Jump to content

User talk:Evertype/Archive 10

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12

Autopatrolled

Hello, this is just to let you know that I have granted you the "autopatrolled" permission. This won't affect your editing, it just automatically marks any page you create as patrolled, benefiting new page patrollers. Please remember:

  • This permission does not give you any special status or authority
  • Submission of inappropriate material may lead to its removal
  • You may wish to display the {{Autopatrolled}} top icon and/or the {{User wikipedia/autopatrolled}} userbox on your user page
  • If, for any reason, you decide you do not want the permission, let me know and I can remove it
If you have any questions about the permission, don't hesitate to ask. Otherwise, happy editing! Juliancolton (talk) 22:54, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Middle Vietnamese b with flourish?

Hello, Michael. I figure you would know something about this: I am trying to edit the page on Vietnamese language to describe Middle Vietnamese, i.e. the Vietnamese contained in the dictionary of Alexandre de Rhodes, which directly led to the modern system of Vietnamese spelling. However, de Rhodes' dictionary, the Dictionarium Annamiticum Lusitanum et Latinum, had an additional symbol, a "b with flourish", where the flourish is a curl that begins at the lower-left corner of the b, extends left and curls clockwise. See [1]. This symbol indicated a voiced bilabial fricative; within a century or so, it merged with the sound indicated with "v" to become modern /v/, and so the "b with flourish" disappeared. But for describing Middle Vietnamese, this symbol is extremely important. Yet I can't find it anywhere in any of the Latin sections of Unicode; nor does there appear to be a way of constructing it out of diacritics; nor can I find a discussion anywhere on unicode.org. There's even a character "p with flourish" at U+A753, but no "b with flourish". Any idea on whether there is a suggestion to include this character, and if not, how I can get someone to propose to include it? Thx. Benwing (talk) 02:56, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Very interesting. Columns 65-74 of Rhodes' dictionary (pages 37-41 in the pdf) are the entries for words starting with this letter. This character is not in Unicode, and should be encoded (and I'm sure Michael would be happy to add it to his upcoming proposal for various Latin additions). However, casing might be an issue: the dictionary uses the same lowercase form of the letter at the head of the columns, whereas for other head letters the uppercase form is given at the head of the columns, which implies that a distinct uppercase form of the letter was not used by Rhodes ... although it would be easy enough to devise an uppercase B with a flourish. BabelStone (talk) 09:10, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
You're right about the casing, interesting. BTW my description of the character is a bit wrong -- the flourish actually starts halfway up the left side (where the top of the curved part of the b meets the vertical, straight part) and curves about 180 degrees counterclockwise, ending below the bottom-left corner. Benwing (talk) 23:14, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm on it. I'm constrained to describe you as Wikipedia User:Benwing though. -- Evertype·✆ 22:05, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Wow, that was quick ! But please don't forget about my rotated letter I (if you haven't time, I can make the proposal myself). BabelStone (talk) 20:10, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
What rotated letter? -- Evertype·✆ 00:05, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Mingrelian wiki project

Hello,

I need some help relating to Mingrelian Wiki-project. Can you please send me your e-mail where I can contact you?

My e-mail is: machirkholi@gmail.com

Look forward to hearing from you. Best Wishes, George —Preceding unsigned comment added by Machirkholi (talk • contribs) 15:07, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

The plural of euro is euros

No, its not. I don't take orders from our EU overlords but follow Moore Street practice. Also why spell out the word when you can just use the symbol. Cheers. Snappy (talk) 23:00, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

ISO 15924

Does this mean that the most efficient way of getting an update to 15924 is to edit the Wikipedia page? ;-) Vanisaac (talk) 19:28, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

No, it does not. -- Evertype·✆ 20:09, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Hungarian "script" articles proposed for deletion

If you can not contribute to stg at least stop your destructions, please. Deleting anything related to Hungarian scripts, especially to Rovas scripts will not lead to mute scientific facts or even opinions differing from yours. In contrary!!! --Rovasinfo (talk) 08:45, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I am happy to contribute to the Old Hungarian page, so it is false for you (whoever you are) to say that I have proposed to "delete anything related to Hungarian scripts". The "Khazarian" and "Carpathian Basin" entities are not scripts, and are not even well-established in Gábor Hosszú's own documents. He pulls together glyphs from different places and times and on superficial glyph resemblances cobbles together an "alphabet" from them. This is not science; it is pseudo-science. The Old Hungarian script is a wonderful thing, adding depth and uniqueness to Hungarian culture. Its origins in Old Turkic make it even more interesting. But this Carpathian and Khazarian nonsense is just that: nonsense. It belittles the Old Hungarian script. It is certainly not encyclopaedic, and has no place in the English Wikipedia. Or the Hungarian Wikipedia for that matter. -- Evertype·✆ 09:41, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
The following have been proposed for deletion:
The only rationale for any of these is the fictional Carpathian Basin and Khazarian "scripts". -- Evertype·✆ 09:48, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Three new ones here, guys! Vanisaac (talk) 10:45, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rovas Script Family

