User talk:Stephen G. Brown/Archive 22

Archive 15

←

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Re: IPA template

The IPA template should not be used for a couple reasons. The template itself is misleading when used for anything other than IPA. Its tooltip says "This is an IPA-transcription...," which it is not. And as Michael Z. mentioned at the article's talk page, a better solution would be to use a different template specificially designed to handle Cyrillic text. For now, a better solution would be the Unicode template. In fact, Template talk:IPA even recommends this. – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs, blog) 02:24, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

• Yes, I was aware of the problems. It’s just that IPA was better than nothing at all. The Unicode template is an improvement over the IPA, and in fact that’s exactly what we’ve been doing in en.wiktionary.org articles for the past few weeks. —Stephen 07:45, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Nahuatl wording

Hello, Stephen,

You recently worked on the Nahuatl page, and described your edit as consisting of minor wording changes. Most of the changes are, but this one struck me as relatively major, where you deleted the stuff I've italicized:

the devastating loss caused by the burning of thousands of Aztec manuscripts by some of the Catholic priests (it is also well known that many missionaries helped translate the texts before they were burnt and/or kept copies of them). (See Nahuatl transcription.)

(a) Seems a bit disingenuous to call that minor. (b) There's a bit of discussion on the Nahuatl talk page. See what you think.

--Lavintzin 14:02, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

The original statement that the manuscripts were burnt by the Catholic priests simply meant that the destruction was carried out by them as a group...it does not say or imply that each and every priest took part in or even condoned the destruction. The addition of "some of" does not change the meaning, but it's superfluous and I think the original wording is better style. As for the part about "well known," that adds a spin that the statement does not merit. If it's well known, you don't need to say so. As for "helping translate", I believe their help was pretty minor...if it had been significant, then the destruction and loss would not have been so great. (Anyway, it goes without saying that some of the priests helped to some extent, since they were the ones who spoke and wrote good Spanish.) Also, their "kept copies" were depressingly few. To me, the "stuff italicized" seems nothing more than whitewash, and does not represent important information. The only parts of it that seem reasonable are redundant, since it already says that, but worded better.

Instead of putting something as airy as the stuff italicized, it would be much better to write that "some of the priests managed to save XX manuscripts from the destruction" and that "some of the priests managed to get XX manuscripts accurately translated" (substituting the correct number for XX, of course). That would be useful information. —Stephen 11:28, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

chimp language

Hi Stephen,

I reverted your reversion of me. The wording of that paragraph implies that not all human languages are 'language' in the normal linguistic sense. It may be that chimp sign has some degree of syntax, though I believe that's a very controversial claim. But even if it does, it doesn't approach the most basic human pidgins, let alone any native language.

kwami 08:16, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Then I believe you’ve misunderstood the wording in that paragraph. There was no implication whatever that any human language is not ‘language’ in any normal linguistic sense. You stated that you were reverting my "unsubstantiated claim that some human language is as syntactically impoverished as chimp sign." I made no such claim, and the original wording said nothing of the sort. What you’re saying is that Kanzi’s signing was no more language than dogs barking or pigs grunting, and that the original claims that some human languages are nothing more than that. In fact, what it said is that all human languages ARE languages, and that Kanzi’s signing goes far beyond barking and grunting and actually approaches what we consider true language.

The original said that Kanzi’s signing has semantics ... in fact, it does, and I’ve never heard of any study that disputes that. The original also said that Kanzi’s syntax is much simpler than most human languages. The only thing that I can imagine you disagreeing with is the word "most." However, some trade languages (jargons, not pidgins) start out very poorly as languages go. If a jargon reaches the stage of a pidgin, then certainly it has a more complex syntax than Kanzi’s.

What you said is this: "While animal communication has debated levels of semantics, it has not been shown to have syntax in the sense that human languages do." The original wording was correct when it said simply that "animal communication has semantics" ... but you assert that it has "debated levels" of semantics, yet you’ve given no evidence, documentation or explanation of the debate. Next you stated that "it has not been shown to have syntax in the sense that human languages do." That’s a very wishy-washy way to put it...it’s as meaningless as saying that Korean has not been shown to have syntax in the sense that English does. But it leaves one the impression that you’re claiming that it has been shown that Kanzi’s signing does NOT have syntax in the sense that human languages do. Forgetting for the moment the open-ended negative, if you’re going to make that claim, then you should be able to describe Kanzi’s syntax and clarify how it is fundamentally different from the syntax of all human language, including jargons. I’ve never read a study that supports what you’ve written.

Let me ask you if you are fluent in Ameslan or a comparable human sign language. I learned Ameslan at a young age and I know its intricacies and the ways it differs from spoken languages. You really have to know a human sign language of this type in order to judge Kanzi’s communication reasonably.

The bottom line is that the original wording was simple, correct and not in dispute, except for the word "most" (and I believe that some jargons may justify the use of "most"). But what you’ve changed it to IS in dispute, and I don’t think there is any evidence to support it. —Stephen 11:09, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

From what I've read, fluent ASL signers who have witnessed the interactions tend to be highly dubious of the claims of chimp language. This isn't an area I've followed for a while, though, so I don't have refs for my claims. I'd be happy if for now we just removed the word 'most'. Jargons as you describe them are marginal as languages, and not what comes to mind when the phrase 'human language' is mentioned, so that if we say 'most' human languages are more complex, not a few readers will come away with the idea that there are tribes in the Amazon with languages more primitive than what chimanzees use. kwami 21:08, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

IPA for Arabic

Hi, your experience with creating an Arabic transcription at wiktionary might help at Wikipedia talk:IPA for Arabic as we're trying to hash out a reasonable IPA transcription system of MSA for Wikipedia articles. Care to contribute? — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 17:36, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

For phonemic transcription of consonants, I suggest this: ا=a/aː, أ=ʔ, آ=ʔaː, ب=b, ت=t, ث=θ, ج=ʤ, ح=ħ, خ=χ, د=d, ذ=ð, ر=r, ز=z, س=s, ش=ʃ, ص=sˁ, ض=dˁ, ط=tˁ, ظ=ðˁ, ع=ʕ, غ=ɣ, ف=f, ق=q, ك=k, ل=l, م=m, ن=n, ه=h, و=w, ي=j, ء=ʔ. It might be better to stick to phonemic transcriptions here, since actual pronunciation can vary quite a bit depending on locality of the speaker, gender, education, circumstance, and other factors. Emphatic consonants affect not only nearby vowels, but also other nearby consonants, so that a ت in the vecinity of an emphatic consonant is pronounced like ط, and there are other mutations in consonants when next to some other consonants (sometimes these changes are reflected in the spelling, but not always). In reality, ق is often pronounced ʔ, but this is subject to a number of factors and can vary in the same word by the same speaker. Words in isolation are often pronounced differently when preceded or followed by some other word. Since MSA allows as syllables only CV, CVː, CVC, CVːC, CVCC (occasionally in foreign loans, a syllable initial CC is found), a helping vowel is often inserted, or a vowel is elided, depending on how a preceding or following word or suffix affects syllable structure, which stretches across word boundaries. When Arabic borrows foreign words, as in names and so on, the script works differently and is used as a true alphabet, not an abjad.

