User talk:Wolfdog

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

A barnstar for you![edit]

Original Barnstar Hires.png The Original Barnstar
Hi Wolfdog,

Thanks very much for your contribution to <<Phonological history of English short A>> and I've learned a lot from it. However, I actually have a question, or rather a confusion maybe, in the section of <<æ tensing>>, where I saw you edited quite a some. For several times, the phrase "raised and tensed" appears. My understanding is that "raised" is an indispensable component of "tensed" (the other one is either "lengthened" or "diphthongized"), but the "and" conjunction makes it look like they are in parallel, rather than one including the other. Could you perhaps help me clarify my confusion if you know the answer? Very much appreciated!!

CHNNLBOKA (talk) 14:30, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

/æ/ tensing[edit]

Hi Wolfdog, Thanks very much for your contribution to <<Phonological history of English short A>> and I've learned a lot from it. However, I actually have a question, or rather a confusion maybe, in the section of <<æ tensing>>, where I saw you edited quite a some. For several times, the phrase "raised and tensed" appears. My understanding is that "raised" is an indispensable component of "tensed" (the other one is either "lengthened" or "diphthongized"), but the "and" conjunction makes it look like they are in parallel, rather than one including the other. Could you perhaps help me clarify my confusion if you know the answer? Very much appreciated!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by CHNNLBOKA (talkcontribs) 15:01, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

@CHNNLBOKA:Actually, haha, I was wondering exactly about the difference myself. Each of the Wikipedia articles for the two fails to mention the other. I believe I may have borrowed, or even simply left, the phrase "raised and tensed" from prior edits. "Raising" is the more common term as far as I know; "tenseness" seems to me more a matter of perception rather than production, but that might just be my impression. I have no idea definitively. If anyone else ever explains, let me know too! Wolfdog (talk) 01:54, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

@Wolfdog:Hi man! I would be more than happy to hear from you about the difference between "tensing" and "raising"! Thanks!

Leonardo da Vinci: "patronymic"?[edit]

I saw you made an edit June 3, 2015 to the Leonardo da Vinci page indicating his name is patronymic. I'm finding that poorly sourced.

The text below gives details on Leonardo's name, which in full form as recorded in baptismal records is "Lionardo di ser Piero da Vinci", that is, Leonardo, son of Sir Piero, of Vinci.

It seems that the "da Vinci" is not patronymic but is based on place or location. The fact that Leonoardo's father also was "da Vinci" seems to reflect on place rather than patronymic as well. The "di ser Piero" is patronymic, but that's not how Leonardo is typically referred to.

The question's come up on Reddit.

Note that I don't have any specific expertise here, but the claim doesn't seem well supported, and conflicts with my and others' understanding.

If you've got a source that can confirm specifically that "da Vinci" is patronymic, please add it. Otherwise, the claim should probably be removed.


Dredmorbius (talk) 23:19, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

@Dredmorbius: Oh, you're absolutely right! I was thinking of a name/title for which there is no word I can find: a kind of sobriquet or title that indicates the person's birthplace but is not, per se, a part of Leonardo's name. Let me know if my revision to the article seems more appropriate. Wolfdog (talk) 00:27, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

New Jersey dialects[edit]

Hi. I have no problem with additional material being added for the inland north jersey and piney areas. I grew up 10 minutes from Philly, and when I drove to the AC airport to pick up my parents and their flight was late, I stopped at a redneck bar for lunch, and was asked what state I was from! Expanding the article makes total sense to me, we just need to do so with sources--I would not oppose your adding that material with sources. In any case, the discussion doesn't belong on my talk page, so let's keep it at the article page where all can see. μηδείς (talk) 17:38, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

@Medeis: I was trying your expansion idea (though I obviously think disambiguation is more appropriate), but I'm confused about some of your reverts, like putting back in a redlink, leaving "wooter" right after a bullet which some might assume means it's how it's locally spelled, and singling out the new section as needing additional citations for verification (of which I already provided 3 different pages from a widely respected source) when most of the rest of the page's information has no verification. Why not just use a whole-page verification template at the top? Wolfdog (talk) 14:12, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Southern English[edit]

