User talk:E3

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

E3's Account, you are invited to the Teahouse[edit]

Teahouse logo

Hi E3's Account! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Benzband (I'm a Teahouse host)

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 01:17, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

July 2013[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Midelt may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • '''Midelt''' ({{lang-ber|ⴰⵡⵟⴰⵟ}} ({{lang-ar|ميدلت}}) is a [[town]] in central [[Morocco]], in the high plains

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 09:17, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Typo fixed, thanks for the bot-maker and the hardware the bot is running on.
Regards. E3 (talk)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Prosecution of Marte Dalelv may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • law requires either a confession or four adult male witnesses to the attack (see [[Hudud]])<ref>{{cite news|title=Dubai rape case woman pardoned|url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jul/22/

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:56, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Typo fixed, thanks for the bot-maker and the hardware the bot is running on.
Regards. E3 (talk) 11:13, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Prosecution_of_Marte_Dalelv[edit]

Maybe you will find the time: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Iselilja#Prosecution_of_Marte_Dalelv I will not find it. --Soenke Rahn (talk) 12:21, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello Soenke Rahn,
I would have really wanted to but I am busy at the moment. If you could find links describing the case and post them on a sandboxed version, it would be more likely to have an article. Let me know what you think.
Regards.
E3 (talk) 13:10, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
How I said, if you will make an article I can place the German quotes on it, also on your sandbox, but I will not begin the article. But it came also in my mind, because, I think it is more interesting than the discussion in the moment of the Dalelv article. ;-) Friendly greetings from Flensburg, --Soenke Rahn (talk) 21:45, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
Hello Soenke Rahn,
Indeed the discussion is purely in vain, I have ended my participation.
Regards.
E3 (talk) 08:53, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Emmaar[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that Emmaar, a page that you created, has been tagged for deletion. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which articles can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may be soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:

  • It appears to be a test page. (See section G2 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do, and take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.
  • It is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. (See section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Wikipedia has standards for the minimum necessary information to be included in short articles; you can see these at Wikipedia:Stub. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.
  • It is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, a rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. (See section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Wikipedia has standards for the minimum necessary information to be included in short articles; you can see these at Wikipedia:Stub. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.
  • It is a redirect to an article talk page, image description page, image talk page, mediawiki page, mediawiki talk page, category talk page, portal talk page, template talk page, help talk, user page, or user talk page from the article space. (See section R2 of the criteria for speedy deletion.)

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. MikeTheEditor104 (talk) 18:35, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello,
Message acknowledged, thank you. The page seems to be not on the list of speedy deletion candidates any more.
Regards. E3 (talk) 18:47, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

A thought about transliteration versus transcription[edit]

