User talk:Dan Pelleg

on wikivacation

A TOR Story

I have been notified that I was blocked by User:Curps (I have no idea why). I work from my home computer (not an open proxy). User:Curps has supplied no email address through which to contact him (and his user talk page announces that he has left Wikipedia, so I assume there's no help coming from there.) Dan Pelleg 18:48, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately we don't permit editing though open proxies since there has been so much abuse. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 19:16, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I repeat: I work from my home computer (not an open proxy).

Why is my home computer believed to be working through an open proxy? Dan Pelleg 19:26, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Y	Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s): No longer a TOR node. Request handled by: —Ryūlóng (竜龍) 19:33, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Ryūlóng. I wonder, could you please explain what a TOR node is, and what was it, that was one, and no longer is, and how could that happen, and could it happen again? Just curious (I know very little about internet technology) and a little worried. Dan Pelleg 19:47, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Read Tor (anonymity network)—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 22:19, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Ryūlóng, thanks for referring me there. I'm afraid it's Chinese to me (too much unfamiliar terminology). But:

1. What made anyone decide that I was using "anonymous outgoing connections"?

2. Was I?

3. What caused it?

4. What stopped it?

5. And what can I do to prevent it from happening again?

I would really appreciate a layman explanation (wouldn't other users benefit from that too?) - thanks again, Dan Pelleg 13:31, 14 July 2007 (UTC).[reply]

oh no, not again

Please notice: this has happened before, read the discussion above.

I repeat, again:

I work from my home computer (not an open proxy).
Why is my home computer believed to be working through an open proxy?
What made anyone decide that I was using "anonymous outgoing connections"?
Was I?
What caused it?
What stopped it last time?
And what can I do to prevent it from happening again?

Dan Pelleg (talk) 12:50, 5 April 2008 (UTC) {{unblock-auto|1=85.178.22.250|2=Tor {{openproxy}}|3=Curps}}[reply]

You are not being blocked by that IP address. The block on 85.178.22.250 (talk · contribs) was lifted months ago. You need to copy your new block message with the new IP address that is causing the problem and the new blocking admin's name for someone to lift it. What I can only assume is happening is you are on a dynamic IP and someone else in your range is running a TOR node. The TOR node gets automatically blocked, but then you switch onto that IP later. --B (talk) 13:49, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And again

This is the third time this has happened.

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).

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

Request reason:

I received the following message:

Editing from 85.178.119.7 has been disabled by John Reaves for the following reason(s): This IP address has been blocked because it is believed to be an open proxy or zombie computer.

This is the third time this has happened. As before, I'm working from the same home computer as always, without having changed any setting or configuration of my internet connection whatsoever. Is my IP randomly changing?

Please lift my block. A helpful answer would greatly be appreciated as to why this happens and how it can be avoided.Dan ☺ 10:49, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please include a decline or accept reason.

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.

I received the following message:

Editing from 85.178.119.7 has been disabled by John Reaves for the following reason(s): This IP address has been blocked because it is believed to be an open proxy or zombie computer.

As before, I'm working from the same home computer as always, without having changed any setting or configuration of my internet connection whatsoever. Is my IP randomly changing?

Please lift my block. A helpful answer would greatly be appreciated as to why this happens and how it can be avoided. Dan ☺ 10:49, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This won't show up inside the template for some reason, so:

I've granted you IP block exemption. That should mean you can edit through hard block on your IP. I'm guessing you have a dynamic IP, which would explain the switching. If it switches often enough, statistically, you'll inevitably end up on a blocked IP. Please read WP:IPBE and familiarise yourself with the conditions of the exemption. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:50, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanx! If you have a spare moment: could you explain how come I would have a dynamic IP – is that common? Can I influence it? Or is it completely up to the company providing me my internet connection? Thanx again, Dan ☺ 15:15, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It'll be the IP that your ISP assigns to you. My guess would be that it changes every time you disconnect and reconnect to the internet. It's not uncommon, but the only people who have any control over it is your ISP. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:41, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Thanks for taking the time, cheers!