If we stick to phonemic transliteration, you only need the vowels a, i, o, u, aː, iː, uː, eː, oː, and the diphthongs ay, aw, iy, iw, uy. If you really want to do phonetic transcription, you will also need æ, ɑ, æː, ɑː, ı, ʊ, ɛ̈ı, ɛ̈ʊ. —Stephen (talk) 17:01, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Reverting vandalism

You reverted some vandalism to Table. Thanks. Just a warning that some vandals put in a whole series of vandalisms one after the other and you only reverted the top one. Wikipedia:Cleaning up vandalism has a bit about all this. I'm afraid vandals can be quite nasty. Personally I use WP:Twinkle to roll back and have 'enhanced recent changes' switched on in profile under recent changes. Dmcq (talk) 09:10, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I’ll give Twinkle a try. —Stephen (talk) 16:41, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

AIV

Thanks for your recent report to WP:AIV. In the future, please use the reporting format displayed in the comments for reporting vandals. This will give the reviewing admins the information necessary to quickly respond to the report. Using the established format also allows the page to be cleaned up by the helper bots after a user is blocked. Thanks. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 10:37, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Appearance of vandalism

Your recent reverts to Dominica had the appearance of abetting a vandal. It has been re-reverted. Student7 (talk) 01:40, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I was not abetting a vandal, I was confused about whether the remark was being added or deleted. When I saw the remark highlighted in red at Dominica, I confused the sequence and thought that 174.96.56.126 had added it. I’m used to the way Rollback/Revert works in sister projects, which give you the final result of a revert with the difference between versions, serving as a doublecheck of the action. Twinkle does not have this useful feature, so wheneven I revert an edit here, I do not see the effects of the revert. Possibly there is a way to use Twinkle so that you do see a differences comparison, but I have so far not found that feature. —Stephen (talk) 19:20, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the Arabic help

I read your user page. The combination of linguistics + font development must make for some very interesting work. I will probably be running into you again on Wiki. For anybody who wants to read SGB and my discussion about Arabic, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Muslim#Plurals_.28in_Arabic_and_transliterated.29 NinetyNineFennelSeeds (talk) 20:34, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't want to take the Muslim talk page too far afield, so I'm here on your space again. This is the lead sentence of Romanization of Arabic: "Different approaches and methods for the romanization of Arabic (Arabic: رومنة اللغة العربية‎ rawmanat al-luġa al-ʻarabiyya) exist."

I'm curious, which style did Wiki editors select in this main article in respect to rawmanat al-luġa al-ʻarabiyya? Btw, on the discussion page, I came across an interesting remark by User:Dbachmann back in 2006 relating to DIN 31635. NinetyNineFennelSeeds (talk) 23:18, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Thats DIN 31635. All Arabic transliteration schemes come up short and they are useful only for the casual user who does not want to bother learning the alphabet or sounds. For most students of the Arabic language, the only purpose a transliteration fills is to show where the vowels are and which of the three basic vowels each one is. Everything else is clear from the Arabic script itself. —Stephen (talk) 23:49, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Looking forward to more contributions

I can see you contributed to "Contracts" article. If you have some spare time would you like to contribute to http://www.wikilawschool.org It is a non-profit law school study guide resource for law school students. Looking forward to your help! Thanks for kind consideration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.202.38.234 (talk) 07:59, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Coffee

Hi Stephen, could I ask you to look again at this edit of yours, please? I'm no expert but it does look like a Flat white to me. The real point though, is that edit you reverted was almost certainly made in good faith and therefore cannot be vandalism. You ought to be leaving other than the default edit summary when reverting non-vandal edits. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 13:26, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

You could be right, I have never heard of a "flat white" coffee. To me, "flat white" is a matte white, a nonglossy color. Latte means milk, which is the medium used to make the fern design in the coffee, and coffee with heavy milk is called a latte. Perhaps "flat white" is a regional term? At any rate, the name of the jpg in question is Latte_art.jpg. Change it if you are sure, but I honestly think it is latte.

I would be glad to leave something other than the default edit summary, but I cannot imagine what I would say, other than "latte, not flat white" (which seems like a pointless comment). —Stephen (talk) 14:02, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I'm certain that the terminology is a regional variant - seems like Australian/New Zealand from the Flat white article. The image taken from Flickr is labelled Coffee cortado there! Like you, I don't think it's a big deal what the coffee is actually called.

I agree it's a pain in the ass, trying to find something useful to put in place of the default message for an AGF edit; but it must be very dispiriting for a newcomer ip editor when their good-faith contributions get reverted without any reason they can understand. Thanks for all your efforts anyway and happy editing! --RexxS (talk) 14:26, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

February 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Pancake, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. RobertMel (talk) 01:22, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

You are mistaken, I only reverted a vandal. When you reverted me, you reintroduced the vandalism. I don’t know what you were looking at when you thought that I had produced a bad edit, but your revert was improper. —Stephen (talk) 01:34, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I was intending to revert the IP vandal, you reverted him and didn't see your revert. So basically I thought I was reverting him. My appologies. RobertMel (talk) 01:36, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

lol

[1] Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 19:15, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Serbo-Croatian

Hello! Serbo-Croatian is not the second language spoken in Slovenia. It is at most, the third. By "Popis 2002" made by SURS, it has 36265 people speaking serbo-croatian as mother tongue. However there are 54079 people with Croatian. Nevertheless I cannot agree with what it is qritten in the text. Serbo-Croatian is not the second language in Slovenia. The second language could be maybe English. However if we look as official languages, the second language is Italian, and partially Hungarian.

Check it out before deleting my text,

urbansson Urbanson (talk) 10:33, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Joy,

Perhaps 17 million is the correct number, but I trust Ethnologue, which shows 21 million total for all countries as of 1999: < http://www.ethnologue.com/show_language.asp?code=SRC >. I also have an older Ethnologue figure (Grimes, 1992) that indicates 19 million speakers. I don't know where your 17 million comes from, but I suspect it's either old or qualified and limited in some way. I know I make the occasional mistake, but I do take pains to have accurate and up-to-date information whenever I write anything.

--Stephen 09:27, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC) AS OF 1999 Stephen thats a long time ago, populations CHANGE

Yeah, about Ethnologue, please see the last section of Talk:Serbo-Croatian language where this same matter is already discussed to an extent. --Joy [shallot] 12:17, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Stephen, I do appreciate your edits, but you either don't appear to have a Wikipedia account or the signature links are invalid. Please create an account if you don't have one, as you're now practically anonimous. Thus, I can't access you through your talk page, where such points normally belong:
- How is it that love has long accent in English? Even in the dialects where it does, loving certainly doesn't.
- Long unstressed syllables are not so common in English. Fifties is about the best I could manage.
- Lj is AFAIK (being also a lateral) a sonorant and thus is not normally marked as "voiced". As I know, voiced/voiceless distinction is not normally indicated for sonorants, as they don't have voiceless pairs.
- I dislike your edit on subject-verb agreement like "The majority of linguists think". As you have noticed, my English is not perfect, but AFAIK it's an open issue whether the verb should agree with the grammatical subject (majority) or logical subject (linguists), i.e. both variants are acceptable depending on the variant of English (and I strongly prefer the first). Is it an AmE/BrE issue or what? See this sci.lang thread.
Duja 09:00, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Duja, I'm logged in, and when I click on Preferences it has my name, nickname and e-mail address. It doesn't ask for any other info, and I don't know how to make my signature link any more valid. I tried clicking on the "Talk" following my name in the Watchlist, and it opened a talkpage (which includes a message from Joy).

Found it (apparently). I was seduced by the fact that your user page is empty, so on the link of your signature Wikipedia offers me to edit the page. You could spare a few words on yourself there, if only just to avoid such confusions.

As for "love," I was just trying to find an example to match the [á] in the table. This letter shows up better in the table than [í], I think. But you're the expert on S-C, and you should choose the English words you like best. But then I think you should change the vowel in the table from [á]/[à]/[â], etc., to the right vowel for your example.