Hi. I restored the previous version of the Roman rendering of Tunisia's formal name. I hope the reason I gave is clear but I'm happy to discuss it. A further thought I had is that if we were intended to show the phonetic transcription rather than a transliteration, wouldn't we use the local one? My recollection from my visit to Tunisia is that ال comes out "el" rather than "al", as in "El Gola`a" and "Ennahda". —Largo Plazo (talk) 16:47, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello —Largo Plazo,
The reason you gave is indeed clear; however Roman rendering is not: Currently, "الجمهورية التونسية" is transcribed as "al-Jumhūriyyah at-Tūnisiyyah", notice the first "t" in "at-Tūnisiyyah". So in order for it to be a fully valid and faithful transcription, it should be rendered "al-Jumhūriyyah al-Tūnisiyyah", with the "t" becoming an "l".
This rule is related to Classical Arabic, an official language of the country. In Tunisian, which is different from Arabic, the "ال" is, as you have pointed, either pronounced "el", or sometimes even skipped and replaced with a mere "l", for example the Tunisian word "earth" is pronounced "lardh", of which the Arabic form is "الأرض", pronounced "al-Ardh". If you are interested in the linguistic reasons, there is an interesting study that you can find at http://www.scribd.com/doc/192905561. In Tunisian, the term would be transcribed (using the STUNdard method) to "ejjomhouriya Ettounsiya".
If the case would be using a transcription of how the term is pronounced in Classical Arabic, which would be an appropriate option, it would be "aj-Jumhūriyyah at-Tūnisiyyah".
Regards.
E3 (talk) 10:26, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Two-part response:
  • I'd missed your point about the "at-"—I hadn't noticed that it was already there.
  • It occurred to me that "aj-" seemed wrong to me all along. My knowledge of Arabic is, I guess, sufficient for me to have an impression like that without being sure that it's correct. So I checked just now and confirmed: ت is a sun letter and ج is a moon letter (at least, in classical or modern standard Arabic). There is no assimilation of ال with moon letters. —Largo Plazo (talk) 13:28, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Hello —Largo Plazo,
You are absolutely correct about the "ج". It is considered lunar in Classical Arabic, unlike modern North African languages; it was my mistake. Thanks for pointing it out.
If you decide to modify "at-Tūnisiyyah" to "al-Tūnisiyyah", please feel free.
Thank you.
Regards.
E3 (talk) 14:19, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 8[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Jean-Louis Matinier, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Anthony Cox (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) 08:56, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello,
Message is acknowledged, and link is fixed.
Regards.
E3 (talk) 09:24, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

About the Tunisian Arabic Wikipedia Project[edit]

I am for the use of Tunisian Arabic in some Wikimedia Projects. I do not care if it would be an incubator or a Wikipedia. I believe that if one project would make a clear success. We would have some supports in next projects. That is why I welcome shadowly your help and your support in the work about Wikimedia Projects in Tunisian Arabic and I hope this partnership would be fructuous and let us make more achievements than our homologues in Egypt, Morocco, Algeria and Bahrain. So, thank you and I will wait for you to help me in the work. Now, I am translating the Wikimedia System in Tunisian Arabic using Translate Wiki. The work is simple, we will take the Standard Arabic Translation and submit it except for Edit, Read and some other functionalities when it is written in Tunisian Arabic using Latin Letters. For the messages without Arabic Translation, I will look for that by myself. This is important because no project in Tunisian Arabic can be accepted without translating the Wikis. Yours.--Csisc (talk) 18:11, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello Csisc,
Nice to hear from you. I am still very interested in the project and still willing to volunteer. Currently, there is a rather growing number of interested contributors and even an organisational support. If you want, we could split the tasks and work on advancing the project efficiently. One minor remark, you might also be interested in checking the Maltese translations, some of them are closer than the Arabic terminologies and are already available.
We could equally coordinate this through e-mail or on other platforms with various contributors. Let me know what you think.
Regards
E3 (talk) 19:10, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Cut and paste moves[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia, your edits are appreciated. But please do not copy articles, delete them and them recreate at different titles as you did with La Reverdie to LaReverdie, as such moves infringe wp's copyright provisions. Also there is a correct process at WP:RM. In this case however the page should not be moved as WP:RS indicate La Reverdie. Thanks. And happy editing. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:39, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello In ictu oculi and thank you for your post,
Indeed I understand the inefficiency of cutting and pasting article contents, if you may however explain how copying intra-WP content infringes WP's copyright provisions, or direct me to a link where I could further read about the issue.
If I may explain my move, the LaReverdie page was created as a temporary redirect until the naming issue is solved, it was thankfully promptly solved by Discospinster through this editing history link, and therefore no need for posting the renaming request that was originally intended.
Concerning the name, it is as a matter of fact the ensemble's name as it appears on their website, in both Italian and English versions, and I have included sources on the then-created LaReverdie page. I have added the links on the page itself explaining and sourcing the alternative spelling. Whether or not the more recent name should be the page's title is up to WP's standards, but I did examine the possibilites and as the edit is not, per se, of misleading or harmful nature, I decided for it. Please feel free to amend it as you deem suitable.
Regards
E3 (talk) 11:58, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Hi, the guideline is at Wikipedia:CUTANDPASTE
I've moved the La Reverdie website link into "external links" ... we don't usually give much weight to how bands stylize their spellings, but prefer WP:RS, such as Gramophone or books in this case. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:34, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Hello In ictu oculi,
Thank you for your help.
Regards
E3 (talk) 05:33, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

