User talk:Evertype/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 12

Yogh

Thanks for the expert corrections on yogh in English alphabet. I knew it derived from G by an alternate route than modern G, but wasn't 100% sure. Learn something new every day! Jordi·✆ 14:34, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Missing a bopomofo character

A bopomofo symbol with a shape like “帀” (an upside-down ㄓ) was once used in Republic of China to denote the vowel “i” for zhi/shi/chi/ri, and have never been encoded in Taiwanese or PRC's encodings. I being a small potato how to request Unicode Consortium to add this character? --Hello World! 14:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

E-mail me about this, please. Evertype 14:46, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

The only material I have is a table of simplified Chinese characters (第一批简体字表) issued by the government of the Republic of China in 1935. I have uploaded them on zh:Image:ROC 1935 simplified 01.jpg and zh:Image:ROC 1935 simplified 10.jpg. The two images are scanned from a book called “现行汉字规范问题” (Xianxing Hanzi guifan wenti, ISBN 7-100-03652-6) published in 2002. --Hello World! 03:23, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Splendid. Any idea what the phonetic values are? -- Evertype·✆ 07:36, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

It's the vowel “-i” as in “zhi”, “chi”, “shi”, and “ri” (see Pinyin#Comparison chart; also used in “zi”, “ci” and “si” but the phonetic value is slightly different). As I've heard, “zhi” was once written as “ㄓ帀” where ㄓ denotes “zh” and 帀 denotes “-i”. The “帀” was then omitted for simplicity. -Hello World! 11:48, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I have made a draft proposal. Would you like co-author credit? -- Evertype·✆ 10:59, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

How is the proposal? -Hello World! 12:20, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

It is finished and ready for review. Please e-mail me. -- Evertype·✆ 12:59, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I am surprised, upon seeing the proposal (ISO/IEC JTC1/SC2/WG2 N3179: Proposal to encode one Bopomofo character in the UCS), that this character was not encoded in earlier rounds. Well done. – Kaihsu 09:11, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. -- Evertype·✆ 11:10, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Middle Welsh w letter

Hi Michael, do you know if Unicode has or is planning to have a character for the letter , the letter found in some Middle Welsh manuscripts corresponding to W? Angr 13:16, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it's on the current ballot. See http://std.dkuug.dk/jtc1/sc2/wg2/docs/n3027.pdf -- Evertype·✆ 13:17, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Cascajal block & directionality

Hi there Evertype. Noting your interest in the Cascajal block find and your preliminary analysis of its inscription at your website, I thought you might be interested in some ideas on the text's directionality and layout which were recently posted to the AZTLAN mailing list by Lloyd Anderson, now accessible in the AZTLAN archives over at FAMSI here.

In a nutshell, his analysis proposes a structure arranged into three main columns of shorter horizontal text, rather than the series of seven lines provisionally identified by the original researchers. Such an arrangement would be more typical of Mesoamerican writing in general, and once you look at it that way it does rather leap out at you, so there might well be something to it. Anderson also proposes a potential boustrophedon order for some of the lines within these columns, which would yield a little more in the way of parallelism, and also analyses some of the individual glyphs in the light of other iconographic materials known from broadly the same regional (if not temporal) provenance. Cheers, --cjllw | TALK 02:24, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Orkhon Turkic in unicode

I was told you might be someone to talk to in order to organise a unicode proposal for the Orkhon script. There's one out there that the government of China [supposedly] drew up for playing Mahjong or something, and it's very scary in what it does to the whole concept of unicode. Any interest in getting involved? —Firespeaker 13:06, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

It's also apparently included in the unicode roadmap for the Supplementary Multilingual Plane. There'd just have to be a proposal put together. Knowledge of the script isn't the only thing I need, though; knowledge of the proposal process would really help. —Firespeaker 01:16, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm aware of that proposal, and have plans to do a proper one in 2007. -- Evertype·✆ 20:11, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

This has been done by the way and Old Turkic is now under ballot. -- Evertype·✆ 10:41, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Love your work, would love to chat

Hi, I love your work! I have to confess I was not aware of it much before just now.

I am interested in chatting with people in Burma/Myanmar, and I see that you have some friends there. I wonder if you could email me about the possibility of an introduction?--Jimbo Wales 16:34, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I am delighted to hear of your interest in my work, and would love to chat with you about it too. I'll e-mail you to discuss the other matter, as it is obviously sensitive. -- Evertype·✆ 20:33, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

An apology on behalf of the community

After researching Unicode and the IPA (in order to better understand dialects, glottals and the exact pronunciation of examples such as those given in African American Vernacular English, through ebonics) I came across your article and userpage. From the fallout of the Essjay controversy and having seen the treatment you suffered in your two A/VfDs, I'd like to offer an apology on behalf of the community, most reasonable and mature citizens of which I'm sure would support me, for the hostile environment you've experienced here. Seeing that we have a real professional who is enthusiastic about their work and a leader in their field on board makes me feel inspired. The fact that you believe in Wikipedia's mission enough to become a member, contribute and stay active here shows me that we're doing something right. I am deeply sorry for how Wikipedia policy and guidelines have been misused and misrepresented, up to a case of probable WP:POINT, to generally dishearten you. There are sadly a few extremists in any demographic, and we certainly have them here - beware the over-zealous deletionist. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 11:03, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words. -- Evertype·✆ 17:03, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Unicode proporsals for obsolete letters of languages of Russia

Hello! First of all, I'm sorry for my poor English. Here Russian wikipedists, interested in languages collect a database of letters, once used in non-Russian languages, but became obsolete. This wikiproject is written in Russian, but the names we plan to given are given in English. Could you help us to compose the proposals? There no Russian wikipedist with such document writing experience. Thank you, --Üñţïf̣ļëŗ (see also:ә? Ә!) 14:15, 20 December 2007 (UTC) (ru:User:Untifler)

Hi again! I see you are interested in our project. May you ask me what kind of information should we provide to compose the proposal. The letters I'm most interested in are those of Janalif, especially N-descender (as it was involved in the project of new Latin Tatar alphabet). Another question are codes, you added to some letters. Are they already used, or only proposals are written for this positions? And the last question I'm interested in, why did Abkhaz P-middle hook is used instead of P-descender now and which form is used now? --Üñţïf̣ļëŗ (see also:ә? Ә!) 14:54, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Citable source for natural plurals of Euro and cent in non-legislative contexts.

