User talk:Lfdder/old

Blocked

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

- Since you've already had three in recent days, I've applied a longer block for violating the civility policy. We can't build an encyclopaedia together unless we work together. Here's why. Note that unless you give some thought to your behaviour, future ones are just going to be even longer. WilyD 11:27, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Go fuck yourself. — Lfdder (talk) 11:29, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and please turn autoblock off. — Lfdder (talk) 11:32, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

I'll take the first point under advisement, but I'm not terribly interested in helping you engage in block evasion. WilyD 12:05, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Really. @Mr. Stradivarius: can you help? — Lfdder (talk) 12:32, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, this feels a bit too much like admin shopping or canvassing to me, especially seeing as it's not something that we normally do. I'd post an unblock request just asking for autoblock to be removed and see what other admins say. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 13:46, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

sigh. There's a million ways to go about evading my block if I wanted to (which I don't). The autoblock is a horrendous privacy breach. Not only that, it means that about 500 people I share this IP with now can't edit Wikipedia. Good going. — Lfdder (talk) 14:08, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

---

Request reason:

To remove autoblock, as suggested above.

Decline reason:

Unblock declined, but I see no reason to assume you'll evade the block if the autoblock is removed (as far as I can tell, you didn't last time), so I've done so. Yunshui 雲‍水 14:46, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Thank you. — Lfdder (talk) 14:47, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

@Vanisaac: I've been blocked twice before for incivility, not four times. I didn't "throw around names and childish insults"; I said he talked like an idiot -- stop dramatising. WilyD declined a technical deletion 'cos it was improperly tagged, he thought. Doubtful, but fair enough -- what did WilyD do next? Did he point kwami to the right tag to use? No, he said kwami was disruptive and threatened with 'escalation' -- all for wanting to delete a bracketed redirect that had outlived its purpose. In short, he talked (and acted) like an idiot. The redirect was deleted shortly after (before I was blocked, in fact), after I'd g6-tagged it. — Lfdder (talk) 12:12, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Unblocked

Per the consensus at the administrators noticeboard, I have unblocked. 28bytes (talk) 16:30, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

• Welcome back, Lfdder. I hope you'll be here for a while. Drmies (talk) 03:01, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. — Lfdder (talk) 03:08, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Things

@Kwamikagami: Lahnda language possibly needs to be reverted again, Kathypearl reverted to their favourite version. — Lfdder (talk) 18:03, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Hadn't noticed. — kwami (talk) 18:13, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Denti-alveolar sibilant affricates

Hi. Why aren't these denti-alveolar in your opinion? They're "made of" a denti-alveolar stop and a post-dental sibilant fricative. What doesn't make them denti-alveolar then? The fact that it's the lower teeth that is used to pronounce it, not upper? The name is not as specific, it doesn't say "upperdenti-alveolar" or what have you, just "denti-alveolar". --Helloworlditsme (talk) 12:45, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

a) denti-alveolar means with the tip on the alveolar ridge and upper teeth, always, I thought, and b) what you're describing is laminal alveolar; if the tip's resting on the lower teeth, does it matter much? I may of course be wrong -- @Kwamikagami: what do you think? [1] — Lfdder (talk) 12:52, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Tip on the lower teeth makes the hissing noticeably stronger. So yes, I'd say it's pretty important. Besides, is it even humanly possible for the tip to touch alveolar ridge and the bottom of the upper (not to mention lower) teeth at the same time? That's why denti-alveolar /t d n l/ are laminal - they're pronounced with both the blade and the tip. Given the fact that all languages that are listed (or most of them) that are using this sound have denti-alveolar /t d/ and laminal post-dental /s z/, /t͡s d͡z/ is basically a combination of their /t d/ and /s z/. Now, when denti-alveolar /t d/ that are normally pronounced with the tip of the tongue behind upper front teeth are assimilated to say post-dental /s z/, so that their tip is no longer behind upper but behind lower front teeth, does that make them non-dentoalveolar? Because they sound exactly the same, there's no difference whatsoever... --Helloworlditsme (talk) 13:44, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

