Jump to content

User talk:Uanfala/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

Welcome!

Some cookies to welcome you!

Welcome to Wikipedia, Uanfala! I am Calaka and have been editing Wikipedia for quite some time. I just wanted to say hi and welcome you to Wikipedia! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page or by typing {{helpme}} at the bottom of this page. I love to help new users, so don't be afraid to leave a message! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!

Calaka (talk) 01:32, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Karma in Hinduism

Thanks for your edits. They were helpful. Raj2004 (talk) 19:14, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Template IPAsound is changed

I changed template {{IPAsound}}. Now it signals errors. Since you use the template in User:Uanfala/Consonant table with audio2, the appearance there has changed.

  • Current code: {{IPAsound|ɰ|40}} --> {{IPAsound|ɰ|40}}
  • Suggested change: {{IPAsound|ɰ|40|errortext=}} --> {{IPAsound|ɰ|40|errortext=}}
  • Or: {{IPAsound|ɰ|40|errortext=no file}} --> {{IPAsound|ɰ|40|errortext=no file}}

I plan to expand the template documentation later on. -DePiep (talk) 13:41, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Good for main space!

Hi, again I met your User:Uanfala/Consonant table with audio2. To me it looks good (works fine in FF and Safari). I suggest you put it in a template for the public to enjoy. -DePiep (talk) 16:48, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I stole you idea, and created these:
Thanks for your good hint. -DePiep (talk) 21:58, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Pulmonic consonants with audio

Template:Pulmonic consonants with audio has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. -DePiep (talk) 17:23, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Notification: changes to "Mark my edits as minor by default" preference

Hello there. This is an automated message to tell you about the gradual phasing out of the preference entitled "Mark all edits minor by default", which you currently have (or very recently had) enabled.

On 13 March 2011, this preference was hidden from the user preferences screen as part of efforts to prevent its accidental misuse (consensus discussion). This had the effect of locking users in to their existing preference, which, in your case, was true. To complete the process, your preference will automatically be changed to false in the next few days. This does not require any intervention on your part and you will still be able to manually mark your edits as being 'minor'. The only thing that's changed is that you will no longer have them marked as minor by default.

For established users such as yourself there is a workaround available involving custom JavaScript. If you are familiar with the contents of WP:MINOR, and believe that it is still beneficial to the encyclopedia to have all your edits marked as such by default, then this discussion will give you the details you need to continue with this functionality indefinitely. If you have any problems, feel free to drop me a note.

Thank you for your understanding and happy editing :) Editing on behalf of User:Jarry1250, LivingBot (talk) 18:31, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Warrongo language, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Case and Emphasis. 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) 10:56, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:10, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hristo, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bulgarian. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:47, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Guiltive

The article Guiltive has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable neologism that it seems is attributed to one person and is not in wide circulation.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. DanielRigal (talk) 18:38, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Template:MWSD

A tag has been placed on Template:MWSD requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion because it is an unused duplicate of another template, or a hard-coded instance of another template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is not actually the same as the other template noted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page explaining how this one is different so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{substituted}}</noinclude>).

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page's talk page, where you can 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. Wugapodes (talk) 18:35, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of languages by number of native speakers in India, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kui language. 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) 09:02, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Indic scripts

Please stop inserting Indic scripts as you have been doing - see WP:INDICSCRIPT, as I suggested in my edit that you reverted. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 05:39, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

We do not usually bother with IPA because there are so many variants. - Sitush (talk) 05:41, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

