User talk:Eievie

Hi Eievie! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing! Austronesier (talk) 12:37, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PS: please always try to leave a short WP:edit summary, so other editors get an idea what you have in mind (e.g. "rearranged table with notes" or something like that). Your last contributions were undone for no good reason, but I have restored them. –Austronesier (talk) 12:48, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Post-PS: If you are up to a truly Herculean task of cleanup, then you might want to check Has Hlai grammar. –Austronesier (talk) 10:46, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wowie. I'll see what I can do. But just wow. That's long. --Eievie (talk) 18:49, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I keep interjecting, but that's a really low priority article, in my opinion. Probably around half of the glossed examples are superfluous, and the article will be improved if they are removed. – Uanfala (talk) 20:46, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This one is of less epic size: Biak language, but clearly in need of your attention ;) –Austronesier (talk) 08:17, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, I can do that. And re: Has Hlai, if someone does do the major amputations that page needs, I'd be happy to clean up what's left afterwards. Eievie (talk) 05:10, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the documentation for {{Interlinear}} carefully, especially the parts about indenting (do not use : markup) and applying bold formatting to each word or sound, not to a whole phrase. It is an unusual template. You can see a sample fix here. Thanks! – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:51, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I was just dropping by to make the same request! From my experimentation, here's what seems to work the best: any time you want to use :{{Interlinear}}, substitute {{Interlinear|indent=4}}. If there are any instances of :{{Interlinear|number=}}, just drop the : entirely and it will indent itself. These will then line up with instances of {{Interlinear|indent=4}} (ie, where |number is not set) automatically.

Also, please keep up your work on these articles, they very much need attention! pauli133 (talk) 14:10, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop using colons to indent this template. I have fixed some of them, but I will start simply reverting if you continue to introduce these disruptive errors. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:06, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In many cases, The thing I'm replacing is a table indented with a colon, and so keeping it that was seemed consistent. Why is that a problem? --Eievie (talk) 16:24, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jonesey95, the conversions that Eievie has been doing are a very obvious improvement, and I don't believe they should be told off for also not fixing something else along the way. As for colons and interlinear glosses: once the next version of the template is finally set up, I'll make it a habit to track down and replace any instances that may appear from then onwards. – Uanfala (talk) 16:57, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to use {{Interlinear|indent=4}} for pages where the glosses are the only example text. But when there's other pieces of example text, and those ones are indented with colons, it makes more sense to me that the example text all be consistent. What is actually wrong with indenting it with a colon? I get that Jonesey95 has some personal feud against it, but it doesn't seem to cause any glitches, so far as I can see. Or am I missing something? --Eievie (talk) 19:50, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's not personal, but you're making work for me, as I clean up these markup errors in articles. Indenting with a colon in articles is invalid markup and causes accessibility problems; see MOS:INDENT for more information. Indenting this particular template with colons also causes two Linter errors (I link to this page from every edit summary that fixes such errors), which we are trying to eliminate from article space. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:10, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That link seems to indicate they're trying to get rid of colon indentation across the board, where it says "Avoid : (description list markup) for simple visual indentation in articles." But clearly you think colons are fine for the non-gloss examples here. So why/how are these two cases different? I'm not adding new colons: nearly all of the glosses were colon-indented tables beforehand, and that seems to have been sufficiently inoffensive. --Eievie (talk) 22:38, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Colon-indented tables do not currently cause pages to appear on Linter error lists, which is what I am working on. Other editors may choose to tilt at the windmills of other misuses of colons for indentation in article space. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:08, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

...so it's a "problem" not because it actually causes any issues, but because some cite scanner flags it? --Eievie (talk) 00:48, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FYI—it seems there is a deeper reason behind this colectomy, cf. this discussion: Template_talk:Interlinear#Get_rid_of_the_colon. –Austronesier (talk) 10:49, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop messing around with all of the phonological charts on various language pages. If you have any edits that correct the information regarding the phonology, then correct and submit it, but changing around the appearance of the phonological charts or orthography, is unnecessary and not helpful. Fdom5997 (talk) 03:30, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I thought wikipedia was supposed to be vaguely standardized in regards to formatting? --Eievie (talk) 03:36, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, not at all. Not sure where you heard that. There are rules to information and citations, but not to just the appearance of charts. Fdom5997 (talk) 03:40, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Fdom5997 here. If a table is well-organized, there is no need of standardization, unless it is really badly formatted. Sometimes, an arrangement of segments can have language-specific reasons (e.g. in most Athabaskan languages, it is better to have stops and affricates in the same row). But Tzotzil looks ok. Almost. Both of you haven't noticed that [ɓ] is not an ejective...? –Austronesier (talk) 10:38, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think that making the IPA symbols link to the appropriate sound is valuable in-and-of itself, because IPA symbols are fairly obscure. If you disagree, I'm gonna need some explanation for why. --Eievie (talk) 15:01, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, IPA links are indeed an improvement. –Austronesier (talk) 17:53, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(passer-by comment) Yes, there are often good reasons why a table may be arranged in a given way. I'm not aware of the conventions here, but Eievie's edits to Tzotzil look like improvements to me: for example, it seems reasonable to focus on the phonetic content rather than the orthography, and the phonation type fits in better with the manner of articulation than with type (and that also makes the table more compact horizontally, which is better for those viewing on mobile). – Uanfala (talk) 18:06, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

