User talk:Matthew hk/Archive 29

< Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30 >

All Pages:

1 -  2 -  3 -  4 -  5 -  6 -  7 -  8 -  9 -  10 -  11 -  12 -  13 -  14 -  15 -  16 -  17 -  18 -  19 -  20 -  21 -  22 -  23 -  24 -  25 -  26 -  27 -  28 -  29 -  30 -  31 -  32 -  33 -  34 -  35 -  36 -  37 -  38 -  39 -  ... (up to 100)

Your draft article, Draft:List of member of Federcasse

Hello, Matthew hk. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "List of member of Federcasse".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. JMHamo (talk) 22:09, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Kweichowmoutai.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Kweichowmoutai.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:40, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

seem it was recently replaced by File:Kweichow Moutai Logo.png . Matthew hk (talk) 00:50, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

5.171.0.0/18 and User Natzione

Hi Matthew, I've read your recent report on WP:SPI and about this subject I just wanted to remark this other strange event: in this message (Special:Diff/882090859) an anon user from yet the same IP range declares to be user Natzione. User Natzione made a number of edits related with italian IPA. User Natzione has eventually been blocked by a steward for long-term abuse. This reminded me about what you wrote in another discussion about the fact that this chain of disruptions on italian IPA is an old issue. I would be glad to have your comment about this. In my opinion this is another sock of Ragaricus but it would be also interesting to know what stewards know about that. Cheers, Horst Hof (talk) 13:17, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

The ip was range blocked due to Ragaricus' SPI filing. For User:Natzione, it seem related to it-wiki so that a global steward, admin and bureaucrat at it-wiki global locked him, despite the new sock only active in en-wiki. May worth to mention in the new SPI in en-wiki, but the old ip i was talking about, were ip from Hong Kong or China (thus i was less assume good faith on their knowledge on Italian IPA), while Ragaricus or their alleged sock, were Italian ip. I really not sure which version of the IPA was correct (i can use google translate and other site such as by CUHK for my native Cantonese and Chinese), but i just can't solve the IPA edit war when any ip from Telecom Italia, Wind (Italy) are genuine good faith edit fix the IPA, or vandal, or part of the WP:tag team or genuine sock. First thing i would like to fine out dipionline.it is correct or not. My be i would go back to uni library to check is there any Italian language book i can borrow. My uni and town certainly have some population of Italian diaspora so that they have tutor class in uni. Matthew hk (talk) 06:59, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

​​Hi Matthew, concerning what already commented on Ragaricus SPI case discussion, I found a recent discussion between two supposedly experienced editors which demonstrate familiarity with IPA matters where the questioned reference is mentioned, look here. They seem to consider that a reliable source and cite another possible source. May be they can help us clarifying the doubts. What's your opinion? Horst Hof (talk) 10:01, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

So the site may be using old version of IPA to represent the pronunciation? It may relevant to list both version of IPA, despite the lede may be too crowded. (sent from mobile) Matthew hk (talk) 10:26, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm not in condition to comment on IPA issues. I would ask an opinion to more experienced users and stick to their guidelines. I'm pretty sure they will want to help us solving this complicated issue. I pinged the two users involved in the discussion linked above and I hope they will want to give us their view. Horst Hof (talk) 10:47, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Regarding the reference, it is generally thought to be reliable as its author is a renowned Italian linguist (even though I must admit I sometimes find it a little too inclusive in terms of possible pronunciations); the website does not use the length mark [ː] (as we do here with Italian IPAs), because vowel length is not phonemic. Also, it uses old ligatures such as [ʦ] and [ʤ] which are replaced in Wikipedia helps by simply [ts], [dʒ], etc. No need to have anything doubled. :) イヴァンスクルージ九十八_（会話） 15:31, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

@IvanScrooge98: If that source is fine then this edit war that involve sock or even tag team may be well settled, despite i still feel the articles should have one or two more citations . BTW, @Horst Hof: yet another citation was removed by new user which may be yet another sock, but the citation was dizionario.rai.it instead in Domenico Berardi, this time without alteration of the IPA. Matthew hk (talk) 22:43, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, User:Tnemlagelli at Berardi, User:Yang Alick at Paolo Rossi and User:Emstidlrowolleh at Canepari. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 22:54, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Well, after reading Luciano Canepari article, those IPA in wikipedia that cite DiPI Online, (which those IPA web pages were authored by Canepari), is using standard IPA or ^canIPA ? Matthew hk (talk) 23:36, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

He’s definitely using standard IPA, as all the symbols correspond to general IPA transcriptions of Italian. イヴァンスクルージ九十八_（会話） 05:59, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

​​I've just reported a new large handful of possible socks displaying the same behaviour (see: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ragaricus), including those signalled here above.