@Sitush: I wasn't aware of this practice until today. But apart from the fact that the discussion behind it seems to have been quite contentious, even as it stands now, it suggests the usage of IPA instead of the Indic script. What I see here is two steps: 1) edit out the script, and 2) edit in the IPA. Making the fist one and not bothering to make the second one (or leave it until someone else does) doesn't strike me as very sensible. Uanfala (talk) 05:49, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I realise you may not have been aware. That is why I mentioned it in the summary that you reverted. Trust me, from my years of work in the topic area, you do not want to go down this road: caste articles are a mess, that one is among the worse and you'll just create a shitstorm. The RfCs (there were several) didn't we must replace, merely that IPA was acceptable. - Sitush (talk) 05:51, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Did the RfCs suggest removing on sight? I didn't see it in whatever I managed to read. Uanfala (talk) 05:55, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
The RfC said no Indic scripts. Which bit of that is difficult to understand? Honestly, are you aware that caste articles have both a special discretionary sanctions regime and are now also open to imposition of the 30/500 rule? They are a stinking mess and we have to be tough. - Sitush (talk) 05:59, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
BTW, can you even read Tamil? If not then what you did was plain wrong. - Sitush (talk) 06:05, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
No. I just moved a bit of text from one article into another. I'd assumed the good faith of the other editors. But anyway, adding the vernacular script version of the article title can unleash a shitstorm? That's interesting, and definitely of interest to orthography researchers. For my part, I won't do anything more (unless I've had a thorough look at the RfCs). Cheers. Uanfala (talk) 06:08, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
If you read the RfCs and WP:CIRCULAR then you'll realise why copying from A to B is a crap way of doing things. If you actually spend some time looking at the history of caste articles (even the two that you've recently edited) then you'll realise how easily a shitstorm develops. If you're not prepared to do either then, yes, it is best you do nothing at all in the caste sphere, although you probably should consider whether you are even doing things decently in the orthography area. Never just copy. - Sitush (talk) 06:17, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll have a look. I just don't see the relevance of WP:CIRCULAR. Did you mean WP:CWW instead? Uanfala (talk) 13:16, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

RFC

You are welcome to share your ideas and suggestions here --Tito Dutta (talk) 01:23, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll have a look, although I think I don't really know enough about how the community here works to be able to provide any meaningful input. Uanfala (talk) 11:29, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

March 2016

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

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

  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; 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. Regards, James(talk/contribs) 00:14, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

@James Allison: I'm finding it a bit surprising,, that you would use "edit warring" when talking about an editor undoing a single one of your edits. If you disagree with the explanation given in my edit summary, or that of User:SageGreenRider, you're welcome to revert, or you can alternatively start a discussion. Thanks. Uanfala (talk) 00:32, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ajit (given name), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ajay. 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) 09:34, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Your comments regarding Scars Do Heal

Thank you for your recent comments under the Afd discussions regarding Scars Do Heal. I would like to contribute by improving the article and I see that reviews on Amazon don't count as reliable. But don't you think that is not a good evaluation ? Because when I went through the reviews on Amazon, most of them belonged to a category of "Verified Purchase". Could you help me understand why Verified Reviews don't count on Wikipedia as a reliable source ? Also, I did a search - there were a few news websites this and this which carried a story about the book however, those news don't seem to be considered as reliable - wonder why ? DTNext is an established newspaper which has been in business for over 70+ years - ( request you to see the original article with the links mentioned there which got edited and then nominated as an AfD). AM (talk) 10:11, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't think I can add much more to what Jytdog has already written on your talk page. The relevant bit is that the guidelines about reliability of sources are at WP:RS and there are useful past discussions at WP:RSN. I'm relatively new to wikipedia and I don't normally edit in areas where news articles come up frequently, so I'm not the best person to ask. Sources come in a wide spectrum in terms of how reliable they are. On one end there are articles in major peer-reviewed scholarly journals and these are reliable. On the other end of the spectrum come blog posts (unless of course recognisably written by an authority in the field), forum comments, other wikipedia pages or amazon user reviews. Given that anyone can write them, there's absolutely no guarantee about their quality, relevance or independence. As for "Verified purchase", I assume that what it means is the review was written by someone who has bought the book. What this does is filter out trolling or phony reviews but this is still very, very far from the editorial control of a newspaper, for example. Newspaper articles also vary in how reliable they are, but there ar cases where they clearly aren't – as for example if they are advertorials or republished press releases. As for the articles you've mentioned on the AfD, I don't know if they are reliable, but they do appear at first blush to be such. Uanfala (talk) 21:14, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

April 2016

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Brahmi script may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • letters are flipped to reflect the change in writing direction.{{sfn|Bühler|1898|p=59,68,71,75}} (Aramaic is written from right to left, as are several early examples of Brāhmī.{{sfn|Salomon|1996}}

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:37, 23 April 2016 (UTC)


Dear Uanfala

I have recently made a minor edit on the linked page. Thank you. Listofpeople (talk) 15:08, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Bellsybabble

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.