July 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Ras ben Sakka may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • Sea]], 22 kilometres to the north-east of the [[Ichkeul lake]] [[World Heritage site]]), in [[Tunisia]]. It is located at 37°21' N., just 950 meters west of Cap Blanc|Cap Blanc, which is

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:53, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Typo fixed, thanks for the bot-maker and the hardware the bot is running on.
Regards. E3 (talk) 08:19, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Għallougha Ettounsiya...[edit]

Għaslàma, qrit leħdith mtagħek mgħa Csisc w ħabbit netħaddeth mgħak għattarjma l Ettounsi w elktiba etc..
Bahi, awwel chay Ana men "jmàgħet STUNdard" w Ana elli ktebt eddiksyonàr w melli ħattʾou elqawanìn mtagħ lektiba. W tawwa dkhalt bech nabda ntarjem àmma lqit mochkeltìn

  1. Csisc għmal ghaltʾa kbira waqtelli għmal kopyé kollé m Elgħarbi
  2. Ma famma ħad bech ygħàwenni

Naħna nagħmlou fi Wiki b Ettounsi w mouch b Elgħarbi, magħnaha koll chay làzem maktoub b kelmàt Tounsiya w hadha elli bdit fih, kelmàt kima Staff raddit'ha Dbàyriya (f Eddziri kàtbìn Dabbàra) w watchlist tarjemt'ha lista mtagħ elgħassa, magħnaha nestagħmlou kelmàt ki hakka bech ntarjmou bihom w mouch kopyé kollé. W tawwa rasselti nafsakh f elkhedma mtagħou w ngħàwed ntarjem fiha.

Bech nekhdem elkhedma hadhi, yelzemni għbàd mgħaya, Enti w Csisc! (w chway għbàd okhrìn nàn nnajjemna)

Bahi, tawwa lektiba w kifàch, għla għaks esSTUNdard elli tagħrfou, Ana, qtraħ għliya Linguist chway tabdilàt lesSTUNdard, elli hiya nlemm <è> w <a> fi ħarf wàħed, w koll wàħed yantʾaq kima fi lahjtou or kima f elqàgħda ejjénéràl. Elfounder mtagħ LTH qàl la, khatʾer yħeb kima Elmàltʾi, għarraghm ennou leqtiràħ magħqoul w fi blàsʾtou, w Ana elli ktebt eddiksyonàr w elli netkallem mgħa għbàd men barcha lahjàt nagħref qaddàch bech tgħàwenna ħkàyet <a> waħda. Elħasʾilou, Ana nekhdem b elmétod hadhi elli sammit'ha STUNdard 3.0, għal Wikipedia w nra elli aħsen chay kollna nekhdmou biha, khàtʾer ħad ma bech yabqa ħàyer kifàch bech yekteb hakka w ghirou. Ħattàl nagħmlou Poll w nwarrih nkhallih ythabbet kifàch STUNdard 3.0 elli qtraħha Linguist khir.

Errésumé, chnoua ràyek nkontakti Csisc w narjgħou nkammlou ntarjmou MediaWiki w mbagħd Wikipedia?