It's not really a matter of what I personally like or don't like. The problem is that you made substantial additions and changes without sufficient citations. I agree the entire article needs better sourcing, but I'm sure you know that is not a rationale for adding to the problems. I won't edit war. For now I'll probably add a global refimprove template. I trust you'll add your citations in a reasonable time frame. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 16:09, 26 July 2015 (UTC) @Sundayclose: I'm asking where exactly you want the citations. I've been mostly already adding citations as I've gone along here, so I'm a little confused. There are certainly places that did not have citations, prior to my edits, but I don't see where my edits are substantially missing citations. Can you please tell me where, and I'll add in the citations. Wolfdog (talk) 16:23, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

If I misread I apologize, but it seems to me that you added information about Yat and African-American phonology without additional sources. Are your additions there sourced? In any event, I think we agree that the entire article needs additional sources. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 16:32, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
@Sundayclose: Initially yes, but I added in the sources after I read your reversion/edit summary. Do they seem sufficient now? (And I barely touched on the African-American section as it is.) For my own sake, where else do you think the article needs stronger sources? I'm happy to do some digging at some point. Obviously, I've mostly been focused on phonology issues. Wolfdog (talk) 16:38, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. Looking more closely, I may have overreacted initially. I think if you have adequately sourced those two issues that I mentioned above I'm fine with your edits. I do think the global refimprove template should remain. Sundayclose (talk) 16:45, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
OK, that's fine. I was just wondering where I might search next to help improve the article by asking what others sections need help, etc. Wolfdog (talk) 16:48, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Sunday wiki-event, in case you're in the NYC metropolitan area...[edit]

I'd like to invite you to Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Wiknic in Prospect Park Sunday, if you're in the area, and we can compare imaginary regional accents over barbecue and scrabble!--Pharos (talk) 17:41, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Wow, what a cool concept and thanks for the invite! Unfortunately, I no longer live in that immediate area, but please enjoy some barbecue on my behalf!
I'm not sure how far out you are, or how often you can make it into the city, but we have monthly social events (including an evening WikiWednesday this coming week!) and regular museum editathons, if you like you can catch all our events by watchlisting WP:Meetup/NYC.--Pharos (talk) 04:47, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

AmE Map[edit]

Hi Wolfdog, i'm wondering why an earlier version of your AmE dialect map showed the Southern MD/Northern VA/Southern Delmarva area in the white color, indicated inconsistent/under-researched, which was consistent with the boundaries shown in ANAE, but you later changed this to be fully within the Midland dialect region. ANAE doesn't really categorize this region and TESLUR puts it almost entirely in SAE. It just caught my eye as i'm from that region, and was wondering why you made that change / what data supports it.

Oh, you're right! I must have robotically just filled in the ANAE white area thoughtlessly with the Midland color. I've gone back now to specify the region better. Hope it works (my uploads seem to take a few days to fully process thru Wikimedia!). Wolfdog (talk) 03:42, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
It seems to be showing up now, that area looks more consistent with other dialect maps. Thanks, also good job with all the phonological description it seems you've been adding to several dialect pages. I wish that on the Old Virginia page or SAE page there could be some info on modern SAE in the Chesapeake region, but it seems there's a real lack of phonological research in the area. I can tell you for example, from experience and from my own dialect, that the voiced/voiceless split and general fronting of the vowel in <loud/lout> mentioned in the SAE article is still very much alive in the Chesapeake, my own realization is roughly [ laɵd / lɜʉt ] , but I can't seem to find any research that supports or even mentions this in young speakers in the area.