With regards to Kʼicheʼ language, if you're going to claim that it's "unnecessary" to make tables adhere to even the very most basic structural principle of "labels should be structured as labels, and content should be structed as content", then you need to explain yourself there too. Are sections headers unnecessary too? Are infoboxes? In a very strict sense, probably. But they're used anyways because clear structure and readability is valuable. Eievie (talk) 00:31, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I thought we had this discussion before about rearranging the tables. I clearly said to add the IPA links, but there is absolutely no need to reformat the tables. Leave the formats the way they are please. They do not necessarily have to be in your preferred order, and that is final. Fdom5997 (talk) 23:44, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That was about IPA vs orthography, and the ruling was that since Wikipedia has no standard about how things should be formatted, any system is ok. This is different. This is about a) whether a table should clearly represent which classes of sounds a language distinguishes, and b) whether a table being internally consistent has any intrinsic value. This is not merely my own personal preferences; I've clearly explained why formatting it the way I did makes more sense, and you've provided no counter-arguments on that. --Eievie (talk) 00:05, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Donner60. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions—specifically this edit to Cham language—because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help desk. Thanks. Donner60 (talk) 03:13, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I was switching the glosses over to the {{interlinear}} template. It's a much cleaner way to formatting the glosses. --Eievie (talk) 03:17, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Striking erroneous message. Thanks for the explanation. Donner60 (talk) 03:59, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll give you a couple reasons why the old chart is better. One, because it is not taking up more of the entire page with excess space, and two, because changing it around really does not change anything. Adding IPA links to the consonants may change it better, because one can click it and then can be linked to an article based on information of the sound. But when it comes to the charts themselves, there truly aren't any rules to how the charts are "supposed" to look. Every chart is different, and changing them really has no impact based on the information being read. I've seen many different charts that look like this and other different ones too, and I am still able to read them exceptionally well. Yes the aspirated consonants are separated, but that does not mean that they are not still voiceless. And as far as the nasals go, they are simply just sonorants with diacritical marks and not really seperate phonemes. I've seen many charts that look like this, and I don't have any problem reading them. Fdom5997 (talk) 00:11, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If a language contrasts voiceless vs voiced vs aspirated constants, then the chart should also contrast voiceless vs voiced vs aspirated. Hell, stick all 3 on a single line if you really want to! That would still be better than contrasting 2 in the chart, with 1 separate for some inexplicable reason. --Eievie (talk) 00:38, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for edits like these[1][2]! It is a rare thing to see that someone takes up the task of cleaning up sound tables and at the time takes into account the phonological structure of the language. Looks good!

Just one small thing: many NW Coast phonologies have two alveolar affricate sets next to one set of stops. In many pages, these three sets are labelled as follows:

- central: t
- sibilant: ts
- lateral: tɬ

As I can see, you have adopted this practice. I have a bit of a problem with the "central" label. Obviously, in the affricate pair ts/tɬ, ts is "central". So central as a defining label for t is a kind of misnomer. I have used "plain" on one occasion[3], which is pretty bland; "non-affricated" looks clumsy. Do you have an idea what else could be used here? –Austronesier (talk) 11:11, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm down with any terminology you want. "Central" vs "sibilant" vs "lateral" was simply copied from a page that already did it that way (I don't think I can remember which one now. I'm fine with "plain" if you want. "Plain" is already often used in the vertical sublabels, contrasting with "ejective". --Eievie (talk) 15:22, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

Coeur d'Alene language

added a link pointing to Labiovelar consonant

Potawatomi language

added a link pointing to Labiovelar consonant

Salish-Spokane-Kalispel language

added a link pointing to Labiovelar consonant

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 05:59, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing up the formatting. Could you correct {{tl:lang|rap}} so that it displays text at normal size? Thanks, — kwami (talk) 02:32, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not entirely sure what you're referring to? I used template:wikt-lang, which (at least on google chrome on my computer) doesn't show anything in any different size, it just links words to their Wiktionary pages. --Eievie (talk) 04:18, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'm discussing it on the template talk page. For me, only languages with dedicated formatting display properly; the default output of the template is at half size.

Also, I left Rapa Nui language in a bit of a mess. The distinction between saltillo, okina and apostrophe had started getting mixed up, and the interlinear template doesn't handle them well. I've started a discussion there too. If we use the characters themselves, it's very difficult to tell them apart when editing, which is probably why they were getting scrambled. — kwami (talk) 06:52, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't know what you're referring to. I didn't touch any sizing elements on the template. The only edit I made to template:lang recently is adding Rapa Nui as a link option, and then on the Rapa Nui page I just added some links to Rapa Nui's words on Wiktionary. When I did that, I copied the word as it was spelled on Wiktionary, in order to make the link work, which sometimes meant replacing the okina or apostrophe it'd been spelled with before. Eievie (talk) 16:34, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In the case of the Nepali consonant section, I'll let it go. It is fine that you reformatted the charts in order to add the orthography. Other than that, the charts do not need to be reformatted. Fdom5997 (talk) 21:27, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I know they don't "need" to. But they can be (they're nearer and more readable) and you've yet to supply me with a single reason why they actively shouldn't be. --Eievie (talk) 21:35, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think the older version looks neater than the new one. I don't think most readers will need two separate columns explaining to them the difference between /t/ /d/, /tʰ/, and /dʱ/, that's usually better done in the text. Whoever wrote that article has made a choice between concision and exhaustiveness, and I don't think it's a good idea to change that without good reason.

Regardless, if the consonants table does get expanded with new labels, it's a good idea to make sure these are consistent with the ones used in the text – it's confusing for readers for the text to talk of murmured stops and the table to instead have voiced aspirates. And one more thing: why is the voiced retroflex given using the Bengali letter ঢ? – Uanfala (talk) 22:16, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I for one find the new one better. If we were to split the columns or rows by voice at all, I think it stands to reason we split them by aspiration too, as in ⟨pʰ p b bʱ⟩ (vertically or horizontally), since they all stem from differences in voice timing. The fact the IPA has separate sets of letters for voiceless and voiced consonants but not for aspirated or voiced "aspirated" (breathy) ones is nothing more than a consequence of its eurocentric origin.