I'm sure you must be bored silly about this by now, but I'm trying to clean up a load of waffle in Euro by simply directing people to the linguistic issues concerning the euro - see talk:Euro#Name and linguistic issues. But as usual there is a barrack room lawyer who wants to stick to the letter of the law and not accept that natural plurals can and should be used in non-legistlative contexts. So I wondered if you have a better cite than your personal letter (Klaus Regling, Director General for Economic and Financial Affairs of the European Commission said to me in a letter dated 2002-04-12: EU legislation is drafted and published by the Council in all linguistic versions. You rightly state in your letter that in EU legislation, the plurals of both "euro" and "cent" are written without an "s" in English, but that the Secretariat General of the Commission has issued a guideline recommending its translators to use the plural with "s" for both terms in documents other than legal texts.) By which I mean a formal reference that can be cited. --Red King (talk) 20:52, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Did you start at http://www.evertype.com/standards/euro/ or do you need more help? -- Evertype·✆ 22:10, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I didn't think that your personal site would count as a neutral source! But you did give me a clue... Using Google to search for translation euros plural site:europa.eu led me to the English Style Guide and at 20.7, I find the wonderful and unambiguous text:

20.7 The euro.
Like ‘pound’, ‘dollar’ or any other currency name in English, the word ‘euro’ is written in lower case with no initial capital.

The Interinstitutional Style Guide (section 7.3.1) states that the plurals of both ‘euro’ and ‘cent’ are to be written without ‘s’ in English. Do this when amending or referring to legal texts that themselves observe this rule. However, in all other texts, especially documents intended for the general public, use the natural plurals ‘euros’ and ‘cents’.

In documents and tables where monetary amounts figure largely, make maximum use of the € symbol (closed up to the figure) or the abbreviation EUR before the amount.

Quod erat demonstrandum and collapse of stout party! --Red King (talk) 22:10, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

My pleasure. --Red King (talk) 19:51, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

New syle guide (plural of euro)

I don't see a problem with citing the new style guide - it would be suspect to cite the old one. Interestingly, the new one says "use the s for plurals". Full stop. No reference to special cases, for the public, nothing. Just "use the s for plurals". Burial of stout party? --Red King (talk) 21:22, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I would rather cite both. -- Evertype·✆ 23:38, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Œ/œ ligature

The article Œ referred to this ligature as "œthel". However, I have found no non-trivial references to this name in the OED, Britannica, Google Books, Google Scholar, etc. U+0153 gives the name 'ethel' and claims that it derives from the Old English eðel = æthel, but that means 'noble' and has no connection as far as I can see to a letter name. (æthel is sometimes written/misprinted/misscanned as œthel.) Bringhurst and some other typography references do use the word 'ethel' (not œthel) in glossaries, but nowhere else as far as I can tell. Perhaps it is printer's slang? Do you know anything about this? Thanks, --Macrakis (talk) 21:27, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I have told the happy story on the page in question. -- Evertype·✆ 10:29, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Still another quibble... if it derives from ēðel, shouldn't it be called æthel, not œthel? (Yes, OED mentions a 12th century usage of œthel, but æthel seems better.) --Macrakis (talk) 16:40, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, æðel with a short vowel is æðele 'noble', modern athel and ǣðel with a long vowel is ēðel 'inheritance', modern ethel, and evidently œ belongs to the latter. -- Evertype·✆ 21:41, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Rongorongo

Pozdniakov (2007) claims to have reduced the rongorongo inventory down to a basic set of 52 glyphs that cover 99.7% of the corpus (excepting the Staff, which requires a few more), plus two dozen which are too rare for useful analysis. AFAIK no one has reviewed his claims, but I thought you might find them useful for the draft Unicode proposal, in case you haven't seen it yet. He's also developed a font, at least for those 52.

• Rapanui Writing and the Rapanui Language: Preliminary Results of a Statistical Analysis

— kwami (talk) 20:32, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

ru:Википедия:Проект:Внесение символов алфавитов народов России в Юникод

Hy, Michael! ru:Википедия:Проект:Внесение символов алфавитов народов России в Юникод was updated, some items were added, notably Georgian-Abkhazian letters and Kurdish-Armenian. You also promised us to compile the proporsal for Janalif letters. ))) Regards, --Üñţïf̣ļëŗ (see also:ә? Ә!) 19:15, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Which ones? Please do remember that I am pretty busy, though I don't want to forget anything... -- Evertype·✆ 10:02, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Albanian script

Hi. I think the scholarly accepted name for this script is "Albanian". Whether Albanian was Udi or not is a different question. I think it is generally accepted that Udi language was the language of Albania, but most scholars still refer to this language as Albanian. I think we should stick to the generally accepted name of this language (i.e. Albanian language), and the article about the language should explain what language it actually was. What do you think? Grandmaster (talk) 09:16, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. The terminology "Albanian" is confusing (Why not "Alvanian"?) in the first place (because of European Albanian), but in the second, the script and the language has been deciphered now and we know it to be Old Udi. When the script is encoded in Unicode, it will be called "Old Udi" too. -- Evertype·✆ 10:01, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it is a little confusing, the country is called Caucasian Albania, and the language Old Udi. I think we need to somehow explain that Albanian language and Old Udi are the same thing. And Alvania is not a correct spelling, Albania is what Romans called this country, and this name is accepted by modern scholars as well. I just want to make it less confusing for the reader. Grandmaster (talk) 11:41, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Old Udi is what linguists call this language now. Albanian is a language in Europe. I agree that confusion should be lessened, but the term "Albanian" for this language and script should no longer be encouraged. Linguistics has moved on. -- Evertype·✆ 12:11, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

