User talk:Fdom5997

Fdomanico51997, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Fdomanico51997! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like ChamithN (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:03, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Template:Hitchiti language

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that the page you created, Template:Hitchiti language, was tagged as a test page under section G2 of the criteria for speedy deletion and has been or soon may be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. ^Avic_ennasis @ 17:45, 26 Tevet 5777 / 17:45, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia and copyright

Hello Fdomanico51997, and welcome to Wikipedia. All or some of your addition(s) to Apalachee language have been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. While we appreciate your contributing to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from your sources to avoid copyright or plagiarism issues here.

• You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
• Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. (There is a college-level introduction to paraphrase, with examples, hosted by the Online Writing Lab of Purdue.) Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
• Our primary policy on using copyrighted content is Wikipedia:Copyrights. You may also want to review Wikipedia:Copy-paste.
• If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. However, there are steps that must be taken to verify that license before you do. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
• In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are public domain or compatibly licensed), it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at the help desk before adding such content to the article. 99.9% of sources may not be added in this way, so it is necessary to seek confirmation first. If you do confirm that a source is public domain or compatibly licensed, you will still need to provide full attribution; see Wikipedia:Plagiarism for the steps you need to follow.
• Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you can, but please follow the steps in Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:48, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Native-languages.org

I don't think Native Languages .org is a reliable source for information about the languages or even their phonologies. The site doesn't cite authors or source so it is basically impossible to verify the information there. The information you added to Natchez language was no in accord with the more reliable source by Kimball. So basically I don't think it is helpful to add links to native-lanugages.org or to use those sites as a source of information for articles. If you need I can generally point you to better sources for a given language that you are interested in writing about.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 07:55, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Frankie Domanico (April 7)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Robert McClenon was:  The comment the reviewer left was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Frankie Domanico and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Robert McClenon (talk) 04:56, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Western Apache

The best sources on Western Apache phonology are these:

• de Reuse, Willem J. (2006). A practical grammar of the San Carlos Apache language. LINCOM Studies in Native American Linguistics 51. LINCOM. ISBN 3-89586-861-2.
• Gordon, Matthew; Potter, Brian; Dawson, John; de Reuse, Willem; & Ladefoged, Peter. (2001). Phonetic structures of Western Apache. International Journal of American Linguistics, 67(4), 415-481.

A youtube video made by some speaker is not real source.

But, more importantly, the video doesnt actually say what you claim it says. The video is merely a recording of a wordlist. It has no phonetic/phonological analysis associated with it.

Additionally, you are misinterpreting the spelling system. Historically, these languages don't have any voiced stops. And not only that – these phonemes actually don't have any voiced alternations either. Unfortunately, in Athabaskan linguistics (including Navajo and all Apache languages), the symbols b, d, g, dz, dl, j are used to represent the unvoiced, unaspirated (plain/affricated) stops. And, the spelling systems follow this practice. It's weird, I know. But, that's the way it's been for around 90 years.

But, it's even worse than that. Some languages have recently developed voiced phonemes. And, the traditional writing doesn't have a way to write these sounds. The White Mountain Apache dialect of Western Apache is one of these languages. It has a voiced /d/ that corresponds to /d/ in Plains Apache and to /nd/ in the San Carlos dialect of Western Apache as well as the /nd/ in Chiricahua and corresponds to /n/ in the Dilzhe'e (Tonto) dialect of Western and the /n/ in Navajo, and so on. (It goes back to proto-Apachean/proto-Athabaskan.) De Reuse writes this as an underlined d. Interestingly enough, this change in White Mountain may have happened pretty recently since it was not noted by Harry Hoijer in the 1930s (although he worked mostly with the San Carlos dialect) and he didn't note it for Jicarilla although /d/ is noted for Jicarilla since the 1990s.

Anyway, all this is why you should consult linguistics sources instead of amateur websites or youtube videos. I know it's not necessarily easy to even find that these sources exist. I suggest that you consult Marianne Mithun's The languages of native North America if you are going to continue to do this. One of the best things about this book is the very extensive bibliography it has. You should be looking up the references cited by Mithun. Now, Mithun is not going to have everything, but she will point you in a better direction than just googling websites. As for Apachean languages, you are just lucky that I happen to know a lot about this family and can point you to the best materials (and I happen to poking around on wikipedia these days). – ishwar  (speak) 05:26, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Lushootseed

I'm a bit confused by your changes in the article Lushootseed. The conventions for phoneme tables are as follows: If a phoneme is marginal (occurs only in a few words/loanwords and/or a few dialects), it should be in parentheses. If it is an allophone, it should not be in the table but explained in a footnote. If it is neither, it should not be marked as all entries in the table are assumed to be phonemes. Please see English phonology and other phonology articles for examples. Thanks. Catrìona (talk) 14:11, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions to the article. Could you please explain why you have deleted the reference to the true palatal consonants (ç and so forth)? I derived them from the alphabet section of this article, which, while needing clear inline citations seems to be based on Lushootseed-specific linguistic work which I consider more reliable then the source that you cited (Browner 2009). Browner is also not a meaningful language learning resource if only two pages are devoted to Lushootseed language. Catrìona (talk) 16:10, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

I recommend simply reverting his contributions to native american phonologies which do not tend to be supported by good sources. In my experience he does not reply to attempts at communication.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 16:24, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 11

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Yavapai language, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Aspirated. 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) 10:12, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Way too many errors

I have found errors in all of the phonologies that you have provided that I have checked, some of them so bad that I had to remove the entire section since I didn't have time to reconstruct it. You have received a lot of advice and helpful reminders to use reliable sources for your edits, and to make sure you include exactly what is in the sources. If you continue inserting poorly sourced and erroneous information into Wikipedia's articles on languages I will have to ask administrators to block your account.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 07:40, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:Frankie Domanico

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that the page you created, Draft:Frankie Domanico, was tagged as a test page under section G2 of the criteria for speedy deletion and has been or soon may be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Legacypac (talk) 01:54, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Fdomanico51997. 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)

Disambiguation link notification for February 21

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited East Cree, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Labiovelar consonant (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 09:16, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 2

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Haisla language, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Aspiration (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:21, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Serbo-Croatian phonology

To answer your question, there's nothing wrong with the current state of the article. The offending text consisted of several parapraph of the Sun and Wind story, and they were removed from the article in March last year. The article as it stands now shouldn't be affected, only parts of its history are likely to get deleted. – Uanfala (talk) 21:18, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Oh, thanks for letting me know :) Fdomanico51997 (talk) 22:17, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 9

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Chukchansi dialect, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Aspiration (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:02, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Lulesamisk

I just received Spiik's Lulesamisk grammatik. Let me know if there are anything specific you would like me to check in it.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 11:46, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Check if there is a phonology section of the book. You could probably fix the phonological information if the one on the Wikipedia page is not as accurate. Or you could (if you possibly can) send me copies of the pages via my email (frankiedomanico597@gmail.com). If you cannot find anything, that’s fine. Fdomanico51997 (talk) 20:10, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Walloon language

Hi, could you explain this reversion? I can't spot any obvious problems. You should have given an explanation in the edit summary. — Eru·tuon 01:07, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

The phonological vowel chart was defomed, so I fixed it a bit Fdomanico51997 (talk) 01:50, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Okay, I see what you mean. I redid my edit and fixed the table. — Eru·tuon 01:55, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Fdomanico51997. 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)

!Kung language

Hi. I reverted your recent addition to this article. At first I thought it might belong at Central !Kung, though it's difficult to know without a cited source. On closer look, though, it seems to be a melange of dialects rather than any particular phonology. If it is Central !Kung, and you have a source to support it, it would make a nice addition to that article.

Thanks, — kwami (talk) 09:50, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami Yes those basically were just all of the !Kung dialects combined, and not that specific either. The source I found was able to display the phonological information for Central !Kung (Grootfontein !Kung) so I was able to make that addition. Fdomanico51997 (talk) 02:22, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 7

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Central !Kung, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Aspiration (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:25, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Fdom5997. You have new messages at Amateur55's talk page.
Message added 20:17, 11 February 2019 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Oh my god I just realised what you did to my tables

Okay, so I spent a very long time separating the various phonemes into their own cells. It took me hours and hours and hours. I have just noticed that now there are perhaps up to three phonemes in one cell. It is not clear which of them are phonemes anymore. Especially Middle Cornish palato-alveolar fricatives. Which now reads 'ʃ [ʒ~dʒ]'. Now, is that ʃ, realised as [ʒ~dʒ]? Or is it two phonemes, /ʃ/ and /ʒ~dʒ/?

^ ^ ^ Please answer this question, it is very important ^ ^ ^

Similarly, it is much more important that we can see that /m/ and /mː/ are separate phonemes in Middle Cornish than that the tables look 'much better and more organized' (to whom, one might ask...)

That was the whole point of what I did - to give each ***phoneme*** its own box. Now they are all messed up again when I did not know how to separate them properly. It is now ambiguous, and makes me want to cry. Tewdar (talk) 15:07, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

I put the old ones back. Please, if you think there should be changes, go to the talk page and we can discuss it.Tewdar (talk) 15:37, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

PLEASE STOP CHANGING MY TABLES

/m/ and /m:/ are SEPARATE PHONEMES IN MIDDLE CORNISH

PLEASE FOR THE LOVE OF ALL THAT IS HOLY STOP 'FIXING' THE TABLES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Tewdar (talk) 17:52, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

THERE IS A TALK PAGE ON THE DRAFT ARTICLE - USE IT!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tewdar (talk • contribs) 17:55, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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) 00:20, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

November 2019

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Eric Swalwell. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. – Muboshgu (talk) 05:25, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Please preview, consolidate, and summarize

Hello, and thanks for your efforts here. Below are a few editing suggestions to make it easier for you and others to collaborate on the encyclopedia. Please preview, consolidate, and summarize your edits:

• Try to consolidate your edits, at least at the section level, to avoid cluttering the page's edit history; this makes it easier for your fellow editors to understand your intentions, and makes it easier for those monitoring activity on the article.
  • The show preview button (beside the "publish changes" button) is helpful for this; use it to view your changes incrementally before finally saving the page once you're satisfied with your edits.
• Please remember to explain each edit with an edit summary (box above the "publish changes" button).

Thanks in advance for considering these suggestions. Eric ^talk 23:06, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Was there anything in the above post that you had trouble understanding? Would you like further guidance? Eric ^talk 03:03, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

A request

Hello, if you have some time, can you check the edits by 175.223.23.204 at Chokwe language, Luchazi language, and Khwe language? The IP has engaged in vandalism and I'd like to know if these recent edits are legitimate. Thank you. Nardog (talk) 00:55, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Help:IPA/Danish‎

Please stop edit warring and start discussing on the talk page. The decision to get rid of the voiceless diacritics was made after a thorough conversation, as you can see on the page. Nardog (talk) 23:55, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Natchez language

Hi Fdom5997! I have seen you have reverted a recent unexplained edit in Natchez language, and admonished the editor about his "messing around". Well, any kind of edit is fine, if well-sourced and well-explained, so I have added a friendly, but "orange-colored" reminder for that editor to use edit summaries.

Why I'm here: at least in the case of Natchez, the other editor was actually not totally wrong, and most likely acted in good faith. In all published descriptions of Natchez that I can look up at the moment (Haas 1956; Kimball 2012,2013a,2013b), the "stop" phonemes are listed as: /p/, /t/, /c/, /k/, /kʷ/, and /ʔ/. Kimball adds [ts] as phonetic realization of /c/. Now, obviously, [ts] is not a stop in IPA, so a strictly phonetic table will have to treat it the way we presently do in Natchez language. But if the sources actually only tabulate phonemic systems, shouldn't we then follow the paradigms given in the sources, and make necessary phonetic explanations (such as /c/=[ts]) within that framework without altering the orginal grid? Just a thought. –Austronesier (talk) 11:41, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

@User talk:Austronesier I see what you're saying, and yes I do accept using the phonemic transcriptions, but as long as we are noting the phonetic transcriptions along with it. So then yes, it is totally fine using transcriptions such as "/phonemic/ [phonetic]". But they must be used at the same time. Fdom5997 (talk) 22:20, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Bernie Bro

I reverted your edit to Bernie Bro where you said the allegations of racism and sexism are false. This is not something that can be proven false, and with millions of Sanders voters there are bound to be some racists and sexists in there. There have been definite incidents of Sanders supporters harassing others, and even if they don't make up a large proportion of his base, they have been noted by the media. Your edit also violated WP:NPOV.— Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 01:09, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes that is true. And there also was an inequality between women and men being paid in 2016 as well. Bernie had come and apologized for this and addressed this in January 2019. Fdom5997 (talk) 03:56, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

The fact that Bernie apologized for it doesn't make it not true. A candidate can't stop their supporters from doing something. Most of his supporters aren't like that but the few who were/are got a lot of media attention. Your goal seems to be protecting Sanders' reputation.—Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 05:03, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Well yes it did happen. I do admit I am a bit biased. Fdom5997 (talk) 05:05, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

February 2020

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
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 and 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.
As you have been told several times at this point, the recent changes to Help:IPA/Danish and Danish phonology were made after extensive discussions. You're absolutely entitled to challenge them by laying out your case on a talk page, but not by making abrupt edits to articles or the help page. Nardog (talk) 19:56, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Slender R

In the Irish phonology article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_phonology Why have you modified slender R to be represented by its less common allophone? The reason given seems to be that allophones should be noted seperately, but every other phoneme in the phonemic chart is represented by the IPA of its primary allophone, e.g. broad L. Why should Slender R be any different?

That is because, [ɹ̝ʲ] is its phonetic symbol. The phonemic symbol is transcribed as /rʲ/. Fdom5997 (talk) 17:22, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Where? In Celtic studies papers and books on Irish phonology the phoneme is usually given as /r'/, see The Irish of West Muskerry or any of the DIAS dialectology monographs. How is /ɾʲ/ its phonemic symbol when it's explicitly saying it is a palatalised tap? Look at broad L it is given as /ɫ̪/ which explicitly gives its realisation.64.43.132.47 (talk) 22:57, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

August 2020

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Lithuanian phonology; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
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 and 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. Nardog (talk) 04:21, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Please do not remove closing tags

In this edit and possibly others, you removed closing </small> tags. Please do not do that. Closing tags are required for all tags that are opened. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:31, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Why did you revert my edit?

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Swahili_language&oldid=prev&diff=980392505 I removed the reference since it was a 404 not found page. No use keeping dead links around, and reverting it makes no sense. It should either be replaced with a correct link if you know of one, or another source which supports the same claim. Since I'm not aware of any of those, I marked it as citation needed, so someone else can do that. But dead links are just clutter. Smashhoof (talk) 08:36, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

I reverted it because it was only a dead link. Unless it is archived somehow, somewhere, then it could potentially be reverted back Fdom5997 (talk) 08:39, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 27

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Teanu language, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Labiovelar consonant. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 10:21, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Stuff

/ś/ does flow between [ɕ ~ ʃ] and how do i know this? because ima native speaker, so you dont believe a native speaker huh edit: its the same in all the southern dravidian languages

There is no source cited to prove that though. Fdom5997 (talk) 00:07, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

here

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) 02:52, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

m

Sorry but which part of it is "false"? AleksiB 1945 (talk) 02:34, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

/ts/ does not exist in Malayalam Fdom5997 (talk) 03:43, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

[1] AleksiB 1945 (talk) 04:07, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

tat-samayaṁ not tatsamayaṁ Fdom5997 (talk) 04:20, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

here and there is also an audio version of it

Qaqet

Hey,

you keep adding the approximant [w] as a phoneme in the Qaqet article. I assume you follow Parker & Parker (1974).

