User talk:Aeusoes1/Archive 9

The following is an archive of debate between various editors of Wikipedia and User:Aeusoes1 regarding the awful things he's done on Wikipedia. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on AE's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.

Response to comment on my talk page

Hehe, no problem at all. I already knew that this would be your reaction because in the past you asked me to follow the rules strictly and even if that editor is likely a problematic fellow Br with shallowness of Wikipedia experience and dislike for my person that possibly comes from a social network where he previously developed it (people know that I am used to English language media and projects, including Wikipedia), he actually has a point (and since I believe his behavior to be a problem, I wish to distance him to this potential decision to delete my edits, and I have few options, since he's obviously stalking me here in WP – if you want to do so, plase delete it the next time you edit this page).

I will add the pages, and I wish to also break that ugly continuous language-cntag lines in the pages you changed to your versions but I will mantain them. It is likely to not get sourced within a year, as they're indeed OR – but hey, if that contributor is whom I am thinking he/she is (and I am not being pre-judgemental, don't take the following reasoning seriously), this supposed anti-emo macho thinks everything north of São Paulo is crap so he can't know nothing on fluminense and nordestino phonology, apart of his bad IPA skills. But as previously stated, you trust me despite my slightly inappropriate behavior at this dispute, so I'm most happy with it anyway. Cheers. 177.65.53.191 (talk) 18:28, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Ex-gay movement

^ Use it. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:30, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Your undo of my edits to English phonology

Hi, A,

I see you undid my edits to English phonology with the explanation that they aren't necessary. Perhaps they aren't necessary for you but they are to me. I'm teaching English pronunciation and sometimes need to look up phonemes and it's easier for me to go to the English phonology article and click on the linked phoneme than to type a handlebar u, a backwards epsilon, etc.

To add to my argument, other articles have IPA links (General American phonology for example but I need general English phonology since I'm teaching in Africa), which I think is very handy. I was trying to make the Eng. phon. article more useful to other people and myself and spent a lot of time editing it. I'm very disappointed that you decided to undo my painstaking changes without considering my point of view. Perhaps you'd like me to understand your point of view as well? If so, I'm willing to listen. DBlomgren (talk) 10:57, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I guess I wasn't clear. Having links to phone articles is helpful, and I didn't undo all of what you added. I only reversed the instances where the link appears to send you to a page on a phone but actually takes you to a different page. Using {{IPAlink}} for diphthongs just links to diphthong, which is already linked to in the article. I don't think it's necessarily helpful and can send people up the wrong alley. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 12:24, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Reasons (Portuguese vowels)

Mr. Stradivarius alerted me over being TLDR on talk pages, so, since I was addressing speficially you, I moved it here.

"I'm sorry if I am being annoying, but people often don't really care if all long-time characteristics of European Portuguese, like uncommon raisings of vowel quality, are present in Brazilian Portuguese in a way or another (or if the majoritarian and initial Brazilian pronunciation today is regarded as far less pretigious), they just put what they feel as right, instead of sitting and waiting, trying to remember uncommon characteristics, expecting if an unbiased broad transcription, with dialects correctly represented, is presented for people having their first contacts with Portuguese, just as I tried to do with our coda el and coda ar – this sense of "being fair" with "everyone" is why I work harder here, I want Brazilians aware of linguistic diversity and proud of the differences in our speech, which is still something distant because there is a strong mentality of "right-and-wrong" language use, which included, even in a formal way (and still includes informally nowadays), the manifestations of regional differences in the phonology of one's speech. That's why declaring that "no variant is better, you can have as right both this, that and the midway" in a single transcription sounds important to me." Thank you. Lguipontes (talk) 07:33, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 13

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Panchpana, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Thakur (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 11:27, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

English phonology: consonants

Hi, thanks for tidying up my amendments to the Consonants section. I meant to have another go at it, but ran short of time. RoachPeter (talk) 21:33, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

No problem. Always fun to work together. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 21:36, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Seems an odd claim that syllabic consonants would add to the inventory. You could simply posit an expanded environment, that some consonants may occur as the nucleus of a syllable.

Also, the treatment of the distribution of /r/ was really the distribution of [r]. At least officially, those are not the same thing in RP, and for that matter in many accents [r] occurs epenthetically between vowels, but is not analyzed as an /r/ (eg, I've never seen a transcription of draw as /drɑr/). — kwami (talk) 22:12, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

The article, Bugger

Good afternoon User:Aeusoes1 ,

Yes, I can understand your objection to my edit summary, "The original word is more accurate", and I fully understand your objection. However I do believe that there is another, more appropriate word, and shall give it some consideration.

Sincerely, -- Gareth Griffith-Jones/GG-J's Talk 15:16, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 22

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Pipe dope, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Anaerobic (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 12:08, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Counterculture talkpage

Thanks for correcting the format of the references I listed on the Counterculture talkpage. It's much appreciated. many thanks Peter morrell 18:58, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Nixing redundant "term used to describe"

Ha, I love your recent edits. There is a load of articles with extremely cumbersome wording when it comes to naming things...! :-) Good work! Trigaranus (talk) 08:12, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. There are over 700 articles using "term used to describe", 500 using "term describing", 200 using "term that describes," 500 using "term used to refer" 900 using "term referring to," and 400 using "term that refers to." there's also the 2600 using "important to note" and the 6100 using "due to the fact." — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 15:38, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

You recently made

an edit (that I feel would have been better served as two edits) in Glossary of sculpting and in both of the areas you edited you removed the time related factor, that is to say that both these terms were 20th century ones. Since you are an established and respected by me editor I was inclined not to undo your edit but rather to discuss it with you, here. I'd like to see the 20th century returned to both areas. Are you interested in doing it, or should I? Or, neither of us? Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 21:52, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

I thought about that when I was editing. Mentioning the twentieth century makes sense, given the rise of the practice in the twentieth century, but is it a twentieth century term or is it a term for a twentieth century practice? If it's the former, how do we account for Google's Ngram viewer that seems to show that the term is still used? — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 01:08, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I feel as if I am missing something. To me that fascinating graph shows that both terms. "direct carving" and ""taille directe" are not used until about 1910. Which is more or less when the practice of carving directly from stone is . ... revived after centuries of not being done. At lest not in the western sculpture tradition. Well, except for wood carving. And yes, it doesn't stop being used by the end of the 20th Century. Carptrash (talk) 04:10, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Okay, so the term originated along with the revived practice. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 05:04, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

List of British governments

Whilst I do agree that the existing wording could use work, what you've done simply makes it more confusing. Sometimes, it is useful to have more words than would otherwise be deemed necessary. A "ministry" isn't all the members of a government &c. most of the time. There are conflicting usages, and this is often confusing to readers. Ministry is in fact a term used to describe the concept of all the members of a government together (being synonymous with the commonwealth usage of the word "government"). But this isn't necessarily what a "ministry" is. So the words of clarification help us out. RGloucester (talk) 19:10, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I see what you're saying, but I don't think the original wording conveyed that. "X is..." vs. "X is a term for..." seem to say the same thing in regards to number of definitions. I thought maybe "in this article" might do a good job of alluding to the article's use of one meaning among several, but perhaps that could be revised.