--GeekEmad (talk) 21:19, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello / Ɛasslema GeekEmad,
Since this is the English wikipedia, I will be replying in English. Do feel free to use any of the languages on my talk page.
It is great to see your involvement and interest. I was slightly confused at first since you mentioned you were a STUNdardist although you were using a different transcription method. There are a few points that still need to be cleared up, if possible.
I do not think Csisc made "a big mistake". He was one of the pioneers and every single contribution counts, including yours indeed.
Which dictionary have you published? There are at least three that I know of.
Although the usage of the "għ" could be an enhancement, the usage of "à" to denote both vowels, is, from a linguistic point of view, very confusing. You mentioned that "a linguist has suggested this"? Would you mind elaborating on that? It seems to me that, even when accounting for the occurrence of some emphatic consonants and the related vowel shift on certain onsets, the <è> and <a> should remain transcribed through two different letters. To me, your merger does not seem to be a "valid suggestion" as you said, yet much more confusing than the STUNdard method. Having both characters does not harm anyway and would provide further clarification for the language learners. I strongly suggest that you would evaluate this point, which I believe to be very important. If you wish to continue with the "merging", you might at least want to use <è> instead of <à>, since it occurs more commonly, at least in the dialects I know of.
Using borrowed words, e.g. staff, is not a problem. It occurs in all languages and will continue to occur. To me "staff" sounds more identifiable and understandable than "dbèyriya". On the other hand, "ellista mtagħ elgħassa" sounds fine, albeit slightly artificial.
Regarding, "Ħattàl nagħmlou Poll w nwarrih nkhallih ythabbet kifàch STUNdard 3.0 elli qtraħha Linguist khir", I am not sure I understood your point. Do you mean "nwarriw" or are you actually referring to "making a poll to show someone that your method suggested by an unnamed Linguist is better"? If the latter is the case, I strongly suggest that you would, instead of "making a poll to settle a difference", to attempt to get in touch with whomever you wish to convince and discuss with them point by point, accepting that you may not be entirely correct. In my opinion, I do not find your merger linguistically efficient, if I may put it that way.
Finally, I would be very willing to contribute further on Tunisian-language-related wikipedia, despite limited time, however I only know the STUNdard method and not yours, and to me it seems that it would be more effective if you were to join the rest of those who are already and would be using it, particularly since it has the institutional support from the LTH, and since it has already been in use on the Wiki. I would personally be willing to use the <għ> instead of <ɛ>, however not the vowel structure you suggested. I am certain you are aware that currently, communities interested in this project are rather small, and further fragmentation would not help, therefore, joining efforts and building efficiently upon what is already existing is much more effective than starting over.
Regards,
E3 (talk) 13:11, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Hello, happy that you replied to my "comment"
