User talk:Tharthan

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

Hello. Welcome to my talk page. If there is something that you wish to discuss, please feel free to do so. However, I ask that you remain civil and cordial if you can. I can sometimes be a little hotheaded, but please don't let that get to you.

Bubblers in Wisconsin? Ya hey dere, you betcha![edit]

The assertion I've seen made repeatedly is that "Bubbler" or "Bubblr" was a pioneering brand of water fountain which was the first to see widespread use, 1) in certain areas of New England; and 2) in Wisconsin. I can only attest that in fact the term is so widely used here as to be considered diagnostic as to whether one has spent much time in Wisconsin. (Direct linguistic influence is unlikely, as the wave of "Yankee" immigration to Wisconsin died down after railroads supplanted "canals+Great Lakes passenger ships" as a major mode of immigration to these parts.) --Orange Mike | Talk 23:40, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Huh. I wonder about that, though. Mayhap it's just an extremely odd coincidence. It's not too far-fetched to suppose that two separate individuals would look at an old fashioned bubbler (that bubbles) and call it a bubbler based on that.

By the way, as a linguist I'm a bit interested because I never hear about Wisconsin: what common dialectal (or regional) terms do you fellows use out there? Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 23:58, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

The term "bubbler" where used is deeply imbedded, too deeply (IMHO) for mere coincident neologisms gone viral.
Regional dialects are not a major area of expertise for me. Milwaukee classic Sout' Side is a mixture of Midwestern working-class American (think Chicaga, but a bit less Irish influence; terms like "youse" or "youse guys" as second person plural); turning of "th" into "d") with Germanicisms vaguely reminiscent of Pennsylvania Dutch. There are old exaggerated self-mockeries. "Down by Two Street an' Mitchell, where the streetcar turns the corner round." "Ain'a?/Ain'it?" "Park there once." ("At the intersection of 2nd Street and Mitchell, where the streetcar tracks make a turn." general interrogative at end of sentence, meaning "Is this not so?" like the German "Nicht wahr?" or the Esperanto "Ĉu ne? "Park at that location, then remain there without having to move.")
Rural Wisconsin shades to the more famous Minnesotan dialect, with all the "Ya, sure, youbetcha" or "Youbetcha" and the like: a former New England substrate, overlaid with generations of Germans, Scandinavians, Germans, Poles, and Germans, with a dusting of Irish and others. "Ya, hey dere" is more rural than urban, but will occasionally be used by a Milwaukeean trying to sound more generically Wisconsinite. Also examine the stuff at this link. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:22, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Doctor fish[edit]

You added bonefish as a synonym. But, although they look alike, a bonefish seems to be huge. Do they have them in tanks nibbling at people's toes? Do they nibble their toes off? :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:50, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

In New England, bonefish is used to refer to the doctor fish. This is similar to, for instance, how people in Australia may use "prawn" to refer "shrimp". Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 13:04, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Okay. So, not the fish in the picture, right? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:16, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Nope. This. Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 01:17, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Fair enough. Thank you kindly. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:19, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
The pleasure was mine. :) Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 01:24, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

By the way, I like your userbox: "This user doesn't invoke conspiracy as explanation, when ignorance and incompetence will suffice." Paraphrasing Gore Vidal, when asked about the elite and their conspiracy theories: "They seldom need to conspire. They all just think alike." :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:37, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

No instruction[edit]

Excerpt from Wikipedia:No Instruction : Describing to the reader how people or things use or do something is encyclopedic; instructing the reader in the imperative mood about how to use or do something is not.

--Ettrig (talk) 13:06, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

What is this in response to?

EDIT: Nevermind. I see. Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 13:41, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I give up. --Ettrig (talk) 14:05, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
You give up? Why? I'm perfectly willing to work with you here. Please explain whatever issues you have with my phrasing in that and I will happily come to a compromise. Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 15:07, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks For Your Thanks![edit]

Thanks for your thanks re the English language article :-) I read with interest that you are from New England, unfortunately, I spent the majority of my time studying and working on the west coast having never really had the opportunity to visit the original 13 colonies, I must make a visit to New England top of my must-do list for 2015. ps, I love your info box! Twobells (talk) 14:32, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

No problem. I simply wished to have facts not misstated! It's good to meet you, by the way. Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 13:00, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Do you have sources at hand about English?`[edit]

Hi, Tharthan, I've visited your user page after seeing your edits on English language, and I'm wondering if you have any sources at hand about that topic as you edit. I was at a large university library earlier this week circulating books about the English language (books published all over the world, about all aspects of the language), and I picked up some more today from a metropolitan public library collection here. What sources do you recommend for editing the article? -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 23:44, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

I usually look to have sources on hand when I am making new changes to something. When I revert old edits, I look into the sources and then judge whether or not: 1. They're reliable, and 2. They contradict anything else said in any other sources.