And, just so I'm clear: terms don't normally describe things. If anything, they refer to them. That's what originally drew my attention to the article. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 19:27, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Let's try your talk page

Please quit trying to change the carefully worded definitions at Glossary of equestrian terms. You will note that you are NOT being 100% reverted every time, your edits are being reviewed and the ones that streamline language are kept. Every time you edit, it's another half hour of my life I will never get back because everything you do needs review; you screw up about half of what you edit (including some notable typos) You really MUST stop making dramatic changes to definitions that are sourced, you clearly do not understand the topic. If you must fiddle with the intros and other sections, no one is going to be able to stop you, but on the definitions, drop the effing stick, please. Montanabw^(talk) 23:55, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

WP:STICK is about needlessly continuing talk page debates that have gone on for a long period of time and come to a natural end. Deleting a thread from your talk page after a week of very slow-paced discussion is hardly natural. Pointing to WP:STICK after the decidedly single-handed, unnatural end is a transparent way of saying "I say I win, so get lost," which is quite the dick move. And, of course, with the definitions that I recently changed, the debate hasn't even started so telling me to "drop the stick" really means "don't edit" in a way that reeks of gatekeeping.

Also, you are falsely assuming, as is clear in this edit summary, that I have not looked at the sources in question for bone and bronc, the only definitions that I made significant changes to. You can see (using the Google books preview if you don't have a copy yourself) that my changes are closer to to source material. If you want to make the case that those then aren't very good definitions (I was a little surprised that density wasn't a measure of good bone, for example) then it may be worthwhile to use a another source or toss the reference. But this is not an issue of my not looking at the source material.

For the other changes, I'm still waiting for you to explain how I've altered important nuance or meaning. But please drop the attitude. I have tried to be respectful and you chosen to respond mostly with contempt and condescension. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 00:45, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Look in the mirror, my friend. I treat people the way they treat me, and you have positively OOOZED contempt and condescension; if you can't see that, then, with all due respect, you have a lot to learn about the Dunning-Kruger effect and probably psychological projection as well. Your tendentiousness over certain words and phrases reflects a very narrow interpretation of word usage that is ridiculously legalistic and inflexible. It's one thing to improve wording, it's another to change meaning, your constant removal of words like "describe" simply creates chaos, when that is the most effective word to use and alternatives are clunky and unclear. I'm not going to do a point by point analysis, the edits I have reverted show you the problem, the edits I kept show where there is no problem. Montanabw^(talk) 19:02, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Let's nip this in the bud: what have I said that's condescending? — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 20:51, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Anything I use as an example you will just excuse away with a bunch of reasons why you are right and I am wrong. But I agree, let's nip this in the bud, we are getting nowhere but nasty. I'm done arguing about all this. Let's just edit the encyclopedia and take any issues to the talk pages of the articles involved. Montanabw^(talk) 23:17, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

What I'm nipping in the bud is your accusation about me being condescending and contemptuous. Arguing for why I think I'm right is not necessarily either of those. Can you give an example of something I said? — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 00:20, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

You don't give it up, do you? You seem to be completely convinced that you are the one in the right and that your interpretation of grammar, usage and style is the only correct possible interpretation. If you cannot see why this is arrogant and condescending, then please take your precious credentials and show them to someone who cares. I am not in the least impressed. You refuse to see that most of the time you've hit an article, unless I must mass-revert due to multiple blatent errors that will take a lot of time to fix, I DO try to only revert the things you got wrong and leave what was an improvement. If you wish to admit that someone else's views may have merit, then we can continue this conversation and attempt to reach at least a detente on the issue. Otherwise, you are just being tendentious and I do not wish to keep engaging in fruitless argument with you. Montanabw^(talk) 19:46, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

You have made a defamatory remark about my character by saying that I am extremely condescending and contemptuous. What's more, this accusation is used as an excuse to justify behavior that, while not rising to the level of sanction-worthiness, distracts from the issue of a simple copyediting dispute by turning it into a drawn out personality conflict. This fits a larger pattern where, as I have alluded to before, you seem to be reading certain tones and inferences into my words that I didn't put in.

For example, your above post implies that I don't believe that your views "may have merit." This is not based on anything I've said to you. I have been very clear from the beginning that I value your perspective. Did I not first come to you in an effort to get you to elaborate on an edit summary? What have I even said that would imply as much? It can't be when I said, "Could you elaborate on why describe is better than refer there?" Maybe in your eagerness to see my most recent post on your talk page as the "last word" you missed the part where I said "I'm trying to get on the same page as you so that we don't have to butt heads at glossary of equestrian terms and anywhere else that we both might edit. If you keep ignoring my perspective and my attempts to understand where you're coming from, I'll be forced to guess at what edits you find preferable."

You have said above that you justify your rudeness to me by my own behavior. I don't think I've been rude at all. I certainly haven't intended to be. If you can't even show me an instance where you see it, it just looks like a self-serving, baseless accusation. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 23:51, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Don't you ever read what you yourself write? You say it is defamatory for Montanabw to say you are "extremely condescending and contemptuous". Do you not recall that earlier, just a few pars above this one, you said Montanabw had "chosen to respond mostly with contempt and condescension". ? Call it a draw, and move on. Moriori (talk) 00:19, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

I dispute that I have been as such, while Montanabw tacitly admits to it by justifying it ("I treat people the way they treat me."). In other words, he doesn't deny said characterization while I do. I say it's defamatory because of its falseness, not because of the meaning behind the accusation. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 00:34, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

And now you twist my words. If you think I was mean to you and hurt your widdle fweewings, then maybe it was because you came across in a negative way. Yes, you DID come across as arrogant and rude, like a know-it-all, and, frankly, just plain wrong. If you didn't mean to be obnoxious, then fine, I can accept that, because it is common for written words to come across more harshly than intended, but I wish you could simply see and acknowledge that you are getting your own back. I will defend myself if attacked, but I do not start off with attacks. But on this one, I'm all for calling it a draw, and I have no more patience to deal with someone with such an utter lack of personal insight. Montanabw^(talk) 17:35, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, it's almost as if you can't not talk to me with a condescending attitude; maybe I'm wrong about that, but I'd like to see you show me.

It's really sad that a simple issue of copyediting is taking this long. You have, both implicitly and explicitly, refused to justify your reversions, but it should be clear by now that this is exactly what I want from you. I'll spell it out in list format. I am basing this list on this edit, which you say speaks for itself, but only in what you find objectionable, not why:

1. Why is it incorrect to say that equine conformation "includes terms for conformation flaws"?
2. Why is it incorrect to say that the term bone is "used in evaluating the quality of certain skeletal structures"?
3. The source used for the definition of bone states "A measurement taken around the leg below the knee or hock as an indication of a horse's projected ability to carry weight without injurious consequences." As such, how does "The circumference of the leg below the knee or hock, which helps determine a horse's weight-carrying ability" get this wrong?
4. What is incorrect about the word is in "'Flat' bone is a positive feature"
5. What is incorrect about "Now refers to the horse in the rodeo bronc riding events, where the horse tries to buck a rider off, as well as any undisciplined horse, especially one that bucks."?
6. What is incorrect about saying that the word pony "may refer to small horses that retain a pony phenotype" or that it "may also refer to an adult horse of any breed of 14.2, 14.1, or 14 hands or less..."?

That's pretty simple stuff that you should be able to make a case for. The next step after your justifications is my own rebuttals (yes, it is possible that you may not convince me on the first round); the best format for an exchange is to not get bent out of shape just because I haven't been convinced yet. Simply continue working towards convincing me. That's how persuasion works.

If it should fail, either because you continue to refuse justifying your reversions or because we reach an impasse in the discussion, I am prepared to take this to the next stage of dispute resolution. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 01:03, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Take it to the talk page of the article in question. But before you do, notice that SOME of your changes were kept, should you have bothered to check. Others changed nuance and were reverted. I've told you this over and over and over again. I'm not going to argue about this any more here. Montanabw^(talk) 18:05, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

All right, that might get some other people involved.