Fair enough, --Nuujinn (talk) 23:37, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

More "Rovas" products being churned out

You might want to take a look at these new articles:

And these categories:

Voceditenore (talk) 09:46, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I went ahead and nominated these for deletion, although I don't think I can actually do it with the categories. They were all made by the usual suspect. Does adding a bunch of articles containing content that is the subject of AfD discussions constitute a bannable offense? Vanisaac (talk) 10:41, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Writing Systems Gold Star

The Writing Systems' Gold Star
This award is given to Evertype for your significant contributions to articles related to the WikiProject Writing Systems.
I figured if anyone needs to be recognized for their contributions to WikiProject Writing Systems, it should be you. Vanisaac (talk) 13:26, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Thank you very much. -- Evertype·✆ 12:38, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Very belated

I meant to say thank you some time ago for leaping to the defence of the importance of AAC at Talk:Augmentative_and_alternative_communication#Communicative_disability_is_of_high_importance but it went out of my head. So a very belated thank you :) Failedwizard (talk) 12:41, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Bliss mentions on Augmentative and alternative communication

I appreciate you trying to improve the Augmentative and alternative communication article, but this change removed a {{Citation needed}} tag without including a citation. Please don't do this. I know that some sources contend that Blissymbols is a true language, and other sources contest this claim. You may have strong opinions on this issue, but Wikipedia cannot take a side on this issue without violating our NPOV policy. The AAC article should mention Bliss, of course, but it cannot state categorically that it is (or is not) a true language. We're currently discussing the best way to proceed on the article talk page, and you're welcome to join the discussion there. All the best, – Quadell (talk) 14:40, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Do you know anything about Bliss? In what way does it fail to be a language, since it has nouns, personal pronouns, adjectives, and verbs with tense? -- Evertype·✆ 14:53, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Please discuss on the talk page rather than reverting. You have already reverted three times in the last hour, and you're very close to violating the three-revert rule. Rest assured, the consensus version will be the one used in the article, not the version of whoever reverts the most. Why not work to get the best consensus version we can? – Quadell (talk) 15:17, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh, how about not trying to pull the three-revert thing on me. I restored text with additional edits, not just reversions. -- Evertype·✆ 15:20, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

ISO 15924 private use

About the ISO 15924 private use range Qaaa-Qabx. Do you know of any publicized usage of such code? There could be a ConScript parallel. The only one I remember is Qaai in earlier Unicode versions. -DePiep (talk) 13:46, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Vicipaedia

I blocked you (or at least "Evertype") on Vicipaedia because the edits there seemed to hint at a commercial interest. One was to add a link to an "Evertype" website; the other was to remove a link to a translation of Alice which is among the ones not published by Evertype.

I'd much rather not be blocking you, so I hope you'll comment at la:Disputatio Usoris:Evertype or on my talk page. Your removal of the link may well be right -- I haven't restored it -- but I don't know whether that site is breaching Carruthers' copyright, or whether it has permission to do what it's doing. Andrew Dalby 12:06, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I am actually furious at your summary blocking of my account without prior warning. That is unbelievable bad faith on your part. I have left several comments at la:Disputatio Usoris:Evertype -- Evertype·✆ 12:10, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, I've read them and unblocked you. Andrew Dalby 12:20, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
You might like to know that the same link you deleted on Vicipaedia is still present at en:Translations of Alice's Adventures in Wonderland. Hope that helps. Andrew Dalby 12:26, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Poll on ArbCom resolution - Ireland article names

There is a poll taking place here on whether or not to extend the ArbCombinding resolution, which says there may be no page move discussions for Ireland, Republic of Ireland or Ireland (disambiguation), for a further two years. Fmph (talk) 20:21, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

If you don't mind my asking

I can't help but wonder what you do for a living. Reanimated X (talk) 17:29, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't mind if you wonder. -- Evertype·✆ 17:32, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Smartass. Let me put it simply, then. What do you for a living? Reanimated X (talk) 17:35, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Is there a reason you chose to be uncivil? -- Evertype·✆ 17:36, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Oh, you took me seriously? I didn't mean to offend you, I just found your comeback funny and appropriate so I called you a smartass. There was really no ill intention behind it. Reanimated X (talk) 17:40, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

I thank very much Unicode staff for your own initiative of already launching GREEK CAPITAL LETTER YOT. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.47.147.38 (talk) 15:08, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Island-of-Ireland3.png listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Island-of-Ireland3.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Sven Manguard Wha? 17:48, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Island-of-Ireland7.png listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Island-of-Ireland7.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Sven Manguard Wha? 17:49, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Bible translations into Cornish on DYK