Summarizing, do we all agree that dipionline.it is a reliable source? And, if so, do we all agree that the most correct thing to do at this point is reinstating the version with that reference? Horst Hof (talk) 09:54, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

@Horst Hof:, yes, but since i saw the ip also remove the link from RAI, may be i would add it as second reference if the word was available in that web dictionary. Matthew hk (talk) 11:52, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

@Horst Hof: same here. イヴァンスクルージ九十八_（会話） 11:54, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Yep. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 13:30, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

​​Ok, I'm going to start reinstating the sourced versions. As concerns adding the second reference, I've seen that there is no IPA transcription there, thus I'm not able to establish if the two sources are consistent with each other (sorry but no IPA and poor Italian :( ). I'm obliged to ask your help in doing so. Horst Hof (talk) 14:06, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

@Horst Hof: as I stated above, the only thing is DiPI is much more inclusive than DOP, so for example while one admits both open-mid and close-mid E in Barbieri, the other only admits the open one. But besides that, everything is fine. イヴァンスクルージ九十八_（会話） 18:07, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

@Horst Hof: User:Tozraeb at Enzo Bearzot. This seems like this will be a never-ending issue. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 17:31, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

​​Yes, and this morning a new brood appeared (see User:Gorloende, User:Scimoltavil, User:IacsIacs, etc... If any of you find more suspect account, please report them at WP:SPI. Horst Hof (talk) 10:02, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

And other side of the edit war had emerged again as block evasion sock. Just RI them as they are blocked already. (See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1003#LTA on the loose who keeps evading blocks and creating usernames similar to Gay Nishikori). Matthew hk (talk) 13:17, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

And then another guy emerged in Marco Parolo as 2600:8800:A580:DAC0:993D:F8BD:1E9A:508E (talk · contribs), which i can't really tell it is right or wrong without citation. Matthew hk (talk) 14:54, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

That was me. It's basic Italian phonology: stressed vowel in open syllable is long, e.g. [ˈfaːto] fato vs. [ˈfatto] fatto. If the transcription is phonemic, i.e. / /, length should not given; if it's phonetic [ ], it should be. It can take some careful reading to figure out what some otherwise excellent sources are up to; a couple of the best-known dictionaries present transcription in phonetic brackets, but it's actually phonemic. The Guida to Canepari's online dipi states clearly, but perhaps with insufficient prominence, that the transcriptions are di tipo fonemico. Thus he gives ˈkavolo (with, alas, neither / / nor [ ]), although the normal pronunciation is [ˈkaːvolo]. 2600:8800:A580:DAC0:993D:F8BD:1E9A:508E (talk) 19:43, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

You make excellent points except about narrowness/brackets. A phonetic transcription enclosed in square brackets can be just as broad as a phonemic one in slashes. See IPA Handbook, pp. 28–30.

Matthew, you need to look no further than Help:IPA/Italian#cite_note-14 to see if what the IP is saying about vowel length is true. IPA isn't much different from prose inasmuch as it is a mere tool with which an author can freely choose what/how much information to express (see ibid., p. 30). On Wikipedia, how much information to include and what each symbol means in an IPA transcription are defined in the keys under Help:IPA/..., so that we can be consistent (akin to the MoS). Nardog (talk) 20:32, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Sorry if I wasn't clear. I was referring to phonetic vs. phonemic representation, not narrowness/breadth of either. 2600:8800:A580:DAC0:993D:F8BD:1E9A:508E (talk) 20:41, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