And yes, since you seem to want open acknowledgement, I do appreciate how you have taken the time to make targeted reverts, rather than blanket ones, you have prioritized discussion over edit warring, and did not needlessly seek administrator action. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 19:59, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I appreciate that. And you have cleaned up some clunky wording. Now, off to the articles! Montanabw^(talk) 21:56, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Having read through the discussion on both Talk pages, let me just say that I'm happy to see that you're trying to make Wikipedia articles more concise, but you should try to be more careful. Sometimes the phrase is carefully chosen because many other editors believe that it's the best way to say something, or as Montanabw has stated before, it's inside a direct quote. In the former case you should be cautious, for the latter you shouldn't modify the phrase at all. Please slow down, be more careful, and PLEASE listen to your fellow editors. This is a collaborative effort after all. • Jesse V.^(talk) 21:53, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Sure, I can be careful. Montanabw is one of several editors who have pointed out my mistakes, and I am quick to correct them or accommodate concerns as they are expressed. I understand that editors may choose precise wording deliberately, but this doesn't mean that this can't be questioned. For the most part, Montanabw has been open to explaining his edits to me but, with this particular article, he has lost patience with explaining. Thus, although I have sought to question, I have not received satisfactory answers.

As for the latter case, Montanabw is skewing the situation. I have not changed a quote, I have shortened it, as you can see here. I think I can appeal to your common sense to determine whether I took out important meaning, nuance, or that I actually altered a quote. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 05:39, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Ah. That particular edit is very debatable, I can see both sides, and I think you should be very cautious about making changes like that. Make sure you have consensus for what you're trying to do. She (Montanabw) has raised some good points. There's aggression from both of you on both Talk pages. I've found that it's often better to maintain a neutral tone. I'm sure there's plenty of non-controversial "is the term used to describe" edits left to be done. • Jesse V.^(talk) 07:47, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

In regards to the change at impulsion (horse), (s)he has not raised any points. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 14:12, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Good edit on Human Rights

I liked your recent simplification here. I feel the paragraph could be shortened even more, the sentence is too long (>20 words). I will edit and see what you think. Not being impertinent, just a readability freak! TonyClarke (talk) 11:30, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Spanish vowel reduction

Hello. On your page you've written: Non-syllabic /e/ and /o/ can be reduced to [ʝ] and [w̝] respectively. My understanding is that [ʝ] is the voiced palatal fricative. That's clear. But what does [w̝] mean? Isn't it the same as [ʊ̯]? If not, what vowel does it correspond to? For me it sounds completely like syllabic [ʊ̯], sometimes like a quick diphthong [ʊʊ̯]. Thanks in advance. --Fncd (talk) 04:45, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Take a look at "The story of [w]" by Ohala & Lorentz. Some Spanish varieties contrast non-syllabic [u] with a sound that is more constricted. In these varieties, [w̝] is to [w] (or [ʊ̯]) what [ʝ] is to [j], including the variation in pronunciation (that is, it could be [ɣʷ] or [βˠ]). — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 17:09, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. --Fncd (talk) 11:41, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Makeoutclub, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Indie (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 10:58, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

"used to described"

Hi, I saw your copyedit/trim on one of "my" articles, and wanted to say thanks; I hadn't really realized it was unnecessary verbiage until your edit. Keep up the good work! Sasata (talk) 16:43, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the support! — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 17:52, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

"Is a term used to describe"

Hi Aeusoes, I don't think you should go around removing "is a term used to describe" as a matter of principle. Sometimes it's inappropriate, but sometimes okay, and in fact sometimes needed. Each case should be judged on its merits. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:32, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I understand what you mean, and there are indeed cases where it's appropriate to identify something as a term. But this is not true in the case of the Glasgow effect article. You said in your most recent summary that the article is about the term, but this is not true. The article is about the phenomenon making "term referring to" (or its equivalents) unnecessary verbiage. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 01:40, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

No one knows whether it is a phenomenon; if you read the source, it says this is a term used to describe some facts that people can't fully explain. You changed not only the first sentence, but also the quote from the source that supported it. [1] The Glasgow effect is not the poor health of Glaswegians (which does not make sense); it is a term used to describe the poor health because people don't know what to call it. It is a question mark.

But my point is not about that article. I think it's not a good idea to go around removing certain phrases regardless of whether they make sense, and the faster you do it the more likely you are to make mistakes, so I hope you'll reconsider, or slow down a bit at least. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:56, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I did apologize for that mistake. You are not the first person to suggest I slow down. I'll try to be more careful.

If simply removing "term used to describe" doesn't make sense, then a more dramatic reword might be in order. Since the article talk page is the better place for that, I can bring it up there. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 02:09, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, "used to describe" is definitely needed in some cases, such as when mentioning a term that is no longer in use; for terms like those, it's not a matter of "is"; and while "was" without any qualifiers also doesn't seem appropriate in some of such cases, "was used to describe" does. I see the outdated/no longer in use aspect of terms was mentioned to you in the "You recently made" section above on your talk page. Another aspect is offensiveness. For the Faggot (slang) article, for example, we shouldn't state "is" without any qualifiers. And while that article doesn't use the wording "used to describe," it takes on the same principle of not using "is" without any qualifiers. Another reason not to remove "used to describe" is what SlimVirgin stated above in this section -- basically, it's not a matter of "is" in some cases; in some cases, terms are describing things that don't exist or are highly debated as existing. I've seen "used to describe" or some alternate version often in articles because of that factor, and often after extensive discussion, especially in science articles. You indeed need to be careful removing "used to describe" and should check the talk pages or talk page archives or at least ask about the matter in some of these cases to see if it has been previously discussed. That said, you might be reverted in some cases without ever knowing about the revert unless you eventually make your way back around to the article; I doubt that you are putting all these articles on your watchlist. Editors that have a WP:Consensus to use the wording "used to describe" or some wording similar should leave a hidden note beside the wording anyway. 199.229.232.42 (talk) 12:12, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree with most of what you've said. However, describe would be the wrong word; rather, refer to or denote would be more accurate. As I've said here and elsewhere, for a term to be a describer, it would have to be an adjective or loaded with enough morphemes to qualify as a definition (fair-weather friend being one of the latter). SlimVirgin has already addressed this aspect at Glasgow effect

What you talk about (discussing a term as a term) does not occur in the Glasgow effect article and it seems strange to me that SlimVirgin would insist that it does. SlimVirgin seems to believe that discussing a hypothetical or debated phenomenon is actually discussing the term for said phenomenon; it's not and saying so is, well, wrong. Take a look at the intro to afterlife, which is able to talk about something that may not exist but without saying that it is a term for such a thing. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 15:26, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Some editors have been going around removing "refers to" or something similar to that as well, calling it redundant. So I'm not completely sure what to think on the matter sometimes. But I do stand by stating that the phrases "a term used to describe" (even if "describe" is the wrong word to use grammar-wise), "refers to" and similar wording are needed in some cases. Thank you for taking the time to consider my statement. 199.229.232.42 (talk) 20:39, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Palatal Fricatives

Thanks for alerting me. This article was not on my watchlist, and I had no idea there had been such a long discussion going on. A lot of the confusion is just a matter of how you choose to symbolize a complex phenomenon that would be more accurately represented by something like an orchestral score. But there are also issues of phonetic fact, and I am now trying to compile a set of spectrograms showing the acoustic counterparts of various transcriptions, in the hope that these might help. I think I'll have to put these up on my personal website, as I can't see how I could upload them to WP. RoachPeter (talk) 09:52, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 20

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Russian alphabet, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Matthew, Theodore and Thelma (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 10:57, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Move Brazilian Portuguese examples to alveolo-palatals?