English [i], however, seems like the best candidate for approximations, as 1) it remains [i] regardless of short/long and 2) I can't find many examples in English with long unstressed syllables (fifties has unstressed [i:] aka [ij] in AmE). OTOH, as you said, I can't find enough i's with diacritic marks in Unicode table (and they're ugly). However, I don't think that the current mismatch would confuse the reader.

Lj is unvoiced in some languages (such as some American Indian languages), and on the Lateral consonant page, it is listed as a "voiced palatal lateral." At the moment, it does not link to anything, but as soon as someone gets around to defining it, the link will be voiced palatal lateral. I was simply planning ahead.

But it doesn't match the current Wikipedia naming system for sonorants -- (cf. Bilabial nasal (m), lateral alveolar approximant (l), alveolar trill (r) ). I fail to see how it can possibly be unvoiced. Checking... Wikipedia pages on the subject are in a mess. Compare links from Approximant consonant and e.g. X-SAMPA -- the naming scheme is not systematic, leading to many missing links. I don't care if it's one way or another ("voiced" ommitted or not) as long as it's consistent.

And no, the construction "the majority of linguists is" is completely unacceptable in both American and British English. It is not an open issue at all. In this particular construction, the verb agrees not with the head noun "majority," but with the referent "linguists." The majority of people are blond, but the majority of the book is in English. Even if the word "lingists" were only implied, the verb would still HAVE to be in the plural: The majority were imprisoned; A majority are in favor of it.

I belong to a linguists' group (http://forums.compuserve.com/vlforums/default.asp?SRV=ForeignLanguage) that is very strong on English (American and British) grammar, style and usage, and if you like I could get some comments from some of them for you on this issue.

In fact, I have just looked "majority" up in my Fowlers Modern English Usage (Oxford), and he affirms that "majority" in this sense MUST have a plural verb. --Stephen 11:18, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Then, consider that matter settled (guess I'll have to re-check AUE FAQ ;-)). FYI, it's the opposite in SCr -- the grammatical subject agrees with the verb rather than logical one.

Duja 15:07, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Vandalism

Why do you keep removing referenced info in Tadevus Kosciusko article? That info doesn't match your schema of beliefs and of representation of the world, so you just delete it? Stop being a child. Act like adult. Accept the world the way it is, not the way you want it to be. Tadevus Kosciusko is partly Belarusian. It is proven. So back off.

Ales hurko (talk) 19:22, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

You don’t even look at what you are doing. Latin wiki has no article about "Taddeus Kosciuszko", it is "Thaddaeus Kosciuszko". As for my "keep removing referenced info", it is a deliberate lie. I have only removed a reference one time, by accident because of the nature of Free Belarus's multiple reverts. As to backing off, who do you think you are? —Stephen (talk) 19:40, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Ownership of articles

Hello Stephen, this comment at Talk:Poles is not acceptable, telling someone to not edit an article looks to be an attempt to claim ownership. Feel free to debate the proper inclusion of information in an article, but don't tell other editors that they can't contribute at all, thank you. -- Atama頭 18:15, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

That is not an attempt to claim ownership at all. A Belarusian kept removing a person that the Poles consider to be an important Pole from the article. I am not Polish, but I believe that if the Poles want to have him as one of their own, it is not up to other nationalities to deny them that right. I did not write the article or any part of it and know little of the history of Poland (although I can manage to read some Polish, since I speak Russian). And I did not tell him that he can’t contribute at all, but that he should contribute to articles where his personal interests are not in conflict and not at odds with most of those who the article is about, such as articles about Belarus or Israel. If his contribution to the Poles article was to add relevant and accurate information, I would have been all for it, but since he was trying to delete Polish history, I felt that, since he was not Polish and was not being objective, he should contribute somewhere where he could be more objective.

In the meantime, that contributor (along with several of his socks) has been blocked at least twice and both of the pages which he was trying to de-Polonize have had to be temporarily protected to stop his work. —Stephen (talk) 03:58, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Bulgars

Thanks for the help in clearing up the Bulgar dispute. I was under the impression that the Iranian theory was a nationalist claim, as that is what the posters above me indicated, and they were the only ones who cited sources. Most contributors here aren't professionals, so it's sometimes hard to tell whether you're dealing with crank theories.--Rob117 22:21, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

hi, i need protection about "Bulgars", the article is under attack by Slavic nationalists. they want to remove all sources in the entrance. thanks for your help.--Finn Diesel (talk) 18:37, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I’m not an admin on this wiki. As a first step, you need to try to engage the nationalist in a reasoned discussion at Talk:Bulgars. —Stephen (talk) 19:02, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Fiber versus Fibre

Hi Stephen, I have added a note in the Talk section of Spar article. Boatman (talk) 11:07, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I hope it will help. I think most of the fiber/fibre edits are by the same person using various IPs and logins, but I’m not sure. —Stephen (talk) 12:06, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Stephen, There is another user (or maybe the same one) who has the er/re bug in other articles. I wish they would devote their energies to making useful edits to enhance the articles! Boatman (talk) 19:35, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I do, too. —Stephen (talk) 22:22, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

uk/us spelling

Hi. I noticed this and then found you've been reverting these disruptive IPs for days. I think it needs to bump-up to ANI or SPI for consideration of a range block. I'm not really seeing a pattern of specific articles being targeted, so semi prolly won't be effective. Cheers, Jack Merridew 21:39, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I think it’s one or two people, but he or they constantly change IP addresses. —Stephen (talk) 23:09, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I have asked to have the Horse racing article semi protected. Maybe some other articles need to be protected also? – Josette (talk) 23:18, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

The other pages that they’ve been hitting are: Spitting cobra, Human sacrifice, Headhunting, Les Arcs, Springtail, and Spar. —Stephen (talk) 23:22, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I requested protection for all of the articles with a note that it seems to be the same IP. – Josette (talk) 23:51, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I appreciate the help. —Stephen (talk) 23:53, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:RFPP All semi-protected for 3 days except Spar. (They only seem to have edited that one once). Hope that helps! – Josette (talk) 00:11, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Beautiful. Yes, Spar was only hit once, it was the lead-off. —Stephen (talk) 00:50, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I've got these all watched now and just handed the non-bug off to Cas. I'll notice if these are hit again.

You seem an old hand who's returned in the last year; I've been here as-long and am around a lot, so if you need back-up, give a poke. Cheers, Jack Merridew 01:18, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I will, thanks. —Stephen (talk) 01:37, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

June 2010

Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made to Lag: you may already know about them, but you might find Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit was inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. Thank you. -- Rick Van Tassel ^{user|talk|contribs} 14:51, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I did indicate that it along with the other edit made by this user were vandalism, which I’m sure the user was fully aware of, and I felt that marking it as vandalism already implied a warning. After only a couple of quick reverts done this way, the vandalism almost always ends. However, I did not know about Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace, but I suspected that there must be such a list somewhere. —Stephen (talk) 09:12, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello, would you be so kind as to give us support!