With my thanks

For your kind assistance

I appreciate your help in response to my question about writing. As promised, here is a shiny gold coin. Cheers! – Scartol • Tok 13:51, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Gosh, that's worth €29! :-) -- Evertype·✆ 22:54, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

U+02BB

U+02BB (MODIFIER LETTER TURNED COMMA) existed from the start, but the standard did not specify the ʻokina at this codepoint until 5.0. —Werson (talk) 09:29, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't mean that the standard didn't include the ʻokina until 5.0. The character in question was always intended for that use. It simply wasn't documented. -- Evertype·✆ 14:30, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Orthography of Pennsans

What do you think about this change? I suppose that Pennsans (or Pednsans) is the correct SWF and KS spelling.--Nil Blau (talk) 10:24, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

It is Pensans in the SWF and Penzans in KS. -- Evertype·✆ 13:08, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks.--Nil Blau (talk) 13:29, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Move (Míkmaq)

I left a note for discussion. If that fails (which, considering how Codex has behaved in the past, seems imminent), I'm going to start a page move request, which I think will likely succeed, considering that only Codex has ever expressed dissatisfaction with the move.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:55, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Where's the note? -- Evertype·✆ 18:25, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

At Talk:Mi'kmaq. —kwami (talk) 19:05, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

ru:Википедия:Проект:Внесение символов алфавитов народов России в Юникод

Hi, Michael! Could you review our project? Georgian Ossetian letter AEN is obtained in more accurate view, as well as some additional Khutsuri letters. Also, Separated Arabic text was found.

Also, we still have no idea how to write the proposal for the characters we found, end we surely need somebody's help! Another question is new Cyrillic letters appeared for the Minor Siberean and Far East peoples. Some of them could be represented as combined symbols, but I'm sure that it is not good for living languages, spoken among several thousand numbered peoplse, such as Khanty. Some letters are unique and could not be represented even as combined. Thank you for your attention --Üñţïf̣ļëŗ (see also:ә? Ә!) 18:53, 8 October 2008 (UTC) / ru:User:Untifler

Please remind me on 30 October. I am busy until then. Please forgive my busyness. -- Evertype·✆ 21:03, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Michael! I've forgotten to remind roughly on 30 October :) However, thanks to Karl Pentzlin ([1]), we've composed our first proporsal to encode letters of Janalif. At the moment, we are preparing another one. Also, could you recommend us someone, who have an experience of writing proposal for the Arabic alphabet extensions? --Üñţïf̣ļëŗ (see also:ә? Ә!) 20:34, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

OR Noticeboard

I have posted a topic at Wikipedia:No original research/noticeboard#Typographic terminology. I believe we desperately need additional input, and I believe some basic wikipedia policies are entangled in our dispute. Our previous efforts to solicit additional input seem to have failed. Feel free to respond or describe your side. Thanks.-Andrew c ^[talk] 14:24, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I answered at some length. -- Evertype·✆ 19:31, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:Scripts in Europe (1901).jpg

It is a very pretty map, but it's got some problems. It implies that Donegal Irish was written only in antiqua, not in cló gaelach, and it implies that German was never written in antiqua, even though the map itself writes German in antiqua. It also doesn't indicate which language is written in which script - so it's got Fraktur marked in isolated locations throughout Austria-Hungary and Russia, without directly admitting that it's only German that was written in Fraktur, and not Hungarian, Romanian, and Russian. No mention is made at all of Yiddish in the Hebrew alphabet. And I never knew that Estonian and Latvian were written in Fraktur at the time; did you? —Angr 11:18, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, those dots are big, and the scale is small, so I don't know how much I'd read into the Donegal material. Of course for "written" you mean "printed". Hebrew is an omission, and a serious one. I have an Estonian book in Fraktur somewhere; Latvian used struck-through Fraktur letters which are now written with comma below. -- Evertype·✆ 14:54, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I assume Donegal was just an oversight. However, since the issue is printed material, not the spoken language, there's no reason the dots should be restricted to the west coast at all. I imagine most material printed in Irish in 1900 was actually published in Dublin and Belfast, not in Dunquin, Kilronan, Cois Fhairrge, and Tourmakeady. That's cool about Estonian and Latvian; the only language I've seen printed in Fraktur besides German is Sorbian. —Angr 15:08, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

At least they recognized the distinction. Thanks for finding it. By the way I've been bold and changed the template. I don't know if that will be controversial or accepted at this stage. -- Evertype·✆ 15:54, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

You think there was a printing press in Tourmakeady? -- Evertype·✆ 00:30, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Maybe in someone's cowshed, who knows? Anyway, do you know where I could get a copy of Séadna in the original orthography? I'd like to upload it to Wikisource. What's there now is a (still unproofread) version based on an edition in modern orthography. —Angr 10:24, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Never mind, I found a scan of it at archive.org and uploaded it to Image:Seadna.djvu. —Angr 18:22, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Ah. I was trying to find you a hardcopy. -- Evertype·✆ 18:31, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Avestan alphabet

Hi, Avestan alphabet#Technical standards has an "this is outdated" tag. Could you please take a look at it when you have a moment? Thanks. -- Fullstop (talk) 00:07, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:RM

Hello, Evertype. You recently requested that Category:Monospace typefaces be moved to Category:Monospaced typefaces; unfortunately, categories cannot be moved like normal pages can. You'll need to go over to WP:CFD and request the category be moved. Since we at WP:RM can't move the category, I'm going to delist it. Regards, Parsecboy (talk) 16:58, 3 December 2008 (UTC) "I've done that, thanks. -- Evertype·✆ 17:10, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names/Workshop. On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Daniel (talk) 03:35, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Insular

Well it was all spam, wasn't it? Adam Bishop (talk) 01:39, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