  • you mentioned you were a STUNdardist although you were using a different transcription method. There are a few points that still need to be cleared up, if possible. It's not a different one, it's just the last version with removing <è>.
  • and every single contribution counts of course, but just the method he wanted to use (copy paste from Arabic) is not the right choice.
  • Which dictionary have you published? This one
  • Although the usage of the "għ" could be an enhancement it an official update, not just mine :)
  • from a linguistic point of view, very confusing Actually, from a linguistic point of view, it's the best choice, Why? Because [ɑ] [æ] [ɛ] are just allophones of /a/, we find that in Berber (officially) and KtbDarija method (for Moroccan) so the pronunciation of the vowels has a rule, if it's in an empathic environment the /a/ = [ɑ], if it's not it can be [æ] or [ɛ], and this one has a rule also, if it's in a stressed vowel, /a/ = [ɛ], if it's not then it's [æ]. In different dialects of Tunisian this rule can have exeptions, like those who pronounce it all [ɛ] or those who pronounce all /a/ as [ɑ]. That happens a lot. So saying if this word is with [ɑ] or [æ] or [ɛ] is none of our business, we, translators, writers; instead it's speaker's job. What I'm saying, like I said before, happens also in Berber, they have one /a/ and it can be pronounced [ɑ] or [æ] or [ɛ]. You might say to me "What about Maltese?", it's a different situation and it doesn't even have emphatic consonants due to Europeanism.
When I was writing the dictionary, I had two problems (with using è), first is, will normal Tunisians be able to write in this method? I don't think (due to the difference between how normal people write words on FB and how we are writing them), Second problem, and the most important is, when the original dictionary author uses [ɛ] and I pronounce it with [ɑ]! Then I realised that we're not standardizing the Dialect! we're simply making a simple writing method, IT'S COMPLETELY STUPID TO USE TUNISIAN PHONETICS FOR THAT! Why? because it's very complex and very different, it's just like giving a special letter for every sound of <a> in English, you can't do that! So what? WE MUST USE TUNISIAN PHONOLOGY INSTEAD! And that's what I did by combining allophones of /a/ in one letter. You see? it's from 100% linguistic point!
  • Using borrowed words, e.g. staff, is not a problem. That depends on the word, if we can use a near word, we don't need to borrow anything, if we can't, we simply borrow, like the word Browser?! we can only borrow the word Navigateur.
BTW, the letter <e> is used for Berber Schwa, it's something like very short /i/ with a little sound of [ɛ]. You find it every where like in <kteb> or <kercha>.
  • to attempt to get in touch with whomever you wish to convince and discuss with them point by point LTH is just.. League of Tunisian Humanists, it has no relation with Linguistics and that's a problem. So for example when I was discussing the Berber Schwa which is in every Maghrebi dialect, they didn't understand it and thought that it's just a [ɛ] and said that we don't need it. If any Linguist hear that, he will be sure that the final result of our hard work is 0. But, what I meant is doing a Poll to know what normal users choose to use. STUNdard 3.0 or STUNdard.
  • despite limited time Do you have any idea to help us get more volunteers?
Writing a long paragraph to reply to every point you talked about on Wikipedia, is the worst nightmare :D