A tag has been placed on Bellsybabble requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

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. — Etimena 22:03, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bellsybabble, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Our Father. 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) 09:40, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

List of multilingual websites

Thank you for your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of multilingual websites.
—Wavelength (talk) 19:28, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

No problem. It's a pity the others didn't agree with us. I'm getting the impression that the notability of lists is a murky area without concrete guidelines and that most of the time whether a list is judged encyclopedic or not, is ultimately down to individual editors' subjective views. Uanfala (talk) 19:41, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Devendra, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Vedic religion. 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) 10:08, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

2016 Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Community Survey

The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has appointed a committee to lead the search for the foundation’s next Executive Director. One of our first tasks is to write the job description of the executive director position, and we are asking for input from the Wikimedia community. Please take a few minutes and complete this survey to help us better understand community and staff expectations for the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director.

Thank you, The Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Steering Committee via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:48, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Lak clan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Punjab Province. 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) 10:27, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Siouan

Hi, thanks for adding the book to Siouan. I was a bit surprised to find it in External References. I would have put it under Bibliography, together with Parks and Voegelin. Jasy jatere (talk) 11:55, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

@Jasy jatere: Yeah, "External links" isn't the most appropriate section. The book most properly belongs in a "Further reading" section, but as this would have been the only entry in such a section (and one-entry section aren't very pretty), I chose the lesser of two evils by including it with the external links (and it is after all an online publication, so not completely out of place there). I didn't list it in "Bibliography" as this would have implied (not very strongly really, see WP:FNNR) that it has been used as a general reference when writing the article, which it wasn't (yet?). Feel free to move it to a different section (I think "Further reading" is the best option for now), no-one's going to accuse of COI for doing such an edit. Uanfala (talk) 15:42, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
Great catch identifying that Azamgarh sockfarm! VQuakr (talk) 17:42, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
Thank you! It's nice to see that, given how generally awkward it feels to deal with what is essentially policing work. Uanfala (talk) 18:49, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Gloss modules

I noticed that you've been working on Module:Sandbox/Uanfala/glt. It looks pretty interesting, but are there any examples where it's used? I'm interested in helping contribute to it. →Σσς. (Sigma) 02:07, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

It's not ready yet. It needs adding one or two functions and then a big sweep with the broom before we have a functional alpha version. I've been meaning to resume working on it for some time, but now after this nudge, I'll try to do it in the next couple of days. After that I think it will be a lot more transparent and after this stage help will be more than welcome!
I think even at this point I could do with an opinion. Do you have any views on what the html should look like? I know of two approaches, either with divs (as done by http://bdchauvette.net/leipzig.js/) or with ols (as they do in Glossa, for example in this article) and I've somewhat arbitrarily chosen the first one, but let me know if you have any thoughts. Uanfala (talk) 10:57, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
Well, I'll have to be away from wikipedia for a week and I'll resume working on it when I' back. I'm expecting the bare skeleton to be functional around the end of the month. Uanfala (talk) 21:29, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
Interesting how those two do glossing. It might be easiest to use wikitables, as my initial thought, but I agree with your decision to use the leipzig.js style. I'll try to look at the Lua code when I get time. →Σσς. (Sigma) 04:44, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, tables are the simplest solution and I've got a very simple template in my sandbox that does just that. But they're problematic (lines don't wrap around for example). As for the Lua code, I don't think it's completely readable yet, but hopefully it should make sense by the end of the month. Uanfala (talk) 16:15, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
You're right, the Lua code isn't readable at all! It'd be nice if you could comment the code and/or explain it, but other than the implementation I have a few comments on the use cases. See, I just noticed User:Uanfala/sandbox/glt/test and User:Uanfala/sandbox/glt/test2, nice progress on the rendering. I looked at how you're designing the template to be called, which involves parsing user input (the horror!) for three parameters. What if instead of parsing raw user input, you pass three templates into the three arguments, something like:
Situation: You are speaking to fruit vendor A, who, being in the fruit market, is competing with other fruit vendors B, C, D, etc.