A link to insular fonts? -- Evertype·✆ 12:41, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah. Adam Bishop (talk) 08:46, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Seemed topical. -- Evertype·✆ 13:52, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Spam can be topical, no? Adam Bishop (talk) 13:55, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Because of the fact that "Evertype" is the name of a website who sells fonts for a profit, and you have been inserting these commercial links onto this non-commercial encyclopedia, that constitutes spam, and it will be reported. —Ƿōdenhelm (talk) 11:33, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

The link in question was not a link to my site. I take it that your incivility here has to do with my not agreeing that wynn and yogh should be used on the Anglo-Saxon Wikipedia. -- Evertype·✆ 11:44, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Yogh again

Your words of wisdom are much appreciated, as ever. You should see the fuss that one user can cause over at the Anglo-Saxon wikipedia though, particularly the Style Vote they have been forced into as a result of that lone wolf! —Howard Alexander (talk) 15:13, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

That one guy has been going all over the wiki forcing everything into his funky p/3 w/g style - there are a few who don't edit there anymore because they don't want him to go all over it. What would happen to that kinda guy on the English wiki? Would he get in trouble? --Kayla82790 (talk) 03:04, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Evertype. You were brilliant. Howard Alexander (talk) 22:10, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. As a result of this case, the community is asked to open a new discussion for the purpose of obtaining agreement on a mechanism for assessing the consensus or majority view on the appropriate names for Ireland and related articles. If the discussion does not result in a reasonable degree of agreement on a procedure within 14 days, then the Arbitration Committee shall designate a panel of three uninvolved administrators to develop and supervise an appropriate procedure. Until such procedures are implemented Ireland and related articles shall remain at their current locations. Once the procedures are implemented, no further page moves discussions related to these articles shall be initiated for a period of 2 years. For the Arbitration Committee, -- Tiptoety ^talk 04:01, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Evertype. Thank you for this, but would you please move the comment part of your post to the comment section? That will make it easier for other contributors to find the place where they want to add their sig. --Una Smith (talk) 20:37, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Has someone complained? I'm sure the poll will attract comments even if I move mine... -- Evertype·✆ 07:49, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

All okay. There have been no rebuttals to the "votes", so there is no problem with the votes including reasoning. --Una Smith (talk) 03:58, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

The case was closed on 2009-01-04. Attempts to achieve consensus regarding Remedy 1 began shortly thereafter. It is now 2009-01-18, and no consensus has been achieved. Will the ArbCom now proceed with Remedy 2, please? -- Evertype·✆ 10:21, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

CGJ

How can i actually type the Combining grapheme joiner? I tried to type הַֽבְרָכָה in the Wikisource version of Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar (see s:Page:Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar (1910 Kautzsch-Cowley edition).djvu/89; search for "to the right of the"). The Metheg (vertical line) is supposed to appear to the right of the Pathah (horizontal line). It works with the Ezra SIL font, when i try to type in R Ishida's character picker, but when i save it, MediaWiki changes the order and it appears on the left side. In Ezra SIL documentation the suggestion is to type consonant + meteg + CGJ + vowel. But how do i actually type it? I tried typing Alt+034F in Windows XP, but it didn't help. Maybe Windows XP doesn't support it?.. Any help will be appreciated. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 16:06, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

With what OS? Anyway the code point is U+034F. Any character picker should enable you to insert it. -- Evertype·✆ 16:10, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I tried typing Alt+034F in Windows XP and it didn't do anything. I couldn't find it in XP's CharMap with any font - i tried Arial Unicode MS, Code 2000, Evertype Mono, LastResort. Maybe XP is too old to support it? I haven't tried Vista or GNU/Linux yet... --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 16:34, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't know anything about Unicode Hex input with XP. You may have entered the character but your application or font doesn't support whatever it is you are trying to do. Why not ask the Unicode discussion list? -- Evertype·✆ 19:52, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Apparently, Windows XP's CharMap is really not aware of CGJ, but in Vista it is. I expanded Combining grapheme joiner accordingly and created {{CGJ}}, but i'm an amateur and you're the expert, so it would be nice if you could take a look at them and check whether i was right. Thanks in advance. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 18:02, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

You want me to look at what? 18:10, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

At Combining grapheme joiner and {{CGJ}}. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 18:20, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

My browser and font detects no difference, but that doesn't mean you didn't implement it correctly. -- Evertype·✆ 09:32, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, thanks! --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 12:49, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Anglo-Saxon Wiki

Hey Evertype, I'm James from the AS wiki. Since you're on the language committee, would you know of the feasability of the possible solution of allowing the use of wynn/carolinian G as a user preference? I think the easiest thing is to sort using normal g/w since those are regular ASCII characters, and allow the viewing to be different based on preference. --JamesR1701E (talk) 01:31, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi James. It's possible to do conversions, but it means that all the underlying data would have to conform. And you've seen Wódenhelm's proposal that ƿoruld would have a wynn but World of Warcraft would not. There's simply no way of making that distinction at a character level (of marking w's that would NOT change to wynns by user preference). Similarly, to display insular g (ᵹ, which is not widely supported in fonts) you would have to ensure that all examples of palatal g were marked up, in every article, by every editor, as g-dot ġ. And then you'd want all palatal c's to be marked even though those don't change to another character. If it were up to me, I would implement a policy as user-friendly as possible: I would stick to Latin 1 áðgéíóúwý which would mean only ǽ of the basic language set would need special font support, and I would use ċġƿ sparingly and ȝ not at all. It is as feasibie to allow display of ƿ/ᵹ as a user preference as it is to alternate between Cyrillic and Latin. The problem is that it is all-or-nothing, unless you mark up the Latin very extensively indeed—in this case forcing all editors to write ġ instead of g everywhere. Those being the ramifications... what do you think? -- Evertype·✆ 08:03, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I personally still write in accents when doing my own dictionaries and my website, as it's the quickest to enter without altering my keyboard, but there was a macron/accent poll a while back that was in favor of the macrons, so that's why I go with the macrons. I would be in support of making a simple policy that the character set will be the basic alphabet plus þðæ and the macron characters. Higher characters can give users trouble, and asking everyone to 'upgrade their computers or get out' is not the friendliest of options. At this point in the game, I'm a few steps away from going to meta and requesting the ang. wikis be closed myself due to recent actions by a relative few. I'm tired of arguing the point regarding user-friendliness vs. authenticity. It looks like we're on the same side of this argument, but when one person refuses to cede the point, even in a vote, what can we do? --JamesR1701E (talk) 07:24, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I think we should have a discussion about the recommended character set in any case. I'd be happy to re-open the macron question (Latin 1 is still friendlier, and macron characters are just as "high" as wynn and yogh actually). With regard to the "relative few" I guess the thing to do is get policy agreed and stick to it and ban people who don't. -- Evertype·✆ 10:04, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Flagged Revs