I can't speak to the specific language you're considering, but the place is usually taken to be that of the fricative. Wow, just noticed that our voiced dental fricative article is messed up. A voiced dental fricative is [ð], so a voiced dental affricate is [d͜ð]. I think we'd need to specify that it's a sibilant if we're gonna call it dental, but fronted alveolar or denti-alveolar might be better. An actual dental would mean no contact w the upper alveolar ridge. I haven't looked into this for a while, and unfortunately phonetic terminology seems to vary a lot as people think they've come up with a better description than anyone else, so I'd consider broad overviews like SOTWL. — kwami (talk) 20:25, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

We're talking about "dental" /t͡s d͡z/ in general. If it's usually the fricative that defines the place of active articulation, then I suppose that is the reason why Basque retracted /t͡s/ is called apical - even though the stop is laminal. May I ask why you think it's messed up? I moved sibilants to the alveolar pages, since teeth do not actively participate in the articulation. They're just... important to mention, as placing the tongue behind lower front teeth is essential for the proper "hissing" pronunciation. To tell you the truth, RP English /s z/ (laminal non-fronted alveolar) sound like a lisp in Slavic languages, because they're too slow (which I suppose is the main cause of massive problems that many Anglophones have with Slavic consonant clusters) and not distinct enough from our post-alveolars. Slavs seem to focus a lot on the quality of their /s z t͡s d͡z/, which are very uniformly-sounding.

Kwami, if you haven't noticed, "dental" sibilants were moved to voiceless alveolar sibilant and voiced alveolar sibilant - because, as I said, technically they're still alveolar. I don't remember which one, but some book about sounds in world's languages by Ladefodged from the 90s cited some research from the 70s about Polish /s z/. Maybe one of you will know which book it is, as my memory can be quite shite. They called those sounds "dentalized (laminal) alveolar", or similarly. Jassem (2003 I think; JIPA) calls Polish /s z t͡s d͡z/ "post-dental", which again confirms what you said about the fricative defining the place of active articulation of the affricate - as the stop is definitely laminal denti-alveolar (blade on the alveolar ridge, tip behind lower front teeth) - as long as we're not as strict in defining what "denti-alveolar" means. Honestly, I don't know how else one could call that. I know that I'm repeating myself here (look above Kwami's message), and I hope that Lfdder will answer my question.

Could you clarify a bit on "I think we'd need to specify that it's a sibilant if we're gonna call it dental"? I think we're being specific enough on all pages, separating sibilant fricatives and affricates from the non-sibilant ones wherever it's necessary. As I said, I moved "dental" /s z/ back to the alveolar pages, so maybe that's why you wrote it. --Helloworlditsme (talk) 00:43, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, don't have much time to spend on this right now. (1) The page is messed up because it contains a subheading and nothing else. It looks like half the article is missing. (2) We can't call /ts/ a "dental affricate", because people will misunderstand us as meaning /tθ/. — kwami (talk) 08:48, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

"I moved sibilants to the alveolar pages, since teeth do not actively participate in the articulation. They're just... important to mention, as placing the tongue behind lower front teeth is essential for the proper "hissing" pronunciation." This is what I meant above. Essentially, what's important is the shape the tongue makes. Either way, I wasn't questioning the description, but labelling it denti-alveolar, which may confuse readers who know it to mean with the tip on the upper teeth. — Lfdder (talk) 09:08, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, it was late and I didn't connect the dots in the Kwami's message properly. So basically, if we ignore the stop we're left with "alveolar fronted" name (since that's how I called alveolar fronted sibilants). Ok, I'm moving them then. That's clear enough, thanks. --Helloworlditsme (talk) 13:46, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Greek diphthongs

Re this, we probably want to update Ancient Greek phonology, then. — kwami (talk) 22:10, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't know what period that article is meant to represent, exactly. Some descriptions seem to be classical, others post-classical. ⟨υι⟩ was monophthongised before the onset of Koine. In fact, I remember reading that it happened 'prehistorically'. (Also, ⟨υ⟩ is only [y] in Attic, other dialects had [u].) — Lfdder (talk) 22:29, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Template edit question

