will be helpful. — Eru·tuon 02:09, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
Another thing: I noticed you have been replacing stop–fricative sequences with ligatures, but ligatures, such as ʧ and ʤ, are no longer official IPA usage (see International Phonetic Alphabet#Affricates and double articulated consonants), so Wikipedia editors have been replacing them with tʃ and dʒ in articles, and this is the way they should be left. — Eru·tuon 02:20, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
I need your help with percentages in Adyghe language table - the table get big and small while playing with the numbers, and I can't get it to be a minimalized size with each row the same width. Thanks. But maybe there are people who know about this programming in side out. Could you find them? יהודה שמחה ולדמן (talk) 10:38, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
Let's discuss what you want to achieve at the article's talk page. I've started a discussion there for you, because you haven't, יהודה שמחה ולדמן. --JorisvS (talk) 11:01, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

## Icelandic phonology table

Hello,

If you didn't notice, I put my response on my own talk page.

Sorry.

Espreon (talk) 22:11, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

I replied to your reply on my page.
Espreon (talk) 01:55, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

## IPA template

Hi,

The {{IPA}} template is necessary for proper display on some browsers, and even where it's not necessary, it's good formatting because it forces all the letters to use the same font, which looks a lot better than the garbled mix of fonts they otherwise display in. So I've reverted you at e.g. Navaho to restore the template. — kwami (talk) 17:55, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

See e.g. here for linking something more than a single letter. — kwami (talk) 19:19, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

## Redirects

FYI, redirects are not bad; see WP:NOTBROKEN. Edits like this one to “Shin (letter)” are benign but unnecessary. Edits like this one to “List of Latin-script letters” are harmful in that they circumvent redirects to broader topics (e.g. to Insular script), so even when the redirects are given more specific targets, the edited pages will still link to the articles on the broader subjects. So please don’t do that. Gorobay (talk) 01:43, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

## "addition to standard"

Good day,

Would you please stop redesigning tables into those... things that were in the "Hindustani phonology" and "Quechuan languages" articles?

Not only are they hard to read, but accessibility technologies most likely will not be able to convey that which you wish to convey, thus rendering the content inaccessible for various readers.

Thanks,

Espreon (talk) 07:02, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

## Phonology redesign comments

1. I would advice not converting "row" distinctions to "column" distinctions, such as ejectivity in this diff of Quechuan. A good phonology table should indicate the proper dimensions of a language's phonology. Quechua has, contrary to what you've indicated, no category such as "ejective bilabials", it has a category of "ejective stops". For a rule of thumb:
• Palatalization, labialization, pharyngealization (secondary articulation]s): essentially always subsets of the place of articulation.
• Prenasalization, glottal contrasts such as ejectivity, voice, aspiration: essentially always subsets of the manner of articulation.
• Laterality can swing either way. In e.g. Australian languages such as Nyangumarta, it is clearly a manner, whereas in languages such as Tlingit it is clearly a place. I usually have gone according to which analysis saves more empty cells from the table.
• Affrication is also problematic. Some analyses claim that affrication is secondary to place of articulation (e.g. that palatal stops are predictably affricated and do not need to be separated from the plosives); several of our articles still prefer a "double analysis" where both are noted.
2. Also, please do not add "dental" subscripts where not explicitly supported by sources, as in this diff of Khanty. Plenty of linguistics descriptions use "dental" and "alveolar" interchangeably.
3. Finally, I don't really like your idea of indicating subsets of manner of articulation by a newline comment. E.g. your Khanty redesign could also be read as "Approximants, which by the way are lateral". The intended meaning is only clear for readers who already know that /w j/ are not lateral while /ɭ/ is.

--Trɔpʏliʊmblah 16:08, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

## A general review of your table edits

NOTE: I'm chronically ill, so I can't write all I want to today. Here's my outline. I'll fill it in as soon as I can. Thanks for understanding! Feel free to respond in the meantime.

Hello! I see you're putting in a lot of effort in a lot of tables. I thank you for your efforts and enthusiasm! Because I respect that about you, I am going to spend some time trying to teach you a few ways to improve your contributions to Wikipedia. Some of these tips might help you elsewhere, too.

1. Find experts (or other experts if you're one) to work with through Wikiprojects. Collaborative editing with experts means less wasted effort for everyone. See the top of talk pages for links to Wikiprojects. Talk:Old English phonology has links to 4, including Wikipedia:WikiProject_Linguistics.

2. Make sure your edits are disability-friendly. Your table labels are too small compared to the rest of the text. Some people with disabilities of vision and even some with chronic pain (I have the latter condition) would find it difficult to read and it would be out of proportion even when enlarged.

3. Standardize formatting within articles first, not across articles. If you change one table's formatting in one article, see if there are any other tables that need to match in that same article. You've been making formatting changes to tables labeled Consonants, and now the Old English phonology article has at least 3 types of table formats.