Hello, my name is Claudi Balaguer (user Capsot from the Catalan Viquipèdia and the Occitan Wikiccionari). I hope you're doing fine and I sincerely apologize for this intrusion. I've just read your profile and I saw that you're a learned person deeply interested in languages and linguistics, so I suppose you know too well what are a minorized language and culture and maybe I am not bothering you and you will help us... I'm a member of a Catalan association "Amical de la Viquipèdia" which is trying to get some recognition as a Catalan Chapter but this hasn't been approved up to this moment because Catalan is not supported by a state even though our Association is working real hard. We would appreciate your support, visible if you stick this on your first page: Wikimedia CAT. Thanks again, wishing you a great summer, take care! Capsot (talk) 20:52, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 17:47, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

In regards to accepting the changes to the article BP. Generally removing citation needed templates with out addressing the issue at hand is not a common practice unless the reason for the introduction of the template was unfounded. A statement such as "BP is one of the most valuable brands" with out a citation does not fit into that category and could possible be WP:OR or included from a conflict of interest. There are literally thousands of brands rated higher by Forbes. Mkdw^talk 04:26, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the FACT template had slipped my notice as I was focussed on the meaning of shortest and whether it was a significant fact. —Stephen (talk) 04:42, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment

Hello! Regarding your edit summaries in your two recent reversions [2] and [3] in Alexander the Great: 1) there was an ancient Macedonian language, so it was not too early for mk, referring to the ancient language instead of the unrelated modern Macedonian language that you obviously had in mind and 2) calling Alexander a Macedonian implies his ancient Macedonian origin, not a modern Slav Macedonian one. My comments are only to tell you that "Macedonian" in ancient history has nothing to do with the modern slavic sense of "Macedonian"; there was nothing wrong with your reversions, I just comment your edit summaries. Thank you! - Sthenel (talk) 15:02, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

The Macedonian of that era was completely different from the Macedonian of today. Ancient Macedonian was a Greek language, not a Slavic language. You seem to be in agreement with me, so I don’t know what the argument is. —Stephen (talk) 15:07, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes I agree with you after your answer. My comments concern you edit summaries alone. Calling him a Macedonian refers to him being an ancient Macedonian not a Slav; but you reverted an edit that called him Macedonian saying that "he was not a Slav", which means that he cannot be called Macedonian because Macedonian=Slav. Something like this happened in the first reversion and the summary you provided that led me to wrong conclusions. I can't make it more clear. Anyway, there is no argument and it's not important. - Sthenel (talk) 15:58, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I believed that the editor in question thought that Ancient and Modern Macedonian were the same language and was trying to say that Alexander was a Slav, not a Greek. I know the difference between the two Macedonians, but I believed that the editor was confused about it. Even if he knew the difference, his edit gave the impression that Alexander was a Slav. —Stephen (talk) 16:22, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Who knows, but the way you answered in both your reversions gave wrong impressions and caught my attention. Never mind! - Sthenel (talk) 19:17, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Croatian grammar

Hi,

Just a heads-up for Croatian grammar. Several-month-long discussion on merging this with Serbian grammar and Serbian and Croatian grammar/Serbo-Croatian grammar (the latter probably best because Bosnian and Montenegrin redirect there too), with notices given at the languages wikiproject. However, Croatian grammar keeps getting reverted into a content fork, with the argument that it isn't a fork if you give it a different name. I made a stub of what I thought it would be that wouldn't be a fork, but that gets reverted too. I don't really care, though, if it's s.t. along those lines (itself really just a sop and probably mergeable into Croatian language) or a rd. as people had originally agreed. — kwami (talk) 20:17, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. So the way Croatian grammar reads right now is pretty much what we want to keep for a while. —Stephen (talk) 20:47, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Please take a better look, last few days I'm adding new content every day to article Croatian grammar, and it is no way content fork (see arguments on talk page). Please check talk page before reverting, thank you for making Wikipedia better, not worse. SpeedyGonsales (talk) 06:52, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

This has already been discussed in detail. Do not add any new, old, or other content to Croatian grammar, it is a redirect. —Stephen (talk) 07:28, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism warnings

I see you have been doing quite a bit of work against vandalism. Thank you for your excellent work in this area. I thought it worth mentioning the value of posting warnings on vandals' talk pages, which you have (at least sometimes) not been doing. There are several reasons for this. The most obvious reason is that quite often a vandal will give up after a couple of warnings. Another reason is that when Huggle is used to deal with vandalism, it automatically checks for existing warnings, and after a few warnings it will make a report at Administrator intervention against vandalism, which is likely to result in the vandal being blocked. A third reason is that if a report is made to Administrator intervention against vandalism (whether automatically or manually), an administrator is very unlikely to take action if the vandal has not been warned, or has had only one or two warnings. In view of these facts I think it is well worth the small amount of time it takes to post a warning message. I see you are a long established editor, so I expect you know of the standard warning templates at WP:WARN. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:35, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I should use them more often. Vandals usually give up so quickly that there is no time. This morning was exceptional. —Stephen (talk) 09:41, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it is true that they often give up quickly. Very often, particularly with IP vandals, after one or two silly edits they never come back, warned or not. In those cases it is clearly a waste of time giving warnings. However, I see it from the point of an admin working in anti-vandalism, and it is so much more helpful to me if there are warnings in place that I think that the gain when it is helpful outweighs the loss when it isn't. Apart from the advantages I have mentioned above, there is also the fact that if a vandal has a warning on their talk page, Huggle automatically flags up any further edits by that vandal, and gives priority to vandals with higher level warnings. This means that I am alerted to the editor even if there is no report at WP:AIV. On the other hand if the vandalism is just reverted without warnings then I get no such alert, so I can't take action. Obviously you know what you are doing, and it is of course up to you how much use of warnings you make, but seeing it from an admin's perspective I would encourage you to give warnings. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:57, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Lion edit

Wasn't me, so that means that this IP isn't exclusive to my computer. Not that you'll believe me, but there you are. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.123.148.34 (talk) 00:57, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I believe you. That can certainly happen with IP's. You can avoid this problem by registering a user name that is just for you and no one else. —Stephen (talk) 01:53, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

κῶλον

Mr. Brown, I think that you misjudged the "coulrophobia" thing and also posted a rather inflammatory comment. I speak Greek natively and the term "kolovathristis" means literally "the one who has a stilt up his butt", as the term "kolo-" means "ass". The term "kalo-" instead means "foot", so kalovathristis is the one who walks (with his feet) on stilts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.202.6.227 (talk) 11:59, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I don’t know Modern Greek and this is obviously a difference between Modern and Ancient Greek. In Ancient Greek (which is the source of the word), I know of no form like "kalo-" that means "foot", but τό κῶλον means foot, leg, knee, limb, member; also, part, side, wall. If κῶλον has come to mean butt in Modern Greek, then I did indeed misjudge his intentions, but in Ancient Greek it means leg and is the correct spelling. —Stephen (talk) 13:06, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

October 2010

Serbo-Croatian do not exist.

• isn't official language of any country
• no exist by ISO
• Serbian, Croatian, Bosnian and Montenegrin are similar, all slavic languages are similar, but languages, no language

name Serbo-Croatian is inovated 1953 by politic reasons

• you have titles/sycnhronization of film an Croatian, Serbian... no Serbo-Croatian
• in school you can learn Croatian, Serbian... no Serbo-Croatian
• books are write in Croatian, Serbian... no Serbo-Croatian
• you have translate books from Serbian to Croatian and same... why if is one language?!
• political idea of fictional language serbo-Croatian never have success in nation (in time when scr was official, all speak Croatian, Serbian...)

Serbo-Croatian is stupidness like slavic language; you speak one slavic language, you can understand very good all, but Russian and Bulgarian are'nt one language. How you can recognize fictional language? I am Croat and it is aggresion against my language (my country, my nation). I SPEAK CROATIAN. SERBO-CROATIAN IS FICTIONAL SHIT INOVATED BY ANTAGONISTS OF CROATIAN NATION! Serbo-Croatian - never exist, do not exist, no exist in the future. Sorry if I was so emotional.