August 2015[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to South African English may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s and 13 "<>"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 14:49, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

ae tensing in "general american"[edit]

Hi Wolfdog. Your recent editing to the "General American" makes some of the sections more clear and readable, and I sincerely appreciate your effort on that and also broad knowledge about this topic. Meantime I notice that one of the major changes made by you occurred under the subject "ae tensing", where the table was modified and different from the one in "Phonological history of English short A". I suppose that they are essentially from the same source given that the latter one also is the reference in the first one. However, some of the statements about ae tensing in those two articles are a bit inconsistent in my opinion, such as the transcription of the tensed ae and some contents in the tables. Would you like to discuss it or clarify the difference? I would love to hear opinions from you. Thanks.

Kind regards, CHNNLBOKA — Preceding unsigned comment added by CHNNLBOKA (talkcontribs) 08:47, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi @CHNNLBOKA:, Yes, I simply forgot to replace that "Phonological history" one with the more recently updated and simplified one ("simplified" is relative here, haha). I've just done it. Are there any other specific discrepancies you were wondering about in particular? Wolfdog (talk) 21:38, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi @Wolfdog:, thanks for your response. Now I see the updated revision :). As to any other discrepancies, I do feel that the transcriptions of the tensed ae in the contexts in those two articles can be somehow causing confusion, at least to me. You used the diacritics of lowered and raised in "general american" but not in the other one, which to me looks like that it implies a narrower spectrum of the variation of tensed ae.

@CHNNLBOKA:, oh I see! I was likely being more specific/detailed when I was editing for the GenAm page itself, but more general/simplifying in the chart, which I made to be a grid of convenience. You can feel free to change either one if you feel it confuses less. Here's one of the main sources I used: According to the ANAE, which defines GenAm as having the vowels overlapping between Western, Midland, and Canadian English, "The most common short-a configuration in the West and the Midland is a more or less continuous range of allophones from low front to mid position, with no marked break. [...] The highest and frontest tokens are with nasal codas[....] It is evident that a continuous system of this sort differs from the nasal system only in the degree of differentiation of the vowels before nasal consonants" (p. 180). In other words, /æ/ is still the highest and frontest for typical U.S. speakers before nasals; whether the lowest possibility is [æ] or [æ̝] differs based on sources. If choosing one puts you at ease go for it! If you want some more sources I researched, let me know. Wolfdog (talk) 22:21, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

@Wolfdog:, Thanks for your response and reference to the source. What really makes it a little baffling to me is that (1) in "GenAm" the diacritics of raised and lowered are used in [ɛ̝ə̯] and [e̞ə̯]. It's never been very clear to me what the difference is between a lowered vowel and a raised vowel that is right under it in the IPA Vowel Chart. It all boils down to the question how much a vowel is lowered or raised with the diacritics, or for instance, will a lowered [e] be lower than a raised [ɛ]? (2) in "Phonological history" it is described that "A common realization is [eə]—that is, a centering diphthong with a starting point closer than the vowel [ɛ] as in dress". Therefore does it mean that the real phonetically accurate transcription actually should be [ɛ̝ə̯] (or [e̞ə̯], which is related to (1) again)? And if we compare all the transcriptions in both texts and charts of both articles, it is also a bit confusing to me what the most commonly used highest front vowel is for ae tensing. Is it [eə̯], [e̞ə̯], or [ɛ̝ə̯]? If there is no such a definition or the choice of them is rather arbitrary as the difference is (almost) inaudible, should we unify them with only one of the aforementioned transcriptions in both article to avoid any inconsistency?