Dan ☺ 16:22, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No offense

No offense taken, sorry for taking so long, I've been on vacation. I have written a reply in Talk:Theory of relativity. Cheers! Izbitzer 10:20, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedian Brights

The category is up for deletion. You may wish to oppose. -- Evertype·✆ 13:53, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your correction. -- Evertype·✆ 22:37, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

merging away my vote

Dear Jc37, you removed all but one of my oppositions to category deletions on Wikipedia:User categories for discussion. Is it against regulations to express the same (exact) opinion on several distinct points? Dan Pelleg 23:42, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. At issue is that several people, including you, were not addressing the specific sub-nominations, but User categories in general (and they were mostly simple copy/pastings). For clarity and general readability, it seemed easier to merge all those comments to the umbrella nomination. The closer will still take the comments from the umnrella nom in consideration of the individual groupings (Note that Kbdank71's comments are also at the umbrella nom.) I hope this helps clarify. - jc37 00:01, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Still: I copypasted my opinion not everywhere but only where I wanted to express it concerning the categories in question. Dan Pelleg 00:34, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As it was a copy/pasted comment, that was generic, and in no way addressed the categories directly under discussion, but merely Wikipedian categories in general, and as the comments would have been given weight by the closer as part of the umbrella nom (applying those comments to every subcategory), your comments would have been the weight due them, and would have been applied to those sub-categories. My apologies if you felt that your general comments about Wikipedian categories, did not apply to all Wikipedian categories, but merely those which you commented on. In reading your comments I would not have imagined that perspective:

"Nothing will be gained by deleting. There's generally no need for a fanatic witch-hunt on everything on user pages that isn't purely "Wikipedian". I for one do find it helpful to know facts about Wikipedians, which they are willing to share about themselves. This has nothing to do with social networking: it's completely relevant to, and useful for, the exchange of information while editing here (exactly as user language templates are)."

As I said in the discussion, this isn't about the templates, but the Wikipedian categories. Incidentally, I would not characterise my act of nominating some categories for discussion to be a "fanatic witch-hunt". You may wish to consider your words, or at least do a bit of research on your target, before making such acccusations. - jc37 18:10, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think that JC37 is doing anything to make the Wikipedia a better place. The actions you point to, Dan, show that as well. -- Evertype·✆ 07:58, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While you're entitled to your opinion, you perhaps should assume good faith, or even perhaps do some research before making such a blanket statement. - jc37 18:10, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Jc37! Thanks for explaining about the umbrella nomination principal; though I do believe I wasn't the only one who didn't get it… By "fanatic witch-hunt" I wasn't at all referring to you or to your acts personally (I admit: I hadn't carefully studied the network of persons behind the discussion before posting), I didn't even mean to say that there was a witch-hunt taking place, only that I sensed the looming possibility of one. I realized too that my opposition was also generic and continued to explain my point of view in the talk page. Dan Pelleg 22:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Diplomacy and other nonsense

Dear Don

Your edit summaries rely heavily on the word "nonsense" - they usually refer to correcting something yuo say is "nonsensical". No doubt you're right and the things you correct are nonsense, but other editors, less knowledgeable and yet, incomprehensibly, even more egotistical, than yourself, tend to take offense at assaults on all they hold dear. Tone down the language my son, you'll get further with sugar than with vinegar. PiCo (talk) 14:43, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll avoid the term from now on. Dan Pelleg (talk) 18:38, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hebrew phonology