{{gloss
 |1={{other language  |ru guo |wo |ba |ni  |de  |ping guo |qi diao |de hua |ta men |hui   |hen  |bu  |kai xing }}
 |2={{translation     |if     |I  |BA |you |GEN |apple    |eat     |DE HUA |they   |will  |very |not |happy    }}
 |3=If I eat your apple, they won't be happy.
}}

("ba" and "de hua" should be in small caps, but pre tags won't accept that. Also, I lied: the third parameter isn't a template)

Here's more examples to further illustrate: 

{{gloss
 |1={{other language  |je |lui      |ai   |répondu    |ce    |matin  }}
 |2={{translation     |I  |him.DAT  |have |responded  |this  |morning }}
 |3=I responded to him this morning
}}

{{gloss
 |1={{other language  |nach   |der      |10.    |Klasse  |habe  |ich  |eine  |Berufsausbildung     |gemacht }}
 |2={{translation     |after  |the.DAT  |tenth  |grade   |have  |I    |a     |vocational training  |make-PRF}}
 |3=After 10th grade, I did a vocational training
}}

{{gloss
 |1={{other language  |chan  |may  |chia     |(siŋ)  |thii |khun |bɔɔk}}
 |2={{translation     |I     |not  |believe  |thing  |REL  |you  |say }}
 |3=I don't believe what you said
}}

{{gloss
 |1={{other language  |wo   |(de) |mama   }}
 |2={{translation     |1sg  |GEN  |mother }}
 |3=my mother
}}

{{gloss
 |1={{other language  |wo   |*|(de) |fang zi   }}
 |2={{translation     |1sg  | |GEN  |house }}
 |3=my house
}}

{{gloss
 |note=*
 |1={{other language  |piao liang piao liang }}
 |2={{translation     |pretty                }}
 |3=pretty
}}

{{gloss
 |1={{other language  |piao piao liang liang }}
 |2={{translation     |pretty                }}
 |3=pretty
}}

{{gloss
 |1={{other language  |tao lun tao lun }}
 |2={{translation     |discuss         }}
 |3=discuss
}}

{{gloss
 |note=*
 |1={{other language  |tao tao lun lun }}
 |2={{translation     |discuss         }}
 |3=discuss
}}

The main advantage being that parsing is delegated to the user, instead of having to be implemented in Lua, which saves us a lot of time trying to wrangle with the module :). Thus, there'll be no need to worry about ambiguity; all that the Lua will have to do is annotate abbreviations, which will be trivial thanks to the neatly demarked periods and dashes. (I've also described a note= parameter that adds a user-specified character to prefix grammaticality. What do you think? →Σσς. (Sigma) 02:48, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, I'm not a programmer, so I guess even after the explanatory comments and the editing for clarity I'm planning to make in a week's time, the code will still look a bit opaque.
As for your idea for using nested templates, it's a nifty one and it could simplify the most inelegant part of the program. However, I don't think this makes up for the reduction in usability. If we make ordinary editors jump through the hoops of nested templates and passing every gloss word as a separate argument, then we really aren't addressing the main problem this template is meant to solve – the fuss of adding interlinear glosses. We wouldn't be be in a very different situation from the one we're in now, when we have to format glossed text using tables.
Another issue is consistency with similar tools. If we allow editors to delimit words using spaces (as in {{Inerlinear|unser-n Väter-n| our-DAT.PL father.DAT.PL|'to our fathers'}} then we're following the format of all the other tools I'm aware of (this mediawiki extension, the two latex packages and Leipzig.js). We would like it to be easy to repurpose for wikipedia interlinear text created with these other tools, wouldn't we?
I'm aiming for the mid of August for the present skeleton to be functional, tidied up and documented. Uanfala (talk) 23:19, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
Now about the horror of parsing user input, maybe the module doesn't do as much parsing as it seems – it only splits the input string at space characters while taking care that each word doesn't contain any unclosed tags. For example, it treats as one word a string like <b>simple enough<b> (what the module sees of the wikitext '''simple enough'''). Uanfala (talk) 15:44, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
Σ, I'm thinking of your |note= parameter for prefixing a grammaticality * or ? symbol. Do such symbols need to be formatted specially? My impression is that they normally go right at the start of the source language text. Uanfala (talk) 12:05, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
Sorry for the late response. I clicked the notifications icon and totally forgot to get back to you because it turned back to gray.
taking care that each word doesn't contain any unclosed tags It's often recommended to use a real™ xml parser when dealing with xml instead of trying to roll your own implementation. I'm not sure what your code is doing at the moment but I feel like there may be edge cases.
Another issue is consistency with similar tools. Well, the difference between LaTeX and leipzig.js and even the MediaWiki extension is that they all leverage the full power of their programming language's environment. We can't. Scribunto brought us from the bow and arrow to the breech-loaded rifle, while everyone who uses non-Scribunto Lua has machine guns. Off the top of my head (I have many, many more complaints about the implementation), we are constrained to "Lua in one file", without the access to third party code or the ablity to interface with the language on a lower level. So it'd be nice if we could take inputs exactly as other tools do, but it'd be a lot more possibly-buggy hacking with our constraints than it (imo) is worth. I think that delineating each unit, which in at least 95% of situations just going to be the extremely simple operation of sticking a "|" where you'd put a space, is simply less trouble for everyone.
I'm not actually sure how Lua would treat a parameter with multiple spaces but it'd also be useful to align the words in the code, too.
Anyway,I was intending the note parameter to be linked to grammaticality or have a tooltip to explain what the symbol means. But I just thought up another way to do that:
{{gloss
 |1={{other language|*|ich |habe |gegessen |einen |Apfel }}
 |2={{translation   | |I   |have |eaten    |an    |apple }}
}}