Hi, I noticed you voted oppose in the flag revs straw pole and would like to ask if you would mind adding User:Promethean/No to your user or talk page to make your position clear to people who visit your page :) - Thanks to Neurolysis for the template   «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l»  (talk) 06:58, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd rather not add such a bumper sticker to my page. Thanks though. -- Evertype·✆ 07:47, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Bot creation

How easy would it be to create a bot to change all instances of ƿ to w and all instances of ȝ to g for the Anglo-Saxon wiki? In the event of a reversion, that would be quicker than manually handling it. I've placed a bot request also as a precaution. --JamesR1701E (talk) 07:35, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't know how to create a bot. -- Evertype·✆ 09:57, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

If you're only doing a handful of articles at a time, AWB is adequate. There might be cases where you don't want to convert, as when discussing the letters themselves. kwami (talk) 19:22, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Stokoe notation

Hi Michael, Do you know if there are any plans to add Stokoe notation to Unicode? There are several variants in the linguistic literature, not just with Stokoe's stuff on ASL but also on BSL and in Kendon's volume Sign Languages of Aboriginal Australia. kwami (talk) 19:22, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

It's on the "eventually" list. -- Evertype·✆ 12:18, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

G'day ever

I noticed your post to FT2's talk page, and thought I should drop you a note letting you know that he stepped down from arbcom a couple of days ago, after a bit of a tough time of it. I'm not sure he'll be best placed to answer your enquiry, but will no doubt point you in a good direction - thought you'd like to know.... cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 10:27, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Ireland naming question

You are receiving this message because you have previously posted at a Ireland naming related discussion. Per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names#Back-up procedure, a procedure has been developed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration, and the project is now taking statements. Before creating or replying to a statement please consider the statement process, the problems and current statements. GnevinAWB (talk) 17:58, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

COI Edits to Michael Everson

If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Michael Everson, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

1. editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
2. participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors;
3. linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam); and,
4. avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for businesses. For more details about what, exactly, constitutes a conflict of interest, please see our conflict of interest guidelines.

You are not allowed to make constructive edits to an article that is about you. Please refrain from further non-trivial edits. If you would like material added to the article, please request that on the talk page. Gigs (talk) 22:02, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I know what conflict of interest is. I reverted a summary deletion on your part of a lot of text which I did not write and which had been vetted by many people over the past few years. The only material I added to the article was a reference to a page on my web site supplying information that you evidently requested. Since other pages on that same site are used as sources for text in the article, this hardly seems a drastic or inappropriate addition. And this is the Wikipedia. I am "allowed" to edit any article I want. Further discussion should happen on the Talk page. -- Evertype·✆ 22:42, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

There is no point in further discussion since you have had the article protected. This is a pretty clear cut case of "article ownership" and a clear violation of the COI policies. I have referred the matter to the BLP noticeboard. Gigs (talk) 22:54, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

It says "This page is currently protected from editing until disputes have been resolved." Resolution happens on the article's Talk page. That's normal Wikipedia practice. -- Evertype·✆ 08:11, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

A proposal.

I will voluntarily ban myself from your biography for 1 year, if you will do so for yourself as well. Obviously this would just be a gentleman's agreement, but it would be one way to settle this dispute. We can ask any administrator to make these bans official on the grounds of consensus. As I've stated repeatedly, my ideal outcome would be for your article to be able to be edited by the community like any other, without your constant reversion. Of course you could still request content changes on the talk page, like most others who are wiki-literate and have a biography do. Gigs (talk) 18:50, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe this would be the right way to settle the dispute, because in this case you just weren't in the right. -- Evertype·✆ 16:42, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Solving of contradictions in Sho sources

This source states: http://std.dkuug.dk/jtc1/sc2/wg2/docs/n2411.pdf

"No Bactrian abecedary has been found to date. Greek letters have numeric values based on their alphabetical orders. It is conceivable that SHO could be identified with the archaic Greek letter SAN, which has a value of 90; but no Bactrian text with that number has been yet discovered. SAN has not been separately encoded in the UCS, although its descendant, SAMPI, has been. (SAN looks rather different from SAMPI, and it is possible that it should be encoded as well for purposes of representing archaic Greek text, in the same way that ARCHAIC KOPPA and KOPPA have been disunified.) If SHO were identified with SAN, it should be ordered – alphabetically – after PI (80) and before KOPPA (90)."

This source had minor error of assigning 900 to San - corrected in citation - which San because of placing it between Pi and Qoppa, must have correct value 90.