Hi. You recently expanded a table in the article Hebrew phonology, but you left the old version of the table behind as well. Perhaps you could see what can be salvaged from the old table, and merge the two. Regards. FilipeS (talk) 22:40, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi FilipeS, I'd love to comply but I couldn't figure out what you mean: I added the missing vowel signs, arranged them according to the traditional "length" attribute, and separated for clarity between phoneme/pronunciation/example in English, then I moved the phoneme /ə/ to the bottom since the assertion that it's a Hebrew phoneme is controversial – but I believe that all the information that was there before is actually still there. Dan Pelleg (talk) 00:47, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again. Hebrew_phonology#Vowels currently has two tables, one you added at the top, and another (in the subsection "Orthography") that was already there before your edits. There is information that is repeated in the two tables. I think the two tables should be combined into just one. This is all. Regards. FilipeS (talk) 17:39, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi FilipeS, I'm away from home for a few days – I'll look into it as soon as I can... by the way, merry X-mas & a happy new year! Dan Pelleg (talk) 18:02, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. Ok, I misunderstood because I didn't actually add that first table, i.e. I just took the information that was already listed there, put it into a table, and then expanded and filled in missing information. The second table is slightly inaccurate, when I have some time I'll do the work (if no one beats me to it...) Dan Pelleg (talk) 13:14, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IPA in Hebrew alphabet

Why did you change the dashes into brackets? FilipeS (talk) 21:29, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because phonetics are denoted by square brackets, whereas phonemes are denoted by slashes. Take a look e.g. at Phoneme#Notation: "A transcription that only indicates the different phonemes of a language is said to be phonemic. Such transcriptions are enclosed within virgules (slashes), / /; these show that each enclosed symbol is claimed to be phonemically meaningful. On the other hand, a transcription that indicates finer detail, including allophonic variation like the two English L's, is said to be phonetic, and is enclosed in square brackets, [ ]. Dan Pelleg (talk) 17:57, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's right, but I think a phonemic transcription makes more sense in an article about an alphabet. Anyway, happy holidays to you as well. :-) FilipeS (talk) 16:58, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey FilipeS! You're right, although I think it doesn't hurt to have the phonetic information too. In any case, I only changed the slashes to brackets where the transcriptions had already been listed as IPA-transcriptions before I'd made any changes. Dan Pelleg (talk) 12:59, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IPA for Hebrew

Dear Don Pelleg,

Modelling after Template:IPAEng, which links to an English specific Help page, I created Template:IPAHe, which links to IPA for Hebrew. I tried it out on Sheqel sign and Ktiv male , what do you think? Epson291 (talk) 10:10, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great. I'd maybe tag the IPA link with the <small> tag to produce e.g. IPA: [ktiv χa'saʁ ni'kud], for better reading flow? Dan Pelleg (talk) 10:35, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea, I shall change it. Epson291 (talk) 02:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ligatures

There is a difference, though not all languages make the distinction. If you want to be specific, you can use a tie bar [t͡s]. If you use Internet explorer like I do, then it's probably off a little but it's supposed to look like this: . Æµ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 21:17, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, it shows as [t□s] (IE7 on Windows XP Home Edition), which version / system do you use? I am actually unhappy with the way diphthongs are represented in Wikipedia, since using two vowels without a liaison implies two syllables, whereas diphthongs are monosyllabic (Hebrew ['bait] means "house" when it's disyllabic, "byte" when it's monosyllabic). So, are ligatures actually non standard in IPA, or just uncommon? Dan Pelleg (talk) 00:55, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

what it was

You may be right, though I thought the spelling "tsadick" was suspicious. FilipeS (talk) 19:58, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

:-) I suspect it was a naïve inadvertence. Dan Pelleg (talk) 00:08, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vav consecutive form

It is true that the Hebrew perfect and imperfect tenses have essentially developed into past and future tenses (with the participle functioning as a present tense), but Modern Hebrew does not use vav consecutive forms. Biblical Hebrew, which does use the vav consecutive, did not have tenses in the Indo-European sense, being aspective instead. I'll update the explanation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nolewr (talk • contribs) 20:01, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

Could well be, actually. I just copied those from a box on...daleth I think it was. Thought it looked nifty. I'm an amateur when it comes to the Hebrew alphabet, sadly. Would it be wise to change it to "serif"/"sans-serif"? Cheers! --Yossarian 05:28, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

de-linked IPA

Sorry, in the edit summary I should have referenced my user page, which has a detailed explanation of my reasoning. The long and the short of it is that the MOS recommends against doing so. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 22:58, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Double check