I reverted this edit, because it caused a template loop, and did not see any adverse results. Just to make sure I'm not missing anything, I wanted to ask you, what is the reason you made this edit in the first place? Debresser (talk) 02:34, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Just saw the same thing here and here. Debresser (talk) 02:46, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

It'll only cause a loop when there's no param, so there's not really any point in reverting these edits. I made the changes in preparation for replacing {{ISO 639 name}} with a Lua module I was writing at the time. It never was deployed. — Lfdder (talk) 02:54, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

The problems arose indeed only when there were no parameters. But even that can be avoided, which I did. I am working on emptying Category:Template loop warnings. I now understand what you did. Thanks for your reply. Debresser (talk) 03:30, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Romance-speaking Europe

Uncontroversial? Really? Talk pages exist for a reason pal. Rob (talk | contribs) 14:45, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not 'pals' with condescending arseholes. — Lfdder (talk) 14:50, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I've reverted his edit. It seems that this user is clearly a disruptive editor. Afro-Eurasian (talk) 17:04, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Really. — Lfdder (talk) 17:13, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I've responded here. Afro-Eurasian (talk) 17:25, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Northern Cyprus: introductory paragraph

You may offer better sentence I think, perhaps you may be a native speaker. I found a new composition of sentences. Look, please:

My view is that: If "no recognition" is followed by "no acception", then "though" will be meaningless. But,
The teams of Northern Cyprus and Rep. of Cyprus was matched and played in international organizations,
European and World Championships was organized in Northern Cyprus,
Some international organizations establised its headquarter in Northern Cyprus,
The accreditation institutions of Northern Cyprus was accredited to European accreditation institutions,
Northern Cyprus became members of some international political unions of countries,
The educational, sportive, and other institutions of Northern Cyprus became members of international educational, sportive, and other unions, etc.
I proved all these. If all were not realized, then "though" will be meaningless, I think. The usage of connectives like "though" is just to provide consistency in sentences of paragraphs.
It would be nice if you can provide a better composition of the infos:
"recognition only by Turkey and considered by the United Nations to be occupied territory of the Republic of Cyprus" and "Northern Cyprus has an increasing international acception".
What about (a brain-storming):
Northern Cyprus is recognised only by Turkey and considered by the United Nations to be occupied territory of the Republic of Cyprus, but it has an increasing international acception.
??? Alexyflemming (talk) 07:19, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

'Increasing intl acceptance' is an interpretation (I'd say an ambiguous one). Unless this is a resounding opinion in academia, I don't think it's lead material. 'Though' suggests a relationship btn recognition and 'acceptance' that's absent from the source. If you think that bit absolutely ought to be added, the best place would be under the 'International status and foreign relations' heading. It should say something like, 'According to one analyst, Northern Cyprus's opening of a trade office in Israel is indication of growing international acceptance' -- i.e. it should paraphrase the source, but not extrapolate from it. Frankly, I think it's WP:UNDUEWEIGHT, but others may think otherwise. Best to take the discussion back to the article's talk page. Pinging User:Chipmunkdavis, User:Dr.K. and User:KalJohnson since they're involved in the discussion there. — Lfdder (talk) 13:23, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I fully agree, as I said before just above. 'Increasing international acceptance' is weasel, undue weight, synthesis and original research unsupported by the vast majority of sources which consider Northern Cyprus a part of Cyprus and illegally occupied at that. We cannot aggregate minor sport, cultural and political organisations which gave TRNC membership and call it "international acceptance". That's the very definition of synthesis. BTW that was one of the standard goals of a series of Justice Forever socks through the years who kept insisting about similar things on the TRNC talkpage. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 14:25, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Lfdder that international acceptance is an interpretation, but furthermore, acceptance of existence should not be contrasted with recognition. If some groups are thinking, well, Northern Cyprus exists, and there's people there, so let's let them play sports, that does not mean that recognition of Northern Cypriot statehood follows. Similarly, if international organisations refused to interact with Northern Cyprus, that would not mean it didn't exist. CMD (talk) 14:32, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I fully agree. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 14:40, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Not synthesis: Here are the reliable sources