I am currently in the process of reworking the Qaqet article based on Hellwig (2019). Prof. Hellwig has done years of fieldwork documenting the Qaqet language, and her grammar is by far the most comprehensive one yet. I am working for Prof. Hellwig in her project on child-directed speech in Qaqet, so I have a lot of experience with first-hand Qaqet language data myself.

The 2019 grammar does not list /w/ as a phoneme of Qaqet. The sound does surface in Qaqet words, but Hellwig analyzes it as an allophone of /u/ (and, accordingly, /i/ has a consonantal allophone /j/). There are good reasons for this analysis. First, it fits the syllable structure better: the maximal syllable in Qaqet is CCVVC, as in sɽiam; if you admit the semivowels as true consonants, you would have to expand the syllable structure to CCCVC. Also, there is free variation in the realization of these semivowels, between secondary articulation of the preceding consonant and true diphthongs; so kua can be [kua] or [k^wa]. Of course, these matters are always a source of contention. But, in any case, if you do include /w/ in the consonants proper, you would have to include /j/ as well.

I would really appreciate it if you explained your reasoning behind /w/ being a phoneme, or else refrained from undoing my changes to the article.

Captain Jreg (talk) 15:21, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

@Captain Jreg thank you for giving me a more detailed explanation on this matter. Hellwig (2019) also gives detailed information on this and also explains how the semivowels are not phonemic. I agree that if I were to list the two sounds, they should be in phonetic notation as allophones of /i u/. Fdom5997 (talk) 22:13, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

December 2020

Hello, I'm Eyer. I noticed that you made an edit concerning content related to a living (or recently deceased) person on Matt Gaetz, but you didn't support your changes with a citation to a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now. Wikipedia has a very strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate and clear. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you! —Eyer (If you reply, add {{reply to|Eyer}} to your message to let me know.) 23:26, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Ese language phoneme change

I italicized the tsh because that phoneme doesn't appear in the chart, and I wanted someone else to correct it. Reverting my change doesn't solve the problem. Sdiabhon Sdiamhon (talk) 12:54, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

I corrected it because it was incorrect according to the source. It is not a palato-alveolar sound [t͡ʃ], it is an alveolo-palatal [t͡ɕ]. Fdom5997 (talk) 17:54, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for making the correction. Should the /ts/ allophone also be retroflex like its voiced counterpart?2806:102E:18:314D:A50F:2242:88BE:D507 (talk) 21:15, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello

Hi. I recently edited the phonology on the "Turkmen language" article and you seem to be redoing all of my changes. In fact, I believe this is the second time you're doing this and there has been no reason for either of those. Why are you doing this? Sheppik (talk) 05:58, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

@Sheppik I am simply doing it because the phonological information is inaccurate and does not match the correct source given. Fdom5997 (talk) 22:32, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

January 2021

Hello. I have noticed that you often edit without using an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This helps your fellow editors use their time more productively, rather than spending it unnecessarily scrutinizing and verifying your work. Even a short summary is better than no summary, and summaries are particularly important for large, complex, or potentially controversial edits. Thanks! Austronesier (talk) 20:20, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Again?[2] The other user may be wrong in their approach, but they're not a vandal. –Austronesier (talk) 20:17, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Lithuanian phonology consonant table

I was under the impression that the table lists individual phonemes and that allophones are in the bullet list below ([ŋ] does not change the meaning of a word), not that the table lists most common sounds and the bullet list - less common ones. Austronesier seems to have that impression as well. And I see that you prefer the table to be inconsistent in two more ways. Anyway, I'm an introvert so huge that the trill exchange in Talk:Lithuanian phonology caused me to have digestion problems and your revert without explanation had me holding back tears. I won't be making any more edits. Pat yourself on the back for taking the trash out. 37.157.147.100 (talk) 09:18, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Take this as a level 3 warning for disruptive editing. Don't revert well-explained and constructive edits without an edit summary, as you did here[3]. The next steps are level 4 and ANI (with request for a block or topic ban), if this behavior doesn't change. –Austronesier (talk) 12:13, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Inuktitut. Again, you have reverted constructive edits in several articles without an edit summary as if they were just vandalism. The novice editor did not leave a edit summary either, but clearly we have to distinguish between new and experienced editors. –Austronesier (talk) 12:52, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 20

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Adi language, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ramo language.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:05, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 27

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Neverver language, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Labiovelar consonant.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:02, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 3

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Maninka language, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Labiovelar consonant.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:59, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Edit summaries

Hello. I have noticed that you often edit without using an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This helps your fellow editors use their time more productively, rather than spending it unnecessarily scrutinizing and verifying your work. Even a short summary is better than no summary, and summaries are particularly important for large, complex, or potentially controversial edits. Thanks! Laterthanyouthink (talk) 00:13, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Nenets language additions

Hei Fredom! I just wanted to know why you reverted the edits on Nenets language, since they adhered strictly to verifiability, and most language articles that don't have a seperate article on "Grammar of X language" feature grammatical information beyond phonology. So, would you rather want there to be an article "Enets grammar" instead of including the relevant information on the "Enets language" article? Nice work adding the information to different language articles! Best, Dont-you-love-it-when (talk) 02:43, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes, why? And note: why rhymes with WP:AN/I. So please provide a good explanation. –Austronesier (talk) 13:21, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

@Dont-you-love-it-when I reverted the edits because they are not phonological symbols, and are mainly used for the orthography. Do I want a separate page for the grammar or phonology? No because why do we need it? This page is displayed to show the information of the language, including the grammar (and phonology), so it's not necessary to need to create a separate page. Fdom5997 (talk) 17:54, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

@Fdom5997 I've browsed through the cited source, Künnap (1999) again, and this is how Künnap represents the phonological system, so it's in line with verifiability. You could want to figure out what exactly Künnap meant, but in the end, the columns of the table tell you everything one needs to know. In Uralistics, people often don't use the IPA but the so-called Finno-Ugric Transcription, short FUT, also called Uralic Phonetic Alphabet (UPA) which uses a lot more diacritics but is designed to capture the sound systems of Uralic languages specifically. If you were to change the transcription by Künnap, you would have to do original research. Furthermore, discontent with not using the IPA does not touch on the other undoings. So I would really recommend considering undoing your undoings, it will be a verifiable addition to the article. Btw, Books-are-my-love-language is an experienced student of mine in a course on Uralistics and I have reviewed their grammar sketch before they went on to add it to Wikipedia. Books-are-my-love-language didn't ask me to ask for the circumstances of the undoing, it was simply me who was interested to know why such a nice addition would be undone, and what I might have overlooked when I assessed their work. Best, Dont-you-love-it-when (talk) 23:28, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

@Dont-you-love-it-when I will not undo my undoings because if you are to display the phonological information anywhere, you have to use the IPA (International Phonetic Alphabet) symbols. Finno-Ugric Transcription is only used when strictly studying Uralistics. This was not an addition, you were replacing the IPA symbols. Most people who have knowledge of phonetics study the IPA chart, universally speaking, so every phonetic transcription of phonology is consistent. Fdom5997 (talk) 23:43, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

@Fdom5997 Would you undo the undoing of stuff that is non-phonological if the non-verifiable IPA chart is kept?

@Dont-you-love-it-when: A retranscription of the sound charts is not original research as long as the sounds are sufficiently explained in prose in the source. So if e.g. the source says "i̮ is an unrounded high central vowel", then it is ok to retranscribe it as [ɨ]. Ideally, there should be a key that explains how the spelling convention used for the remaining sections relates to IPA. This key can be included in the sound tables. –Austronesier (talk) 09:08, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Khmu language

Wjy did you undo several edits, including a bot edit, with no explanation in your edit summary? ― Qwerfjkltalk 06:08, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

I did leave an edit summary, while I was fixing the Phonology section that had been hijacked. Fdom5997 (talk) 06:12, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

If you were only trying to fix that, then you should have done it manually, not by reverting. ― Qwerfjkltalk 06:14, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Ok, yes. Sorry about that. Fdom5997 (talk) 06:16, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Removal of ɪ and ʊ from Marathi phonology

Hi, Fdom 5997. Recently in the page of Marathi phonology, you added the IPA sounds ɪ and ʊ back into the 'Vowels' table. While I do thank you for re-adding the template I added in the table, I suggest removing the two symbols mentioned, as they do not appear in the Marathi language, unlike Hindustani. Furthermore, as the symbols aren't mentioned in the rest of the article, they seem unnecessary, or out of place.

Sincerely, SomePacifisticGuy SomePacifisticGuy (talk) 07:59, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Austronesier (talk) 11:21, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

matching mayan languages’ phonology chart

i think it is a good idea for all mayan languages to have the same order of the phonological chart. because if i want to compare i could be able to copy-paste it but as you reverted it i would have to sort it instead of easily comparing it. so i don’t think it was unneccessary to put the phonological charts in the same order.

Gtmnsa (talk) 21:53, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

@Gtmnsa well guess what, not everything revolves around what you “personally” prefer. Fdom5997 (talk) 00:42, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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) 00:47, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Bangime language

Hi Fdom5997, just a little unsure what you meant in this edit. Not a problem to me if you do not think the brackets appropriate, but I became really confused by your edit summary that went along with their deletion: I did not think brackets (these) indicated either /phonemic/ or [phonetic] "occurrences". I was merely trying to follow the pattern used in the table of distinguishing allophones. You'll have to bear with a very rusty transcriber; it's been years and years. Can you enlighten me? AukusRuckus (talk) 11:36, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

@AukusRuckus: When you put a sound into parentheses in phoneme tables, it primarily suggests it is marginal (e.g. only occurring in loanwords). Another common practice in WP is to add non-phonemic allophones in phoneme tables with parentheses. I am not exactly a fan of this, but you see it very often and that's what you apparently intended to indicate with (j). The problem is, /j/ is neither marginal nor non-phonemic. The contrast between /j/ and /ʒ/ is neutralized in some environments, but still robust (according to Hantgan's dissertation; I don't have access to the MGL volume). What indeed needs to be put into parentheses is [dʒ], which appears to be an allophone of /ʒ/ after /n/ (again following Hantgan's dissertation). –Austronesier (talk) 13:14, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

@Austronesier: Thanks so much. I really appreciate the explanation. And yes, you're right, that is what I intended (following the intro above the table "Sounds in parentheses are either allophones or [marginal]") However, I see what you mean, and also better understand Fdom5997's ES. Thanks for taking the time. AukusRuckus (talk) 13:27, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Regarding your erroneous edits in Dogri's phonology section

I see that you have taken it as your new hobby to revert my edits. I hope you're enjoying so far. However, such petty edit wars cannot continue on a site like this. You asked me for a source for the new phonology chart, and I provided one - a legitimate document about the structure and phonology of Dogri from a government-sponsored institute which documents the languages of India. Yet you refuse to accept it. Your 'source' is incorrect. Dogri doesn't have the open back unrounded vowel 'ɑ'. it has an open central unrounded vowel 'ä/a:', like Hindustani (refer to Hindustani phonology). The Eternal Wanderer (talk) 03:47, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

@The Eternal Wanderer I do not revert edits just for fun and games. Your source is just simply not of actual linguistic data. The source that I used is a physical copy of a book that is *actually based on* the linguistic structure of Dogri. Your source is just a government-based documentation on the languages of India, not a linguistic/grammatical source. And neither did I even insist that Dogri does not have an open central unrounded vowel [ä], /a/. It does, but it fluctuates to an open back vowel sound [ɑ], and was just transcribed as /ɑ/ rather than [ä ~ ɑ]. Fdom5997 (talk) 05:48, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

@Fdom5997 That source was also authored by linguists, so it is of 'actual' linguistic data. Moreover, being a native speaker of Dogri, I can assure that it does not fluctuate back to an open back vowel. Moreover, you removed my addition about the nasalisation of the long vowels too. Out of the 10 vowels in Dogri, the 7 long ones have a nasalised variant [ĩ ũ ẽ õ ɛ̃ ɔ̃ ã] not just [ĩ ʊ̃ ɔ̃ ɑ̃ ɛ̃] as your source (incorrectly) states. How do I know that? Because I'm a native speaker, that's why! In fact ʊ is not nasalised in Dogri as it is a short vowel. Since you won't be satisfied without proof, here you go - नेईं [ne:ĩ:] आपूं [a:pũ:] लोकें [lo:kẽ:] जोंगा [dʒõ:ga:] भौं [pɔ̃:]. Another issue with your 'source' - ɲ and ŋ shouldn't be in brackets. Unlike f and z, which are seen in loanwords, ɲ and ŋ are part of the 'vyanjan' and have their own place in the alphasyllabary. Also, ɦ does exist in Dogri, in words like [ɦa:] 'was' and [ɦe:] 'were'. ALSO, Dogri has DENTAL, not alveolar plosives. So, it is more accurate to write t̪ t̪ʰ and d̪ in the IPA chart instead of t tʰ and d. The Eternal Wanderer (talk) 07:02, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

@Fdom5997 Thank you for taking my points into consideration. I have no further qualms with the phonology section. Cheers! The Eternal Wanderer (talk) 09:31, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Blackfoot phonology

/ks/ IS a phoneme in Blackfoot, and you removed it without reason. There were already five sources for its inclusion when you removed it.

Got it, my bad. Fdom5997 (talk) 01:08, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

The Linguist LL (talk) 22:20, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Third party

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Wikihounding. The discussion is about the topic Topic. Thank you. Eievie (talk) 00:01, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Rusyn Vowels

Just wanted to understand your edit to Rusyn language#Vowels. The modification I made to the chart brings it in line with what is presented in Pugh 2009 (and is itself a translation) from the Rusyn Presov standard grammar, Василь ЯбурАнна Плїшкова - СУЧАСНЫЙ РУСИНЬСКЫЙСПИСОВНЫЙ ЯЗЫК (2009), pg. 10.

Are "Front-Central" and "Central-Back" nonstandard terms in linguistics? Let me know! --^💬KaerbaqianRen 17:20, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Sidenote: the source I included does not apply to the reverted version of the table.