A lone star or question mark would have a tooltip to explain what it says about grammaticality. A benefit to using grammaticality as a single word-unit is that it also fits for cases where words are obligatorily non-optional, eg "wo *(de) fang zi" as mentioned above (I've tweaked the example code, as such), without ruining the alignment. Which was my original intention for it in the first place: that the asterisk should not cause "ich" and "I" to be misaligned. →Σσς. (Sigma) 03:18, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

@Σ: I don't really see the merit of treating the grammaticality asterisk as a word-level entity. It complicates both the code and the user interface, and it can easily be dealt with without all the fuss. As simple a thing as {{gloss|*ich habe gegessen einen Apfel|I have eaten an apple}} would do the trick. (That's assuming the asterisk goes immediately at the start of the string it applies to, which is what I recall seeing in glosses.) As for the obligatorily non-optional elements, they're easier taken care of by the same mechanism that deals with cases of non-1-to-1 mapping between the words in different lines. An example:
{{gloss
|Dit is een voorbeeldje in het Nederlands.
|This is a little{{nbsp}}example in {{nbsp}} Dutch.
|`This is a little example in Dutch.'}}

Dit

This

is

is

een

a

voorbeeldje

little example

in

in

het

 

Nederlands.

Dutch.

Dit is een voorbeeldje in het Nederlands.

This is a little example in   Dutch.

`This is a little example in Dutch.' (Should think about something better than a non-breaking space. Maybe {}?)

Now, providing a tooltip for the grammaticality asterisk is a good idea, but I feel that one character is a bit too tiny and it will be fiddly and unintuitive for a reader to hover their pointer over it. I'm not sure what's the best way to deal with this but again this is part of a bigger thing: there are other symbols that need explaining too (the null morpheme, equals sign for clitic boundaries, angle brackets for interfixes etc.). Do you have any suggestions? I was thinking of a little collapsible paragraph under a "show help" button somewhere around the interlinear text, and that would display the list of the special symbols used and their meanings.
What I'm thinking of is a somewhat less intrusive version of this (taken from Wikipedia:NavFrame):

*rām=ne

ram=ERG

āyā

came

'Ram came.'

As for the general question of avoiding parsing user input, I do see your point, but that's a simple no-no. There are edge cases, but these are too few (e.g. when the value of an attribute of a tag (produced by a nested template) contains a right angle bracket, or when the wikitext contains an unescaped left angle bracket) to justify shifting the complexity onto normal editors for all cases across the board. Besides, the parser could be rewritten if a suitable extension becomes available, or if someone writes Module:XML. Uanfala (talk) 22:39, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Σ, I'll try to focus now on adding the final bits of functionality and writing up the template documentation, which I hope to do in mid October. In little bits over the following months I'll work to make the code more sensible, but readability isn't going to be a short-term priority. I know this module is fundamentally different from what you envisage, but if you would nevertheless like to work on an aspect of it, let me know and I'll segregate the relevant bit of the code into a separate function and document the way it interacts with the rest of the module. Uanfala (talk) 16:17, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Infoling categories

Hi! I noticed you added the "Spanish Language" category, which I think is clearly right, and got rid of the "Linguistics" category for Infoling. Just querying (and I do mean neutrally) whether the deletion is the right idea, since I'd say Infoling is basically like the Linguist List for Spanish users; I originally added the category based on what the Linguist List page has. I'm still trying to get around to building this page properly, and since I'm pretty slow to get around to it, I appreciate you engaging. Please feel free to move this to Talk:Infoling if you think it's better there. --Mellsworthy (talk) 01:53, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I think I was being overhasty. I'm bringing back Category:Linguistics and it should stay there until it gets replaced with a more specific one (Category:Linguistics mailing lists?) whenever that gets created. Thanks for pointing this out! Uanfala (talk) 07:36, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
@Mellsworthy: I've moved it to Category:Linguistics websites which I think is the best match at this stage. Uanfala (talk) 14:12, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Mahra