In any case, I had some sources listed for further reading for one on certain dialects of English, but I took them down a long time ago. I could go retrieve them for you if you wish.

But as to the subject of the English language in the most general sense, I don't have any particular sources on hand at the moment that aren't already mentioned in the reference section of the article. Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 00:05, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Yuletide greetings[edit]

Little Nemo 1908-12-20 panel 6.jpg
Merry Christmas!
I ran out of lumps of coal, so I'm distributing leftover children. Happy holidays! Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 00:34, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 4[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Be (Cyrillic), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Letter B. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:06, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 13[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Big mama, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Big Brother (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) 09:28, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Stop, catch your breath, and hear my words carefully...[edit]

This is a flaky thing to say, because it looks like two people are very excited about a number doing a reversion, meanwhile, I walked downtown, then came back home before I discovered any complaints, then I noticed it was the beginning of the sabbath, so I turned off my computer before any replies. This is the next night. (talk) 03:45, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
...Wait, it was Sabbath when this happened?! I don't remember this. Do you celebrate Sabbath on a Friday or a Sunday or some other day (as different religions celebrate it on different days)? I celebrate it on a Sunday, and I can't recall all of this happening on a Sunday. Did it? Also, the statement was more in reference to your swift reversion. Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 04:24, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
If my reversion was swift, then I still had time to drop a note on a Huggle client who did the first one. I originally discovered that the sabbath means Friday night until Saturday night in the index of a bible. Since then, I've come across no reason to believe that Jesus even intended to change something written in stone. (talk) 13:02, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
True enough. The thing is, though, that Sunday is so markèd as a day of rest nowadays that, well, its celebration on that day seems compulsory. Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 16:54, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

First of all, I'm going to note the three revert rule that states that you can't revert more than three times. So before you think about reverting again and again, you had ought to think about what you are actually doing with the edits that you are making.

Okay, so I do one reversion, the guy using a bot does two, and he might barely know English, then I get a warning, because he's willing to do a third reversion. Why? (talk) 03:45, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Someone was using a bot? When? Do you mean that a bot auto-reverted your edits? Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 04:24, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Huggle whores and twinkle twits use an APP, strictly speaking. I do not know the difference between a bot and an app. I do not know what twinkle and huggle do, and it seems that the majority of spurious reversions on my work come from them, so I do not care to learn what twinkle and huggle do. (talk) 13:02, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
As far as I know, those tools are aids that allow a user to easily make changes far swifter than if they were to manually go and make them. I believe that a separate browser specifically for Wikipedia is often used in conjunction with those tools. I personally do not subscribe to the use of automatic tools to revert or modify edits, as it comes off a bit cold and impersonal. Nevertheless, I will not fault others for using them. Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 16:54, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Secondly, you seem to not understand what the pronoun "thou" is, and how it functions. That much can be reckoned from your edit summary. How about you actually read the entire article, and then read the entire article that we have here on "thou", and then rethink the edits that you tried to make.