@CHNNLBOKA: My most honest answer to your questions is "I'm not sure." This page's infobox (on the right top of the page) equates your symbols. My best-guess answer for your first two questions is "These different symbols all equate to more or less the same sounds." The diacritics are just a way to provide some nuance to the widely-used reference vowels. Regarding your question of the most commonly used vowel for /æ/ tensing, I personally prefer either [ɛə] or [ɛ̝ə], though I'm not sure if any research specifically backs up this perception:
  • To me, [eə] is overplaying it: getting into the territory of the nasal system (e.g. heard in Boston) or the split system (e.g. heard in NYC); for example, even this University of Edinburgh page only notes one U.S. dialect as venturing into the realm of [eə]. (However, to attack my own source, I actually think the Edinburgh site terribly inaccurately transcribes "Standard American," using [æə] -- with NO diacritic!)
  • Meanwhile, [æ̝ə] seems to me too downplayed (and as I say above, the Ediburgh transcription even more bizarre to me). If we agree that most people sound like something between [ɛə] and [eə] (or even [ɪə] in a real strong instance), than anything with the [æ] symbol is outside that range. When I hear most Americans say "man," it sounds more like "may-un" (even if slightly exaggerated) or About this sound "meh-un" than it sounds like the word "map" with the "p" replaced by an "n" (which would just About this sound sound British to me).
Anyway, to get to the point you probably care most about: yes, I think we should unify the article better and just pick one transcription. Good point. Wolfdog (talk) 20:55, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

@Wolfdog:, Great. Thanks a lot for clarifying it.

@Wolfdog:, I just very minorly edited some wording in the first paragraph of ae tensing sector in the article "Phonological history". Please have a look and correct it if you have other opinions about the editing. Thanks a lot.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maine dialect[edit]

I seem to have missed a step when nominating the article for deletion. Thanks for filling in what I didn't do. Chamberlian (talk) 04:13, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

No problem. Wolfdog (talk) 19:53, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Simon chapter 2006 pdf[edit]

Hi, I can send you a full text pdf of:

  • Simon, Beth (2006). "Chapter 21: Saying Ya to the Yoopers (Michigan's Upper Peninsula)". In Wolfram, Walt; Ward, Ben. American Voices: How Dialects Differ From Coast to Coast. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing. ISBN 1-4051-2109-2. 

to fulfill your request at Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request/Archive_26#Saying Ya to the Yoopers. Please use Special:EmailUser to email me so that I can reply with the pdf as an attachment. Regards, Worldbruce (talk) 07:29, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Hey Wolfdog, I never heard back from you about this. At first I figured it was because of an American holiday, but it has been a while. You haven't marked your resource request as resolved; do you still need this chapter? I can send it to you as a pdf if you send me an email that I can reply to. Worldbruce (talk) 04:40, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:45, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Hoi Toide[edit]

Hello, Wolfdog. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.


I just wanted to thank you for spending so much time keeping the New England English pages up to speed. I have become somewhat disillusioned with Wikipedia due to some things which have happened on the management level, so I haven't been around to monitor the pages like I used to.

Also, I hope that you have a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year! Tharthan (talk) 15:50, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

@Tharthan: Thanks so much for your kind words. They're very appreciated. I hope you're doing alright these days.

...And the same to you: Have a great Christmas and New Year! Wolfdog (talk) 17:44, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

your viewpoints dominate to much[edit]

In terms of english dialect of North america your views are dominating to much. I plan on taking this to wikipedida management if it continues. One person should not do the ovwerwheliming majority of content on wikipeida, especially in regards to this subject. JeffMoore087 (talk) 05:49, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

  • @JeffMoore087: I'm not sure what you'd like me to do differently. ...If what continues? Your first sentence seems to accuse me of editorializing; then your second sentence suggests that, in general, I'm just doing too much editing. What is your actual complaint? Wolfdog (talk) 13:20, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
That is hardly true, Mr. Moore. Information on North American English dialects is often biased towards one region, leaving other regions out. Thanks to good folks like Wolfdog here, we have more sundry information available on Wikipedia about the various English dialects spoken in North America. Tharthan (talk) 16:12, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Speculative fiction[edit]

I haven't found a source that actually defines speculative fiction. They start up pointing the main genres it encompasses, and that's exemplifying, not defining. From common features observed in these genres, we can get a proper definition and that's what I was trying to do in the article. I have previously called this exemplification a definition, but yes, I was wrong. And it isn't original research since it doesn't try to support a point of view or opinion, it just translates implicit facts. - - Alumnum (talk) 14:43, 10 January 2016 (UTC)