In case you didn't know, the recently created article Bible translations into Cornish has been approved for DYK. BabelStone (talk) 19:09, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

This is splendid news! I have of course been updating the article. -- Evertype·✆ 10:36, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
It should be on the main page at 1.00 pm tomorrow for 12 hours (you can check at T:DYK/Q). BabelStone (talk) 19:13, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Yep, it's in the queue for it now, going live at 12:00 UTC (1pm BST). Cheers, Zangar (talk) 10:40, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Your latest post on IECOLL

I cannot believe you did this ! Having already said that I would never engage with you again I did a complete U-turn, gave a straight answer to a question you asked and in the process gave my explicit support to one of the two options you proposed, with (what I consider) the compelling reasons for it. And your response is wilful misinterpretation, insult and provocation. I am very angry, not because I am thin-skinned enough to be hurt by your insults, but because I really want to get this page move done and end the strife, and you appear to be hell-bent on destroying any efforts to do so. If you really believe in what you are doing, I advise you to replace the whole of that post with a "thank you" and a polite invitation to other editors to consider what I've said and take similar risks. If you don't do that, I can guarantee that no other editor will bother to stick his head above the parapet - not now and not ever. Scolaire (talk) 09:49, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Evidently we are not good at understanding one another, but I'd like you to try to accept that I am not and have not been attempting to offend you. -- Evertype·✆ 14:42, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I cannot accept that. If you do not want to offend me, you need only acknowledge what I said to you on your talk page, that I explicitly support one of the two options that you proposed. Instead, you throw down the gauntlet (unnecessarily) once again. I cannot please you except by allowing you to publicly humiliate me. You are not interested in dialogue, collaboration or conflict resolution, only in trampling those people who you see as your enemies. It is not you who are the loser - you get to continue in the starring role as the Che Guevara of IECOLL. The real losers are the people who have fought for change year after year, only for you and your big ego to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory every time.
If you want that in a nutshell: for once in your life, be a man; admit that you were over the top, and try to talk about respecting both sides in a way that sounds sincere. Scolaire (talk) 15:00, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
I was unaware that you explicitly supported one of the two options on IECOLL, and I am glad now that you have stated so on IECOLL. I do not understand this business about "humiliation" but I am sorry you feel that I had such a motive. I did not. I am also sorry that you think I perceive myself to have enemies in this matter; I do not recognize such a motivation in myself at all, even though you may suggest otherwise. It remains the case that I am not and have not been attempting to offend you. It also remains that case that "year after year" is not good enough, and IECOLL needs to actually do something about this perennial problem. I respect that both sides have sincere views on the use or non-use of Republic of Ireland, so much so that I recognize that there will never be agreement on it, and that for the good of WikiProject Ireland another term must be adopted. I hope we can get on with it. -- Evertype·✆ 17:05, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Sswonk and Thryduulf - now at WP:AN/I

As you have commented on the interaction today between user:Sswonk and myself, you have been mentioned in the discussion about it. Originally at WP:WQA#Personal attack by Sswonk, following advice there, I have copied the discussion to WP:AN/I#Personal attack by Sswonk. I do not know whether discussion will also continue at WP:WQA or not. I have not made any accusations against you (while I disagree with your view, your response was civil) so there may not be discussion about you but it is possible there will be (and it's good practice to inform everyone mentioned). Thryduulf (talk) 15:34, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Carrier

Hi,

FYI, it looks like Unicode got the ch and ts series reversed for Carrier syllabics. — kwami (talk) 18:43, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Clarification

Howdy Evertype. Are ya'll counting the 'C' votes? concerning your poll about the Ireland naming. GoodDay (talk) 23:57, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

No, I am not. I am noting them, but "C" is the problem. not a solution.-- Evertype·✆ 00:08, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
See further questions at Poll 'comment'. GoodDay (talk) 00:11, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
To avoid any heat on ya, I'll ask here. If A or B is adopted when the poll is closed - what's next? GoodDay (talk) 00:35, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Then we examine how to implement a move in a civil and constructive fashion. If we are lucky IECOLL will choose to do it on its own. If we are unlucky, we may have to ask for a community-wide poll. It depends on how brave IECOLL members are, and how selfless they can find themselves to be. (I know, lots of people have deeply held "beliefs" about the article title... but since those beliefs are diametrically opposed, we just can't stick with the status quo. -- Evertype·✆ 00:42, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
IMHO, we must allow a community-wide poll. Any other way, would be un-acceptable & counter-productive. GoodDay (talk) 00:47, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Agreed, anything other than a community-wide RfC is highly likely to be unacceptable and I while I am open to consider the move of the article on the state to Ireland (State), I would oppose, any attempt to do it by IECOLL on their own. IECOLL's role here should be to formulate the procedure and proposal, then ask ArbCom to sign off on it and then go to a community-wide RfC. Mtking (edits) 22:15, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm good with that. -- Evertype·✆ 23:30, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Question on IECOLL