I did that, and I see nothing different to do but upgrade the grammar in what I said. "Thou" is an informal or personal pronoun. I've been calling it the subject form of you. That is easier to understand than the standard terms. It would be more correct to say it is the subject form of "thee", which is an informal "you". It is still not plural, making my deletion correct. (talk) 03:45, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Not everyone that uses it does so with informal intent. Its very original usage was not informal, its usage in the KJV of the Bible was not informal, and its oft-uses in poetry and modern literature are not always with informal intent. As such, it is not actually a "crystal clear" informal pronoun.
When English dropped a difference between formal and personal pronouns, everyone became a stranger in literal terms, and I take that to mean in both modern and ancient times: Look who is not reading the article. On the other hand, we have the line "Thou art giving and forgiving" in "Ode to Joy" by Hodges, where "thou" is a pronoun for God, so it sounds formal, and that's a modern (error?). If you were to introduce the terms to your fellows, then it would naturally be "thou" and "thee" which circulated only among those you were familiar with. Correspondingly, "Ye" is still a formal word (in some Scottish communities), and it's obviously related to "you", which did naturally fall where I might write "one" in formal terms today. If it's not clear, that's just because it sounds foreign. I did a deletion, because it claimed that "thou" was plural. It is not. (talk) 13:02, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
You're missing the point: thou only became an informal pronoun after the Norman conquest. Before that, it was just simply the second person singular pronoun used in all contexts; irrespective of formality. As such, the KJB utilised the pronoun in its original context to translate the difference between second person singular and second person plural pronouns in Hebrew, leading to its revitalised modern use as an (ironically) semi-formal second person singular pronoun in some modern poetry and some literature. The only places where "thou" has an informal tone to this very day is in the dialects of Northern England that still use the pronoun on a daily basis. Everwhere else, it has reverted back to its original state of not being perceived as informal (though, technically, that's not quite right, because [unlike its original state] it now has an air of semi-formality in many modern works). In regards to the page allegedly having said that "thou" was a plural pronoun, I see nothing that says that. Would you mind quoting the text that you believe implies that? Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 16:54, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Also, your edit was... not what I think you believe it was. At least, from multiple users' perspectives it seemed as if it was off. You might wish to rethink your edit, then put what you would like to be changed below this, and then we can discuss it.Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 04:24, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Speaking for others inspires my distrust, because it is a lawyer's job, so when people speak for others, then I tend to ignore or disobey. (talk) 13:02, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Only the sheisty lawyers; the type that I loathe. Also, I wasn't speaking for others, I was merely reiterating the opinions expressed earlier by the users that reverted your edits. Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 16:54, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

In addition, it isn't necessary to add "thou is to thee as I is to me" or any of that kind of stuff to the article. This is because, whilst such is completely true and indeed a good to keep in mind in, for, say, a student or amateur linguist, it is not appropriate for an encyclopaedia. Encyclopaedias, and (indeed) Wikipedia--the free encyclopedia--as well, have a formal nature to them.

The quality of wikipedia's THOU article surprised me in comparison to the article I changed. While I have seen the details in archaic grammar, I have not used them. My poetic comparison was not grammatically correct, and therefore not formal. "Thou art to thee as I am to me." Reversions in the context really are not productive. You would be more welcome to correct my grammar. (talk) 03:45, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
"Thou art to thee as I am to me" is an interesting byword, I must say. I will happily write it down in my list of neat phrases (not joking, by the way- I actually will do that. It will be a useful method to explain to non-linguist friends of mine how the pronoun works. Plus, it has that sort of... "aura" about it) but I wasn't saying that the issues was with grammar. You see, the fact is, mnemonics do not usually fit the style that is utilised in this encyclopaedia. In other words: mnemonics aren't really considered "Wikipedia formal". Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 04:24, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Mnemonics are useful. Poetry is formal. I tend to ignore viewpoints stated in the passive voice, even when I cannot refute them. Let me know if you find a wikipedia policy against good writing. (talk) 13:02, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
If you are going to take that kind of attitude, then let me just make this clear to you so that no one can cry "I never knew that!" later: if you add mnemonics to the page that you added mnemonics to, it we be undone by either myself or other users because it does not follow Wikipedia's manual of style. I hate to be stern, but that much needs to be made crystal clear to you. Such things are not welcome in Wikipedia pages, no matter how well intentioned they may be. Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 16:54, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

If you ignore my advice, then I can do nothing to help you from possibly getting reprimanded later down the line if you are intent on continuing to make the edits that you have tried to make. Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 19:17, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I wonder how anything ever gets done on wikipedia if the usual practice is to revert productive edits rather than improve upon them. (talk) 03:45, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
It's not that productive edits are unwelcome, it's that Wikipedia runs on certain processes and rules that simply must be followed, lest all mayhem breaks lose. Edits that don't comply with those rules or processes get reverted or modified to make them comply. It's just the way things have to be for Wikipedia to be a successful encyclopaedia.