The dichotomy between phonetic and phonemic *is* (part of) narrowness. Your assertion that a transcription for Italian in square brackets "should" mark vowel length is simply false, as the Handbook explicitly says. (Please don't insert a comment in between paragraphs of another comment.) Nardog (talk) 20:47, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Oh my. Let's lighten up - looks as though we simply disagree. Phonemic representation reports structure; phonetic transcription reports pronunciation. Example: Tuscan /la ˈkasa/ → [laˈhaːsa] (in a broad transcription). Intended as a register-neutral citation form, a phonetic transcription of, e.g., Italian fato with length not indicated is at very best misleading. A phonemic transcription of fato showing length would simply be false. (I have zero interest in bickering about this. I was trying to help out Matthew, who didn't seem to understand Italian vowel-lengthening in open stressed syllable, and who it seemed hadn't read the Guida to Canepari's online dictionary.) 2600:8800:A580:DAC0:993D:F8BD:1E9A:508E (talk) 21:18, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Phonemic representation reports structure; phonetic transcription reports pronunciation. I don't disagree with that. If the transcription is phonemic, i.e. / /, length should not given is true—unless for some reason one analyzes the vowel as inherently long and consistently transcribes it with a length mark. if it's phonetic [ ], it should be is not (in {{IPA-it}}, it should be; but it can't be generalized to all phonetic transcriptions for Italian) because a phonetic transcription can be as broad as phonemic or as narrow as impressionistic. Nardog (talk) 21:43, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Marking phonetic vowel length is illustrated in Help:IPA/Italian, under Suprasegmentals, with an example and a note: primo [ˈpriːmo] long vowel[14] Stressed vowels are long in non-final open syllables: fato [ˈfaːto] ~ fatto [ˈfatto]. Precisely because low-level allophonic vowel lengthening does generalize quite predictably to the appropriate structural description, it's as fundamental to Italian as point-of-articulation assimilation of nasals /ˈbanko/ → [ˈbaŋko]). 2600:8800:A580:DAC0:993D:F8BD:1E9A:508E (talk) 22:39, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

I said "in {{IPA-it}}, it should be". By "all phonetic transcriptions for Italian" I mean literally all, not just on Wikipedia. In transcriptions linking to and using the conventions of Help:IPA/Italian we indeed mark allophonic length, but we do so not because the transcriptions are phonetic but because we have decided to do so, which the key reflects. Elsewhere, whether to mark allophonic length in a phonetic transcription for Italian is totally up to the writer. Nardog (talk) 22:48, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

@2600:8800:A580:DAC0:993D:F8BD:1E9A:508E:, there is a policy of WP:V in wikipedia. It is not mandatory but it should have a citation so that other people to verify by common sense. i.e. what is appeared in the citation and what is not. Content without citation, other editor can use the reasoning of failed verification to remove it (despite it usually end up with more discussion in talk page and listing evidence and reasoning to avoid edit war). For IPA, in specific, there is a sockmaster that created lots of new account and then spotted and blocked from editing over and over again on the issue of IPA, which they removed the citation and then change the IPA sightly. On top of one sockmaster, there is two, again with the same issue of changing IPA without citation, despite sometimes he did add the citation dipionline.it . I don't mind people add another citation to add other sources to claim dipionline.it is not that accurate or just using another citation to show alternative version of the IPA, but due to the fact that there are two vandal/sockmaster existed: Ragaricus and ZenZung, despite assume good faith, i have to revert the change due to failed verification. For specific matter which IPA is more correct, please discuss with User:IvanScrooge98, User:Vaselineeeeeeee and User:Horst Hof or other user.

I would say, If IPA (which itself have a few versions) and ^canIPA are two different transcription, they should not put together. There is too many methods of transcription for Chinese and Chinese itself, actually is a family of languages and "dialects" , they have Template:zh and Template:Chinese instead. I also wonder Swiss Italian are the same with standard Italian or not, as well as the need of adding Italian pronunciation to Argentine or not, which all end up with a word "native". the pronunciation according to which "native speaker". Matthew hk (talk) 04:55, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