"Murmur" is a rare and outdated term and I don't think it should be used. Ladefoged preferred it to "breathy" but Esling doesn't. Nardog (talk) 22:29, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What I had in mind was the presence of explicit labels, rather than whether the cells are split or not. Fwiw, the ideal layout for me is when all four consonants are in the same cell, as here. – Uanfala (talk) 22:40, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Uanfala (talk) I definitely agree with you on the old one versus the new one. It is organized and nobody does really need separate column to distinguish the aspirated/breathy versus the non ones. As long as they are distinguishable in some way, then it should be fine, and should be left up to the viewers of the page to decide. Fdom5997 (talk) 00:00, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My biggest issue is how inconsistent Fdom5997 is about what is "good" or "bad". I was once told off for making the Tzotzil language table wider, and now I'm being told off for making the Acehnese language table narrower. If there were actual style guidelines, I would totally be willing to play by the rules. But all I hear is this endless stream of "unnecessary", which is firstly vague as all hell, and secondly, why is "necessity" the end-all-be-all? Eievie (talk) 00:34, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well there are no "guidelines" because no, it doesn't matter, and yes it is rather unnecessary. If you left the Tzotzil language table the same, that wouldn't matter either, and the readers (if they have knowledge regarding the IPA symbols) would still be able to read it. The information is what matters, not the "appearance" of the charts. It's not about which one would be better, or is better, it is about the accuracy or detail of the material being displayed. Fdom5997 (talk) 01:15, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If it truly doesn't matter, if any which way is "fine", then why do you act like it matters so much, like this is an issue worth fighting over? Eievie (talk) 01:18, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also ask yourself that too. Fdom5997 (talk) 01:24, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I never claimed it doesn't matter. I think dictations in phonation type do matter, and should be listed and labeled as such. Eievie (talk) 01:28, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's just what you think, not what is *has* to be. Fdom5997 (talk) 01:40, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I never claimed that it "has" to be, just that it's good if it is. But moreover, why is it so much of an issue? When everything is whatever, fine, why is is this uniquely an issue that needs to be undone? Eievie (talk) 01:48, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm willing to compromise like this: languages with 2-way phonation distinctions are to be left alone, but 3+ way distinctions may get labeled. So for example, a language with only voiceless vs voiced would be left sharing a cell, but voiceless vs aspirated vs ejective would get split up and labeled. Eievie (talk) 04:24, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I will tell you for the last and final time, that there was absolutely *nothing* wrong with the consonant charts that I fixed up. Mine was even more organized than before you started editing the chart. I put in the lateral and labialized columns and even that looked much more improved than it did here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cherokee_language&oldid=1041069744#Phonology. But then that still didn't satisfy you, and you had to keep on undoing my edits, and unnecessarily reformat the chart because to you, "it looks nicer". No, it looks nicer the way it was before, and now that I fixed it up a little, it looks even better. So please just stop, and leave the charts *alone*! Fdom5997 (talk) 17:38, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There was nothing wrong with it after I fixed it up with links either. Putting the sonorants (resonants) together makes sense because the text explicitly mentions resonants. Putting the plosives and affricates together makes sense because the very first phonology note talks about how they all function similarly in terms of sometimes getting voiced. But — if you really want to die on this hill — go ahead. Let's just be very clear here: You are setting a precedent that editing a page only to change it's layout into a layout you prefer is an acceptable practice, and one that other people should not role back. If that's the new rule, and you're prepared to not be a hypocrite about that going forward, I'll leave the Cherokee page alone. Eievie (talk) 23:54, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Eievie, I just wanted to let you know I reverted your recent edit to Bell v Tavistock. Per the discussion in March 2021 at the WP:RS noticeboard, Lesbian and Gay News is an unreliable source and should not be used in articles. Feel free to add WP:RS though if you think it will help explain the appeal better. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:00, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is it like you can't cite anything from certain websites? Cuz this wasn't reporting so much as it was commentary, summary. If person X themself authored an article where they said Y, it's not exactly a stretch to then say that X did indeed say Y. What specially is in question here? Is it that the legal commentator is not believed to be qualified to make legal commentary? --Eievie (talk) 03:21, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's a little more nuanced than that, but a short version would be yes. The relevant policies you'd want to read are WP:PSTS, WP:SECONDARY, and WP:RS. From WP:SECONDARY "Articles may make an analytic, evaluative, interpretive, or synthetic claim only if that has been published by a reliable secondary source." Because LGN is not a WP:RS it's inappropriate to use it in an article. Per the archived discussion on the RS Noticeboard that I linked earlier, the consensus is that the organisation is not reliable, with an inability to distinguish between factual reporting and editorial opinion, and a heavily anti-transgender bias. The issue isn't the author of the article per-say, as I don't want to cast any aspersions about his competency when making legal commentary, it's the source website as a whole that is considered unreliable.

If the same piece had been published in a WP:RS, for example PinkNews, The Times, The Telegraph, or The Guardian, written by the same author, then the critera in WP:RSEDITORIAL would be applicable. Because Dennis' piece was an editorial opinion on the judgement, and not factual reporting, I believe this quotation from WP:RSEDITORIAL would then apply Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact..