You might be interested in reading these: WP:EXR, WP:RCO and WP:WQ. Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 04:24, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I have noticed that you didn't respond to this for some reason. Have you read the aforelinked? Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 16:54, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Greenlandic Norse[edit]

I've replied to your question on the talk page, but forgot to ping you. (Not sure if adding the template in a subsequent edit works properly; I recall reading it only works if you add a sig in the same edit, hence this manual heads-up.) --Florian Blaschke (talk) 18:56, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know! Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 19:41, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

General English/American English thanks[edit]

Appreciate the acknowledgements. Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 01:29, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

It's no problem. Things tend to get very stressful during the editing process far, far more than they should, and this can sometimes dissuade readers from getting involved in the project, or even drive editors to the breaking point. As such, I like to let editors know when they make (an) edit(s) that are steps towards (or even the makers of) better articles. Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 01:36, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Dialect words[edit]

Hello, Thank you for your interesting message arising from your work on the List of Cornish dialect words. I have contributed a fair amount to the list in the past amd keep it watchlisted but probably do not have much more to add.--Johnsoniensis (talk) 19:25, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

General American[edit]

Your comment on my talk page and the associated undo all seem to me very odd as well as inconsiderate. In your undo of "General American," you strangely state that you "appreciate some of the changes that you have made that improve the accuracy of the page" yet, if that is true, why didn't you just leave those parts alone instead of undoing the entire edit? I added a credible source that even discussed some of the origins of the term; that seems very relevant to me. Why would you wipe out the research I had to do and citation I had to format? In fact, if you had left the part you appreciated, then I would at least be able to discover for myself the other changes that "are completely uncalled for." Instead, you now force me to confront you with the question: Which parts exactly did you find inappropriate? (Because it's absolutely not obvious to me.)

You claim that Wikipedia "currently has a systematic bias towards Midwest and West Coast American English." First of all, I never even mentioned the "West Coast" in my edit. Second of all: What exactly does your accusation even mean? That pro-Midwest linguistic activists are sabotaging pages with their sinister middle-American phonological propaganda? You provide no evidence of your claim; instead, you choose to wipe out the research and writings I spent time on, and where I, as you even attest, did provide evidence to try to strengthen the article. I assure you that I am neither from the Midwest, nor the West, nor have any connections or biases in favor of those regions. I simply mentioned the Midwest (which I think is quite widely considered the birthplace of General American... it was already stated on the article elsewhere) and the West because I discovered those locations in my research about the origins of the term "General American." Feel free to provide evidence to the contrary; I won't complain. In fact, I openly admit that Krapp, who thought General American was "Western" in character (which by the way is truly what he thouht and not just some propaganda nonsense I made up; look at the source I cited), was very likely wrong, if he meant that the West was the origin of the accent. That's why I deliberately wrote in the same sentence, "though [in other words, contrary to Krapp's belief] it likely originated specifically in the Midwest prior to the Northern Cities Vowel Shift." I then, again, provided another citation which referenced the studies of Labov.

