User talk:92.31.142.60

March 2022

Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to David Thewlis, it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. Thank you. Emir Shane (talk) 14:04, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

March 2022 (2)

Your edit at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language was removed by another editor. I can only guess the reason, but I was about to add your correct IP address, 92.31.142.60, instead of the three IP addresses you typed into parts of your message as if they were three messages left by three different people. I don't know what you meant by that. Secondarily, the topic was about Russian and Ukrainian, so your wall of text was inappropriate (also, you are very confused about Spanish and Portuguese, so it wasn't helpful, even about that side issue). Please do not leave a misleading IP address when discussing topics on talk pages at Wikipedia; instead, just sign your messages by adding WP:4TILDES ( ~~~~ ) at the end. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me at my Talk page. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 18:01, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Hello, I can't take up your invitation to discuss on your talk page as I'm caught up in a range block, so I'm replying here. Feel free to respond either on your talk page or here, as I'll be watching both pages. For convenience, I've copied the post in question below:

On that link, Galician isn't really "a language that's sort of a cross between Portuguese and Spanish." It's Portuguese with Spanish orthography. And no, Spanish does not have simpler vowel phonetics than Portuguese. All the Portuguese nasals betray their origin anyway, thus São (meaning "saint" from Latin sanctus). See this discussion:

...the Latin word morte means "death". The Romance equivalents are formed from the accusative singular (the final "m" drops). Thus Spanish muerte but the Portuguese is unchanged. For adjectives, Latin novo means "new". The French is nouveau or neuf, the Italian nuovo and the Spanish nuevo. There is no change in Portuguese.

- 86.139.97.12 18:00, 10 January 2022

...An example of where Portuguese is true to Latin is the use of the tilde (see discussion "A form of Latin" below). It appears over an "a" or "o" to mark the omission of a following "m" or "n". In Spanish it appears over the "n" and may indicate a following "yod". So Latin non "no" becomes no in Spanish but não in Portuguese, retaining the "n" sound. The Latin for "many thanks" is multas gratias. In Spanish it's muchas gracias (probably with an accent over the first "a" of gracias). In Portuguese it's muitas graças, almost the same as the Latin. The placing of accents in Portuguese follows the rule general in Romance languages that a vowel is usually accented if the stress is not on the antepenultimate syllable. Thus Portuguese Maria, but the illogical Spanish equivalent is María. On Wakuran's point, it's true that an intervocalic "l" often falls in Portuguese - thus from Latin dolor "pain" the Portuguese plural is dores. The Spanish equivalent is probably "Dolores". Other examples, Portuguese saída "exit", Spanish equivalent probably salida and from Latin accusative salutem "health" (nouns are formed from the accusative and the final "m" drops) Portuguese saúde.

The bowdlerisation seen in adjectives and nouns extends equally to verb endings. Thus the Latin teneo "I hold" is tenho in Portuguese, almost the same. In Spanish I believe it's tengo.

- 86.163.187.0 - 19:30, 11 January 2022

Portuguese setembro, outubro, novembro and dezembro are very close to the originals September, October, November and December. Spanish has se(p)tiembre, octubre, noviembre and diciembre. And janeiro is much closer to the original Ianuarius than Spanish enero.

- 2A00:23C6:2804:EE00:E481:B04F:3725:165D 14:21, 14 January 2022

How much do you know about the attribution rules? The three IP addresses you flag up are 86.139.97.12, 86.163.187.0 and 2A00:23C6:2804:EE00:E481:B04F:3725:165D. I have checked the contribution records of each, which date the messages to January. So it would be wrong for me to post in March claiming authorship of messages which were posted weeks before.

It's not uncommon, when a new topic comes up, for discussion to continue on that topic without being broken off into a new section. Then you say I am confused about Spanish and Portuguese, but are not the examples provided verified by checking them in a dictionary of the respective languages? Best, @Mathglot: 92.31.142.60 (talk) 13:26, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

While you have all sorts of ideas about Spanish and Portuguese, the Tea house query was about Ukrainian and Russian, and my original point was about "your wall of text" at the WP:Tea house. If anything, that impression is strengthened by your response above. Please understand that my comments about inappropriateness have to do with *venue*, and not with the content of what you had to say. Adding walls of text about Portuguese on a question about Ukrainian is a form of WP:BLUDGEONing; your comments would be welcome in their own post in a different section at the Tea house that were about Spanish and Portuguese, but not in that section.