I think this is in the Manual of Style (WP:MOS) somewhere.

4. Fill out the edit summary. This is also about collaborative editing. You can be bold in Wikipedia, but just like you can change other people's work, others can review your work and change it if they feel it is necessary. Your table edits are confusing because you don't explain the reason for your changes, so they are hard to review.

For example, see the revision history of Old English phonology:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Old_English_phonology&action=history

It's better formatted in the link, but here are the current top two edits, yours and mine:

(cur | prev) 13:29, July 16, 2014‎ יהודה שמחה ולדמן (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (66,764 bytes) (-79)‎ . . (→‎Consonants) (undo | thank)
(cur | prev) 15:17, July 12, 2014‎ Geekdiva (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (66,843 bytes) (-48)‎ . . (→‎Dialects : As noted in the main page on Old English, there were four major dialect groups in Old English → Old English had four major dialect groups) (undo)

I don't think your edit is minor, although you've labeled it so. If you remove any information, such as you did in this case with "Bilabial" in Line 8, or if you add information, such as "Labial" in Line 8, that is not minor. (Also, such important changes should have a reference added to them.)

If it is a minor edit, technically we don't need to explain them, but I do so anyway so others won't have problems reviewing my edits. Since your edits are difficult to understand in the difference (comparison between two edits), it would be very helpful for other editors for you to add an edit summary before you save the page.

Thanks, and I hope this helps! --Geekdiva (talk) 03:04, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure about what you want. My English isn't the best. יהודה שמחה ולדמן (talk) 07:29, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
I agree with User:Geekdiva that you should be using edit summaries. SpinningSpark 12:54, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Okay, thanks! Try this question. Why are you editing the same table on many pages? --Geekdiva (talk) 09:22, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
https://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/עזרה:טבלאות (Is this your language?)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Table
What's wrong with that same table? And haven't you seen I started to use the other tables in some cases? יהודה שמחה ולדמן (talk) 09:32, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi,

I haven't seen anything wrong with the quality of your edits, and no opinion on the table, which I haven't seen. But there are a couple formatting issues:

1. As I mentioned above, IPA should always be enclosed in the template {{IPA}}. This is because some browsers do not support it properly otherwise. (Even for ASCII letters in the IPA, the template should be used, so that the font matches. Inconsistent use of the template can make the article ugly.)
2. PUA characters should always be enclosed in the template {{PUA}}, and substituted with their Unicode hex code. For instance, instead of "", you should enter {{PUA|{{IPA|}}}}. Otherwise PUA symbols cause problems and your edits will be logged for review and probable reversal.

kwami (talk) 06:34, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

## Disambiguation link notification for August 13

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bantu languages, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mambo. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:27, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

## Phoneme tables and syntax

Hey, I appreciate you adding links to the Phoenician consonants table, and your improvements of other phoneme tables. However, when you edit, you tend to remove spaces, quotes, and semicolons from the table and CSS syntax, such as when you replace ! colspan="2" | and style="text-align: center;" with !colspan=2| and style=text-align:center. I doubt there's a Wikipedia policy on this, but I prefer keeping quotes, spaces, and semicolons because they make the code more readable and neat, and I've been adding them back into some of your edits. If you would change your editing practice and avoid removing these syntax "fillers", it would save me some work.

Also, please don't add a hyphen to Pharyngeal, making it Phary-ngeal; that's bad hyphen placement, because that's not where the syllable break is. (The syllables in the word are pha-ryn-ge-al.) I would recommend avoiding hyphens in phoneme tables, except for words that usually have them, like Post-alveolar. It's not very important for columns in phoneme tables to be narrow.. — Eru·tuon 02:32, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

## Khorasani Turkic language

Reason?--SaməkTalk 12:50, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

## ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:53, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

## Trigonometric functions

I have reverted your recent edit of this article for the following reasons:

• Your formula for sin 3 is another presentation of the same result (essentially √2 moved from a factor to the other). It would be worth to change the formula only if the new formula would be simpler, which is not the case.
• Your formula for sin 87 may deduced from the previous one in a similar way, but two signs are changed. It is possible that your formula is the correct one, but, just now, I have not the time to check the computation. Thus, please, check your computation. If it appears that the previous value would be wrong, either provide a published source or explain in the talk page why you are sure that the previous value was wrong (for example by checking for which formula one has not sin23 + cos23 = 1. Then you will be welcome to correct the wrong formula.