"Northern Cyprus has an increasing international acception" is not synthesis. There are reliable sources that support this statement:
1. http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Turkish-Cypriots-to-open-trade-office-in-Israel Jerusalem Post 03.10.2008
"Northern Cyprus is opening a trade office in Israel, according to a prominent Israeli attorney, an indication of growing international acceptance of the isolated breakaway state."
2. http://www.turkishny.com/other-news/4-other-news/32263-ba-kktcnin-uluslararas-kabul-gormesinde-talatn-pay-buyuk/printing
Bagis: "The share of Talat in international acceptance of TRNC is high."

3. http://www.haberturk.com/dunya/haber/510247-kibrista-yeni-donem
Talat (former prsident of TRNC) "....the international acception that we gained cannot be underestimated..."
Suffice?

justice forever sock claim

Δρ.Κ., you already accused me of a sockpuppettry of justice forever:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Justice_Forever/Archive#28_January_2014

Definitely, I am not. I supplied numerous disproofs to your claims. And, Wikipedia authorities closed the case:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Justice_Forever&diff=593263401&oldid=592803341

I am neutral and objective in this Cyprus/Northern Cyprus issue. Do not put those who has (or try) the same objectivity and neutrality in this issue into the same basket. By counter thinking, Lfdder, Chipmunkdavis, you (Dr.K.) seem to defend the similar arguments. Though I did not check your IPs, I do not think you are all the same people.

By the way, it would be more fair if you want to continue to direct your sock accusation in my Talk page. Sorry, Lfdder, if I used your Talk page this much.Alexyflemming (talk) 18:35, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

To make such a claim in a lead would need much more than a JPost article and a couple of statements from an involved Politician. Even if sources did generally support some sort of acceptance, the implications of placing it as a contrast to recognition would be highly misleading. If membership of any group is very important and has an impact on Northern Cyprus, it will be in the article. From there readers can make their own deductions. CMD (talk) 18:57, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

By counter thinking, Lfdder, Chipmunkdavis, you (Dr.K.) seem to defend the similar arguments. Though I did not check your IPs, I do not think you are all the same people. Has it occurred to you that we use similar arguments because we know how to apply the policies of Wikipedia? Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 22:38, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

If you will feel relaxed, I can obtain MSN messenger or Skype account, and you can talk to me directly there and take infinitely many pictures by snapshots. I already said the username is not arbitrary: ( https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Justice_Forever&diff=592773832&oldid=592772379 ). You can talk to me via alexyflemming .at. gmail ..com. You can talk to me in Google Talks or you can specify another platform; I can subscribe to your specified platform.

Anyway, Lfdder's Talk Page is not the proper place to exploit freely for "Northern Cyprus" and "sockpuppettry" issues. That's why, I already took the above relevant discussion to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Northern_Cyprus. If you want to continue to your sockpuppettry claim, you are free and here are the following proper places that are more fair to use:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Alexyflemming

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Justice_Forever

Also, for your last accusation (the knowledge of checking IPs), "checking IPs" is not smt. peculiar to Wikipedia. This is done via that way in almost all of the websites! Alexyflemming (talk) 07:05, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Though I did not check your IPs, I do not think you are all the same people. I was repeating your own words about me, Lfdder, and CMD. These are not my accusations. These are the words you used to describe us three. Have you forgotten your own words? Please read them again just above on top of your own signature. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 07:35, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

FYI

Hi Lfdder. I gather that I should have left you an explanation. Sorry about that, but I didn't think of it when I was reverting the sock/troll/vandal yesterday. DNFTT also applies. In any case see this. One of the characteristics of the troll is to imitate usernames: as in here, cf. this. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 17:24, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Good lord. I don't think I've ever seen anything like it. — Lfdder (talk) 19:00, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Mediterranean Oil Dispute

I have serious objections to your edit in "Mediterranean Oil Dispute". See: Talk:Mediterranean_Oil_Dispute Alexyflemming (talk) 20:16, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