I've always inadvertedly put in the notes that the postalveolar affricates and sibilants of Portuguese could be "palatalized", as they actually were most often alveolo-palatal in Brazil. This source uses a palatal curl in the palato-alveolar symbols for the Brazilian examples as well Portuguese and carioca coda s/z, but normal palato-alveolar symbols for European Portuguese x/ch and j/g: http://venus.unive.it/canipa/pdf/02_3_Portog.pdf

It also endorses many other things I've said in the last months, para nossa alegria. :3 Lguipontes (talk) 20:54, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello

Hi, I was fascinated to read some of your copyedits nixing "term used to describe", as I'm interested in expression simplification and have been working on it hard myself. (Have you written anything on this particular simplification? I'm interested to understand if referring to a term is always redundant, and why, or just sometimes unnecessary unwieldiness, etc.) Anyway, a separate point, I noticed you made this change, and I'm puzzled, because your change is against MOS:LQ. I see you're into liguistics big-time, so am confused if you overlooked that MOS item, or what? Cheers, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 21:34, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

My opinions on the particular phrase I'm working on removing were most explicitly expressed in a user talk page discussion that has now been deleted. There are definitely cases where referring to a term as a term would not be redundant. The most common form would be when what's under discussion is the term itself (such as the Ebonics article) rather than what the term refers to. Another important thing that I've made the case for is that describe would not normally be the accurate verb for what terms do, though adjectives are a notable exception. It sometimes takes some judgment or more drastic rewriting to remove it.

As for my edits regarding punctuation, I was not aware of MOS:LQ. In regards to punctuation, I've certainly edited contrary to that policy but will strive to edit in accordance with it from this point on. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 00:43, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Thx for your replies. Yes I picked up on why 'describes' is no good most of the time thru reading some of the respective dialogues. I want to read the rest as time permits (it's interesting & helpful). BTW I like how you write in contentious situations (communicative & de-personalized; that's rare here). Thx again. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 14:05, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Love your work

I'm interested in your perspective on verbal memes. When a specific meme is quoted throughout an article but not mentioned in the lede, is it appropriate to mention it there? And what would theoretically be the best treatment? ClaudeReigns (talk) 12:03, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Can you give an example? — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 13:42, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Specifically, references to "Mavet La'avarim" (Death to the Arabs) in Racism in Israel ClaudeReigns (talk) 15:03, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure if that particular verbal meme is notable enough that mention of it in the lede would be worthwhile. The lede on Nineteen Eighty-Four mentions some terminology arising from or popularized by the book, but doesn't go as far as to cite some of the popular memes from it ("freedom is slavery" "big brother is watching you"), even though I think it could. Verbal memes can be appropriate for the lede, but not by default. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 19:39, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I think if I were to attempt a creative exposition, then I might end the lede with:

The dystopia which Orwell describes is a world where a totalitarian politic, The Party, wielded the power simultaneously to brainwash the individual into believing "that mere impulses, mere feelings, were of no account, while at the same time robbing you of all power over the material world.” But how?

Then launch into a discussion of the machinations of the Party and the greater world, beginning with doublespeak as the first section. I feel, however that encyclopedic writing is not so free. Perhaps conjuring a way to end the lede with a final stand-alone sentence being "Big Brother is watching you" could potentially be workable and give the article some punch. Perhaps the previous sentence could evoke the paranoid tone of the work, letting the quote bring it home with a specific.

In the case of the Racism in Israel article, I'm faced not only with the task of recrafting a terribly unclear and misprepositioned sentence auggesting there may be some credence to claims of the existence of prejudice toward Arabs, but also the mission-impossible of dropping the quote that already appears nine times throughout the article to make a definite and revised argument concrete, all while creating the definite impression that Wikipedia in no way believes that all Israelis are prejudiced, nor makes any claim as to the actual pervasiveness of the prejudice already noted elsewhere. At least that's what I think I would be writing unless influenced otherwise. Should I choose to accept the mission, that is. I am not sure I have a guideline for neutrality for writing about racism other than a core value that all races are cool and interesting. Hope it serves me. ClaudeReigns (talk) 10:26, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 29

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Basketball, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Native American (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 10:36, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Consider joining Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors?

Since you are good with grammar, I was wondering if you'd considered joining the Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors. Or have you not heard of it until now? 199.229.232.42 (talk) 18:09, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Ooh, I just may do that. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 00:37, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Nice! 199.229.232.42 (talk) 00:39, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit explanation

moved to Talk:Anatolian Shepherd

IPA Help

Please don't make this come down to WP:3RR--I am formally warning you. Please get another editor to express his desire the edit be removed-an RfC would be fine. As it stands the clarification was asked for at the ref desk and I agreed making an edit to do so would be useful. You are the only person expressing disagreement--and that hardly amounts to consensus to remove the clarification. μηδείς (talk) 19:47, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

You can keep the discussion located at Help:IPA for English, where two editors already disagree with your inclusion. The people at the refdesk are welcome to contribute to the conversation and respond to the rebuttals made against their request. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 19:49, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Removing Dutch section

I will undo the remove when I have more sources, though. Hans Kamp (talk) 20:28, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good. I'm not sure what access level you have with scholarly sources, but if you find something you can't download when searching Google Scholar, let me know and I'll see if I can't get it for you. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 20:43, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Removal of Texas/Tejas

Can you tell why you undid the information I've inserted of the spelling/pronunciation of Texas in Spanish? Signed: Basemetal (write to me here) 15:45, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I put it back in. I hope you are aware of the 3 revert rule. Incidentally, it may be good manners to first ask before you summarily revert someone's contributions. Signed: Basemetal (write to me here) 15:49, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I should've tried to explain. The sentence is plugged in between statements that build on each other. It's also poorly worded so that it seems pretty superfluous and tangential. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 16:00, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

You're right about placement and wording. I took it out. I'll put it in a note. However I don't think it is superflous in a section that deals (also) with the older conventions of Spanish spelling that are still the norm in Mexican Spanish (even though the title of that section is just "Reform proposals"). While one can multiply those examples into a long series of borrowings from Náhuatl, Mayan and other Central American Indian languages into Spanish, the Spanish pronuciation of México and Texas is more particularly relevant to speakers of English. Mexican-Texan people, food and music are termed Tejano even in English, after the Spanish pronunciation of Tejano, itself related to the Spanish pronuciation of Texas, and the article mentions that the word chicano comes from the (older) Spanish pronunciation of Mexicano. Cheers Signed: Basemetal (write to me here) 17:25, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Good points. Fleshing it out a little like that would be an improvement, I think. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 17:27, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Help:IPA for Vietnamese

Does the page Help:IPA for Vietnamese is correct ? Fête (talk) 21:32, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not too familiar with Vietnamese, though the approximations seem pretty good given the IPA transcriptions. The toughest ones are [o] and [ɔ]. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 14:56, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

ɵy

The sound /ɵy/ is pronounced like this pronunciation. Fête (talk) 14:25, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I'd assumed by its similarity to German eu that it would sound like English oy but, if anything, it sounds like long i. I've started a talk page discussion there to get other people's input. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 14:35, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

The word no in British English is pronounced like this pronunciation. Fête (talk) 15:11, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Help:IPA in Mandarin

The vowel /ɤ/ is pronounced like this pronunciation. It's more like the vowel of the word sir. Fête (talk) 21:05, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, I hear more of the vowel of hood. This may be another thing we get others' input on. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 23:00, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Help:IPA for French

The page Help:IPA for French is OK ? Fête (talk) 14:26, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

croissant

The word croissant exist also in English. Fête (talk) 19:30, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