​​​​Thanks Matthew for pinging me but unfortunately I can't help in discussing IPA issues as I have no idea about how that stuff works. I was just trying to contrast what seemed an intentional disruption by part of at least two groups of sockpuppets. Nonetheless, I want to give my opinion about how sources are used on italian IPA. As correctly Matthew stated above there is a policy that tell us that what we add to articles should be verifiable, and that's fine, as IPA transcriptions for Italian have a reliable source to refer to, but what makes things difficult is that this source is not used as is but transformed according to what stated in Help:IPA/Italian. This makes verifiability less obvious for users like me that are not familiar with the matter, and I would be obliged to ask here and there to verify the correctness of the transcription. In any case I will stick to the consensus decision you will take. Horst Hof (talk) 08:52, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Off-topic again. It seem there is yet another block evasion that leave message in my zh-wiki talk page. zh:Special:Diff/53470610. Matthew hk (talk) 13:13, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Another episode of the italian IPA saga occurred a couple of days ago on en.wiktionary.org and commons.wikimedia.org. Check the contributions of Feriorin, Ferencecon, Phonysym, Ventionin, Phetamineam and Fortcom for example (but there are more). Horst Hof (talk) 15:09, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank God UWA library have some copies of the works by Emidio De Felice. I will have a look in I cognomi italiani and Dizionario dei cognomi italiani to see is there any material can be cited for the pronunciation. Even it may be not in IPA format, at least the citation will be authoritative enough as RAI and Luciano Canepari. Matthew hk (talk) 06:35, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Oh well, Dizionario dei cognomi italiani did not have pronunciation. But at least i found the hard copies of Dizionario italiano multimediale e multilingue d'ortografia e di pronunzia (DOP) published by RAI and Dizionario di pronuncia italiana (DIPI) authored by Canepari. Except the necessary modification (i.e. "cosmetic") to fit the MoS that stated in Help:IPA/Italian, i don't think there is enough reason to use alternative pronunciation/IPA that differ from the two sources, especially when the new pronunciation was not cited . Matthew hk (talk) 10:39, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

​​​Very good Matthew, thus, summarizing, if I've understood correctly, the way the sources are currently cited is OK, is it? And in case in the future I'll have to check italian IPA transcriptions, can I adhere to what dipionline.it states?

Concerning the rancorous messages you received on various wikis, have you considered the idea to report it to global stewards? This may prove useful in finding relation to other sockpuppeting cases occurred elsewhere. Horst Hof (talk) 11:17, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't know how much "cosmetic modification" (to convert the source material to the style stated in MoS Help:IPA/Italian) other legitimate users done as DOP was not using IPA. But if a hard copies of the books were located in Australia (despite not in State Library (government library / central library of the region) but in an uni library), they should be reliable . Also, some of the edit by the socks changing ɛ to e, which DIPI actually stated both , which by common sense it is not constructive rather than "cosmetic modification". It had some light on patrolling the articles when yet another ip user try to edit the IPA, rather than assume bad faith on all ip due to ip hopping of the sockmasters. Matthew hk (talk) 11:32, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Most likely (s)he basically tried to conform the sources to their regional pronunciation, though in some cases the new IPA was just not standard according to any source. But yes, we probably should seek for help with global stewards, it’s hard to keep track of these sockpuppets. イヴァンスクルージ九十八_（会話） 11:37, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

I had posted some ip to ANI already (may be Ragaricus or ZenZung or others), after they posted messages in my user talk pages of at least 6 wiki in other languages. It may still reasonable on zh-wiki, but Serbo-Croatian, Albanian? Admin had block the ip ranges as it was provided by Microsoft Azure. But it may indicated that it is pretty hard assume good faith at the same time spotting the questionable edit . And really not sure they will be back or not with yet another open proxies. Matthew hk (talk) 11:43, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

I think the most appropriate approach at this point, in case of new socks or new proxies, is revert, report (if necessary) and ignore. Horst Hof (talk) 12:49, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Just i hope i would not misfired again on any new ip again as 2600:8800:A580:DAC0:993D:F8BD:1E9A:508E. Which other users had explained that, the ip edit was legitimate. Matthew hk (talk) 12:57, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Matthew (I assume that's your note beginning "there is a policy..."), trying in vain to be brief here... I don't know anything about sockmasters. My purpose in poking my nose in here was to try to help assure accuracy. The note in Help:IPA/Italian that Stressed vowels are long in non-final open syllables is true, thus the examples given there: primo [ˈpriːmo] and fato [ˈfaːto] (vs. e.g. fatto [ˈfatto] -- closed syllable, thus not long). It really is that simple (it would have been helpful if whoever wrote the explanatory note had included citation of a source, banal though the observation is), and any phonetic transcription of citation forms not showing that length is incomplete and inaccurate. Neither Canepari's dipi nor RAI's dictionary show vowel length. The reason for this in dipi is implicit in the Guida where it's explained that the transcriptions are phonemic, not phonetic -- vowel length is phonetic only, sub-phonemic, perfectly predictable. The RAI page here[1], second paragraph, explains overtly why vowel length is not shown in their transcriptions, essentially the same reason, made explicit for Italian. Thus...