23:57, December 11 2024 (UTC), KaerbaqianRen^💬

Hello @KaerbaqianRen, to answer your question, those terms are typically not standard terms when explaining the articulations of vowel sounds in linguistics. I believe that what Pugh meant to say was that they were more centralized rather than "front central/back central". I actually do have Pugh's same publication, but I was just simplifying it in that it is rather confusing because Pugh does not use the exact phonetic transcription to display the vowel sounds in his publication. I also just want to let you know that I may revert the vowel section back because I put down that note to prove that those vowels pretty much are phonetically centralized, as Pugh (2009:24) has stated as "front central/back central". Fdom5997 (talk) 09:34, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

December 2021

A ridiculous cat

Please excuse my erroneous edit, likely a mistaken rollback or revert caused by my fat fingers, hypnagogia, or one of my ridiculous cats. I have likely self reverted or noticed the mistake after you corrected it. Again, my apologies. Thank you. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:42, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Levantine Arabic FAC

Hi Fdom, I nominated Levantine Article for FAC. As you're interested in linguistics and Palestine, I thought you could be interested in reviewing this nomination. Thanks for any help you can provide. A455bcd9 (talk) 08:48, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Well thank you very much for the nomination! Sorry if it is about time that I am replying, but I do have a real interest in Palestine, and truly believe that they must be given autonomy and human rights! And I also find the Southern Levantine Arabic dialects interesting to study as well! Fdom5997 (talk) 04:04, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Siglitun

There is no need for the bold text in those boxes. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Text formatting#Boldface. Also there is no need to link Canada as per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking especially What generally should not be linked. The link link at "Language family" shows as Eskimo–Aleut but links to Eskimo–Aleut languages on the next line linking [[Eskimo language|Eskimo]] is just a redirect to Eskimo–Aleut languages. Not useful for the reader. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 21:37, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

Hello, Fdom5997! I just noticed that you have edited the term "Jin Chinese" for several times. As a Jinnish reseracher and second speaker, I'm really appreciate it. Due to some reasons my first language is Standard Mandarin, although I am native to Shanxi province. Still, I have been learning & researching Jinnish for 8 years and discovered some unique features which most "experts" neglected or ignored such as 孃母(nr-) — a unique feature discovered by a friend of mine 5 years ago. If you are interested in Jinnish language or Mandarin. I'm glad to tell you anything you wanna find out! And finally, Because Jinnish is quite unknown in the western world, I have decided to make some videos about it in the next few months! Plz contact me by telegram or email My telegram https: t.me/JinnishResearcher My Email: kanjibanzai@gmail.com Tsingnywiki (talk) 03:33, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

@Tsingnywiki Well thank you very much for your kind words and your knowledge of the Jin Chinese dialect here! I am very fascinated in general linguistics from any language across the world. And I decided to display the information on the phonology, because I believe that one of the key subjects to study in the field of linguistics, is the pronunciation of both languages or dialects. I came across many different sources that displayed the phonology for the dialects of Fenyang and Taiyuan, the more represented of the Jin Chinese dialects. I find it interesting that there are several different dialects of Chinese, and how each dialect may differ in regards to grammar and phonology. If you could add more to the grammar section based on your knowledge, I'd love to see it! Fdom5997 (talk) 04:00, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

I just started to work on the page of Jin Chinese again, but this time is in English.

I also created a reddit channel r/jinnish months ago, more information posted there. Tsingnywiki (talk) 22:49, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Tsonga

If 'tl' etc. are not affricates, does that mean they are laterally released stops? Not sure what the IPA for them would be, if only 'dhl' is an affricate. Also odd that the one "affricate" is voiced -- wonder if that's allophonically a fricative. Otherwise, what's the difference between "dl" and "dhl"? (Please ping.) — kwami (talk) 08:35, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes, according to Baumbach (1987) they are known to be lateral-released stops, not affricates. The IPA for them is pretty phonemic. Not sure why “dhl” is more of an affricate and is the only voiced fricative one. It does not say that the lateral-released stops allophonically have fricative affricates. And “dl” is also laterally released like “tl” but voiced, and “dhl” is the fricative affricate. Fdom5997 (talk) 15:14, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Okay, I'll change them to unambiguous lateral release.

We don't indicate other allophones, and the slight adjustment of the nasals and mid vowels is trivial, so best covered in the text with the rest.

For the supposed dental nasal in -nqunta 'kiss', could that be a nasal click? Quite odd for a language to have clicks but no nasal ones. — kwami (talk) 17:51, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

I see it as more of a syllabic nasal [n̩-] sound before the click. I can check the source again just to make sure. Fdom5997 (talk) 18:12, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

He gives a similar inventory for Fwe in "Languages of the Eastern Caprivi" (1997), and that language definitely has nasal clicks (voiced and voiceless). So I wonder if his analysis is trumping phonetics. Or perhaps he was mislead in Fwe because of Tsonga -- it would be nice to have a second RS. — kwami (talk) 18:21, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

If you want allophones, add the allophones listed in the source. If you don't want to do that, then don't. But don't try doing both at once. I'll keep reverting until you follow the source. — kwami (talk) 17:04, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

I.P.A. transcription of "elle evanescente" in Venetian.

I can't find any section in the grammar of Belloni that uses I.P.A. transcription for this sound. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Moreover, I can add a list of academic literature of Venetian linguists that clearly transcript the sound as (AND ONLY AS) [e̯]:

1. Zamboni, Alberto (1980): Veneto. Pisa: Pacini.

2. Ferguson, Ronnie (2007): A Linguistic History of Venice. Firenze: Olschki.

3. Tomasin's article "elle evanescente" is already in the bibliography of the Wikipedia page - Tomasin, Lorenzo (2010), La cosiddetta "elle evanescente" del veneziano: fra dialettologia e storia linguistica (PDF), Palermo: Centro di studi filologici e linguistici siciliani.

For these names (and obviously Cortelazzo) there is a continuous cross referencing in academic literature about Venetian, Belloni I never heard of and I've never seen cited his name anywhere in academic papers.

There is no difference between "word initially and elsewhere" - it's also not correct. It should be "word-initially and intervocalically" /l/ > /e̯/. That only in the case that we don't have a /e, i/ sound around, there it gets deleted altogether i.e. telefono [teˈɛfono] "telephone". Hence i.e. luna [ˈe̯una] "moon", la cola [e̯a ˈkɔe̯a] "the glue", but vardarla [vaɾˈdaɾla] "looking-her". Or lezar [ˈɛzaɾ] "to read" but par lezar [paɾ‿ˈlɛzaɾ] "for reading". So obviously the transcription of one of the most famous Venetian words gondola should be [ˈɡoŋdoe̯a], [ˈɡoŋdoa] or [ˈɡoŋdola], but surely not [ˈɡoŋdoɰa].

I need you to tell me exactly where you deduce the transcription [ɰ] for these words. Thank you.

(PS. Zamboni has phonetic transcriptions of recordings for every Venetian variety in his monography).

Gianluca Beraldo (talk) 17:58, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Wichí vowels

In Wichí the front open vowel patterns with the front vowels /i/ and /e/ for phonological processes, which is why it was listed under the front vowel column, and not a central vowel column, despite being phonetical more centralized.

This same process occurs in the Nivaclé language. While your edit comment about there being no reason to remove the central column again isn't wrong (You can leave the edit, this isn't me telling you that you need to change it), there also is no point in adding it. It can stay either way on the Wichí languages page as both interpretations are correct, but show different information, but it does not need to be changed on pages like Nivaclé Language in the future, as there are citations in Lyle Campbell's book Nivaclé Grammar that defend it remaining as it is. (The phonological processes mentioned).

TLDR: You don't need to make any changes based on my feedback, just know that sometimes there are reasons why a language's phonology might be grouped as it is. The Linguist LL (talk) 19:29, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Regarding your edits to Jingpho Language

Hello,

I've noticed you hounding my changes to various phoneme charts for the last few days. I am here to ask why you had to revert my change here [4] (which only cleaned up the table and orthography sections), and then proceed to add back everything I changed over the course of about 20 minutes up until this revision, [5], which as you can see if you compare the two only put a word inside some brackets and changed the word "voiced" to "central" on the chart - and you did not restore the initially incorrect (before I fixed it) orthography section - which included incorrect phonemes such as [ʒ] - and a shocking mix of IPA and IPAblink.

In the future, if you wish to continue, I request that you put your own changes on top of my edits and refrain from mashing the revert button then doing the exact same thing I did.

I trust you will fix the outstanding issues with the Jingpho orthography chart as well. Thanks.

P.S. - might I add, you did the exact same thing with the Northern Ndebele page as well.

P.P.S - and Fula - in which you literally just turned the table back to the exact version I changed it to in the course of two edits. How is this in any way a good use of your time?

Stan traynor (talk) 17:07, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Persistent reversion of my edits

Hello,

I've noticed that you've kept reverting my improvements to phonology charts for little reason, despite my request for you to stop. For example, you did the exact same thing to Luri language as you did to Jingpho, etc. If you do not stop, I will be forced to take this to Wikipedia:ANI (and I expect they will take a very dim view of your actions considering what happened last time. Thanks. Stan traynor (talk) 06:41, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

How about just leave the charts alone the way they are? There really are no rules to how the charts "have to look". What really matters is that they are based on a reliable source. As long as the charts are not too excessive, but if they display an affricate row, or a lateral row, or a palatal column with a postalveolar column, it really is not a big deal. Other than that, your renditions of the charts really are not worthy. Fdom5997 (talk) 07:45, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Why are they "not worthy"? The smaller the chart the better, in my opinion (and your reversions of my edits have led to massive expansions of some charts... see Comorian languages).

You were specifically told to "cut it the hell out" in the ANI thread from December, and I'll echo what the admins said there - "You do not WP:OWN the articles and should only revert disruptive edits."

My edits are in no way disruptive, and if you continue to revert them I will be taking it to ANI. Stan traynor (talk) 07:53, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

@Stan traynor: What constitutes an improvment may lie in the eyes of the beholder. Many of your undicussed mass edits are just cosmetics and reflect personal preferences which you cannot unilaterally introduce to every phone/phoneme chart. If you feel that Fdom5997 has reverted a substantial improvement to a table, then please discuss it in the talk page of the respective article. –Austronesier (talk) 07:56, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Phoible

@Fdom5997 What leads you to think phoible isn't a reliable source? It's used in a ton of articles ([6]) - and there's no reason for it not to be, since it's just a compilation of phonemic analyses from other sources. Would you rather the direct source of the inventory was cited instead? Stan traynor (talk) 17:36, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes, the direct source is always more reliable than a secondary. Fdom5997 (talk) 01:23, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Armenian phonology

Not many articles have their letters for that system next to their IPA transcriptions, it makes it easier to read. 87.115.190.116 (talk) 19:20, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Banjarese

So not only are you putting unsourced material in the article, but you delete the sources I provide so you can keep it? If you believe the source is wrong, take it to talk. Otherwise knock it off. — kwami (talk) 04:02, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

@User:Kwamikagami No. The material is* cited that I am publishing. And I just cited another newer source to further prove my point. Fdom5997 (talk) 04:05, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

So we have conflicting sources. Durasid has 3 monophthongs and 3 diphthnogs. We can show both. — kwami (talk) 04:09, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

How about let's just leave it at Sudarmo's source. It explains the standard dialect, and is much more updated. Fdom5997 (talk) 04:16, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Because there's apparently some variation, and it would be good for us to reflect that. On Banjarese Wiktionary, there are editors who use only the 3 vowels a, i, u, even in loan words, e.g. assimilating "asteroid" to "astiruit". Others use 5, though I can't tell if they make a phonemic distinction or are merely retaining the Indonesian orthography of technical words.

Also, does Sudarmo say anything about /e, o/ being introduced through loans? — kwami (talk) 04:24, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

No, Sudarmo confirms that they are phonemic (not from loans). The three vowel inventory occurs in the Kuala dialect. Fdom5997 (talk) 04:28, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Sounds introduced through loans can be phonemic! But if he shows minimal pairs using native vocab, that would be clear enough. — kwami (talk) 04:30, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

He shows the sounds appearing in native vocabulary, and concludes that there are 5 vowels. And does not state that they're from loan-words. What you're mentioning with the three vowel inventory, is only the Pahuluan* dialect of the language. Fdom5997 (talk) 04:39, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

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) 01:33, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Basque phonology

Could you care to explain why my edit to the table was "unconstructive"? Because unless we're using diametrically different definitions of "unconstructive", I don't see it at all. Santi2222 (talk) 21:12, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

It was unconstructive in that it did not fix or add anything. All it did was format the chart in a way that you personally preferred to see it as. Fdom5997 (talk) 21:20, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

So, your reasoning is that having the exact same information as before shown in half of the space is just "my personal preference"? Is having a phoneme chart in which the spellings aren't shown in boldface also my personal preference? I like phoneme charts in which the most visible thing are phonemes, but I don't think this is a very controversial opinion.--Santi2222 (talk) 22:09, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Sarrail (talk) 05:13, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

December 2022

This is your only warning; if you purposefully and blatantly harass fellow Wikipedian(s) again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. As reported at ANI, with consideration given to your previous behaviour — leave Eievie alone. — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 06:11, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Hitchiti vs. Mikasuki

User:Donald Albury is cleaning up the Hitchiti article, which currently covers both the historic tribal town and the Hitchiti language. We were curious if the Hitchiti language is the same as the Mikasuki language or if it's a related dialect. Omniglot appears to say they are the same. Native-Languages.org suggests Hitchiti is an extinct dialect of Mikasuki-Hitchiti. Thank you for any insights! Yuchitown (talk) 18:38, 18 December 2022 (UTC)Yuchitown

Edits of Ch'ol Language Jan 2023

Hello, I saw you reverse my edits to the Phonology section of the Cho'l Language. I did include my source, so I'm not quite sure what you meant by "unsourced." Also, it is more accurate to order consonants from obstruents to sonorants, which is why I changed the order of "Nasal." YjlJeremiah (talk) 17:32, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

I was wrong about the “unsourced part. But the order you arranged them in is not at all accurate. Most IPA charts are ordered with the nasals in the first row Fdom5997 (talk) 20:14, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, this is not IPA, but a subsection of language typology. In most Linguistics papers, in particular language typology, the consonant inventory is ordered in the way in which I did. YjlJeremiah (talk) 04:00, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Wyandot Phonology Reversion

Hi, I would like to ask why my edits to the phonology section of the Wyandot language were reverted. The table had the orthographic representations of some sounds but not others, and I was adding those that were missing. Electricbrass (talk) 18:57, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

I didn’t revert your edit. I reverted some no-name guest who hacked the phonology chart. Fdom5997 (talk) 19:37, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

It was me. I didn't notice I wasn't logged in when I was making the edit. Electricbrass (talk) 19:41, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Oh. Well it was wrong and not according to the sources provided that I have seen. Fdom5997 (talk) 19:44, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

It is based on class materials made by Dr. Craig Kopris (cited elsewhere on this page) for the Wyandotte Nation's language classes. Electricbrass (talk) 20:14, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

That's not a reliable source. If you are citing phonology or linguistics, cite one that is written by an actual linguist, with a professional background. Fdom5997 (talk) 20:23, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Craig Kopris has a Ph.D. in linguistics and has been the Wyandotte Nation's linguistic consultant for years. The majority of the linguistic information on this page is cited as coming from his grammar and dictionary of the language from 2001. Electricbrass (talk) 20:46, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes but /d/ is not prenasal. It's a standard voiced plosive. Most other sources will tell you that. Fdom5997 (talk) 20:52, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

I did not change the table to say that it is prenasalized. I only added that it is written in the language's orthography as <ⁿd>. (And by the way it is written this way because it is often prenasalized, as stated in the main source that the rest of the phonology table was taken from). Electricbrass (talk) 21:16, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

With all due respect, I don’t think you have the basic skills needed to do research or edit a Linguistics Wikipedia page if you can’t even Google a respected Linguist’s name. YjlJeremiah (talk) 20:52, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Well how about go look for yourself at other sources. I guarantee you that they will not list /d/ as prenasal. Fdom5997 (talk) 20:56, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Moldavian