In French it's [kʁɑsɑ̃]. In English, it's usually /krəˈsɑːnt/. It's a decent example if you're trying to get a word with ɑːn. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 20:20, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Pronunciation of Páidí Ó Sé in IPA

Greetings Aeusoes1. I noticed the Irish pronunciation of the name Páidí Ó Sé is only given, in his article, as an English approximation. If you, who seem to be good with IPA, could insert an IPA description of the Irish pronunciation, that would be, I believe, useful to many international readers. Cheers. Signed: Basemetal (write to me here) 11:12, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I've fixed it. I'm less confident about the stress placement, but otherwise it should be good. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 16:22, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Do you mean your stress placement or that of the contributor of the previous description? Signed: Basemetal (write to me here) 16:46, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Mine. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 16:51, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

86.40.107.33 stressed last and first syllable of the full name. Secondary stress on the first syllable of the first name? Just wondering. Know no Irish. Signed: Basemetal (write to me here) 17:11, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't know, either. User:Angr is more familiar with Irish. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 17:32, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Ok. In any case I think it would also be a good idea to include the IPA of the English pronunciation of the name. Signed: Basemetal (write to me here) 18:02, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Standard Chinese phonology

Some Chinese people pronounce [v] instead of /w/. I have already heard that. Fête (talk) 15:19, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Do you have a source? — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 15:26, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Maybe. Fête (talk) 15:40, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Re-add it when you find a reliable source. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 15:47, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

rhotic

How can I put a rhotic /ɑ/ in Wikipedia ? Fête (talk) 19:19, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Do you mean [ɑ˞] or do you mean /ɑːr/? — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 21:45, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

The former, but I don't see this symbol in Wikipedia. Fête (talk) 22:37, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

OK, I saw this symbol. Fête (talk) 22:39, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, sometimes they're hard to find. I just went to r-colored vowel and copied it. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 23:18, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

diphthongization in Quebec French

Do you have a source of diphthongization of Quebec French ? Fête (talk) 00:09, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Google Scholar turns up this, this, and this. There's also this and this from Google books. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 00:27, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

/ʊ/

I think the /ʊ/ sound in Cantonese is more like the o in song, no ? Listen here Media:Yue-送.oga Fête (talk) 16:34, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, that's how it sounds to me. Is that a contextual allophone? — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 16:40, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

No, the /ʊ/ sound in Cantonese is always pronounced like this. Fête (talk) 17:06, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

rhotic

How can I mark the symbol [œ̃˞] in Wiktionnaire ? Fête (talk) 22:55, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't know, but I imagine you wouldn't need to. The r-coloring is a minor phonetic note. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 23:43, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I would need for the word brun. Fête (talk) 23:54, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I think [œ̃] would be fine, but I'm not really that involved in Wiktionary. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 00:16, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

But the Quebecker pronounce [bʀœ̃˞] in the file Media:Qc-brun.oga. Fête (talk) 00:21, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

And English speakers pronounced red as [ɹ̠ˤʷɛd̥], but there's a lot of unnecessary phonetic details. If you're constructing a dictionary, I'd think it would be totally unnecessary. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 00:29, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

voice

You think it's a male voice or female voice in the file Media:Fr-Je ne comprends pas.oga ? Fête (talk) 15:06, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Mid front unrounded vowel

How can I put the mid front unrounded vowel in Wikipedia ? Fête (talk) 13:03, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Copy and paste. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 14:45, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

How to copy and paste ? Fête (talk) 15:31, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Select what you want to copy using your mouse, then use your computer's copy command. I'm not sure how to do it with other operating systems, but on a Windows machine you can right click and select "copy." The procedure is similar when you are ready to paste.— Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 16:33, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

French of Quebec City phonology

Do you have a source of French of Quebec City phonology ? Fête (talk) 00:16, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

fête

Do you knew the word fête is pronounced "fight" in Quebec French ? Fête (talk) 23:27, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

WP Linguistics in the Signpost

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Linguistics for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. –Mabeenot (talk) 18:40, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Merging Illness with Disease

I had already looked at Talk:Disease/Archive 1#Merge proposal, and what User:Beeblebrox and I said[2][3] is correct. There's been no WP:Consensus to merge, and there's no recent (I mean "current") discussion about it. The discussion you are referring to is even archived. So instead of suggesting that I start a new discussion about merging,[4] you should because you are the only one objecting to removing the merging tag. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 21:42, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

If there had been no discussion, I'd agree with you. However, there was a discussion in which no one opposed. Beeblebrox archived it after barely six weeks, probably because he saw the date of the tag (2010) and ignored the date of the discussion (late 2012). I've un-archived the discussion as you suggested and welcome your input. Please remember that the tag is designed to point to (or invite) discussion, not to indicate that a page is definitely slated for merging. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 22:10, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Not sure if Beeblebrox noticed the discussion was from 2012. I did. But the discussion was still months old with only two comments. That signaled "no consensus to merge" in my mind, even though some merging of the articles has been done since then. Thank you for unarchiving so that the merge tags make more sense. I'll give my input on the talk page. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 22:41, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Marshallese language and talk

Going to read article and talk and chip in? I think we've been making progress, but we could use more minds educated on Marshallese linguistics issues. - Gilgamesh (talk) 06:22, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Crotch

Hello Aeusoes1. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Crotch, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: that is not a reason for speedy deletion - see WP:CSD#Non-criteria #1. If you think it should be deleted, you will have to use WP:AFD. Thank you. JohnCD (talk) 16:44, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I guess my speedy delete will also be declined for Tai-pan. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 18:05, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Help:IPA in Amharic

I am very much interested in starting a Help:IPA for Amharic. The problem is the fidel signs chart on Amharic language article. It is seriously flawed. Amharic is written in Ge'ez script. Ge'ez language itself is an ancient language no longer commonly spoken, kinda like Latin to Italian and other Roman languages. The problem is sources use ä to transliterate the letters in the first column. But this leads to confusion. Some of most of these letters are pronounced as one of [ɘ], [ə] or [ɜ] (not sure which one yet) and few as [a]. The fourth column are always pronounced as [a], even when the sound is a repeat of the first column. Sources also use the [ə] to trasliterate the sound sixth column of letters which are pronounce with a [ɨ]. I am not sure if this is true in Ge'ez, but it is certainly true in Amharic. To further complicate things, there are over 30 to 40 other languages in Ethiopia that also use Ge'ez that may have there own pronunciation of the letters. Most likely they use a similar pronunciation but I can't assume that and change the Ge'ez script article. I don't know where to begin! It is frustrating, There are just too many articles involved. And this table has been copied like it was some sort of Bible. And trying to edit them all at the same time will lead to more reverts and backlash than I can respond to at the same time.

Can I simply ignore all other languages and simply concentrate on Amharic without a backlash from linguists that have studied Ge'ez and assume that root letters are pronounced the way they are transliterated. I guess, what I am asking for is some help, specially with correcting the IPA. And any suggestions you may have in getting started. አቤል ዳዊት (Janweh) (talk) 18:54, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

All (or almost all) of the other IPA for X pages base their tables around the IPA characters used. So I'd start with the sounds of Amharic (column 1), then provide example words in both Ge'ez and in the transliteration scheme used for Wikipedia articles (column 2) and then have rough approximations to English sounds (column 3). While there are IPA for X pages that combine languages, this has more to do with phonological similarity and relatedness than orthography. It's also probably best to start with one language and only add others if it makes sense (rather than start with a grouping).