• Canepari's dipi does not, and does not claim to, provide phonetic transcription. Check his entry for bancarotta, for example -- no indication that phonemic /n/ assimilates to /k/ and is pronounced [ŋ].

• The RAI dictionary (which incidentally does not use IPA), is inconsistent. They don't give vowel length on grounds that it's sub-phonemic and automatic for native speakers of Italian (true), but they do indicate [ŋ] in bancarotta with their own peculiar symbol, even though that's also sub-phonemic in Italian, and every bit as automatic.

There are upshots to this at two levels.

Specific: neither dipi nor the RAI dictionary can be used as sources for phonetic transcription without supplemental information/knowledge.

General: monolingual dictionaries in general tend not to present transcriptions of allophony that native speakers use without being told to do so.

For American English, for example, you may come across a source that specifies aspirate the first /t/ of potato, flap the second /t/ (in which case, excellent source for phonetic transcription if the vowels are right), but that sort of accuracy isn't to be expected -- and, obviously, the lack of such information definitely does not mean that the American norm is both /t/ pronounced as [t] (in fact, neither is; here's an especially unfortunate example, totally unhelpful re the two /t/ [2]). Basta. I've gone on too long. I hope this is helpful. Hold on, one more thing: not everyone with a totally goofy ip address is a marauding vandal. :-) 2600:8800:A580:DAC0:993D:F8BD:1E9A:508E (talk) 00:49, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

​​​​A couple of considerations: what about adding a note at Help:IPA/Italian stating that dipionline.it (or whichever source you decide being the most reliable for italian IPA) is the source to be preferably used for IPA transcriptions and clearly define in which aspects en.wiki IPA trascriptions will deviate from that source? This may result in an easier task for those like me that are called to verify possible (good-faith or not) disruptions. And -- specifically for 2600:8800:A580:DAC0:993D:F8BD:1E9A:508E -- what about creating an account that will help us not to erroneously take your contributions as possibly disruptive? You are absolutely right when you say not everyone with a totally goofy ip address is a marauding vandal, but registering is so easy and helps preventing other users not to misunderstand your intentions in situation like this one, where there were a number of anonymous users creating a lot of confusion. Horst Hof (talk) 08:17, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Those are both reliable sources, they simply use different methods of transcription from the one we have here. And it happens with English sources too (see for example the Merriam-Webster online, which does not use IPA but still is widely considered a reliable source): all you have to know is what and where the correspondences are. イヴァンスクルージ九十八_（会話） 09:34, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, every publication has its conventions and a key which defines each symbol's value. To copy and paste a notation from an external source without conforming it to Wikipedia's key is to introduce inaccuracy and inconsistency. Nardog (talk) 10:09, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Replied to 2600:8800:A580:DAC0:993D:F8BD:1E9A:508E, yes i have to admit that since there is no dictionary for Italian surname to use IPA and it caused problem. I had looked the Collins dictionary (the offline hard copy nor the online edition), they included place name but not surname. But since the native Italian editor of en-wiki (which i am not, i can only tell removing citation or changing IPA without stating reasoning or add supplementary source in edit summary of elsewhere, is suspicious after so many block evasion vandal from ip) to use dipi or the RAI to derive the IPA wiki editor used in en-wiki, you have to provide your citation to discuss with those users. RAI is the state-owned media, while dipi was authored by an expert in that field. And i would assume they are reliable so that the books were exported to Australia (UWA was the central uni of the state WA BTW, it have some crazy collection such as Cassamarca as Cassamarca Foundation had sponsored some teaching unit of the uni. Those collection may also be explained by a significant Italian diaspora of Aus). I also heavily relied on online tools to convert Chinese character to Jyutping and then Cantonese Yale instead of looking up in the dictionary database in CUHK for my native Chinese. Or using Google translate to convert the character (which basically graph and graph but not pronunciation), to pinyin and then other script system, which sometimes in the first process i have to correct some error. It is acceptable that RAI use different script to document the pronunciation and then wiki user to convert the script to IPA format. it just like converting Cartesian coordinate system to cylindrical coordinate system (and yes in math it may have distortion due to round up, not sure about IPA). In case of obvious error (especially Google translate) you can always correct the error by yourself, given you can provide citation or other reasoning.