Do you have a source that Moldavian standard Romanian is phonologically distinct from Romanian standard Romanian? (Or really, that the phonology differs when the Moldovan standard is called "Romanian" and "Moldovan".) If not, the phonology section is superfluous and per FORK should be deleted. Note we're not talking about the Moldavian dialect here -- if that's what the table is, it belongs in the dialect article. — kwami (talk) 09:11, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

After going over an old revision of the phonological info that was listed on the Moldovan "language" page, you can see that it displays at the bottom of the section, a shared link to this page as the "main article". So I believe that we should move the old phonological charts to the "Moldavian dialect" page. Fdom5997 (talk) 02:10, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Could be. Doesn't really match, and no source. But no source at the dialect page either. — kwami (talk) 02:30, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

I am currently in the process of acquiring one through my ILL services. Fdom5997 (talk) 04:03, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Sounds good! — kwami (talk) 05:43, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Tewa Phonology

Hello! Please don't revert my changes to the Tewa consonant chart. If you read the source cited, you'll see that my edits were in keeping with the academic material about this topic. Pages 43-50 were particularly enlightening on this subject. I'm simply trying to help make sure this language is well documented on wikipedia where it is more easily accessible by the general public :) OctoToast (talk) 20:49, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

I had just read the pages of the source that was given. A little rendering on the chart and information needed to be done, but overall the info and sounds are correct. Fdom5997 (talk) 01:19, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Please leave the phonological charts and info alone. It is much more presentable and simplified when the chart is condensed, since it takes up much less of the page, and the policies of Wikipedia even recommend to do so. Stops and affricates are also technically the same (but co-articulated), and are pretty obvious to point out, so you do not need a separate row for them, and you don't display the retracted line under the first articulated consonants of the affricates. I also left the note out about the apico-alveolar consonants. Fdom5997 (talk) 00:37, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

According to that logic, affricates and fricatives are the same. I also don't see the point in combining dentals and alveolars and separating them by sibilation it is the same number of rows as simply. making dentals and alveolars their own categories. OctoToast (talk) 19:02, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

No, fricatives are not the same as affricates, if you read the rules of the IPA, it explains exactly how affricates are a form of stop sounds. And for sure, the IPA does combine the dental with alveolar articulation, and it definitely separates the fricative sounds whether they are sibilants or central (plain) fricatives. These are explained in the rules of the IPA. Fdom5997 (talk) 21:04, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Show me the source that says that affricates are stops. While you're at it, show me the source that says to combine dentals and alveolars. OctoToast (talk) 04:25, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

@OctoToast: The Sounds of the World's Languages should cover that, as does our article Affricate. But that doesn't mean that we should indiscriminately lump together plain stops with affricates in the phonology tables. After all, [ʈ ɖ] are distinct from [tʃ dʒ]. It may be a good idea to always distinguish plosives from affricates in the table. Sol505000 (talk) 08:19, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes but those sounds aren’t even in this language. Ok fine, but it does still compact the table more when you merge the affricates with the plosives. Fdom5997 (talk) 09:33, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

It's not just a matter of whether the display is "compact" or not. It's the phonological structure that matters. In many languages of Northern America, especially the Northwest Coast area and the Athbaskan languages (and also in many Caucasian languages), affricates structurally align with plosives. In others, they obviously form their own series parallel to plosives (as in Swiss German). –Austronesier (talk) 13:33, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

When I hear [tʃ] I definitely distinguish it from [t] / [t̪] by affrication alone (no matter the language). The stop portion is just too similar to the phonemic stops, being laminal postalveolar. OR or not, the affrication is definitely the most decisive factor here. Unless the source explicitly states that the affricates pattern as plosives (as they do in Faroese), they shouldn't be put in the same row. Just my two cents. Sol505000 (talk) 13:55, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Absolutely agree. Only a reliable source can us about how the phonemes pattern. I am sure @Fdom5997 follows the same approach (we regularly revert the IPA kids who believe that every phonological table has to look the same, regardless of how the source presents the sound system). –Austronesier (talk) 14:04, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Exactly. Although I honestly don't mind the plosive/affricate sharing row though. If it's already there, leave it, but if it's not, then it's not necessary. That's my take. Fdom5997 (talk) 14:07, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

About sounds, Kazakh language

But those sounds are same like in the Kazakh IPA chart page. While what I see in Kazakh language, phonology page is not correct. Like ұ is always ʊ, Ү - is [Y] or [y]. Ö is ø and etc. Could you please return my changes back. NusrTansj (talk) 04:43, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

No because that info is unsourced, and the Kazakh IPA page needs to be changed because, that page is incorrect. The sounds on the Kazakh page are already sourced, and are phonetically correct. Fdom5997 (talk) 05:39, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Kazakh I.P.A. chart page is regulated by the confirmed user called Nardog. And where are the sources? I don’t see any of them about vowels. Stop talking nonsense, there is the sound of ü(ү) mentioned 3 times and all 3 of them shown as 3 different IPA letters. NusrTansj (talk) 13:11, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

The source is Vajda, Edward (1994), "Kazakh phonology". It is already cited for the consonants, and also explains the phonetic sounds of the vowels, cited within the vowel section. That is the source to use, as well as Wagner et al, “A Grammar of Kazakh. Fdom5997 (talk) 17:36, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

You have no idea nor knowledge, nor interest about it. As I said before the letter ү/ü mentioned 3 times in this one Kazakh phonology page and all 3 times it’s shown as the 3 different IPA letters. Give at least 0,0001% of attention before arguing about something you have absolutely no idea and stop overusing your position by devaluing the work of people with one click NusrTansj (talk) 10:10, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Well thanks for the passive-aggressive rant. I believe that it’s really important to go by actual sourced material. Not just simply by Wiki users. Fdom5997 (talk) 10:12, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Istriot

Istriot very much uses the symbol "ʃ" and those native names for dialects, you can pick up any dictionary published by anyone and see that. I can cite to you from which dialect I specifically wrote for the word list and if you wish I can direct you to the exact pages of the dictionary where I got the words from. 46.35.129.212 (talk) 17:20, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Portuguese phonology consonant table

This revert of my edits from over a year ago is completely incorrect. /ʃ ʒ/ are not dorsal and /w/ is not a "labialized /j/". Next time, either read the edit summaries or abstain from editing in areas outside of your expertise. The alveolar trill is not a standard sound for /ʁ/ and the table is meant to cover Standard Lisbon Portuguese. If it was meant to cover regional dialects, we'd have to put the alveolar tap in parentheses as the dialect of Setúbal features only one rhotic phoneme that is uvular, as in French. Sol505000 (talk) 07:03, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

I've grouped together /ɾ/ with /ʁ/ as central liquid consonants. That should do. Sol505000 (talk) 07:21, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

I respect your viewpoint, and yes that’s good you moved them to the liquid row too. At the same token, I was also thinking of merging the uvular column with the velar one, and have that be named as a “dorsal” column. Hope that’s okay with you. Fdom5997 (talk) 10:04, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

/j/ is dorsal too so that wouldn't work either. Sol505000 (talk) 13:17, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Why not? Then put /j/ in there too. Fdom5997 (talk) 13:23, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

And group it together with /w/? How would that work? Sol505000 (talk) 13:26, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Because /w/ is labialized. /j/ is not Fdom5997 (talk) 13:27, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

/w/ is not /ɥ/. The two don't belong together. Sol505000 (talk) 13:30, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

/j/ is in a totally different column though. Either just leave the the palatal column and put dorsal, or just combine and say velar/uvular. Fdom5997 (talk) 13:38, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

We can't "leave the palatal column and put dorsal". Palatal IS dorsal, unless we're talking about palato-alveolars [ʃ, ʒ, tʃ, dʒ] which are coronal. All other palatals (so alveolo-palatals, post-palatals/pre-velars, etc.) are dorsal. It's like putting a "coronal" column next to a column titled "alveolar". It makes zero sense.

Velar/uvular could work. The problem is that the initial /ʁ/ in Lisbon is often trilled, and a velar trill is impossible (that's another reason to label it a "liquid", which ignores the exact manner of articulation and voicing, which is appropriate for EP). I'd say just leave the palatal/velar/uvular distinction. Sol505000 (talk) 13:43, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't have very strong arguments against the merger, given the fact that the third column is titled "Dental/Alveolar". The hard/long R in Brazil is often velar so I guess that the merger can be justified on this basis. Sol505000 (talk) 14:35, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Your clearly prevalent conflict-of-interest edits

I am entirely right in that many of these so-called "language isolates" are infact not ones. You and your cabal of sock and meatpuppets are vandalizing this encyclopedia to promote your clearly false views on language isolates. Nestofbirdnests (talk) 01:56, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

I think someone needs to take a step back and realize that you are not citing *any* of your info here. I do and I know what I am doing. So please take your passive aggression somewhere else. Fdom5997 (talk) 02:03, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

You do not know what you are talking about. I'm simply trying to respectfully ask you to stop vandalizing Wikipedia with your hoax edits. I do not need to cite these because they are common sense statements that even a mentally retarded kindergartner would be able to determine as true. Nestofbirdnests (talk) 02:05, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Well then you need to leave. If you can't cite anything, and make a false claim that my edits are "hoaxes", let alone use obnoxious language towards me, then you clearly don't belong here. Fdom5997 (talk) 02:07, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

What obnoxious language? Fine. You want sources? I'll show you them, to disprove your obvious hoaxes. Nestofbirdnests (talk) 02:17, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

But they aren't "hoaxes" because I have cited sources backing up my info (which is by all means necessary, if you are going to contribute to Wikipedia). You haven't so you sir, are clearly in the wrong here. Fdom5997 (talk) 02:20, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

I am not in the wrong, as almost every single one of your so-called sources are WP:FAKE. Nestofbirdnests (talk) 02:24, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, Fdom5997 for handling this and standing your ground when for two hours(!) this freak could uninhibitedly insert complete shit into Wikipedia. Great job!

Why I'm here: you have added a phonology section to Banggai language based on van den Bergh's grammar. Do you happen to have a digital copy of it? I only have a print copy in a deplorably torn shape, and never managed to scan it for fear it might totally fall apart when scanned. –Austronesier (talk) 18:35, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Hello Austronesier,

First, thanks for your feedback on this total freak that was destroying Wiki pages here, and second, yes I did get a copy of the book, but sadly it’s just the phonology section. If you still would like a copy of it, please let me know.

Thanks, Frankie Fdom5997 (talk) 18:43, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

In that case, I'm fine, thanks. I thought it would be nice to have an OCR'd digital copy of the whole book for easy searching, but for my current purposes, the print copy is good enough. –Austronesier (talk) 19:05, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

@Austronesier bad news is, I think he reappeared as an no-name IP account. The number is 173.73.180.124. Block him please Fdom5997 (talk) 19:42, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

He was socking earlier as User talk:Stoatery. I have informed admin C.Fred about the IP abuse. Austronesier (talk) 19:44, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

@Austronesier Will they be blocked? We need to block them before they all manifest. Fdom5997 (talk) 19:55, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Piedmontese language

I did not appreciate you reverting all my edits (supported by sources) only to remove a statement you disagree with. Next time undo only the edit on [ts] and not on the rest as well. Be more careful next time

Shack76 (talk) 18:51, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

No, this is not a matter of a “personal disagreement”. Those are not reliable sources for the phoneme inventory. The ones that were cited in the section already, are actual sources that explain the phonology. Fdom5997 (talk) 18:54, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Why did you revert my edits on the Amharic page?

I added sources and I was trying to make it more accurate 2601:192:8701:B4C0:C54:A0C3:D194:7AB (talk) 20:01, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Because they were not constructive, and it already had sources. Fdom5997 (talk) 20:04, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Timucua språk

Hei, jeg vil at du skal avklare om Timucua-språket er isolert. Gi meg kilder som sier dette. Takk! Kekemaki (talk) 20:19, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Granberry (1993:15) states it is "lexically an Isolate". Fdom5997 (talk) 20:22, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Jeg ser dem. Takk skal du ha. Kekemaki (talk) 20:28, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Swahili Phonology

Hello, I have seen that you have reverted several of my edits on Swahili phonology, stating that they are unsourced. That's my fault for not putting in the source as I did the update. I should have done that. This is the source for my edits. Would you mind reverting your reversion of my edits? Thank you.

Omar, Y. A., & Frankl, P. J. L. (1997). An Historical Review of the Arabic Rendering of Swahili Together with Proposals for the Development of a Swahili Writing System in Arabic Script (Based on the Swahili of Mombasa). Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, 7(01), 55–71. doi

https://doi.org/10.1017/S1356186300008312

BasilLeaf (talk) 06:40, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Well, this is not a reliable source for the phonology itself in that it discusses an assimilation between Arabic and the language, as well as just a writing system. And there are already sources that are cited for the phonology below. So no this is not a reliable source to use Fdom5997 (talk) 08:38, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Why did you revert my changes on the dutch phonology page?

Hi, I saw that you reverted my edits on the page. I would like to know why. I'm a native speaker of the language and have noticed those sounds being there for a lot of speakers. You morr (talk) 15:32, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

That’s not enough evidence for actual info that requires citations. The info there was already cited, and the info you presented was not accurate. Fdom5997 (talk) 23:08, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Understandable, but how is it not accurate exactly? You morr (talk) 16:58, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Because no sources (reliable ones) support your claim. Most palatalized allophones of alveolar stops are palatal not post-alveolar. Fdom5997 (talk) 18:15, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Xhosa ejectives

They're labeled "tenuis/ejective" because they vary between tenuis and ejective. All sources I've seen state either that the ejection is weak, or that it's optional. — kwami (talk) 04:51, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

In that case if they do state that, then I'd suggest to write that as a separate note. Showing consonant variables in the chart is rather excessive. Also, why change the symbol of the /kl/ ejective to something non-displayable? Fdom5997 (talk) 04:55, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Should display if you've got SIL fonts. Other fonts may take a while to update; U14 has been out for a year and a half.

Yeah, maybe it is too much. We could try putting the ejection mark in paretheses, but that might be just as confusing.

One of the issues with the clicks is that e.g. <ᵏǁʼ> makes it look like the entire click is somehow ejective, when it's just the rear articulation (which is probably uvular rather than velar, but that's another issue). So we might want <ǁᵏʼ>. But then, when prenasalized, that would give us <ŋǁᵏʼ>, which could be read as a nasal click. <ŋᵏǁʼ> solves that problem, but then we're back to the whole click looking ejective. Without separate symbols for voiced and nasal clicks, à la Beach or Doke, it's hard to get an IPA transcription that's intuitive and legible. — kwami (talk) 06:23, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Okay, I've tried cleaning it up. See if that works for you. — kwami (talk) 06:35, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Thanks! Fdom5997 (talk) 08:23, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami just out of curiosity, how do I display all IPA + extended IPA unicode symbols in my browser? What do I need to download? Please let me know. Thanks. Fdom5997 (talk) 08:35, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

You can follow the links at Andika (typeface) [sans-serif] and Gentium [serif] and download those fonts. They're free and open-source, and more complete than any other IPA font I've ever come across (apart from Doulos and Charis from the same outfit). The only significant problem with them is the lack of kerning, but adding kerning to a complete IPA font would make it absolutely huge and probably slow to display.