This source states: http://www.tlg.uci.edu/~opoudjis/unicode/nonattic.html#sho

"The ordering of sho is not settled. Everson mentions that sho could be conflated with san, and assumes san is the same as sampi, in which case sho would go between pi and koppa. Sims-Williams orders it after omega, and other scholars after sigma. Everson accepts that it should go after omega. However, his numerical argument is flawed—namely that san as the numeral 900 follows omega as the numeral 800. Sampi is not the same as san, and his argument actually conflates sampi and sho, not san and sho." 174.36.235.146 (talk) 08:47, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Who are you, IP, and did you have a point to make? -- Evertype·✆ 17:48, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I am private researcher who found obvious contradictions in sources used in my research, and I only wanted to help you solve contradiction found by me in your research, showing you correct position of San/Sho between Pi and Qoppa, and resulting correct numeric value of San=90/Sho=90 between Pi=80 and Qoppa=90. Because numeric values are always determined by alphabetic positions, assigning of 900 to San=90/Sho=90 instead of 90 is contradictory, because these letters are well before Omega. Additionally, Old Italic She relates San to Sho:

• de:San_(Buchstabe)#Weiterentwicklungen
• de:Sho_(Buchstabe)#Herkunft und Verwendung

174.36.235.146 (talk) 09:57, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

alfatruin.msk.ru

I've started a discussion at Talk:Runic alphabet. I deleted it because I thought it failed WP:EL, would you please explain there why it doesn't? Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 11:04, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

User:ChrisO

I don't think he is going to help us. I was reading his comments on the Macedonia talk page and he said "I'm not interested in Ireland or China. It took several hours to do this work and I don't see any point in repeating it to address different naming disputes that aren't related to this one.", so I'm guessing he's remaining silent for a reason. It's a shame as he could bring some action to the whole issue, which I feel may well have run its course judging by the current activity levels.MITH 23:32, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, he said this morning he's "reading the backstory". -- Evertype·✆ 08:40, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

"...and I may be gone for some time". RashersTierney (talk) 08:45, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

So what else is new? -- Evertype·✆ 09:26, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

ChrisO has yet to do anything on the matter despite him saying he'd do so "later". Do you think we should leave him be or ask him again what the story is?MITH 15:41, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

In fairness to him, ChrisO is up to his 'oxters' in Macedonia/FYROM/fYROM at the moment and looks like that could be the case for some time. RashersTierney (talk) 16:08, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Proposed amendment to Ireland article names case

Hello, Evertype. For your information, an amendment has been proposed to the Ireland article names arbitration case. As you were a named party in that dispute, you may wish to voice your opinions on this request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment#Request to amend prior case: Ireland article names. If you have any questions, please contact myself, another clerk, or an arbitrator. Thank you. For the Committee, Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 14:48, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

GA Reassessment of Euro

I have done a GA Reassessment of the Euro as part of the GA Sweeps project. I have found the article to not meet a few of the GA Criteria. I feel that the article is very strong and needs some detail work to keep it consistent with the GA Criteria. I am notifying the primary editors like yourself about this review which can be found here. I have placed the article on hold for a week. If more time is needed please let me know. If you have any questions please contact my talk page. H1nkles (talk) 16:53, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

trying to find a solution to writing systems and dyslexia

I hope that this issue can be resolved quickly as i do have more imediate editing issues to contend with

about me

I am dyslexic, and I have had Auditory Processing Disorder(APD) diagnosed as the underlying cause of my dyslexic symptoms. Due to my APD I have word recall problems and poor sequencing skills, as well as poor langauge processing abilities both verbal and written. Which can be problems when working in a WIKI environment. Not trhough personal choice I have temporarily become editor of the WIKI dyslexia project, usually i just do the research and provide the information for other to edit and maintain the article, however the leading editors left the project for various reasons, and the article was way too long and repetitive, and the content did not match the supporting references in too many places. So for the last month I have been knee deep in research papers just rying to correct waht was on the existing page, before braeking it up into a main summary article with supporting specialist topic articles. Personally i usually find the WIKi enviroment too alien to my own communication disabilities that I have tended until now to avoid working on WIKi articles diresctly. Recent research, well 1999 but previously unknown to me, reveal a case of a boy who is bilingual speaking both Japanese and English but who dyslexic only in English. The reason for this seeming disparity is that ihe is able to process the logographic langauge system of Japanese but not the phoentic structures of the English Latin Alphabetic wrirng system. The cause of this would be the lack of neurologicla phonlogicla processing abilities, (and probably in my opinion auditory processing disorder) writing systems are the visual notation of speech, so they have both visual and auditory information processing components skills required to understand the meaning of the written code. And the orthography of each langaue will require a different mictute of these neurlogical abilities. At the same time teachers will need to understand the skills required to learn to read these writing systems and the different orthographies with in these writing systems. And which nuerologicla skills will require development for non dyslexic readers and how to recognise the nuerologicla problems that dyslexics may have witha specific langauge orthography both with a writing system and between different writing system, espercially if there are areas of overlap.

I noticed that you are a writng systems expert, so may be you would be able to provide advice regarding why dyslexics have different types of problems when using the different writing systems, as this will become an incrasingly import issue as dyslexia become a global issue, with globla researchers finding different nuerologicla issues causing dysleaxi in the different writing systems, and how within a writing system some orthographies are easier to process for both dyslexics and non dyslexics alike.

dolfrog (talk) 23:44, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Well I guess this should be discussed on the mediation page you started rather than on my Talk Page and BabelStone's. -- Evertype·✆ 08:22, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Done? Where??

After your "alas and alack" post yesterday, I proposed that we just vote on the matter and get it done with. There is a proposed "ballot paper" in my sandbox. I am amending it with suggestions from as we go. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 18:16, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

How would you like comment? On its discussion page? -- Evertype·✆ 18:29, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, I was bold on your page and made what I hope are neutral edits. -- Evertype·✆ 18:35, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but I reverted your edits ... comprehensive is fine, but I thought it made it too hard to read the options clearly. I don't mind anyone editing the sandbox but I think we should suggest/agree on the Project page first - otherwise it will be difficult to keep track of changes/suggestions. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 20:22, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Could you make it a table, instead of lines of text? Then you could have the comprehensive options all there. -- Evertype·✆ 20:31, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I've added a shorthand notation for what will happen to each page Ireland/Republic of Ireland/Ireland (disambiguation) beneath each option. Is it better? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 22:23, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

It looks a lot better, yes. I might say at the top: This is a vote on whether to move the current Ireland and Republic of Ireland articles to a new location. In one of the options the location of the Ireland (disambiguation) page is affected. What do you think? -- Evertype·✆ 09:03, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Done. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 17:27, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

your commnet s would be welcome

there is another debate on the notation talk page, regarding the evolution of notation and more specifically the step of creating a visual notion of speech, which today we call writing which has evolved into various writing systems.