I'm very familiar with attribution, and if you were quoting someone else, rather than using those IPs yourself, that was certainly unclear. If you quote an excerpt from someone else's comment, there's no problem with that, but you have to highlight it or set it off in such a way that makes it completely clear which part of your comment is from you, and which part is a quote from someone else. There are many ways to do that; I suggest you use an indented {{talk quote}} template for that, like this: "And then User:Example1 said this in that discussion:

The Latin for "many thanks" is multas gratias. In Spanish it's muchas gracias (probably with an accent over the first "a" of gracias). In Portuguese it's ...

so with the separate highlighting and the attribution in-line, it's clear who wrote what. Another way, would be with attribution inside:

The Latin for 'many thanks' is multas gratias. In Spanish it's muchas gracias (probably with an accent over the first "a" of gracias). In Portuguese it's ..."—excerpted from [[Name of talk page where it came from]] by [[User:Example1]]

It's still a bit confusing in your examples above to see where someone else's comment ends and yours begins (or resumes); the idiosyncratic indentation makes it harder. Please see WP:THREAD.

Finally, if you're under a range-block that isn't about you, you could just WP:REGISTER for a free account. You should probably register anyway, as there are lots of advantages. If the block *is* about you, then for the sake of transparency and to avoid any whiff of block evasion, you should probably let an admin know that your newly registered account represents an IP under a range-block; however, in order to protect your anonymity, don't do so openly on their talk page, but rather by e-mail. You can do that using the 'Email this user' link in the left sidebar on their talk page or user page. If you want help with registration and private notification, let me know. Mathglot (talk) 21:47, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. That is very helpful. However, before I take the action recommended please read User talk:Arthur Kerensa. In the light of what is discussed there would you change your advice in any way? @Mathglot: 92.31.142.60 (talk) 16:34, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

If you would be evading a block by registering then no, you cannot register without appealing your block first, but you also cannot edit this page or any other. It's troubling that you were even aware of that 2017 conversation; have you used the account User:Arthur Kerensa or any of its aliases before? That block applies to the person who registered that account, not the name or IP address they happen to be using at a given moment, so, if that was you, then you cannot edit under any IP or any registered account. I have no choice but to notify User:TheresNoTime to see if this needs looking into. I'm not an admin, but imho, the only page the person behind the Kerensa account can edit at Wikipedia, is User talk:Arthur Kerensa, as I don't believe that their Talk page access has been restricted, and with an outstanding block, they must not edit anywhere else. So if that's you, then you should immediately stop responding here, stop editing at the Tea house Reference desk or anyplace else, and decide if you want to appeal your block from that page or not. Any other page, including this one, is off limits. Mathglot (talk) 17:14, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

And if the IP's you quoted above are yours, then they should be looked into as well:

• 86.139.97.12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• 86.163.187.0 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• 2A00:23C6:2804:EE00:E481:B04F:3725:165D (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Mathglot (talk) 17:56, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for that. The correct venue for this discussion is obviously SPI. I have checked the cases opened since 5 PM last night. Nothing is listed. I will continue to watch this page and your talk page. I will also monitor TheresNoTime's talk page as well. Has she contacted you privately? @Mathglot: 92.31.142.60 (talk) 13:08, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

You sound just like Arthur Kerensa did, in their ANI discussion.

Has she contacted you privately?

Lol, nice try. Mathglot (talk) 17:07, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure what to make of your final sentence as I do not know whether you are aware that TheresNoTime is trans. As regards your first sentence, please set my comments alongside those on Arthur Kerensa's noticeboard discussion so that I can understand what you are driving at. Arthur's relationship with administrators seems to have disintegrated following his posting of the following comment which was never responded to:

So to recap, this article, (Landscape and Astronomy in Megalithic Portugal: the Carregal do Sal Nucle Papers from the Institute of Archaeology, 01 February 2013, Vol.22, pp.99-114 (Peer Reviewed Journal) - paywall view) which has been cited 10 times in international journals ([1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10]), which has been through what is described by the Institute of Archeology as a double blind peer review where it is reviewed by the editorial team and external reviewers, approved personally by the senior editor and then published in a respected journal. And your comment about it is: the article can't be used as a source. And its MA and PhD qualified author, Fabia Silva of IPHES, who has been cited 523 times, with numerous well known works, your being comment he is: only a tutor. So my question is, what you are actually saying? Is your view on sources so narrow that unless its written by a professor its unusable? Dysklyver 16:26, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

A Den Jentyl Ettien Avel Dysklyver most vocal critic was Fram, whom the Foundation banned shortly thereafter after the administrators told them he was the best thing since sliced bread. An Arbitrator made the following comment:

As I see it, most arbs are of the opinion that the requirement that editors avoid outing applied equally to good faith and bad faith editors. I however think that it ought to be interpreted to apply with much less rigor to those who appear to be editing in bad faith or deliberately against the terms of use. (I recognize the difficulty in deciding initially who is editing in bad faith) Where do you stand? - DGG 04:04, 21 November 2017