You may have missed the question I asked you on IECOLL yesterday so I will ask you it here. Do you realise that after a wiki-wide discussion, the outcome could well be that the consensus is to keep the article name as is for another 2 years ? and are you willing to accept this outcome ? Mtking (edits) 22:15, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

An eventual "Shall we move X to Y?" poll will have one of two outcomes. I understand this. -- Evertype·✆ 22:57, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Don't know what question that was an answer to but it was not the one I asked :-)
Let me put it another way :
If a RfC is held the result of which is to keep the name as ROI will you be willing to accept it as the will of the community ? Mtking (edits) 01:56, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
I have answered your question and badgering me about it is not polite. -- Evertype·✆ 10:39, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

'Request for clarification'

Sorry, Evertype, until I saw this I wasn't aware you had asked me a question. The answer is, somebody had said just above my post that we couldn't get any measure of agreement in the next 90 days. My reply was to him and it was to the effect that we could have it done and dusted well within 90 days. It wasn't meant to relate in any way to the January date referred to earlier. Scolaire (talk) 08:24, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I see; I thought it was two threads intersecting and it makes sense that it was. -- Evertype·✆ 11:12, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Requests for new languages/Wikipedia Yucatec Maya

Hi,I think that wikipedias should be approval from incubator into wikipedias because majority of people support to open the Yucatec Maya Wikipedias.--Aplikasi (talk) 10:33, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

The requirements for a Wikipedia in Yucatec Maya include the localisation of the most used messages. By the looks of it, the localisation has not started yet. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 13:21, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Image orientation

It seems that commons:File:Mandombe Sample.jpg has the wrong orientation. I'm not sure where to ask, but I guess that this is the place where it is easiest to get an accurate answer. Could you go to that page, check whether the image needs to be rotated and add {{rotate|90}} or {{rotate|270}} as applicable for clockwise rotation by 90 or 270 degrees? --Stefan2 (talk) 15:11, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Have you noticed

[2]? Dougweller (talk) 08:54, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. -- Evertype·✆ 12:29, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
Just for the hell of it - well done on your contributions Zymurgy (talk) 00:28, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
↑↑ Deserved ↑↑ :-) --RA (talk) 09:03, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Romania

Hi! From your edits, it looks like you might be interested in contributing to WikiProject Romania. It is a project aimed at organizing and improving the quality and accuracy of articles related to Romania. Thanks and best regards!

--Codrin.B (talk) 06:09, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi. When you recently edited Works based on Alice in Wonderland, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Big Brother 8 (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) 18:04, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Misspellign

No problem - Happy St. Paddy's Day. ;) Bryccan (talk) 18:47, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

St. Patrick's Day

Your recent editing history at Saint Patrick's Day shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Murry1975 (talk) 14:16, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

What the bejesus is this? Who are you to "warn" me? I'm not edit warring. I added text to the article in response to a request, and you and one other editor simply blank that text out instead of discussing it. Talk about bad faith. And it's on your part, the bad faith. -- Evertype·✆ 14:51, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Hope you don't mind me jumping in here, but Murry: Don't template the regulars. TheChrisD Rants•Edits 14:52, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Cheers Chris, dont template the regs, will remember that. Btw its not bad faith, preaching then breaching, didnt know you were an admin aswell, but what other way would you have liked it Evertype? An admin warning then warring. Should know better. I blanking and discussed not as you represent doing one not both, I better not add a civil template. Murry1975 (talk) 16:44, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Quick concern

I was reading through some policy pages and ran across WP:CORPNAME. I'm just wondering if you had ever run across this issue, and whether bullet point #2 might be something to consider. I know you've had a couple of run-ins regarding COI, but this might be something to consider heading off before someone significantly less friendly decides to make a deal of it. Just a thought. VanIsaacWScontribs 07:41, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Latin letter b with flourish

Thanks very much for requesting this! BTW if you need my permission to include my name as Ben Wing, you have it. I'm not sure what you mean when you said you are "constrained" to describe me as "Wikipedia User Benwing". Benwing (talk) 22:17, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I think I see what you mean, in that you can't verify that I am who I say I am. If there's an easy way (e.g. an email or something) to get around this, let me know, otherwise no big deal. Benwing (talk) 22:19, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
You never identified yourself as other than Benwing. -- Evertype·✆ 22:41, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Unicodeconsortium bookv5.jpg

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Unicodeconsortium bookv5.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:07, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Excalibur edit