--Jolo Buki Original (talk) 12:41, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

As I said, we have heard all of your arguments many times. You’re wrong but I am not going to repeat the same reasoning for each separate person. Discuss it on the Serbo-Croatian language talk page. On English wikipedia and English wiktionary, we recognize Serbo-Croatian as an important Slavic language. —Stephen (talk) 12:58, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

The message you left me

I'm sorry, you must have me confused with another person. I do not edit on the main wikia, only the PR Wikia and sometimes a few others, but not on the main site. 69.171.163.0 (talk) 02:55, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

VeriChip

I'm sorry, what is vandalistic about the story. —Preceding unsigned comment added by General the (talk • contribs) 12:47, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

It isn’t vandalism, but it is unsourced and unsupported by any evidence. It’s just a tale. —Stephen (talk) 13:21, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Tyrannosaurus

You accepted this edit: please be more careful when accepting edits with change data without any explanation. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 20:25, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I don’t know how that happened. I had intended to revert it, not accept it. Must have it the wrong button. —Stephen (talk) 20:40, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I see--I think I almost had something similar a while ago. Is it so that "Accept" is the only option? I wonder. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 00:42, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

About Mosques in Cyprus issue

Sir Stephen Borwn I would like to express you my concerns over the pictures of mosques in Cyprus. I live in Cyprus and I know that this mosques don't exist in Cyprus and is a part of so called Northern Cyprus which is actually Turkish occupied part of Cyprus which Turks reverted all christian churches into mosques. So I would transfer Maronite and Armenian and Halla Sultan pictures into Religion part and I would delete mosques which are found in cultural monuments. Do you agree sir? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Austria12 (talk • contribs) 16:10, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

If the mosques are located in the Republic of Cyprus, then they should go under the heading of Mosques, the way we have it. Americans and British are generally not interested in mosques for religious purposes, but for cultural and architectural significance. Churches are also mostly of cultural and architectural interest to English-speaking tourists, and so churches, includes Roman Catholic and Armenian, should be described under Churches. I understand that Greek Cypriots have certain views about Turks, Moslems, and mosques, but this is the English Wikipedia and we have a different view. We like both the Greeks and the Turks. So if the mosques are located in Cyprus, then they should be the way that we already have them. You can add Roman Catholic and Armenian Apostolic material under the Church heading. —Stephen (talk) 16:56, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Sir I am not at all concerned with the opinion of foreigners over my own country's culture. An opinion of a very respected by me British citizen can be absolutely misleading and doesn't consider the historic roots of a monument, a church, a mosques. Existence of Mosques in the republic of Cyprus has disappeard. Mosques in Cyprus are not even representing the 5% of people who live in Cyprus. Please allow me to edit the section on religion as I desire and I evaluate it from a neutral point of view. If there was a whole section made for muslim minority in the UK ,or a if there was a picture which was writing about Mormons who are representing a large percentage of US population wouldn't that be a misleading picture of the USA? Neutrilisation of my country's culture and history sir in order to "fit" in foreigners or Turks ideas and interests is unacceptable to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Austria12 (talk • contribs) 17:26, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

You can say what you want at el:Κύπρος. The Cyprus article is for us, Americans, British, Canadian and Australian. We are not foreigners in our own Wikipedia. Do not delete anything from the article. If you object to something, explain on the discussion page. If we agree with you, then we will delete it. —Stephen (talk) 17:38, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Why?

Anytime that I wish I can go to a library and post more of these questions. Please ANSWER IT AND I WILL STOP! Why is Aretha Franklin's page not locked in compliance of the biographies of living persons? Thank you.

I think that if some pages are going to blocked for this reason, then they all should. I sense a little bit of hypocrisy going on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.140.180.79 (talk) 02:46, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Versions of English

Please take a look at WP:ENGVAR. It is disruptive to make such unnecessary (and possibly wrong) spelling changes as were made to Voyeurism. Thanks, CliffC (talk) 16:29, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I did not make any spelling changes, I reverted the spelling change that someone else made, and I notified her of WP:ENGVAR as well. —Stephen (talk) 16:35, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Changes to Diapsid

I noticed you flagged my implementation of the Template talk:Automatic taxobox on Diapsid as vandalism. This change implemented a new version of the taxobox template. If you have specific concerns about the new format please bring it up at the linked talk page. Thanks. MMartyniuk (talk) 08:04, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I don’t know about the new version named Template talk:Automatic taxobox, but it does not work. I won’t revert them, but the template is apparently broken. —Stephen (talk) 08:08, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Western Sahara

Are you sure about that? The current pronunciation looks like "sə-HE-rə", to rhyme with "error", but it ought to be more like "sə-HAH-rə", to rhyme with "Lara". At least that's how it sounds to me (I'm British, if that helps). 81.142.107.230 (talk) 10:50, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Think I've just answered my own question - Wiktionary lists different UK and US pronunciations. 81.142.107.230 (talk) 10:53, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Pronunciation of paleontological terms

I note that you have provided a pronunciation for Edaphosaurus. Have you a good source for the pronunciation of paleontological terms? Many dictionaries do provide the Edaphosaurus pronunciation, but I have yet to find one that helps with Hylonomus. I am writing for children and think it important to provide pronunciations. Is it <high-luh-no-muss>? <hill-on-uh-muss>? <high-lon-uh-muss>? (This respelling approach won't work with ʒ or ʊ, English phonemes with no natural spellings, so I hope not to need them.) Any advice will be much appreciated. Peter M. Brown (talk) 17:25, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I’m American, and often the British pronunciation is different. In American English, hylonomus is pronounced (IPA) /haɪˈlɒn.ə.məs/. In your spelling, <high-lahn-uh-muss> or <high-lon-uh-muss>. I wish that I had a good source for such things, but I don’t. —Stephen (talk) 21:03, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Cross-wiki vandalism

Hi Stephen. I saw you reverted an edit I made to User talk:GaryColemanFan as vandalism with the edit summary "Cross wiki vandalism". You should really do more research before you make edits like that, because all my recent edits were related to a sockpuppet case I filed against a banned user. If there is any cross-wiki vandalism ongoing, it is someone impersonating me. I would actually appreciate being told which other wiki "I" was vandalizing. McJEFF ^(talk) 17:53, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

If you were being impersonated, I apologize. See Unified Login. Someone using your name has been permanently blocked from many wikis. He launched a heavy vandalism attack on Wiktionary this morning. You should use Wikipedia:Unified login to register your username on all Wikimedia projects. That way, nobody can use your exact name on any other project. —Stephen (talk) 18:19, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately I don't edit any other wikimedia projects and so this wiki is the only one I actually own the username on. I don't even have a wikimedia account and the impersonator already registered "McJeff" there. McJEFF ^(talk) 18:36, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that has now become clear. You don’t have to ever visit any other wiki to have a global account. Even though you only ever edit here, it permanently protects your name everywhere. —Stephen (talk) 18:41, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I now have a global account, thank you. Do you know whom I could contact about possibly regaining control of the impersonated accounts? McJEFF ^(talk) 00:03, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

No, I haven’t encountered this situation before. I am an admin on Wiktionary where your name was indefinitely blocked, and I can unblock your name there...however, I’m not sure whether you or the vandal would be the one who has access once unblocked. I’ll unblock you there now in case you want to try. Let me know if you can’t access your account on Wiktionary so that I can reblock the vandal. —Stephen (talk) 08:27, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I couldn't regain access. Thanks anyway, but no need to worry about it. 19:18, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello and Happy New Year!