Finally, I saw you commented on the RS Noticeboard that I linked before. That discussion is archived, as it took place back in March of this year. You're very unlikely to get an answer on it there, as the noticeboard archives are primarily read-only. You'd be more likely to get a response by opening a new discussion section on the current noticeboard. Although in this case, I suspect you'd likely be referred back to the policies I linked in my first paragraph. Unless you were wanting to re-open the discussion on the reliability of the source now that it's a few months older. If you were to do so you'll want to check the guidelines on the current noticeboard for how to do so. Hope this helps. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:21, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I've just run across an error I don't know how to fix, stemming from your recent addition to Periphrasis. You'll see the formatting issue under "Israeli Hebrew." Mind taking a look when you have time? Cheers, Jessicapierce (talk) 15:08, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Eievie (talk) 19:13, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking the time!... but the error's actually still there. It's the "Unknown glossing abbreviation(s)" under "Israeli Hebrew". :) Jessicapierce (talk) 19:33, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) I fixed one of the problems, which is that {{br}} is not the same as <br /> and sometimes (or always?) does not work well inside {{interlinear}}. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:11, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If it's the exposure of the strip markers (the strings beginning with "UNIQ--nowiki-"), then the incompatability comes not from {{br}} but from {{lit}}. Maybe the interlinear template will need to be expanded with some code to parse those markers. – Uanfala (talk) 10:27, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Content you added to the above article appears to have been copied from http://www.rogerblench.info/Language/Africa/General/Blench%20African%20Ideophones.pdf, which is not released under a compatible license. Copying text directly from a source is a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policy. Unfortunately, for copyright reasons, the content had to be removed. Content you add to Wikipedia should be written in your own words. Please let me know if you have any questions. — Diannaa (talk) 13:59, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Diannaa, is there any chance the offending text consisted just of example sentences in a source language (+ possibly word-by-word glosses and an English translation)? – Uanfala (talk) 11:42, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The copied text was sample sentences and English translations. Such content is protected by copyright, same as any other prose.— Diannaa (talk) 12:01, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is not copyright violation. When you write about any language you haven't closely studied yourself, you would cite the example sentences as published by the linguists who have. You're obviously not going to make up your own examples, and you're also not going to try paraphrasing as that would be tantamount to falsifying the source data. This is similar to what you do, for example, when writing about poetry: you're not going to request copyright clearance to quote select verses from the work. Or when you write about TV series: you don't need to get permission to refer to the episodes using their titles (even though those titles will obviously be under copyright). – Uanfala (talk) 12:25, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The excerpt was not marked as a quotation, and there was nothing to indicate that the content had been copied from someone else's work. That's a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policy. Short quotations are okay when no alternative exists, but they have to be properly marked as such, and it needs to be made clear that the content was not written by Wikipedians but by the person being quoted (Roger Blench in this particular instance). — Diannaa (talk) 12:43, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The example sentences didn't have a reference? I'd be happy to repair that if you restore them. – Uanfala (talk) 12:51, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what I said. What I said was that they copied directly from the source without giving any indication that it was copied, or any indication that they intended it to be a quotation.— Diannaa (talk) 12:55, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That can be repaired. Again, I'd be happy to do that once you've restored the text. – Uanfala (talk) 12:59, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Diannaa. Now that you've restored the text, I don't see anything improper in the original version. None of Roger Blench's analysis has been copied, only the example words/sentences and their translations, and they were clearly marked as such. Again, when such material is used, it is normally quoted exactly as in the source. I would have tweaked the formatting though – italics for Limbum text and surrounding single quotes for the English translations (but that's just for style/readability, it's not strictly speaking necessary as the function of each pieces of text is given by the table heading).

However, I don't think the example sentences are necessary. Eievie, readers of the Ideophone article are unlikely to be able to make heads or tails of those bare, unannotated sentences in Limbum. Maybe give a single sentence as an example of how one ideophone is used syntactically, and simply list the rest with just their meanings? – Uanfala (talk) 13:33, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't actually know anything about this topic, and only visited the page to do the copyright cleanup. So I won't be helping you with your suggested addition.— Diannaa (talk) 13:46, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I am the person who clearly marked the quotations and added the required attribution. The original edit did not have these features.— Diannaa (talk) 13:49, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what's going on here, and I'm just gonna let you guys handle it... Eievie (talk) 23:28, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The part you need to be concerned about is that the content you added to Ideophone is copyright, and I had to remove it.— Diannaa (talk) 00:07, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dianna, I realise that the analogy I made with quoting poetry may be misleading. The text of a poem is itself an original work and it's obviously subject to copyright. As is – in the case of that linguistics paper – the text written by the author of that paper: the analysis, explanation etc. That has not been copied heere. nd post

What has been copied, is some of the source data that this analysis has used. This data consists of isolated words and sentences that have been originally uttered by someone else. These are simply examples of the use of ordinary language, they're not creative works. If I post on social media that I was expecting more from Cop26, then I don't think I can claim copyright over that one sentence. If a linguist were to quote it as an example of the use of the word expect, then they wouldn't need my permission for it, nor would the wikipedian who in turn quotes that sentence as published by the linguist.

This can be easier to visualise with a simpler scenario. See for example the list of words at West Bird's Head languages#Vocabulary comparison. All of its contents would have been copied from one or another source, but that's not a copyright issue as there's nobody there that can claim ownership over individual words in a language.

The reason I'm bringing this up is because this isn't likely to be the last case you'll see. Wikipedia has about one or two thousand articles about languages or linguistics that are developed enough to feature analysed sentences in a source language. If you ran a decent copyvio detection tool on any of them, it would flag them up. So I believe that editors who deal with copyvios will need to be aware of such false positives. – Uanfala (talk) 01:11, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the things you've said in this most recent post are incorrect.

