User talk:Nardog: Difference between revisions

Thanks for uploading Image:PiriformLtd.png. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
• That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 10:14, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles, as you did to Dragonball Evolution. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:57, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kantaris claims to be LGPL/GPL which is absolutely nonsense, because your software is either LGPL (which means it can also be used as GPL software) or GPL (which absolutely excludes LGPL). Since it claims it (also) contains GPL code, the software's license cannot be LGPL.

Nowhere on the homepage nor in the sourcecode nor in the program itself could I find a hint to the software license (only the claim on the homepage, it is "free and open source"). So they are obviously violaters (if you consider them claiming to distribute GPL software, which I somehow doubt, because imo it is not enough to say this once while installing, especially if installing is not necessary because you can also use the zip file which runs without installation).

--62.178.80.242 (talk) 12:59, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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) 13:38, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

See this. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:43, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding that on his page for me and thanks for coming to my defense on the talkpage. The way Tharthan came off was extremely unnecessary when I needed help with something I have no idea what I'm doing with. If I need help IPA again I'll probably reach out do you directly.--Rockchalk717 04:47, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I see you do a fair bit of editing to add or change IPA spelling on pages. I reverted your second edit on the Efua Baker page, as she is a British artist, and the schwa vowel is not rhotacised in British English, other than when it occurs in word-final position and precedes a word beginning with a consonant sound in connected speech. Please keep this in mind when adding or altering the phonetic spelling on pages of non-American and non-Canadian people/bands/products.Nqr9 (talk) 10:20, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but you're mistaken. The IPA notation {{IPAc-en}} uses is a diaphonemic transcription, so "ər" in that template represents not just the sound /ər/ but any sound produced when pronouncing part of the word by any speaker of any variety of English: /ə/, /ɚ/, /ɹ̩/, /əɾ/, /ɘɹ/, etc. See Help:IPA for English#Dialect variation for details. It is indeed inconvenient that the template allows to show one variation per diaphoneme, but... Nardog (talk) 10:30, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have been adding respellings to many articles with the article summary "respelling must accompany IPA" and linking to MOS/Pronunciation. Maybe I missed it, but I don't see anything in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Pronunciation that indicates a respelling must accompany IPA. At most, it says (in the first paragraph) respellings for English words "can be used in addition to the IPA".--William Thweatt ^TalkContribs 05:24, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@WilliamThweatt: Um... I've never been adding respellings to articles. I've only been adding IPA notations to articles which had respellings but not IPA. An IPA notation /ˌlʊks laɪk ˈðɪs/ and a respelling LUUKS-lyke-DHIS. The MOS states,

"For English words, transcriptions based on English spelling ("pronunciation respellings") such as prə-NUN-see-AY-shən (using {{respell}}) may be used, but only in addition to the IPA."

The documentation at Template:Respell says:

"Per the Manual of Style, respelling should follow the International Phonetic Alphabet, and never be used in place of it."

So a respelling indeed must accompany an IPA notation preceding it, but not vice versa. Does this clarify things for you? Nardog (talk) 08:32, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. So sorry. I misread the diffs. My misreading of the diffs was probably influenced by your wording of the edit summary. The wording "respelling must accompany IPA" means anywhere there is IPA, it must be accompanied by a respelling, which is obviously wrong. Alternatively, "respelling must be accompanied by IPA" would make sense as would "IPA must accompany respelling" (which means anywhere there's a respelling, IPA must accompany it). So I apologize for misreading the diffs, you are correctly interpreting MOS/Pronunciation and doing a great job with the IPA. I would suggest, however, rewording your edit summary though so as to avoid confusing others. Cheers!--William Thweatt ^TalkContribs 08:19, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me butting in, but exactly! I spent quite some time being confused by that edit summary. Imaginatorium (talk) 12:58, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I see that you have been tweaking IPA templates. It appears that your changes have caused some pages to transclude {{error}}s: Pages transcluding errors in mainspace

• Click consonant
• Affricate consonant
• Ejective consonant
• Implosive consonant

These pages are also populating Category:IPA pages with non-existing IPA audio soundfile. I find this topic and these pages very difficult to understand. Can you fix this? Thanks, wbm1058 (talk) 00:08, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Fixed Thank you for reporting. The error was more or less intended because the template used #iferror: to check if the value was valid. I've replaced it with #ifexist: so they will no longer show up in Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Error. As for the category, it seems like pages that called the template with empty values had added it. I've modified the template so that the category will be added so long as a value is entered. Nardog (talk) 06:47, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipedia:American Heritage Dictionary representation. Since you had some involvement with the Wikipedia:American Heritage Dictionary representation redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 04:36, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your account has been granted the "templateeditor" user permission, allowing you to edit templates and modules that have been protected with template protection. It also allows you to bypass the title blacklist, giving you the ability to create and edit editnotices. Before you use this user right, please read Wikipedia:Template editor and make sure you understand its contents. In particular, you should read the section on wise template editing and the criteria for revocation.

You can use this user right to perform maintenance, answer edit requests, and make any other simple and generally uncontroversial edits to templates, modules, and edinotices. You can also use it to enact more complex or controversial edits, after those edits are first made to a test sandbox, and their technical reliability as well as their consensus among other informed editors has been established. If you are willing to process edit requests on templates and modules, keep in mind that you are taking responsibility to ensure the edits have consensus and are technically sound.