I don't know anything about Amharic past what Amharic language says, though Google scholar and Google books can be your friend here. The best source in my cursory search is this, which is in the Handbook of the International Phonetic Association, a fairly reliable source when there is some confusion about transcription issues. Two other sources, this and this seem to provide decent coverage without using IPA. Let me know if you find a citation for a source you can't access and I'll try to get it through my university and email it to you. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 19:35, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

4-star rank

How's this reword? - (In my humble opinion), Pretty good! Definitely an improvement.

A four-star rank is the rank of any four-star officer described by the NATO OF-9 code. Four-star officers are often the most senior commanders in the armed services, having ranks such as (full) admiral, (full) general, or, in the case of air forces (which have a separate rank structure), air chief marshal. This designation is also used by some armed forces that are not NATO members.

I've still got a couple of problems though:

• A four-star rank is the rank of any four-star officer - Problem: First reaction: What's a "four-star officer? Second reaction: What's NATO OF-9 code? Third reaction: Confusion. Reread first sentence. Still confused. Give up & read 2nd sentence. Fourth reaction: Oh. THAT'S what a Four-star officer is. - Solution: No brilliant solution comes to mind.
• general, or, in the case of air forces (which have a separate rank structure), air chief marshal. - Problem: Grammar: It's not in the case of all air forces. And not all air forces have a separate rank structure.

- Possible solution?: general, or (in the case of air forces with a separate rank structure), air chief marshal. ?

Your thoughts? Pdfpdf (talk)

I like it. As for the first problem, one solution is to omit "four-star officer" from the description so that it reads something like "A four-star rank is the rank of senior armed forces command officers described by the NATO OF-9 code. Most commonly, these are..." That might make for a little awkward wording, though. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 13:45, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Thinking out loud ... Pdfpdf (talk) 14:24, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

A four-star rank is {a rank| } {defined|described} by the NATO OF-9 code. Officers holding 4-star ranks are often the most senior commanders in the armed services, holding ranks such as (full) admiral, (full) general, or (in the case of air forces with a separate rank structure), air chief marshal. This designation is also used by some armed forces that are not NATO members.

Interdimensional being Talk and changes

Hi, Thanks for your edits to "Interdimensional being". Please see a couple of new sections I added in "Interdimensional being" Talk. Thanks! Misty MH (talk) 22:01, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Can you move Proto-Slavic to History of the Slavic languages?

I moved History of the Slavic languages to Slavic vocabulary, consistent with Indo-European vocabulary and Portuguese vocabulary, since it's mostly a vocabulary comparison, and also because I want to move Proto-Slavic to History of the Slavic languages to preserve the history, since most of the current page will end up there in any case. (Also, I think the fact that it happens to be a Swadesh list is less important than the fact that this concerns Slavic vocabulary in general, particularly as the page gets edited to reflect cognates rather than non-cognate words with exactly the same meaning. Also, I'd like to incorporate the page Proto-Slavic borrowings, which is really about the origin of Slavic vocabulary rather than specifically about Proto-Slavic.)

However, I don't have admin privileges to move a page over a redirect. Do you have admin privileges and if so can you move the page this way?

Benwing (talk) 23:38, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I think the page should be kept at Proto-Slavic. I don't see why there shouldn't be a Proto-Slavic page? CodeCat (talk) 23:55, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't have admin privileges, but we can file a move request. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 14:03, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

French phonology

Please, see the talk page of French phonology. --Mahmudmasri (talk) 06:29, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

IPA

Hi Aeusoes1! I need your help. I want the IPA representation for the following names: Emraan Hashmi, Randeep Hooda, Imran Khan and Varun Dhawan. All the GA and FA articles have them; for example Priyanka Chopra has this next to her name—"(pronounced [prɪˈjəŋkaː ˈtʃoːpɽaː];)". I've tried everything but I still haven't been able to figure out how to do it. Will you assist me? GleekVampire | talk! 05:51, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I can only guess at how to pronounce these people's names. Or are you asking how to put the symbols in? — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 17:41, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Yup, I wanna know how to put the symbols. GleekVampire | talk! 19:49, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Between the editing box and the edit summary box, there's a handy list of clickable symbols. Right now, yours is probably set on "insert" but if you select "IPA" you'll have all the IPA characters right at your fingertips. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 20:08, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks!!! :) GleekVampire | talk! 20:21, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Re. reversion of "unexplained deletions"

See https://blog.wikimedia.de/2013/02/13/wikidata-live-on-the-english-wikipedia/ and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Interlanguage_links#Wikidata. Interlanguage links on the English wiki are now redundant. --Lfdder (talk) 16:08, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the clarification. It might help if you provide at least one of those links in your edit summaries to avoid any other editors getting confused like me. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 16:15, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Okay, will do. Also, that's the narrowest transcription I've ever seen. ;P --Lfdder (talk) 22:58, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Incomplete revert

Hey Asusoes, see this edit: it left something to be desired. To make this easier next time I've given you rollback--but please read the instructions and use it only with obvious vandalism, unless you also have Twinkle installed and can leave an edit summary. Happy editing, Drmies (talk) 02:51, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I was trying to combine a revert with some lede cleanup to shy away from wording that suggested the article was about the term. Are you saying that, given my edit summary, I should have separated the two edits? Or is there a further problem with my changes? — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 03:18, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

No, I thought you did an incomplete revert of those three edits, leaving a fragment. Hey, feel free to tweak or retweak that lead: I'm not completely happy with it. Drmies (talk) 03:36, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

WP:ANI and User:Bhaskarbhagawati

I took the liberty to refer to a comment made by you on User:BB at WP:ANI: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Repeated_removal_of_cited_lede. Chaipau (talk) 16:58, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello Aeusoes ! Actually we ideological differences in Kamrupi, nothing personal. Hope you understand. Thanks भास्कर्bhagawati Speak 06:17, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

I didn't really think it was personal. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 15:09, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Says

Yes, I agree it was overkill. It is just that I have been fighting all my life this stupid obsession with equating the ramance languages "eh" sound with the English "ay", which has given us English words such as "due-vay", "bufay", Spanish "ohlay" (olé) etc.. It is done everywhere, including by supposedly experts in language learning materials such as Berlitz, Hugo, Phillips, Collins, Penguin and co.. People who use "ay" do define such a sound should not be writing on languages. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 10:59, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Stay valiant. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 12:18, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

That wasn't a failed verification

The Brazilian user didn't read none of the sources, he used Ctrl+F or similar technology, didn't found nothing, and reverted.

When you take time, the first 12 pages and the 44th page of http://venus.unive.it/canipa/pdf/HPr_01_Prelude.pdf may enlighten you. It is in English, also you can skip the details and go right to the 44th and 45th pages, then compare the table found at the source I've often put here in the last months. You'll see that the Brazilian ell is described as thoroughly velarized, just that sometimes it is "lowered". What is a lowered lateral approximant? Our [j] is also described as semi-approximant in the Italian language source, or raised... I remember adding Brazilian Portuguese examples to the voiced palatal fricative pages. Voi là!

The Italian language source I did add to the sibilant page also says Portuguese /R/ can be a uvular trill in both Brazil and Portugal. And you understand Spanish, you may check the note of my old diff and look the page which says that the Brazilian palatalized thingy is phonetically different from the Italian affricate. Or I could make it easy for you: http://venus.unive.it/canipa/pdf/02_3_Portog.pdf In the last paragraph of 178, and first and second paragraphs of 179, it says that it is palatalized post-alveolar.