I'm curious about your interest in dialects. Is it a vocation or an avocation? (talk) 00:30, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Hiberno-English → Irish English[edit]

Apologies for accusation of suspicious movement of Hiberno-EnglishIrish English. The article has been requested moved numerous times in the past, and AFAIK, has always been opposed. An admin (well two in fact) agreed it was suspiciously placed, but we all agreed, likely accidental. As this is WP, there sadly exists a minority of users who know how things work, so use sneaky methods to get things done their own way, which considering you are a veteran editor (almost 10 years now :o), I'm sure you are well aware of. However, that is not to say they were your intentions, especially considering you gave a very valid point, were with ill intent. Again, my apologies, and I wish you a very late Happy New Year. Uamaol (talk) 19:02, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

@Uamaol: Thanks for your explanation. I admit that, despite being a long-time Wikipedian, I still don't have a very sure sense of how to navigate it in the area of policy. Any time I am interested in a move or deletion discussion, I have to go, every single time, back to WP:AFD or WP:RM to remember again what protocol I'm supposed to follow. Sometimes I still mess up. I appreciate your understanding! Wolfdog (talk) 14:42, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
I completely understand. I am often stumped and how some users, especially admins, can find information so quickly on policy topics and even stuff which seems impossible to find on Google. You may find a tool like Twinkle may be to your advantage with the above, however I've not checked anything apart from Twinkle out, and even Twinkle, I've only used parts of it. Uamaol (talk) 22:05, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Pronunciation of onomatopoeia[edit]

Hi Wolfdog

I have partly reverted your edit on Onomatopoeia, which you summarized as Simplifying pronunciation, while including all the options (see my edit [1]). I think it is OK that the /oʊ ~ ə/ alternation be abbreviated as /oʊ/ since the reduction to /ə/ is quite natural and largely predictable. However, abbreviating the /æ ~ ɑː/ alternation as /ɑː/ is misleading. I have therefore reinstated the explicit mentions of both /æ/ and /ɑː/.

I am positive that you made the changes in good faith. You have probably overlooked that the code in {{IPAc-en}} no longer display as /aː/, but as /ɑː/. The reason for the change was that the use of /aː/ for the /æ ~ ɑː/ alternation is not attested anywhere outside of Wikipedia. This had been criticized several times, and in Help talk:IPA for English#The Diaphonemic System we reached consensus to deprecate this use. I have reviewed all instances that previously had /aː/ and changed them, where necessary, to /æ, ɑː/. --mach 🙈🙉🙊 14:09, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Vermont IPA...[edit]

...and I don't mean India Pale Ale by Long Trail Brewery. In the latest version of Vermont you have rendered the IPA as "Listeni/vərˈmɒntˌ vɜːr-/." Previously, it was "Listeni/vərˈmɒnt/ or /vɜːrˈmɒnt/." I assume that this was intentional. Cheers, User:HopsonRoad 18:56, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

descriptive linguistics V linguistic description: Dawn of Requested Move[edit]

Just noticed these.[2][3] User:Curly Turkey and I have been discussing it and neither of us were aware of the initial titles of these pages until I went and "Ctrl+F"ed the page histories after having already opened an RM. Both of us thought the current titles were the result of the page creators who are no longer active, but you appear to be, so dropping you this courtesy notification of the RM. Hijiri 88 (やや) 13:35, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

May 2016[edit]

Information icon Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Domestication. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been or will be undone. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. 13MAY16 - "consciously influences the reproduction and care of another group" was not in the citation, that is your conjecture. Refer WP:Vandal Vandalism is prohibited. Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content, in a deliberate attempt to damage Wikipedia. Examples of typical vandalism are adding irrelevant obscenities and crude humor to a page, illegitimately blanking pages, and inserting obvious nonsense into a page. William Harristalk • 03:10, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