This user right gives you access to some of Wikipedia's most important templates and modules; it is critical that you edit them wisely and that you only make edits that are backed up by consensus. It is also very important that no one else be allowed to access your account, so you should consider taking a few moments to secure your password.

If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

Useful links

• All template-protected pages
• User:AnomieBOT/TPERTable – outstanding template-protected edit requests (bot-generated)
• Request fully-protected templates or modules be downgraded to template protection

Happy template editing! — xaosflux ^Talk 01:37, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template:IPA-hu suddenly stopped working, and the reason appears to be your recent edit at Template:IPA. Do you think you could undo your edit until it can be redone in a way that doesn't result in Template:IPA-hu not working? Libhye (talk) 22:31, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Libhye: Thank you for reporting. I'll look into it and discuss it at Template talk:IPA. Nardog (talk) 22:35, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm wondering why you made edits to my last edits and why the photo of Chaquico was taken down? I don't see that I did anything that violated the style of Wikipedia. Please can you give reasons for your edits?Cheryl Fullerton (talk) 00:18, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Cheryl Fullerton: You must have the wrong person. The only edit I made on Craig Chaquico has nothing to do with any pictures. It merely corrected the pronunciation notations. Nardog (talk) 06:46, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was mistaken, I apologize for the confusion. I must have been looking at an earlier edition. Thank you!Cheryl Fullerton (talk) 16:24, 11 July 2017 (UTC)Cheryl Fullerton[reply]

Since the summary for your removal contains no reason, one can only guess at the reason. I can imagine the following possible reasons:

1. The word "before" in your summary suggests that maybe you simply are guided by a misconception that changes need to be discussed first (or maybe at least in pages that you own). That would, however, be a gross misunderstanding of our guidelines, particularly of WP:Bold. If that is the case, I politely urge you to read those guidelines carefully.
2. The missing reason suggests that it may simply be a matter of personal preference. In this case, it would help if you explained why you feel the page is better the way you left it. Maybe you have a point that is hard to express, in which case we can figure it out together.

Following WP:BRD, I will start a discussion at Template talk:IPAc-en, where your input would be appreciated. (You asked for the discussion to be at Help_talk:IPA/English, but I see no reason why that unrelated page, which is only one of many pages that indirectly use the page in question, would be preferable to the standard talk page. Since you yourself used the template talk page before, I'm presuming that was just a typo. If not, please feel free to leave a note on your preferred talk page pointing to the discussion.) — Sebastian 11:10, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@SebastianHelm: No, it is not a typo, and Help:IPA/English is not even remotely "unrelated" to {{IPAc-en}}. Since each language has its own phonological system, any IPA notation using an IPA(c)-xx template must use only the symbols defined at the key page for the respective language (under Help:IPA/...), unless it's a minor language for which the key doesn't exist yet (see WP:PRON for more). Therefore any addition, modification or removal of a symbol in an IPAc template must be done in accordance with the corresponding key.

I am familiar with WP:BOLD and WP:BRD. But it doesn't seem fair to me for an admin to "boldly" edit a module that's protected as high-risk because then only admins and template editors such as ourselves can boldly edit or revert. Admins have the responsibility to act in accordance with prior consensus when doing anything non-admins can't do.

Moreover, the current set of permissible combinations of symbols of {{IPAc-en}} is a product of extensive, collective deliberation (Help talk:IPA/English alone has 17 archives so far; and other related discussions have taken place at WT:PRON, Template talk:H:IPA, etc., and obviously at Template talk:IPAc-en, for over a decade). Take a look, for example, at the discussion at Help talk:IPA/English#Nasal vowels. There the OP proposed that we replace /ɒ̃/ with four different symbols, and we came to an agreement to add just one and keep /ɒ̃/ instead, after spending more than 1,800 words citing literature from scholars and dictionaries. That's the kind of deliberation we do there. So adding a symbol just because of one source without prior discussion is not only unfair to those who do not have the privilege but also unlike anything that's been done to the template.

So I suggest you propose adding /ç/ first at Help talk:IPA/English rather than at Template talk:IPAc-en. The help page has more watchers too. Nardog (talk) 14:40, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Given the overarching injunction to "use common sense", and the implied acceptability of supplementing the IPA with anything that works, any attempt to ban respelling for languages other than English makes no sense. When it works, there can be no conceivable reason to disallow it; people just shouldn't try to use it when it doesn't work. Given how few Anglophones know the IPA, respelling when it works is extremely useful, especially in the case of terms whose pronunciation is counter-intuitive to a lot of people. The words, names, etc. may be in languages other than English, but we have to assume that our readers are proficient in English. Cheers, Awien (talk) 20:37, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I appreciate the fact that you correct IPA transcriptions enclosed in the IPAc-en template, but try to check the whole transcription before saving. For example, here you left /i/ in a stressed position (it should've been changed to /iː/) and here you left /ən/ after another nasal (it should've been changed to /ən/). Hope this doesn't come across as stalker-ish, it's just something I noticed. As it says on my user page, I sometimes check out what other Wikipedians have recently been doing out of boredom. Mr KEBAB (talk) 22:20, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]