This Unive source was given to me by Fncd before he retired and the author seems to be famous and reputed in the area in Italy. So, yeah, the only problem is that Luizdl thinks the Portuguese and Brazilian sounds are exactly the same, against common sense of every carioca (hell, even my mom that knows nothing of phonetics lessen the palatalization of the sibilants when imitating a Portuguese accent, and everybody learning Japanese knows that Brazilian and Japanese pronunciations of sushi differ only by the first vowel) – Luizdl is from São Paulo, as you know accent of there may have interference of Italian, Spanish, European Portuguese and others, they even changed the alveolo-palatal /ti/ and /di/ that they themselves made successful through Brazil by migrations back to dental in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, also they were too little of a target of European Portuguese immigration in recent decades to have the accent to compare to – when I have a source to back up my claim that the first is like the English and French and the latter is like the Catalan and Japanese. And another source to add that the Brazilian is different from the italian, and that it is probably derived somehow from Tupi influence. And we know that Tupi sibilants were/are alveolo-palatal.

Please believe me, I swear by my own life that I am saying the truth out of acquired knowledge through exaustive research, it is NOT OR. Further, Brazilian university students' sources on Brazilian Portuguese phonology usually describe our "x" phoneme as palatal, what would be highly unusual anywhere else in the world. Some of my guesses are indeed stupid but I may prove I'm mostly right. Lguipontes (talk) 13:22, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough. I had only looked at the edit summary and trusted the editor's judgment. I wasn't saying that all of your edits are problematic, but enough of them are that it's worth other editors checking them. I'd do it myself but don't have the time. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 15:02, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

According to what he told me on my talk page on the wiki-pt, he has no notion of the dorsal articulation of alveolopalatal. He was trying to tell me "it's alveolopalatal because it's between postalveolar and pre-palatal", that means he doesn't know that alveolopalatal has a dorso-palatal coarticulation.--Luizdl (talk) 15:38, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

That's certainly a reason why we don't want to go with his own perceptions. But the Italian source he cited does indicate an alveolopalatal articulation in its narrow transcription of Portuguese consonants. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 15:48, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I was reading that Italian source again, and I'm not sure if the author used that ʆ to represent alveolopalatal, anyway the source was about Italian accent spoke by Portuguese speakers, as you have more Knowledge than me, is it possible a person when learning a second language to pronounce sound that does not exist nor in native neither in the second language?--Luizdl (talk) 17:20, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

The Brazilian source says it is 'alveopalatal' thoroughly, probably expanded from São Paulo because of their Tupi-influenced Portuguese (Tupi got alveolo-palatals) and different from Italian [tʃ] and [dʒ]. http://www.coracoralina.ueg.br/visao_academica/revista/2010_novembro/rev10_2010_dialetos.pdf page 27.

Further I am used to foreign pronunciations by Japanese and English language medias (and they trying to sound like each other), as so did my closest relatives that together had some tens of Portuguese neighbors and relatives. The stereotypical accent of the Portuguese includes lessening the palatalization, the stereotypical Japanese accent does nothing about ti, di, x, j. In São Paulo u is sometimes added after the coda s, but in Rio de Janeiro even the most unused to Portuguese are regarded to pronounce it near normally (yoshi!, as interjection rather than name or nickname, sounds very close to iôs for us, they just do it a bit shhh as if there was another syllable - and there is, with a short voiceless vowel - rather than just coda s).

AFAIK dorso-palatal is something pronounced in the palate with the body of the tongue, isn't it? Palatal pronunciations with the tip of the tongue, such as the hinterland Brazilian velarized linguopalatal coda r, are "true retroflex", laminal postalveolar pronunciations may be regarded as retroflex or palato-alveolar... Our pronunciation is palatalized with the tip of the tongue on the meat behind the below teeth, just like lh, ni in ânion, urânio, níquel, Califórnia, gn in gnocchi, except for x and di where the tip of the tongue touches the below teeth (for me). AFAIK it is still palatalized, it would only palato-alveolar if it touched the upper teeth or the alveoli, so that it wouldn't be fully palatalized anymore. Lguipontes (talk) 19:38, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

According to the transcription conventions laid out by the author of the Italian source, the place of articulation is "Postalveo-palatal." — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 23:27, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Yep, that is the term they he chose to describe what we know in Wikipedia as alveolo-palatal, using the ancient symbols for alveolo-palatal sibilants. Its "translation" to IPA is palato-alveolar consonant + palatalization. The new alveolo-palatal sibilant symbols are described as pre-palatal (palatalized laminal post-alveolar – [s] or [z] plus a little square below –, its unrounded version is said to be present as coda s in parts of Brazil, though the carioca one is palatalized [ʃ] or [ʒ]) rounded, and it is used in the above file to transcribe Mandarin. Lguipontes (talk) 13:11, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

It's ok if it is palatalised in your dialect, the carioca/fluminense, but now your're saying it's also labialised?--Luizdl (talk) 16:40, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

It is palatalized and unrounded in all Brazilian dialects, though by what source indicates in some the coda, as far as I understood, is palatalized lamino-alveolar (something I already knew) rather than alveolo-palatal. It is protruded palato-alveolar in most of Western Europe (against your slight ignorance on the subject – as you made it clear in our discussions both in English and in Portuguese –, something most sources agree with), and "vertically labialized" in Mandarin, with a similar TONGUE (but not lip) position to that in which I make my alveolo-palatal x, j and di (though not coda s and ti), though I don't remember quite well if it was described as a labialized pre-palatal (palatalized lamino-alveolar according to source) or kabialized postalveolo-palatal (palatalized post-alveolar, or alveolo-palatal), I first downloaded it in another computer, but now I am at IE and I just don't trust it to go to any other website, much less download something by it. I don't know about Japanese, they don't cite it, though I did never hear a difference of it from Portuguese, Catalan, Mandarin or Polish. But I admit to not being a source much less a rule of my country's speech, unlike certain person and his skepticism over grounded claims with basis on his own perceptions. Lguipontes (talk) 21:16, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

So it's overall ok to use Canepari works as a source? He mentionts a lot details other phoneticians don't care about. --Ahls23 (talk) 13:49, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm really skeptical of Canepari. From what I've seen, he doesn't cite any studies, just makes statements with no way of verifying. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 14:21, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

True, most of his works scream "original research". His vowel charts are usually pretty accurate though. Anyway, I'll ignore him when looking for sources - I don't want to edit war or have big arguments with anybody. --Ahls23 (talk) 17:21, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

"Ebonics"

Hello, defender of AAVE-related stuff against (endemic) stupidity. An update on "Ebonics". The article was recently renamed "Ebonics (word)". Which I think was a good move, though I was less than thrilled at the time. -- Hoary (talk) 05:43, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I would've brought it up in the talk page if it wasn't followed by the use of Ebonics as a disambiguation page. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 14:01, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Portuguese phonology, The Neverending Story

It seems that my debate with Luizdl resurfaced. Also, you didn't say if the Italian source is really worth using. It makes claims about usual Brazilian ell being also velarized, and it includes uvular trill in our list of allophones. Also, by the PDF I downloaded because of the link you gave here, it seems Canepari wouldn't think I was "lying" about velar trills. It is really described there, as an unusual kind of sound. Nevertheless it doesn't appear in the document on Portuguese pronunciation of Italian as FL, I believe Tropylium's interpretation was better than mine, and I don't want to even make the claim I have it myself, this field is really far too polemic and I don't feel entitled to give opinions, at least not here. I just want to see the max. number of obvious detectable facts about our pronunciation here for the sake of Wikipedia's reputation, the very reason I started to edit about it. Lguipontes (talk) 02:19, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