• I found: Rep. of Cyprus claims north waters as well for its EEZ. "Non-separating to the blocks of part of EEZ" does not show "Non-claiming the that (north) EEZ". Though I think this info to be so, till that time I could not find any source; Naturally, by just looking at the separated 13-blocks in the south, and no drawing on the north, I thought RoC has no claim on north waters. In the article I cited (page3), this north claim is given as well. That's why, I changed my position based on the sourced article. It is in page 3. By the way, While I edited that article, I forget the page number to write. Hence, I will add the page no. since the article 60 pages long.. Alexyflemming (talk) 10:39, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

• You are expected to your eidt-reverting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cyprus_oil_dispute#Related_International_Court_Decisions_.28Cherry_Picking_Accusation.29
  

Your 1st objection (copyright violation) was already satisfied.Alexyflemming (talk) 09:32, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for understanding my revert

Having said that, don't worry too much about the redirect. It doesn't do any harm to keep it. Just my 0.02€ anyway. Take care. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 02:13, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I've taken the advice, thanks. — Lfdder (talk) 03:18, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Maltese language

Thank you for making that edit for me at Maltese language the other day. I thought admins were supposed to put an edit summary when editing a protected page though, so I'm curious as to why you didn't? 149.241.77.1 (talk) 08:51, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

International Phonetic Alphabet chart for English

I saw this too and was surprised but didn't remove it because it makes sense ... OK, perhaps not in hand or hay, but before high front vowels as in he or him I can see that /h/ may be realised as [ç]. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 04:50, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

I've put it back saying it's sometimes pronounced [ç] before high front vowels. — Lfdder (talk) 12:23, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Limassol

Your changes are wrong. City is not urban area and also you do not have permission to delete the data about the Limassol District with the source. You entered the new changes that have been treated as incorrect and quickly undone. If you do not agree with something - you first must to discuss first, before changes. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 21:08, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

What was wrong, exactly? I did not claim that they're synonyms. The district's pop has no place in the lede for the city -- that should be obvious. — Lfdder (talk) 21:22, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

@Subtropical-man: is this to your liking?

Limassol or Lemesos (Greek: Λεμεσός; Turkish: Limasol or [Leymosun] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup (help)) is a city on the southern coast of Cyprus and capital of the eponymous district. The municipality is the most populous in the country with 101,000 inhabitants (2011). The Limassol urban area has a population of 160,000 (2001).

— Lfdder (talk) 21:42, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

is good. I corrected it. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 21:54, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

MH 370

This is dishonest; the only person who "suggested" it is not a proper noun is YOU. I'll let you yourself do the talking—you have a clear disregard for industry and wikiproject standards. "My master, Annatar the Great, bids thee welcome!" 18:53, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

The subject of the article isn't every MH370 flight. It's not a 'proper noun', it shouldn't be capitalised and it shouldn't be in bold. — Lfdder (talk) 18:59, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

The Washington Post would beg to differ. "My master, Annatar the Great, bids thee welcome!" 19:32, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

The WP is referring to the incident flight. Our article's opening sentence is not. — Lfdder (talk) 19:35, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

The article's subject is Malaysia Airlines Flight 370, which went missing. The article would not otherwise exist. The opening sentence is not representative of the entire article, nor is is the title about the opening sentence exclusively. sabine antelope 00:51, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Merge discussion for Population exchange between Greek and Turkish Cypriots

An article that you have been involved in editing, Population exchange between Greek and Turkish Cypriots, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. T*U (talk) 11:46, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Edit war

I have no particular point of view either way as to whether the material should be in the article or not (which is why I didn't undo your removal myself), but you cannot expect that the removal of more than 14,000 bytes of text would be uncontroversial, or that other Users would just let it slide. YSSYguy (talk) 15:39, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

It's already been discussed on the talk page. — Lfdder (talk) 15:41, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Yeah I know, but there are obviously people that disagree with you, because the section has kept expanding since that discussion. There are several things about the article that I would change; for instance I don't think that the pilots should be named, at least not until such time as it's demonstrated that either or both of them has taken over the aircraft, and you might recall I tried a couple of times to get the info out of the article, but that didn't wash with other people. If it gets restored, just exercise some more patience, and when the fuss dies down, wield a scalpel - it's less likely that people will give a shit down the track. YSSYguy (talk) 15:57, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