Why are you deleting material that improves the accuracy and credibility of Wikipedia to replace it with older, unreferenced material? I have no idea if this bias you speak of is true, but I'm obviously not here for the sake of providing decent research while also, on the side, trivially skewing the General American page to be more Midwestern or Western. I can't even fathom who would do something like that with serious intentions. Even if your theory is true, then you have a duty to provide cited evidence countering the bias you speak of. I kindly request that you revert the page back to my edit; I worked hard on the research and the precise phrasings I used. If you feel things could be better worded, just change the individual words, not the entire edit. A good evening (or morning) to you too, Sir (or Madam). Rockrunnerthecard (talk) 05:42, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I did leave those parts alone. The problem was with your entire rephrasing of the text that preceded the TOC. If you are not familiar with the systematic bias present on Wikipedia, then you have likely not delved very far into Wikipedia's system itself. See Wikipedia:Systemic bias for examples on how this has affected Wikipedia and its accuracy from an international level.
The problem wasn't with what you added, but how you added it. If you wish to readd those references and information, please re-add them whilst working around the current wording (i.e. not changing "considered to be" to "is" and the like).
With all of this said though, User:Rockrunnerthecard, I do very much appreciate your attempts to better reference and expand upon the information included within articles. Nevertheless, one must be very careful about how one words things, lest they be perceived as pushing their personal POV and trying to further what is an already persistent wrinkle--systematic bias--that Wikipedia as a whole is trying to iron out so as to maintain a neutral point of view.
Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 14:58, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
I appreciate your humility and apology. I feel that the parts before the TOC, though, were pretty much the main edits I was trying to make. Following User:KylieTastic's recommendations, I suggest we discuss exactly what you found biased. Like that user, I don't detect any egregiously biased information I added, but I'd be happy to rephrase or remove wordings you find to be not neutral enough. The reason I turned "considered to be" back to "is" is because "considered to be" uses the passive voice and does not explain by whom. Do we mean here "widely considered to be [by most people familiar with the term]," "considered by (many/most) linguists to be," or something else entirely? Here is the brunt of my edit below; I will put in square brackets any notes, especially about what I'm guessing that you may have found objectionable:
General American (commonly abbreviated as GA or GenAm) is the umbrella term for an American English accent that lacks any noticeably regional, ethnic, or socioeconomic characteristics.[This seems to be the only definition that virtually everyone agrees on. It's a generic umbrella term rather than a perfectly precise word. The most it can be said to describe is what it lacks: i.e. regional and other "non-neutral" characteristics. I'm in no way trying to imply that General American is better than other varieties or well defined. Where should the phrase "considered to be" be added here?] The traditional major features that define an General American accent, though insufficient and persistently controversial,[I consciously added this phrase between commas to be bias-free, demonstrating how this definition is overly narrow, but it has traditionally endured through decades of dictionaries, for example. Also I wrote this to show that there has been a multi-decadal debate about the definition, so it's obviously controversial; this was also a conscious move on my part to avoid bias] are its origins and sound system separate from the various historical dialects of the Southern and Eastern United States, including New York City and most of coastal New England.[Virtually all sources at least agree that General American is not Southern or Eastern in character. The sources I cited here can attest to that. Do you have any sources that counter that understanding? Please feel free to add them.]
Despite the elusiveness of its precise definition,[Again, I very carefully kept this phrase as a caveat.] General American is often considered the de facto standard accent of the United States.[Not that I personally care whether or not it is the standard accent. This is what the sources tell us.] It may also be spoken by some native English speakers from Canada.[It would be wonderful to have a source here.] The term was popularized by American linguist John Samuel Kenyon but disseminated earlier by the Anglicist George Philip Krapp, who in 1925 considered it widespread and "Western" in character,[Again, this is what the source tell us. If you don't like the "Western" part, we can delete this phrase between commas.] though it likely originated specifically in the Midwest prior to the Northern Cities Vowel Shift.[The source here attests to that.] In 1982, according to British phonetician John C. Wells, two-thirds of the American population spoke with a General American accent.
Let me know how you would like to edit this please. Thanks! Rockrunnerthecard (talk) 17:19, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
"is often considered to be (or is perceived as) lacking..." might be a better word choice.
The reason this is necessary is because, in truth, "General American" is not lacking noticeably regional, ethnic or socioeconomic characteristics. In fact, it is actually quite impossible for it to be, y'see, because (as is stated later in the article) it is based primarily upon Midwestern dialects of American English. Furthermore, it can be identified by speakers of other dialects of American English that are not based upon or related to the Midwestern dialects to be more or less an artificial construct based upon the Midwestern dialects; a sort of "generic Midwestern", not a "generic American". Heck, I saw about a year ago someone refer to General American as "that Midwestern speech that everyone on TV seems to use". And even more over, there's an entire section within the article talking about which dialects of American English are closest to General American. Such a section couldn't really exist if it truly were free of noticeably regional, ethnic, or socioeconomic characteristics.
As such, it is absolutely unacceptable to refer to General American as, without question, "lacking any noticeably regional, ethnic, or socioeconomic characteristics."
This means that we need to use a far more neutral manner of describing it.
Twoth, I have no issue with the statement that General American carries no Southern or Eastern characteristics. You do not need to worry about blatantly saying that. It is, as you said, not really something that anyone disagrees with.
Third, change "often considered" to "often referred to as".
Once you have done these things, let me see the page. I'll look to see if there is anything else that is problematic, though I think that that is all that really smacked of having neutrality issues. Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 18:28, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Ah, OK. I see now what you're getting at with that first grievance. I agree that the first sentence could have used more precision. Check out my newer edit on the page. Rockrunnerthecard (talk) 20:42, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Much better, but I felt that I needed to make a few little changes. Now it looks well-done, though. Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 21:28, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages![edit]

WP teahouse logo 3.png
Hello, Tharthan. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived. Message added by —teb728 t c 10:09, 15 February 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template.