Personally, I find the 'book' variants of Gentium to be the most attractive, if you want to print anything out; IMO it's the most attractive IPA font I've seen. — kwami (talk) 08:40, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

I did actually download Gentium, but how do I make it able to display the extended IPA symbols on my browser? I didn’t figure out how to do that yet. Fdom5997 (talk) 09:03, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Ah, I'm not entirely sure.

I did modify my CSS for this. There may be other ways to do it, but at:

User:[name]/monobook.css

I added the lines:

.IPA { font-family: "Gentium Book Plus", "Gentium Plus" !important; }

.Unicode { font-family: "Andika", "Arial Unicode" !important; }

But that overrides the formatting of 'IPA' and 'Unicode' tags, and I see such characters correctly even when they're not explicitly formatted as either -- and I can't explain why I should be able to but you can't. You should probably check at the WP Teahouse, where you can find someone who knows what they're talking about. — kwami (talk) 09:32, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Alleged alternate account

Hi, just as a heads-up, Libertydom5997 (talk · contribs) was created recently claiming on their user page that they were a legitimate alternate account of yours, but then engaging in some shenanigans with Nestofbirdnests (talk · contribs) and getting themselves checkuser-blocked. I suppose that wasn't really you, but could you quickly confirm? Thanks! Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:45, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

It was not me. That was purely a sockpuppet. Those shenanigans must be blocked. Fdom5997 (talk) 16:00, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for confirming. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:30, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Cayuga [sʰ]

Not sure if it's a phoneme or just a C sequence that needs to be mentioned because it's not reflected in orthography. But it can start a word (e.g. Henry's name). — kwami (talk) 05:41, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

I believe it is in Froman (2002), represented as <sh> Fdom5997 (talk) 05:51, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

I meant the practical orthography. It would require mention if only for that. — kwami (talk) 06:23, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

It looks like you were right about Cayuga. Mithun Languages of Native North America says, p. 426: "The phonological inventory is small: consonants t, k, ts, s, n, r, w, y, h, ˀ; and vowels i, e, a, o, ę, ǫ (with variant u for o in some contexts)."

She gives examples with kh, th, tsh, but also hs, ht, hkw even one hkh and word-final hs. So perhaps the t/d, ts/j, k/g distinctions in the dictionary are for phonemic Ch sequences; presumably the Sh- in Henry's name is also a sequence, just with no good analogue in English orthography. — kwami (talk) 06:15, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, but a linguistic source from 1999 trumps a layman pub by the same author two decades earlier. — kwami (talk) 07:59, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Stop reverting my edits if you're just going to repeat them

This is a waste of your time, I have no idea why you're doing it, but if you want to change something I've edited just change it, don't revert the entire edit then put most of it back and just leave out the part you want to change. Stan traynor (talk) 00:05, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Ok, how about you contribute with useful information, or with just ipa links (which are good). You zealously “condensing” the appearance of the phonetic charts is only unconstructive drivel which doesn’t contribute anything, and just drives me insane. Seriously, do you have any better things to do? Fdom5997 (talk) 00:47, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

it's not "unconstructive drivel", condensing IPA charts is a big positive for readability and ease of interpretating information, as it makes charts smaller and thus easier to take in at a glance, makes them easier to read on mobile devices where screen space is often very limited (for instance, the tables of Northwest Caucasian languages are often unreadable on mobile devices due to how wide they are, so making them more dense improves their readability), as well as removing large columns which have no reason to exist (i.e. some charts show aspiration as a feature specific to place of articulation, yet they only have aspirated stops - therefore the chart should be rearranged to pattern aspiration with manner of articulation). The same is true for tables that group voiced and unvoiced consonants in the same cell - the average reader, unversed in table conventions, has no way to know what the positioning of a consonant in a cell means, and thus they should be split up and appropriately labelled. Condensing charts improves accessibility and makes wikipedia easier to read, which from my POV is a worthwhile contribution as any. In any case, neither of us are qualified to deem what is "unconstructive drivel" or not, if you still think making wikipedia more accessible is unconstructive and keep reverting my attempts to make charts easier to read for no reason (you've never actually explained why this is "unconstructive"), then I will consult AN/I for a definitive judgement. Stan traynor (talk) 08:27, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Help with Albanian vowel 'e'

Hi! I hope you don’t mind me asking this here. A while ago, my edit on Help:IPA/Albanian was reverted with the justification that it was not discussed. I made the edit after my changes on Albanian language#Phonology. According to this paper The Vowels of Standard Albanian, the IPA for ‘e’ is /e/ and not /ɛ/. I understand that there is occasional alternation, but it seems unexplainable to me that ‘e’ would be pronounced always or mostly as /ɛ/. Would you be able to find out more? I’m asking you because you seem knowledgeable about phonology and have shown interest in Albanian. If you can’t or don’t want to, that’s perfectly fine. Just ignore this message. Thank you in advance!

I've copy-pasted this message from the one I've sent to Austronesier since you both have shown some interest and are knowledgeable about it. Hope you don't mind:) FierakuiVërtet (talk) 19:32, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Greenlandic

Why does greenlandic lack tense? Millows (talk) 07:17, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Central Pomo

Why does Central Pomo distinguish /k/, /kʰ/, /kʼ/ from uvular /q/, /qʰ/, /qʼ/? Millows (talk) 19:57, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

I really can't answer your questions here, only because I am not a linguist, I am just a language/linguistics enthusiast. Fdom5997 (talk) 03:19, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Bashkir language

please leave the editing of the article to more advanced users and native speakers. please don't undo the edits. Başqurd (talk) 17:05, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

How do I know if you’re an “advanced user”? Also, if you’re information doesn’t have a citation provided, then it should not be submitted. Fdom5997 (talk) 17:15, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Please do not

Hello. It appears your talk page is becoming quite lengthy and is in need of archiving. According to Wikipedia's user talk page guidelines: "Large talk pages are difficult to read and load slowly over slow connections. As a rule of thumb, archive closed discussions when a talk page exceeds 75 KB or has multiple resolved or stale discussions." – this talk page is 132.8 KB. See Help:Archiving a talk page for instructions on how to manually archive your talk page, or to arrange for automatic archiving using a bot. If you have any questions, place a {{help me}} notice on your talk page, or go to the help desk. Thank you. Also, quit being so disrespectful to editors. Zwithzs (talk) 00:46, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Muysccubun page

Hi, I'm the one who edited the page for the Muysccubun language. I made those edits as the wikipedia page is highly inaccurate and has a lot of spelling errors and just letters which straight up don't exist, and many other errors. Can I ask why exactly you reverted them? Iraca (talk) 00:32, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

On a sidenote, I even doubt you actually speak Muysccubun or have any evidence to support the claims and arguments made on the wikipedia page for it? Iraca (talk) 00:33, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

I reverted them because of a) they were unsourced, and b) how the glide sounds /w/ and /j/ were taken away, as the main source does list them as phonemes. And the orthography was accurate, according to the main cited source Saravia, 2015. Fdom5997 (talk) 00:43, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

A suggestion

Hello. It appears your talk page is becoming quite lengthy and is in need of archiving. According to Wikipedia's user talk page guidelines: "Large talk pages are difficult to read and load slowly over slow connections. As a rule of thumb, archive closed discussions when a talk page exceeds 75 KB or has multiple resolved or stale discussions." – this talk page is 134.8 KB. See Help:Archiving a talk page for instructions on how to manually archive your talk page, or to arrange for automatic archiving using a bot. If you have any questions, place a {{help me}} notice on your talk page, or go to the help desk. Thank you. 96.88.217.161 (talk) 21:17, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Edit warring is not vandalism

Hi Fdom5997, please avoid describing edits made during an edit war as "vandalism" (Special:Diff/1173411404). Disagreement can become disruptive, but is very rarely vandalism, and accusing others of malice without evidence is highly unlikely to improve any situation. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:30, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Yazghulami

Hi Fdom5997, please see my comment on the Talk page of the Yazghulami article. Thank you! Erusse estelinya (talk) 08:08, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Nganasan Vowels

Hello Fdom5997, would you please explain why you reverted my edit?

Thanks,

Ian :) Wizardito-OL (talk) 06:53, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Because it was unsourced information. Fdom5997 (talk) 06:55, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Actually, I added a source, https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Harmonic-classes-in-Nganasan-with-a-analyzed-as-rounded-However-if-i-a-and-u-a-are_tbl2_353235954/actions#reference

So with that in mind, please reconsider.

Thanks so much,

Ian :) Wizardito-OL (talk) 06:59, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Better Link: https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Harmonic-classes-in-Nganasan-with-a-analyzed-as-rounded-However-if-i-a-and-u-a-are_tbl2_353235954 Wizardito-OL (talk) 07:03, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Helimski (1998) lists /a/ as mostly a central vowel sound, as do most oher sources that I’ve looked at Fdom5997 (talk) 07:15, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Other than that, any issues? Wizardito-OL (talk) 07:29, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

If you'd like I can just make it so that it lists /a/ as a central vowel only. Wizardito-OL (talk) 07:31, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

I already did it, with a better source, Wegner-Nagy (2019) Fdom5997 (talk) 07:39, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

What makes it a better source? Wizardito-OL (talk) 07:41, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

It lists all the phonology in better detail. Fdom5997 (talk) 07:42, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

You are right, but the vowels are apparently inaccurate, as ᵘa is an allophone of a that occurs after h, and not an independent vowel, and this source goes over vowels in great detail.

Have you read it? Wizardito-OL (talk) 07:44, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Also, I made the article easier to read, and added some VERY important notes, so I do not understand why you decided to revert it, despite how much better it was. Wizardito-OL (talk) 07:51, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Okay, let's compromise, my vowels charts with your changes, and your consonant chart. I think that this will overall make this article significantly better. Wizardito-OL (talk) 08:16, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

How about we leave the charts alone, and you can re-add any cited info that you added before. That’s my position. Period. Fdom5997 (talk) 08:19, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

I am adding it, but it requires me to split the chart into 2. Wizardito-OL (talk) 08:33, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

We're kinda saying the same thing here, which is good. But ALL of the changes I made that you reverted were said citation-info changes, so I'm seriously sorry if you dislike them, but there's not much I can do about it without compromising the accuracy of the article. I'm really sorry. Wizardito-OL (talk) 08:49, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

With that being said, please don't revert the edit that I am about to publish, I worked very hard on it.

Thanks, and Sorry,

Ian :S Wizardito-OL (talk) 08:52, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for understanding. Wizardito-OL (talk) 09:11, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Central Siberian Yupik language

Which particular parts of this didn't you like? So much so that it didn't require an edit summary.

Starting from the top neither United States nor Russia should be linked as per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking#What generally should not be linked. This applies in several places.

Your replaced [[Chukotka Autonomous Okrug|Chukotka]] with [[Chukotka]] but the second link is a disambiguation page. Not helpful to the reader.

You changed [[Siberian Yupik]]s to [[Siberian Yupiks]] making it into a redirect.

You changed [[Eskaleut languages|Eskaleut]] to Eskimo-Aleut, again, making it a redirect.

You changed [[Eskaleut languages#Internal classification|Eskimo]] to [[Eskimo languages|Eskimo]] making it a redirect.

You changed [[Cyrillic script|Cyrillic]] to [[Cyrillic]] making it a redirect.

You changed "United States" to [[USA]]. That, as mentioned, is contrary to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking#What generally should not be linked and also to Wikipedia:Manual of Style#US and U.S.. Which, in part, says "...do not use U.S.A. or USA except in a quotation...".

You changed [[Chaplino dialect|Chaplino (Chaplinski) Yupik]] (Uŋazigmit) is spoken on the shores of [[Chukotka Autonomous Okrug]] in the [[Extreme North|Russian Far North]], and St. Lawrence Island Yupik to '''[[Chaplino dialect|Chaplino (Chaplinski) Yupik]]''' (Uŋazigmit) is spoken on the shores of [[Chukotka Autonomous Okrug]] in the [[Extreme North|Russian Far North]], and '''St. Lawrence Island Yupik'''. The bold text should be removed as per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Text formatting#Boldface. See the sections at Other uses and When not to use boldface. Neither of those terms are redirects to Central Siberian Yupik language so they should not be bold. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 18:45, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Nganasan in General

Look, I understand that you may not like my edits, but they give information that was requested for, and explain things that have been left unexplained, and IMHO, it's more helpful as it provides many more details. I'd like to hear your thoughts on this.

As for the vowel chart, I reorganized it for the section about vowel harmony I was going to add.

Thank You for Understanding

Wizardito-OL Wizardito-OL (talk) 22:26, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Also, my VERY descriptive source for vowels is from 2021 Wizardito-OL (talk) 22:29, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

By the way, how do I see the new 2019 source;? Wizardito-OL (talk) 22:30, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

After reading the source that you put previously, the info you published before does not even match that source from 2023 that you provided, and its info on the consonant and vowel sounds are literally identical. If you want to access the 2019 source, I'll leave a link for you here: https://books.google.com/books/about/A_Grammar_of_Nganasan.html?id=5oN1DwAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=kp_read_button&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0#v=onepage&q&f=false Fdom5997 (talk) 22:33, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

TYSM Wizardito-OL (talk) 22:34, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Wait, I can't see the full thing, and it DOES NOT explain consonant gradation, so please don't revert my edits if you're also taking away valuable information. Wizardito-OL (talk) 22:39, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Ok, then if you're publishing something totally different from the phoneme inventory, then I'd recommend that you'd add it back. But the phoneme inventory should stay. Fdom5997 (talk) 23:56, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

My sources are both better because they give clear descriptions of what they mean. Wizardito-OL (talk) 00:27, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

The one for the vowels is also more recent. Wizardito-OL (talk) 00:31, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

I read all of those sources and the 2019 source is clearly the worst of the 3. Wizardito-OL (talk) 00:33, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

No, they are not “your sources” and you don’t get to determine which source is “better”. They are all peer-reviewed and licensed sources, all written by scholars. Not to mention that the most recent of the sources you added does display the *exact* same information on the vowel sounds, and the phonemes in general as well. If one source has more information on one topic (like the consonant gradation, etc.), then add that info. But at this point, changing the phoneme inventory is incredibly pointless, because most of the sources all have the same information. Fdom5997 (talk) 01:14, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Okay, two problems with that response:

1. You once said "I did with a better source", so I don't want to hear that I can't say the same about mine.
2. When I say "My Sources", I (painfully obviously) mean the ones I am using to add information.