In any case, thank you for checking these awful formulas. D.Lazard (talk) 09:27, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Forgive me for being harsh - But you just did a terrible mistake yourself!
You just reverted my ${\displaystyle \sin(87^{\circ })}$ edit after I realized the previous one which I edited in the far past was wrong! Somehow, It slipped my eyes that time and the value was more than 1 - which is ofcourse impossible - though everytime I use a calculator on my side - the mistake was writing ${\displaystyle +{\sqrt {10}},-{\sqrt {2}}}$ instead of ${\displaystyle -{\sqrt {10}},+{\sqrt {2}}}$. You must revert it back!
All the other edits you must admitt are much shorter - even rewriting ${\displaystyle 1+{\sqrt {3}}}$ as ${\displaystyle {\sqrt {3}}+1}$ saves a lot of room. יהודה שמחה ולדמן (talk) 10:16, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
The terrible mistake is yours, by not providing edit summaries nor explaining your edits in talk page. This may be confusing (and has ben confusing in this case) for the other editors.
I do not see any saved by replacing ${\displaystyle 1+{\sqrt {3}}}$ by ${\displaystyle {\sqrt {3}}+1.}$ On the contrary, it is generally better to place integers before square roots, specially for the square roots of large expressions, as this makes clearer that the integer is not under the square root sign. D.Lazard (talk) 16:52, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing my mistake.
A side question: Is there a reason the ${\displaystyle {\sqrt {\ }}}$ symbol's tail slope is designed to have a very obtuse angle when the input is very minor? It looks reasonable when its input is large. יהודה שמחה ולדמן (talk) 18:03, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
I did not remark anything wrong about this. This is probably dependent of the rendering method that you have chosen in your preferences and/or your browser. D.Lazard (talk) 10:13, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
What are you saying? Are you saying I could make this symbol look better on my browser?
And, Where could I ask any math questions? יהודה שמחה ולדמן (talk) 12:33, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Appearance of square roots: It may depend on many things, and only a few are under user's control. the first one is under editor's control. It is the choice between [itex] rendering (${\displaystyle {\sqrt {2}}}$) and {{math}} rendering (2). The second choice is under user's control (only for registered users, as you are) and concern only formulas written in latex with [itex]. You will probably have a better rendering by choosing "MathML with SVG or PNG fallback (recommended for modern browsers and accessibility tools)" in the menu "Preferences/Appearance" at the top of any WP page. Finally the appearance may also change if you modify the preferences in your browser (for example by changing the fonts) or if you change of browser.
Math questions: for questions that concern the content of a single article, ask them in the talk page of the article. For questions that concern the content of several articles, ask them at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics‎. D.Lazard (talk) 15:50, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

## Your mass edits to equations

Hi. I have reverted your most recent mass changes to equations in a few articles. For example, I reverted this one. Please go to the article talk page Talk:Summation to propose and discuss. Thanks. - DVdm (talk) 10:11, 24 January 2016 (UTC) And please do have a careful look again at the immediately preceding section here on your user talk page. - DVdm (talk) 10:14, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Recent activities of the user named יהודה שמחה ולדמן are being discussed on this page. Michael Hardy (talk) 03:33, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

This user continues to make bad edits to equation formatting, including:

• Changing minus signs to hyphens in html-formatted math,
• Removing spaces in html-formatted math (produces bad display),
• Removing spaces in latex-formatted math (only effect is to make the source harder to read),
• Replacing horizontally formatted fractions (x/y) with vertically-formatted fractions (\frac{x}{y}) inside other fractions, binomial coeffients, \cases, inline text, and other places where horizontal format would be more appropriate.
• Replacing fractions like \frac{1}{4} by \frac14 (only effect is to make the source harder to read).

In short, almost all of the edits I examined either had no useful effect or made the formatting worse. I think there are WP:COMPETENCE issues here, and that this editor should find something else more constructive to do on Wikipedia that doesn't involve equation formatting. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:19, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

OK, I need to slow down. Then what is a good edit of mine? Nothing?
Why for example were my edits in Trigonometric functions so poorly made as you guys say?
You may advise me how/what to edit. יהודה שמחה ולדמן (talk) 19:37, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

## Slow down

I think you need to slow down again: this was pretty bad. And apparently so was this (reverted by Slawekb). I haven't checked more of your recent edits. - DVdm (talk) 21:58, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

OK. Just tell me why was this "bad"; and if you keep reverting my edits - what am I to edit? You do want people subscribing and adding to wikipedia, no!? Apparently not, in my dreams. יהודה שמחה ולדמן (talk) 07:26, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
The reasons for the reverts are explained in the edit summaries. Some articles (or parts of articles) are ok by themselves and don't need editing. Many equations in articles are sourced and perfect, so if you touch them because you feel some irresistible need to edit, then you can only make them worse. There is no obligation to edit Wikipedia. - DVdm (talk) 08:55, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Note: I checked some recently reverted edits. Look at the edit summaries of the reverts: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]. So please, stop touching equations that don't need to be touched. Thanks. ~- DVdm (talk) 09:47, 18 September 2016 (UTC)