Best, @Mathglot: 92.31.142.60 (talk) 11:40, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

When I entered "User talk:92.31.142.60" into the search box yesterday morning it produced a link to a comment made by you in the past few days on Arthur Kerensa's talk page, which linked a registered account to various IP addresses. It was for this reason that I quoted the Arbitrator's query to Dysklyver. Best, @Mathglot: 92.31.142.60 (talk) 12:30, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

What you "should make of my comment" (and I'm sure you know this perfectly well) is that you asked if she "contacted me privately", so obviously I'm not going to answer that question, but nice try. As for the rest of your comment, you're once again engaging in confusing indentation and confusing quotation of other editors which I've already explained to you above, and combining it all into walls of text, and so I'm neither going to read and try to decipher that part of what you wrote, nor respond to it. Afaic, you are most likely a User:Arthur Kerensa sock, but I'll leave that to someone else to figure out. As far as the conventional use of Talk pages in discussions including proper indentation in replies, please see WP:THREAD. If you have further questions regarding editing at Wikipedia, please open a new section below, and add the token {{Help me}} to your message, and an experienced editor will come by to respond. Mathglot (talk) 18:12, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Sock investigation

I realize that you are (seemingly eagerly?) watching the SPI page, so I suppose this notice is superfluous, but dotting all the i's, I'm making you aware that an SPI investigation has been opened about you here. Mathglot (talk) 21:01, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Oh, I almost forgot: I recall that you cannot post outside of this page because of the active range block; so, if you wish to have a message added to the SPI, you may do so by adding your comment below, and I or another editor will transfer your comments to the appropriate section in the SPI for you. Given previous confusion in communication with you above, I would request that you be crystal clear about what content you wish transferred, and what text is intended solely for this page. The simplest method might be to simply make a clear statement that you wish something to be transferred to the SPI, and use double quotes around whatever content you wish transferred, like this:

Please transfer the following comment to the SPI: "Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua."

However, any method you like is fine, as long as it's completely clear what you mean. You can ping any editor you trust to do this, or you can just use {{Help me}} and an experienced editor will help you. Mathglot (talk) 03:18, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Fyi, this SPI has been closed without action. Mathglot (talk) 05:55, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Please copy the following to the sockpuppet case investigation page:

You are very helpful. The block notice clearly states that there is no suggestion that I have done anything wrong. Put yourself in my place - you would be concerned if people were discussing you behind your back, because they could be making any allegations which you have no means of refuting. If the discussion were with an administrator you might find yourself blocked out of the blue. Why then should I be threatened with having my talk page access revoked? In any event, I am using it to appeal the block - how can it be lifted? Best, @Mathglot: 92.31.142.60 (talk) 11:44, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

I will move it for you, as soon as I am 100% clear what portion you want moved. Please either redo your comment again so it's clear, or alter your last comment above to make it obvious what message you want copied, such as embedding "the message you want moved in quotation marks", or underline it, or shade the background or

box it all up

or do something else so it's clear. However, as they have already closed the SPI, it very likely will have no effect at this point, if it's even still possible to edit the page after it's been closed. Mathglot (talk) 01:58, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes, it's officially closed now, and will be archived. No point trying to copy anything there now. In theory, you should use this page only to appeal the block, and not for other purposes. Mathglot (talk) 02:23, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

---

Maybe you could get the case page unprotected? It was protected following comment from "Alexandra Boris de Pfeffel Jonnason", who signs herself "Your Favourite Troll". Best, @Mathglot: 92.31.142.60 (talk) 12:06, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Please copy over everything printed in green.

Thank you so much! I wish administrators were as helpful as you have been. You may be wondering why I am only replying now although you posted at 18:12 last night. The reason is that, although I was checking your contributions for a reply, at the critical time I noticed that some of them (for example the 05:55, 5 April) had been greyed out. That's right - somebody suppressed part of the discussion. When I checked the history a few minutes ago I saw Beeblebrox had redacted something. I believe he is an Arbitrator/Oversighter. Reason for comment: the case is NOT closed because there is still an allegation hanging over me which prevents me bypassing the range block (the block notice emphasises my innocence) by opening an account.

Best, @Mathglot: 92.31.142.60 (talk) 10:42, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

I understand now what message you want copied to the SPI, but I think it's too late now, because it is marked closed. If you still want to pursue this, try asking for help: the {{Help me}} token will attract an experienced user who might see it differently than I do; I doubt it, but you can try. However as you are blocked, you really should only be using this page to appeal your block. Good luck, Mathglot (talk) 17:40, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

---