Hi, I'm Claudi Balaguer (User Capsot from the Catalan Viquipèdia and Occitan Wikiccionari), you gave us your support a few months ago. First of all Happy New Year, I wish you and your family all the best for 2011 and that the minorized and endangered languages will be able to survive and grow as long as possible. Since you show a keen interest in languages I wanted to tell you that the Catalan Viquipèdia will be celebrating its 10th birthday soon (http://ca.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viquip%C3%A8dia:10_anys_de_la_Viquip%C3%A8dia) and we are planning to have some sessions directed towards getting some wikipedias out of the incubator and we would really appreciate at least your advice, at best your participation (though I guess Europe might be a bit far... as is America to me right now...): http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Teamwork_of_projects_in_languages_with_singular_status. If you have got some spare time let us know about your ideas or remarks, they will be welcome and highly appreciated. Thanks again for the support you gave us before, our list of Members and Supporters in Meta is growing pretty well and I hope it will reach 500 people before next year I hope. Again, my best wishes for 2011. Take care and let's hope all the world languages will live long! Claudi/Capsot (talk) 11:20, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, and Happy New Year to you, too! I have been busy getting the Navajo Wikipedia up and running (see nv:Main Page), but we started that wikipedia before the incubator strategy was ever implemented. For that reason, I don’t have any experience with the incubators. I started to look at a language in the incubator a couple of years ago, but it seemed rather complicated. It has been a lot of work to get Navajo in good shape, but if the Navajo Wikipedia had been in the incubator, we would not have succeeded. The incubators seem to require more expertise with computers and programming, but many people who speak minority languages do not have computer skills. We were lucky to have started Navajo before the incubators came into being. —Stephen (talk) 11:44, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, I don't have either, it's just that I think that we will need to choose which languages should get out of this gizmo and well we will need good advice according on areas we know little about like Native American languages in order to insure the viability of the project, so I'll probably keep in touch if we decide to work on one (or more) Native American language, you can still voice your opinion on other themes, no problem... as said previously every comment will be welcome and I still don't know how the things will go (because not many people participate right now... and we have too many things going on in my opinion...) but well I would really appreciate some kind of exhibit of some panels about languages in the world and other cultural things. I'll let you know! Take care and I wish the best for Navajo language, culture and Wikipedia! Capsot (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:03, 12 January 2011 (UTC).

Random Smiley Award

For your contributions to Wikipedia and humanity in general, you are hereby granted the coveted Random Smiley Award.
(Explanation and Disclaimer)

♠TomasBat 02:09, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Sonalee Kulkarni listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Sonalee Kulkarni. Since you had some involvement with the Sonalee Kulkarni redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). SPat ^talk 04:14, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Pavao Skalić‎

What is disruptive acting and who's to judge that?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.164.117.100 (talk) 00:03, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

What is disruptive acting and who's to judge that? Are threats only you can offer !? What's about common sense! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.164.117.100 (talk) 00:09, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

You have no evidence for your claims...you must first obtain the agreement of the other editors for this change by making your case on the talk page. —Stephen (talk) 00:16, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

What's about common sense! Is George Washington maybe Russian?!! How would you feel in that case... But, it seems that small nations doesn't have right on great inventions, famous men... Shameful !—Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.164.117.100 (talk)

Everybody thinks his own opinion is the only one supported by common sense. Make your case on the talk page and reach a consensus before you add such a claim. —Stephen (talk) 00:22, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh, you're also a censor! Nice, long live the democracy!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.164.117.100 (talk) 00:26, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

So it means smaller nations doesn't have a right on democracy and human rights... Your arguments are stronger solely since you're american... But, as we all know to well, that is is your treatment of smaller nations, in Iraq for instance! And please, delete me, censor me - that's your big american way of dealing with criticism! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.164.117.100 (talk) 00:36, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I'll keep on with my contributions since my own conscience orders me to do so! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.164.117.100 (talk) 00:54, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

What is disruptive acting and who's to judge that? Are threats only you can offer !? What's about common sense! Is George Washington maybe Russian?!! How would you feel in that case... But, it seems that small nations doesn't have right on great inventions,

Do you have anything decent to say instead! Do you think Britannica, ... encs. are 100 % trustful resource ?!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.164.117.100 (talk) 00:57, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

And also, it's absurdly that this article has more about his nationality than his work! That's also another argument to delete this part of text since it isn't useful information! It's important where he was born, lived... solely! So, go figer...

Thank you my american friend! I learned from you what is democracy in your country! I love you! Live long and prosper! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.164.117.100 (talk) 01:30, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Glad I could help! —Stephen (talk) 01:45, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

What exactly do you consider as vandalism?!! Does anyone except affirm wiki users has right on ANY (!) contribution at all... As it seems to me, the answer is BIG NO! As it is now, wikipedia is turning to the totalitarian rule of privileged ones, something similar to the fascism !!! Is that democracy with which all of you americans are so proud!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.164.7.154 (talk) 21:49, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Rules - Pavao Skalic

All of that is futile... there's no cooperation exactly, only the autocratic rule of wiki admins and distinguished users! This rules are made to create deception of rule of fair editing, opened to anyone... I will not comply! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.164.7.154 (talk) 22:06, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

One letter in Arabic transliteration

I think there is no use to abolish the previous edit. I.e.: í was placed to indicate the long sound, which is likely to be pronouced here and which is mentioned in other transliterations. By the way, ɩ represents the short sound in this transliteration system. 62.220.33.64 (talk) 17:41, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, you had the accent on the wrong syllable. —Stephen (talk) 17:54, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, there was no accents in this word before my last edition, like after your reverting. You can compare this word with other - in Arabic script and in transliterations: al-inǧilīziyyah; alʔing(i)li:zijja; and alḁnglízɩȋɑë. (However, in this transliteration it is possible to represent long i:

also like i or .i). 62.220.33.64 (talk) 10:22, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I know that there were no accents before. It is better to have none than to have it wrong. I think you must be confusing the masculine and the feminine...masculine is inǧilīziy, feminine is inǧilizíyya. I learned to speak Arabic over 30 years ago, so I don’t look at other sites to see how to pronounce it. The first rule of accentuation in MSA is this: the accent rests on the penultimate syllable when it is long (i.e., has a long vowel or two consonants): kitáabun, yakúunu, ‘arabíyya, inǧilizíyya. There are a few other rules, but they don’t apply to this case.

A few years ago we began a big Arabic dictionary/grammar project on Wiktionary, but we soon had to bring it almost to a standstill because we were getting so many bad edits and entries from users who did not know Arabic at all or who were just beginning to learn, and who had seen some word, translation, or pronunciation somewhere on the Internet that was written by someone else who did not know the language and had copied from someone else before him that did not know.

Anyway, as I said before, you had put the accent on the wrong syllable. Better to have none at all. —Stephen (talk) 17:39, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, the first edition was also my work. In this variant of ALFB the accent means a harakat - kasra before yā'.

Idem est: alḁng(ɩ)lízɩȋɑ^tʋ or alḁng(ɩ)lízɩȋɑë in waqf (if you don't pronounce the final harakats).

The long í is out of the ending of the word. The ending is -ɩȋɑë (kasra+ yā' with tašdīd + ta marbūţa) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.220.33.64 (talk) 18:16, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I cannot understand what you are trying to say. —Stephen (talk) 18:29, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

That did not help. I don’t have an inkling what you are attempting to communicate to me. This is how the word is pronounced: inǧilizíyya. Or you can use IPA. Your new system with letters like ɩȋɑë is illegible to me. I don’t know what you mean by "first edition" or by "ALFB". I don’t know what you mean by "long í is out of the ending" or anything else that you said. Probably you can understand me much better than I you, so let us simply say that the word is inǧilizíyya. —Stephen (talk) 18:36, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, but it is a long vowel: ingilīziya. It is a foreign word for Arabic, so we look at its root with vowels: ingilīz-. This long ī in this transliteration is indicated as í, and doubled letter - with inverted breve. We mustn't mix traditions of different transliterations! 62.220.33.64 (talk) 18:50, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with being a foreign word for Arabic for it is fully naturalized and adapted to Arabic phonology. It is possible to have ingilíziya, but not ingilíziyya. The feminine of this word, as in "English language" is إِنْجلِيزيّة, and that is pronounced ingilizíyya. No long vowel, stress on the penultimate. The masculine has a long vowel. —Stephen (talk) 18:59, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

The masculine has long i: in waqf, iyyu(n) - in the full form. I have already written it for you, but there were some problems with saving the text. Why it is not possible to have ingiliziyya, if I represent the tashdid? This transliteration follows the orthography. And maybe you know that Classical Arabic can admit not only one stress in the word? 62.220.33.64 (talk) 19:12, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

The masculine has long i. This is not the masculine. Forget about the masculine. The feminine is different. The feminine is ingilizíyya. No long vowel, stress on the penultimate and only on the penultimate. —Stephen (talk) 19:17, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, the acute accent here - it is an indication of a vowel, which is always written and which is not a harakat. (Instead of iota-shaped dottless i, which indicates kasra).