Flag of New England claims[edit]

Wikipedia editors are especially careful regarding claims that such and such has been "traditionally used". There is no official evidence. The claim requires solid evidence from reliable secondary source. I personally looked for such evidence regarding this flag and never found. It may have been on display at a governors meeting years ago-- perhaps as the stunned by the author of the flag. But that claim needs specific validation. Even so one usage years ago does not prove it is a traditional flag. I lived in Connecticut, Massachusetts and New Hampshire off and on since the 1960s and visited many museums, archives and historical societies and never saw this flag on display. Rjensen (talk) 04:30, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Also, whilst critical of the flag, this mentions its common use.

By the way, if you are really a New Englander, why would you object to our traditional flag being marked as such? It's pretty well-known that this flag has historically represented us. Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 04:46, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

None of the websites claim this is a flag traditionally that applies to New England-- they mention Massachusetts troops of Bunker Hill Over 200 years ago is the most recent usage, and then only for one state. You need a reliable secondary source, not a website that anybody can post to. Better read up on the Wikipedia rules about wp:RS. In other words, Wikipedia will not accept hearsay evidence in the first place, and not evidence that A flag that flew in 1776 became traditional during the next 240 years. Your last citation says that it is a fraud. Rjensen (talk) 04:11, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
No it doesn't. Read a little closer. It says that the blue-backed version is a fraud, and that the other, red-backed one is the "true" one. A dubious tag in the article is acceptable though. A fair compromise. Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 16:37, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

New England[edit]

I've always wondered when we'd officially secede and form the Republic of New England. What state, if I may ask? Wolfdog (talk) 23:55, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Funnily enough, same here! Though that probably has to do with the history of my state, as being the first to break away from England and the last to sign on to the constitution. *wink* *wink* *nudge* *nudge*
I actually wish we had a New England WikiProject, and made note of such on New England's talk page some time ago.Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 00:04, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Interesting. How were you able to avoid the wine-whine merger, I wonder.... Wolfdog (talk) 00:20, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Unlike the rest of my ancestors, my Irish ancestors had only been here for one generation before the events that led to further events that led to events that led to my birth occurred. This is probably why I dodged it. Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 00:25, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Hmm. I've been doing a lot of research on Irish English. On an unrelated note, I pronounce any derivative of the word horror with [ɑɹ], but then all other words in this set (majority, orange, torrent, etc.) with the more "General American" [ɔɹ]... the one sound it would seem that I picked up from my parents' NYC speech. And the fact that, though I'm just on the verge of a cot–caught merger (with everyone around me pretty much merged), I at least still make the distinction, and rightfully so, I believe... like you with that distinguished [ɒː] in caught. Wolfdog (talk) 05:59, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Yeah. the "or" set of words I pronounce with [ɔɹ], whereas other words with a historic /ɒ/ generally have /ʌ/ instead for me. There are, however, some exceptions, although there doesn't seem to be much rhyme or reason to the exceptions (at least, as far as I can tell). So I read "father-bother merger" as /fɑðɚ.bʌðɚ.mɝdʒɚ/. That particular trait I seem to have inherited from my mother's speech. I can only assume that, in her childhood years, she acquired /ɒ/ as /ʌ/ for whatever reason. Apparently /ɒ/ has shifted to /ʌ/ in parts of Africa, and I personally can attest to watching a video where a jock-sounding type was playing "Bomberman", and seemingly referred to it as "Bummerman".
All the while, my /ɔ/ is somewhere between [ɔə] and [ɒː] unless it is before "r". Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 06:35, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

The dbaj page[edit]

I understand you want to change the links on pages from d*** to j***, but this is a LONG standing phrasing. So I would suggest finding a consensus first. Edit warring is likely not the solution you seek. I and others will likely be restoring the previous stable versions on the pages. If you still wish to see this changed, please start a talk page discussion somewhere about it and find Consensus. - jc37 06:03, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I see. My question is this: since the current title of the Metawiki page is "don't be a jerk", why shouldn't the pages have their links changed to reflect that? Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 06:07, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
I saw that. And also that that is a newish consensus (if it is even a consensus- I still see reversions in the page history). But that aside, a meta consensus does not necessarily equate to an en.wp consensus. For one thing, it can be argued that far fewer people edit meta than wikipedia, so it might be difficult to convince that so few there equals a consensus here. Maybe start a discussion at the WP:VP and see what the community thinks? - jc37 06:15, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
To be honest, I don't really care enough to try and push anything. I just find it a bit odd to have the links be titled something completely different from what the page is now called.
The consensus, by the way, was basically on a few points (IIRC):
  • That "jerk" isn't actually confined to the United States any longer.
  • That the page had a long renaming in the making.
  • That, as it is so oft-cited, it should have a cooler, whilst just as clear, point. Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 06:21, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Language in San Marino[edit]