With those out of the way, what were you trying to say? I think I missed it. Wizardito-OL (talk) 01:24, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm saying that the phoneme charts should not be changed at all because each source displays the same exact info for each chart. Any other information that needs to be added, you should add. Fdom5997 (talk) 01:32, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

I have been, so please stop reverting my edits, okay? Thanks! Wizardito-OL (talk) 01:46, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Not unless you leave the phoneme charts the way they are, and no I did not read the whole chapter. But if there is any info there that is useful, then you should add it. Fdom5997 (talk) 01:57, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

I have the whole chapter. Wizardito-OL (talk) 02:02, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

And I added roughly what it said. Wizardito-OL (talk) 02:02, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

BTW, have you read the whole chapter? Just Curious. Wizardito-OL (talk) 01:49, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Oh, and apparently, both of my sources are newer, which surprised me. Wizardito-OL (talk) 02:01, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Hey, didn't I tell you to leave the charts and phonemes alone? Why didn't you listen? Fdom5997 (talk) 02:07, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

That isn't your job. I compared 3 sources or good measure and put in ALL I found. Wizardito-OL (talk) 02:35, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Also, I was about to publish an edit, but you messed it up and made me redo ALL of my work. Wizardito-OL (talk) 02:36, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

No, it's not about whose "job" it is. I let you put in any missing information, and I did not revert that because that was true info based on the sources. The phoneme chart I did, because they were incorrect, and the vowels were not put in the right places. This is correct information, and no I did not mess it up. I am actually taking a good look at all those sources, and yes the info is the same. Now leave it, and move on please. Thank you. Fdom5997 (talk) 02:43, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

No, because, unlike you, I have read the full chapter and it reiterates my point. If you thought you could edit-war or exhaust me into submission, you're dead wrong. Wizardito-OL (talk) 02:46, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

You're not winning by being confidently incorrect. Wizardito-OL (talk) 02:46, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Well whose to say that your info is correct? No I did not read the whole chapter, but I did read the phoneme inventory within the chapter and yes, it is correct! Your interpretation of the phonology is just wrong and you keep insisting that it is correct, when I know it is not. You can't keep edit-warring here or else I will report you and you will be blocked. Fdom5997 (talk) 02:50, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

You may have read the inventory, but you didn't read the fine details AT ALL, which is abundantly clear by your complete lack of knowledge of what the source really said. My word is stronger because I have multiple sources backing me up, and I read through all of the sources completely, so don't judge a book by its cover. Wizardito-OL (talk) 02:55, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes I did read it, you are not "winning", and no your word is not "stronger". The one who is really using the sources incorrectly, and lacking knowledge of what the sources say, is you. And like I just told you time and time again, that are all the SAME information! Fdom5997 (talk) 02:58, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

No, you haven't read it, and yes, I am winning. Wizardito-OL (talk) 03:04, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Says who? Yes I did read that section. Maybe you need to read it again. Fdom5997 (talk) 03:07, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

I mean ALL 3 ARTICLES, FULLY Wizardito-OL (talk) 03:08, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

No, but you keep changing the section that I KNOW that I read fully. It doesn't matter if it's the "whole section", because you are reverting the part of the section that I had read! Fdom5997 (talk) 03:10, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Because 2 other sources disagree, and it explains what you had read in the rest of the chapter. Wizardito-OL (talk) 03:12, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

2 > 1 Wizardito-OL (talk) 03:13, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Sorry for being disrespectful, just leave the page alone, okay! I read what I read. Wizardito-OL (talk) 03:15, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

No, I will not until you stop changing the phoneme charts. That is the deal. Fdom5997 (talk) 03:16, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

What are those 2 sources, may I ask? I'd assume they are Wagner-Nagy (2019, 2023) versus (2021) (one source) Fdom5997 (talk) 03:15, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Here you go:

Fejes, László (2021-07-13). "Reconsidering the Nganasan vowel system". Proceedings of the 5th Mikola Conference. Szeged: University of Szeged. doi:10.14232/sua.2021.54.229-253.

Wagner-Nagy, Beáta (2023-02-20), "Nganasan", The Uralic Languages, London: Routledge, pp. 753–792, ISBN 978-1-315-62509-6, retrieved 2023-09-25 Wizardito-OL (talk) 03:18, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

So now that you know, I kindly request you leave the article alone.

Thank you for understanding. Wizardito-OL (talk) 03:19, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

How about we call it a day where it's at right now, I'm about to collapse. Wizardito-OL (talk) 03:28, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

BTW, both of my sources are more recent than yours, so please just accept my edits and move on. Wizardito-OL (talk) 03:31, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Explain why you are reporting me. Wizardito-OL (talk) 03:36, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

3 strike revert rule. Fdom5997 (talk) 03:37, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Why did YOU keep reverting it? Was it to get me reported, because I will report you. Wizardito-OL (talk) 03:39, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

I didn't start it, obviously Fdom5997 (talk) 03:40, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

But you seem to have malicious intentions. Wizardito-OL (talk) 03:43, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Interesting, because you forgot to also include:

Wagner-Nagy, Beáta Boglárka. (2019) "A grammar of Nganasan". Leiden: Brill, pp. 34-74

Which provides the same phoneme charts, and a much clearer phoneme transcription, which makes it 2 against 1. And Wagner-Nagy (2023) is the *most* recent. Fdom5997 (talk) 03:33, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

2 outdated sources (you) against 2 revised ones (me), just admit you're wrong. Wizardito-OL (talk) 03:45, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

I also added content each time, so I don't believe I broke the 3R rule, and I just wanted to talk it out, but clearly, the truth was too much for you. :( Wizardito-OL (talk) 03:53, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

I'd probably win if that were the case. Wizardito-OL (talk) 02:55, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

My other 2 sources are both more recent than the one you're using incorrectly, anyway. Wizardito-OL (talk) 02:57, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm starting to question your intentions. Wizardito-OL (talk) 02:51, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Hold on, wiki is not cooperating. Wizardito-OL (talk) 02:34, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Ossetic phonology

Dear Mr. Fdom5997!

Please send me a reply message to the oc-pecypc@bk.ru. I would like to discuss with you some issues of Ossetic orthoepy. I am sure that you will learn a lot of new things for yourself.

Oc-pecypc (talk) 03:10, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

I do not know where you got your information from for the phonology, but it was unsourced, and before you changed it, the information on the phonology was already correct and sourced. Fdom5997 (talk) 05:20, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

The fact is that modern sociolinguistic realities in both parts of Ossetia are not fully reflected in the available scientific literature, and in the previous period of the development of Ossetic studies, scientific coverage was not devoid of significant shortcomings and accumulated a lot of obvious inaccuracies, which today there is almost no one to critically rethink. To have the full vision of the problem, you need to be there and thoroughly study the issue on the spot.

This is exactly what I invited you to share in an email.

And could you give your sources on the basis of which you have built your phoneme table? Oc-pecypc (talk) 14:38, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

@Oc-pecypc: @Fdom5997 does not own the content of the Phonology section in the Ossetian article, but he guards it against changes/additions that are not supported by WP:reliable sources. This is a backbone principle of this encyclopdia. So obviously, if there are changes to discuss, please do it in the open and ideally in the talk page of the concerned article for greater visibility. Also, if you see flaws in the way the content of our sources is represented in the article, please also discuss it there. Thank you! –Austronesier (talk) 15:29, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

OK. Then tell me the user who provided the phonology section with the appropriate content. I’m interested to find out from what sources he took it (I did’t find any references in the article itself).

In the same way, I added the VARIATION of pronunciation (vocalism) to the phonological table, as it was already reflected in the case of consonatism. I did’t delete anything from the existing one, although it was included in the article without any links to sources. Oc-pecypc (talk) 20:51, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

The main sources for the phonology that are used are Abaev (1964) and Testen (1997). These are reliable sources that are cited in the references below. Fdom5997 (talk) 23:49, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

I thought you would give specific sources from which it would be clear that the A sound is transmitted by the IPA symbol [a] or [ä], (and Æ/Ы – [ɐ]/[ɘ], respectively). But neither Abayev nor Testen used the IPA transcription in their works. In addition, in 1964, this system did not exist in its current form.

And in Testen’s text I found a significant factual error only at first glance. Some scientists, without leaving their offices, translate other scientists who have filled the vacuum with their work, and now we need to write monographs just to put an article in Wikipedia in order.

I also want to add that in that WP-article text of the Zelenchuk Inscription is given in an outdated version of reading. But already, I don’t know what difficulties I will have to face to fix it. What should I do if the main body of scientific data on the Ossetic is available only in Russian, and the translations referenced in this article are outdated in some moments and do not reflect the full picture?

I would just like to find a competent WP-phonologist, together with whom it would be possible to put the content of the article in order. I would be very grateful for your help.

Oc-pecypc (talk) 03:19, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Breton orthographt

You have reverted my edits on breton orthography because "I took away IPA sounds without any sources provided" I removed no sounds (besides [ä]) I only made transcription more comprehensive and I believe my edits were constructive. Could you provide a more detailed reason for your reverts. 2A01:B340:84:D6C9:FC86:A467:5D2E:5E7F (talk) 23:33, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Because you don't remove *any* IPA sounds, unless you have a source provided. [ä] is a low central vowel by definition, and it is a standard sound of the Breton language. So leave it alone. Fdom5997 (talk) 23:44, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

That doesn’t explain why you reverted all my other edits. 2A01:B340:84:D6C9:344D:A11B:1A53:8639 (talk) 00:03, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Because I couldn't only revert that one. Fdom5997 (talk) 00:04, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

If you are in that situation again please manually revert edits to avoid reverting constructive parts of slightly un constructive edits. If I redo the rest of my edits will you not revert them? And the reason I removed [ä] was because I thought it wasn’t distinguished from [a] since it isn’t mentioned in the phonology section. And FYI there are no sources in the correspondence section. 2A01:B340:84:D6C9:A167:AB60:9EF7:B3E6 (talk) 00:11, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

If you redo them, without removing *any* IPA sounds, then I will not revert them, and they can stay. Fdom5997 (talk) 00:16, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 21:25, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Phonemicity of /e/ in Klallam

Klallam Grammar, page 9 (emphasis mine): "So the occurrence of this sound is predictable [...] this systematic inconsistency [in the orthography] has been established at the request of elders, who [...] disliked spellings such as ʔíʔɬx̣ʷaʔ for ʔéʔɬx̣ʷaʔ 'Elwha.'

Am I good to reinstate my edits?

Algæ (talk) 19:35, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

If that’s what it actually says verbatim, in the page you just mentioned, then yes Fdom5997 (talk) 09:25, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

All right, thank you. Algæ (talk) 17:59, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Chechen

I have several issues with your reversion of my edit:

1. The source I used was not repeated, and it cites multiple sources.
2. I sought help from a native Chechen speaker who is also a linguist, and I asked her to demonstrate what the sounds really were, and she confirmed most of what I said in this article.
3. There is no such thing as an "epiglottalized" vowel or consonant, as it is in the same place of articulation as pharyngeal sounds.
4. You brought back pieces of information into the article without reliable sourcing, some of which are completely untrue.
5. You removed an extremely valuable source of information from this article, and denied the public this valuable information.
6. I have reason to believe that you reverted my edits as an act of revenge and not because you believe that the information is unusable.
7. This reversion goes against Wikipedia's policy of reversions, as this was an unreasonable reversion.

That being said, I think that it would be extremely advisable that you allow me to keep the edits I made last night. Just because you don't like the status quo being changed (or you don't like me in general) doesn't mean you get to revert it if it's without reason, and like this instance, detrimental.

The biggest issue I have however is your insistance on keeping unsourced, and often factually incorrect, in the article. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Wizardito-OL (talk) 16:31, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Well just to clarify, you did not cite any source in the phonology section, and yes the source that was already provided (Nichols, 1994) was the source that all of this info was based on. Nichols is also a Chechen linguist who legitimately published a valuable, extraordinary source for the Chechen phonology which is not "factually incorrect". You "seeking help" from some other Chechen linguist cannot be used as a primary source, whether or not what you said is even true. And yes there are epiglottal consonants and vowels (of secondary articulation) and to which no, are *not* the same place of articulation as pharyngeals. I have studied both linguistics an phonetics for seven years, and I just about know all of the phonetic places of articulations. No, I did not revert your edits as revenge towards you, and not because I "don't like the status quo being changed". I reverted them because they were ambiguous and *they* were not displaying the so-called "valuable information". It was not an "unreasonable reversion" because I have sources to back it up. And no, I will not let you keep any of these edits because obviously, they were not based on appropriate sources.

That is all I am going to say, I do not want any arguments here, so just simply leave it all, and let's move on.

Thank you. Fdom5997 (talk) 16:49, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

That wasn't the source I provided, and yes, I did, so stop making stuff up. Wizardito-OL (talk) 17:55, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

John Esling disagrees with you:

"The so-called 'Epiglottal fricatives' are represented [here] as pharyngeal trills, [ʜ ʢ], since the place of articulation is identical to [ħ ʕ], but trilling of the aryepiglottic folds is more likely to occur in tighter settings of the laryngeal constrictor or with more forceful airflow. The same "epiglottal" symbols could represent pharyngeal fricatives that have a higher larynx position than [ħ ʕ], but a higher larynx position is also more likely to induce trilling than in a pharyngeal fricative with a lowered larynx position. Because [ʜ ʢ] and [ħ ʕ] occur at the same Pharyngeal/Epiglottal place of articulation (Esling, 1999), the logical phonetic distinction to make between them is in manner of articulation, trill versus fricative." Wizardito-OL (talk) 17:57, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

"but trilling of the aryepiglottic folds is more likely to occur in tighter settings of the laryngeal constrictor or with more forceful airflow. The same "epiglottal" symbols could represent pharyngeal fricatives that have a higher larynx position than [ħ ʕ]..the logical phonetic distinction to make between them is in manner of articulation."

Yes, exactly my point. They may be articulated in the same area, but there *is* still a distinction in that they use more force.

And no, Nichols *is* a linguist in the field of North Caucasian languages (including, but not limited to, Chechen), so yes, her work should be cited here. Just because you find a person (or linguist) of Chechen origin (which you likely didn't even do), does not mean that they should be cited as a primary source, over the work of an actual linguist in the field of North Caucasian languages. Fdom5997 (talk) 18:11, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Also, if that's the case, then you aren't using her work as a source. Wizardito-OL (talk) 17:58, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Nichols is absolutely NOT a Chechen Linguist, and the person who talked to has Chechen as her native language. Wizardito-OL (talk) 18:02, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Lese Language

You reverted my change to the page (I undid it) when the source that we are citing (the third one) clearly says that the implosive q͡ɓ is phonemic and the stop q͡p is allophonic of the labial-uvular implosive. If you see the quote that I have shown from the introduction over here, you can see what I mean.

However, our own data and Vörbichler (1969), show that there are two more articulations, q͡ɓ and ɠ͡ɓ, in Lese. In addition, [...] q͡ɓ has an allophone q͡p.