Quick question, did I do the IPA correctly for UNESCO, UNICEF? Thanks - 173.32.29.103 (talk) 23:11, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Better ask one of these people. Dan ☺ 00:03, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		For your work on creation of the Shva articles. Good work, I enjoyed reading it! Epson291 (talk) 05:46, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Epson, thanks! Dan ☺ 12:19, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hebrew IPA

Yeah, I was fixing the IPA symbols, and noticed that the syllable break in "aŋgˈlit" seemed dubious. Not sure about "naˈʃprit͡s"; I assumed we might have a similar problem. Now that I look back, I see other problems: beχiʃˈa, for example, which almost certainly should be beχiˈʃa. kwami (talk) 11:05, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, beχiʃˈa was a typo. I'm no expert, just wondering according to which principles you syllabify. Curiously, your /aŋˈɡlit/ confirms with standardized Hebrew syllabification whereas the previous /aŋgˈlit/ doesn't, but your /naˈʃprit͡s/ isn't standard, whereas the previous /naʃˈprit͡s/ is. Dan ☺ 12:41, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure I'm wrong on the latter. Thinking of Yiddish maybe.

As for principles, when there is a sequence NCL, where N is a nasal and L is a liquid, it's almost universal to syllabify it N.CL. NC.L would be so odd that I'd want a section devoted to it in Hebrew phonology. (Not that it couldn't happen: Wells argues that English nitrous is nitr.ous, though I don't buy it.) kwami (talk) 20:28, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What would sway you toward /naˈʃprit͡s/ or /naʃˈprit͡s/ then? Dan ☺ 23:41, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing phonological. I've just come across hundreds of articles where the stress mark is erroneously placed after the consonant, and I thought that if it were shifted to the right in */aŋɡˈlit/, it may have been shifted to the right in /naʃˈprit͡s/. But I was doubtful, which is why this was one of the few touch-up articles I put on my watch list. (I should've tagged it dubious as well.) kwami (talk) 00:11, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see. My gut feeling says, since the /a/ vowel in /naʃprits/ is short and unstressed, the first syllable is /naʃ/. Does that make any sense? As I said, I'm no expert, that's just my instinct. Dan ☺ 21:58, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The question is what does the stress sign mean in IPA. My basic though is that basically the difference between one stress to another is which vowel is in the stressed syllable. So basically the vowels or the syllable-like consonants should have been the ones marked for stressed or unstressed. If the stress sign of IPA is also meant to give the way the speakers perceive the syllabification of the words, then that's something else, and I think what we can do is the same thing that we do when trying to identify the phonemes - think about ourselves. Let's suppose I'm asking you now "what is the word, please give it to me syllable by syllable". Do you say naš-priç, or do you say, našp-riç, etc... maybe it's difficult... We can try to think about it grammatically and compare it to other words, but does it mean anything really, at least as far as the phonemic IPA system is concern. Obviously simpler verbs on this stem are nar-biç, but also naš-lim which just maybe can be seen as na-šlim, which is as opposed to the diachronic knowledge about it being a short unstressed vowel as you said. My gut feeling is that if you say "my gut feeling" then it is something that is not measured instinctively and therefor doesn't really have a meaning. Where to put the mark I mean. Ly362 (talk) 03:35, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a recurring problem with the IPA. The stress marks are intended to be placed before the stressed syllable, not just the stressed vowel, because they consider stress to be suprasegmental, and therefore not associated directly with the vowel. (Similarly, tone letters come after the syllable, not after the vowel.) However, this runs into serious difficulties with languages which do not have syllables, such as in the Pacific Northwest of NAm. Even in English, there are people who insist on a /'CV.CV/ structure, and others who insist on /'CVC.V/. kwami (talk) 07:03, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cardiod image