Secondly, what masculine here? It will be ingiliziyyun or ingilizī if I tried to add masculine. And I never added here the masculine! We have the different meanings of acute accents in our heads. Try to note that in Arabic script there is kasra+yā (after l, not after z!), and I add the acute there. As for -iyya, I never added a long vowel here! 

Thirdly, long vowels are likely to maintain the stress, even if it is not the main stress - listen to speaking Arabs. 62.220.33.64 (talk) 19:31, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Please, please, PLEASE forget about the masculine. This is the feminine. It is NOT the masculine. The masculine is different from the feminine, FORGET about the masculine. Don’t mention the masculine. This is the feminine, and it is pronounced ingilizíyya. No long vowel, stress on the penultimate.

This is exactly what I was talking about up above. We had to close down the Arabic project on Wiktionary because we were constantly bogged down in endleses pointless ridiculous arguments with beginners over nonsense. I have explained it to you. I have told you. I have made it clear to you. I have done all in my power to make you understand. All I can do is repeat what I have already said, and continue to repeat. Instead of this, please just reread what I said and continue to reread for as long as it takes. I am finished with this neverending discussion with someone who does not speak any Arabic at all.

Do not revert this edit. If you keep insisting, then discuss it on the talk page and find supports whose native language is Arabic. If you can get a consensus with native speakers of Arabic, you are free to put anything they agree to. —Stephen (talk) 19:45, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

You just don't want understand me. What masculine? What long vowel? I can get a consensus with native speakers, but it will take a lot of time, a lot!

Understand, that the word is ingili:zíyya. You forget (why?) about this i:! And you say, that I add the long vowel to -íyya!

I repeat, I know the Arab grammar and I can even tell you some interesting facts about it. We mustn't argue because we are both right, but we represent our thoughts in different ways. 62.220.33.64 (talk) 20:00, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

You may know something about Arabic but so far I have not found out what it might be. This discussion is over. Present your case here: Talk:Arabic language. If you can get a consensus among native Arabic speakers for your edit, then you can put it. —Stephen (talk) 20:06, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I improve this example without using an accent - it is possible in this transliteration system and it is acceptable.

The reason is: ي = i or í/.i ; ِ- = ɩ . 62.220.33.64 (talk) 17:56, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Arab people

Hello there, i appreciated your previous efforts to keep the article stable, but now after i started editing it, and you are keeping reverting it, this is not appreciated anymore, since i have already showed my points, and you are reverting by *assuming* that there is another point of view, and not talking in the talk page makes you a blind reverter, i kindly ask you to stop what you are doing--Lutfi.Saad (talk) 20:00, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

That is not how it works here. To make those changes, the interested editors have to agree. If we cannot agree, then you can’t make the changes.

I was waiting for one of the others to try to answer what you wrote on the Talk page. I cannot understand most of what you write in English. I don’t think you understand the English that is already in the article (I know that you think you understand it, but it is clear to me that you don’t).

I think we should consider a piece at a time. Pick out the first item that you want to change and explain why you don’t like it and show what you want to replace it with. Perhaps if we keep the pieces small enough, it will be easier to understand your English. —Stephen (talk) 20:16, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm i see you are an administrator here :D, so you are gonna let me wait till somebody finally come over and tells you that he is against me?, or how long im gonna wait, will you change the part that you disagree with and leave the other parts, dont revert to the untidy version, even if im avoiding a dispute and leaving the article definition as is, i still cant edit the article as what it is now, so please change the portion you do not like and keep the rest of my edit, my respects--Lutfi.Saad (talk) 20:46, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I am not an administrator here. So far, I disagree with everything you have written. I think it is disingenuous of you to declare your changes the "tidy" version. —Stephen (talk) 21:03, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Turin

There seems to be a WP:3RR violation going on about the spelling of "centre/center" in the article Turin. I left a message on the talk page asking for discussion in the matter. I'll be leaving a message on the IP users' pages, but I don't know if there will be any response. Wabbott9 (talk) 05:28, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. There has been a spate of this recently, I’m not sure if it’s all one user who keeps chaning IP addresses or if it is really different people. Each edit is usually the only edit for each IP. —Stephen (talk) 10:54, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

March 2011

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to List of coffee beverages, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you! -- Ankit Maity 12:39, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

You have made an error. You reverted me and reintroduced the vandalism that I removed. —Stephen (talk) 12:56, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Хуй те на !

Хули ты, русский лучше меня знаеш !? Педомудоблядский хуесос забугорскиий ! Соси мышинную пипиську, уебок сраный, как сосиську ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.5.22.8 (talk) 11:10, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

User talk:75.121.238.105

Hey, let's not WP:BITE the newbies. That was clearly a test edit (insertion of bold text) and not deliberate vandalism. uw-test1 would have served better than uw-vandal2. Yworo (talk) 23:43, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Oops, I see that your template was for a previous edit, but it also looks like a test edit rather than vandalism. I've changed the first warning to test1 and will add a test2. Yworo (talk) 23:45, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Grouper

You should be mindful of the 3rr rule at Grouper, I don't think it qualifies for any of the exemptions to the rule, even though the reverts themselves are correct. Just giving you a heads up. Monty₈₄₅ 17:44, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I do try to keep it in mind. The person who keeps doing this changes his IP after every edit or two, so he automatically evades the 3rr rule. —Stephen (talk) 17:47, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Re your problems with various IP editors

This new editor may be of interest. Their edits at Fortifications of Metz and Oderturm bear a remarkable 'similarity' to those you have been reverting, those by a very recently banned IP. - 220.101 talk^\Contribs 10:58, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree, I think it is the work of just one or two people. It seems that some European carriers have started changing the IP address of their customers automatically after every couple of edits. Makes it impossible to even start a discussion with someone like that. —Stephen (talk) 11:16, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Baking Powder

Good work in reverting the "chemical formula." Baking powder is a mixture of chemicals, so it has no single chemical formula. I was going to revert it myself, but didn't have the time at the moment. Lou Sander (talk) 19:34, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Your edits to Pordoi Pass

You were surely right to add the convert template to the article, but I count five (or thereabouts) reversions of the international spelling of metre. Why is the U.S. spelling so important here, please?

Don't forget the WP:3RR, BTW!