Tharthan, I saw your request on the article talk page. While of course most people in San Marino speak the official Italian language, you might not be aware that Italian is something of a recently constructed language (relatively) to encourage national unity, based on the Tuscan language. The various local Italian dialects, although called as such, are in fact different languages owing to Italian history where various city-states where quite separated. Not all of them are mutually intelligible with each other. In San Marino, Romagnol is spoken, itself a dialect of the Romance language called Emiliano-Romagnolo. Around a quarter of the population of the Emilia-Romagna region still speak it; the area includes San Marino. I hope that helps! Quinto Simmaco (talk) 18:24, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Do you think that some text from Romagnol Italian counterpart page might be useful to translate to improve the English page? If so, I can help. I was responsible for the creation and development of the Crown of the Realm page here in English, and that relied heavily on translation from both the corresponding Sardian page (which, humourously enough, initially relied itself upon translation from the English page that I developed) and the corresponding Italian page. I am a linguist that, although partial to the Germanic languages, has a deep respect for dialects and languages in general. My local dialect of English, a subdialect of New England English is near and dear to my heart, and is the tongue that I have spoken my whole life, despite attempts from the government to slyly root it out.
What do you say, would you like me to attempt to gather up information from the corresponding Italian page of Romagnol, and add it to the current stubly English article? Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 18:37, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Anglo-Cornish "yo"[edit]

Re: "Many of these are influenced by the substrate of the Cornish language. One example is the "yo" at the end of a sentence for emphasis and another the usage for months, " May month", rather than just "May" for the fifth month of the year.[citation needed]" This text was edited by yourself on 9 February. I do remember reading something that would support this statement about "yo" but have since been unable to find it. I do not believe that this "yo" in Anglo-Cornish is anything to do with American usage of "yo" or the nautical "yo, ho, ho". The citation in List of Cornish dialect words comes from west Cornwall; in the east of Cornwall it is however "yo" with a long "o". The phrase "scat un in the vace and eyes, yo" represents Standard English "hit him in the face!" --Johnsoniensis (talk) 11:13, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

"Yo" has generally been used in English for a very long time. Nautical speech has been very influential in New England and also in other areas, so it is not unreasonable to think that all of the uses of "yo" are related.
In addition "yo" used at the end of a sentence as a pseudo-pronoun is common in North American English slang as well. Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 11:08, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

On Ilkla Moor...[edit]

Hi Tharthan. I have changed the translation of the song's title again, this time to "On Ilkley Moor Without A Hat". Please look at Talk:On Ilkla Moor Baht 'at for my rationale and please feel free to leave any comments / criticisms there. Very best wishes, --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 23:12, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Your Commons talk page[edit]

There's a guy who's just asked there for your e-mail address. He did the same on my talk page, and these are his only contributions. Be careful about giving him your e-mail, it may be a vengeance attempt for the General American thing. Peter238 (talk) 10:38, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Ok, he's kosher. He just wanted to explain himself, and promised he won't be editing Wikipedia anymore. Peter238 (talk) 12:07, 18 May 2015 (UTC)


Per this edit, I'm under the impression that rhotic dialects (like mine) would contrast yer and ya as [jɚ] and [jə], respectively; non-rhotic dialects (like yours and Norfolk), would pronounce both as the latter. What am I missing? — Ƶ§œš¹ [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 03:12, 26 July 2015 (UTC) Ah. That's what you were saying. Never mind. I thought that you were implying something else. My bad. Tharthan (talk) 00:30, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 29[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Big mama, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Big Brother (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:19, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 6[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Big mama, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Big Brother (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) 09:00, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

In any case, I will be more careful in watching to turn the filter off. Tharthan (talk) 16:49, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, Tharthan. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)