Could you explain this edit in a bit more detail? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:39, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Sure. That citation was pointless. It was in French, but it cited my Old Irish reconstruction and my English translation of it, and those had already been given in the article as sources. It is slightly annoying that the French author doesn't give an attribution (not that I really care), but in any case the French citation was not corroboration from a different source, it was just repeating the main source (which happens to be me, though that's not really relevant). -- Evertype·✆ 20:30, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Ralph Midgley

You categorized Ralph Midgley under Category:Translators, but it would be preferable to specify his destination language and categorize the article accordingly. --Iketsi (talk) 03:10, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't believe there's a category for that, but I can make them. -- Evertype·✆ 08:02, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Genitive vs. dative

Hi, would you be willing to contribute to a discussion on how best in Irish to say "Welcome to the Ireland Portal" that is taking place on my talk page? It's well beyond my knowledge.

The major point of discussion is whether Éire should be in the genitive or dative case ("Portal na hÉireann" vs. "Portal Éirinn"). A secondary issue is which is better: "Fáilte chuig" vs. "Fáilte go [dtí]". A third question is whether to translate portal ("Portal" vs. "Tairseach"). --RA (talk) 10:03, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi. When you recently edited Arden R. Smith, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gothic (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) 11:47, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Script on coins and stamps

How should the script used on the images used here be described? RashersTierney (talk) 09:47, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

As Gaelic type. -- Evertype·✆ 10:40, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for quick reply. RashersTierney (talk) 10:45, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

ISO 639-3

Hello, Evertype. You have new messages at Taivo's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

(I often forget to place these.) --Taivo (talk) 15:41, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Requested move for Ireland

Attitude towards a simple French Wikipedia

Hi! I heard you understand the attitudes that the language committee has towards "simple" language projects. And that Langcom's attitudes changed after the Berlin meeting in 2011.

I asked on the English reference desk on language if there were any languages other than English that had an artificially simple version. The response was that there was one, French, because it had Français fondamental - None of the other languages that I know of had one.

So I started a discussion on Meta about the possibility.

And linked it from the English Wikipedia, the French Wikipedia, and English simple:

On simple a user asked me to contact you, because he said you knew about Langcom's attitudes towards these proposals.

Thanks, WhisperToMe (talk) 12:37, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I opened a discussion at meta:Requests for new languages/Wikipedia French Simple (2) WhisperToMe (talk) 02:14, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

FrathWiki and CSUR

Just letting you know that you now have an article on FrathWiki. Go crazy. Also, are there any plans on the future of the CSUR? —Fenhl 01:14, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure I know what I'm to "go crazy" doing, but I made some notes on the Talk page. As to your other question, the answer is yes. -- Evertype·✆ 23:01, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure if you've seen this, but someone has been doing your work. —Fenhl 23:40, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Alice-gorham.png

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Alice-gorham.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 00:21, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Hanunó'o - Bottom to top?

Hi,

See Talk:Hanunó'o alphabet#Dubious: Bottom to top. Do you know anything about it? --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 09:42, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Photo of Brian R. Bishop.png

Thanks for uploading File:Photo of Brian R. Bishop.png. I noticed the description page specifies that this media item is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails the first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media item could be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media item is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the file description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
  2. On the file discussion page, write the reason why this media item is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. VernoWhitney (talk) 02:10, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Saint Patrick