@William Harris: Your accusations of vandalism are completely out of line, entirely unfounded, and extremely insensitive. I have a long history of consistent good-faith edits on Wikipedia, where I contribute as a regular editor. In fact, lets break down the actual edit I made:

  • Here's how the edit before mine read:
    • "Domestication is the scientific theory of the mutual relationship between plants or animals with the humans who have influence on their care and reproduction."
  • Here is my edit (that you're calling "unconstructive" and apparent "vandalism"):
    • "Domestication is a sustained, multi-generational, mutualistic relationship between groups of organisms, in which one group consciously influences the reproduction and care of another group in order to secure a more predictable supply of resources from that second group."
  • Here is what it says verbatim in the already-cited source:
    • "Domestication is a sustained multigenerational, mutualistic relationship in which one organism assumes a significant degree of influence over the reproduction and care of another organism in order to secure a more predictable supply of a resource of interest."

It's undeniably clear that my edit is much closer in matching the language used in the cited source than the previous edit(s). If you would presume anything, then you should first presume I'd added the wording I did in order to keep Wikipedia more tightly aligned to its citations, which is objectively what I've done. If you believe something is conjectural, of course you should notify and discuss with the other user, etc. On the other hand, to read the riot act to me about vandalism and accuse me of "a deliberate attempt to damage Wikipedia" are comments verging on ridiculousness. It's hard to understand how you arrived at that way of thinking, especially since you have a template on your user page claiming that you believe in civility and assuming good faith. Wolfdog (talk) 19:23, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Incorrect. You deliberately chose the word consciously when the rest of the article - largely based on the same author's work - says it was not conscious. You knew exactly what you were doing and used Zeder's citation to support your personal spin across the English-speaking world's online encyclopedia. Do it again, and we take a little trip together over onto the "blood-sports page" (Admin incidents). Have a read of their deliberations; they appear to be reasonable people. William Harristalk • 09:51, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
@William Harris: I already know that I deliberately chose that word. My intention was to paraphrase the quotation, abridging the nebulous phrase "assumes a significant degree of influence" into what I felt was the clearer "consciously influences." You have every right to disagree and think that "consciously" was the wrong word to use, which I am and was always happily willing to discuss, but instead you choose to employ an ugly tone with me, threatening me with "a little trip together." You need to learn to have a more civil tone. My history clearly shows that I'm a constructive editor, not a vandal. I have no need to spin the page one way or the other; if my word choice appears to you to have a spin, then it was simply accidental or unintentional. Make the fix, assume good faith, and move on. Wolfdog (talk) 17:22, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Allowable number of requested moves?[edit]

Hi! Is there an official or rule-of-thumb allowable number of requested move nominations? Let's say that a requested move did not generate much discussion and simply ended with "No consensus". Can the nominator against request that same move? Is there a certain amount of time the nominator should let elapse before doing this? Is there some other action that can/should be taken? Thanks. Wolfdog (talk) 17:36, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

The general rule of thumb is "don't be disruptive". I would think immediately relisting a No-Consensus request that had little discussion would generally not fall into that category, as the requestor could just be wanting a definite yes/no. Every situation is unique of course, so the specific circumstances would be more of a consideration than this hypothetical. CrowCaw 17:52, 7 September 2016 (UTC) I would say to wait a month before re-requesting. If a request ended up with no-consensus and generated little discussion the first time round it's not likely to generate significantly more 24 hours later. Additionally any comments that were made to the previous request will still be valid to a new one, so will just be duplicating opinion and be pointless. I'm reminded of Cheryl (entertainer) who has had at least 7 officially requested moves, and four within the space of three months. That became so annoying that a 3 month moratorium was placed on move requests as they were deemed disruptive. Chaheel Riens (talk) 19:28, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

lifelong speakers[edit]

Any reason why you never really bother to add female lifelong speakers of certain accents? (i'm looking in the direction of boston and philly) Having a list that is like 90 percent male is boring. Something really needs to be done a bout this. Juliep94 (talk) 01:32, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