--GeekEmad (talk) 17:29, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello GeekEmad
In order to briefly reply to your points:
It is rather surprising, the least to say, that you consider /a/, /æ/, and /ɛ/ to be allophones of /a/. I do not believe that this is the case, and I am not quite sure about your point on how it is "found" in Tamazight. Furthermore, the rule you suggested is not always valid, as the vowels can be found in a number of opposite cases. As you have said it yourself, it has exceptions that occur often. Therefore, you might not want to represent two sounds with the same symbol, unless you want to confuse your readers.
Maltese did not lose the pronounciation of emphatic consonants due to "Europeanism". I wonder where this information is retrieved from.
I have yet again to disagree with your point regarding "it's just like giving a special letter for every sound of <a> in English, you can't do that!". As a matter of fact, you can. And if this was the case, learning English would have been much easier. If you are trying to use a system to transcribe the language, use the most faithful, comprehensive, and simple system you can have your hands on. Your dismissal of "è" seems rather baseless, despite the explanation that you have stated, which again to me seems underwhelming and is absolutely not in any way a faithful transcription method. It is also not from a "100% linguistic point", for multiple reasons, the least of them is that nothing can be "100% linguistic point", and perhaps the most obvious from them is that, you simply cannot dismiss a vowel because you believe that they are allophones. I would advise you again to review this point very carefully. Remember that from a "linguistic" point of view, Tunisian is still considered as a Semitic dialect, and many linguists who have not worked closely with North African languages, will disregard any non-Arabic features and still examine it from an Egyptian or Syrian angle, and view it as merely a dialect of Arabic, which is only one tiny side of the whole story, and would just throw in an easy "use an Arabic writing system instead". Therefore, self-claimed "100% linguistic points" may not always be the most suitable.
As far as I have witnessed and read, the LTH has worked with comptent linguists and activists. You not being in touch with them is a different issue. I wonder with whom you have been in touch since in your first post you mentioned "a founder who disagreed with you", and then you said "they", let alone you mentioing "an unnamed linguist" who helped. Are you confident that you have been in contact with them, or at least persons who worked closely on similar projects and not an assistant or anyone else? The way you said it in your previous message conveyed that you wanted to "show someone that they are wrong" through a poll, which I am afraid is not the way academia works.
I will once again reiterate my opinion: Having both characters, à and è, does not harm anyway and would provide further clarification for the language learners. I strongly suggest that you would evaluate this point, which I believe to be very important. If you wish to continue with the "merging", you might at least want to use <è> instead of <à>, since it occurs more commonly, at least in the dialects I know of. I would personally be willing to use the <għ> instead of <ɛ>, however not the vowel structure you suggested. It is merely confusing to say the least, GeekEmad.
Regarding contacting further interested people, I would suggest that once you discuss the points with fellow activists on the project, or if you decide to use the STUNdard method, to contact the work group of the LTH or other organizations involved. Once again, in my contributions I use the STUNdard method, and do not find the modifications you suggested effective, therefore I will not be using it and will not recommend its usage to users I would contact about the Tunisian wiki.
Thank you for your reply and your committment. It is certainly highly appreciated.
Regards,
E3 (talk) 21:45, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Tabbèkh or Tabbàkh? both are correct. Just like every other words you find at least two pronunciation of it. Again the Poll I'm talking about is to know what users prefer, which method, and when that happens, nobody can talk about using another method. I'm still contacting some people to do this Poll on their FB pages. Again, our two methods are correct, the first uses phonetics (not all of them) and the second uses phonology. KtbDarija and Algerian method follow phonology of their languages, why? because everyone speak in a different manner.
Let's forget about that for a moment, after talking with some other people, I found something we must do first, who is using those methods?! Nobody! so we need to share it and use to share information before using it on Wikipedia. So maybe the project of Wikipedia can wait a little more. What I'm going to do is translating articles from English websites, "funny articles", also, movies. Those two are popular in Tunisia, and everyone is interested in them.
Later, after I don't know how many month, we can start translating Wikipedia, with an army of translators, and the most important, We have reason for using this Latin method (they were asking me if there is anyone or any website or any books which is using this method!)
Ygħaychek --GeekEmad (talk) 06:26, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Hello GeekEmad,
