User talk:W. P. Uzer

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


I think this diagram is adequate for its intended uses (though obviously not based on the latest developments in optimality theory or whatever). Your main objection to it would appear to be terminological quibbling. AnonMoos (talk) 19:41, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it's "quibbling" to note that in a diagram which purports to show how to identify allophones, one out of the four end cases is wrongly marked as to whether it represents allophones or not. Given that the diagram as a whole is hopelessly oversimplified, I think it better simply to remove it. But if you insist, we can put it back and try to explain everything away in the caption, pending someone's creating a better diagram. W. P. Uzer (talk) 21:29, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
That's nice -- it's obviously based on classical phonemics (not the latest theories), and no one has ever claimed otherwise. Classical phonemics still has a lot of relevance to issues such as setting up practical orthographies of formerly-unwritten languages. I suppose I could change "allophones" to "contextual allophones" at bottom left (if there was room for an additional word in the caption), but I don't see a strict necessity for this, and your exclusive focus on terminological issues, and lack of any constructive useful suggestions, still strikes me as basically quibbling... AnonMoos (talk) 07:53, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Do you think that sounds that are in free variation are not allophones? Maybe that's one possible view, but it seems to contradict what the article says. W. P. Uzer (talk) 08:25, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 22[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Relative clause, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Antecedent (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) 13:51, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Ways to improve Prop-word[edit]

Hi, I'm Newrunner769. W. P. Uzer, thanks for creating Prop-word!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. You have nearly no sources on a fairly medium sized article. Fix this.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse. Newrunner769 (talk) 21:42, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Jr. comma RfC[edit]

You're invited to participate in the discussion at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#RfC:_Guidance_on_commas_before_Jr._and_Sr. Dohn joe (talk) 01:55, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Bully article[edit]

I won't edit the article anymore, given the way you have been treating me, (basically you're being a bully) but you should take a look at this article on Wikipedia. It states guidelines to editing Wikipedia and also states that nobody owns an article, which is what you are acting like.

Claudia Kishi (talk) 12:00, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Table of Japanese Kanji radicals listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]


An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Table of Japanese Kanji radicals. Since you had some involvement with the Table of Japanese Kanji radicals redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Compfreak7 (talk) 07:18, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Guidance on commas after Jr. and Sr.[edit]

Following the closure of a recent RfC you participated in, I have started an RfC on the separate but related issue of commas after Jr. and Sr.. Please see Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) § RfC: Guidance on commas after Jr. and Sr. and feel free to comment there. Thanks! sroc 💬 06:03, 14 May 2015 (UTC)


Ruby text is currently .literally. unreadable in Firefox, so some sort of further change needs to be made. I noticed that you reverted the previous simplifying edits made to the template, restoring many explicit style instructions, even to the extent of specifying particular Windows fonts. Could you describe the problems you had viewing Ruby text with the simplified version of the template? 0x69494411 08:47, 29 May 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sixtyninefourtyninefourtyfoureleven (talkcontribs)

Chinese Grammar Article[edit]

Locative Phrases[edit]

Locative Phrases is currently a subtopic of the "Adverbs and Adverbials" section of the Chinese Grammar article. From the language in the body text, it seems that this is likely a typographical error, and that 'Locative Phrases' should be a section in it's own right, but perhaps there is some logic to the arrangement that I don't understand. For that reason, I'm kicking it over to you rather than making the edit. 0x69494411 11:04, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't have any strong preference, but it seems to me that such locative phrases (at least from a Western perspective) would be regarded as a type of adverbial phrase (corresponding to adverbs of location). Also their position in the Chinese sentence is as described in the main "Adverbs" section. W. P. Uzer (talk) 11:49, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Religion in infoboxes of nations[edit]

There is an RfC that you may be interested in at Template talk:Infobox country#RfC: Religion in infoboxes of nations. Please join us and help us to determine consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:03, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Unexplained deletion in English phonology[edit]

I noticed this recent edit, you made at English phonology that included the deletion of a note that seemed accurate to me. Was that an oversight or is there another issue? — Ƶ§œš¹ [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 15:19, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

You mean the note about /aɪ/ being raised before voiceless consonants? I didn't so much delete it, as move it and expand on it, according to what Wells says on the matter. I don't have the other source that was given, but I don't believe (I may be wrong) that this is any more than a localized phenomenon (Canada and a few places in the US). W. P. Uzer (talk) 15:47, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
I mean the note about /æ/. If you'd like to add more nuance to it, I don't have a problem. Do you mean you took the claim out without checking the source because you doubt the claim? — Ƶ§œš¹ [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 04:48, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm not seeing the note you mean. In the edit you linked to, I added a note about /æ/. Did you mean to link to a different edit? W. P. Uzer (talk) 06:36, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
My days traveling have confused my perceptions. I saw a deletion where there was an addition. My apologies for the mistake. — Ƶ§œš¹ [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 03:42, 20 June 2015 (UTC)