No, the editors' note is not binding, but when a change is reverted on an article with a request to discuss, simply putting it back in is edit warring. Please revert your change and discuss on the talk page. The cite may no longer support the content, but this was selected after extensive discussion that established consensus previously. Another cite can be found. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 11:25, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Encyclopaedia articles evolve. Decisions taken a a year ago are not binding. To be legalistic, you reverted a deletion which was made, properly, on the basis of a citation which did not support the text in the article. When you reverted, you did not make a request that it be taken to the Talk page. You referred to an editorial note written gods know when, and which is not binding. If you wish to open a discussion thread about restoring "Patty's" on the Talk page, open the thread. If you wish to find a credible, verifiable source supporting the validity of the misspelling, put that material in the thread. The fact is that Patty in the English language is short for Patricia. Paddy in the English language is short for Patrick or Pádraig. I will not revert. I didn't "simply put it back". I put it back with a note that it had been properly removed in the first place; I reverted Assuming Good Faith on your part—but your deletion was improper. Now, if you want this material back in the article, take it to the Talk page and make a case for it. Right now, there is no case, as there is no verifiable citation. Indeed, the citation which *had* been used to support it was changed by the editors who owned the citation because their error had been pointed out to them. Beannachtaí na Féile ort. -- Evertype·✆ 11:40, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
I can't image what asking someone to read a note that says "Do not change without discussion on the talk page" could possibly mean other than "Do not change without discussion on the talk page." Yet you have chosen to ignore this as well. Guidelines are quite straightforward, if something is there by prior consensus, and you believe the consensus should change, then you discuss first. You don't make force the change and then say it can be discussed now. The fact is, if you'd read the discussion about this, "Patty" is used by a sizeable number of people. It is not Wikipedia's place to "correct" them, but merely report what is verifiable. If enough people decided to call it "St Patricia's Day", and reliable sources reflect that, then that's what Wikipedia should contain. The same goes for "Patty". --Escape Orbit (Talk) 15:21, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Actually, on review, I note that you and I have been through this exact conversation before, which makes your actions all the more ridiculous. You know the prior consensus, you know there are plenty cites to be had, you know the cite previous did support the article, you know this edit would be challenged, you know a discussion, at the very least would be required for this change. So why pretend this is an open and shut case of something lacking a cite? --Escape Orbit (Talk) 15:31, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
I have read the previous discussion too, and one of the things I noticed was that there wasn't consensus. You ware heavily insistent on having your way and it was observed that you were engaging in page ownership-like activity. There isn't consensus on this issue. Citing the guidelines doesn't impress me. I have been editing the Wikipedia for many years, and I know the guidelines, and I know that they are not unbreakable rules. I have read the discussion. Attacking me by calling my actions "ridiculous" does not paint you in a particularly good light. The spelling error (Patty for the correct Paddy) remains a spelling error despite what you have said. Wiki01916 was right to delete the citation since it was inaccurate. It is notable in fact that that source removed the misspelling. -- Evertype·✆ 16:05, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
If by "my way" you mean; "according to Wikipedia policy and guidelines", then yes, you are correct. I can be insistent. Your "spelling error" theory remains just that, your own original research. You wish to not just break the rules on this, but also have nothing concrete to support your rational for ignoring them. You are guessing what the many reliable sources intended to write, and have the presumption to decide what you think they actually meant to say. You have nothing at all to back up your theory, nothing authoritative to counter the use of "Patty", and nothing to support its removal other than "I just don't like it and it should be stopped". Wikipedia is descriptive, not prescriptive. It makes no difference whatsoever how "St Patty" came about, it just matters that it did. Otherwise, what are we to do with "Patrick", an obvious "mis-spelling" of "Pádraig"? --Escape Orbit (Talk) 15:21, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Discussion on Ashkenazi Jews talk page - should Sholem Aleichem be in the collage

Hi :-) Due to the fact I saw you interested in the topic, I thought you might want to take part in it.

There is a discussion on the Talk:Ashkenazi Jews regarding should Sholem Aleichem and Mikhail Botvinnik be in the collage or not. The discussion is called "Ones and for all, should Sholem Aleichem and Mikhail Botvinnik be in the collage".

Please take part in the vote and state your opinion on the topic. Thank you! 90.196.60.197 (talk) 15:52, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Tocharian

Hey Michael, I've been undertaking a project on covering Indic letters in WP, and I've got some questions that you may be able to answer. I'm wondering about Tocharian, and whether it was intended to be covered by the Brahmi Unicode allocation. I've got a copy of N3490, but it doesn't explicitly mention Tocharian. You are listed as a contributor to that document, so do you have any insight?

On a related note, if Tocharian is supposed to be covered by the Brahmi block, I think we need to allocate another vowel <ä> and vowel sign → . VanIsaacWS Vexcontribs 05:27, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

zh-Hans version of zh-Hant 葉密豪 on your user page

On your user page you give 葉密豪 as the simplified Chinese orthography for traditional 葉密豪. I am afraid that this is not quite correct. All instances of traditional 葉 have been simplified to 叶. Please note that a character 叶 had already existed in traditional Chinese (Mandarin pronunciation: xié) which is still written 叶 in simplified orthography, so that 叶 has become a homograph for yè and the now very rare xié. Also note that 葉/叶 as a surname used to be pronounced Shè instead of Yè in earlier Standard Mandarin. — To verify all of what I’ve written above, go to page 835 of the very reliable 新华多功能字典 “New China Multifunctional Character Dictionary” published in 2005 by 商务印书馆/Commercial Press, Běijīng. LiliCharlie 17:31, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, yes, technically it is true, but aesthetically, if Yè 葉 was my family name I would use the unsimplified form in all cases as the simplified form is a completely different (and rather ugly) character. There are other examples of characters that don't simplify when used as a family name, and I don't think you need to be bound by the orthographic rules for simplification. Anyway, google shows plenty of examples of the unsimplified form of 葉 used in simplified Chinese contexts (e.g. 葉剑英元帅的故乡-雁洋镇). BabelStone (talk) 16:03, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
I’ve heard that argument so often from Taiwanese and overseas Chinese: the characters simplified in the 1950s in mainland China lack aesthetic appeal. (Interestingly Hong Kongers seem to feel different on the whole.) Anyway it is surely possible in Chinese to mix characters from before and after the numerous reforms that took place over the millennia. It is less desirable though to call 葉 a simplified Chinese character. Rather I would give the one Chinese version of my name. I too have a similar issue with my name 冉書慧 in which the character 書/书 appears, and I mostly don’t mention the simplified version at all except to people from mainland China, Singapore or Malaysia.
Half-related to this: how far advanced is the Unicode encoding of second round simplified characters? I very much appreciate that your BabelStone Han font makes glyphs for them available to me (I have added them to my preferred 倉頡輸入法 Cāngjié IME that covers all of the close to 76,000 encoded Hàn characters), but I would rather be able to use them on web pages and in emails. A snack bar I sometimes go to uses the second round simplified version of 餐 too. — I’m also waiting for seal script characters (esp. lesser seal, as used in the fundamental 說文解字 Shuōwén jiězì dictionary and at the page tops of the 康熙字典 Kāngxī Dictionary) to be encoded on the TIP. Has someone submitted a complete proposal for them yet? And is the IRG the “competent authority” for pre-Hàn Chinese characters? LiliCharlie 16:10, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Block due to username