I have heard "tabbèkh", "tebbèkh", "tebbàkh", but honestly never "tabbàkh", which to my ear sounds "very Arabic". Pronunciation may vary significantly and this is exactly why any transcription method should allow for all, and not suppress other possibilities. I have forwarded your suggestion to a contact of mine who equally worked on the subject, and the same opinion is yet again echoed, particularly regarding the choice of "à" over "è". Again, even if you were to go with this, "è" seems more suitable as it occurs more often. Just take a basic set of words, e.g. "bnèt", "wlèd", "rjèl", "blèd", "ɛbèd", "qtates", "klèb", and you may see for yourself that it is far more common, particularly with nouns in plural. I have never encountered "bnàt" for instance and the usage of "à" seems far more restricted, and that is why I can agree that the choice of the character itself is further confusing to learners and readers.
The steps you suggested do sound in place. I would say that maintaining the Wikipedia project meanwhile is not of any harm and I will try to regularly check it.
You are welcome. / Men ghìr mziya w bon travail.
Regards,
E3 (talk) 08:34, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Hello Everyone,
I have been informed about this discussion by GeekEmad and some others and as I was not available these moments, I chose to answer you after the end of my examination period. In fact, I was surprised by this latest topic and I appreciate the debate. But, let me clarify some facts about Tunisian Wikipedia Project.
The topic was first launched in early 2012 when I decided to support seriously the query of a Tunisian Wikipedia. The purpose of that initiative was the popularisation of science in the one hand and the adaptability of Latin Letters to Computer Requirements whatever the internet browser and the Computer System were. However, the idea have faced many critics although the idea in itself was good enough to get administrators' admission to begin this Wikipedia in Incubator. After that, I discovered that such action is not as easy as it seems because I do not have a great team with me to deal with that. So, I had to translate the Templates and the queries like Edit, Upload... in Tunisian Arabic. Moreover, I have to convince the administrators' that such wikipedia can have a very important audience.
So, when discussing such subject, it is important to take into consideration these facts.
I faced many critics and that is why I had to satisfy all ranges of the Tunisian People even the ones who objects to the so-called Europeanism. That is why the use of Latin Letters was limited to Read, Edit, View History and Main Page... I mean that this use was limited to important items that are important for letting Tunisian People that do not meet to Computer Requirements for Arabic Language edit in Tunisian Wikipedia. As the revolution was recent at that moment, I do not have the courage to go through total use of Latin Letters. When sTUNdard individuals called me in the first time, it was in the late 2013. But, I think that such action should be based on a complete study of the popular audience and on the methods for the popularisation of the rules of Tunisian Writing in Latin as seen by sTUNdard. That is why I am working now to make a Submission to Wikimedia 2015 or 2016 about the popularisation of Knowledge through dialectal Wikipedias in which I examine sTUNdard Initative and my own working experience using Critical Thinking. I think that GeekEmad has the same opinion as me when he said that "Ma famma ħad bech ygħàwenni". So, we require a further discussion about the organisation of the work if we would like to resume it. That is why I apply to E3, GeekEmad... to contribute to a Discussion in this Discussion page about Tunisian Wikipedia in 29-30 January 2015 in which we discuss the rules of Tunisian Arabic to be used in this Wikipedia, the structure of the Wikipedia... If all the facts went well, I will have the pleasure to start the work and even correct the translations picked from Arabic Version if we meet in that.
Finally, I have to thank you for this interest in my Wikipedia work.
Yours Sincerely,
--Csisc (talk) 12:20, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Online Discussion on Tunisian Arabic Wikipedia would be held at 12:30 GMT+1 in 29 January 2015 here.--Csisc (talk) 13:04, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Hello Csisc,
I will check and contribute accordingly.
Thank you.
E3 (talk) 12:20, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Hello E3,
I was very happy with your comments. However, I must tell you that I was not against the use of Amazigh as a main reference in doing STUNdard Writing. I can even say that this kind of reference was needed to do the first STUNdard enunciation. But, although that, STUNdard failed to guess a solution for the combination of vowels that is more than common in Arabic Dialects. I had failed also to get a solution to differenciate between Dh of Nadhif and Dħ of Dħahaba. I think that a new version of STUNdard entitled 4.0 that is not limited to Amazigh Reference and that can profit from the experiences of other languages in Latin Adaptation.
So, I advise you to see the new paper that I created here in order to comment it and give me more advice about how to develop more efficiently the STUNdard 4.0 before we can work on a Wikimedia Project using the STUNdard Typing.
Yours Sincerely, --Csisc (talk) 16:35, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.229.251.66 (talk)