All right then. I suppose it's probably best to just keep off the article for a couple weeks. — Lfdder (talk) 16:11, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

By all means hammer stuff that is actual shit, like that UFO-conspiracy-theory crap that someone tried to get in the article. Cheers YSSYguy (talk) 16:20, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Removal of information from MH370

Please don't remove what you perceive as rubbish without consensus as you did on the MH370 article. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 07:53, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't believe there is a law against it. — Lfdder (talk) 08:40, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

You were removing cited material without a reason. That too without consensus, because you claimed it was rubbish. This is a collective encyclopaedia where we run with consensus, not as per one persons whims and fancies. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 12:44, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

And so it was reinstated. What is the issue? Link to the discussion where people agree it should be trimmed above. — Lfdder (talk) 12:46, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

All I said was, do not remove large chunks of data, just because you don't think it was appropriate without consensus. That's it. How you interpret my message is up to you. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 12:52, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, I don't agree with that. Anyway, nobody voiced opposition in the 2 days btn posting about it on the Talk page and removing it -- so there was consensus. — Lfdder (talk) 13:02, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Absence of complaint or contradiction does not automatically mean agreement with your point. Not the same as gaining consensus. It is what is called no consensus reached. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 13:07, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't see how that's workable. If nobody's said they disagree there is consensus. — Lfdder (talk) 13:15, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Greek alphabet merger

Hi! I recently opened a suggestion for merging the English pronunciation of Greek letters page into Greek alphabet. I was hoping for some discussion before doing so (as you can see there was some discussion on the talk page before the proposal. Can you take a look at what I wrote there, and leave a comment? אפונה (talk) 04:59, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

refusing to allow others to discuss the article

The Malaysians just went and contradicted themselves we they said "We don't know when the ACARS was switched off". This is a critical point as Wikipedia as to decide whether to go with this new statement or with the old one. You apparently refuse to allow the point to be discussed. It is one thing to edit war over how the article reads, and other to edit war to deny editors the opportunity to discuss. You evidently think the matter is so settled there is nothing to discuss here? Then you should be able to explain very quickly why there is no issue at all here to be discussed, no?--Brian Dell (talk) 17:34, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

That's not the section I hatted. — Lfdder (talk) 17:35, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

OK, my mistake. My apologies. Someone else hatted it. That said, with respect to the thread you did hat, when you've got someone saying something and three editors reply to say don't bother going there, that should shut down that thread right there. Hatting it might just encourage the next guy to bring it up again because they don't see that the editing community has already clearly rejected that particular direction. In my opinion hatting should be reserved for when editors have gone well off the topic of the article and are basically just fighting with each other such that other readers could not possibly be interested (or someone comes on to make some generalized complaint about Wikipedia bias or what have you that cannot possibly be turned into a discussion about any real or potential specific edits to the article).--Brian Dell (talk) 17:53, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, people kept coming back to it, so I thought best to hat it. But maybe you're right -- I've not put much thought to it. — Lfdder (talk) 18:31, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

March 2014

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

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 04:19, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

The first effort was "supported" by a 1968 technical report? The current version has no source at all and so could fairly be deleted on that basis alone. Repeated addition of disputed content could be regarded as disruptive editing or even vandalism. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:18, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Please see WP:3RR. Obvious vandalism is an exception to 3RR's bright-line rule, but that's not the case here; good faith contributions are not vandalism, nor is merely adding unsourced material. By all rights both Lfdder and the IP should be blocked right now as both violated 3RR. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 08:24, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

My sympathies obviously lie with Lfdder, as I also removed that passage. But I quite agree that a discussion on that Talk Page is required instead of endless tit-for-tat reverting. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:32, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

How many children were harmed in this edit war, I wonder? — Lfdder (talk) 13:10, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Maybe we shoud ask Sultan Al Katbi? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:17, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Could be he's also dreamt of the consequences of my not heeding Mendaliv's warning. — Lfdder (talk) 14:34, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Oh well, marooned on a desert island might not be too bad, by comparison? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:46, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Glottolog