This account has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia because your username, Evertype, does not meet our username policy.

Your username is the only reason for this block. You are welcome to choose a new username (see below).

A username should not be promotional, related to a "real-world" group or organization, misleading, offensive or disruptive. Also, usernames may not end in the word "bot" unless the account is an approved bot account. 

You are encouraged to choose a new account name that meets our policy guidelines and create the account yourself. Alternatively, if you have already made edits and you wish to keep your existing contributions under a new name, then you may request a change in username by:

  1. Adding {{unblock-un|your new username here}} on your user talk page. You should be able to do this even though you are blocked, as you can usually still edit your own talk page. If not, you may wish to contact the blocking administrator by clicking on "E-mail this user" on their talk page.
  2. At an administrator's discretion, you may be unblocked for 24 hours to file a request.
  3. Please note that you may only request a name that is not already in use, so please check here for a listing of already taken names. The account is created upon acceptance, thus do not try to create the new account before making the request for a name change. For more information, please see Wikipedia:Changing username.
If you feel that you were blocked in error, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.

Daniel Case (talk) 15:44, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

Request reason:

My username has been evertype since 2004 and I have over 12,000 edits. Indeed "evertype" is my alias throughout the Internet. There is no reason whatsoever that I should be forced to change that username. My editing activities are not in breach of Wikipedia guidelines. I also object to the summary block having been made without previous discussion.

Accept reason:

Unblocking per the discussion below. I would make the suggestion that addition of links to publications that could be regarded as COI violations should be requested rather than just made. I'm not implying that there is spamming, just suggesting a way of obviating any future suggestions that there might be spamming involved. I wouldn't think it's going to happen on a daily basis - if it did, there probably would be a problem... Peridon (talk) 12:29, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Daniel Case, have you ever even read WP:USERNAME? 1) "A user who both adopts a promotional username and also engages in inappropriately promotional behaviors in articles about the company, group, or product, can be blocked. ... Users who adopt such usernames, but who are not editing problematically in related articles, should not be blocked. Instead, they should be gently encouraged to change their username". To the best of my knowledge Evertype has never engaged in inappropriately promotional behavior relating to his user name. 2) "Some usernames that appear to be in breach of this policy have been allowed to stand by consensus because they were created before a change in the policy that would now prohibit such names ... If you find an apparently problematic username being used by a long-standing editor, it is likely that the matter has been discussed before. Please search that user's talk page and the archives of the administrators' noticeboards and requests for comment on usernames, before deciding to take action." Evertype has nearly 12,000 edits and has been an editor here since April 2004. It is clearly inappropriate to summarily block an editor of such long-standing with no discussion, and I hope you will unblock him and discuss the matter as the username guidelines suggest would be the appropriate course of action. BabelStone (talk) 21:27, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
I have to agree. There should a least have been discussion before a block was applied. It's hard enough to hold on to good editors around here. Note: Per the Grandfather Rule, this was our Username policy when this account was registered. No infringement that I can see. RashersTierney (talk) 21:58, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
User:Murry1975 made the report to UAA, along with a diff, alluding (I think), to this edit, which does cross the line for the username policy, even if it was intended to correct an inaccuracy. I would be willing to unblock if he agrees not to make that sort of edit directly again and restricts himself to pointing out such errors on the talk page. Daniel Case (talk) 23:21, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Going to put in my two cents and agree here, as well. This user most assuredly should not have been blocked, but rather engaged on the appropriateness of a borderline COI issue, and adopting a new username that would be less problematic from a promotional standpoint. A 12,000 edit account being indef blocked is in no way prophylactic and can only be construed as punitive, exactly the opposite of an appropriate block. VanIsaacWS Vexcontribs 00:34, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
I object, actually, to the characterization of the edits as "self-promotional". Yes, my username is Evertype. It has always been Evertype. This isn't a secret. The edits I made to the list of translations of Through the Looking-Glass involved the addition of translations. Just because I published them does not mean that they are not translations. They are real publications, just like every other translation on that page, by whatever publisher. Note that I have added many translations by other publishers to that page. So the addition of these translations does not "cross the line". Yes, I publish Alice translations. In fact I'm even notable for it. But I do not put those pages up in order to sell books. Note also that my personal page clearly identifies me as who I am, so it is not as though I have ever made any attempt to hide the fact. Similarly, the correction of "Westport" to "Cathair na Mart" is simply a matter of bibliographical accuracy, as I stated there. What is the Conflict of Interest in correcting a bibliographical place-name? I certainly do not wish to change my Wikipedia Username: It has been my username for 9 years and 12,000 edits. I was blocked improperly, in my view. Certainly an admin's opinion that something has "crossed the line" or that a "violation" of policies is not and should not be sufficient. This block was made unilaterally without discussion. That violates the rule of civility, I am sure, and is I think an abuse of admin powers. -- Evertype·✆ 09:20, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
On the issue of COI, we can hardly seek expert editors to sign up and then sanction them if ever they reference their own sources. RashersTierney (talk) 10:10, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
I could point out that I started the Translations of Through the Looking-Glass page and while there are many Evertype books on it there are many books by other publishers as well. The fact that I publish so many Carrollian books is considered notable amongst Carrollians (see the LCSNA's publication Knight Letter). I think Murry1975's reversions of my edits were unwise (an article about Westport/Cathair na Mart should be listed under Westport per MoS, but a bibliographical reference should be as it appears on the book), but then filing a block before even talking to me seems to be an abuse of admin privileges. This kind of time-wasting lawyerism is a great way to discourage people from participating in the Wikipedia. -- Evertype·✆ 11:47, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
I'd like to weigh in here to request reversal of the username-based block. Evertype has been around, as he says, since 2004 and has more than 12,000 edits. The username has never been problematic and I don't see why it should be seen as such now. If there is, separately, a problem of COI editing (I have not reviewed it and so have no opinion) then that should be handled in the usual way without the expedient of a username-based block.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:48, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to thank Peridon for his courtesy. Regarding additions to articles such as the bibliographies in question, I would not propose to post additions to Talk pages hoping some editor will insert them, or use colleagues like BabelStone as sock-puppets to do such editing for me. It's OK to Be Bold when you've nothing to hide. -- Evertype·✆ 05:59, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Heraldry and Vexillology project

Greetings! I have requested commentary from members of the heraldry and vexillology project at WT:WikiProject Heraldry and vexillology#Current direction of the HV project. Please comment there. Thank you! Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 18:13, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

create a new language in wikipedia

Hi Evertype! I try create Lurish language in wikipedia, you can help me ? http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages/Wikipedia_Lurish — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blackandblack (talk • contribs) 11:12, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

click letters

Hi Michael,

Don't know if your 2004 request will ever go through, but if you're arguing that Doke's ⟨ʖ⟩ was a different letter than IPA ⟨ʖ⟩, you might want to consider requesting Beach's ⟨⨎⟩ as a different letter than IPA ⟨ǂ⟩, or at least for the mathematical symbol of that shape to also be listed as a phonetic letter so that font designers will notice it. Just a thought. — kwami (talk) 02:53, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Automated script conversion

Hi Evertype,

The Kazakh Wikipedia enables articles to be automatically converted from Cyrillic to Latin or from Cyrillic to Arabic.

Chinese Wikipedia enables conversion from Traditional to simplified characters.

Hakka Wikipedia needs an automated script conversion from Chinese characters to Romanized Hakka.

I am able to assist in the transliteration for the first 3000 most commonly used chinese characters (this will cover 97.5% of all mainstream media articles) into the Romanized Hakka alphabet.

Are you able to help us develop such a transliteration tool? --Hak-kâ-ngìn (talk) 08:12, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

I am not a programmer. You can ask langcom though. -- Evertype·✆ 10:33, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Hey again

Stop the biblography edits bud, the consensus was to use English. Murry1975 (talk) 11:41, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Excuse me? -- Evertype·✆ 15:45, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Blissymbols?

Please see this discussion. πr2 (t • c) 17:05, 12 November 2013 (UTC) What you think about this idea?--Lublu.literaturu (talk) 11:37, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Zawgyi

Hi Michael,

Do you happen any references about the popularity of the Burmese Zawgyi font and the problems with its encoding? See the talk page there.

Thanks! --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 17:15, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Evertype/Archive_10&oldid=1141770678"