the link is Category talk:Notation and the topic is "Trying to find a solution"

dolfrog (talk) 20:46, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Irish Wikipedia

As you are a riarthóir on Vicipéid, could you please make a return to the Irish Wikipedia as we need riarthóirí for the summer. FF3000 (talk) 14:02, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's just that we could be without any admins for the summer as our two main ones, Alison and Guliolopez won't be there. Seeing as you are an admin there could you look over every now and again to make sure that it won't become a target for vandals. Thanks. FF3000 (talk) 15:43, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Fine thanks. FF3000 (talk) 16:28, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Poll on Ireland (xxx)

A poll is up at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Ireland_Collaboration/Poll on Ireland (xxx). This is a vote on what option or options could be added in the poll regarding the naming of the Ireland and Republic of Ireland and possibly the Ireland (disambiguation) pages. The order that the choices appear in the list has been generated randomly. Sanctions for canvassing, forum shopping, ballot stuffing, sock puppetry, meat puppetry will consist of a one-month ban, which will preclude the sanctioned from participating in the main poll which will take place after this one. Voting will end at 21:00 (UTC) of the evening of 1 July 2009 (that is 22:00 IST and BST). -- Evertype·✆ 18:15, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Criteria

What criteria did you use for the editors you chose or were they cheerypicked to notify of the poll? BigDunc^Talk 20:14, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Good question. First please see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ireland_Collaboration#Proposed_locations_for_advertising_of_poll which tells you who I notified. I notified a number of non-superfluous related artiicles, in which editors of both "sides" participate. I notified the Ireland, Northern Ireland, and UK noticeboards. And I notified, as a formality, those editors who were listed in the ArbCom case, without regard to who they were. (I even informed myself.) If there is another, subsequent, list of relevent people please point me to it. Thanks, BigDunc. I trust that this will help us to get to a resolution. -- Evertype·✆ 20:23, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

What about the editors who took part in the collaboration, IMO every editor who took part should be notified, we can't assume that they will see it on the page and it is to say the least expansive. BigDunc^Talk 20:28, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I regret that I am not prepared to trawl through months and months of archived material looking for editor's addresses so that I can then spend time sending out notices. This has taken a fair bit of time already. This is not the big formal poll; it is only a means to delimit what will go on that poll in a reasonable way. So I notified various boards and articles which the Project had identified as being interested, and those (admittedly few) people who were on the list of the original Request for Arbitration. -- Evertype·✆ 20:36, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Oops we are both doing the same. BigDunc^Talk 21:01, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

You are doubling up some of the notices. BigDunc^Talk 21:03, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

No, you are. You provided me with a list. I don't know why you thought I would not do due diligence. -- Evertype·✆ 21:04, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

1. I didn't provide the list 2. I posted them first and 3. You said that I am not prepared to trawl... so natural assumption was you weren't going to post anymore. BigDunc^Talk 21:11, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

DId Domer supply the list? Your signature and his are just alike so I may confuse you. It's true I was not prepared to trawl, but I was prepared to use a list. We posted them at the same time. Anyway, well done, that list should have been informed, and I am happy they were. -- Evertype·✆ 21:33, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

No harm no foul. BigDunc^Talk 21:37, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

You going to vote? -- Evertype·✆ 21:50, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Style guide for foreign blazons

I just want to thank you for your invaluable contributions to the discussion at WT:WikiProject Heraldry and vexillology/Style guide for foreign blazons. Even when consensus seems impossible, it is the contributions of all of us that keeps the discussion moving forward, and as long as we all keep WP:COOL and stay on task, consensus is almost inevitable. Each of us has helped to keep this discussion more collegial than most and yield a high quality result. I have little doubt that whatever style guide we end up with will be a fair-minded, comprehensive guide that will serve our editors (and more importantly, our readers) well. At this point, we each agree on some points and disagree on other points with one another, but we all agree on our interest passion for the topic and our esteem of the history and traditions of heraldry, including the rules of blazonry. I would like to ask each of you to consider the particular relevance of systemic bias on this discussion, since we are crafting a style guide specifically for dealing with interlingual/international sources. In view of the historical and linguistic background of English and French heraldry, I think it may be the most appropriate solution to recommend Anglo-Norman blazons for French, British, Irish, Canadian, American, Australian, New Zealand and South African coat armory (other than French, most of these are likely provided in Anglo-Norman in published sources anyway), while recommending Modern English plaintext translations of other blazons. The point of emphasis is that these should be translations of verifiable blazons, not "sight blazons". If we all agree on that point, that is one more step toward consensus, but if you have any genuine reservations, I would love to hear them. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 11:45, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I was fairly disheartened by the rude dismissal I was given by Roux. In fact I wondered if I would bother with the project any more—his attitude toward me really did put me off. However, saying we "recommend" translation into plain English rather than A-N Blazon for Danish arms that is one thing. What I see is them trying to ban A-N translations for Danish arms, which will imply the need to go through the whole project and re-translate (for instance those nice Swedish A-N blazons) everything, and as far as I can see this fits Roux's POV and maybe Jarry's POV, but that's still POV and my POV differs. I don't like seeing "musts" in guidelines. -- Evertype·✆ 12:06, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I totally agree with you about the value of making a recommendation and avoiding musts, and I strongly suspect Jarry feels the same way. We're not writing policy, just a style guide, and that is a point worth discussing. Thank you for your patience. I know when all you have is text (without voice tone or body language to go on) it is always easy to read things in the coarsest possible sense. We all do it, and then two editors get into it when neither meant to be rude to the other at first. Just remember we all have a lot more in common than not on this discussion, and patience and staying on task will see us through. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 12:43, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I hoped that by my taking a day off cooler heads would prevail on all sides. Doesn't look like that happened. I take responsibility for my part in it though. -- Evertype·✆ 09:08, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I hope to resume talks at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Heraldry and vexillology/Style guide for foreign blazons by the end of this week. I will respect your decision whether or not you choose to participate, but I would like to take this opportunity to welcome you to join in the discussion. Thank you for your past and continued contributions. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 12:32, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Canvass accusation