About Merging of American Accent with American English

Hello, thank you for your proposal for merging the article American Accent with American English. American Accent is a part of American English but it is a totally different thing. As we all know that it is the way of talking and pronouncing, I think a different Article is necessary as a result of letting people know more elaborately about American Accent. So that people can talk and speak more fluently using American English. Because of the fact that people of other countries, who are not Native Speaker of American English try to follow American English in their day to day life for its simplicity. And American Accent is essential for the purpose of speaking and communicating with others. It is easier for the people to directly search for American Accent and have more knowledge about the Accent part only. More information will be added into this Article with the passage of time and if there is any mistake, then it will be edited. After your merging proposal was made, I have talked with few specialists of American Accent and they have also agreed that a different article is quite helpful and they have agreed to provide information and correction for making the article more appropriate and accurate. The rest is up to you. I hope you are understanding the point of view. You can help me in correcting things if you think are inappropriate in the Article. Will look forward to working together. Thank you. Sourov0000 (talk)

The best place to talk about this would be at Talk:American English. I do recognize that they are two separate things, but the information you have provided so far does not compel me to change my opinion that we don't need a separate article. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 11:55, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Cargo cults

Hello, I appreciated the re-writes to the Cargo cult lead, but did try to carefully revert those parts which the sources wouldn't support. The main issue is one of perspective - recent work in anthropology (since the 90s) has questioned the western bias of the analytic framework. I would also respectfully point out that I am not responsible for the deification of tides found on the talk page, and reverted attribution on that as well.Schrauwers (talk) 03:22, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate your taking time to balance the issues my edits are trying to address and accurate reporting of what sources say. I was largely interested in addressing wording issues for both clarity and tone; my edits were done in ignorance of what the source say, which I understand can be problematic.

Since you reverted the third paragraph of the lead section, I wanted to unpack it to clarify the problems I had:

Interaction with foreigners brought about a considerable transformation in the way indigenous peoples of Melanesia have thought about other societies, particularly the colonizing groups who have built airstrips and infiltrated regions, accompanied by their material possessions and "cargo."

I'm not a fan of the term "foreigners" here, partly because it's vague and partly because it seems to be slanted towards a certain POV. I also dislike "infiltrated regions" which is wording that is untowardly slanted. A potential reword might be something like "contact with colonizing groups brought about a considerable transformation in the way indigenous peoples of Melanesia have thought about other societies." It takes out the "especially" form, but that seems kind of obvious to me anyway.

Early colonial theories of Cargo Cults are problematic because they begin from the assumption that dumb and powerless natives did not understand technology, colonization, or capitalist reform.

For one, the early theories aren't necessarily "colonial." Also, as an encyclopedia and given our WP:NPOV policy, we can't actually pick a side on theories. So saying that limiting the treatment to these ideas by saying that they're "problematic" is, well, problematic. I suspect even my reword was a bit slanted, so we could instead have something like "Early theories of cargo cults began from the assumption that practitioners failed to understand technology, colonization, or capitalist reform." We might also want to have a clearer phrase than "capitalist reform" since I'm not sure what that is.

What is significant is that many Cargo Cults' 'followers' understand the importance of sustaining and creating new social relationships, placing the emphasis on 'people' relations instead of 'material' relations.

The structure suggests that this is supposed to contradict the preceding coverage of early theories, or show that it's somehow flawed. That didn't make sense to me, which is why I added "in this model, cargo cults are a misunderstanding of the trade networks involved in resource distribution and an attempt to acquire such goods in the wake of interrupted trade." But if you were trying to express something else, maybe you can clarify.

Oh, and I'm sorry about the talk page misattribution. I saw the unattributed comment, looked at the history, and saw that you were the most recent editor. Should've paid closer attention. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 15:29, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi again. My concern is primarily with the first sentence which unabashedly states a "cargo cult is a kind of". I would direct your attention down the page to the theory section on Cargoism as discourse. There are many who consider the phrase theoretically empty, with no empirical referent (Kaplan, Lamont). The wording I used tried to make clear(er) that the phenomenon may just be a 'social construction' of a colonial power. Hard to do in just one sentence, but that was what I came up with.

The third paragraph is not mine. I am happy with your edits. The early theories are problematic in the minds of the source I gave, so perhaps attribution would resolve that issue. The author of the paragraph was trying to emphasize the newer work by Lamont that questions the emphasis on cargo - arguing that is a western obsession (see the Burning Man link), not a Melanesian one, and these movements were many other things as well which need emphasis. Those other things (political movement, economic movement) are discounted through constant attention to the faulty 'spiritual' means "dumb natives' use to obtain goods. These movements, according to that editor, are about creating relations between people, not people and things.Schrauwers (talk) 15:55, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Ah, then we get to what attracted me to the page in the first place; "term used to describe" is not the right wording for that intro sentence; as the article itself is not about the term, but the referent (and, yes, there is still a referent even if the empirical existence of the referent is debatable), beginning the article with "X is a term..." misleadingly implies that the article is about the term. Incidentally, it would technically only adjectives that describe. If we were to indicate to what a term like cargo cult does, we would say it "refers to" or "denotes."

When I encounter "term used to describe", it is often unnecessary filler. In the case of the cargo cults article, it was also a scaffolding to say that the term is itself colonialist, which is a POV no-no. I understand that you would like to reflect (or be neutral to) the notion that cargo cults may not exist, but I think my wording ("a kind of") lends itself to that reading. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 21:22, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

French phonology

There are two errors here. Why the source marks /ɑ̃/ is pronounced [æ̃] in Canadian French and /ɔ̃/ is pronounced [ɑ̃] in Canadian French, but /ɔ̃/ is pronounced [õ] in Quebec French. Please check Quebec French phonology. 198.105.111.50 (talk) 23:40, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

That's what the source says. Do you have another source? — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 23:55, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure that /ɔ̃/ is pronounced [õ] or [ɒ̃] in Quebec French, never [ɑ̃], because I live in Quebec. 198.105.111.50 (talk) 00:08, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Even if you've done formant studies on the vowels of a representative sample of people in Quebec, we still can't accept that over a source. We have a policy of no original research. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 12:18, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

ɛ

I think the /ɛ/ sound exist in Arabic. 198.105.116.225 (talk) 18:11, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Do you have a source? — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 19:59, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Could there be a confusion here of (a) the question of the existence of an /ɛ/ phoneme in Arabic, and (b) the question of the existence of an [ɛ] phone in some lect of Arabic? -- Hoary (talk) 00:35, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Possibly, but a source is required either way. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 00:52, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Why remove the near-close front unrounded vowel section?

Since there are at least a few pages about consonants that have such parsing... --Ahls23 (talk) 18:51, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Tell me about it. I'm not a fan of some of those, either. We don't need to spread the knowledge too thinly like that. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 19:05, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I've also reverted the changes you've made to near-close near-back vowel. I appreciate that it must've taken some effort, but like I've said here, I'm not convinced that these changes are worthwhile. It would be a good idea to raise the matter at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Linguistics, where more people will see it and offer their opinion. — Lfdder (talk) 19:27, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Well thanks for the feedback. Now we're cool I suppose, the distinction looks subtle on both pages. --Ahls23 (talk) 22:14, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Vowel chart infobox

Fyi, see here and here. — Lfdder (talk) 13:47, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Sorry, I should have let you know first. I got to that article from the above section of your talk page. No such user (talk) 15:03, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Vietnamese phonology

Do you have a source of "In Southern Vietnamese, the vowels /e, i/ are pronounced [əː, ɪ̈] before /n, t/ : bên [bəːn], xin [sɪ̈n]." ? Fort123 (talk) 23:16, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't. The last time I checked, I couldn't really find anything on Vietnamese phonetics or phonology. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 23:51, 24 April 2013 (UTC)