Wikipedia is a collection of secondary source (despite it need reliable one and in WP:DUE weight) as a tertiary source. We did not accept personal experience as source. On policy, despite sometimes unable to enforce it very straight, we did not use primary source either (only in some exception that by common sense, without any need of interpretation. I often c&p transfer fee from football club financial report i have to admit, since c&p the specific entry, is not interpretation), including interview.

Which, it would make some experts that not familiar with wikipedia policy, enraged when their edit were reverted. It could be easily resolved by the experts stating external reliable source (which most of the time academic paper, as well as WSJ, FT, are gated behind paywall, and wiki sometimes relied too much on online free source )

The point is, wikipedia is a collaboration project and it is totally fine that your edits would be challenged . The basic ground of the wikipedia, is discuss with other users and providing external reliable source. Sometimes people with expert knowledge, such as people inside company A, feel wrong about the content, but we can't fix that but only stating wikipedia is merely acted as a summary of processed secondary source. In specific for Italian surname, it is really really hard to state local pronunciation without citation or in other words, it certainly have a risk to be challenged by someone else. For standard Italian pronunciation , as i said, one book was published by state-owned media, while another one is an expert. It would be pretty hard to challenge the pronunciation is wrong without citation. And yes, pronunciation can have a lengthy academic debate. (Chinese had written a few academic papers length on one single Chinese character, as Chinese character did not store the information of pronunciation ) But if that case existed , wikipedia only able to state academic paper A said the pronunciation is A, and paper B said the pronunciation is B. Without conclusion of A or B is right (unless there is a great majority to slide to another). I am not sure Dictionary of American Family Names, Oxford University Press had those Italian-American surname or not , as well as its pronunciation . But it may be another potential source to fit WP:DUE requirement (Yes, Italian diaspora may spoke their surname wrong BTW). Matthew hk (talk) 10:27, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Horst, good suggestions. Thanks. I should just establish a consistent ID. Also, fleshing out the Help for Italian IPA transcriptions is a good idea. I'd be glad to help in doing that. Doubtful that that will stop people from messing with things they don't understand (the note already there -- Stressed vowels are long in non-final open syllables -- couldn't be clearer yet it's roundly ignored), but at least it would establish a point of reference. Nardog, you're quite right that To copy and paste a notation from an external source without conforming it to Wikipedia's key is to introduce inaccuracy and inconsistency. Converting peculiar transcription systems to consistent IPA is far from being the only problem, unfortunately. Agreed with IvanScrooge that dipi is a reliable source. Canepari knows what he's doing. And what he did in dipi is provide phonemic, not phonetic, transcription so that, to grab an example, if his form is used for the city of Pescara, a phonetic transcription requires adding vowel length to his phonemic pesˈkara to get phonetic [pesˈkaːra]. As for the RAI dictionary being reliable, their transcription of Pescara demonstrates that they're doubly incomplete: syllable boundary is ignored, vowel length is not shown (as they state quite explicitly that it will not be, and provide information for predicting vowel length). Unreliable? No, not for what they set out to do. But by means a direct source for phonetic transcription. It's not incidental that Merriam-Webster falls into a similar category. Check out tomato, the transcription for which is tə-ˈmā-(ˌ)tō.[3] Then click on the audio button to hear it in American English: as anyone who has heard the language would expect, neither /t/ is [t]. Unreliable? No (ignoring for the nonce the unfortunate parochial symbols ā and ō). But no phonetic transcription is offered, so that if you want one, you'll have to do it yourself by transcribing the phonetics of the audio.

Some of the discussion here seems to be flowing at cross purposes so I won't go on. But I would suggest common-sense principles that I try to apply to myself: resist the temptation to edit what you don't really understand; if, on occasion, the temptation to "fix" is too much to resist, inform yourself to make sure you know what you're doing and that you understand your sources; if you haven't been able to resist and you've still "corrected" something that you have little or no expertise in, try not to assume by default that a plausible reversion is not a good faith edit. Crackpot types who enjoy fouling Wikipedia will ignore such principles, of course, but serious folks could save everyone a lot of time by keeping them in mind. In bocca al lupo [imˌbokkalˈluːpo], everyone! 2600:8800:A580:DAC0:993D:F8BD:1E9A:508E (talk) 19:45, 8 March 2019 (UTC) .