The file you created recently, File:EpitrochoidOn1b.gif, seems to be a duplicate of File:EpitrochoidOn1.gif. Please use "Upload a new version of this file" on the original file page to update the file and submit the duplicate for deletion.--RDBury (talk) 16:50, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The new file runs more smoothly on my browser but I wanted to wait and see if users of other browsers complained before replacing the existing one. Regardless of that: once on commons, is there any reason to upload the new file to wikipedia as well? Dan ☺ 17:30, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would say move the original to the Commons first and then merge them. Removing the duplicated file isn't the only issue, it would be best to keep the attributions for the original fine and the edits if possible.--RDBury (talk) 17:41, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Move" – does that mean download the original onto my computer and then upload it to commons with the same procedure as I did with the improved file, then deleting the one on wikipeda? "Merge" – what does that mean? Is all this really necessary? And why? If it's maybe easier for you to do this yourself rather than taking me by the hand through all of it, please just go ahead! Thanks, Dan ☺ 17:59, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Getting the images merged is one thing, getting them merged while still preserving the conditions of WP:GFDL is another and a lot more complicated. If I did it then it would be me in the history instead of you who did the actual work. But I think there are ways around this and I'll see if I can get the ball rolling. I don't know a lot about the procedure myself but I think I know where to find out.--RDBury (talk) 00:38, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I uploaded the original file to the Commons and put in a request to remove the duplicate file. Hopefully whoever handles it can just update the file and merge the histories, if not the presumably you can re-upload your change.--RDBury (talk) 04:31, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Dan ☺ 14:20, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The request for deletion was denied so it would be best if you re-uploaded your change to the original file. I'll have to try again on the deletion but if may take a while.--RDBury (talk) 15:51, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A deletion is probably against guidelines. And I don't understand: why would duplicating into wikipedia a File already on commons be beneficial? Dan ☺ 17:00, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The guidelines state that duplicate images can be deleted. But I think the admin who handled it didn't understand the situation so I'll have to use a different deletion process. But I can't do anything until you re-upload your change as an edit to the original file so you keep credit for the change.--RDBury (talk) 16:06, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there RD, I'd appreciate it if you did the uploading yourself. My "copyrights" are relinquished anyway; if you download the improved image from commons and uploaded it to Wikipedia with reference to the file's history you'd be doing practically the same as I did with the first image. I'm just really overworked right now and won't get to do the down-and-uploading myself any time soon. Thanks! Dan ☺ 15:12, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gesenius

In case you haven't noticed already, this may interest you: Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar.

All the pages are already in. There are spelling mistakes here and there, though - OCR isn't perfect. I'm gradually working on proofreading and you are welcome to join if you have the time.

For easy linking to that book from Wikipedia i created {{Cite GHG}}. Note that for this template to work there must be a link to the paragraph from the main table of contents, and not all of them are ready. Creating those links requires mapping the paragraphs of every page. It takes me about 2 minutes per page and there are about 300 unmapped pages, so it will take me a few days or weeks more. If you want to use this template to link to a paragraph that isn't ready yet, just tell me, and i'll prepare it ASAP.

If you want to join in preparing the links to paragraphs, proofreading or anything else, and you don't know where to begin, let me know.

Most importantly, let me know if there's anything i can do to make the Wikisource edition of this book easier to read. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 17:31, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, looks great at first glance. Currently I have rare bubbles of spare time so I might butt into your work every now and then attempting to help ;-)

Dan ☺ 19:42, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quinqueliteral (5-letter) roots in Maltese

Hi there! I'd be most grateful if anyone could help me out by providing any information about whether or not these exist or any information at all concerning this! Dan ☺ 21:00, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The standardised Maltese language only exhibits three or four consonant roots maximum, with the latter being quite limited to words such as gemgem, bodbod, karkar etc. The language does not exhibit any roots with five or more consonants.

We have a few dialects remaining that are actually dieing off at this stage due to the standardization of the language, the variations being not in the number of roots but small changes in the vowels.