• We don't know for sure that the examples in Blench's paper were uttered by someone else or if they are original creations by Blench for the purposes of his paper. I don't think it matters; the content was published in his copyright article, and therefore enjoys copyright protection.
• It's not okay to reproduce copyright poems or songs in their entirety, but Wikipedia allows short quotations of copyright works for sourced commentary and analysis. Please see Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria and Wikipedia:Non-free content for more information on this topic.
• Under current copyright law, literary works are subject to copyright whether they are tagged as such or not. No registration is required, and no copyright notice is required. Even your example short post to social media enjoys copyright protection. That said, it is unlikely that Wikipedia copyright patrollers would pay attention or remove such a small bit of prose.
• The list at West Bird's Head languages#Vocabulary comparison is a list of common nouns, and does not reach the threshold of originality to qualify for copyright protection in my opinion. Whereas the list of sample sentences and associated translations in Blench's paper has enough creative originality that it does indeed qualify for copyright protection. — Diannaa (talk) 18:43, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created, Nolan Investigates, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 04:10, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Nolan Investigates. Thanks! –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 04:13, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is the particular issue that it has to many quotes period? Or that there's too many quotes formatted like quotes, and if they were little snippets in quotation marks in a paragraph, that'd be better? Eievie (talk) 04:18, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Eievie,

Thank you so much for tidying up the examples and applying the glossing tags and language tags at Swahili grammar! I really appreciate it. It was something I had been planning for a long time, but I was pretty daunted by the process and when I started, I was also finding it hard to do it consistently without errors. I've just added a key to the page to tell it how to interpret all the glossing abbreviations so that the red error messages don't show up anymore. I'm really happy because now the article looks nice and presentable, it's more accessible to people with screen readers and the glosses are also less imposing to people who forget the abbreviations. Now I can focus more on improving the actual content since you've fixed up the formatting so well.

ni-na-ku-shukuru

1S.SUBJ-PRES-2S.OBJ-thank

sana

very.much

kwa

for

kazi

work(CL9)

y-ako

CL9-POSS.2S

ni-na-ku-shukuru sana kwa kazi y-ako

1S.SUBJ-PRES-2S.OBJ-thank very.much for work(CL9) CL9-POSS.2S

...

Janadume (talk) 23:43, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:04, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, over at the Cornish Language article, for want of a better solution, we are using lang tags 'oco' for Old Cornish, 'cnx' for Middle Cornish, 'cor' for Late Cornish, and 'kw' for reconstructions and revived Cornish. If you have a better solution (which, in my view, would not be using 'kw' for everything) I would like to hear it. Tewdar (talk) 11:53, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, that sounds find. I just had no idea what those code were supposed to refer to, and assumed it was arbitrary inconsistency. --Eievie (talk) 17:26, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by TipsyElephant was:

It appears that the original concern that there are too many quotes has not been properly addressed. Just going off of numbers it appears that there is roughly 600 words of regular prose versus 400 words of quoted content, which very clearly does not follow the guideline pointed out by -MJL-. Please read WP:COPYPASTE, WP:QUOTES, and WP:PLAGIARISM for a better idea of the expectations (see MOS:QUOTE for formatting guidelines). Heavily trim or remove most of the quotations before resubmitting the draft for review.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Nolan Investigates and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Nolan Investigates, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

TipsyElephant (talk) 16:48, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Eievie! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! TipsyElephant (talk) 16:48, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It was me[4]! Glad to know I made your day :) –Austronesier (talk) 10:17, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

When you use Template:Interlinear, each word needs to have its own italic or bold markup, as explained in the documentation. It's quirky. The article also shows the error "Mismatch in the number of words between lines" in some templates now. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:31, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I know about the bolding thing. If there's a specific instance where I missed something, tell me where and I can fix it. Regarding the mismatch between number of words — yeah, some of the examples suck, and the words don't match up. But that's a problem with the content itself, not the template. If the example comes from a PDF link, I can look there and check, but many of them don't. Many examples are cited from books (which I don't have) or have no citation at all. So in a case like that, I'm not sure what you're asking of me. I guess you could leave it as it's original formatting, but I don't see how that's better — the words still don't match up there, just it's more disguised. --Eievie (talk) 19:08, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I linked to an example edit above. It was Tiruray language. I fixed the bold for you, but the word count mismatch is still there. It might need some {} markup to group the sounds. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:39, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How about you prove to me where Wikipedia "broadly prefers" the format? Fdom5997 (talk) 23:35, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

here and here. --Eievie (talk) 23:45, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And while we're at it, you tend to operate on a general principle that edits are generally bad, and should be avoided if possible. Could you please provide a link to where Wikipedia indorses this as well? Eievie (talk) 23:50, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, for mobile devices and providing IPA links, that should be fine. But this is only on a broad scale for any type of table. And nowhere does it talk about IPA charts or specifically splitting up the voiced and voiceless plosives. That is not necessary. Fdom5997 (talk) 01:07, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not proposing this be done everywhere. For example, the Sikaritai language table is already tiny so there's no need. But the Kula table was 880px, and the ideal max table size specified in the guidelines is 600px. I was able to bring it down to 700px (ie. cut out more than half of the excess width) without having to shrink the text or anything like that. If you don't like the strategy of putting contrastive types of plosives to in separate rows, then I challenge you to come up with a counterproposal. Do you have some other preferred method? Something that shrinks the table as much or more, and does so without comprising neatness or legibility? Eievie (talk) 01:25, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well if you don't create any separate rows for the plosives, then it actually can look smaller, and can also be read on a mobile device. My preferred method is just leave the charts the way they are and stop overzealously "perfecting" each chart. No viewer cares about what they "have to look like". As long as it has the right symbols and they can determine that each plosive is voiced or not voiced depending on the symbol, then that really doesn't matter whatsoever. Fdom5997 (talk) 06:20, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you're advocating for wide tables, go take that up with the people who write the wiki standards, not me. Eievie (talk) 18:12, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am not. I am just saying as long as the tables are legible and with accurate info, then just let them be. That's all. Fdom5997 (talk) 20:18, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you can show me where "avoid edits when at all possible" is written as an actual rule — not just your personal preference — I will listen. Until then, I will defer to what the Manual of Style says. Eievie (talk) 20:27, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Chaná language