--Old Moonraker (talk) 13:35, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I always keep the 3RR in the back of my mind. The IP who keeps changing other varieties of English to British English also changes his IP after each edit, so he doesn’t have that worry. In any case, it is just a matter of what is explained in WP:ENGVAR. Metre is not an international spelling just because both British and French use it...in English, it is the British spelling. Before I made the first revert of Pordoi Pass, I checked to see what the original spelling was, and the original spelling was the American variety. In some articles such as Les Arcs, it was determined that the original spelling was British and I changed the article back to British. Another example was Warren's Shaft, where the British spelling was used originally, and I changed it back to British. But in Pordoi Pass, it looks like the original spelling was American. I really don’t care which spelling is used, but I think it is unethical for someone to look for articles written in other varieties of English and change them to his own version of English. —Stephen (talk) 15:12, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

By the way, it seems that the rationale used by this IP, at least in some cases, is that any subject to do with Europe should use British spelling, regardless of whether it was written by an American or Canadian. WP:ENGVAR does not say anything like that. In articles about specifically British topics, British spellings should be used, but Europe is not part of Britain and the spelling is supposed to be of the variety first used, which sometimes is American. —Stephen (talk) 15:23, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification.--Old Moonraker (talk) 16:09, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Hooke's Law". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by  July 5, 2011.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 00:44, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Request for mediation accepted

The request for formal mediation of the dispute concerning Hooke's Law, in which you were listed as a party, has been accepted by the Mediation Committee. The case will be assigned to an active mediator within two weeks, and mediation proceedings should begin shortly thereafter. Proceedings will begin at the case information page, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Hooke's Law, so please add this to your watchlist. Formal mediation is governed by the Mediation Committee and its Policy. The Policy, and especially the first two sections of the "Mediation" section, should be read if you have never participated in formal mediation. For a short guide to accepted cases, see the "Accepted requests" section of the Guide to formal mediation. You may also want to familiarise yourself with the internal Procedures of the Committee.

As mediation proceedings begin, be aware that formal mediation can only be successful if every participant approaches discussion in a professional and civil way, and is completely prepared to compromise. Please contact the Committee if anything is unclear.

For the Mediation Committee, AGK [•] 10:19, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Beginning discussion

The request for mediation was referred to me. I've raised some questions for discussion on the Hooke's Law talk page. Sunray (talk) 23:56, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Answered. —Stephen (talk) 00:04, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

In turn, thank you. It is now wrapped up. Semi-protection will end the problem for now. In future, the protection could be extended, or the IP could be reported by you and blocked for edit waring. In the latter case, you should be careful not to violate 3RR yourself, though. Best of luck. Sunray (talk) 14:07, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your efforts. —Stephen (talk) 14:25, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Sei Whale

I have reverted your rollback to the Sei Whale article. Per WP:ENGVAR, the variety of English used in the article should remain consistent. If you look at the article history (or even just the rest of the article), you will see that the article originally used UK English, so we have maintained that format. You also removed a category for fauna of the Indian Ocean which I did not see a justification for. Neil916 (Talk) 16:46, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay. —Stephen (talk) 17:31, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

what is vandalism? AGF>

Please be more careful with your edit summaries, many of the changes you have described as vandalism were not vandalism at all. Changes of spelling from US English to UK English or v.v. are not usually vandalism, even if contrary to MOS guidelines and should mot be described as vandalism. please read the WP article on vandalism Even if misguided, wilfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism. Edit warring over content is not vandalism. Careful consideration may be required to differentiate between edits that are beneficial, detrimental but well-intentioned, and vandalising. Mislabelling good-faith edits as vandalism can be considered harmful. Nautius maximus (talk) 15:10, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I rarely if ever mark spelling changes as vandalism; instead, I reference WP:ENGVAR. I don’t describe an edit as vandalism unless I believe that’s what it is. What edit reverts are you referring to? —Stephen (talk) 15:17, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I noticed several instances in your history, k#jere's one: [[4]] Nautius maximus (talk) 15:47, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

That was not because of any spelling change. That was marked as vandalism because he was changing the Pompeiian family name of Istacidii to some English name, Finlay. Yes, in my history there are various instances where I marked an edit as vandalism, but I believe that those edits were vandalism. —Stephen (talk) 16:03, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, bad choice. here's another:[5]8380] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nautius maximus (talk • contribs) 16:35, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

In that one, he was deleting the metric conversion template. —Stephen (talk) 16:42, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Island nation

I have taken the Island nation dispute to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard.--Blackknight12 (talk) 10:57, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Good idea! —Stephen (talk) 20:32, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

"onwashing"?

Somebody made up the word "onwashing territories", 3rd paragraph of Valentina Matviyenko, currently on the front page. Could you check the Russian version and see what it actually says? thx. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 22:36, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

It was me. Perhaps the right word was "inwashing". Basically the story is about the new artificial territories created in the shallow area of sea water. GreyHood ^Talk 22:39, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh, seems land reclamation is the right term. GreyHood ^Talk 22:44, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

It wasn’t in the Russian version of the article, but the Russian term would be намывная территория (literally it’s "onwashing territory", but it means land reclamation or alluvium area). —Stephen (talk) 01:41, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

French people

did i done any bad ? Best Regards 41.140.43.193 (talk) 12:31, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

A user with your IP address 41.140.43.193 did this. —Stephen (talk) 12:35, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Musakka

Hello Stephen, May I ask you you have deleted the 'Ottoman Kichen' term from this article? The only reason Musakka is not found is that geography is that it has been taken there by the Ottomans. Musakka is an important product of Ottoman cousine. Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SAK (talk • contribs) 16:02, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Because it was a little confusing (Ottoman has a number of different meanings, such as Ottoman Empire and Ottoman Turks). Apart from that mystery, it sounded like a claim that The Ottoman Turks had invented the dish, but there was no evidence to show that it is true. When you say Ottoman, do you just mean Turkish? Turkish cuisine would be better than Ottoman Kitchen. But the biggest problem was the claim that the Ottomans had invented it, and not showing any evidence to support the claim. I imagine that the Greeks will say that they invented it; the Lebanese may like to claim that they invented it. Who knows? —Stephen (talk) 17:32, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

By 'Ottoman' I meant Ottomans (all the etnicities which made it up: Turks, Greeks, Arabs, Armenians, Albanians etc). For this reason I did not use the term Turkish kitchen. Its name suggests it is an Arabic dish adopted by Turks and taken to the Ottoman lands making it the dish of Turks, Greeks, Albanians. As for evidence, how this dish with Arabic name ended up in the Balkans? Is it a coincidence that it just happens to be Ottoman geography? Overlooking this would be the overlooking of all Ottoman kitchen if not the Ottomans. Regards. SAK — Preceding unsigned comment added by SAK (talk • contribs) 08:50, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Ottoman does not have that meaning in English. I don’t think anyone would be able to understand what you meant with that word. I don’t know of an English word that means "Turks, Greeks, Arabs, Armenians, and Albanians". Mediterranean probably comes closest, but it doesn’t include the Armenians. Or Middle-Eastern, but that leaves out the Albanians and Greeks. As far as I know, the only way to suggest the "Turks, Greeks, Arabs, Armenians, and Albanians" is to list them explicitly. —Stephen (talk) 20:52, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Weaving#Islamic world

It is half term. You got in just before me. But if you look at the wikilinks in this paragraph- they are almost as bad. Foot pedal links to Bicycle pedal etc. Do you want to have a go at sorting it - before I move in with bulldozer--ClemRutter (talk) 20:26, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I gave it a go. Probably needs more work. —Stephen (talk) 20:40, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

OK I have started- to make major changes to the structure, and expand the scope considerably. I need now to move from history to descriptions of modern weaving practices in India and China. It is on your watchlist isn't it? Do look over and comment. --ClemRutter (talk) 08:57, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

THanks, I’ll look. —Stephen (talk) 10:37, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Kabardian InterWiki link now working

Hi. Thanks for your efforts to fix the link on the Kabardian language page to the Kabardian edition of Wikipedia via the InterWiki template. The link was not working because the template to translate the code kbd to the name Karbardian was missing. I have created that template, and the InterWiki link is now working. —Coroboy (talk) 03:44, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you :) —Stephen (talk) 04:55, 4 November 2011 (UTC)