— Didier Demolin and Bernard Teston, Phonetic characteristics of double articulations in some Mangbutu-Efe languages

That is also why I kept the labial-velar implosive and added back the labial-uvular implosive on the page. PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 14:43, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Ok, because before you said that only /q͡ɓ/ is phonemic, which is incorrect. This makes more sense now. Fdom5997 (talk) 15:54, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for understanding. PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 15:58, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Mizo language

you reverted my edit on the phonology of my language,can you please tell my why? and clearly no language has a [tʰl] sound Laiflsse (talk) 08:50, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Because you are getting rid of information that is already sourced, and publishing misinformation that is unsourced. Yes that is a sound in the language, and that is already cited and sourced. Fdom5997 (talk) 15:18, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

oh sorry for that, but the sourced information was incorrect as I actually speak the language and asked many people to sound what the language actually sounded like but do you still mind me editing it? if not I will stop plus, mizo

does not have sounds like [ʰn],[ʰŋ],[ʰm],[tlʰ],[tɾʰ] and more , thank you. Laiflsse (talk) 03:49, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

You can’t make that claim that the source is “incorrect”. And just because you speak the language, or even ask what it sounds like, doesn’t mean that you’re a primary source here. Yes those sounds *do* exist, as the source states, so yes please stop editing it. Fdom5997 (talk) 04:07, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

ok ill stop it but, the source is incorrect as there are many mizo videos which makes "/ʰm/ˈˈ,/ʰn/,/ʰŋ/ˈˈ incorrect, and not all sources are true, in my mother tonɡue which is mizo by the way, we do not have /tɾ/,/tɾʰ/ nor /ʰr/ we have retroflex /ʈʂ/,/ʈʂʰ/ and /ʂ/, but I think this is all nonsense as you've probably never studied mizo, thank you. Laiflsse (talk) 12:57, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Again, just because you speak the language, does not mean you’re a reliable primary source. These studies are done by professional linguistic scholar, who *did* thoroughly study the language, and peer-reviewed it. And also, watching videos or listening to recordings of the language are also not reliable as primary sources. You probably speak a certain dialect of Mizo which has different pronunciation, but that is not how the majority of the language sounds. Fdom5997 (talk) 15:02, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Ok,the studies done by the "linguistic professionals" are infact false even though I can't disprove them as im not a professional, and ,you probably think that in mizo phonetics change depending on dialect but thats false, as dialects of this language only change words like the names of fruits and utensils, and I also speak the major dialect which we mizo call "duhlian" which is primarily the most spoken, and we also have southern dialect, and burmese dialect which also in fact only change words and in the burmese dialect they take small burmese words like the word for key, they say "sot" whereas southern and duhlian took the hindi version but with a glottal stop "chahbi", so stop assuming.

thank you for your time. Laiflsse (talk) 03:02, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Ok, but they are not wrong. And please stop changing it. Thank you Fdom5997 (talk) 03:42, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

want to ask you why you said not good source?, literally hakha lai page uses the same source so why dont you change it?, and the literal language does not have aspitated sonorants. Laiflsse (talk) 08:34, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Because the phonology is already cited, and does not need another source. The info that’s given is already correct. Fdom5997 (talk) 08:36, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:49, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Undefined sfn reference in Yandruwandha language

Hi. In Yandruwandha language you use {{Sfn|Breen|2004}} but no such work is defined. This means that nobody can look the reference up, and also paces the article into Category:Harv and Sfn no-target errors. If you could supply the missing source that would be great. DuncanHill (talk) 11:02, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Reported

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Eievie (talk) 17:08, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Rajasthani language

Why did you revert that, when its clearly covered in another article? scope_creep^Talk 17:22, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

It is not covered in another article. It was in the “Rajasthani languages” page, but it was all already moved from that page, to the “Rajasthani language” page. Fdom5997 (talk) 17:26, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

@Fdom5997: Was there is a discussion around the split from the Rajasthani languages article. Why was it split off and why are other editors trying to revert it back to the redirect? scope_creep^Talk 08:49, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

I do not recall a discussion regarding the split from the “Rajasthani languages” article. But I do know that it was split because the Rajasthani language is a standardized form of the Rajasthani languages, so I’m pretty sure that that was the case. But I do not know why editors are trying to revert it back. I have told them numerous times to leave it alone. Fdom5997 (talk) 08:54, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Right-oh. That is cool. I've reviewed it. References 24-52 have harv errors. There is not citations for them. scope_creep^Talk 16:58, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

So can someone fix them? Fdom5997 (talk) 17:41, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Incident report got buried. Thank you. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 00:21, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Block

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for harassment (WP:FOLLOWING). You need to stop following Eievie around, as you did earlier today with Yonaguni language, a page you've never edited before (diff). If you persist with this misconduct, sanctions of increasing severity will become imminent. Thank you. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  El_C 09:27, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 7

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Tindi language, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Palatalized.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:04, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Reverting edits

I've noticed you have a tendency to mass-revert edits you don't like, even when there's only one minor bit out of paragraphs of info you have a problem with. If someone makes a sizable edit but only one aspect of the edit has a problem, just go in and manually revert that part. There's no need to revert everything. Overall I also notice from your editing history and talk page that you have a very domineering attitude on here. Arguing with a native speaker of a language that they're wrong about their own language, when you know nothing about the language yourself (as you did here, e.g.), is not a great move. Just try to keep in mind that other people can make contributions, too, don't bite, don't be so quick to mass-revert useful contributions, and know the limitations of your knowledge. Dylanvt (talk) 22:01, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Ok first of all, I forgot to manually revert, and second, when citing information on languages, you cannot automatically go by one person who is a speaker (or even native) of that language, as it may also be considered anecdotal. Unless you are a certified, professional linguist (which I am not) documenting information on a linguistic profile of a language, which would then be used to publish actual source material for a language; then it is not the way to automatically cite a source of information. Fdom5997 (talk) 22:34, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Although here you were not wrong, since you cited a source to prove your information. Fdom5997 (talk) 22:46, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Please archive your talk page

Hello. It appears your talk page is becoming quite lengthy and is in need of archiving. According to Wikipedia's user talk page guidelines: "Large talk pages are difficult to read and load slowly over slow connections. As a rule of thumb, archive closed discussions when a talk page exceeds 75 kB or has multiple resolved or stale discussions." – this talk page is 220 kB. See Help:Archiving a talk page for instructions on how to manually archive your talk page, or to arrange for automatic archiving using a bot. If you have any questions, place a {{help me}} notice on your talk page, or go to the help desk. Thank you. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 17:07, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Gubbi Gubbi language phonology

Hi. I was wondering if your addition the Phonology section in Gubbi Gubbi language was directly based on J. P. Bell (2003), A sketch grammar of the Badjala language of Gari (Fraser Island). Was Bell (2003) using these IPA symbols or some other description? https://phoible.org/inventories/view/2940 seems to have a different set. Moyogo/ (talk) 18:28, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi Moyogo,

Yes I do have that source, and yes that was the source that I used for the phonology. The transcription/description of the sounds was the same. Fdom5997 (talk) 18:32, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Great, thank you! --Moyogo/ (talk) 20:17, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

IPAlink in Bena language

Hi there, looks like you reverted my addition of IPAlinks to the consonant chart and then added them yourself. Was the revert a mistake, or was there something wrong with how I did it? Snowman304|talk 03:12, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

I can add the links back if you want. Fdom5997 (talk) 03:16, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

That wasn't my issue. I was wondering if I had done something wrong or if there was some other reason. Snowman304|talk 03:27, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

I just did it for you. You kind of changed the arrangement of the notes and, I just wanted to keep it with the same arrangement it was in but with the links. Fdom5997 (talk) 03:29, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Okay, thanks! Snowman304|talk 03:33, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Unami Phonology

the "ɬ" sound is pronounced when at the end of a word, or in the middle of a word between vowels. And the source, it comes from Omniglot’s Unami language. And it shows the source where it comes from. I just forgot to put my source.Qarakaqami ali Washkariqavikevemaji (talk) 09:11, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Omniglot is never a reliable source to use. If you are going to cite information, it must be from a reputable source written by an actual linguist. Fdom5997 (talk) 13:48, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Dogri Phonology

Stop changing the IPA for the palato-alveolar sibilant affricates. For further clarification, take a look at the IPA pages for related Indo-Aryan languages like Punjabi and Hindi. They use the same characters. The Eternal Wanderer (talk) 09:44, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

I reverted your edit because you changed the correct transcription for the IPA link. What you made was not the correct transcription. Fdom5997 (talk) 15:44, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

I have used the IPA template. However, for <t͡ʃ> and the others, there is no separate Wikipedia page, so the link will have to lead to the page for <tʃ>. The Eternal Wanderer (talk) 09:22, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

No, it doesn’t matter. That is how you add the IPAlink template, and that is where the link should leave you to. Fdom5997 (talk) 13:19, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification old chap! Were you able to see the aurora in New Jersey? The Eternal Wanderer (talk) 23:44, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Sure thing! And no I haven’t gotten to see it yet! Hopefully it’s still out there tonight! Fdom5997 (talk) 00:30, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Changes to the Bari phonology

Hello there, I am a linguist researching Nilotic languages at the University of Edinburgh. I keep trying to update the Bari phonology to match the consonant inventory in Spagnolo and update it with standard IPA transcription. The table also doesn't match standards for inventory tables as there are unlabelled columns.For some reason you keep reverting it. I'm not really sure why––perhaps I'm missing something? Best, Federico F. Federico Falletti (talk) 14:28, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

I am reverting it because the source that you use is a bit outdated. The source I am using also displays the same exact information, so it does not need to be changed. Sorry about the unlabeled columns though. If that’s a problem, then I can fix that. Fdom5997 (talk) 16:31, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

@Federico Falletti actually, let’s keep the source and information that you are using for the phonology. The source I was primarily basing the phonology off of was Vossen (1982), but it turns out that the information is identically the same. Fdom5997 (talk) 22:09, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Ok, thank you. And yes, Vossen was using the consonant inventory of Bari by Spagnolo. Also, if you need any help accessing sources or anything else on Nilotic let me know :) Federico Falletti (talk) 09:16, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Will do! And I really apologize if I confused you, and seemed to doubt your experience here! Great to converse with a true linguist! Fdom5997 (talk) 13:30, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Cèmuhî language

Hey there, you reverted my edits to Cèmuhî language and redid them yourself. Might I recommend a more surgical approach to editing in the future? Snowman304|talk 15:32, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I just thought that the format was missing something, but it was fine, and I used your edit to revert my edit. Fdom5997 (talk) 16:32, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Tyap

Could you explain why you're moving Tyap back to Tyap language contrary to a successful requested move? As it stands, it's your move back to Tyap language that's a WP:RMUM, not mine. By the way, PK2 gave a lengthy list of examples in the requested move where the language suffix is not used, typically when there isn't an equivalent "people" article, like in this case. Malerisch (talk) 03:48, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Because if it is a language, then it should specifically be referred to as such "language". It does not matter if there are examples of that without the "language" label. Just because they exist, does not mean that they are right. It is always better to use the reference label with the name here. And it does not matter whether there are "people" in or out of the picture as well. Please stop reverting this, and leave it alone! Fdom5997 (talk) 03:56, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Are you familiar with requested moves? You're not supposed to immediately revert them; this isn't how consensus on Wikipedia works. Could you self-revert? Malerisch (talk) 04:00, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

No I will not. Not all requests are meant to be valid. I don’t know who requested the move, but for bizarre requests like this, it is not necessary. Why you want to die on this hill, is beyond me. Fdom5997 (talk) 04:03, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

I brought this up at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests. Malerisch (talk) 04:13, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Silesian y

Let me clarify - I think of Silesian as a language sociolinguistically, not a dialect, however many other East Lechitic lects shift this towards ɪ. One could argue if thats a different phoneme or just phone. Vininn126 (talk) 17:09, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

It isn’t. If you’re going to make that claim, you need to have a source. Fdom5997 (talk) 18:53, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

The whole section is unsourced. You're picking on me, and I'm really not sure why. I'm not sure if you're aware of my extensive work with Silesian on Wiktionary, or with Silesian overall. If you're simply being a Wikipedia bureaucrat, don't be hypocritical. Vininn126 (talk) 20:29, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

No. I am not "picking on you", I am specifically pointing out information that is not even cited (and yes the phonology section was cited, so do not get rid of it). Just because you contribute to the language on Wiktionary, does not mean that you are always right. If you are going to change anything on Wikipedia, you need to have a citation, that is the rule. Fdom5997 (talk) 22:26, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

How is that inlined? I have that book right in front of me and he does not give that level of detail. Nor does he talk about slight differences between the two; it's aimed at Poles. If you're going to insist on citing then add the inline cite. You're now enforcing a double standard where one thing has to be cited but another does not need an inline site. Vininn126 (talk) 22:41, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

It's still hypocritical to say all of those phonemes are inferenced based on the material except one, when they are clearly not. Vininn126 (talk) 22:43, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

As I said above, Lechitic scholars will tend to treat these as the same phoneme (and etymologically they are) but then not give them in IPA. So we do not have direct citation for those IPA transcriptions, and any if not all of them are about as inferenced as ɪ. Vininn126 (talk) 22:47, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

No they are referenced. As for <y>, I do not know how accurate that is, but for the moment, let's just say it's a high-central [ɨ]. Fdom5997 (talk) 22:54, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

I am using the Silesian orthography article, which uses Jaroszewicz (2022) as its primary source. The phonology section is explained on pages 16-21. Revert this one more time, and I am reporting you to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Fdom5997 (talk) 22:51, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Would you mind inlining that instead of so graciously undoing? If you're going to be a pedant, at least do it right. You should also see who wrote that article, and understand why I changed it. Vininn126 (talk) 22:53, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

You clearly have not assumed good faith in this discussion and assumed I was someone making an unfounded change without actually listening to the arguments I presented while basing it on an article I wrote and recently changed. Have fun proving this is vandalism. Vininn126 (talk) 23:03, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

And as for <y>, if it does imply its value as [ɪ], then it shall be changed. Fdom5997 (talk) 23:05, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Ok. Since you created the Silesian orthography page (which explains the phonetic values as well), then I assume we should also be using that as the source for the phonology section. But no I truly do have the source (via chapter scan delivery), and I am not reverting you because I am "throwing around power". I am simply providing the info that the source states Fdom5997 (talk) 23:03, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

I am as well, but the info it states is clearly up for interpretation, which you are refusing to acknowledge, and that is the core of this issue. Had you been aware of that from the beginning you would not have felt so undo-happy. Vininn126 (talk) 23:04, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Well. I can come to an agreement, but I do think the info given now to the article, is pretty accurate according to the source. Fdom5997 (talk) 23:08, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm glad this is resolved. Please consider not undoing at every opportunity until it is clear an agreement can't be made. No attempts to resolve this were made until now. Vininn126 (talk) 23:11, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Another issue is I clearly attempted to start a conversation about this, but you escalated to edit-warring, instead resolving the issue here, or pinging me on the talk page of the article. So yes, I do see an issue with your behavior. Vininn126 (talk) 23:08, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Well to respond to you here, you gave no description of your edit that changed the phonetic value, and why you changed it. If you did, then absolutely none of this would have happened. I would have understood it, and accepted the changed info. You need to write a description of the edits you make. Fdom5997 (talk) 23:15, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

I can accept that, that's fair to say, that doesn't excuse edit-warring when a user tries to explain it after. Vininn126 (talk) 23:16, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Stoney Phonologies

I’ve have a source that tells about the θ and ð exists in the Morley Dialect, is in this website https://www.languagegeek.com/siouan/nakoda_stoney.html it tells the θ and ð sounds. Qarakaqami ali Washkariqavikevemaji (talk) 04:02, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

That is not a reliable source. The information is already cited and the source that is used is actually reliable. Fdom5997 (talk) 04:24, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

I know how stoney sounds, there are speakers of stoney that you need to contact that is a speaker or a linguist to contact, and know that stoney has θ and ð sounds. Qarakaqami ali Washkariqavikevemaji (talk) 04:40, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Well here, we go by citations of material. And it is already cited (with good sources) that Stoney does not have those sounds. Fdom5997 (talk) 04:56, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

You need to hear a native speaker, or look for a video that contains stoney, or go to the Stoney Online Dictionary and heres the link to it https://dictionary.stoneynakoda.org/ or download it theres an app for it. Qarakaqami ali Washkariqavikevemaji (talk) 05:29, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