@2600:8800:A580:DAC0:993D:F8BD:1E9A:508E:, i am sorry i revert you despite i did assumed good faith. Just see Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Ragaricus, there is 62 blocked accounts from the same person. While not long ago i received message from open proxies ip from 6 other languages wiki. In WP:AGF it stated registered and unregistered user should treat equally , but people with many edits as registered user , quantitatively are less problematic (yes there are some outlier that often reappeared in WP:ANI). And the system quantitatively granting some Wikipedia:User rights to user. It is not a qualitative system (but to be an admin it was qualitative system), and yes it somehow discriminate ip user. Sorry if i pissed you off on reverting edits, but opening an account may somehow partially solve the problem. Matthew hk (talk) 19:56, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Matthew, thanks for your note. No apology necessary; I wasn't angry at all. See my first post here. From your edits of Parolo and Migliorini, i.e. reverting others' correct vowel length, I got the impression that you weren't steeped in the details of Italian phonology, so I was just trying to explain what was going on with vowel length in Italian and with the transcriptions in dipi (stressed vowel in open syllable is long; the transcriptions in dipi are, as it says in the Guida, "di tipo fonemico", thus e.g. phonemic /ˈkavolo/, phonetic transcription [ˈkaːvolo]). For a name like Parolo, there are two features that can't be known from the spelling. The first is placement of stress, the second is the quality of the second "o" if stress falls there. RAI gives paròlo, which translates to IPA phonemic /paˈrɔlo/. Vowel lengthening is not word specific, i.e. it applies to any stressed vowel in open syllable, thus the /ɔ/ is long, et voilà: phonetic [paˈrɔːlo]. It really is that simple. Cheers. 2600:8800:A580:DAC0:993D:F8BD:1E9A:508E (talk) 22:08, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

That Sock,

Sorry, I was just wondering if you could tell me how it was impersonating me. Govvy (talk) 13:30, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

The single typo correction. To make it apparently forget to login to expose himself thing. Now the SPI case went full madness of ip hopping. Matthew hk (talk) 13:32, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

I am looking at the IPs, some of them are deff VPNs. Govvy (talk) 13:47, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

They are BT Group, Vodafone Portugal, so it is not VPN. I am not sure using onion routing can gaming the system or not, but using VPN and open proxies as IP, it can be anyone impersonating anyone just base on behavioural evidence. I think checkuser admin have more tools than ip only to check , but we can't request it in SPI. Or those admin can have a check but forbidden to disclose the ip is linked to the user (by technical evidence) publicly . Matthew hk (talk) 13:52, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Also, WP:RBI (at least those ip are somehow blocked) as well as don't discuss how to break the system in detail. Matthew hk (talk) 13:56, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

(self correction) Yes based on block log the most recent 3 ips were blocked before as proxy. (82.154.128.250 (talk · contribs), 148.69.95.42 (talk · contribs), and 88.157.176.94 (talk · contribs)). Matthew hk (talk) 14:04, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Onion generally generates IPv6 and not IPv4 addresses now, BT Group operate a lot in Canada also, they do have a hub in Portugal, they lease to other companies in Portugal know, so don't know how it works. Govvy (talk) 14:10, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Script hack?

At WP:ANI § dick picks on the Wikipedia app, you wrote It seem the script of "page preview" had been hacked.. Can you be more specific (for future reference)? —[AlanM1(talk)]— 17:29, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

I am not an expert in computer science. I just know wikidata and the code of local wiki article are fine. Not every page preview had problem, so i can't firmly tell where is the problem. Matthew hk (talk) 17:32, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Ismaeel Ahmed

Hello, Matthew hk. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Ismaeel Ahmed".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:12, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

@Liz:, it is not my draft. I created a redirect, then content was expanded into stub, then it was moved to draftspace. The read article/draft creator was User:Zulebaba, please send message there. Matthew hk (talk) 22:21, 13 March 2019 (UTC)