Hope this helps ;)

Have a nice weekend

--Gian (talk) 18:20, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect! Thanks a lot, Dan ☺ 19:02, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do recall seeing a few words that could have been 5=letter root words. Unfortunately, I don;t have my old dictionary files to hand anymore. These were a distinct minority in any case. Probably no more than a dozen in the entire language. Rhialto (talk) 09:09, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, it would be great if you could let me know whenever you remember them. I would assume they would be very seldom, certainly more the exception than the rule, but very interesting nonetheless. Do you remember what kind of words they were? Nouns or verbs, slang or literary etc.? Dan ☺ 10:46, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No there are only 3 and 4 letter roots. Dylan Borg (talk) 12:03, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Do the 4-letter roots also conjugate as verbs or only decline as nouns? As adjectives? Are they pretty regular vocabulary or distinct in some way (old fashoined? Slang?) Dan ☺ 12:44, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, as far as I know, the words have either a morphemic root (i.e. from other European languages), or 3 to 4 letter roots. The 4 letter roots are regular, although coincidentially some of them (not all) are onomatopeics, for example, lablab means "to blab". They have a different yet similar conjugation pattern (i.e. they are not considered irregular). Note that verbs such as kisser (akin to "to destroy" eg.: Huwa kisser karozza: He destroyed a car) is not a quadriliteral but is called Verb Imnissel (sort of an offspring verb), as it is derived from kiser ("to break", as in eg.: Huwa kiser idu: He broke his arm.). These still carry a 3 letter root of k-s-r.

With regards to dialects, what usually differs is the treatment of vowels, or else the word used for one thing is a different one from the other, still 3 or 4 letter root words though.

If I encounter any sort of 5 letter root words I'll let you know, but this is very remote. Tsum60 (talk) 11:49, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for the info! I read online that Arabic has one 5 letter root, d-m-k-r-t, having to do with "democracy", could this by any chance be the case in Maltese too? This is a shot in the dark: Are there Maltese verbs for "to synchronize", "to index", "to telegraph", "to snorkel" and "to choreograph"? Dan ☺ 13:54, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Paleo-Hebrew.PNG

Sorry I had missed what you wrote on my page, but I do not remember where the source is at this point (it is scanned though), so we should probably delete it. Epson291 (talk) 14:01, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cantillation infobox

I like the cantillation infobox you recently created.

I am starting to create articles on the individual trope sounds so the links here won't be red. I started off with Munach and hopefully, I will get more done when I have time.

I am trying to figure out how to change the trope symbol the way it appears in the word on the top right of the infobox accordingly for each trope. Currently, it still shows a Shalshelet symbol on the Munach page.

Any help would be appreciated. Xyz7890 (talk) 17:48, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi – I looked for appropriate examples on here and copied and pasted them. Dan ☺ 17:53, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, thought I'd mention: the names I used are the Unicode standard as on http://www.fileformat.info, listed from here till here. Dan ☺ 17:58, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

		The Barnstar of David
		Not only have you inspired me to write articles on all of the trope, something I believe can be done, but you are providing consistent assistance making the necessary adjustments with the cantillation infobox for it to match each page. I have some confusion over how to customize words of it to each page. You have a better understanding of that and have helped a lot. Xyz7890 (talk) 01:18, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With pleasure – I try to do my best. Dan ☺ 18:15, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dukus Horant

Dan, can you help with the article Dukus Horant? There is an illustration on the Hebrew-language wiki which I would love to reproduce here, but I am not sure how to do it. One possibility is just to copy it and re-upload it, but we would have to translate the copyright data etc. Can you do that? --Doric Loon (talk) 13:38, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look. Dan ☺ 11:30, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Dan, that looks fantastic now. --Doric Loon (talk) 13:22, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dan ☺ 16:04, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to bore you with this, but there is something else on that article giving me trouble, to do with the coding for Hebrew fonts. I can't get the colon right in the fourth line, so the lines are all indented to the same place. If possible, of course, it would be better to have them right justified instead of left justified, but I can't see how to do that either. And then, the three dots which I have put in (also in the translation) should not be there - we actually want a protected space, so the two stichs of each line are clearly separate, and ideally the the second stichs should be tabbed to the same place. If you look here: http://homepages-nw.uni-regensburg.de/~dug22463/Transitions.pdf on page 34 (of the PDF - 78 of the article) you will see what I am trying to copy. --Doric Loon (talk) 10:07, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I put the Hebrew passage into a table cell with the value "rtl" (right to left) assigned to its css direction propertry. I'll put the whole thing into table cells to appear tabulated, take a look in a sec – Dan ☺ 13:13, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