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mahra clan. Sorry but I thought all experienced contributors already knew that Raj sources aren't acceptable. I should have included "reliable" in my rationale and usually do. - Sitush (talk) 15:08, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

@Sitush: Sorry, I'm not an experienced editor and I don't know much about Raj-era sources. All I saw was that there were other sources around. Simply disagreeing with prod rationale, that's all. Uanfala (talk) 15:18, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Nomination for Deletion of the page Anil Jha

I see you have nominated a page, I had created, for deletion. Might I ask why? Nominating a page for deletion solely because some unregistered spammer from my city reverted some of your non-sensical edits is not so good. In case that you wanted to save your edits, you should have nominated the page for protection from unregistered users instead. Also, I have noticed you making 4 reverts within 24 hours which clearly violates Wikipedia's 3RR policy and you can be banned under the Edit Wa — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abhishek Jha Nepal (talk • contribs) 16:13, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

I've nominated it for deletion because I don't see any WP:SECONDARY sources discussing the subject, I've provided further details in my nomination. You're more than welcome to join the discussion there!
Most of the time I can't be bothered to nominate pages for deletion, but on the other hand it really isn't worth the effort to constantly keep vandals off articles that are likely non-notable. And this was highlighted by the "unregistered spammer from your city".
As for my "violation" of the 3-revert rule, you're welcome to bring it up at WP:ANI but please have a look at WP:RS and WP:PUFFERY before calling my edits nonsensical. Thanks! Uanfala (talk) 16:26, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Abhishek Jha has subsequently modified his comment [1] [2].

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Nagaraj, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Naga. 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) 09:11, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation tags on talk pages

Since we discussed it last, I believe that I've only added the tag a couple times. Of the two that I can remember, one was changing and existing talk page from a redirect to non-redirect, and the other was creating the page, as there was a redirect to that page. I have stopped the wholesale addition of the tags as we discussed. -Niceguyedc Go Huskies! 20:12, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Apologies, Niceguyedc, I just had a knee-jerk reaction without remembering that I'd left you a message about that before, and without realising that the single case I came across must have had a good reason to be there. Uanfala (talk) 20:17, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

July

why are you deleting my view on Wiki Project Nepal? सरोज उप्रेती (talk) 10:42, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

I've explained it in my edit summary which you can view if you click on the "View history" tab of that page. Let me know if it's still unclear. Uanfala (talk) 10:55, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for clarifying and understanding on the Chamba Chukh Talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anujkaps (talk • contribs) 21:35, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

No need to thank me about that :) Uanfala (talk) 22:03, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Deprodding of V. K. Adarsh

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from V. K. Adarsh, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks!

Please be aware that the notability of this person is well recognized among a wide regional base within India. Unlike Western countries, the citations and popular recognition have a different value base and scale in societies of global south. Thank you for your understanding. ViswaPrabhaവിശ്വപ്രഭtalk 04:31, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation, Viswaprabha. I think you're raising an interesting point with this statement: the citations and popular recognition have a different value base and scale in societies of global south. I'm not sure I completely understand that, would you be able to elaborate? Uanfala (talk) 09:23, 31 July 2016 (UTC)


Greek terms in anatomy

Hey Uanfala happened by this discussion: Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2016_July_6#Enkephalos Thanks for proposing it and trying to make this encyclopedia tidier. I'm an anatomy editor and didn't contribute because it seemed like the discussion was flowing anyway, but I just thought I'd drop a note about Greek terms.

Why are Greek terms listed as identifiers in many articles?

Most recorded anatomical knowledge was documented by the ancient Greeks, who were then studied by the Romans. Latin became the international language of science and with the rediscovery of anatomical knowledge after the dark ages, a lot of terminology relating to diseases and anatomy comes from Greek, via Latin, to us today.