Discussion about Dialectal Wikipedias[edit]

I invite you to participate in an online Skype Discussion about the subject of Tunisian Wikipedia. If you want this, suscribe here.--Csisc (talk) 08:54, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello Csisc,
I will be trying checking the page you mentioned, but I doubt that I can guarantee any contribution to other Wikipedia projects aside from the North African ones. Furthermore, it would be better to start the discussion here on Wikipedia instead of Skype. Feel free to post the matters in question.
E3 (talk) 13:09, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Well, I will contact you when you have time. Give me a date in which we can discuss this.--Csisc (talk) 12:57, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Hello Csisc,
Feel free to get in touch any time here. At the moment, I try to check Wikipedia regularly.
Thank you.
E3 (talk) 14:21, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
I will do that Sunday Morning--Csisc (talk) 13:56, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
As I clearly said, we are discussing now some facts about Tunisian and Tunisian Wikimedia Projects.
First, let me tell you that I and User:GeekEmad had worked on the amelioration of the output of STUNdard and we have consulted some excellent linguists in order to solve problems. You can see this promoted output here. We have to introduce you this method because we are going to use it later.
Furthermore, we have seen that beginning the Tunisian Wikipedia would not be very useful. So, we began Tunisian Wiktionary in Incubator this week.
Yours Sincerely,
--Csisc (talk) 09:53, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Hello Csisc,
Thank you for your message. I highly appreciate it.
The document is inaccessible to me, but I can see the edits and the standardisation method as you used here: [1].
The method is certainly innovative and seems rather more "Maltese" than the original STUNdard. There are points that may be in my opinion valid, e.g. using "il" instead of "el", and others that seem rather overly complicated and for an end-user, e.g. substituting digraphs, phonetic values of "x" and "c", making up words to avoid using loanwords, ... etc.
I am afraid that you might end up finding yourself with a method that only you would be using, especially seeing that the simpler and, in my opinion more intuitive, STUNdard [2], still lags behind in adoption.
I am very interested in contributing to the Wiktionary and I believe that it is a step in the right direction, however all the work that would be done might end up being discarded because the method would be too difficult for end-users. I would urge you to reconsider some aspects such as the ones I mentioned earlier, and I will try meanwhile to add words that could possibly work in any method. Again, consider the easiness aspect thoroughly and I will be looking forward to a productive contribution.
E3 (talk) 10:43, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
The new method is done with the collaboration with STUNdard. So, we will get a unique output by the end of discussions. The adjustments done on the work are based on the adoptions of the multiple opinions of leading linguists we have consulted. So, it would be more intuitive and accurate. Its adoption is now a question of time. Now, we are working of a booklet about pronunciation and varieties of Tunisian and you will see how this method can be pronounced by all Tunisians in their own varieties.
As for writing the dictionary, you have bêb as a sample entry. You should only use the same structure to write pages about all words used in Karmous. That is all and do not be afraid of all other facts. I will verify the spelling later. So, try to do your best and enter as much words from Karmous as you can.
Yours Sincerely,
--Csisc (talk) 11:03, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Hello Csisc,
Good to know that there is an ongoing discussion. Make sure to keep the importance of an easy method in mind. It might equally be a good idea to just resort to Maltese or a simplified Maltese transcription method.
As per the dictionary, I will most likely be entering long vowels as ` and not ^. If the community decides otherwise, then edits could definitely be made, however in the meantime I will try to use a "neutral" spelling.
Thank you.
E3 (talk) 11:47, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
The most important fact is to try to enter words. I will contact you when the Full standardization booklet would be ready. --Csisc (talk) 11:28, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Here is the booklet. --Csisc (talk) 08:04, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Hello @Csisc:,
First, I would like to salute your usage of the word "Tunisian" rather than any other terminology, which makes sense since you are proposing a standardization method for a language.
The method however seems very complicated. I have tested it over a few days, myself and a few other contacts, and I am not certain that I would be keen on adopting it. I find the STUNdard method to be rather simpler and much easier, and would be very pleasantly surprised to see it adopted on a larger scale, seeing how unenthusiastic an average person writing in Tunisian could be.
It certainly remains innovative, however much harder and much less intuitive to use, which I hope the writers and reviewers were aware of.
In the meantime, I would support either the STUNdard method, the Maltese transliteration system, or something in between, and I would continue to add short "neutrally-transcribable" words.
E3 (talk) 09:11, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
E3: It is intuitive as ث (t with a point in Arabic Script) and ذ (d with a point in Arabic Script) are transcribed as t with stroke and d with stroke... x is خ and c is ش... All other additional letters are letters with cedilla excepting غ. So, the letters are intuitive... Furthermore, we created a Keyboard for Windows for Tunisian... So, it would not be very difficult to use them. However, what seems to be not intuitive is the use of prepositions like min-. I have decided to use STUNdard form m- il-... I had tested the current output... I see that the use of Final vowels is a bit difficult. If you like it, you can help us in writing the booklet and give me more advice... It would be more efficient if many people test and contribute to the booklet... You can even comment it here and specify which are the parts that are misconsidered.
Consult the new version of the booklet.
Yours Sincerely,
--Csisc (talk) 10:12, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Tunisian Arabic[edit]

Dear User,

As you are one of the contributors to Tunisian Arabic. You are kindly asked to review the part about Domains of Use and adjust it directly or through comments in the talk page of Tunisian Arabic.

Yours Sincerely,

--Csisc (talk) 14:22, 1 July 2015 (UTC)