btw, your source seems to be inconsistent in its transliteration of "ע", usually transliteration it as ‘, but as ’ in "דעגן" and as e in "דער". Dan ☺ 13:43, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. Thanks. --Doric Loon (talk) 19:38, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The error in the source is a typical publishers error - the author has obviously wanted to distinguish two kinds of comma for aleph and ayin, but the typesetters have automatically adjusted to what would be normal at the beginning or end of a word in English. Very annoying. --Doric Loon (talk) 19:49, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes – editors, proofreaders and other villains... Dan ☺ 23:25, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lowering diacritic

Hi,

What's the source for this? --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 20:57, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I relied on a conversation I had with an editor. Dan ☺ 00:35, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Turned a

You are right: noting Greek there. I was distracted & confused by the word "ALPHA" in the description and the (Unicode) name. -DePiep (talk) 18:48, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah it looked like someone had called you for supper in the middle of writing that sentence

– Dan ☺ 13:57, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge discussion for Pseudoword

An article that you have been involved in editing, Pseudoword , 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. Allens (talk) 02:57, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. In Geresh, you recently added a link to the disambiguation page Tav (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) 10:47, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free files in your user space

Hey there Dan Pelleg, thank you for your contributions! I am a bot, alerting you that non-free files are not allowed in user or talk space. I removed some files I found on User:Dan Pelleg.

See a log of files removed today here.
Shut off the bot here.
Report errors here.
If you have any questions, place a {{helpme}} template, along with your question, beneath this message.

Thank you, -- DASHBot (talk) 05:04, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Atheophobic billboard image

Thank you for restoring Why Do Atheists Hate America billboard.jpg in Discrimination against atheists, and particularly for describing it as "capturing the contents of a thousand words in an instantaneous, irrefutable visual perception". ~ Robin Lionheart (talk) 03:01, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:17, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notification about disabling the Wikipedia collections tool

Thank you for using the collections feature in Wikipedia beta! Due to technical and moderation issues, we will be turning off this experimental feature. Your collections will be available for viewing and export until March 1st. If you would like to save your collection as links on a special Wikipedia page, please fill out the following form. If you are interested in giving your feedback about Wikipedia Collections please do so here.

Thanks,

Jon Katz
Product manager, Wikimedia Foundation
Jkatz (WMF) (talk) 23:56, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strange Welcomes

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Dan Pelleg. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Famousbirthdays.com as a source

Hi Dan. I'm in the process of removing famousbirthdays.com as a source from Wikipedia, because it's not reliable (See Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_153#Is_famousbirthdays.com_a_reliable_source_for_personal_information). I noticed that you've added it, and wanted to make sure you understood why it's being removed. If you disagree, let's discuss it. There's a RSN discussion that's still open, that you might want to contribute to on the matter. Thanks. --Ronz (talk) 17:00, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the message

Dan ☺ 21:24, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Dan Pelleg. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Dan Pelleg. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Dan Pelleg. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:30, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nested refs

Do you still follow the "nested refs" bug? You probably know there is a long-term Phabricator ticket open at T22707, and your Sandbox/Nested refs page was linked at the ticket in this comment of Aug 13, 2010 (comment was at Bugzilla prior to 2010, and imported by a bot). This ticket is still open, and I'm looking for a workaround for the nested LDR refs issue. I'm currently looking at using a direct piped wikilink using CITEREF syntax (as described at Template:Harvard citation#Using CITEREF directly) which references a LDR containing a |ref= param. Do you have any other approaches that you've seen work? (please mention me on reply; thanks!) Mathglot (talk) 20:07, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Mathglot, sorry for this superficial reply. I think I’m linked to that nested refs bug discussion because of →this←, maybe perchance there’s something helpful there ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Dan ☺ 19:57, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, oops, just read your message more carefully. No, I'm afraid I haven't discovered anything new since then, sorry. Dan ☺ 20:00, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:36, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]