He's showing gender bias. This should not be acceptable in 2016. And looking at those pages, it's more accurate to say it's 98 percent male. Yarkyard (talk) 03:56, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
No need to jump to conclusions. You can see in the past I've added several women to the Inland North page and I also added Gina McCarthy (the only woman currently listed) to the Boston accent page, so I have no intention of being biased. That said, the lists definitely do show a gender bias (I'm glad you brought up the issue, Juliep94), and I fully support including more females; please feel free to add some yourselves if you have the time! I'm happy to work on it if/when I have the time/stamina for deeper research, but collaboration is most preferred! Let me know. Wolfdog (talk) 15:01, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
It looks terrible to have 20+ males shown and only list 2 females. It's backwards to go out of the way to find as many male examples as possible and have only a couple females shown. Something needs to be done about that. Yarkyard (talk) 22:19, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
As I've said, I agree that this is true, especially on hugely disparate pages like Boston accent. The important question now is: What exactly should we do about it? I suggest we work together. Would you like to get started with me on a particular page? Wolfdog (talk) 22:24, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
There should be close to 50 / 50 ratio as possible. Please do what you can as soon as you can. I'm currently busy for the next couple months. If you get time, please try to get it to a near 50 / 50 ratio. Do the Boston page. It makes the site look bad and sexist with such a horrible disproportionate amount of males are listed. Yarkyard (talk) 03:19, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Again, I agree wholeheartedly and, again, I require the assistance of yourself or others. To be honest, I don't know many female speakers off the top of my head. Do you? If you can give me some names, I'd be happy to explore articles about them online. My best bet at the moment is to type phrases like "her Boston accent" in Google and hope that celebrities pop up. Wolfdog (talk) 14:12, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Not really. I just know that it's the same on the Philadelphia page as well. If people are going to list a lot of notable speakers, then they should at least try to get nearly as many female examples. When you do get a lot of free time, please really look into this. I'm very busy until really early next year. Adding more female examples really needs to be addressed. Again, when you get some free time, please look into this. Yarkyard (talk) 20:35, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Please provide edit summaries[edit]

These allow other interested editors to understand what you are doing, and minimize checking of your edits. Thank you. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 22:31, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

57.9% of your edits do not have summaries. Not a good statistic. I hope you can help your fellow editors by providing summaries. Thank you. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 22:36, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
@Isambard Kingdom: Mmmm... so, I'll correct myself: I often forget. Or I neglect when I feel changes are minimal. And early on in my WP career I probably never provided edit summaries. So, theoretically, I'm at least improving! Incidentally, where can one find statistics like these? Thanks. Wolfdog (talk) 22:40, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
Click on "contributions" at the top right of the page. This provides your edit summary. Then scroll down to the bottom of the page and click on "Edit count". This gives all kinds of information on you editing habits. Thanks, Isambard Kingdom (talk) 22:43, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks! Somehow, I never knew that. Wolfdog (talk) 23:05, 16 September 2016 (UTC)


Thank you for your contributions to the "Storytelling" wikipedia page. I hope you continue to contribute to more pages like that in the future. I was wondering if you would be interested in editing content for the presidential debate pages and political pages in regards to the upcoming election in 2016? Or if you have any interest in editing for these type of political focused pages in the future? LiamWatson42 (talk) 03:33, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 29[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

New Jersey English (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Rhotic
Southern American English (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Morphological

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:59, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 10[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited English language, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Germanic (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) 11:33, 10 October 2016 (UTC)


Hi Wolfdog. As you have said Latin is covered in Romance languages so it would be repetition to state its influence. In the lede it's best to keep it as concise as possible without going into details covered in the links. The way it's currently written ("primarily influenced by Germanic and Romance languages, particularly Franch") I see no issue with as French is clearly emphasized. All the best. RichardHarris22 (talk) 01:47, 23 October 2016 (UTC)