added a link pointing to Glide

Mocoví language

added a link pointing to Glide

Pilagá language

added a link pointing to Glide

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:55, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Eievie! I suggest to keep nasal rows in place, instead of pulling them to the top per default (e.g. here). The tables can look quite funny as a result, especially in obstruent-heavy languages. But that's just me with what you hopefully perceive as positive criticism (as in fact intended). Don't get discouraged by the hounding, I think the WP community has spoken out clearly in the ANI thread. –Austronesier (talk) 13:12, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I was taught that the table reflects locations in the mouth, with the left-to-right axis representing front-to-back, and top-to-bottom axis representing top-to-back in the mouth (ie. nose is above the mouth). But come to think of it, the idea that plosives are more "up" than fricatives doesn't really hold up, so maybe that whole thing is void. --Eievie (talk) 16:59, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, that's an interesting perspective. The left-to-right thing is quite obvious, although strictly speaking, rows should make a 90% downward bend after "uvular" :) As for the anatomical top-to-bottom order, it sounds like a rationale. I can imagine a lot of situations where the phonological structure might suggest a different order, but if not, it be nasal on top, then. –Austronesier (talk) 18:00, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For the Mayan languages specifically, I think putting the nasals on top makes sense just because that frees up the space below the plosives for the affricates (which are like the plosives and should be near them) and the fricatives (which are like the affricates and should be near them). But for language that doesn't have affricates (Māori language, for example), I think it's fine for nasals to be wherever. And for languages were the nasals and approximants are treated similarly (example, Colorado River Numic language) then it totally makes sense to put them together down low. Eievie (talk) 18:43, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the vertical position in the table reflected the size of the constriction during articulation: from complete stricture for plosives, through narrow one for fricatives, to the vowel-like opening for approximants. Where you put the nasals will then depend on whether you focus on their oral component (they're plosives) or on the fact that airflow can freely pass through the nasal channel. Still, I don't think abstract considerations like that are relevant. I agree with Austronesier that unless there's some language-specific reason to move the nasals, it's usually better to respect the choice of the original contributors (which most often follows the layout used in the source works, and that's more likely to be a better reflection of the structure of the language). – Uanfala (talk) 21:03, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I like that interpretation. It makes more sense than the idea that plosives are higher in the mouth than fricatives. Eievie (talk) 21:19, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Help improvements. Thanks you. Jilpz (talk) 07:11, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

...what? --Eievie (talk) 07:12, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

copy edit. Jilpz (talk) 07:13, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To my knowledge, I've never edited that page. If you think I have, could you please give me the page history link? --Eievie (talk) 07:15, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You can ignore this sockpuppet. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:07, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:SignWriting family tree has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Nigej (talk) 07:55, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I see that you added {{interlinear}} to the translations on Active voice. But most of the translations in the chart are free translation: the English glosses the overall sense, not the individual morphemes, of the originals. If I understand correctly (I'm not sure I do, though!), the glosses should be more like this:

Le

The

chien

dog

a

 

mordu

bit

le

the

facteur

postal carrier.

Le chien a mordu le facteur

The dog {} bit the {postal carrier}.

犬 が

dog SUBJ

かんだ。

bit

{犬 が} かんだ。

{dog SUBJ} bit

A dog bit [someone].

Happy editing, Cnilep (talk) 06:36, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Eievie. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Nolan Investigates, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 02:01, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Devonian Wombat was:

This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Nolan Investigates and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Nolan Investigates, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Devonian Wombat (talk) 11:06, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by TipsyElephant were:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of websites). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries should be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources. Please rewrite your submission in a more encyclopedic format. Please make sure to avoid peacock terms that promote the subject.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

Very few of the sources are independent and reliable secondary sources. I would simply remove the twitter references and their related prose. The prose also lacks clarity and direction. Why are there two separate subsection for BBC and Stonewall? Why didn't the podcast win an ARIA (doing a quick google search suggests there were boycotts)? There are a lot of vague claims like "colleagues warned him", "other departments of the BBC did not cooperate", "The podcast sought information", "Stonewall didn't directly answer", "Other journalists spoke well of it" etc. Which colleagues and why? Which departments and why? Sought what information? Did Stonewall answer questions indirectly? Which journalists spoke well of it? TipsyElephant (talk) 20:06, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Nolan Investigates and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Nolan Investigates, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

TipsyElephant (talk) 20:06, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nolan Investigates, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

–MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 20:15, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey hey. I just wanted to touch base on your recent use of the interlinear template in Tigrinya. That template is for making multiline glosses line up nicely. Over at the Tigrinya page, there were just single-word descriptions in which it seemed to work fine to have Tigrinya word, Romanisation, & English translation on one line. Using the gloss template makes the tables far larger. Are you all right with my reverting that edit? Pathawi (talk) 19:33, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The interlinear structure seems less important to me than the table-structure, which I think helps highlights they key point of the example: how the words käbdi and ləbbi change form with different suffixes. Eievie (talk) 19:37, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Great. I'll keep the table, remove the interlinear template. That cool? Pathawi (talk) 19:38, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ok Eievie (talk) 19:39, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:50, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you remove all mention of Malina when I identified two pre-internet reliable sources that verify the name? Cullen328 (talk) 00:45, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chill, I'm in the middle of editing the page right now, I'll add the new stuff in a minute. If you absolutely cannot wait even 10 minutes, you're welcome to make the edit yourself. Eievie (talk) 00:48, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. I will look again in a few hours. Cullen328 (talk) 00:50, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Aka-Jeru language, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page IPA.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:04, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I apologize for hounding you again in the past days, but is it okay with you if I help add links to the various language pages that you have redone? For instance this edit here is in need of some vowel links and this edit here is in need of chart heading links. Also, part of the reason why I analyze (and have also redone) some of your edits, are because some folks can mess up and delete a key symbol that is used in the charts. Other reasons why I have redone the charts are because of inaccurate table condensations of charts like this which label /l/ as a "fricative". I will stop reverting your edits, in that my reversions aren't too necessary either. If you would allow me to help, maybe we can work together moving forward. Fdom5997 (talk) 06:24, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I saw you uploaded this image. I know it's the first time you've uploaded a photographic image to Wikipedia or Commons. Unfortunately, I've had to tag the image as replaceable fair use and as orphaned. I was able to source a demonstrably public domain image from the National Park Service. I uploaded it at File:P-22-Mountain-Lion.jpg. We have a policy governing the use of non-free images at WP:NFCC. In particular, take note of item #1 from that policy; "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose.". Since the image you uploaded has been replaced by an image that is demonstrably available under a free licenses and it serves the same purpose, we can not keep the image you uploaded. I've tagged the image you uploaded for deletion. Please don't let this dissuade you. There are unfortunately a lot of policies here, and learning them can take time. If you have questions about this, let me know. Thanks, --Hammersoft (talk) 01:32, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:02, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Nafanan language for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Hog Farm _Talk 17:21, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your query and it rang a "me too" bell for me. I had a similar case at Central Milton Keynes#Astronomical alignment but I'm ashamed to admit that your very valid concerns didn't occur to me.

If it helps to tease out the issues, there is a vaguely related concept in news reporting that more editors will recognise. When a newspaper that reports a story supplied by an agency like Reuters, we do credit both though we cite the publication date, not the date the agency wrote the story. I suggest that the critical factor is this: if someone wants to read the full story, where do they go? The unique identifier is going to be publication date, not collection date. It all comes down to the purpose of a citation.

Occasionally when I've had an exception to the "standard settings" like this, I've wrangled the system by writing something like ^ref^My extra information in {{cite book etc^/ref^ and never been reverted. Would that help? --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 00:24, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Taking your example, this is what I would do:^[1] because MacDonald is editing the stories, not writing them.

But in this case, I suggest there is a straightforward citation:^[2] --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 18:36, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created, Uthando Nes’thembu, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. ... discospinster _talk 18:15, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Sideswipe9th (talk) 04:21, 15 January 2023 (UTC) [reply]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in gender-related disputes or controversies or in people associated with them. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Sideswipe9th (talk) 04:21, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created, Sex Matters (campaign group), is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more in-depth coverage about the subject itself, with citations from reliable, independent sources in order to show it meets WP:GNG. It should have at least three, to be safe. And please remember that interviews, as primary sources, do not count towards GNG.(?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:20, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for creating this article. I'm reading this book. I guess you are too. For a controversial subject like this, can you make sure your facts are cited to the source, whether a newspaper article about the book, or the book itself (with page, chapter, etc). If a whole paragraph comes from one source, it may be enough to cite at the end. But if individual points are especially contentious or the paragraph comes from several sources, you'll need to cite each one. Two claims in particular "limited evidence base" and "limited collaboration with CAMHS" definitely need an exact citation to the book's claim. You may find editors contest that wording and have to settle for a neutral "evidence base" as a description in Wiki voice. Or if you want to make a contentious claim, you'll need to in-text attribute it to Barnes, also with a citation. -- Colin°^Talk 10:22, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, the synopsis is mostly a placeholder until a more detailed one can be written. When it comes to citing pages, though, I actually bought the audiobook. I'm increasingly realizing is not the best source to work from when you're citing exactly where it says the thing. If you could step up and do some of that, that'd be great. Otherwise, it'll have to wait until I can get a library version of the book. Eievie (talk) 19:56, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do you not get a free kindle version with it? Or at reduced cost? A problem with my kindle version is it has no page numbers, so I may have to resort to chapter and paragraph. I'm still reading it, and wasn't planning to use it on wiki till I finished it. -- Colin°^Talk 20:43, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, I've never gotten free kindle versions with audiobooks. Is that a thing? Eievie (talk) 21:03, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. I was offered the audiobook for £5.49 after buying the Kindle book for £11.99. -- Colin°^Talk 22:05, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, how do all the footnotes and citations work with an audio book? -- Colin°^Talk 22:05, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Text text text. Footnote: thing thing thing." Pause for a beat. "Text text text." Eievie (talk) 23:30, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So you are required to listen to all the footnotes. That's not so bad, though they are footnotes for a reason. But the numbered citations to sources I guess are missed off surely, and that's a big loss for a book like this where one might want to check the facts or go look up more details. -- Colin°^Talk 08:08, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Uthando Nes’thembu, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Greenman (talk) 09:26, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Eievie. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Sex Matters (campaign group), a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 02:02, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Eievie. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Images of Joseph Smith, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 21:03, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:55, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For the Khmer language page, there was a reason why I reverted it, and that’s because it was irrelevant. And it is also pretty ridiculous how you de-link the diacritical sounds like prenasal, aspirated, etc. That makes the chart look very inconsistent and disorganized. I’m sorry, but before you report me for “wiki-hounding”, the main reason I revert many (but not all) of your edits, is because those edits that you made are just unconstructive, zealous and redundant. Fdom5997 (talk) 21:03, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Incident report got buried. Thank you. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 00:23, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have invoked WP:BANREVERT to justify your reverts of @Fdom5997's edits and thus to restore the changes that you have made before. Note that WP:BANREVERT refers to edits done by editors actively evading and existing ban or block. But User:Fdom5997 was neither banned nor blocked at the time they disagreed with your edits and reverted them. The subsequent behavioral block is irrelevant for the preceding content dispute: @Fdom5997 being blocked does not mean that you have "won" (WP:BATTLEGROUND). They disagree with your edits, so respect WP:BRD and get consensus for your modifications of the table, instead of restoring them in an edit-warring fashion. I have restored the status quo ante in two articles, I ask you to self-revert the remaining one(s).