I didnt make one, it was that Tfz not me. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:36, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Did you not agree? -- Evertype·✆ 13:54, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:Pall reversed demo.svg

File Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading File:Pall reversed demo.svg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. J Milburn (talk) 16:45, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

		Home-Made Barnstar
		In launching the Ireland (xxx) poll, you did good work in difficult situation. Despite the inevitable criticism that came your way, your bold actions most certainly helped move this process forward. Well done. Rockpocket 02:36, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Hey! My first Barnstar! You're very welcome, Rockpocket. I hope the project continues to conclusion that all will find (at least) satisfactory. -- Evertype·✆ 07:02, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Yip, well done! I've put a tally of the results here. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 08:01, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I just want to add my congratulations. The poll needed somebody to kick it off, and you were the right person in the right place at the right time. Nice one! Scolaire (talk) 09:27, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Pros and cons

Fair dues to you for drafting out the pros and cons on the draft poll page! I haven't read them yet, but I'll certainly have a look and give you a constructive response. Would you consider moving the discussion of the draft down to the bottom of the Collaboration talk page? Not everybody looks at recent history or scrolls up the page to see if there's anything new. Or maybe not right now, but after enough people have responded in the other current discussion. Scolaire (talk) 11:44, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Certainly. (I did it now.) -- Evertype·✆ 12:06, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Did you see what happened when I posted?! Scolaire (talk) 12:10, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Um, no... Yeah, that was weird. -- Evertype·✆ 12:23, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Don't jump too soon

I believe we are very close to taking that final step, but I do think we should take our time, and not be jumping in to the big poll too soon. Certainly it would be unrealistic to think about starting before Monday. A lot of people still have a lot of things to say and, however close people may appear to be on some issues right now, nothing is actually agreed yet. If I possibly can, I am going to log off now for 24 hours (that means that if you reply to this I won't see it until tomorrow evening). Once I start to spent the entire day in front of the monitor, I lose my sense of proportion. By seven tomorrow I expect a whole lot of other issues will have been raised, discussed and agreed or put on hold, and if you and I are missing from the discussion, I imagine we will both have a whole new perspective by then. At least give it a try, eh? Scolaire (talk) 18:03, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Hm, yes. I know I posted again an hour later. But that was because the phone rang when I was quickly typing that one last thing. I'm really gone now. Bye. Scolaire (talk) 19:02, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Admin

I've requested an admin come in and take action. Your reverts are against protocol and if you don't self revert I may report you for 3RR. While it will probably get me blocked too, I am not happy with your actions and seems oblivious to the thoughts of others.MITH

But I have been trying to communicate with you and address your concerns. Have you ever edited a complex document like this? A ballot isn't just a run-of-the-mill encyclopaedia article. Simply BLANKING the sentence you dislike doesn't get your point across. It's not about WP:BRD. It's about us working together in a non-disruptive way to get to something that can be sent out. Since I am spending a lot of time on this. having people just come in and delete things without discussion is a sure way to get the ballot screwed up. I'm sure that's not what any of us want. -- Evertype·✆ 13:41, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

But there's no discussion for the sentence being included either! I am trying to get this working too, your actions are not above mine, mine are just as justified and I have every right to raise a point and remove or include things as you are.MITH 13:45, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there WAS discussion of the sentence being included. You're building this up into a "war of principle" against me. That's not working for the Collaboration, is it? I've just had to revert your "management" in which you dumped completely undiscussed stuff into the Draft Poll. You put an argument AGAINST into the "In favour" article, something which you said was the wrong thing to do. This isn't about your RIGHTS. -- Evertype·✆ 13:55, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I love to see the instant reverts of all of edits. I've had enough of this one way editing. I'm going to report us both for breaking 3RR. I don't mind, at least I'll be happy that Wikipedia rules do actually apply to everyone.MITH 13:53, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I did not simply revert you. I modified the document according to discussion I had with you on the main Talk page. Please see that page. -- Evertype·✆ 13:55, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

You were editing according to the discussion where you? Strange then my comment from half an hour at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration has been ignored by ypurself.MITH 13:59, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Please be specific. What thing did I ignore? I am not trying to ignore you. -- Evertype·✆ 14:02, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm about to hit the submit button now for 3RR. Just thought I'd give you 5 mins to give you the chance you to self revert, just in case you now realise this has to be done properly.MITH 14:20, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Self-revert WHAT? The POV guff you put in about the Good Friday Agreement, without even discussing it or proposing text on the Talk page? All of the substantive edits to the Draft Poll have been proposed and discussed elsewhere before getting onto the draft poll. Except yours, which are contentious. When we DID discuss your concern about the 1949 Act being in the wrong place, it was possible to address your concern. I don't think I'm being the loose cannon here. By all means, file your 3RR if you think you have to assert yourself in that way, rather than by discussing and coming to consensus as I and others are doing, and as I tried to do with you. -- Evertype·✆ 14:24, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

You can check out the 3RR report here.MITH 14:33, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

It was churlish of you to revert your 3RR report without informing me. -- Evertype·✆ 07:21, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Well blocks are meant to be preventative not punishment, so once you stopped edit warring, you probably should have realised that the right to do was remove it.MITH 11:36, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

You made no case. Indeed Scoláire pointed this out to you. Nor have you responded to the arguments given. -- Evertype·✆ 11:40, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Not this again! I made the case, you replied with your ideas and no one else gave an opinion. Therefore case closed. They're not going to be included anyway. Masem's banner will be.MITH 11:43, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I refuted the case you made, and you never responded to the refutation except by gainsaying. Nor did you respond to Scoláire's point that your argument about 3RR was incorrect. Man oh man, I can't wait for this poll to be over so we can spend our time usefully on the Wikipedia. -- Evertype·✆ 11:50, 4 July 2009 (UTC)