Changed the param from "glottolog(name)" to "glotto(name)(2,3)". Sorry, didn't know anyone else was using it yet. I think I've caught your uses. — kwami (talk) 05:30, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

ta — Lfdder (talk) 08:05, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

A question and wondering

I have a question for you here.Alexyflemming (talk) 13:58, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Seemingly (BP)

Northeastern Brazil's famous (yes, very famous here) "falar cantado" ([unusually] singsongy speak) happens to be at least in some sociolects a pitch accent influenced by erosion of Amerindian lexicon and grammar, but not syntax and phonology. The author goes to the point of calling it "tonal Portuguese". Where should I put this information?

I think it's amazingly important because it's not usual for European languages be pitched/tonal, much less so a Romance one... even though as far as I can tell it has not been said to be contrasting (though spoken casual BP, nationwide, indeed has at least a single minimal pair where tone distinguishes stuff together with vowel length... they're expletive ideophones, and I cited them at the end of Portuguese examples of the linked article; I'd be surprised if the failure at finding [more] such instances in that sociolect isn't just caused by how overlooked a remote very substandard-sounding register – or any register variation at all; Gosh, I can't believe there isn't any source explicitly saying that we use [ɕ ʑ] not [ʃ ʒ] besides Canepari – might be in our country).

Here's the source: https://repositorio.ufsc.br/bitstream/handle/123456789/112204/104213.pdf?sequence=1 It's not about linguistics, but about the history of the region and its inhabitants, until page 47.

Sorry if you can't figure out a word of Portuguese or even Spanish. If you're relatively good at it, though, I highly recommend WordReference in the case you have doubts. Srtª PiriLimPomPom (talk) 08:06, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Maybe under Brazilian Portuguese#BP/EP differences in the informal spoken language? That article could do with a bit of a cleanup. Are they really [ɕ/ʑ]? My [ɕ] sounds exaggerated (to me) compared to the BP sound. I can't read Portuguese (or Spanish), unfortunately. — Lfdder (talk) 13:33, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm... falar cantado is not inherent to Brazil as a whole, and it's more about phonology than grammar and vocabulary. Working it under Portuguese phonology would make sense, but I don't know of anything to compare to other Portuguese accents as a whole, except this source that helps to clarify how much is Brazilian Portuguese singsongy: http://gel.org.br/estudoslinguisticos/volumes/38/EL_V38N1_04.pdf

I guess it depends from your region of the country. As far as I see, in southern Brazil they have a very marked conservative phonology, and the dominant one is English-like palato-alveolar [ʃ], and a dorsal "true" alveolo-palatal [ɕ], typical of East Asian pronunciations, sounds notably exaggerated. They also describe carioca coda /S/ as some bizarre "yshxj". Elsewhere but Rio, you can find [tʃ dʒ ~ tʃʲ dʒʲ] about as much, but the main fricatives are definitely lamino-alveolo-palatal [ʃʲ ʒʲ] (Canepari calls them postalveolo-palatals, and dorsals are pre-palatals).

In RJ (most particularly), ES, eastern Minas Gerais, and the North and Northeast regions, though, I'm very sure that the main pronunciation is, like in Catalan, the palatalized laminal prevalent elsewhere in Brazil (I have it in >90% of positions), for both affricates and fricatives, but the substandard registers of metropolitan capital Rio have plenty of dorsal. Indeed, the marked "peripheral" carioca accent has dorsal /S/ and laminal /ti di ʃ ʒ/, but going even more substandard than the average, you definitely can hear dorsal /ʃ/ and to a minor degree /ti/ and /ʒ/.