Cosmetic mass edits fine as long as no-one disagrees, but once someone sees substantial issues with them, just stop and discuss them. Austronesier (talk) 12:17, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 18:08, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I see you have a number of other topics on this page about glossing, so sorry if you've already addressed this in general. Since you have changed the format of the glossing on the Makalero language page, could you please also fix the resulting "Unknown glossing convention" errors? Huber 2011 is here for reference: https://www.lotpublications.nl/Documents/279_fulltext.pdf You can see how I did it for Abui language for example. Thanks. BlakeALee (talk) 20:17, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, I logistically cannot. "List of abbreviations" is page 23 of that pdf, but the red abbreviations (NSIT, RED, LNK1, RDL, and BD) are not included on the list. Eievie (talk) 23:46, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They're there. It's "list of glosses", pages xxi-xxii (21-22). BlakeALee (talk) 00:24, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Readers wouldn't see that. But I don't understand why you would add that as it is clearly a quote from https://web.archive.org/web/20150413223616/https://www.themua.org/collections/files/original/1eb17efe5fb6637ec2bc964b0e7754ad.pdf] Or have I misunderstood you? Doug Weller talk 13:32, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ishimura et al. cites "Mada Archaeological Fieldwork". Cool. Now were to we find the "Mada Archaeological Fieldwork" document? Can we look at it ourselves? Or at the very least, can we find where it's housed or what paywall it's behind? It being referenced is not the same as it being found. Either the original needs to be found, or it needs to be cited in the style of WP:SAYWHEREYOUREADIT to say it's being cited by way of something else. Eievie (talk) 17:02, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not sure why I can’t see the whole paper on my iPad but are you really arguing you can’t find a source used in the paper? Because that’s irrelevant. Doug Weller talk 18:29, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Or that you want to change the citation. If that’s it, be my guest. Doug Weller talk 18:53, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Eievie. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Detransitioner lawsuits, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 07:05, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't change the format of citations, as you did to Evenki language. As a general rule, if an article has evolved using predominantly one format, the citations should be left in the format they were written in. See WP:CITEVAR - Editors should not attempt to change an article's established citation style, merely on the grounds of personal preference or to make it match other articles, without first seeking consensus for the change. Thanks. Isaidnoway (talk) 09:46, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seconding this issue related to Iranian Sign Language. Kazamzam (talk) 13:52, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Religion in South Korea, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A missing title error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 06:02, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Demographics of Kazakhstan, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Poles, Turks and Kyrgyz.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:57, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Link if exists redirect has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:24, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I see you've contributed a lot to The Blind Man and the Loon, would you be interested in a taskforce on oral tradition? Kowal2701 (talk) 16:07, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm actually not particularly knowledgeable on the subject of oral tradition at large. I just created the page The Blind Man and the Loon by way of a weird research rabbit hole I fell down while procrastinating studying for a university final.

There was this page, Malina (mythology) ^{version at the time}, that claimed Malina was a Inuit goddess. The name Malina struck me as unusual for any Inuit languages, and the citations were crappy, so I started looking. That lead to me totally rewriting the page and renaming it Sun and Moon (Inuit myth). I learned The Blind Man and the Loon is the broader, more cross-cultural version of that same story, and the Inuit version appears to be a more niche version. So I created a page for Blind Man and the Loon too.

But that was all just something I briefly hyperfixated on while trying to avoid studying for exams. It's not something I actually know much about, or even a persistent interest of mine. Eievie (talk) 18:16, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's okay no worries lol. If you're sort of interested, there's a section with sources for people interested but unfamiliar, no worries if not Kowal2701 (talk) 18:24, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing I can think of to contribute is that, when I was writing that page, I thought Wikipedia could use a citation template specifically for oral stories. I was working from transcribed versions of oral stories published in books, but — because it's contextually an oral story — there are some details that I thought mattered and wanted to include, which aren't usually part of book citations.

• When did the interview where they told the story take place? It's often quite a few years before the book actually gets published. (Are versions of X story from the 1920s different from versions from the 1970s?)
• The storyteller's background and/or the language they told the story in. (Is the Netsilik version different than the Greenlandic version?)

Eievie (talk) 18:49, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brilliant minds think alike, Pgallert among others have been advocating for this for ages but unfortunately haven’t been successful (WP:Oral citations experiment). At the moment there’s loads of expertise and knowledge that Wikipedia ignores and this was targeting that Kowal2701 (talk) 19:48, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind pasting this at User talk:Pgallert#WikiProject? Kowal2701 (talk) 23:40, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Under the Pendulum Sun, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Epigraph.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:58, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Interlinear arrow has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:53, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:44, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]