Hence we have some very ridiculous situations, such as where the kidneys (germanic origin) receive blood from the renal arteries (Latin origin) and are filled with nephrons (Greek origin), the study of kidneys being nephrology (again GReek). The brain (germanic origin) consists of the cerebrum (latin) but when inflammed is referred to as a state of encephalitis, and when in development is refered to in parts such as the mesencephalon (Greek origin). So that's why we put the identifiers in the articles - they're very useful terms that relate to many accessory words relating to each anatomical object. I've heard it said there are 20,000 latin and Greek-derived words in medicine and this would not surprise me.

Hope you find that useful and interesting. I learn something interesting on Wikipedia almost every day and thought I might spread the joy :). --Tom (LT) (talk) 12:36, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Tom (LT), for shedding light on the background behind these redirects, which probably looked mysterious to most editors accustomed to the somewhat straight modes of reasoning at RfD. Uanfala (talk) 13:28, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Taraka

Hi Uanfala, Could you also have a look at Daitya and check to see if we have linked to the right disambiguation page for Taraka? - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 23:10, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Ryk72 and thank you for letting me know about that. It's almost certainly not the goddess. The context at Daitya tells us Taraka: 1) is a Daitya, 2) is the son of Upasunda and 3) is also known as Kālanābha. I'm not sure about 3) at all, but 1) makes it very likely it's Tarakasura (who is a Daitya according to MW's Sanskrit dictionary), but this seems to be contradicted by 2), as according to our article, Tarakasura's father is Vajranaka. Pinging user I wear my sunglasses at night who might be able to help. Uanfala (talk) 23:46, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
@Ryk72: I see they've disambiguated it to Tarakasura now [3]. I've noticed lately a couple of disambiguations of links to Taraka, done by various editors, and all of them appear to have been incorrect (there was another discussion about one of them). I don't know for what reason editors always assume it's the goddess rather than the asura. Cases like this, I think, might indicate that the entries on the dab page are probably worded in a way that misleads general readers. But I think this also highlights the overall trickiness of disambiguating links that have to do with Hinduism. Uanfala (talk) 06:26, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Agreed. Not as easy as it might seem at first. Thanks to both you and I wear my sunglasses at night for ensuring that we get it right. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 07:20, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Really Appreciated

Thanks for informing me about the matter. I'm sorry I've been not so much active lately. I hope you were one of the participants who argued in favor of the "Keep" Thanks! Napsync (talk) 18:47, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm afraid I didn't participate in the discussion. If you plan on working on Shri Krishna Janmabhoomi, maybe it's worth having a look at the AfD discussion as well as on the article's talk page – if I remember correctly, there was a strong trend towards merging with Kesava Deo Temple. The latter article has a bit of content that you might try to work on top of. Thanks! Uanfala (talk) 19:47, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Pings

Hi

Just thought I'd mention, with regards to this edit, your ping won't work. It's quite fussy (to avoid generating duplicate pings if you just edit a message). From Wikipedia:Notifications#Triggering events

Note that the post containing a link to a user page must be signed; if the mention is not on a completely new line with a new signature, no notification will be sent.

I fell for that a few times myself... Cheers. --Begoon talk 14:27, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Oh, the intricacies of pinging never cease to surprise me. Thank you, Begoon for pointing out this one! Uanfala (talk) 14:34, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
You're welcome. The problem is it can be so intangible - you have no idea if it worked or not. I remember at one point someone suggested a "your notification was sent" pop-up, like the "your edit was saved" one we already get. I thought that was a good idea, but never heard about it again - it's probably in some WMF "too hard" basket... Cheers. --Begoon talk 14:42, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
It appears the feature is on its way to be taken out of that basket [4] [5], but so far it looks like it's going to be there only for users who opt in. Cheers. Uanfala (talk) 14:57, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Cool. Thanks for finding that. And opt-in is perfect, as long as it's publicised so people know it exists, because there are bound to be some who don't like/want it. Good news. --Begoon talk 15:11, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Daitya

Hey. Thanks for your help on the Daitya page. Are you please able to condense all of the references that are from the same source in the References section? - User talk:I wear my sunglasses at night —Preceding undated comment added 06:10, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

@I wear my sunglasses at night: I did what I could [6] but there might be ones I've missed. If you'd like to do that yourself, it's not difficult at all: WP:REFNAME. You might also find the template {{rp}} useful. One thing I'd recommend doing is enhancing the citations with the years of publication (and also place and publisher, if possible): this is standard bibliographical information and helps verifiability as pagination often changes when books get reprinted or a new edition is published. Uanfala (talk) 10:10, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Uanfala/Archive_1&oldid=1190147423"