If the carioca pronunciations you are hearing have little to no dorsal, that is because they are more prestigious registers, but they definitely exist and palato-alveolar ones are almost unheard of in the same way dorsal ones would cause estrangement in southern Brazil. In coda, most particularly, it sounds very "zzzz"-like to our ears (I just heard an actor from the Congo with an acquired accent in TV, and I'm pretty sure it sounds foreign just like Westerner English speakers trying to do it), a true chiado of ours "feels wetter" and the dorsal is harsher than the average Brazilian consonant but of a softer kind, not a more sibilate one. I've heard that in Lisbon their codas are further palatalized than cardinal palato-alveolar as well, but I'm not sure how much or how prevalent it is. Hearing to Portuguese songs they seem to have English sh in onset and the prestigious Brazilian x in coda. Srtª PiriLimPomPom (talk) 04:27, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Interesting, thanks. I know a guy from Rio and another from the outskirts of Sao Paulo, and they both seem to pronounce a (maybe strongly) palatalised [ʃ] -- to my ear. — Lfdder (talk) 04:40, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

sum in cogito article

I fully agree with your take on ‘u’ pronunciation in ’sum’. I had asked kwami about changing back to 'ʊ' on refdesk but he hasn’t replied. Do you think it'd be ok for me to change that one letter in the IPAC-en back to as we originally had it? humanengr (talk) 04:59, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Just change it to say 'sʊm or sʌm' I think. — Lfdder (talk) 07:29, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Attic Greek: edit war.

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Attic Greek. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.
The politeness and constructiveness from my side, to the point of bending over backwards for you, stops here; until that is, you start behaving reasonably... Thanatos|talk|contributions 18:40, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Shouldn't you issue yourself the same warning? — Lfdder (talk) 18:43, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

I've looked myself in the mirror; many times.
I've accomodated you beyond any reasonable point; the article history can testify to that ueber easily. Even the wiki-rules you like to invoke, as if this is some kind of ultimate wisdom on your part and end-all-disagreements-argument, can easily be interpreted -by reasonable people, that is- as being against you and as being on my side, both in the letter and in the spirit of the law.
How about you?? Have you looked yourself in the mirror recently?!?! ;-) Thanatos|talk|contributions 19:11, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Όι, είμαι σκατόφατσας, έτσι αποφεύγω. — Lfdder (talk) 19:17, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Right then, we can go on misinforming people. I'm finished. — Lfdder (talk) 18:53, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Right. Nice rhetorical tactics. You could be a fine politician; try it out, you never know... ;-) Thanatos|talk|contributions 19:11, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

I've explained what I think the issues are in my edit summaries. I don't think you've tried to understand. — Lfdder (talk) 19:17, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Translation of the above:
Algorithm:
Start: I (that refers to you Lfdder) revert without any discussion, I insult the other party (usually in a projective way), I ask for stuff and when they're given I play dumb or move the goalpost, I make stuff up along the way, I invoke rules which I was the first to break, then
GOTO Start either 100% as in the/a previous iteration or by a, perhaps slight, change of the parametres, e.g. of the context of a word, of the justification, etc... ;-)
Thanatos|talk|contributions 19:38, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

This isn't a wp:battleground. My concerns seemed perfectly reasonable to me. I wasn't 'playing dumb' or moving goalposts. It is generally expected that when your addition is rv'ed, you don't edit war over its inclusion. Also, corrections you've had to make after reading up on it are not concessions or whatnot. — Lfdder (talk) 06:35, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Lfdder reported by User:Mendaliv (Result: ). Thank you. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 05:47, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you too. — Lfdder (talk) 06:08, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at Attic Greek. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.  → Call me Hahc21 06:54, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

@Hahc21: what exactly is the point of this? The edit war was over over 12h before you blocked and after I'd said I'm finished. Is this meant to be punishment for being a bad boy? — Lfdder (talk) 12:44, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

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

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

---

Request reason:

I won't steal sweets from the jar again. I'm sorry. — Lfdder (talk) 12:52, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Accept reason:

Okay. The purpose of the block was to let you know that 3RR violations won't go unnoticed. I think that you already know this by now, and I buy your word that you won't do it again. Therefore, there's no reason for you to stay blocked. → Call me Hahc21 16:18, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. — Lfdder (talk) 16:33, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 25

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Suicide on the London Underground, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Circle line (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) 08:55, 25 March 2014 (UTC)