No. Those are not good sources either. It has to be a written and published source. Fdom5997 (talk) 10:32, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Yele

I'm not going to template a regular for violating 3RR, but you should read up on what 'retroflex' means, and consider WP treatment of other languages with a similar phonemic distinction, such as Hindustani. Generally, apical post-alveolar is going to be /ʈ ɳ/ etc., and that's without even having a subapical allophone. If you really think Levinson didn't describe and transcribe them this way, then you really should at least skim that source before basing your arguments on it. — kwami (talk) 08:02, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

I have the source right in front of me. Levinson says that they “may not always reach real retroflex positions” and states that “some articulations” are full sub-apical retroflexes, based on the recording of a single speaker. Throughout the rest of the source, Levinson continues to refer to them as “post-alveolar”. Not to mention Henderson (1995) in which they don’t even transcribe or describe them as “retroflex” at all. Not all phonetic values are one way or the other. Fdom5997 (talk) 08:13, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for proving my point. — kwami (talk) 08:29, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

That doesn’t necessarily prove it. It mostly half-proves it. Basically, the writer is saying that they are “sometimes” retroflex. Fdom5997 (talk) 08:33, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

They are sometimes sub-apical retroflex, like Tamil, sometimes apical retroflex like Hindustani. — kwami (talk) 08:38, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

So then by that standard, I’d say that sub-apical retroflex (or more specifically, sub-apical postalveolar) is the real “retroflex” and should be transcribed as such. Fdom5997 (talk) 08:42, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

That's imposing your own POV. 'Retroflex' has long been used for apical postalveolar. That's why people specify 'sub-apical' for languages like Tamil. — kwami (talk) 08:44, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Sure but that should not necessarily mean we transcribe the sounds as fully retroflex, if they are not. Fdom5997 (talk) 08:46, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

No-one said we should. The retroflex letters don't mean "fully" retroflex, they just mean retroflex. Some sources may restrict them to sub-apical, but most don't. Anyway, the Yele sounds are sub-apical, at least some of the time (we don't know how much; could be nearly always). — kwami (talk) 09:04, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

@kwami read the Retroflex consonant#Other conventions section of the actual page on the Retroflex articulation. It gives a detailed explanation on this subject matter. Fdom5997 (talk) 08:20, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I wrote that section. — kwami (talk) 08:29, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

So if you wrote it, then you can use it too. Fdom5997 (talk) 08:31, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Which is exactly what I was doing.

Also, if we have to follow our sources, we can't use ⟨n̠ t̠⟩. — kwami (talk) 08:32, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

After looking at Henderson (1995), he transcribes them as such just like that. No “retroflex” at all. Fdom5997 (talk) 08:34, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Where? Not anywhere in the phonology chapter than I can see, certainly not in the consonant tables. — kwami (talk) 08:43, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Wait, I’m sorry. They are not transcribed as that and possibly inaccurately transcribed as full alveolars. However there is no page that even mentions them as “retroflex” in articulation either. Fdom5997 (talk) 08:48, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

What both authors are doing is using a single diacritic to distinguish the two articulations. They don't use two diacritics because that's redundant but also causes problems with legibility. ⟨n̠ t̠⟩ tend to mean laminal post-alveolar, as in English /t̠͡ʃ/, and so are misleading here. It's my fault: I introduced that notation back in 2010. I should've been more careful. — kwami (talk) 08:55, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Also, we have a RS that they are retroflex. "Fully", as you would put it, at least some of the time. There's little data to go on for Yele, so we don't know how pervasive the sub-apical articulation is, but many Australian languages have a sub-apical articulation in careful enunciation, and an alveolar or post-alveolar articulation in rapid speech. So variation in the exact place of articulation doesn't mean they're not retroflex, especially when both places count as retroflex. Levinson also describes the voiced allophone of t as simply 'retroflex'. — kwami (talk) 08:59, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Edit conflict

Sorry, you made your edit while I was in the middle of updating the phonology section per Levinson 2022. I'm done now.

But I'm not sure superscript nasals are the way to go. If we do go that way, the IPA provides ⟨ⁿ⟩ for nasal release of any articulation, e.g. phonemic /pⁿ tⁿ kⁿ/. And if we're going to use that for nasal release, we might as well use it for prenasalization, e.g. /ⁿb ⁿd ⁿɡ/. Since such sounds are always homorganic, there's no particular reason to match place of articulation in phonemic transcription, which might suggest that /ᵐ ⁿ̪ ᶯ ᵑ/ are phonemic. A single ⟨ⁿ⟩ would make things much more legible, if not as intuitive. But if we just superscript the current transcription, it would seem to me to make it less legible (esp. if there are superscripts both before and after the base letter), so I don't see much point in doing so.

Anyway, just my 2 cents. — kwami (talk) 02:34, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

I just came across the new IPA website, which is still under construction. On the ExtIPA page,[7] they mention "Superscript to Minimize a Feature", such as "Slightly Prenasalized". — kwami (talk) 09:26, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Superscript is *always* the correct method to transcribe any nasal-released consonant. And yes, any prenasal transcripition like /ᵐ ⁿ̪ ᶯ ᵑ/ are phonemic as well. Using a single ⟨ⁿ⟩ is a terrible idea, and would only make things *less* legible, not more, and much more confusing as well. Also, since Levinson (2022) specifically states that the prenasal sounds are always voiced, then they should obviously be transcribed that way as well. Fdom5997 (talk) 10:54, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

"Always the"? So all our sources and the IPA itself are wrong?

No, not phonemic, which is what the consonant table is, but phonetic. Yele does not have 4 phonemic types of prenasalization. — kwami (talk) 12:50, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes it does, and yes there should be separate transcriptions for the prenasal consonants. Even the IPA itself agrees with that. Fdom5997 (talk) 12:57, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

Looks like I need to template you after all.

You don't appear to understand the difference between phonemic and phonetic.

If the IPA agrees (contradicting themselves), please show me where.

@kwami Right here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prenasalized_consonant#Transcription is where. And don’t tell me that I don’t know basic phonological principles. Fdom5997 (talk) 13:51, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

That's not the IPA, that's Wikipedia. And moreover it's something I wrote, so I know full well what it says, which BTW contradicts your claim that superscripts are the only correct way to write prenasalized stops. Also, that's phonetic transcription, not phonemic as in our consonant tables. — kwami (talk) 14:06, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

They are not the “only” way, but they are a standard way of transcription. And yes I have seen prenasal phonemes being transcribed with superscripts. Note just phones. Fdom5997 (talk) 14:34, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Glad you concede that.

They are indeed very common. They can be misleading when used in phonemic notation, if you take them literally, but are also IMO more difficult to read. They're small and can be visually disorientating when used with multiple other superscripts. That doesn't matter with most languages, but this isn't most languages. — kwami (talk) 14:45, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Can we just use the superscripts? I’ve seen them everywhere when noting prenasal/post-nasal sounds. They are not misleading or disorienting. They are a way of transcribing any pre-/post-articulated consonants. Period. Fdom5997 (talk) 16:45, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

What is 'period' supposed to mean?

Yes, they are 'a' way. Our sources also use 'a' way.

Showing non-phonemic assimilation in baseline consonants is not so bad, because those consonants at least exist independently as phonemes. But showing phonetic assimilation of prenasalization in a phonemic transcription is more misleading IMO because that allophonic detail does not exist phonemically.

Anyway, it's much harder to read, unless you want to use actual phonemic notation, which you've said you don't (and I agree with you there). — kwami (talk) 17:12, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

So it’s misleading “in your opinion”. Well thanks for not convincing me here. It’s not “much harder to read”, it’s called phonological transcription. And yes you can list these transcriptions as phonemes, especially when sources state that they are *mainly* voiced sounds. Fdom5997 (talk) 17:20, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

You're repeatedly mixing two topics together (superscripts and voicing), one of which is irrelevant because there's no disagreement. And still don't know what "phonemic" means. This is pointless. — kwami (talk) 17:42, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Ok which page are we on? Prenasal superscripts? Or voiced prenasal sounds? Fdom5997 (talk) 17:51, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

If you don't know which, then you're not listening, so what's the point. — kwami (talk) 18:13, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

So you are saying it is misleading "in your opinion" to transcribe using superscripts for pre-/post nasal consonants. In other words, that's how you feel comfortable. Yes you can list these transcriptions as phonemes, I don't know why that's such a huge scandal to you. Fdom5997 (talk) 18:24, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Because we shouldn't claim things exist when they don't exist. AFAICT your reason for claiming they exist is that they look pretty. You keep saying you're following the IPA, but AFAICT you're not, and you've been unable to provide the sources you keep claiming you have.

You want it because you think it's pretty, I don't want it because I think it's misleading. I don't know why following standard IPA is such a huge problem for you. — kwami (talk) 18:30, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

You literally stated it in the transcription section of the Prenasal consonant article. Don't back-track on that. If it was so "misleading" to you, or if they "didn't exist", you would not have stated any of that. Either settle for the nasal superscript, or we will only go nowhere. Fdom5997 (talk) 18:37, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

I never said that. Again, you apparently don't know the difference between phonemic and phonetic. I suggest that you read the relevant WP articles so that you don't come off as ignorant.

Or perhaps you do know but simply don't read what other people write, and so don't know what the disagreement is.

Anyway, provide the sources you claim to have, or I'm done wasting my time with you. — kwami (talk) 18:57, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Well then why did you just tell me that you wrote the section? And why do you keep throwing that phonemic-phonetic jibberish at me? Of course I know they are different! Why do you keep arguing otherwise?

And how about you give me a "relevant" article on the pre/post nasal transcription, since your info is so "irrelevant" on it? Fdom5997 (talk) 19:02, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

I did write the section. But you can't be bothered to read what I'm saying and so don't understand where or how it's relevant or not relevant.

Yes, I imagine the phonemic-phonetic stuff is gibberish to you. You know they're different, but not how they're different, which is a problem.

I don't know what could be more relevant for IPA transcription than the Handbook, but since the IPA doesn't confirm your biases, they must be wrong. You should write and tell them they wrote their guidebook wrong when you write Levinson that he wrote his grammar wrong. — kwami (talk) 19:09, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

I did read what you said, and you said that they "can" be transcribed with a superscript. That has nothing to do with phonemic-phonetic distinction. And yes, in Nabirye, Minah; De Schryver, Gilles-Maurice; Verhoeven, Jo (2016). Lusoga (Lutenga) (2nd ed.). Journal of the International Phonetic Association, 46: Illustrations of the IPA. pp. 219–228, they do mention the use of superscript for nasal sounds (both prenasal and post-nasal). So here, your wrong. Fdom5997 (talk) 19:22, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Again, you don't seem to understand what you read. Or perhaps you simply don't bother to read what other people write, I don't know which. — kwami (talk) 19:52, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

But I'll check out the identifiable reference. At this point, after going in nonsensical circles, I'm not even sure what your argument is supposed to be. — kwami (talk) 19:54, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Okay, while they use the superscript convention, I fail to see where they say that it is "the" correct way to transcribe NC.

And I can't see where they transcribe CN at all. I'll need a page number for that, but I expect they're not claiming it as a phonemic distinction, since it doesn't appear in the chart. — kwami (talk) 20:05, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami here's a better source, which endorses both prenasal and nasal release transcriptions. Keating et al. (2019:15) "We suggest that such homorganic usage be explicitly recognized and officially endorsed, for both nasal release and prenasalization, though not necessarily on the chart itself." Fdom5997 (talk) 01:38, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

But phonemic analysis is still up to the author. The IPA is intended as a phonetic transcription. — kwami (talk) 08:04, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

It’s ignorant people like you who always have an answer for everything. Fdom5997 (talk) 12:18, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Dari chart

Hey! Why did you revert my edit of the Dari consonant chart? Since you left no reasoning, I have to come ask!

I edited it a.) to correspond to the charts on other pages, which usually seems to make the voiced/unvoiced distinction e.g. Russian; and b.) correctly, as far as I know.

Is there some policy against distinguishing voicd/unvoiced, or what?!

Cheers (grudgingly),

Himaldrmann (talk) 22:38, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Ok first of all calm down, it’s just a chart, and second, not all phonetic charts *have* to look the same as other ones on different pages. It still gets the message across that there are voicing distinctions. As long as the info is correct and cited, that is literally all that matters. There is no “correct” or “policy” way of creating charts, as long as the sounds are in the correct places. Fdom5997 (talk) 01:19, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

I see. Well, it was mostly motivated, as said, by a few other charts I was looking at for purposes of creating a "three-language creole" for a novel I'm (attempting to) write; e.g. having the formats the same made it easier to see what might merge with which—but I'm not married to the way I had it... I just wanted to know if I had made a (linguistic or WP-policy) error!

Cheers, & thanks for the explication,

Himaldrmann (talk) 01:32, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Well I'm glad that we settled this here. If you don't mind I'm just going to put back the old chart (with a few exceptions). Fdom5997 (talk) 03:44, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Manually Reverted edits from native speaker, language learners or researchers

I've noticed you mass-revert edits you don't like, even when there's only one minor bit out of paragraphs of info you have a problem with. If someone makes a sizable edit but only one aspect of the edit has a problem, just go in and manually revert that part. There's no need to revert everything. Overall I also notice from your editing history and talk page that you have a very domineering attitude on here. Arguing with a native speaker of a language or Learners that they're wrong about their own language or learning, when you know nothing about the language yourself (as you did here, e.g.), is not a great move. And i also notice that you get involved with edits wars, arguing with other users that actually know the language, and other things. Just try to keep in mind that other people can make contributions too, don't be so quick to mass-revert useful contributions, and know the limitations of your knowledge ᖻᒪᓱ ᒋᔈᒪ (talk) 08:13, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

The main things i mass revert are the things that are not sourced. A person who is a native speaker is not a good source to use, because there needs to be source that gives a linguistic profile of the language I am looking at. And that same user I reverted was a proven sock-puppeteer who was not using any proper sources to cite information. Fdom5997 (talk) 08:37, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Uzbek language

You need to learn to respect other editors and assume good faith. I'm not edit warring you are. And you receive multiple messages on attacking other users. You stop now, or I'll report. Got it? Don't be a jerk. 193.108.58.56 (talk) 22:07, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Listen, you’re not even a legitimate editor. You’re a guest. And none of your edits are even sourced and whenever they are, you use cheap, unprofessional sources like Omniglot, so with that I have to revert them. I have been a contributor here for quite a while, and you have only been here for 3 days. If you are going to use a source to provide information, then it must be a source that was written by a certified professional of whichever subject matter. Your edits are not good faith and you clearly are edit-warring. The users that message me are unprofessional ones that complain and argue, and the only “attacks” I ever give to other editors are ones that are strictly merit-based. I do not respect other editors if they purposely keep reverting, and give false, unsourced and unreliable information. Fdom5997 (talk) 00:54, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Judging by their edits in the range of IP address they were using, it seems that the guy can barely speak English. However, if you examine closely at this diff, in which he did explain in an edit summary "[…] remove Omniglot becuz its not relyable source […]", so apparently the guy was trying to remove the Omniglot source per WP:RELIABLE. I guess there was some misunderstanding. And judging by your userpage, you seem like a nice, respectable guy! 192.254.92.90 (talk) 16:31, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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 2024 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) 00:35, 19 November 2024 (UTC)